God: Purpose for a Supreme Being?

[madphysics]

I'm am curious as to thhe purpose of a supreme being, oor "God", in the lifes of human beings. I have just finished the last in a long list of insightful, and dicidedly odd books concerning the nature of a god in the minds of humans. Can it really be true that God is in fact mearly a fabrication of the mind merely to explain love/compassion?

 

[bel]

I think God is real. There, I recommend The Abolition of Man, Merely Christian, and Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe and other essays by Professor C.S. Lewis. Those are good essays and they are all in all very reasonable, and worth the read even if you weren't thinking such questions. Oh, and if you want, you can also try the Bible.

 

[JoeDawg]

I'm am curious as to thhe purpose of a supreme being, oor "God", in the lifes of human beings. I have just finished the last in a long list of insightful, and dicidedly odd books concerning the nature of a god in the minds of humans. Can it really be true that God is in fact mearly a fabrication of the mind merely to explain love/compassion?

Yes.

 

[lllll]

Yes, and once matured and forever without God we will always have each other and the others of those from afar. This is where I'd love to say something nice but feel the lingering fear of condemnation.

 

[JonF]

Can it really be true that God is in fact mearly a fabrication of the mind merely to explain love/compassion?

Only if God doesn't exist

 

[sd01g]

Maybe humans created god because they were afraid to be alone in the cold dark universe. Or... maybe God created humans because he was lonesome or bored.

 

[wuliheron]

I'm am curious as to thhe purpose of a supreme being, oor "God", in the lifes of human beings. I have just finished the last in a long list of insightful, and dicidedly odd books concerning the nature of a god in the minds of humans. Can it really be true that God is in fact mearly a fabrication of the mind merely to explain love/compassion?

Anything is possible, but another possible explanation is that God is an interpretation of the spiritual experience and that the spiritual experience is a natural phenomenon. Whatever the case may be, it doesn't make any difference to me. If there is a God(s), great. If there isn't a God, still great. Life is literally the only miracle I need.

 

[Moridin]

There are thousands of gods that are a product of the human mind, whether you are a (mono)theist or not. If you believe one of them are the ultimate truth, all the others must be social constructions.

The key to it, I think, is to study 'new' religions such as cargo cults etc.

 

[blazes816]

I think 'god' is the result of a need for people to know where we came from. Then parents needed to keep their kids in line, so hell was formed. Then it took off from there.

 

[out of whack]

God serves a purpose as a hypothesis that explains various mysteries, just like the hypothesis that banana peels create fruit flies. As long as you don't analyze them too critically, these hypotheses work well enough for daily use. You can be satisfied with them since they make your life easier and given this comfort it is better not to rock the boat. These hypotheses only fail when you subject them to more rigorous testing. Classical mechanics is another example. It gave way to something else that happens to be too complex for daily life and is only relevant to a small specialized group. Simpler explanations are more palatable and more useable by the majority. They are also more easily accepted.

 

[DaveC426913]

God serves a purpose as a hypothesis that explains various mysteries, just like the hypothesis that banana peels create fruit flies. As long as you don't analyze them too critically, these hypotheses work well enough for daily use. You can be satisfied with them since they make your life easier and given this comfort it is better not to rock the boat. These hypotheses only fail when you subject them to more rigorous testing. Classical mechanics is another example. It gave way to something else that happens to be too complex for daily life and is only relevant to a small specialized group. Simpler explanations are more palatable and more useable by the majority. They are also more easily accepted.

This is a very thought-provoking line of reasoning; I have never thought of it like that.

(At the risk of being flippant, could you say God is the classical Newtonian version of the human condition, as opposed to the Einsteinian version?)

 

[baywax]

God serves a purpose as a hypothesis that explains various mysteries, just like the hypothesis that banana peels create fruit flies. As long as you don't analyze them too critically, these hypotheses work well enough for daily use. You can be satisfied with them since they make your life easier and given this comfort it is better not to rock the boat. These hypotheses only fail when you subject them to more rigorous testing. Classical mechanics is another example. It gave way to something else that happens to be too complex for daily life and is only relevant to a small specialized group. Simpler explanations are more palatable and more useable by the majority. They are also more easily accepted.

Could you please put that in a simpler, more palatable and usable way? :')

Actually, your's is a pretty good hypothesis. ;')

 

[JoeDawg]

God serves a purpose as a hypothesis that explains various mysteries, just like the hypothesis that banana peels create fruit flies.

No, the god 'hypothesis' is even worse, since there is no way to test for god's existence.
Bananas are observable fact. Flies are observable fact. We may link their existence incorrectly, but we're not making anything up.

God is not a hypothesis by any normal standard. Its pure fantasy.
Its standard 'god of the gaps' theology; if you don't understand it, use a meaningless three letter word to describe it.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, the god 'hypothesis' is even worse, since there is no way to test for god's existence.
Bananas are observable fact. Flies are observable fact.

Biut the human condition is not observable fact. Which is much of what God is designed to cover. Why do we kill our brothers? Why should we take them in and wash their feet?

 

[JoeDawg]

Biut the human condition is not observable fact.

You're going to have define what you mean by 'human condition'. What you're saying here makes no sense to me. I observe other humans and the way they live, every day. We evolved, we act and react very much like our less intelligent cousins in most situations.

Which is much of what God is designed to cover.

I doubt we would agree on what gods were designed for. The Christian god is all about vengeance of the weak over the strong. The Jewish god is about being special and chosen over other tribes. The Islamic god about submitting to absolute authority.

Why do we kill our brothers?

We want their stuff, or they make us angry.

Why should we take them in and wash their feet?

I honestly can't think of a good reason to do that.

 

[baywax]

No, the god 'hypothesis' is even worse, since there is no way to test for god's existence.
Bananas are observable fact. Flies are observable fact. We may link their existence incorrectly, but we're not making anything up.

God is not a hypothesis by any normal standard. Its pure fantasy.
Its standard 'god of the gaps' theology; if you don't understand it, use a meaningless three letter word to describe it.

The test for the existence of fruit flies is about as reliable as the test for the existence of a god. Ultimately, the experiments and the observations of an observer are written up and read by people who didn't participate in the experiments and observations. So, in effect, the reader is relying on the observer's good health and abilities to report what they have seen... much in the way people rely on the reports and observations that have been recorded in a bible, koran, parchment or whathaveyou.

In fact, a devote god worshiper will tell you that the fruit fly is god.

Whereas, WC Fields will tell you that "time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is God A Safe Subject?

As long as you don't make him mad.

I don't have the need to make myself feel more important by declaring that God is dead, when in fact there is no way to know, and the only proof that could exist would be in the affirmative.

 

[DaveC426913]

I doubt we would agree on what gods were designed for. The Christian god is all about vengeance of the weak over the strong. The Jewish god is about being special and chosen over other tribes. The Islamic god about submitting to absolute authority.

These seem simplistic to the point of stereotyping. That doesn't bode well for a rational discussion on the matter. (In fact, if I were to place money on it, I'd bet that, when this thread's closed, it will be due to the descendants of exactly those or similar comments.)

 

[JoeDawg]

The test for the existence of fruit flies is about as reliable as the test for the existence of a god.

Show me where I can find a god. I've seen fruit flies and I've eaten bananas. And if you go to an open air market you can see them for yourself. Where is god located?

 

[JoeDawg]

These seem simplistic to the point of stereotyping. That doesn't bode well for a rational discussion on the matter. (In fact, if I were to place money on it, I'd bet that, when this thread's closed, it will be due to the descendants of exactly those or similar comments.)

I've given you simple, understandable definitions. I'm still waiting for you to do the same.
So define 'human condition', as simply as you please. I still have no clue what you are talking about. I've told you what I think these things are.

And if you want scripture to support my descriptions, I'd be happy to supply it. But first, tell me why I'm wrong.

 

[setAI]

one can test if God exists by testing whether it is possible for an amount of information- say- a substantial portion of the Beckenstein Bound of observable reality to be processed and stored [given unbounded processing cycles and/or unbounded states]- if so then intelligence capable of computing/programming any possible local spacetime- could exist- and if it can exist it must exist in an infinite universe [or large enough to contain all possible discrete local states of matter] somewhere- even if it was not causally connected to you- it COULD be by simply computing a set of spacetime histories that are equivalent to yours-

so proof of God would only take the verification of the physical case of the Church-Turing thesis-

 

[JoeDawg]

As long as you don't make him mad.

I don't have the need to make myself feel more important by declaring that God is dead, when in fact there is no way to know, and the only proof that could exist would be in the affirmative.

"God is dead" is a quote from Nietzsche, it's not really meant to be about god not existing, but rather that god is no longer relevant or of importance in people's lives, even amongst those who claim to believe. Nietzsche also didn't believe, but he was very specific about the reasons, that is, he addressed the claims made about god and attacked those. One can show how claims about gods are self-contradictory and fantastical. Most of the stories of the bible for instance were not written to be taken literally. They used allegories and metaphors. As to any particular god's actual existence, the burden of proof is on the claimant, otherwise we would believe in all myths.

 

[DaveC426913]

Whereas, WC Fields will tell you that "time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana".

Is that who said that? It's one of my faves.

 

[baywax]

Show me where I can find a god. I've seen fruit flies and I've eaten bananas. And if you go to an open air market you can see them for yourself. Where is god located?

Says Joe Dawg... where's your proof that you've seen fruit flies and eaten bananas?

 

[baywax]

Is that who said that? It's one of my faves.

Well, Ivan was right to say that god is dead because... WC was god! Anyway... it was either Mr. Fields or Groucho Marx... I can't see Mae West using a psuedoscientific line like that.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Well, Ivan was right to say that god is dead because...

erm.. that's not what Ivan said.

 

[JoeDawg]

Says Joe Dawg... where's your proof that you've seen fruit flies and eaten bananas?

Are you denying you have seen them too? Oh wait, this is baywax... I've got better things to do... like watch paint dry.

 

[baywax]

Are you denying you have seen them too?

What I see and what you see are as far a part as apples are from oranges.

What I'm asking for is a demonstration of proof.

My question is "how many people have to "see the same thing" before it is considered real? You're saying that if I see something I call a fruit fly and you see something you call a fruit fly then of course... its real.

Now, there are over 4 billion people on the planet saying they know, feel, see and talk to god (or a rendition thereof)... does that make god real?

(errm, sorry to misquote Ivan)

 

[DaveC426913]

I've given you simple, understandable definitions.

Uh. Simplistic. Not the same as simple. You reveal your biases when you say such things. You don't seriously put them forth as definitions, even in your own opinion.

So define 'human condition', as simply as you please. I still have no clue what you are talking about.

Loving, hating, suffering, sacrifice, altruism. The things that we consider more than merely animal; the things that don't seem to be explainable merely through biology. I say "seem" to be, because it can be explained biologically, but the invention of God is another way of dealing with it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"God is dead" is a quote from Nietzsche, it's not really meant to be about god not existing, but rather that god is no longer relevant or of importance in people's lives, even amongst those who claim to believe.

I was using it as a metaphor.

. One can show how claims about gods are self-contradictory and fantastical. Most of the stories of the bible for instance were not written to be taken literally. They used allegories and metaphors. As to any particular god's actual existence, the burden of proof is on the claimant, otherwise we would believe in all myths.

It is about personal experience and 4000 years of deep history, which is not like other myths. Also, unlike "other myths" the concept of God seems to be innate. This is often taken as evidence that we create God, but I suggest that it stands as evidence that God exists.

To say that omnipotence is fantastical hardly makes a point. And contradiction is an accepted part of faith that depends on the limits of human understanding as the logical justification. I fail to understand how such a fundamental concept can be overlooked in scholarly discussions. At least in many Christian faiths, it is accepted that by defintion, God is a mystery.

When we have a complete understanding of physical existence, only then we can we properly and absolutely define fantastical or contradictary events. Does logic suggest that since we can't yet explain the known universe, we can address that which by definition goes beyond the physical world as we understand it?

 

[Moridin]

This is often taken as evidence that we create God, but I suggest that it stands as evidence that God exists.

I will not bother to point out this logical fallacy. A lot of people believed in instantaneous creation for thousands of years. That must mean that it is true. The along came Darwin.

An interesting book on the origins of religion is 'Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought' by Pascal Boyer. As for evidence, the Universe is entirely consistent with a lack of design. Stenger covered this quite well in 'God: The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows that God Does Not Exist'.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0465006965/?tag=pfamazon01-20
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1591024811/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[JoeDawg]

What I see and what you see are as far a part as apples are from oranges.

Have you ever seen something like this in the world around you?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bananas_on_countertop.JPG
Have you ever seen something like this in the world around you?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_melanogaster

If so, then we both have seen them. Whatever they are, we can compare our perceptions.
If not, then go to a fruit market and you can see both.

Now please show me god or where to find him.
It is you who are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[JoeDawg]

Uh. Simplistic. Not the same as simple. You reveal your biases when you say such things. You don't seriously put them forth as definitions, even in your own opinion.

Absolutely. Everyone does. That is why I posted them.

Loving, hating, suffering, sacrifice, altruism. The things that we consider more than merely animal; the things that don't seem to be explainable merely through biology.

That you consider. Sure they seem explainable, to anyone with an understanding of biology who isn't biased by religious indoctrination.

Read: The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Its all very simplistic.

 

[Moridin]

'Love', 'Hate', 'Suffering', 'Sacrifice' and 'Altruism' have well-defined natural explanations which replaces supernaturalistic explanations, just like naturalistic explanations of weather cycles replaces rain dance.

 

[DaveC426913]

They do. I'm not saying they don't. But that doesn't mean there is only one way to describe something in terms useful to human understanding. Science is not our only recourse; it does not cover art, philosophy or a number of other uniquely human accomplishments.

"...to anyone with an understanding of biology who isn't biased by religious, artistic philosophical or any number of other human created disciplines... indoctrination."