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."

 

[cosmicparox]

well we can see that the Earth (mud.soil rock etc) serves the plants, the plants then serve the animals,then some of the animals serve bigger animals, and in the end if we see every other thing on this planet+ even the sun etc serves the HUMAN BEINGS! if u think of it as a pyramid the human being comes on the top.. But fer a moment if u analyze.. HUman beings really arent the supreme being.. dey are not even sure of the next moment.. dey are unable to live fer ever.. if dey dnt get food dey die..if dey get handicapped dey become slaves to other human beings and gadets, evry other human is a slave to something or somebody, some ppl are slave to their friends, some to money, some are slaves of their ego, and some are slaves to everythings so i don't think human beings are supreme.. dey can't create planets , nor can dey create the universe,
so dere must be some one more powerful, some one unlike us..even if dere are some aleins who can create da universe den dere must b s0me body who created them.. so here God is the supreme POwer.. and yes He does exist.. NO doubt about dat.

 

[Moridin]

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.

Science can certainly explain art, philosophy and so on, but art is not a procedural protocol or an epistemology and philosophy is an integral part of science. Science is (currently) our only method for understanding our world that is both methodologically and epistemologically justifiable.

 

[Gokul43201]

HUman beings really arent the supreme being.. dey are not even sure of the next moment.. dey are unable to live fer ever.. if dey dnt get food dey die..if dey get handicapped dey become slaves to other human beings and gadets, evry other human is a slave to something or somebody, some ppl are slave to their friends, some to money, some are slaves of their ego, and some are slaves to everythings so i don't think human beings are supreme.. dey can't create planets , nor can dey create the universe,

Heck, some of them can't even spell correctly!

 

[cosmicparox]

every thing has a purpose in this world.. so dere must be a purpose fer the human beings.. we never came here on our own.. or did we? and we don't even go back on our own... if every other thing has a purpose every other lil thing in this universe has a purpose den the so called supreme human must be havin one too.. if the purpose was to work hard to eat, sleep and reproduce den we are no different den animals.. wants are endless the wants never end.. we die but dey dnt stop.. i go to the graveyards and see this is the ultimate resting place? this will be my fate one day.. no matter how rich i become no matter how high i go.. the day death greets me i will be nothing but a dead corpse.. everything multiplied by zero!? like the mr.supreme being on this planet can't do anything.. i dnt think dats true.. like hitler killed so many jews and he died a death he preffered .. dat is like injustice to the other so many human beings.. who `ll give dem justice.. like money can't return dere killed loved ones.. so here's where the after life comes in .. the real party starts den,.. the real life.. dis one is a mirage.. dis is fake.. if the fake luks so real m dyin to see the real one.. think abt it ppl

 

[cosmicparox]

:p hell yea dey can't even spell correctly..

 

[baywax]

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.

None of us were on the moon with Buzz Aldrin but most of us believe he was there. Is there a biological reason for people to think Buzz was actually on the moon? Why do people put their biologically generated faith and beliefs into what other people tell them? Is this the "easy" way to placate some of our nervous (and thus biological) anxiety?

 

[Evo]

every thing has a purpose in this world.. so dere must be a purpose fer the human beings.. we never came here on our own.. or did we? and we don't even go back on our own... if every other thing has a purpose every other lil thing in this universe has a purpose den the so called supreme human must be havin one too.. if the purpose was to work hard to eat, sleep and reproduce den we are no different den animals.. wants are endless the wants never end.. we die but dey dnt stop.. i go to the graveyards and see this is the ultimate resting place? this will be my fate one day.. no matter how rich i become no matter how high i go.. the day death greets me i will be nothing but a dead corpse.. everything multiplied by zero!? like the mr.supreme being on this planet can't do anything.. i dnt think dats true.. like hitler killed so many jews and he died a death he preffered .. dat is like injustice to the other so many human beings.. who `ll give dem justice.. like money can't return dere killed loved ones.. so here's where the after life comes in .. the real party starts den,.. the real life.. dis one is a mirage.. dis is fake.. if the fake luks so real m dyin to see the real one.. think abt it ppl

This is what is so wrong with religion, "don't worry about this life, there's a better one waiting for you after you die". This causes so many people to fail to make the best of the only life they'll have, some false promise of a wonderful afterlife. Even if you want to cling to the belief that there is an afterlife, live this one like it's all you will ever have.

Also, I realize that English isn't your first language, but please make an effort to use real English words. "dat dem dey den dere dis dats" are not acceptable, replacing "th" with a "d" is not acceptable. From now on I expect you to use the proper words.

 

[baywax]

Now please show me god or where to find him.

There's plenty of people who can help you with that. Personally, I have no clue what you're talking about.

As for your references concerning bananas and fruit flies... these are not acceptable as proof that you have seen or eaten them.

 

[DaveC426913]

Science is (currently) our only method for understanding our world that is both methodologically and epistemologically justifiable.

Yes, that's true.

But discovery through science is not all there is to being human.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is what is so wrong with religion, "don't worry about this life, there's a better one waiting for you after you die". This causes so many people to fail to make the best of the only life they'll have, some false promise of a wonderful afterlife. Even if you want to cling to the belief that there is an afterlife, live this one like it's all you will ever have.

There is a difference between faith and fanaticism. The fanatics get all of the press.

 

[JoeDawg]

There's plenty of people who can help you with that. Personally, I have no clue what you're talking about.

As for your references concerning bananas and fruit flies... these are not acceptable as proof that you have seen or eaten them.

I don't need to prove that. I have shown you where to find them. Are you denying they are there? Are you denying that I have shown you where to find them? That you looked and they are not there. If so, you have shown me to be wrong.

Please state this, or admit that they are indeed where I told you. Then, since you have claimed they are the same as god, show me what god is and where to find it. I will look and report back. Its simplistic, even.

If this is not the case, you are wrong, your claim is wrong, god and a banana are not the same.

 

[JoeDawg]

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."

Science is an extension of philosophical inquiry into what we call empirical investigation. Its not a separate thing. Philosophy is the logical and reasoning end of that investigation.

Art is very much covered on both ends, by what we call psychology, sociology, even political science(on the more philosophical end) and physics and biology(on the more empirical end).

As to it being uniquely human, that's a function of our intelligence and leisure. We really don't know how common we are in the universe, we hardly have a representative sample. Are we unique, maybe, are we a short-lived aberration, all depends how you place value. Completely arbitrary at this point.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't need to prove that. I have shown you where to find them. Are you denying they are there? Are you denying that I have shown you where to find them? That you looked and they are not there. If so, you have shown me to be wrong.

Please state this, or admit that they are indeed where I told you. Then, since you have claimed they are the same as god, show me what god is and where to find it. I will look and report back. Its simplistic, even.

If this is not the case, you are wrong, your claim is wrong, god and a banana are not the same.

Not quite a simple as that. I'll use an example slightly less concrete than fruit flies.

I can tell you the subjective emotion of fear exists but I can't take you and show you. Sure, there's a process I could lead you through so that you might experience it too, but there's no guarantee you will. Would you deny the emotion of fear existed if you hadn't previously felt it? Despite billions of people who claim to have experienced it themselves?




(I put my usual, boilerplate disclaimer in here: I am an atheist; I do not believe in God. But I find some people seem to think that science is a weapon they can use to bludgeon others, and that's difficult to countenance. As I like to say: the only thing worse than a religious zealot is a science zealot - they are usually committing the very crime they accuse religion of.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Art is very much covered on both ends, by what we call psychology, sociology, even political science(on the more philosophical end) and physics and biology(on the more empirical end).

Ah, so you're a reductionist. Ok, that's one approach among many.

It astonishes me how people claiming to scientifically-minded can be so sure there's only One True Answer.

As to it being uniquely human, that's a function of our intelligence and leisure. We really don't know how common we are in the universe, we hardly have a representative sample. Are we unique, maybe, are we a short-lived aberration, all depends how you place value. Completely arbitrary at this point.

I can't believe you just shot yourself in the foot.

There's no reason to believe in ET life any more or less than God. Yet here you are happy to use it as part of your own argument.

Oh SNAP!

 

[JoeDawg]

There is a difference between faith and fanaticism. The fanatics get all of the press.

Is it really just a matter of extremism or being outwardly dangerous? People who believe in elves or fairies, who actually believe in them, may not have a dangerous(at least relative to me) belief, but it could be just as strong, they might spend all their resources and, essentially ruin/waste their lives due to this belief, all very quietly and calmly.

When I think of all the scientists in history, those men of faith(what a bitter word), who, if they could have lived without religious faith... without that straitjacket of irrational belief... what they would have accomplished. Sorry, I realize your faith probably 'gives you something' you consider positive, but by any god you care to name, all I see is a horrible waste of potential.