Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Where does God come from?

  1. May 21, 2003 #1
    Where does "God" come from?

    The qeustion as the where "God" comes from, is adressing the issue of how the concepts of Gods came into existence.
    A "God" outside of our mindly concepts, "God as a reality" can not be assumed, our profound and well tested explorations of the material world, do no show any indication of the existence of such entities, neither any need to relend on the existence of Gods, to explain anything in the material world.

    The concept of "God" was a human invention, which originated in the minds of primitive man, which was not equipped with the means for scientific and structured inquiry of the material world.

    The current world, does not need a concept of "God". In effect, we should strive to radically eliminate all concepts of "God", as they serve no purpose, and only confuse our vision on the material world.

    It does not serve the rights of us humans, to have a concept of "God", it only serves the rights of those, that want to eliminate the rights of millions and billions of people, that seek a better future, in which they have normal human rights.

    We need to look upon the world, as it is, and can from that scientific outlook on the world, to a possible world, that contains fundamental human rights for every world citizin.
    And not just those that have the economic and militrary power, to suppores other nations and populations.
  2. jcsd
  3. May 21, 2003 #2
    "No man who ever lived knows any more about the hereafter ... than you and I; and all religion ... is simply evolved out of chicanery, fear, greed, imagination and poetry." -Edgar Allan Poe
    But did you not start an entire thread devoted to ‘purpose’? Since there would seem to be no purpose other than that what we choose to believe, I say let the individual believe, or not believe, as they themselves see fit. To decide we know what is best for others, or what purpose something should be serving, is an equally real problem, imo, which often leads to forcing others to conform to the will of another. I want nothing to be forced down my throat. I agree to not harm you if you will agree to return the favor, other than that you may pretty much do as you like.
    What right of humans?
    Was no one ever killed by the atheistic communists?
    I think it is accurate to say that the ‘true believers’ are often a danger, but the true believers need not always believe in god;

    The true fanatic is a theocrat, someone who sees himself as acting on behalf of some super-personal force: the Race, the Party, History, the Proletariat, the Poor, and so on. These absolve him from evil, hence he may safely do anything in their service.
    -- Lloyd Billingsley

    There is plenty of room in that quote to accommodate a wide range of lunacy…
  4. May 21, 2003 #3
    My thread on purpose, was a way to counterfact those who portray purpose in anything, as if it is "god given".

    Something else is of course, is there development in the world?
    From where we are now, and where we were, we have to admit, that there has been a lot of development.

    Development is where we will be brought. Even though, we don't know where it will bring us, neither it says that there is a purpose behind it. But it does not contradict the fact that there is progressive development. And that's true for nature, for man, and for society.

    I mean human rights, like decent health care, education, housing etc.
    Many people in this world, don't have those rights.

    There is wrondoing in the world. The human society, while on one hand it forms a global economic system, in which everyone is involved, is not treating each of it's members equally.
    Complete nations and populations are forced to do what big countries and big capitalism want them to do.

    There is no justification for letting this capitalist system develop this way, with growing problems for the many, and only a small profitting minority.

    It just means, we need to embed development on other criteria, not that of economic growth and profit, but that of social economic development, creating equal chances for everybody, and take care of the environment problems. In order to help sustain ourselves in the best possile way.
  5. May 21, 2003 #4
    In this thread you are asking where god comes from. From there we seem to be moving into economics and political theory again, just as another thread in philosophy dealing with how science knows something did. Is there a pattern forming here?
    Oh, ok then. Whether they be good or not, these things I simply consider as being benefits, not rights. I understand that many people would like to turn them into rights, however.

    There will always be wrongdoing. I have serious doubts that imperfect man will ever rule imperfect man in a perfect society.
    What would be your solution?
    We really need to start a thread dealing only with economics…
    But how do you propose to do this, by becoming a leader who will “radically eliminate all concepts of "God", as they serve no purpose, and only confuse our vision on the material world.”?

    I’m trying to get at your method, while being wary of;

    "Behind the honeyed but patently absurd pleas for equality is a ruthless drive for placing 'the new elite' at the top of a new hierarchy of power."
    - M. N. Rothbard
  6. May 21, 2003 #5
    heusdens - LogicalAtheist is pleased to see this statement:

    "In effect, we should strive to radically eliminate all concepts of "God", as they serve no purpose, and only confuse our vision on the material world."

    Indeed, there are those of us who do this. And with, so far, great success. The atheist population grows every year, while the population of a given religion falls every year.

    You asked, "where does God come from". Here is my answer:

    A given God comes only from a given mythology. From the pages of a written mythology, or perhaps it was spoken first, is the completely and total definition, origin, and purpose of a given mythological character, be it a God or not.

    This indeed, is where a God should stay. As a myth alongside Zeus, Medusa, Anubis, etc...

    However, the anti-humanitrian answer comes from the question "where is God going" or "where has God gone".

    A given God has gone from those pages, into reality. Committing as you know, a SIGNATURE error.

    Humanity, somewhat unknowingly, has a goal of returning God to those pages. And perhaps someday, there will be as few bibles, torahs, and korans, as their are books about Zeus, Medusa, and Anubis.

    Atheists always remember: Each year the atheist population increases, and each year the religious population decreases.
  7. May 21, 2003 #6
    It's interesting. I see the same comments written in other literature claiming the exact opposite. They don't claim that membership in religious churches is on the rise. But rather, that interest in spiritual matters is on the rise. I cannot say because I don't know. But intuitively, this statistic doesn't seem like it would be an easy one to be completely confident about either way.

    Also, I've asked you this before and you didn't respond. Please define what you mean by atheist. I want to make sure we are on the same page.
  8. May 21, 2003 #7
    Spirituality isn't religious. Thus the "exact opposite" isn't opposite but another form of potentially the same outcome.
  9. May 21, 2003 #8
    Are you suggesting that science has something in common with spirituality?

    I see spirituality as an interest in things that science says nothing about. This may or may not lead to someone joining or starting a religion. But it seems that from the point of view of the original post, the idea would be to eliminate any sort of non- scientific, spiritual thinking that leads to God; not just religion.

    I could be wrong in assuming that the author of this thread is referring to spiritual thinking as well as religions, but that's what you get when science keeps getting brought up as the alternative. Because science and spirituality have nothing to do with one another. And spirituality can involve the concept of god without being associated with a religion. And the point of this thread was to eliminate god.

    And again...please define what you mean when you say atheist please.
    Last edited: May 21, 2003
  10. May 21, 2003 #9
    Science has nothing to do with spirituality.

    All spirituality is, is people misunderstanding their nervous system. Someone saying they're spiritual merely means they're having difficulty identifying with their emotions and the world around them.

    Spirituality is the result of people who remove the mythology of religion from their life, but have yet to seek out realistic and truthfull answers to their experiences.

    It's a perceptual error that's all. It's nothing. It's a word people use describe absolutely nothing.

  11. May 21, 2003 #10
    Well thats not the definition of spirituality as it is used in the literature I mentioned earlier. The same literature that quotes the statistic that interest in spirituality is on the rise. I guess that's all that matters to make my point about the statistics.

    Last edited: May 21, 2003
  12. May 21, 2003 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor


    I do not know if any of the above definitions describe l.a. but they pretty much sum it up.

    I would only add that an atheist is a person who realizes there is not enough evidence to prove whether or not a god exists. Since alot of evidence out there says he more then likely does not, this person denies the existance on that reason. And since an all powerfull being that is described by christians and such cannot provide a clear cut view of his plans for humanity, or at the least prove to us he exists, there is no need in worrying over your flavor of religion in order to satisfy some being, whom which more then likely does not exist.

    Such a method would never work. People put a shield up when you start talking about there religion. Really, I think the only way we will eliminate religions is through progress and time. As was mentioned, there is a growing number of atheists yearly. I want go as far as to say the # increases as church members decrease. Honestly, I think most people who go to church may as well be atheist, since they admittingly only go for the social connection. I'd have to say the # of in the closet, church going atheists increases constantly.

    But like you said Boulder, you do what you want, I'll do what I want, just don't do anything stupid and don't impose rules on me that have no basis in reality.

    Another step is that people need to learn to depend on themselves. Even though they have been, and crediting there success to god, failures to the devil, they do not give themselves the gratitude they deserve. People use religion as a crutch, in order to manipulate reality to make it liveable by there standards. I think if we woke up tommorow and there was no more religion, suicide rates would sky rocket.

    Oh well
  13. May 21, 2003 #12
    megashawn - your link really isn't needed. There definition isn't proper, as is no dictionary really, I believe an encyc definition is much better.

    Because atheism is so large, there has since become various motives behind atheism.

    However, and because of this, there remains a very simple concise defining value for atheism.

    However, since some of the things you said after the link make me smile, you're on my good side!


  14. May 21, 2003 #13
    Still no definition?
  15. May 21, 2003 #14
    More atheists may not necessarily be beneficial to you. More atheists means more confusion since there is no absolute true according to them. The only way to keep a huge number of atheists in agreement is to set up a communist government that will decide what's right and what's wrong.
  16. May 21, 2003 #15
    Nah, yer just jealous you're going out of style.
  17. May 22, 2003 #16
    Mindly Concepts?

    Outside of whose "mindly concept?" Are you saying the material world exists outside of what the mind perceives? And yet how do we interface with "that reality" if not through the "contructs" of our minds? Perhaps we should be speaking about those things (concepts) which exist within the mind instead? Also, did it ever occur to you that reality is determined very much -- "in the human sense" -- by what we believe? For if we indeed acted upon what we believed, couldn't it conceivably change the "whole appearance" of the way the world looks? In which case "reality" might very well lend itself to a "different concept?"

    And what makes you the renowned authority on this anyway?

    What is purpose? ... And what is order? ... And where do these two terms come from? If in fact the laws of God were based on order, rather than the "human need" for contrivance" (which, is the only possible alternative for the origins of purpose and order), then why can't we base our lives upon "God's order?" ... Or, would this imply a sense of God "making demands?" Hmm ... Perhaps so with some of your more "primitive societies," where survival was of the utmost, and you didn't go around messing with the "laws of order." In which case I could demand -- i.e., out of a "sense of order" -- that you not be foolish!

    Whether it's God, Communism or whatever "concept" it may be, it tends primarily to serve the "elitists" who are in control. Therefore, if you wish to address the tyranny of the human condition, then I would recommend you start here.

    "Novus Ordo Seclorum" ... Yeah, I think you better watch out for that one! ...

    "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." So what the heck is so wrong with this? Is this not what made America so great? ... And all founded upon the "concept of God," and the freedom to worship "that God" as one deemed fit.
  18. May 22, 2003 #17
    I think, US is the last nation which still keeps gods in anthem and on currency, and bible in court rooms.
  19. May 22, 2003 #18
    And yet the U.S. is still the most powerful nation in the world. Is this not an "observable fact?" ... And could it be there might be a correlation here?
  20. May 22, 2003 #19
    New Scientist magazine, number 2287, 21st of April 2001. An article starting at page 25 has an interesting look at how evidence supports the idea that religious experience is basically a type of hallucination and affects some types of brains more than others, ro some not at all. There is quite a lot of research going on here, people trying to nail down precisely why people still believe religions. And yes, it's merely a matter of brain-mechanics. At the end of the article they list these for further reading:

    "Why God Won't Go Away" by Andrew Newberg, Eugene d'Aqili, and Vince Rause. Ballantine Books, 2001.

    "The Neural Substrates Of Religious Experience", by Jeffrey Saver and John Rabin, printed in The Journal Of Neuropsychiatry, volume 9, page 498 (1997).

    "Experimental Induction Of The 'Sensed Presence' In Normal Subjects And An Exceptional Subject", by C. M. Cook and Michael Persinger, Perceptual And Motor Skills, volume 85, page 683 (1997).
  21. May 22, 2003 #20
    Originally posted by Alexander
    I think, US is the last nation which still keeps gods in anthem and on currency, and bible in court rooms.

    Originally posted by Iacchus32
    And yet the U.S. is still the most powerful nation in the world. Is this not an "observable fact?" ... And could it be there might be a correlation here?

    Comments by me

    Oh man, boy is such a small statement so full of problems!

    1. most powerful nation? an observable fact?
    2. Come on now, you broke a rule so fundamental it doesn't even appear in my signature. Actually it's like a reverse subjectivist fallacy. You turned an opinion INTO a fact.
    3. Of course it isn't an observable fact, I surely hope you wished to retract the statement soon after posting it!
    4. A correlation? Ha....
    5. You know, when something good happens after a president is in office, his administration immediately tie him to it, thus making the public think of him as the positive doer. When in fact, the major delay in actions in the government would show that the previous president caused these affects.
    6. You've just taken a "positive" statement, and tried to tie it to something else, to heighten the acceptance of it.
    7. Won't work, people here won't be drawn in.
    8. I in no way mean this as an insult, but I want you to know you're going on block just so you don't get mad I don't respond. Again no offense, just so you don't think I am particularly ignoring you....

    :smile: [?] :smile:
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook