Why do we need a God when we are doing just fine without one?

[Tosh]

Why do we need a God when we are doing just fine without one?

Analogy: When children go to school. If they are left with no teacher and end up playing in the playground or throwing things around the class; they probably won't say it was a bad lesson, it was fine, they enjoyed themselves. However, they will not have fulfilled the reason that they went to school, and that was to learn. So the children need an instructor who knows more how their education will benefit them, to instruct them.

Comparisons
children -> us
teacher -> an instructor, God
school -> this world
education -> our purpose

ps. I took this analogy from Dr B Phillips

 

[Langbein]

Wouldn't that depend a little bit on what a God is ? (I can se that you have mentioned some analogies to what I would believe is one way of understanding the traditional Cristian God, but is this the only alternative ? Could "God" be something else ?)

 

[Tosh]

Wouldn't that depend a little bit on what a God is ? (I can se that you have mentioned some analogies to what I would believe is one way of understanding the traditional Cristian God, but is this the only alternative ? Could "God" be something else ?)

God could be other things as well. But if you would say "not an instructor," then that would remove the aspect of the instructor, and you would be redirected towards the analogy again.

This thread however deals with precisely the point that although we consider ourselves as fine, we may not actually be. The fact that the instruction is leading to an aim, namely Paradise, and purpose, namely following His commands, is something for another thread.

 

[Moridin]

The analogy has a hidden assumption - that we cannot do anything productive without 'God'. Then the conclusion from the analogy is its premise.

 

[Astronuc]

God could be other things as well. But if you would say "not an instructor," then that would remove the aspect of the instructor, and you would be redirected towards the analogy again.

This thread however deals with precisely the point that although we consider ourselves as fine, we may not actually be. The fact that the instruction is leading to an aim, namely Paradise, and purpose, namely following His commands, is something for another thread.

And this becomes a discussion on theology/religion, which would seem to violate the guidelines, especially if one is claiming that in order to improve ourselves, we must 'follow his (or her) commands'!

There are appropriate forums for religious discussion on Beliefnet.com
http://www.beliefnet.com/ which is devoted to religious topics.

 

[Tosh]

The analogy has a hidden assumption - that we cannot do anything productive without 'God'. Then the conclusion from the analogy is its premise.

The analogy does state the kids might play and say that is fine. However, some children would probably feel some lacking if they were gaining no education at all and might organize themselves. Its like Lord of the Flies. There were some who felt what was happening was wrong; but most of them ending up feuding. Although that is a fictional story... it has some real implications.

Astronuc
This is not based on a particular religion. It is based on whether God exists, and is largely a philosophical argument on behaviour, free will, and relationship with a God figure. To claim this is irrelevant and off topic for these forums is making a huge assumption and has become a method of atheist-based censorship. For everyone to post on the basis that God does not exist has a huge psychological impact and frankly ignores a huge part of humanity. In attempting to be non-religious, it has become anti-religious.

 

[Astronuc]

This is not based on a particular religion.

Yes, I understand that.

It is based on whether God exists, and is largely a philosophical argument on behaviour, free will, and relationship with a God figure. To claim this is irrelevant and off topic for these forums is making a huge assumption and has become a method of atheist-based censorship.

I did NOT make a claim about relevancy. I am concerned that the topic is treading on thin ice.

Please refer to the general guidelines:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374
Religious Discussion Guidelines:

Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated. As a rule of thumb, some topics pertaining to religion might be permissible if they are discussed in such a way so as to remain neutral on the truth of, or value judgments stemming from, religious belief systems. However, it is essential to use good judgment whenever discussing religious matters to ensure that the discussion does not degenerate into a messy dispute. If in doubt, err on the side of caution.

Because of the complexity and ambiguity of this subject matter, there are no hard and fast moderation rules that apply over all possible cases. Ultimately, it is up to the administrators and mentors to decide what is appropriate and what it not on a case-by-case basis. Discuss religious matters at your own risk: Administrators and mentors retain the right to lock or delete any religious thread or post at any time without warning or explanation. All administrator and mentor action taken with regard to religious discussions will be final and will not be up for dispute.

This is PhysicsForum with extensions to Logic and Scientific Method applied to other areas, e.g. Philosophy and Social Sciences.

For everyone to post on the basis that God does not exist has a huge psychological impact and frankly ignores a huge part of humanity. In attempting to be non-religious, it has become anti-religious.

Those are strong claims. :uhh: PF chooses to refrain from religious discussion lest they degrade into bitter conflicts.

 

[JoeDawg]

Problems with your analogy:
1) Children rarely go to school 'to learn', they go because their parents tell them to go, or the law makes them go. Its really not up to them. Their purpose is to do what they are told.
2) The history of the world is full of examples of children 'playing' without an instructor and learning quite a lot on their own... ie scientific method. And history is also full of wannabe 'teachers' whom science has shown didn't know what the hell they were talking about.
3) Even if one accepts that the purpose of the school is to be a place to learn, learn what? Biology, Theology, Math? And from who? Who designates the teacher, is any adult who shows up and claims to be a teacher automatically one?
4) If a teacher doesn't show up for work and pawns off his teaching duties on the older students, generally we fire his ass.