Can anyone credibly show that the concept of a god is anything more than a human imaginative fantasy?

If not then aren’t we realistically justified in concluding that such concepts are indeed nothing more than human fantasies?

Even though there are thousands of books written about gods aren't they all based on nothing more than an imaginative concept?

Are there logic flaws in this?

Suppose that God does not exist. Then for all time and place in and out of this universe the non-existance of God has existed. Call the non-existance of God attribute Nilo. Therefore Nilo could not be created but has always existed. Nilo also has a special will and purpose. He fullfills the "There is not a God". However this Nilo is all powerful and his word is all powerful. Thus Nilo is a God contradicting there not being a God.


So there logically is a God but he might not share too much in common with us. He may not even be alive biologically as Nilo shows.

What a silly question.
There is clearly plain objective proof for the existence of Nyarlathotep, the Crawling Chaos.

However what more can her decendants want? Awaken to the sound of your lover or the sound of trumpets.

"Who is this comming up from the desert, leaning upon her lover?
Under the apple tree I awakened you; it was there your mother conceived you, it was there that your parent conceieved. Set me as a seal on your heart, as a seal on your arm; For stern as death is love, relentless as the nether world is devotion; its flames are a blazing fire. Deep waters cannot quence love, nor floods sweep it away. Were one to offer all he owns to purchase love, he would be roundly mocked."

Our God defines existance. How exactly are we to prove he exists? If God made fire come down to the earth each day then we would say it's nature, the sun in orbit.

Can anyone credibly show that the concept of a god is anything more than a human imaginative fantasy? I believe C.G. Jung could, but I'm just not up to the task.

Besides, at that point, God still isn't what the religious folk want.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

God is the villain in the fantacy of immortality.

Okinrus,

Suppose that God does not exist. Then for all time and place in and out of this universe the non-existance of God has existed.Unless a god did exist at some time and doesn’t exist now.

Call the non-existence of God attribute Nilo. Ah but there is no difference between a god not existing and anything else that does not exist, in terms of their comparative properties they are identical. This means that Nilo can also refer to everything that does not exist.

Therefore Nilo could not be created but has always existed. OK I’ll accept that the state of something not existing has always existed.

Nilo also has a special will and purpose. He fullfills the "There is not a God". And equally true is “everything that does not exist”.

However this Nilo is all powerful and his word is all powerful. Unfortunately your logic fails you here. Since you are now attempting to assign further attributes to Nilo that you have not established. The only established property is “anything that does not exist”, and of course God is included in anything, since you are supposing that God does not exist (see opening statement).

Thus Nilo is a God contradicting there not being a God. Sorry you missed a vital step in your syllogism.

But what we can conclude is that Nilo = “the non existence of God” = “everything that does not exist”. Not very remarkable.

So there logically is a God but he might not share too much in common with us. He may not even be alive biologically as Nilo shows.LOL. 8 out of 10 for an attempt at imagination, but you failed miserably on the logic test.

I recommend you pay more attention to more experienced Christians since they are excellent at the imagination game. Unfortunately they can’t help you with your logic problems.

Okinrus,

Our God defines existance. A very nice imaginative assertion that has of course zero value unless you can show it isn’t just imagination.

How exactly are we to prove he exists? I don’t care; he is your fantasy, unless you can show otherwise.

If God made fire come down to the earth each day then we would say it's nature, the sun in orbit.No, that would be superstition or just more speculative imagination. We could either admit we don’t know the cause or seek proof of the cause, i.e. use science perhaps.

And the last I heard science hasn’t discovered anything that might be construed as a god.

But tiassa,

You believe in a deity right? Won't you admit that this belief is entirely based on your particularly rich imagination? What else is there?

You believe in a deity right? Won't you admit that this belief is entirely based on your particularly rich imagination? What else is there?I'm hardly typical. I maintain a deity as a focus for recognizing the larger ideas of God. Beyond that, I've never been able to summarize Jung coherently, but stop and think that "God" is as real as "The United States of America".

It's only because the people involved choose to accept that it is so.

That concept obviously works two ways at least in the present consideration.

Yes, the deities are products of imagination. But they hold immense sway and cause practical results.

Jung's Collective Unconsciousness (http://religions.myztek.com/holbrook/colluncon.htm) ... despite its unfortunate title, this article has a summary of the Jungian concept I'm reaching for.

Of course, there's also a good dash of Douglas Adams thrown into my take on it.All esoteric teachings seek to apprehend the unseen happenings in the psyche, and all claim supreme authority for themselves. What is true of primitive lore is true in even higher degree of the ruling world religions. They contain a revealed knowledge that was originally hidden, and they set forth the secrets of the soul in glorious images. (C. G. Jung):m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Unless a god did exist at some time and doesn’t exist now.

Usually I think of God existing outside of time.


Ah but there is no difference between a god not existing and anything else that does not exist, in terms of their comparative properties they are identical. This means that Nilo can also refer to everything that does not exist.

Nilo is in the set of "everything that does not exist" however the comparative properties of the members are not necessary the same. For example unicorns are in the set of "everything that does not exist" but the properties of unicorns are completely different than Gods. I also didn't define where God exist. I guess I'm assuming that God's existance means that he interacts or relates to the universe in some way.

So there logically is a God but he might not share too much in common with us. He may not even be alive biologically as Nilo shows.What happens next is that the idea of God ceases to have consequence--e.g. judgment, redemption, punishment, will, compassion, &c.

A comparative point. An analogy of sorts:

- There is a viable argument that there is no true polytheism. We might look to the Greek and Roman pantheons in which many gods performed certain tasks and duties. Apollo could only do so much. Specific rites for Ceres did not work for Diana at Nemi. The argument against polytheism comes when you consider the idea of why the gods could only do so much, and required specific methods for communion. What is the force or authority that limits the actions of the many gods? This authority, which binds the gods of Greece or Rome or any other polytheistic society, is the source of the monotheistic idea. In Eastern cultures the idea seems to be already recognized; Basham notes Muller regarding henotheism, which manifested itself in India, apparently, as a tendency by the people to not get riled over theological switches; God was God was God, no matter what it was named this year or next. An element of this might actually be evident in the Ten Commandments; Thou shall have no other gods before me. The Lord, knowing the trials of the Jews past, present, and future, understood something that people don't necessarily grasp. It can be reasonably asserted that God, knowing the Hebrews would be subject to various authorities and the customary rituals thereof, simply sought to remind the Hebrews, "Whatever else happens, remember that God is God is God, and there is no two ways about it." Or, to approximate Marge Simpson, "Does that mean you're just going to pay lip-service at church?" Do what you have to in order to avoid the executioner's star, but remember that God is God is God.

- Likewise, comparatively, analogously ... we might look at Nilo-as-God, or, more entertainingly, God-Not-God. If, for instance, science is correct in presuming there to be a natural law to understand in the first place--e.g. so long as science isn't an incredibly coincidental stack of meaningless correlations--we might look to that theoretic law or set of laws describing natural behavior in the Universe and call that "God". We might also look to the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang occurred; the nature of the explosion determined the possible diversity of the elements and the energies. If one could represent mathematically the processes of the Big Bang which lead to the present reality, that equation could be said to be the Name of God. The prevailing order in the Universe--the seemingly undiscoverable mystery--is all that God is or ever was; everything else is a human-sponsored accretion, extra baggage picked up along the way.

You're closer than you think, Okinrus; I would dare suggest at this point that it's a matter of focus. You have the tools to defy the illusions of God and begin pursuit of the real deal. On the one hand, you'll be surprised at where the pure essences of the God idea cluster; to the other, it all looks different when there is no pretense of consequence to shadow your every thought.

The idea of God is merely a recognition of a knowledge that exists in potential, the knowledge that allows us to understand what humanity is and what it does in the Universe. Everything else people tell you about God ... nothing but a nest of illusions.

Imagine a hellish moment from human development: a slouching organism moving through the trees, primitive, unarmed, unarmored, generally instinctive. But imagine that, unlike other animals, it not only fears something, but for the first time in living history an organism is capable of thinking about the fact that it is afraid.

Feel the back of your skull, where the spinal cord meets the brain. There's a soft spot there in your skull, and you can be killed easily if struck there. But this seeming weakness is actually of huge value: it allows you to look up. Think about that, you lift your head, look at the sky, and what the hell are all those shiny things?!

Or a new reformulation of a few older ideas of mine:

- The creature sits atop the rock, afraid of the predator below.
- The creature sits atop the rock, afraid of the predator below, and distracted because it is thinking about the fact that it is afraid.
- The creature sits atop the rock in order to enjoy the warmth of the sun and think about the nature of the rock beneath it and the sky above it and whether or not these things are of any significance.

Humanity, abridged I admit, but presented in three separate phases.

But these moments are also part of the evolution of what would become the religious idea. I'll spare you the bit about fire gods.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

P.S. for Cris: Why is it that it's always your topics that I muck up like this? Actually, there might be a reason. But I did want to apologize for putting another of your topics through this phase, which you've witnessed probably three times before at least. However, I also wanted to thank you. Yours are among the few topics that can progress to such a point as I can make this argument relevant.

The idea of God is merely a recognition of a knowledge that exists in potential, the knowledge that allows us to understand what humanity is and what it does in the Universe. Everything else people tell you about God ... nothing but a nest of illusions.

True. However God tells us about Him. Our only Teacher is God and he instructs us. Listen closely to his voice and try to find signs in your life. Also stop worrying about hell so much too. All religions basically say "Love your neighbor as yourself" so do this but also recieve the love from others. Doubt is an emotion caused by thinking about doubt.

Okinrus,

Nilo is in the set of "everything that does not exist" however the comparative properties of the members are not necessary the same. The only defining property is that they do not exist. By that definition they have no choice but to be identical.

For example unicorns are in the set of "everything that does not exist" but the properties of unicorns are completely different than Gods.Unicorns are only different to Gods if one or both existed. When neither exists then the only point of comparison is their non-existence, which makes them identical.

However God tells us about Him. Our only Teacher is God and he instructs us. Listen closely to his voice and try to find signs in your life.I'm pretty sure it's a simple matter of focus. Cut away this "soft" part of the imagery. Nature will fill the void, I promise. Doubt is an emotion caused by thinking about doubt.See? I'm telling you ... it's a simple matter of focus. You obviously understand enough that you don't need the soft-boiled imagery.

To the other, remember that doubt is a good thing almost as soon as things are differentiated enough that some can be good. Doubt is what saves humanity from extinction. Of course, it can get a good man killed as quick as the next. But I'm an essential monist, it seems, so one man's doubt is another man's instinct is another man's golden wisdom. Either way ....

Then again, when we stop and consider that it only took Christianity, Satanism, witchcraft, Qabalism, atheism, Aleister Crowley, a Democrat in the Oval Office, and finally Sufism to get me to this point ... well, it's entirely possible that I'm wrong.

But that's also part of the point. If I ever tell you to relax, I know what I'm doing ... I'm lying to you at that moment.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Okinrus,

However God tells us about Him. Our only Teacher is God and he instructs us.
Not by any demonstrable mechanism. This again is indistinguishable to imagination.

Listen closely to his voice and try to find signs in your life. This is like looking at clouds, if you look carefully enough your imagination will allow you to see recognizable shapes.

Also stop worrying about hell so much too. I don’t since that appears to be also another imaginative realm.

All religions basically say "Love your neighbor as yourself" so do this but also receive the love from others. But many do that anyway, we don’t religions to tell us this.

Not by any demonstrable mechanism. This again is indistinguishable to imagination.

Possible, but if you hear a voice say "trust me" from
no where you are left with two conclusions: either
your insane or there is something out there. Now
if your insane(very possible in my case) it certainly won't hurt to believe in God anyways.


This is like looking at clouds, if you look carefully enough your imagination will allow you to see recognizable shapes.

The clouds are the demons of Jewish lore that block the true light of God. Stop looking at them!


To the other, remember that doubt is a good thing almost as soon as things are differentiated enough that some can be good. Doubt is what saves humanity from extinction. Of course, it can get a good man killed as quick as the next. But I'm an essential monist, it seems, so one man's doubt is another man's instinct is another man's golden wisdom. Either way ....

Then again, when we stop and consider that it only took Christianity, Satanism, witchcraft, Qabalism, atheism, Aleister Crowley, a Democrat in the Oval Office, and finally Sufism to get me to this point ... well, it's entirely possible that I'm wrong.

There's no joy in doubt. Doubt of God leads to having two minds: one sinful and the other good. And then we have to ask why does doubt of God feel so terrible?

And then we have to ask why does doubt of God feel so terrible?I think the answer is simple: because one chooses to make the issue of doubting God so important.

It's a particularly defensive neurosis. Religious neuroses are harder to treat with psychotherapy than others.

Give up your dualisms. Your soul will feel better in the morning.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Okinrus,

Usually I think of God existing outside of time.Without the constraints of reality anything can be imagined.

Originally posted by jps

There is clearly plain objective proof for the existence of Nyarlathotep, the Crawling Chaos.

Ahhh, but whom does he serve, if not the pulsating, hideous, amorphous Azathoth, center of the universe, god of tumult and delerium?

Okinrus,

There's no joy in doubt.That’s only a problem for those who have that perspective. If life is viewed as a series of experiences then doubt is just another experience, neither good nor bad. But for many, doubt encourages innovation and investigation. For those who want answers but do not want to do the work to find the answers then doubt will be a plague. But inventing an answer (e.g. there is a God) to remove the doubt is self delusion.

Life presents an enormous number of unanswered and unanswerable questions. But inventing a God whose primary attribute is having the answers to all questions, does nothing more than make believers feel comfortable, and that they do not have to bother with finding real answers.

Doubt of God leads to having two minds: one sinful and the other good. That doesn’t follow at all. That conclusion is based on conditioning. For many of us who have discarded such conditioning or have never been conditioned, then what we find is that we do not then suddenly start being evil. All that occurs is that rational morality kicks in, although there is some doubt as to whether it was ever absent.

There is perhaps some fear when it is realized that we are on our own and have to solve our own problems, but there is also an immense cathartic sense of relief and release when all the guilt based dogma of theistic religion is removed.

And then we have to ask why does doubt of God feel so terrible?The same reason why drug addicts feel withdrawal symptoms. There is always likely to be pain when any artificial support mechanism is removed or where there is fear of it being removed. Is it any surprise why so many billions of people follow a religion? They are addicted in the same way that millions of people still smoke. The issue with religion is that too many people cannot yet see it as a fatal addiction.

Originally posted by Cris
Can anyone credibly show that the concept of a god is anything more than a human imaginative fantasy?

If not then aren’t we realistically justified in concluding that such concepts are indeed nothing more than human fantasies?

Even though there are thousands of books written about gods aren't they all based on nothing more than an imaginative concept? Well, isn't human imgination real? So why would a product of this imagination be less real?
It's more a question of what reality is, and that is a purely philosophical one, that never will be answered unanimously.

Bebelina,

Well, isn't human imagination real? Very much so.

So why would a product of this imagination be less real?I agree, a flying green elephant is a real imaginative fantasy, no question about it. Note that the product of imagination is an imaginary object.

It's more a question of what reality is, and that is a purely philosophical one, that never will be answered unanimously.I agree to some degree but there is a massively significant difference between observable and detectable objects and objects that exist only in human imagination.

But there is also the question of credibility and possibility. I can easily imagine the details of a house I might design and build one day. It doesn’t exist now of course, but I know all the images can be translated into real objects. Here the imaginative concept could become a possibility and has the credibility of being real at some time.

The same cannot be said for things like gods and souls. While we can imagine/create the details in our minds of these things there is nothing in known reality where we can observe or detect such things. We have nothing that allows us to say that such things are possible, and without any precedent for similar objects we have no basis to give them credibility as potentially real objects. They are purely imaginary objects created as a result of human imagination.

We are building a house. Peter 2:1-10. However it is not out of mud like the egyptians: Exodus 1:14 "making life bitter for them with hard work in mortar and brick and all kinds of field work-- the cruel fate of slaves." Jesus is the cornerstone, the stone that mortally wounded Satan just as David mortally wounded Galiath with one stone.

the true question to be asking is not "Is God real?" is it "Did God make us or did we make God?"

There is some elemetary proof that the mere act of believing can have actual physical effects on the world that we percieve. Faith healing, snake handling, miracles, etc. Many of these are challenged by science today as not provable. This is, in fact the case, but there is a large amount of proof that observing something changes it. Take the photon. Is it a particle or a wave? The mere observation of this thing changes it. Just our perception of what it is causes it to be what it is. Thus, a correlation can be made that a mass perception of God as real could cause God to be real. In this case, God did not make man, but Man made God. This fits the idea that god is a fantasy of the human mind. But, God is as much a figment of the imagination as a photon. We enforce our perception on the universe at large by believing in God. The reason that we cannot scientifically prove the existence of God is that we do not percieve there being a scientific means of doing so.

There is some evidence just not conclusive. Can you explain the stigmata? Or fatima? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14294b.htm
http://www.padrepio.com/pp-stig.html

Okinrus,

Apparently unexplainable events do not represent evidence for a god. You are still using imagination to propose that a god is the cause. Until you can show that such events are caused by a god and nothing else, then I am free to use my imagainaition to propose other causes.

Anything can be used as evidence, even the bible. The real question is do we have enough evidence to believe in God? The stigmata of Padre Pio is real because a doctor examined it. So either he somehow injured himself or that he can somehow influence his flesh pschologically. This still cannot explain why his flesh would heal.
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=311

This still cannot explain why his flesh would heal. So if I take your meaning correctly, the only remaining possibility is that God exists and is directly responsible?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

The nature of most people's ideas of gods makes it impossible to conclusively prove that they don't exist. If a "supreme being" can't be found, it can be explained away by pointing out that any being with the power to create worlds and life forms, etc. would also have the power to remain invisible to those life forms.

Cris, just because something is not viewable or can be measured with instruments, doesn't mean that it can't exist, that it isn't real.
Wether it's a part of reality for you is if you acknowledge it's existence or not.
If you want to call it real, it is real for you, and just because someone else sees it differently doesn't change your original perception of it. It may change after hearing someone elses input, but that is just a matter of wether you accept that input as part of your reality.
We all have the right to experience this world in whatever manner we please.
If the physical world is your only reality, then that's ok, groovy for you. :D
I prefer to expand my reality all the time, instead of narrowing it down.
:m:

So if I take your meaning correctly, the only remaining possibility is that God exists and is directly responsible?

I believe this is the best answer, but you could make up an infinite possible reasons such as aliens causing the wounds.

Well, I have to admit, Okinrus, you're quite dedicated to your ideas.

If you'd just put a little more effort into thinking, you could break free of your religious fetters.

Believe me, though ... I well understand how comfortable it is to simply maintain. Change and progress can be difficult friends to get along with, so I won't give you any crap for not trying.

And no, that's not fair. But what do you want me to say? It's hard for me to remain sympathetic to a conscience that finds apathy its best option.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Bebelina,

Cris, just because something is not viewable or can be measured with instruments, doesn't mean that it can't exist, that it isn't real.That’s correct. But unless you can measure, detect, or observe it then you cannot determine whether it is a product of human imagination or not. All you know for sure is that you have imagined it, whether it eventually maps to a reality is another issue.

Whether it's a part of reality for you is if you acknowledge its existence or not.Personal perceptions of reality have no value unless they map onto true reality. Imagining something is real and believing it is real without knowing it is real reduces life to a lottery where the odds are stacked against you in the ratio of around infinity to 1 since there are an infinite number of things that can be imagined and only a small finite set that map to reality.

If you want to call it real, it is real for you, And as I said above such a position is essentially without value.

and just because someone else sees it differently doesn't change your original perception of it.But it should since that should make you question whether your perception is valid or not. To maintain your personal belief as true regardless of what others say or what evidence is available is simple arrogance.

It may change after hearing someone elses input, but that is just a matter of whether you accept that input as part of your reality.You seem to be ignoring the possibility that many people only believe based on rational objectivity. It is possible to take a stance where a conclusion is not reached or where belief is suspended until an objective rational conclusion can be reached. How that objectivity is determined cannot be decided solely on personal perceptions of reality but on an independent absolute standard. Developing that absolute standard is a real challenge that we may never fully achieve but it should require the cooperation of everyone or at least most of the members of our species. At the present time this is known as science. If everyone simply follows their own personal perceptions and calls that reality then that is a clear recipe for chaos, disaster and probably the ultimate extinction of the human race.

We all have the right to experience this world in whatever manner we please.Perhaps, but not if those experiences are allowed to lead to irrational perceptions that in turn result in harm to others.

If the physical world is your only reality, then that's ok, groovy for you. I’m interested in everything, and as yet no one has been able to show that there is anything other than the physical. Imagining there is something more doesn’t make it real.

I prefer to expand my reality all the time, instead of narrowing it down.But unless you know that your perceived reality maps to actual reality you simply run the significant risk of living in a world of delusion. But perhaps you can be happy with that. But I would prefer to know the truth.

Personal perception of reality is the only reality we can ever know.
Imagination is reality. We have identified the phenomena, we have given it a name, it is.
If you want to know if gods are imaginary objects or not, is actually a different quest than finding out wether they are real or not.
Imaginary objects are a reality since imagination is a reality, to put it simply.
And even if gods would be more than imaginary object, they are still real as such too.
If personal perception has no value for your peception of reality, well, then that's just your perception of reality.
Rational objectivity exists only in our imagination. We can never be anything but subjective, even regarding objectivity.
There will never be an independent absolute standard as such, just subjective perceptions of what that standard includes.
When perceptions collide we do harm eachother, in that you are right, that's why the world is in chaos, and maybe that's because chaos is a natural state of reality, it's its order. Or in other words, we perceive the world as chaos because we don't understands its order. All we can do is nurture different delusions of its presentation to our perception.
:D

Okinrus, you keep falling into the trap that many do. You argue with the assumption that God exists. Until you prove that, do not assume it, and do not base any reasoning upon it. You'll probably come back and say that I assume he doesn't exist. This is true. Simply for the following reasons: Nothing I see in the universe needs God.

When I park my car, leave it and come back, I assume it has been as I left it. I don't automatically assume that some fairies broke in while I was gone, drove my car about then brought it back and parked it just where it was, reset the odometer and refilled the fuel tank. That's pretty much how Christians view the world though. Why on earth have this elaborate view which isn't necessary or indeed even logical?

When I park my car, leave it and come back, I assume it has been as I left it. I don't automatically assume that some fairies broke in while I was gone, drove my car about then brought it back and parked it just where it was, reset the odometer and refilled the fuel tank. That's pretty much how Christians view the world though. Why on earth have this elaborate view which isn't necessary or indeed even logical?

Well it all started with a dream consisting of a car crash .... See it's just like driving a car. Follow the rules, go strait, fill it up with gas once and while, and your meet your destination. Otherwise the car and you will crash.

You so missed the point I was trying to make.

Christians assume that the universe needs God to make sense, that things can't be how they are without God.

Atheists know the universe is fine and makes sense without God.

I do not care about the universe. I care about myself and the mankind all of whom need God.

Originally posted by okinrus
I do not care about the universe. I care about myself and the mankind all of whom need God. Why?

The universe without us is a collection of dead matter.

Originally posted by okinrus
The universe without us is a collection of dead matter. And you know this how? You must travel alot.

If there is not a God then we can kill all the aliens and it wouldn't matter. We would effectively be dead matter with no soul.

The Soul is a Piece Of The Evolutionary Process.

Just as long as it's Gods EP then that's cool...
The soul does not exist in the physical world thus it's undetectable by the physical world.

The Evolution of the Mind, is Apart of the Evolutionary Process.

The mind is different than the soul. The mind is just a collection of data that the soul intereacts with.

Okinrus,

The mind is different than the soul. The mind is just a collection of data that the soul intereacts with.And that is again pure fantasy.

Can you prove your claim?

Okinrus,

The soul does not exist in the physical world thus it's undetectable by the physical world.So there is no possible way you can know a soul exists since you are entirely physical. Ah but you believe that the soul interacts with the physical mind. But how is that possible?

For the soul to interact with something physical there must be some type of physical component to the soul, ah but then how would that physical component interact with the non physical part? Hmm, so there must be another physical component to interact with the non-physical component of the physical component. Hmm, looks like an impossible infinite series.

But if we work perfectly well in the physical realm why would we need a soul. For this to make sense you need to explain how all the memories and emotions and personality properties that we hold in our brains can be reflected in some imaginary non-physical soul. How does one upload the data held in the patterns of 200 billion neurons to a non physical soul?

But, wait, what happens if the brain is damaged through a serious accident, and most of the personality and memories are lost? How does a soul now interact with only part of a mind? Is the soul also damaged? Or is the soul independent of the mind and doesn’t reflect personality and memory, but in that case the soul doesn’t seem to have any value or purpose.

I’m sorry but when examined more closely the concept of a soul is entirely ludicrous.

And if I am right and souls are just fictional fantasies then who cares if gods exist or not? It requires a soul for an afterlife or heaven or hell to make any sense. Without souls God can’t punish those who he wants to go to hell.

How was the soul created and how does it function, the only thing that could create and function the soul would be the brain, and nothing else.

The Soul is purely a creation of an undamaged brain.

MyMynomics,

How was the soul created and how does it function, the only thing that could create and function the soul would be the brain, and nothing else.

The Soul is purely a creation of an undamaged brain.So if there is a direct 1 to 1 correlation couldn’t we assume that there is no such thing as a soul, just a brain, right?

Yeah, We could assume that.

I guess my post went by unnoticed, maybe you all got me on ignore... :(

No doubt we could say Santa Clause exists but we could not say that he exists as a physical entity in this universe. Since God must exist outside of the universe we don't really have any place to qualify where God exists.

Bebelina,

I guess my post went by unnoticed, maybe you all got me on ignore... Nah, I'm giving you extra special time, so I can produce the high quality reply you deserve.;)

Oh, thank you, I apprechiate that.

You People need to do some research on the Human Brain

No doubt we could say Santa Clause exists but we could not say that he exists as a physical entity in this universe. Since God must exist outside of the universe we don't really have any place to qualify where God exists.

Ok, so how does that answer the question, or make ANY sense whatsoever?

But just so I could shoot you down a bit...:D

If you were to say Santa Claus exists, then we could prove you wrong. The thing he is proposed to do, he does not do. We would have interviews with the parents who went and bought the presents, the children who saw Mommy and Daddy putting the gifts under the tree, and the cashiers at the malls who will all vouche that the only thing they ever saw Santa doing was ask for money, not buy toys.

The saving grace for your relgion is that your God promises a lot, but is very vague about when he'll do it. Aside from the occasional "After a thousand years" claim, it's all up in the air as to when these things would happen. He always made unproveable promises, such as curses that were terrible because they would affect someone's entire lineage, or the claim to Abraham that his line would live on for all time. So, basically, you get to walk around claiming all these terrible things, and no one can prove you wrong, because the time it was to take place hasn't passed yet. There hasn't been a Y2K for Christianity, so to speak, for your ludacris beliefs to be called out onto the carpet and proved wrong in front of the masses. (Though there are a few times in which semi-specific times are metioned and nothing happened; such as when Peter told his followers that the world would end during the lifetimes of some of those who heard him preech. Hmm...I'm here now, aren't I? And there are no apostles now, nor is there anyone who God is speaking to directly, or walking physically in front of, as there were in those times, but nobody notices.)

It's just too convienent that you can pretend to know exactly what you're talking about (99% of which you don't even get from the Bible; you make up yourselves) yet the second someone makes a point that you cannot defeat, you fall back on the nonsensical, stupid comments such as the one I quoted at the top of this post. The second you cannot sway us, you just talk bullshit. But even there you are swaying from the teachings; in the bible, you're taught to skip the swaying part, and go right to the bullshit.

JD *Edit was becuase I typed "YK2" in origional post...had to fix that one!*

It's just too convienent that you can pretend to know exactly what you're talking about (99% of which you don't even get from the Bible; you make up yourselves) yet the second someone makes a point that you cannot defeat, you fall back on the nonsensical, stupid comments such as the one I quoted at the top of this post. The second you cannot sway us, you just talk bullshit. But even there you are swaying from the teachings; in the bible, you're taught to skip the swaying part, and go right to the bullshit.

This was in response to Bebelinas post that God existed in our imagination. Sway us from what. It is a fact that we have to qualify where something exist. Unicorns exist in our imagination so they exist, but they do not exist in the real world. Since God exists outside of the universe, where does he exist if at all?

Okinrus,

This was in response to Bebelinas post that God existed in our imagination. Sway us from what. It is a fact that we have to qualify where something exist. Unicorns exist in our imagination so they exist, but they do not exist in the real world. Since God exists outside of the universe, where does he exist if at all?I largely agree although if we are not sure if God exists can we then make a statement that he exists outside the universe?

If the term "universe" means everything then I'm not sure that it makes sense to talk about something outside of everything. One might say that an alleged supernatural is distinct from the physical universe, but then that seems to be limiting the definition of the universe. If anything becomes an observable or detectable phenomenon then it must exist within the universe. If the supernatural can react with anything then it must be part of the universe.

If God and/or the supernatural is outside of everything then isn’t that just another way to say that such things do not exist?

Yes, the word universe means all that is and should therefore include whatever there might be, gods, unicorns, you name it. There is no outside of the universe, when you reach the outside, there's nothing, maybe an on-off button just to point out the obvious.
So all that is labeled supernatural is within the universe. If it is physically detective is another issue, maybe in time when we have invented the right instruments, or maybe when our brains has evolved so that everybody can perceive what only a few can do now, but even then the perception of whatever there might be is purely individual.
Some say that the individual can tap into the consciousness of the universe, since it's a part of it, but unless we experience that for ourselves it becomes only an intellectual caramel, like this debate.

If there is a God then the universe must be created by him.


If the term "universe" means everything then I'm not sure that it makes sense to talk about something outside of everything. One might say that an alleged supernatural is distinct from the physical universe, but then that seems to be limiting the definition of the universe. If anything becomes an observable or detectable phenomenon then it must exist within the universe. If the supernatural can react with anything then it must be part of the universe.

I thought the universe only defined this particular world. I've also heard many theories of multiple universes. If there is a God then the universe must be created by him. Also the universe is expanding into empty space, but is the empty space part of the universe?

Okinrus,

I thought the universe only defined this particular world. You didn’t really think that did you?

That was the thinking of the bible authors and why most of what they wrote is of little value to us now.

I've also heard many theories of multiple universes. These tend to be miss-uses of the term since they depend on a limited popular concept of what is meant by universe.

Current theory from physics describes multiple universes as bubbles within a single universe. I.e. the material and energy that forms from a big bang would be one such bubble, which most people think of as an entire universe. The theory includes the possibility of a potentially infinite number of bubbles co-existing and at different stages of evolution, all within a single universe.

Science fiction also includes the concept of parallel universes where the current universe is repeated and phase-shifted and/or time-shifted through an infinite number of minute variations. There are many versions of these themes including the concept of effective time-travel where the universes are all identical but time-shifted from each other – so to travel through time one simply travels horizontally through the parallel universes.

If there is a God then the universe must be created by him. God with an upper case G is the name given to the god of Christianity, although Islam and Judaism use the same name. Such a god is defined as a creator of the universe, so I agree if such a god existed then it must have created the universe.

However, if you are using the sentence as an attempt at logic then it is invalid and/or ambiguous.

If the universe is infinite, i.e. has no beginning, then a creator god could never exist. This does not rule out the existence of a god but it would have to be defined differently.

Also the universe is expanding into empty space, but is the empty space part of the universe?That is a somewhat simplistic view of the universe. If empty space can be said to exist then it would be part of the universe. If your view of the universe is a single big bang bubble then it would be more accurate to say that the universe is expanding. There is no need to say it is expanding into something. However, I understand it is intuitive to think of it that way.

We could also consider the universe as infinite in size, in which case there is nowhere for it to expand, but I’m sure you are thinking only of the single big bang perspective. But this would solve the expansion into empty space problem. However, the theory of multiple bubbles also considers the possibility that each bubble might be formed with slightly different rules of physics. It is not clear what would happen if two such dissimilar bubbles collided. Current thinking is that the distance between them would be so great that they would expand and dissipate before they ever met.

"Throughout the dervish literature you will find us saying repeatedly that we are not concerned with your religion or even your lack of it, how can this be reconciled with the fact that believers consider themselves the elect?
Man's refinement is the goal, and the inner teaching of all the faiths aims at this.In order to accomplish it there is always a tradition handed down by a living chain of adepts, who select candidates to whom to impart this knowledge.
Among men of all kinds this teaching has been handed down. Because of our dedication to the essence, we have, in the Dervish Path, collected those people who are less concerned about externals, and thus kept pure, in secret, our capacity to continue the succession. In the dogmatic religions of the Jews, the Christians,the Zoroastrians,the Hindus & literalist Islam this precious thing has been lost.
We return this vital principle to all these religions & this is why you will see so many Jews, Christians & others among my follwers. The Jews say that we are the real Jews,the Christians, Christians.
It is only when you know the Higher Factor that you will know the true situation of the present religions & of unbelief itself. And unbelief itself is a religion with its own form of belief" - Sufi Ahmad Yasavi

This may ofcourse not appeal to some but the entire book, "The Way of the Sufis" - Idries Shah would have to be read , somewhere in that book is this too - this knowledge is like a pearl, you have to immerse yourself in the water to obtain it, it cannot be given, even further - 'those who know cannot tell', but on the way if the means become an end there is no arriving.

Well, a personal god is kind of unbelieveable. But there could be a non-personal god, all science is based on physical things (5 senses, just electrical signals), god could be non-physical. How can proof be gathered since science is based on the physical? Perhaps, I'm wrong, perhaps I'm right, but no proof can be gathered beyond our 5 senses........

Originally posted by VitalOne
Well, a personal god is kind of unbelieveable. But there could be a non-personal god, all science is based on physical things (5 senses, just electrical signals), god could be non-physical. How can proof be gathered since science is based on the physical? Perhaps, I'm wrong, perhaps I'm right, but no proof can be gathered beyond our 5 senses........

It seems that one's perception of God manifests in their sixth sense. They know he's there, but they just can't explain him. I prefer "it" to "him." Sense we don't know a lot about the workings of the sixth sense at this point in time, perhaps in time we can scientifically produce God. I don't know. I tend to think of God as a force of positive energy which CAN be explained. Everything in creation has different degrees of energy. Creative energy? Those who tend to think of God as an individual being, well this is just too far-fetched. Energy can live in everything as far as I know.

Originally posted by okinrus
The universe without us is a collection of dead matter.

Without a mind to perceive it, there is no universe.

What could possibly make you think it would be otherwise?

Originally posted by okinrus
Just as long as it's Gods EP then that's cool...
The soul does not exist in the physical world thus it's undetectable by the physical world.

What exactly determines the quality of a soul? Don't deeds in the physical world do this?

If so, the soul is very much a part of the physical world. It is a reflection of one's physical state, just like the mind.

Without a mind to perceive it, there is no universe.

Incorrrect. Please read: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_RealityIsAbsolute.html

Reality Is Absolute:
The Primacy of Existence

Francis Bacon knew that in order to command nature, one must act according to its rules and identity. The statement Reality is Absolute is the explicit recognition of the primacy of existence. This means that reality is not subject to wishes, whims, prayers, or miracles. If you want to change the world, you must act according to reality. Nothing else will affect reality. If you evade this fact, your actions will most likely not have their desired effects. Your failure will be metaphysical justice.

The primacy of existence states the irrefutable truth that existence is primary and consciousness is secondary. Consciousness is the faculty which perceives and identifies existents (things that exists). For two reasons we say that existence is primary, that consciousness requires existence, and that there is no consciousness without existence.

Because consciousness identifies existents, there can be no consciousness without something existing to perceive. Nothing can have an identity (to be identified) without existing. The fact that something is identified necessarily implies its existence which necessarily implies existence in general. Thus there is no consciousness without existence.

Because consciousness identifies existents, consciousness itself must exist in order to do the identifying. Along the lines of Descartes cogito, to be conscious (to identify), a consciousness must exist. A faculty can not operate and not exist at the same time. A verb without a noun makes no sense, and the noun must exist in order for the verb to take place.

Consciousness is not responsible for creating reality or creating an individual reality. It is completely dependent upon reality. Existence is primary because it is independent of, makes possible, and is a prerequisite of consciousness.

All forms of mysticism derive from the false premise of the primacy of consciousness, which is demonstratively false. Also, the assertion that existence somehow requires consciousness, sometimes called the Interdependence Theory, is arbitrary at best without objective basis.

Incorrrect. Please read: http://www.importanceofphilosophy.c...IsAbsolute.html Reality Is Absolute: The Primacy of Existence Francis Bacon knew that in order to command nature, one must act according to its rules and identity. The statement Reality is Absolute is the explicit recognition of the primacy of existence. This means that reality is not subject to wishes, whims, prayers, or miracles. If you want to change the world, you must act according to reality. Nothing else will affect reality. If you evade this fact, your actions will most likely not have their desired effects. Your failure will be metaphysical justice. The primacy of existence states the irrefutable truth that existence is primary and consciousness is secondary. Consciousness is the faculty which perceives and identifies existents (things that exists). For two reasons we say that existence is primary, that consciousness requires existence, and that there is no consciousness without existence. Because consciousness identifies existents, there can be no consciousness without something existing to perceive. Nothing can have an identity (to be identified) without existing. The fact that something is identified necessarily implies its existence which necessarily implies existence in general. Thus there is no consciousness without existence. Because consciousness identifies existents, consciousness itself must exist in order to do the identifying. Along the lines of Descartes cogito, to be conscious (to identify), a consciousness must exist. A faculty can not operate and not exist at the same time. A verb without a noun makes no sense, and the noun must exist in order for the verb to take place. Consciousness is not responsible for creating reality or creating an individual reality. It is completely dependent upon reality. Existence is primary because it is independent of, makes possible, and is a prerequisite of consciousness. All forms of mysticism derive from the false premise of the primacy of consciousness, which is demonstratively false. Also, the assertion that existence somehow requires consciousness, sometimes called the Interdependence Theory, is arbitrary at best without objective basis.

This is all wrong. That's like saying everything in a dream is real, and exists. And I guess when you hallucinate what you see is also real. The Brain stem sends signals to the brain, and the brain tries to make sense of them - thats all reality is. All reality is subjective, and depends on the observer. Like reality to a bat isn't the same as to a human. Even Quantum Physics says that a material object cannot exist without an observer. No observers, no material objects - not the other way around. Without consciousness, there is no reality. Your brain (consciousness) creates the reality, not the other way around. I mean, if everyone were deaf, blind , and paralyzed reality would be completely different.

<i><b>No observers, no material objects - not the other way around. Without consciousness, there is no reality. Your brain (consciousness) creates the reality, not the other way around. I mean, if everyone were deaf, blind , and paralyzed reality would be completely different.</b></i>
If there is no observer then there is <i>effectively</i> no existance; that is, something could exist but if unobserved, we could treat it as non-existant. This presumes the non-existance of a God who observes everything.


What exactly determines the quality of a soul? Don't deeds in the physical world do this?

No, not directly at least. The deeds within the physical world is only a manifestation of our "yes" to God within us. Mary and Paul knew this well.


If so, the soul is very much a part of the physical world. It is a reflection of one's physical state, just like the mind.

Well there's a link between the physical and the spirtual world. Someone may percieve that as an extra-dimension or something else. We also don't know how narrow the interface is. For all we know, the soul may only control one electron of the brain. However, I suspect it's a group, and even then, these electrons may be under laws of nature until the soul freely chooses something.

that is, something could exist but if unobserved, we could treat it as non-existant.

Something only exists when observed (to the observer), meaning it doesn't exist when it isn't observed. We wouldn't "treat it as non-existant", to the observer it quite literally wouldn't exist, to other observers it may exist. It's like ideas or memories.

Can anyone credibly show that the concept of a god is anything more than a human imaginative fantasy?
i believe we have gone through it in this thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29338 . But the question you pose depends entirely on one's definition of "god". So if you donot want your subjective realization of what a god is, then sure, I will go through the motions again.

But the question you pose depends entirely on one's definition of "god".

A god is a supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.

Lets see if the thread starter replies in kind.

This is all wrong. That's like saying everything in a dream is real, and exists. And I guess when you hallucinate what you see is also real. The Brain stem sends signals to the brain, and the brain tries to make sense of them - thats all reality is. All reality is objective, and depends on the observer. Like reality to a bat isn't the same as to a human. Even Quantum Physics says that a material object cannot exist without an observer. No observers, no material objects - not the other way around. Without consciousness, there is no reality. Your brain (consciousness) creates the reality, not the other way around. I mean, if everyone were deaf, blind , and paralyzed reality would be completely different.

This is from an objectivist website, therefore you didn't understand the premise.

I'm getting the feeling that many of you here don't beleive in anything outside of your own mind, therefore a debate is impossible.

Hey, and2000x, I thought you didnt like Objectivists, or was it only Ayn Rand?

Originally posted by (Q)
But the question you pose depends entirely on one's definition of "god".

A god is a supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.

Close. If we're speaking of the Creator of the universe, "God" would be a natural life force of positive energy. All other "gods" would by definition would be what you cited above.

This is from an objectivist website, therefore you didn't understand the premise. I'm getting the feeling that many of you here don't beleive in anything outside of your own mind, therefore a debate is impossible.

Actually I believe in Subjectivism, I meant to say all reality is subjective and depends on the observer. Objectivism makes no sense, science tells us that our reality is based on our mind.

Originally posted by okinrus
[BWell there's a link between the physical and the spirtual world. Someone may percieve that as an extra-dimension or something else. We also don't know how narrow the interface is. For all we know, the soul may only control one electron of the brain. However, I suspect it's a group, and even then, these electrons may be under laws of nature until the soul freely chooses something. [/B]

"...a link between the physical and spiritual world." What do you think this "link" might be? The brain, the mind, the psyche? Where is that brain located?

"...until the soul freely chooses something." The One Spirit of God, our soul, is eternal. The thing it "freely chooses" is to incarnate in each of us--the human race.