How can God not exist?

Basically because nothing else makes sense if I don't.

I'm sure.

Maybe but not necessarily no.

Normal? Not sure. However, intense psychedelics might require it of you.

I can't see how your "actual observation" makes any sense at all then.

I'd think more like "settled upon" rather than "invented" because I think language is sort of like that, but yeah close enough. If it didn't get "invented" it wouldn't be part of the language, like any word.

I don't think so, no. Sounds like a lot of things all jumbled up there. We should do a case by case basis to sort it out.

Were it so, it would be a reasonable question sure. Either way, fine. However, if this is exactly your question then we should be focusing on specific impossibilities and sorting them out.

? I don't think the idea of God requires a lot of information to invent.... it seems fairly easy in hindsight.

I've answered what seemed pertinent to me in each instance of question/statement.

I know you're present, and that you can deal with the bullshit I spew.

If you want to address the above, let's do it. Fire away with the instance of impossibility you want to address and let's do it (let's try to recitify one impossibility at a time though if you don't mind).

Well let's see then. I think it does and you're hiding it from yourself, but I'm an ass - so fire away. Let's do this (will be out most of the day today but will hop back in tonight).

Maybe hell with it I'll start:

What must be preconcieved such that one might concieve the idea of god?
Seems pretty demonstrable in children. They don't have to know about much before the idea can be introduced to them pretty easily.

In fact I don't think you need to know much of anything to understand the idea. What you need are questions to which you do not know the answer. Then you offer "god" (all powerful, etc) and now you "know" the answer.

Your turn.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some people are delusional.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If I were to go for a walk, you would have me not bother because you know I'll end up back home where I started? I feel better for having taken the walk. Sometimes I see stuff I didn't notice last time I went a similar route.

Of course.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I sed:

"In principle, there is one sense in which circular reasoning isn't actually that - when it produces the results it was supposed to."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Not to me.

Of course, a lot depends on what your definition of "God" is.

If you go with "creator, controller and maintainer of the Universe" then perhaps there is an evident-enough parallel to daily human experience - just like humans are in charge of their families and farms, so God is conceived of as being in charge of the whole Universe and everything in it.
(Conversely, if people don't feel in charge of their families and farms, they might not think someone is in charge of the Universe.)

But if your definition is "the one person who is truly worthy of all my love and the only one who is capable to reciprocate it" - I don't think many would come up with that one just like that, even though it is actually implicitly or explicitly the standard one in many religions.

 

Haven't you ever been madly infatuated with someone Signal? Haven't you ever felt like the object of your affection was the only truly "real" person in the universe, and the only one who could return that affection to your satisfaction? I know I have, more than once.

What about when you were a child and you idolized an adult? It might have been your favourite football/tennis/basketball player, or an uncle, or a friend of the family. When I was a kid sometimes such a person would be the coolest person in all of existence and I would literally worship them as if they were a god. I'd seek their approval and would do anything to hang out with them.

 

No and no.
As long as I can remember, I have had a sense of "Oh, but surely there must be more to life and love than this." (Of course, many people tried very hard to make me feel guilty about this dissatisfaction, and to some extent, they succeeded.)

 

When strong emotions take over. In a dispute, when overcome by lust, greed or grief.
In an intense emotional state, it is as if other people, or oneself, stop existing (and seem to become mere types, or objects).
Which is at least once a day.

I generally agree - the "God of philosophy" does not require faith, only a philosophically inclined mind.

Hence things like the 20 arguments for God's existence.

 

Since I have had such experiences it's very easy for me to see how the concept of God is something of a stand-in for experiences people have had before and typically long to have again. As far as I am concerned there is absolutely nothing about the concept of God that doesn't have an analog somewhere within the natural sphere of human experience.

 

I seriously doubt that the majority of the population has had the experiences you describe.
I think it is safe to say that most people find that existence is generally unsatisfactory.

 

Certainly in countries where people are unfortunate enough to be struggling for survival instead of trying to carve out an enjoyable existence for themselves such experiences might be less common. But in most western countries, idolizing heroes and falling madly in love is indeed commonplace.

I'm genuinely sorry that you feel that way. Life has it's challenges that's for sure, but I can honestly say that I find life to be an incredible adventure. Rarely do I forget that existence itself is quite a remarkable thing.

 

And what do you think was the usual default several thousand years ago, when some say that the God-myth was invented?

People lived in luxury, free to pursue their romantic passions and such?

 

wes,


Here is a single text from the Bhagavat Purana.

etena hi divo maṇḍala-mānaḿ tad-vida upadiśanti yathā dvi-dalayor niṣpāvādīnāḿ te antareṇāntarikṣaḿ tad-ubhaya-sandhitam

TRANSLATION:

As a grain of wheat is divided into two parts and one can estimate the size of the upper part by knowing that of the lower, so, expert geographers instruct, one can understand the measurements of the upper part of the universe by knowing those of the lower part. The sky between the earthly sphere and heavenly sphere is called antarikṣa, or outer space. It adjoins the top of the sphere of earth and the bottom of that of heaven.


1. upper part of the universe - divah (divo)

2. the sky, or outer space - antarikSha,

3. intermediate space - antarena

4. ball/ circle/ globe - mandAla

5. measure - maana


How could they know;

what a universe is (one sanskrit meaning for universe is ''jaganAnda)
that we are on a planet
that there is ''outer space''
that the planet they are on is the shape of a ball

For that matter, how would they know what a ''ball'' is?

And why on earth would they imagine it had been measured.
In fact how do they know about measurement.

You're kidding aren't you?
You're probably refering to the abrahamic scriptures where the scripture is made simpler to accomadate the mentality of the people of that time.
The oldest known scripture (vedas) give a complete description of God, the jewel being the Bhagavad Gita (the song of God).
If you can understand ''Spinoza's God'' (which is quite complex), then you are only touching the outer surface of the vedas.
These primitive folk who conjured up God within their imagination, must have been smoking some serious weed, if the skeptics are to be believed.

I don't know.
That is a question for you to answer as you are skeptical of God.

Sure. But where does the idea come from?
That is the question.
If people did ''start'' the idea via their imagination, for the purpose of understanding phenomena such as thunder and lightening,
then it must be said they got far more than they ever imagined.


jan.

 

Sorry, I forgot to add;

here is a link for Bhagavat Purana

and one for Vedas


jan.

 

I'm confused... are you putting this forward as evidence that they knew more than they should at that time, and thus it should be considered evidence for God('s influence)??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or that people who knew these things also believed in God, and thus the idea should be given credence on that basis?

 

People still fell madly in love and children still idolized people who were older and/or more prominent/capable than themselves. I can't speak with any authority on whether such things were any more or less common than they are today, but if you're trying to argue that similar conceptions of certain aspects of God's character couldn't have been derived from within the natural sphere of human experience then you'd have to demonstrate that people didn't fall madly in love and didn't idolize adults when they were children. Not only would that be impossible, any such suggestion would clearly be absurd.

 

My question is. How did they know?
We may or may not figure out whether or not it is evidence of something,
but that is not important at this moment.

jan.

 

I would suggest that it was through observation, creating theories and testing through prediction.
Are you suggesting an alternative that is more rational?

 

Are you aware of how old these texts are?

jan.

 

Yes - at least 3,200 years old, I think. Possibly up to 5,000 or so.

Why does this matter?
Do you think people were stupid back then?
You think they weren't capable of astronomy?
They fortunately seemed to have a large and stable enough civilisation to allow people time to ponder such matters.
That their society then collapsed and much of their learning lost... unfortunate.

Are you suggesting a more rational alternative?