God, why do people believe in the idea?

[killbot1000]

Perhaps this was already mentioned before but to put a different spin on the belief issue itself - even if somebody (no matter if human or alien or some other yet undiscovered intelligent lifeform) come up with objective, damning, unshakable, ultimate evidence that a god does not exist and that humankind has been suffering from some sort of mass delusion for several millenia, I would place a bet today that countless humans would still insist in believing in (some kind of) god...

 

 

I wouldn't bet on it...it would be an absolute certainty heheh, but seriously though, you're right

[solaar]

I wouldn't bet on it...it would be an absolute certainty heheh, but seriously though, you're right

I would even go one step further and assume that the majority of humans would put much more effort into manipulating or mocking the aforementioned evidence, into suppressing its spreading and teaching, perhaps even into getting rid of the perpetrators than actually into rationally trying to understand its content.

[gwprod12]

Well, it's safe to infer that, as every other similar situation in history has been treated the same way, from Socrates, to Gallileo, to Darwin, to Hawking...

 

The historical Jesus was killed for heresy (among other things).

[solaar]

Well, it's safe to infer that, as every other similar situation in history has been treated the same way, from Socrates, to Gallileo, to Darwin, to Hawking...

 

The historical Jesus was killed for heresy (among other things).

Therefore it's safe to extrapolate that human belief is totally irrelevant in a cosmological sense.

[Quelkin]

The promise of pie in the sky and an inability to fathom the mystery of reality=religion.

[borisbadenov]

Well, it seems that enough people in this place have elevated Steve Jobs to that title already. So, what's the complaint?

[gwprod12]

I can't think of anyone less deserving of worship than Steve Jobs. Hitler, Saddam, G W Bush, Stalin, Ghengis Khan, Herbert Hoover and Satan are higher up in that hierarchy.

 

EDIT: Bob Jones is very close to Steve Jobs in the undeserving category. They may even be tied.

[Alessandro17]

Sigh...

 

Why human beings keep denying a very simple fact: their logic is faulty and limited.

So there is no chance in hell they can understand what caused the Universe, whether God exists or not...

It is like amoebas trying to understand human beings.

[borisbadenov]

Bingo Alessandro. Can't agree with you more.

 

People all need to answer that important question, why are we here. Humans have always filled in this blank with God, Allah, paganism, self indulgence, etc. To not believe in a god of some sort is still in a way, aligning ones self with a belief system even if that is of a "scientific basis". One cannot know the Big Bang happened, only just believe it happened. How we all got here, that is a mystery, always will be. I can live with that.

 

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

[solaar]

Sigh...

 

Why human beings keep denying a very simple fact: their logic is faulty and limited.

So there is no chance in hell they can understand what caused the Universe, whether God exists or not...

Perhaps for now. Actually not long ago (in the cosmological sense) humans were still absolutely convinced that the sun must be a god and everything was revolving around the earth. Back then somebody would have said there's no chance in hell humans will ever understand that earth is revolving around an average star called the sun.

 

(BTW the majority of people still don't understand the concept of Einstein's relativity theory (almost 100 years later) but there are others who do understand it and have proven its validity.)

 

Of course not all humans will equally understand the facts if one day evidence of the (non)existence of a superior 'being' will be presented - if not from earth then from any other part of the universe. But that's not the point.

Even if some humans will understand the evidence and will be able to explain it, it is very likely that there will be a huge anti-movement of certain others, blinded by religious belief, who are not willing to make the slightest effort to understand. THAT'S the point.

[killbot1000]

Sigh...

 

Why human beings keep denying a very simple fact: their logic is faulty and limited.

So there is no chance in hell they can understand what caused the Universe, whether God exists or not...

It is like amoebas trying to understand human beings.

 

Seriously! Good post

[solaar]

People all need to answer that important question, why are we here.

Ah really? Why?

(At least speaking for myself, I don't need that answer and most people who are close to me don't either.)

[gwprod12]

It's a very depressing question. It leads a lot of people I know to difficult problems in their life, I've found.

 

Dwelling on this question makes no sense. Even if it were possible to determine what the meaning of existence is, what good would it do?

 

Acknowledging that existence has no inherent meaning, or that inherent meaning cannot be discovered, is the first step toward dealing with life as it is.

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

It's a very depressing question. It leads a lot of people I know to difficult problems in their life, I've found.

 

Dwelling on this question makes no sense. Even if it were possible to determine what the meaning of existence is, what good would it do?

 

Acknowledging that existence has no inherent meaning, or that inherent meaning cannot be discovered, is the first step toward dealing with life as it is.

Don't you mean dealing with life as you see it? (please don't get pissy gw, I'm just trying to conversate)

[Alessandro17]

Seriously! Good post

 

Thanks

[gwprod12]

Life is an absolute quantity. Perception of life is relative.

 

So... I myself have determined that life has no higher purpose, aside from acquiring resources, disposing of waste and propagating itself... So that's what I do. And will continue to do until I die and cease to exist. I don't concern myself with shoulds or supposed to's... I just do what seems reasonable, and hope it all works out. It seems to be. I'm in good health, I have fun, and anything negative that happens in my life gets smoothed over quite quickly and usually for the best. I have long and rewarding philosophical debates that are both enjoyable and informative (at least in real life) What more could I ask for?

 

As for getting pissy. I really dont get pissy. (Well, I do, but not about this sort of thing) I'm an open-minded relativist who is only offended by the intellectually dishonest, not by diverse opinions. Diversity of discussion is the only way good ideas are formed.

[3nigma]

Of course not all humans will equally understand the facts if one day evidence of the (non)existence of a superior 'being' will be presented - if not from earth then from any other part of the universe. But that's not the point.

Even if some humans will understand the evidence and will be able to explain it, it is very likely that there will be a huge anti-movement of certain others, blinded by religious belief, who are not willing to make the slightest effort to understand. THAT'S the point.

The very nature of God is outside the question of science, the scientific method, etc. Science should not be a basis for atheists/agnostics to try and debunk the idea of God. Likewise, science does not need to corroborate the idea of God, unless such a god would make it that way, but we cannot know, nor should we expect it.

 

Science answers the questions that faith does not require answers for.

 

-3nigma

[solaar]

The very nature of God is outside the question of science, the scientific method, etc. Science should not be a basis for atheists/agnostics to try and debunk the idea of God. Likewise, science does not need to corroborate the idea of God, unless such a god would make it that way, but we cannot know, nor should we expect it.

This is once again just a statement, sythesised out of the confined space of human existence. The man-made concept of faith assumes that, at least, there *could* be 'something greater than all physical existence' worth believing in. Humans even have a name for it - god. If you had stated 'the imaginary construct (humans call god)' does not require any explanation, no problem with that if you leave it at that. But it is objectively and logically nonsensical to say I *believe* something is there and at the same time assume it is in fact there ('the very nature of god' as you say). If you know the existence of something you don't need to *only* believe it anymore but then it's up to you to prove its existence if others can't perceive it.

 

What I said has nothing to do with *confronting* science with human faith. In fact, the opposite is true. There are countless physical things out there which don't require any science to know they truly exist. It is safe to assume that the vast majority of intelligent lifeforms (I include humans in that) agree that our sun, the planets, the few stars we can perceive without applying any scientific method, the water we drink, the air we breathe, all this truly exists. At least in part, it was in fact certain processes in nature itself - our very physical environment - which humans had no rational explanation for, which inspired them to build the imaginary concept of faith around.

 

It is very conceivable and actually very likely that in many parts of this universe the concept of faith is completely unknown for simple rationally explicable reasons which wouldn't even require any scientific knowledge. That's what my point was all about, namely that a lot of humans fear this idea of faith actually being 'degraded' to a pipe dream and that they might be capable of doing everything to keep faith as widespread as possible at all cost and at the same time suppress knowledge, be it by using war and destruction.

[iRISH]

Why can't an individual believe in what he or she wants to without arrogant a**holes from either side trying to put them down or prove them wrong. live and let live.

[3nigma]

This is once again just a statement, sythesised out of the confined space of human existence.

I agree with you completely.

It is very conceivable and actually very likely that in many parts of this universe the concept of faith is completely unknown for simple rationally explicable reasons which wouldn't even require any scientific knowledge.

That is certainly a possibility. However, it is also very conceivable, indeed even very likely, that in other parts of the universe, presupposing that other sentient life exists, that our concept of the scientific method is also poorly executed and incomplete.

 

I am certain that as more science unfolds beyond our own tiny planet, it will turn our understanding of physics and the very physical nature of the universe upside down. It has already begun with quantum physics and astrophysics, and now scientists have even had to go back and reevaluate Isaac Newton's 3 laws of motion.

 

-3nigma

[solaar]

However, it is also very conceivable, indeed even very likely, that in other parts of the universe, presupposing that other sentient life exists, that our concept of the scientific method is also poorly executed and incomplete.

 

I am certain that as more science unfolds beyond our own tiny planet, it will turn our understanding of physics and the very physical nature of the universe upside down. It has already begun with quantum physics and astrophysics, and now scientists have even had to go back and reevaluate Isaac Newton's 3 laws of motion.

 

-3nigma

I absolutely agree.

 

So, if it's likely that human knowledge is still in its infancy and perhaps even primitive, what does that say about human belief?....

[3nigma]

So, if it's likely that human knowledge is still in its infancy and perhaps even primitive, what does that say about human belief?....

Human knowledge as a whole is not in its infancy, just the part that I mentioned- scientific endeavors. Regarding human belief, sufficient precedence of information has already been set, to lay the foundation for proper belief. More clearly stated, the Bible is already clear on topics of God interacting with humanity, to give sufficient information to supplement human belief in that belief system.

 

This doesn't mean everyone has to believe it, or even that it is true. I am just stating that according to that belief system, the information is already sufficient for human belief. It is worth noting, however, that this does not mean human belief has a true full understanding of the topics addressed or laid out in the Bible. In fact, it is the opposite- people will always interpret and reinterpret the Bible, as more science can shed more light on things not covered in the Bible.

 

The Bible is not a scientific document, to document scientific items. It is a narrative, whether fiction or non-fiction. The Bible never says that the earth is 6,000, 10,000, or even 4.5 billion years old. People just read it that way. The Bible does not say the method of creation, on the topic of evolution, just that things were "created." These are not topics the Bible is concerned with, nor are they the concerns that the Bible tries to address.

 

Take the big bang as an example. Scientists originally hypothesized that the universe was a constant, without beginning or end. The more scientific research that comes to light, a new idea came around called the "Big Bang." This theory gained traction as more science corroborated the ideas, and it is now considered true. This is the case, despite in the past there being heated debates from the Christian camp that the universe did indeed have a beginning, as opposed to science that said otherwise.

 

The same can be said in the opposite way. The Catholic Church in centuries past formed their beliefs on the earth being flat, and the sun rotating around the earth according to everyone in their time, including scientists. This was just what everyone believed at the time. When science shed more light on the topic, it didn't make the Bible any less credible, the Bible just never addresses those topics. The Catholic Church obviously embarrassed itself, but otherwise, it doesn't change the basis of the human belief itself- the Bible.

 

This is obviously just one faith, not including Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. But the same can be argued for any faith, I would wager. This does not conflict with what you wrote, just offers more thorough insight on the part of human belief. Anyone with a high comprehension of the teachings of the Bible itself will agree with these assertions.

 

-3nigma

[killbot1000]

According to Giambattista Vico in his book "The New Science" from 1722 or something like that, he describes 4 ways of explaining the world, and they are all built on top of eachother.

 

Metaphor (The whole, charactaristic by anchient times):

 

Is an attempt to understand the world around us, we explain things by relating them to ourselves, we make an attempt to explain the whole. We use human beings as the measuring stick for EVERYTHING, Some Examples:

 

The leafs dance

The vein of rock

The pattern has gone mad

God is a Man.

 

Metonymy (part, part, charactaristic of Feudalism portion of history):

 

The next way of explaining things, using two closely related things to define one thing.

 

The sword (to represent the military)

Washington (to refer to the United States government)

Counting heads to get a count of people.

 

Synecdoche (part, whole, charactaristic of absolutism [eg: Louis XIV IS the state]):

 

Some parts of the whole, most representative of the whole

 

Certainly we cant do without a heart or a liver, we need at least one kidney, we can do with one lung, we don't need a spleen or a gall bladder. So a heart and a liver are more of a representation of the explanation our body than the spleen or the gall bladder

 

Irony (reflection with a clear mind. The nation State/Civil Society):

 

Irony is reflection, irony is the separation of social theory from social thought, we no longer make ourselves the measure of all things, we make ourselves the definition or the object of ourselves. That in itself is a different way of explaining things.

 

 

Just a few thoughts to throw out there, to borrow a quote from the same author:

 

"because of the indefinate nature of the human mind, wherever it is lost in ignorance man makes himself the measure of all things"

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

What does this have to do with God Kill bot?

[Guest Ramm]

^Good question. I believe the word 'god' was in there once.