God: Purpose for a Supreme Being?

  • Thread starter Thread starter madphysics
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion explores the purpose of a supreme being, with participants questioning whether God is a human construct designed to explain emotions like love and compassion. Some argue that God serves as a hypothesis for understanding life's mysteries, similar to scientific theories that simplify complex phenomena. Others contend that the existence of God cannot be tested or proven, likening it to fantasy rather than a valid hypothesis. The conversation also touches on the varying interpretations of God across different religions, suggesting that these interpretations reflect human needs and societal structures. Ultimately, the dialogue highlights the complexity of belief and the human condition in relation to the concept of God.
  • #61
DaveC426913 said:
No one said you have to believe there is a God, only that you acknowledge that 'it doesn't exist' is not the only answer.

Until you have some kind of evidence, the god conclusion is fantasy. And that is what it is, a conclusion, not a hypothesis.

We can directly observe emotional states in ourselves and others, and both read about and see for ourselves fruit flies, those are not fantasy.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
DaveC426913 said:
What I am doing is showing you that the tests you use to determine if something is real or not are unreliable. So far, you have no test that shows God is an apple while everything else is an orange.

You haven't done anything of the kind, you have pointedly ignored what I said. I think we're done.
 
  • #63
Ivan Seeking said:
How exactly does a belief translate into a wasted life; fairy conventions? We all have beliefs that can't be justified.
When people have faith in something they look for ways either not to violate it, or to support it and many have abandoned scientific inquiry in directions that conflict with their faith or the faith of the majority. Even moderate believers oppose scientific advancement on so-called ethical grounds because of non-issues like the 'soul'. Consider stem cell research. Consider Galileo as the prime example, but also all the others of his time and later who believed and so [were ]stopped before stepping on the toes of the divine.
I have to wonder how much time you've wasted denying the existence of God when your position can never be proven.
I don't deny the existense of gods, any more than I deny the existence of celestial teapots and Invisible Pink Unicorns. I deny there is proof for them and I affirm that belief in such things without proof is harmful to human beings both in specific and general. I deny belief in Odin, Zeus...etc... its rational... and the list is long and includes the Yahweh god.
How does my belief result in a wasted life again? I wouldn't trade my life for anyone's.

The more irrational beliefs you give up, the more your mind opens to real possibilities. I'm embracing what is, not my fantasies about what I think should be. I think the more people who do this the more all benefit. The universe is a wondrous place, putting constraints on it, only limits what we can ultimately become.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
Ivan Seeking said:
Whoops, and I had to add this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005111401051.html

So it would seem that faith makes more sense than exercise. :biggrin:

We are social animals, I would question whether this is a matter of faith, as opposed to simple positive community reinforcement. Religions fill needs of their communities, feeling part of community is part of psychological and even physical wellbeing. You'll note there are also studies that show people tend to die soon after their life partner dies. Relationships, can be a lifeline to those at retirement age and for us younger types as well. I don't see this as something a non-religious community couldn't do, but no, I don't dispute these facts.
 
  • #65
JoeDawg said:
You haven't done anything of the kind, you have pointedly ignored what I said. I think we're done.
Actually, we were done when you contradicted your own own claim by calling upon an example of something of which there is no reason to suppose exists. You just haven't accepted it.
 
  • #66
DaveC426913 said:
Actually, we were done when you contradicted your own own claim by calling upon an example of something of which there is no reason to suppose exists. You just haven't accepted it.

Again, you didn't read what I said, you jumped to a conclusion about what I said, but thanks for your input, such that it was.
 
  • #67
I think the OP's question has been sufficiently answered.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 102 ·
4
Replies
102
Views
12K
  • · Replies 148 ·
5
Replies
148
Views
18K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K