Why "God" does not and has not ever existed

[spartan]

First off "God" used to be "Gods" and "Goddesses" so how did they evolve into "God"?

Well "God", "Gods" and "Goddesses" do not exist and have never existed.

They were simply created by human beings as a way of explaining all the good, bad and important things around them, such as animals, fire, food, metal, stone, thunder, water, wood, etc, by making people with special powers, eventaully called "Gods " and "Goddesses", to be representatives of these various things around them and as a way of explaining to people why those things around them were there and how they worked (Because they didnt know how they really worked)

Eventually most people (Though not all as evidenced by the survival of non single God religions such as Hinduism) had enough of all the different "Gods" and "Goddesses" with all their different powers and instead decided to create one "God" figure who could not only be representative to everything on earth but also do everything that the old "Gods" and "Goddesses" did and all in one single figure! (Who is almost exclusively a man).

Of course nowadays though humans, mostly through the use of science, have discovered how most of the things, that the old "God", "Gods" and "Goddesses" used to represent, work which has consequently made most peoples believe in a "God", "Gods" or "Goddesses", as the answer to every previously unexplained thing, simply evaporate.

Also the idea of a superior being or beings, who is almost exclusively human and male, is only a representative for humans and their false sense of superiority over all other life.

But what about this other non human life?

Why do they have to be inferior and not have their own "God"?

Why should a human "God" also rule over all non human life as well?

At least the old pagan religions recognized the important contribution of animals, through their animal and half animal half human "Gods" and "Goddesses", and women, through "Goddesses", something that the modern single "God" religions dont do at all.

All in all religion was created by humans and for humans and the various things around them which were important to them and which they used, whether they were good or bad, such as animals, fire, food, metal, stone, thunder, water, wood, etc.

Fortunately our modern times are killing off religion as people have come to finally realise that humans arent the dominant species and that the most powerful force is not "God" but uncontrolable nature (Climate change, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc).

[AGITprop]

spartan i tend to agree with you that religion is only a manifestattion p peoples misery and desire to explain hat which they couldn through reason. though i know that most leftists on this forum are atheists, i actualy am i a theist or at least agnostic. i was baptized in th armenian orthodox church and have since my childhoodben ediucated about the bible. as time went on and i chose to educate myself i slowly moved away from the bible and began to take a more spiritual approach to the universe. i wont go into to detail but again i do agre that almost al orgnized religion is the result of a primitive people trying to find answers otherwise just some scheme to make money *cough*scientology*cough*

[Synaptic-Plasticity]

Fortunately our modern times are killing off religion as people have come to finally realise that humans arent the dominant species

How so???

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Eventually people had enough of all the different "Gods" and "Goddesses" with all their different powers and instead decided to create one "God" figure who could not only be representative to everything on earth but also do everything that the old "Gods" and "Goddesses" did and all in one single figure! (Who is almost exclusively a man).

(sarcasm) yep that is exactly how it happened a bunch of monks or priests or vestal virgins all got together and said "ya know I'm sick of all these different gods lets make things easier by just having one"

WRONG

not only is this a drastic over simplification of the history of religious trends but its not even correct ... the most obvious reason being that there is not one God, there are several religions such as the Hindu faith, the worlds third largest religion with 900 million members, which remains polytheistic ...

the worlds fourth largest religion is referred to as "traditional Chinese" or "Chinese folk religion" that has hundreds of gods and goddesses as well as ancestor worship (394 million)

additionally the worlds fifth largest religion is Buddhism, which also has no conception of a single god, being referred to more as a body of teachings and philosophy (376 million members)

also the sixth largest grouping of religion is that of indigenous animists (such as traditional African religions) which accounts for about 400 million adherents ...

the point is that these NON-MONOTHEISTIC religions account for about 32% of the worlds population ... Christianity in contrast accounts for about 33% and Islam about 21%

so spartan is just wrong when he asserts that polytheism and animists are extinct in favor a singular God.


At least the old pagan religions recognized the important contribution of animals, through their animal and half animal half human "Gods" and "Goddesses", and women, through "Goddesses", something that the modern single "God" religions dont do at all.

animists and other polytheists can oppress their women and kill their animals just as well as any Christian or Muslim

here is a question .... do you think that women and animals are treated better in Poland (about 90% roman catholic) or do you think that women are treated better in Benin (with about 50% traditional beliefs)?


humans arent the dominant species

then which species is? perhaps the coconut?


the most powerful force is not "God" but uncontrolable nature (Climate change, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, etc).

a lot of the animists and polytheists you seem to admire (as well as alot of monotheists) believe that God and Nature are one and the same ...

spartan i am not sure you are making yourself clear here .. what exactly are you suggesting with this posting?

[RedKnight]

a lot of the animists and polytheists you seem to admire (as well as alot of monotheists) believe that God and Nature are one and the same ... That would actually be either pantheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism), or panentheism.

[blackstone]

Next time base your thesis on some facts spartan.

[phasmid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 03:11 am


Well "God", "Gods" and "Goddesses" do not exist and have never existed.



spartan that is a ridiculous statement. The idea of God that exists outside of time and space as a conscious "spirit" ( which is what many people mean when they refer to "God") can neither be proven nor disproven. It is a matter of belief. You can only say " I dont believe God Gods or Godesses exist." Not state it as if it is a scientific fact.

[spartan]

spartan that is a ridiculous statement. The idea of God that exists outside of time and space as a conscious "spirit" ( which is what many people mean when they refer to "God") can neither be proven nor disproven. It is a matter of belief. You can only say " I dont believe God Gods or Godesses exist." Not state it as if it is a scientific fact.
Then why is this "God" almost universally human?

Does that not tell you that it is simply a human creation?

Who wrote all holy texts?

Humans did.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Then why is this "God" almost universally human?

did you even read what i posted?

32% of the population adheres to faiths that have multiple or non-human deities, this is hardly "universal"



Does that not tell you that it is simply a human creation?

circumstantial ...


Who wrote all holy texts?

except the ten commandments ... and the book of Mormon ... although you may not believe that these were written by the gods you have no proof that they were written any other way ...

the point is that the existence of gods are not only unprovable but irrefutable .... why is this so important?

what is the point you are trying to make here?

if you think you are going to suddenly convince all those believers with a post like this you are in for a big disappointment, far more intelligent and more knowledgeable people have attempted to make much more thought out arguments against the existence of the gods and yet most of the world still adheres to religion based on faith ....

if you want to make a point that faith is misplaced then fine, but that is your opinion, nothing more ....

[phasmid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 04:39 am

Then why is this "God" almost universally human?

did you even read what i posted?

32% of the population adheres to faiths that have multiple or non-human deities, this is hardly "universal"



Does that not tell you that it is simply a human creation?

circumstantial ...


Who wrote all holy texts?

except the ten commandments ... and the book of Mormon ... although you may not believe that these were written by the gods you have no proof that they were written any other way ...

the point is that the existence of gods are not only unprovable but irrefutable .... why is this so important?

what is the point you are trying to make here?

if you think you are going to suddenly convince all those believers with a post like this you are in for a big disappointment, far more intelligent and more knowledgeable people have attempted to make much more thought out arguments against the existence of the gods and yet most of the world still adheres to religion based on faith ....

if you want to make a point that faith is misplaced then fine, but that is your opinion, nothing more ....
Thank you North Star, you presented that better than I did.

[emceesquared]

Actually according to some historians the "first" religion was in Nigeria, and was MONOTHEISTIC.

why is it that Atheists always seem to think that religion was only made because "people needed something to hold on to" or something like that.

what about people who HAVE seen things that would lead them to assume in a god? just because you haven't seen anything (or maybe you have and your denying it), doesn't mean everyone hasn't.

also, they seem to think that science DISPROVES religion, when it most of the time helps prove religion right.

oh and Christianity is no the only religion around, so don't base the world on it, not all religions have actual religious texts.

[LSD]

Actually according to some historians the "first" religion was in Nigeria, and was MONOTHEISTIC.

"Actually", not a single reputable historian on the planet would attempt to declare something the "first religion". Religion not only predates written records, but any records whatsoever.

There's even substantial evidence that it predates the evolution of Homo Sapiens itself.

The one thing we do know, however, is that in nearly all cases early religions are polytheistic, or at the very least henotheistic. True constructed monotheism requires a degree of philisophical complexity rarely found in preliterate societies.


also, they seem to think that science DISPROVES religion, when it most of the time helps prove religion right.

Complete unmitigated bullshit.

Cherry-picking "reinterpretations" aside, science has managed to utterly obliterate religious conceptions in every aspect of understanding. The only things left intact are the ones which by their nature cannot be disproven -- i.e., the supernaturalistic crap.

You may be able to come up with a few isolated instances of scriptural observations that happened to correct. But even the Scientologists get it right on out of a million times.


why is it that Atheists always seem to think that religion was only made because "people needed something to hold on to" or something like that.

Because it's the most credible explanation for why someone would believe in something that they admit they cannot prove or explain. It also explains all the correlative data related to religiosity and socioeconomic factors (see: "opiate of the masses").

I don't think there's any doubt that most religious belief is emotionalist in origin. People don't believe in God rationaly, 'cause rationaly the whole idea is patently absurd; but the notion of an omnipotent and/or omnibonevolent spirit is an incredibly comforting one.

Which is why so many "religious" people are able to openly defy fundamental precepts of their faith while at the same time genuinely thinking of themselves as believers.

Something like 95% of the planet is ostensibly religious, but how many of those 95% have actually truly studied their religion or even read their holy texts. Don't you think that if you really believed that the secrets of the universe were revealed in a book, you'd bother to take a look?

I would propose that, in the first world at least, the vast majority of the population is in fact functionaly atheist. Religion is gradually turning into a primarily cultural phenomenon.

In the long term that means that attacking religion is probably a pointless affair, since it's really dying on its own.

But it's still good fun. :D

[NorthStarRepublicML]

There's even substantial evidence that it predates the evolution of Homo Sapiens itself.

huh?


science has managed to utterly obliterate religious conceptions in every aspect of understanding.

not really ... there are plenty of unexplained phenomena, strange particles, anomalies, and other mysterious factors in the universe that science has not explained .... thus once again it comes down to a question of faith ...

the argument that religion and science are opposed is not cut and dry ...

i mentioned in another thread the contributions of Islamic Mathematics and Christian Astronomy ... but for the sake of refrence here it is again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mathematics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chris...kers_in_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science)

and according to the Encyclopedia Britannica
Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

in fact the central argument that religion was opposed to science from the middle ages to our present day is straight up wrong ... most people who believe that only science without religious affiliation proved the world was round are not doing their homework, there was rarely a Christian scientist of the middle ages that did not know that the earth was spherical and even its approximate circumference ....


I would propose that, in the first world at least, the vast majority of the population is in fact functionaly atheist. Religion is gradually turning into a primarily cultural phenomenon.

i would agree for the most part, however i would not say that this is confined to the western or even the modern world ... the example of the Romans (both Christian and pre-Christian) attitudes towards religions are evidence that even early people didn't take religion too seriously ...

and i would not use the word athiest to describe them as that denotes a stronger rejection of spiritual issues ... i would say agnostic because certainly religious practices do take place in the first world and the west ...

the samurai Musashi said: "i respect the gods, but i do not depend on them"

this is the attitude which i myself and i would imagine the vast majority of pragmatic people in the world adhere to ... agnostic but traditional ... religion in my mind has always been a cultural phenomenon rooted in the traditions of particular peoples and spread abroad and continually changed by the inclusion of new peoples and ideas ...

religion tends to mimic the society, society doesn't tend to mimic the religion ... this is why i say that arguing against and trying to eliminate religion will not change social conditions, but changing social conditions (such as capitalism) will change religion ...

once we have socialism we will have religions that reflect socialism ... religion has existed in every historical stage and there is little reason to believe that a transition from capitalism to socialism will suddenly eliminate it ...

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:03 am
Don't you think that if you really believed that the secrets of the universe were revealed in a book, you'd bother to take a look?

Well, i know for a fact the secret to understanding math can be found in a math book, but i still haven't cracked one open.

[phasmid]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 05:21 am

science has managed to utterly obliterate religious conceptions in every aspect of understanding.


Then how do you explain the sub atomic particles that act in a pre-cognitive way?
Doesn't that suggest a mind other than our own?

[Publius]

the sub atomic particles that act in a pre-cognitive way?

They don't.

They react to us viewing them because, to view them, we have to bounce things like photons or electrons off of them, which necessarily influences their behavior.

The fact that observation influences quantum phenomena doesn't mean we have some psychic ability to change the location of subatomic particles, it just means that we have no way of testing a subatomic particle without slamming another subatomic particle into it, which disrupts it.

The very act of watching causes the states to change, but not because we have a human mind behind it; tiny electron detectors have the same effect of collapsing a wave-function. So it has nothing to do with cognition, it has to with the fact that act of observation necessarily interferes with the behavior of the subatomic particle, in a stochastic manner.

It's interesting and still puzzling in many ways, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

From Wikipedia: "A common lay misuse of the term refers to quantum mechanics, where, if the outcome of an event has not been observed, it exists in a state of 'superposition', which is akin to being in all possible states at once. In the famous thought experiment known as Schrödinger's cat the cat is supposedly neither alive nor dead until observed — until that time, the cat is both alive and dead (technically half-alive and half-dead in probability terms). However, most quantum physicists, in resolving Schrödinger's seeming paradox, now understand that the acts of 'observation' and 'measurement' must also be defined in quantum terms before the question makes sense. From this point of view, there is no 'observer effect', only one vastly entangled quantum system. A significant minority still find the equations point to an observer; Wheeler, who probably worked more deeply on this subject than any physicist thus far, devised a graphic in which the universe was represented by a "U" with an eye on one end, turned around and viewing itself, to describe his understanding."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect



Doesn't that suggest a mind other than our own?

No.

Where did learn your quantum physics?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:08 pm
also, they seem to think that science DISPROVES religion, when it most of the time helps prove religion right.
Yes? Where's the scientific proof of the Great Flood?

[spartan]

Yes? Where's the scientific proof of the Great Flood?
Actually in about 4000BC there was found to be exstensive flooding in the region of Mesopotamia.

Though i dont believe that the whole world was flooded of course :D

Indeed by "whole world" i think that the writers of the story of Noah and the ark were refering to their world (i.e. the only world that they knew of in their small boundaries which probably made the flood in Mesopotamia seem like a flood in the whole world to these people).

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 09:09 pm
spartan that is a ridiculous statement.
No, Spartan was spot on.


can neither be proven nor disproven.

Yes it can. See Michelson-Morley experiment and trace it back to the Theism vs. Atheism debate, if you find no evidence for something that is positively asserted to exist then it's only logical to assume the negative that it doesn't exist.


It is a matter of belief.

No, it’s a matter of logic vs. superstition.

[pusher robot]

if you find no evidence for something that is positively asserted to exist then it's only logical to assume the negative that it doesn't exist.

Yes, but that's still an assumption, and assumptions - however justifiable - do not constitute proof.

E.g.:
I can find no evidence that we are living in a computer simulation, so I assume that we are not and give it little thought. But that doesn't prove the slightest bit that we are not in fact living in a computer simulation. If I went around claiming that we are definitely NOT living in a computer simulation, I should be taken exactly as seriously as someone claiming that we definitely ARE living in a computer simulation, because both positions have exactly the same amount of factual evidence: zero.

[spartan]

The whole "There is no evidence of the existence of God so i dont believe in God" and the "There is no evidence to say that God doesnt exist either therefore i do believe in God" arguments remind me of this scenario.

Now say you have a man that is accused of killing his wife and is up for execution, now there is no evidence to prove that he killed his wife so we shouldnt execute him just because we "think" he did it right?

People are innocent until (And here is the important word here) proven guilty.

Thus we cant believe in this concept of God as it cant be proved (Just like the man shouldnt be killed for the murder of his wife because there is no evidence to prove that he did indeed kill his wife).

So until the existence of God is proved there is no point in wasting our times believing in it.

Not believing in something until it is proven to be real is the most sensible logic as otherwise people who do believe are vulnerable to being taken advantage of by people with alteria motives.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 31, 2007 01:22 pm
Yes, but that's still an assumption, and assumptions - however justifiable - do not constitute proof.
It's not assumption. An assumption would imply that I am just assuming something or making a conclusion based upon nothing however that is not what I am doing which is why I brought up the Michelson-Morley experiment. They set out to measure aether and to discover it's effects on the velocity of light, what they got was no aether thus they concluded it doesn't exist-the same thing can be applied to the debate over God/s/ess. We have found no evidence, thus we conclude it (like aether) doesn't exist.


I can find no evidence that we are living in a computer simulation, so I assume that we are not and give it little thought. But that doesn't prove the slightest bit that we are not in fact living in a computer simulation. If I went around claiming that we are definitely NOT living in a computer simulation, I should be taken exactly as seriously as someone claiming that we definitely ARE living in a computer simulation, because both positions have exactly the same amount of factual evidence: zero.

I disagree. If there is no evidence for it, it makes no logical sense and it can not in anyway be verified what else are we to conclude? We can take any silly theories out there and say you can't take the negative and say they don't exist because there is no evidence for them and they can't be verified. For example, Cthulhu (like God) was created by humans, he was created by Mr. Lovecraft, you say he exists, I say he doesn't. Now, is there any proof he exists? No. Does it make sense that he exists? No. Could it ever be verified that he exists? No, so why then can we not take the negative and conclude he doesn't exist? Must we be Agnostic with every silly notion humans have? Can we say that unicorns, floating teapots and tauntauns can neither be proven or disproven?

[NorthStarRepublicML]

It's not assumption.


Cthulhu (like God) was created by humans

sounds like an assumption to me ...

anyway i would suggest that you read Rosa's posts int he thread Legitimate Arguments on the Existence of God ..... because that is where most of your above points are rendered null and void ...



If there is no evidence for it, it makes no logical sense and it can not in anyway be verified what else are we to conclude?

since when has Religion been about logic and evidence?

religion is about faith in case you were unaware ...



Must we be Agnostic with every silly notion humans have?

well i see the point you are getting at but i would hesitate to call spirituality and religion that has existed before recorded history and which currently the majority of the worlds population considers legitimate a "silly notion"

perhaps it is silly to you because it cannot be verified by evidence but that is not what it is about ...

here read this:


• Strong atheism posits certainty, but certainty is impossible.

Strong atheistic propositions do not imply certainty.

To understand this, we need to understand the difference between a claim and the confidence we put on that claim. We can make claims about a great number of things, but the nature of the claim itself does not indicate how confident we are in it.

To give a simple example, a fundamentalist Christian having a “crisis of faith” would maintain the claim that there is 100% chance that a god exists, while having less confidence in that proposition than he did before. His claim did not change: his confidence changed.

Science also affirms a great number of universals. For instance, Newton’s law of gravity is a universal. The attraction between two masses is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance: this equation is universal, it applies to all points of spacetime and all time (as long as the laws of physics exist, of course). Yet science is open to disproof or improvement of its laws and theories. And Newton’s law of gravity was indeed shown to be incomplete by Einstein’s General Relativity. So Newton’s law being universal did not make its confidence 100%: nothing in science, nor in rational thinking, is known with 100% confidence.

By the same token, a proposition such as “there is no god” may be universal, but it does not demand certainty. It demands that we prove it as knowledge, just like any other claim of knowledge.

[pusher robot]

It's not assumption.
Yes, it is. You yourself said so.

An assumption would imply that I am just assuming something or making a conclusion based upon nothing however that is not what I am doing
No, that is what you are doing. Absence of evidence is not formally evidence of absence.

Michelson-Morley experiment. They set out to measure aether and to discover it's effects on the velocity of light, what they got was no aether thus they concluded it doesn't exist-the same thing can be applied to the debate over God/s/ess.
No, you're wrong. They didn't set out to discover its effects on the speed of light. Its effects were a pre-existing part of the theory, and that experiment was testing that part of the theory against real-world results. Since the observations showed that the result did not occur as the theory predicted, that was positive evidence that the theory was flawed.

We have found no evidence, thus we conclude it (like aether) doesn't exist.

No. They did find evidence, evidence that the theory was wrong.


I disagree. If there is no evidence for it, it makes no logical sense and it can not in anyway be verified what else are we to conclude?
We are to conclude that it is unknowable - as I claim - not that we know the answer, as you claim.


For example, Cthulhu (like God) was created by humans, he was created by Mr. Lovecraft, you say he exists, I say he doesn't. Now, is there any proof he exists? No. Does it make sense that he exists? No. Could it ever be verified that he exists? No, so why then can we not take the negative and conclude he doesn't exist? Must we be Agnostic with every silly notion humans have? Can we say that unicorns, floating teapots and tauntauns can neither be proven or disproven?
First of all, if it is a made-up thing like Cthulu or Tauntauns, and we have direct knowledge of the act of its invention, then we know from direct observation that it is no claimed to be real. Second, these are different cases, because they all postulate the existence of something in our physical world. If through no other means, we can preclude their existence by exhaustive observation. If we observe - as we have - nearly every location that these things could exist, and find them not existing, then that is direct evidence of their lack of existence. The exhaustiveness of the observation gives us the confidence we can have in that conclusion. Theories of God that do not make testable claims do not have anything at all that we could observe, so we cannot draw any such conclusions.

I'm not telling you that you have to believe in God. I'm not even telling you that you shouldn't believe there isn't a god. That's probably a reasonable assumption. But I am telling you that you can't possibly prove it, and you'd best learn to accept that some things simply cannot be proven, ever.

[Publius]

Yes, but that's still an assumption, and assumptions - however justifiable - do not constitute proof.

E.g.:
I can find no evidence that we are living in a computer simulation, so I assume that we are not and give it little thought. But that doesn't prove the slightest bit that we are not in fact living in a computer simulation. If I went around claiming that we are definitely NOT living in a computer simulation, I should be taken exactly as seriously as someone claiming that we definitely ARE living in a computer simulation, because both positions have exactly the same amount of factual evidence: zero.

If the two ideas really are undifferentiable, if you could not ever really figure out if we were or were not living in a computer (which you can't), then what semantical difference could there be between the two ideas?

Without descending into tautology ("The difference would be, in one we're living in a computer..."), explain the functional difference between these two ideas. Oh, that's right, we can't. Because we've already admitted that there's no evidence, no possibility of evidence even (if we want to go that far) so the two ideas are functionally identical.

Obviously they are different ideas, but there's no semantical value here. So drawing a distinction between them is pointless, as well as impossible. There is no difference to us if we're living in a computer or not, so the question is just an ill-formed question. It's not something that could be known.

If we posit World A, in which we exist inside of a computer, and World B, in which we don't, and the only difference between these two worlds is their computer-state (either in one or not), then what we have are two functionally identical worlds, and to differentiate between them is meaningless. The designation of "inside a computer" is, in this example, as semantically valuable as "is called World A", which is to say, it's not important at all. It contains no added information.

[pusher robot]

Obviously they are different ideas, but there's no semantical value here. So drawing a distinction between them is pointless, as well as impossible.

Quite so. I argue that the same holds true as to the existence or nonexistence of god(s).