Does the concept of a god prove the existence of a god?

[truththedog]

This thread has went from how we tell what a real Christian is to how we know who God is. As I read through the posts debating first about who a Christian is and then how does anyone prove what they believe I had one thought. Where does the concept of God come from?

I can't think of anything that has formed in this world completely on it's own. Any drug induced visions have been circumspect from the life a person has lived. Just like dreams that are had when people sleep. These concepts come from something. Why do we have the concept of God if there is no God?

[David B]

This thread has went from how we tell what a real Christian is to how we know who God is. As I read through the posts debating first about who a Christian is and then how does anyone prove what they believe I had one thought. Where does the concept of God come from?

I can't think of anything that has formed in this world completely on it's own. Any drug induced visions have been circumspect from the life a person has lived. Just like dreams that are had when people sleep. These concepts come from something. Why do we have the concept of God if there is no God?

Hi, truththedog.

Nice to meet you, and welcome to the boards.

It's sort of traditional - though not compulsary - for new users to make an introductory post in the Lounge - a place here that you won't have been able to see before registering.

I hope you don't mind, but I'll take it upon myself to tell you a little bit about board etequette here.

We try, broadly, to keep threads on topic - and in this case the topic is how to tell tue Christians from pretend ones. We don't always succeed, totally - a few little asides are generally turned a blind eye to. Your question, though, seems to me to have a lot of life in it in it's own right, so I think it needs a separate thread.

Another broad aim is to have threads in the most appropriate forum. I'm not sure that GRD is the right one for this.

What I'm going to do now is to go to a forum you can't see to discuss with fellow mods if your post needs to be split off in a separate thread, and, if so, where.

So don't be surprised if you find your post moved, if other mods agree with me. They don't always.

David B

[TNorthover]

I've split these posts off from the original thread; the concepts seem much more at home in EoG.

[TNorthover]

I can't think of anything that has formed in this world completely on it's own. Any drug induced visions have been circumspect from the life a person has lived. Just like dreams that are had when people sleep. These concepts come from something. Why do we have the concept of God if there is no God?


But if you look back at the history of gods, they have developed slowly from existing notions. The Greek pantheon was basically a bunch of powerful humans, complete with human failings and interests. Later religions have added more and more mystery, but you can still see the development.

Do stories about dragons prove that dragons existed? Or what about leprechauns? We're very imaginative when you get right down to it.

[Alethias]

Why do we have the concept of God if there is no God?Why do we have the concept of Santa Claus if there is no Santa Claus?

Specifically, in what way to you feel that humans having the ability to hold a type of thought in their minds validate the existence of something represented by that type of thought?

Alethias

[Stumpjumper]

Why do we have the concept of God if there is no God?


That was an argument put forth by Karl Rahner in a book I read recently...

Here is an abstract of that chapter: http://users.adelphia.net/~markfischer/Rahner200.htm#Chapter%20II,%20Part%201

[David B]

I can't think of anything that has formed in this world completely on it's own.

That would seem to me to depend on on how 'formed completely on its own' is to be understood. As an example of what I mean, let's look at the example of a snowflake. On the one hand, you could argue that a snowflake forming is not forming on its own, because the the conditions of water vapour, temperature, and speck of dust or something to start it off need to be there as antecedents for a snowflake to form. OTOH, you could argue that it is forming on its own, because there is no entity forming it. Some clarification on how you use the expression would be helpful.

Any drug induced visions have been circumspect from the life a person has lived.

I'm not sure that 'circumspect' is quite the right word you are looking for here. Would 'influenced by' be better than 'circumspect from'?

Just like dreams that are had when people sleep. These concepts come from something.

Am I right in thinking that what you are really getting at here is the notion of causality?


Why do we have the concept of God if there is no God?

There are lots of conceptions of god, many of which are mutually incompatible with other conceptions of god. Even many conceptions of the god of the bible, which are often incompatable with other conceptions of the god of the bible. So it seems that some conceptions of god are necessarily false. Hence we can have conceptions of god which are false - and many people do. Some might tend to the view that all conceptions of god are false:)

Also, why do we have the concept of a winged horse (like Pegasus in Greek mythology) if there is no winged horse? Or any other fictional charactor? Or any supernatural entity?

I'll tell you my speculations - they are no more than that - concerning how beliefs in supernatural entities arose. For you to consider and comment on.

I speculate that dreams had something to do with it - particulary a very vivid and real seeming sort of dream called sleep paralysis.
http://skepdic.com/sleepparalysis.html

I speculate that taking psychotropic substances had something to do with it - something which seems to be pretty ubiquitous, anthropologically.

And I speculate that there is a human tendency to ascribe intent to things, which served as an evolutionary advantage for long periods of prehistory, but is often taken too far.

Let's see if I can give an illustration of what I mean. Ascribing intent to animals can be useful in hunting and avoiding predation. Thinking something like 'this sort of animal will want to come to this waterhole to drink' so if we set up an ambush at the waterhole, then we have a good chance of eating' is useful.

On the other hand, ascribing intent to other natural phenomena - lightning, volcanoes, earthquakes, disease, falling and cutting oneself, floods....might well lead to thinking that ones ancestors, some local imagined deity, some sorceror is behind the phenomenon - as seems to be pretty much the case in anthropological studies of hunter gatherers today.

Those are my speculations about how the concept of a god or gods could have arison.

Are they reasonable, do you think?

They don't demand the existence of an actual god or gods.

But then they could, don't you think, have some explanatory power concerning the origin of the concept of Leprochauns.

Would you argue that because we have a concept of Leprochauns, there have to be Leprochauns?

David B

[alienward]

That was an argument put forth by Karl Rahner in a book I read recently...

Here is an abstract of that chapter: http://users.adelphia.net/~markfischer/Rahner200.htm#Chapter%20II,%20Part%201From the link:

Part 2: The Knowledge of God.

(II.2, p. 51). In this most challenging part of Chapter II, Rahner begins with the fundamental idea that we know God in our reflection on experience, but not as some entity that we can “prove” independently of experience (A). Before any natural or revealed knowledge of God, we have an encounter with God (B). This encounter is given in the human experience of transcendence. This experience is mysterious, for it is both given to us (subjectively) and is something upon which we can (objectively) reflect (C).
When I can’t even get through one paragraph about how we know there’s a god without running into excuses why we can’t prove it exists, and claims we experience a god but it’s mysterious, the only conclusion I reach is I’m reading the work of a con artist.

The concepts of gods come from figments of people’s imaginations and con artists who make a living convincing people those concepts are real.

[Stumpjumper]

When I can’t even get through one paragraph about how we know there’s a god without running into excuses why we can’t prove it exists, and claims we experience a god but it’s mysterious, the only conclusion I reach is I’m reading the work of a con artist.

The concepts of gods come from figments of people’s imaginations and con artists who make a living convincing people those concepts are real.

Ah yes, the con artist argument. That one gets a little old don't you guys think ;)

Why would you be able to deductively prove the existence of the concept that represents the sum and source of existence?

We are free, subjective beings and experience absolutes as abstractions not as provable conclusions...

[FatherMithras]

Why do we have the concept of unicorns, cyclopes, and pokemon if they're not real? Same answer: imagination!

[Stacey Melissa]

Where does the concept of God come from?

I can't think of anything that has formed in this world completely on it's own. Any drug induced visions have been circumspect from the life a person has lived. Just like dreams that are had when people sleep. These concepts come from something. Why do we have the concept of God if there is no God?
I suppose it should come as no surprise to you that people created the Bible god in their own image, with decidely human characteristics. The Bible god walked with humans in the Garden of Eden; he hid his face, but not his hindside from Moses. He was transported in the Ark. He has human emotions like contentment, regret, jealousy, love, anger, and so on. In the NT, the Bible god even went so far as to become a human.

The concept of the Bible god came from people. The people who imagined him used themselves as the template.

[ynquirer]

Why do we have the concept of unicorns, cyclopes, and pokemon if they're not real? Same answer: imagination!

I'd say there is a slight difference. While unicorns, cyclopes, and pokemon are local productions - unicorns and cyclopes are ancient Greek, pokemon is Japanese, Santa Claus is Anglo-American - god or gods seem to be universal, that is, produced even by the most isolated cultures.

[David B]

I'd say there is a slight difference. While unicorns, cyclopes, and pokemon are local productions - unicorns and cyclopes are ancient Greek, pokemon is Japanese, Santa Claus is Anglo-American - god or gods seem to be universal, that is, produced even by the most isolated cultures.

But all sorts of concepts with all sorts of different attributes are lumped together under the same blanket heading of gods and goddesses.

Is my memory at fault, or do I remember reading about some cases where isolated cultures just believe in the surviving spirits of their ancestors, anyway?

David B

[TNorthover]

I'd say there is a slight difference. While unicorns, cyclopes, and pokemon are local productions - unicorns and cyclopes are ancient Greek, pokemon is Japanese, Santa Claus is Anglo-American - god or gods seem to be universal, that is, produced even by the most isolated cultures.

They're all mythological creatures, probably with just as much in common with each other as the various gods we invented do. I don't think that distinction is all that strong. On the other hand, they'd be patterned after actual animals I suppose; but on the third hand, god's would be patterned after people.

[Stacey Melissa]

I'd say there is a slight difference. While unicorns, cyclopes, and pokemon are local productions - unicorns and cyclopes are ancient Greek, pokemon is Japanese, Santa Claus is Anglo-American - god or gods seem to be universal, that is, produced even by the most isolated cultures.
"Gods" is a much broader term than "unicorn." A unicorn is a very specific entity. Thus, it's not so likely that cultures all around the world would all make up a unicorn. A god, though, can be just about any supernatural entity. Hell, it could even be a unicorn, if the unicorn has magical powers such as being both pink and invisible at the same time.

The thing that makes something supernatural/magical to us, is if it can do something that we don't (yet) have a natural explanation for. IOW, if it can do something for which we are ignorant about the mechanisms of, it's a "god." And ignorance can be found in all cultures. Thus, all cultures have imagined beings to magically fill in the gaps in their knowledge. Gods are universal among cultures because ignorance is universal among cultures.

[Cheerful Charlie]

This thread has went from how we tell what a real Christian is to how we know who God is. As I read through the posts debating first about who a Christian is and then how does anyone prove what they believe I had one thought. Where does the concept of God come from?

I can't think of anything that has formed in this world completely on it's own. Any drug induced visions have been circumspect from the life a person has lived. Just like dreams that are had when people sleep. These concepts come from something. Why do we have the concept of God if there is no God?

What concept? God concept? There are many god concepts.
I have been thinking about this hard for a year or so and have come up
with about 25 broad classes of god ideas.

Everything from classes of creator, omni-everything gods, which are johnny-come-latelys
to the god game, to nature-tutelary gods, metaphysical types of gods, Artistotle's prime mover,
or Alfred North Whitehead's process theology god. We have animism, all things have spirits.
We have myth cycle gods, which gods usually map to omni-everything creator gods or
nature gods.

I suspect ealiest gods were animist gods, the idea that everything had a spirit, man,
animals, wind and rain, plants, everything.

By 4000 BCE, the first religious writings show us a world of polytheism, many gods in
heirarchies. Nature gods were also common and myth cycle gods often took on nature
god duties. Big gods like the Christian bible god or Quranic Allah were late comers, we
see this god only starting with Ankhanten and then the Jews about 800 BCE or so.

Only about the time of Christ did that god grow into the overtly omni-everything god we
are familiar with now with full blown theology meant to maximize god to that which no
greater can be imagined.

That bible god was El, and the Nuzi tablets of 1400 BCE show us a rather different god
all together. About the time of 800 BCE to 500 BCE did somement decide that thgese
embarrising gods of old, the Myth cycle gods of Semitic El worshippers or Homer's gods
were to flawed and unbelievable and higher forms of god became the norm gradually.

Religion has not only been a long battle between rival gods but between rival kinds of gods.

Cheerful Charlie

[ynquirer]

"Gods" is a much broader term than "unicorn." A unicorn is a very specific entity. Thus, it's not so likely that cultures all around the world would all make up a unicorn. A god, though, can be just about any supernatural entity. Hell, it could even be a unicorn, if the unicorn has magical powers such as being both pink and invisible at the same time.

The thing that makes something supernatural/magical to us, is if it can do something that we don't (yet) have a natural explanation for. IOW, if it can do something for which we are ignorant about the mechanisms of, it's a "god." And ignorance can be found in all cultures. Thus, all cultures have imagined beings to magically fill in the gaps in their knowledge. Gods are universal among cultures because ignorance is universal among cultures.

Fine. The relevant cleavage is as between supernatural aka religious and natural aka scientific explanations. Yet if god, i.e. the personal representation of the supernatural is solely dependent on ignorance, as you suggest, why is it that this hi-tech, scientific society is no less religious than, say, the enlightened society of the eighteenth century?

[ynquirer]

But all sorts of concepts with all sorts of different attributes are lumped together under the same blanket heading of gods and goddesses.

Is my memory at fault, or do I remember reading about some cases where isolated cultures just believe in the surviving spirits of their ancestors, anyway?

David B

As far as the surviving spirits of ancestors are assumed to be active agencies in the ordinary life of the living people, we have gods. Haven't we?

[David B]

As far as the surviving spirits of ancestors are assumed to be active agencies in the ordinary life of the living people, we have gods. Haven't we?


Hmm. Only in the sense that Fairies or Leprechauns have been considered as local active agencies. Would we call them gods?

David B

[ynquirer]

Hmm. Only in the sense that Fairies or Leprechauns have been considered as local active agencies. Would we call them gods?

David B

In Celtic Galicia we have meigas, which is probably the same sort of thing. People use to say, "I don't belive in meigas but they do exist!"

I guess that for the atheist they are the same kind with god(s) - superstitions?

[David B]

In Celtic Galicia we have meigas, which is probably the same sort of thing. People use to say, "I don't belive in meigas but they do exist!"

I guess that for the atheist they are the same kind with god(s) - superstitions?

I can't speak for all atheists, but I see a lot in common between the following assertions

'If you break a mirror, you will have bad luck for seven years'

'If you annoy the fairies, the milk will turn'

'If you aren't good, the bogey man will get you'

'If you believe in this concept of god you will have eternal bliss, else endless agonies'.

David B

[ynquirer]

I can't speak for all atheists, but I see a lot in common between the following assertions

'If you break a mirror, you will have bad luck for seven years'

'If you annoy the fairies, the milk will turn'

'If you aren't good, the bogey man will get you'

'If you believe in this concept of god you will have eternal bliss, else endless agonies'.

David B

That makes sense to me. It is the reason why I think that these varieties of belief are primitive forms of religious belief.

[David B]

That makes sense to me. It is the reason why I think that these varieties of belief are primitive forms of religious belief.

Primitive in what sense?

They are unsophisticated, sure.

But what is the good of a sophisticated world view if it is built on, to borrow an analogy, sand?

No supernatural claims have ever been established that satisfy reasonable sceptical enquiry.

I suppose there could be a sophisticated religion that eschews the supernatural. Some forms of Buddhism might fit the bill. Even some forms of very liberal Christianity - I understand that there are some self professed Christians who deny the virgin birth, the resurrection, miracle claims..

David B

[Stacey Melissa]

Yet if god, i.e. the personal representation of the supernatural is solely dependent on ignorance, as you suggest, why is it that this hi-tech, scientific society is no less religious than, say, the enlightened society of the eighteenth century?
I never suggested that god-belief is solely dependent on ignorance. I would say god-belief is initiated only via ignorance of the mechanisms of natural phenomena. But it is perpetuated by many more factors, and by different factors in different people. One of those factors can be ignorance. Other factors may include parental/cultural indoctrination (the most common), fear about being wrong on the question (i.e. Pascal's Wager), ontological arguments, yearning for "ultimate" justice in an unjust world, yearning for an "ultimate" meaning of life, desire for an absolute basis to morality/ethics, and probably some others I'm forgetting.

Notably, statistics (at least in the U.S.) have shown that the more formal education one has attained, the more likely one is to be an atheist. Similarly, scientists are far more likely to be atheists than is the population at large. This is because scientists have specific education and experience involving natural explanations for many of the topics for which the general populace remains ignorant and thus superstitious.

[ynquirer]

Primitive in what sense?

They are unsophisticated, sure.

But what is the good of a sophisticated world view if it is built on, to borrow an analogy, sand?

No supernatural claims have ever been established that satisfy reasonable sceptical enquiry.

The relevant question is, why are supernatural claims far more universal than reasonable sceptical enquiry?

For if the concept of god in a more or less sophisticated form spontaneously arises in every human being, exception to be made of those that deliberately reject it to self style atheists, then there is a strong indication that the concept means something that only artificially can be severed from human consciousness.

(And I don't mean that reasonable sceptical enquiry is undesirable to scan everything, especially the stuff of this conversation.)

[Stacey Melissa]

The relevant question is, why are supernatural claims far more universal than reasonable sceptical enquiry?
While all cultures have superstitions for some things, all cultures also use reasonable skeptical inquiry for some things. No culture uses only one or the other.

People can easily figure out natural explanations for most phemonema; the remaining phenomena are either left unanswered, or they are ascribed supernatural explanations. So in that sense, natural claims would be far more common than supernatural claims.

For if the concept of god in a more or less sophisticated form spontaneously arises in every human being,
It doesn't. Sophisticated god concepts have evolved only over the course of many, many generations. Even simplistic god concepts occur spontanenously in only an extreme minority of of individuals. Only at the cultural level are spontatenous god concepts (nearly) universal. To illustrate: let's say there are 100 cultures, each with 100 people. One person in each culture spontaneously arrives at a god concept. That means 1% of all people arrived spontaneously at a god concept, but 100% of all cultures include someone with a spontaneously-conceived god concept. Perhaps the one person in each culture would promote his idea to his neighbors, but even if the neighbors form god beliefs as a result, it would not be spontaneous. This is, in fact, very similar to what happens in the real world, where the vast majority of god belief in individuals is first formed via parental/cultural indoctrination.

exception to be made of those that deliberately reject it to self style atheists, then there is a strong indication that the concept means something that only artificially can be severed from human consciousness.
Quite a few atheists would disagree with you that their atheism is the result of a deliberate rejection of god concepts. Some atheists even wish they could be theists, but find themselves unable to. Similarly, you'll often hear of theists talk of their own "crisis of faith", during which they struggle to maintain god belief. So it seems god belief must be artificially maintained (at least at times), rather than artifically rejected.

[Godless Dave]

Why do we have the concept of God if there is no God?

Why do we have the concept of vampires if there are no vampires?

[555]

Why do we have the concept of vampires if there are no vampires?

The concept of Batman is possible because all you need is a ninja and many FBI weapons. :)

[Jobar]

Every believer on Earth has their own, individual, idiosyncratic concept of god(s).

No two Christians, no two Muslims, no two Pagans believe in precisely the same god-concept. Ask a surprisingly few questions, and the differences come out.

(We atheists have been noticing for a long while now that we often seem to argue as a team, when the subject is EoG. Theists do so more rarely, and may wind up arguing more hotly among themselves than they do with us! We do know the logical arguments better, I think- but also we don't have to dispute among ourselves over just what god is.)

[ynquirer]

While all cultures have superstitions for some things, all cultures also use reasonable skeptical inquiry for some things. No culture uses only one or the other.

That's what I think: faith and reason do not necessarily compete with each other.

People can easily figure out natural explanations for most phemonema; the remaining phenomena are either left unanswered, or they are ascribed supernatural explanations. So in that sense, natural claims would be far more common than supernatural claims.

I'd rather say they have claims on different grounds. Yet my point is, since according to your own view ignorance explains supernatural beliefs, why is it that growing scientific capability, i.e. growing capacity to afford sustainable natural explanations is not accompanied of a decreasing resort to the supernatural?

It doesn't. Sophisticated god concepts have evolved only over the course of many, many generations. Even simplistic god concepts occur spontanenously in only an extreme minority of of individuals. Only at the cultural level are spontatenous god concepts (nearly) universal. To illustrate: let's say there are 100 cultures, each with 100 people. One person in each culture spontaneously arrives at a god concept. That means 1% of all people arrived spontaneously at a god concept, but 100% of all cultures include someone with a spontaneously-conceived god concept. Perhaps the one person in each culture would promote his idea to his neighbors, but even if the neighbors form god beliefs as a result, it would not be spontaneous. This is, in fact, very similar to what happens in the real world, where the vast majority of god belief in individuals is first formed via parental/cultural indoctrination.

The 99% of followers must find the religious concept to be appealling. Otherwise religion would not succeed.

Quite a few atheists would disagree with you that their atheism is the result of a deliberate rejection of god concepts.

Have a look at a neighbor thread. Some atheists seem ready to accept the existence of spirits and other supernatural entities including winged, one-horned horses, provided that they are not gods (?). How do you interpret this?

Some atheists even wish they could be theists, but find themselves unable to. Similarly, you'll often hear of theists talk of their own "crisis of faith", during which they struggle to maintain god belief. So it seems god belief must be artificially maintained (at least at times), rather than artifically rejected.

What you call a "crisis of faith" IMO is nothing other than a sheer rejection of God's plans at the moment they become clear to the self. And quite frequently the vision of God's plans is delusive, which renders the rejection more than artificial, unnecessary.

[ynquirer]

Why do we have the concept of vampires if there are no vampires?

Because you like them?

[truththedog]

Thank you for the replies to my question most of all DavidB I enjoyed your response to my question as well as the others. My question was to hear why each of you holds to your belief in no God to help me better understand your position. Thank you for providing me with these. Now I will try to provide you with my thoughts on does the concept of a god prove the existence of a god?

I will not go far or deep into the subject because I am not here to change minds more to here them. I look at space and the saga that fills our sci fi literature today. The literature has grown with each new milestone we have made. The moon is no longer thought to be cheese and Mars no longer thought to be inhabited but with what we have found we have taken the concepts and created worlds, people and chasms of unexplained fantasies. It would seem to me that these have all erupted from the knowledge that we have gained. Most of the tales that are told are just fantasy but each holds concepts that come from truth.

I say this to point to how this question digs into me. If we had a relationship with a intelligent designer in the beginning of creation but something went horribly wrong and we were separated from that designer we would not lose the concept of who that creator was but the original plan would become corrupt. I see this as the story the Bible tells about man making gods of everything from that one concept that had been known. The world went out of control and was almost completely destroyed except for one man who held to the true identity of this designer. I will no go further. I know from most of the posts here that biblical accounts are not lost on any of you.

So this is my response to my own question. I am not a great debater and I did not come here to debate. I would enjoy to hear responses to this post and if you have a question for me I will gladly answer but I will try never to attack any of your opinions and respect them as I felt that you have respected my question. Thank you

[alienward]

Ah yes, the con artist argument. That one gets a little old don't you guys think ;)

Why would you be able to deductively prove the existence of the concept that represents the sum and source of existence?

We are free, subjective beings and experience absolutes as abstractions not as provable conclusions...Ah yes, the con artist argument will be around as long as con artists continue to con people into religion.

We would be able to deductively prove the existence of the concept that represents the sum and source of existence by looking at the parts of our existence that we have been able to figure out. The source so far for every single one of those parts is natural processes; therefore the sum and source of our existence is natural processes.

"We are free, subjective beings and experience absolutes as abstractions not as provable conclusions..." Ah, yes the old free subjective being scam.

[Stacey Melissa]

That's what I think: faith and reason do not necessarily compete with each other.
Reason is the antithesis of religious faith.

Yet my point is, since according to your own view ignorance explains supernatural beliefs,
That's not my view. My view is that ignorance explains the cultural origin of supernatural beliefs. Ignorance by itself is not sufficient to explain the continuation of supernatural beliefs.

why is it that growing scientific capability, i.e. growing capacity to afford sustainable natural explanations is not accompanied of a decreasing resort to the supernatural?
Actually, the Enlightenment and its accompanying scientific advances have significantly decreased the level of supernatural beliefs among affected cultures.

Scientific advancement has not completely eliminated supernatural beliefs due to the reasons I noted earlier - "it is perpetuated by many more factors, and by different factors in different people. One of those factors can be ignorance. Other factors may include parental/cultural indoctrination (the most common), fear about being wrong on the question (i.e. Pascal's Wager), ontological arguments, yearning for "ultimate" justice in an unjust world, yearning for an "ultimate" meaning of life, desire for an absolute basis to morality/ethics, and probably some others I'm forgetting."

The 99% of followers must find the religious concept to be appealling. Otherwise religion would not succeed.
Yes, religions appeal to many people for the reasons I noted just above.

Have a look at a neighbor thread. Some atheists seem ready to accept the existence of spirits and other supernatural entities including winged, one-horned horses, provided that they are not gods (?). How do you interpret this?
I'm not sure how to interpret it without a link to this other thread.

What you call a "crisis of faith" IMO is nothing other than a sheer rejection of God's plans at the moment they become clear to the self. And quite frequently the vision of God's plans is delusive, which renders the rejection more than artificial, unnecessary.
What happens is the theist starts out with a certain god concept, and then this concept is seriously challenged or contradicted by subsequent events or discoveries. If the theist modifies the god concept to fit the new information, he remains a theist; if he discards the god concept, he becomes an atheist.

I guess your answer to this problem is that God's plans are frequently delusive. I see that as an ad hoc excuse. My answer years ago was to discard my god concept. I could find no good reason to form a labyrinthine of ad hoc excuses for why my god concept, or that of anyone else, would be so incongruous to empirical observation and contrary to rational argument. Could I have come up with ad hoc modifications to my god concept? Probably. But that would have taken a deliberate act on my part, and thus would have been intellectually dishonest of me.

[Biff the unclean]

If we had a relationship with a intelligent designer in the beginning of creation but something went horribly wrong and we were separated from that designer we would not lose the concept of who that creator was but the original plan would become corrupt.
You’ve already pointed out the problem with this. And that problem is science fiction. As we learn more about the universe we abandon nonsense concepts like Martians and Moon cheese.
When you read the novel this “intelligent designer” is a character in we see that he designed the sky as a solid dome, a firmament, that held up a sky ocean. And the stars were lights that were hung from it. This places this “designer” in the same category as the moon being made of green cheese. And like the cheese and the men from Mars educated people laugh the out dated concept off. The “designer” didn’t design the actual universe just some silly place under a dome, it’s become a joke.

I see this as the story the Bible tells about man making gods of everything from that one concept that had been known.
The god is constructed from the evolved concept of an authority figure. Humans, like gorillas, have alpha males (silverbacks)

The world went out of control and was almost completely destroyed except for one man who held to the true identity of this designer.
Except that never actually happened.

I will no go further. I know from most of the posts here that biblical accounts are not lost on any of you.
No, we understand them very well. Just as we understand H.G.Wells The War of the Worlds or that funny French silent movie where choirs girls shoot a bunch of old scientists to the moon with a cannon.
It’s odd that you are discerning enough to abandon ridiculous old SF concepts but cling to biblical fairy tales. Why is that when you’ve already explained to us that you know better?

[Cheerful Charlie]

As far as the surviving spirits of ancestors are assumed to be active agencies in the ordinary life of the living people, we have gods. Haven't we?

Ancient Romans lived in a world swarming with gods and spirits.
Lares and penitates, good and bad spirits of the dead, larvae, genii, and others.
Ideas of saints are a remnant of this. Chinese folk religions were not too different
in many ways.


Cheerful Charlie

[David B]

Thank you for the replies to my question most of all DavidB I enjoyed your response to my question as well as the others. My question was to hear why each of you holds to your belief in no God to help me better understand your position. Thank you for providing me with these. Now I will try to provide you with my thoughts on does the concept of a god prove the existence of a god?

I will not go far or deep into the subject because I am not here to change minds more to here them. I look at space and the saga that fills our sci fi literature today. The literature has grown with each new milestone we have made. The moon is no longer thought to be cheese and Mars no longer thought to be inhabited but with what we have found we have taken the concepts and created worlds, people and chasms of unexplained fantasies. It would seem to me that these have all erupted from the knowledge that we have gained. Most of the tales that are told are just fantasy but each holds concepts that come from truth.

I say this to point to how this question digs into me. If we had a relationship with a intelligent designer in the beginning of creation but something went horribly wrong and we were separated from that designer we would not lose the concept of who that creator was but the original plan would become corrupt. I see this as the story the Bible tells about man making gods of everything from that one concept that had been known. The world went out of control and was almost completely destroyed except for one man who held to the true identity of this designer. I will no go further. I know from most of the posts here that biblical accounts are not lost on any of you.

So this is my response to my own question. I am not a great debater and I did not come here to debate. I would enjoy to hear responses to this post and if you have a question for me I will gladly answer but I will try never to attack any of your opinions and respect them as I felt that you have respected my question. Thank you

Hi truththedog, again.

Just to say that I'm glad you haven't proved a one post wonder (as so many do), and to thank you for your courteous reply.

Unfortunately work (the curse of the drinking classes) demands my attention imminently. I'll get back to you later with a response to your post. Unless it looks like you are being overwhelmed - then I might just back off.

Take care

David B

[Alf]

This thread has went from how we tell what a real Christian is to how we know who God is. As I read through the posts debating first about who a Christian is and then how does anyone prove what they believe I had one thought. Where does the concept of God come from?

I can't think of anything that has formed in this world completely on it's own. Any drug induced visions have been circumspect from the life a person has lived. Just like dreams that are had when people sleep. These concepts come from something. Why do we have the concept of God if there is no God?

How can we have cohncept of dragons if there is no dragons? How can we have a concept of centaurs if there are no centaurs? Surely, your brilliant argument proves Leprechauns, faeries, trolls, dragons, etc etc all to be real. How can we have concept of them if they have never existed?

Alf

[Atheos]

... If we had a relationship with a intelligent designer in the beginning of creation but something went horribly wrong and we were separated from that designer we would not lose the concept of who that creator was but the original plan would become corrupt. I see this as the story the Bible tells about man making gods of everything from that one concept that had been known. The world went out of control and was almost completely destroyed except for one man who held to the true identity of this designer. I will no go further. I know from most of the posts here that biblical accounts are not lost on any of you.Many of us here have been (and remain) students of the bible. The bible has influenced the lives of many people for many years, and thus remains a topic of interest even for the atheist.

But if a book can't stand up to even the most casual skeptical scrutiny it's obviously not the work of a hyper-intelligent god-creature of the magnitude necessary to author this universe and life as we know it on this planet. Instead, it belies its origin as the work of unsophisticated nomadic people living in barbaric times. It is manifestly nothing more than an evolved collection of oral traditions.

Archaeology clearly shows that god concepts evolved from poly-theistic traditions towards monotheistic "omnimax" gods, not the other way. Yahweh (the god of the Judaeo-Christian bible) was once just another son of El, referenced in the Ugaritic texts (http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm). The children of Israel believed that El had divided the nations of the earth to his sons and given Israel to Yahweh, a god of the desert. Deuteronomy 32

:8 When the most High (El) divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
:9 For the LORD'S (Yahweh's) portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance. Some speculate that since Baal (another son of El) was more known as a god of fertility, it was appropriate to appeal to Baal after they had left the desert (Yahweh's stronghold) and inhabited a more fertile land (Canaan).

Historically, more people have believed in a pantheon of gods than in a monotheistic god concept. Even christianity is a polytheistic religion with three primary gods (Yahweh, Joshua and the Holy Spirit) underpinned with several ARCHANGELS along with lesser beings such as angels, cherubims, seraphims, etc. There are also a host of antagonistic gods such as Lucifer, Beelzebub, Satan and lesser demons. Reinterpretations have attempted to obfuscate this into a monotheistic religion but the truth is the truth. It's still a polytheistic religion being tortured into sounding like a monotheistic religion.

[ynquirer]

My answer years ago was to discard my god concept. I could find no good reason to form a labyrinthine of ad hoc excuses for why my god concept, or that of anyone else, would be so incongruous to empirical observation and contrary to rational argument. Could I have come up with ad hoc modifications to my god concept? Probably. But that would have taken a deliberate act on my part, and thus would have been intellectually dishonest of me.

I agree with you. A god concept that is incongruous to empirical observation and contrary to rational argument, and which accordingly needs to be changed is not a concept that is worth while being intellectually dishonest of oneself.

[ynquirer]

Even christianity is a polytheistic religion with three primary gods (Yahweh, Joshua and the Holy Spirit)

That's great. Write a book on the topic. I'll read it, my promise.

[TheBear]

This thread has went from how we tell what a real Christian is to how we know who God is. As I read through the posts debating first about who a Christian is and then how does anyone prove what they believe I had one thought. Where does the concept of God come from?

I can't think of anything that has formed in this world completely on it's own. Any drug induced visions have been circumspect from the life a person has lived. Just like dreams that are had when people sleep. These concepts come from something. Why do we have the concept of God if there is no God?This is an interesting question, not limited to Christianity. As a matter of fact, long before Judaism and Christianity, and long before the god's of ancient Egypt and Greece, hominids have displayed belief in the supernatural, and even in an afterlife, as far back as Neanterthal, some 130,000 to 200,000 years ago.

[Stumpjumper]

We would be able to deductively prove the existence of the concept that represents the sum and source of existence by looking at the parts of our existence that we have been able to figure out.

"The parts that we have been able to figure out" do not (and pretty much never will) represent the amount of information neccesary to provide a deductive proof for the sum and source of existence.

It is simply very difficult to deductively prove anything of real value about our existence...

The source so far for every single one of those parts is natural processes; therefore the sum and source of our existence is natural processes.

So? Natural processes is simply a statement about methodology not ontology.

Let alone the fact that everything we experience, by definition, is natural. It occurs within the natural world and therefore any action by God within the world would also be natural...

"We are free, subjective beings and experience absolutes as abstractions not as provable conclusions..." Ah, yes the old free subjective being scam.


Huh?

If you want to be conned you will be conned and most likely assume that it is the others that are believing in a scam...

[Johnny Skeptic]

If you want to be conned you will be conned and most likely assume that it is the others that are believing in a scam...

Why do you assume that you have not been conned? If a supernatural being inspired the writing of the Bible, is it more likely that he has revealed his true intentions than that he has concealed his true intentions? 2 Corinthians 11:14-15say "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." In other words, "It is not surprising that Satan masquerades as an angel of light." Would it be surprising to you if you found out that God masquerades as an angel of light?

[Karen M]

This thread has went from how we tell what a real Christian is to how we know who God is. As I read through the posts debating first about who a Christian is and then how does anyone prove what they believe I had one thought. Where does the concept of God come from?

I can't think of anything that has formed in this world completely on it's own. Any drug induced visions have been circumspect from the life a person has lived. Just like dreams that are had when people sleep. These concepts come from something. Why do we have the concept of God if there is no God?

As previous posters have mentioned, the concept of God(s) are about the same as concepts of any other magical or supernatural being. The only difference is the broadness of the definition. A “God” can be seen specifically as any supernatural entity that is far more powerful than a human. Thus, any of 1,000s of supernatural entities thought up by various civilizations qualify as “Gods” under this basic definition. There isn’t such a blanket definition for other things such as unicorns or ghosts, however. This is why this broad concept seems to be more world-wide than these more specific ones.

However, if we could, for the sake of argument, make a new (fake? ;) ) word that means “supernatural entities that effect the natural world but are not far more powerful than a human,” then gnomes, fairies, Santa, and many other fictitious beliefs from various civilizations would all qualify. This would make another, similarly broad, word to encompass these entities and would also show that they are just as widespread and varied as the “God” concept.

[Godless Dave]

For if the concept of god in a more or less sophisticated form spontaneously arises in every human being,

That's a pretty big "if". Human beings tend to have the concept of gods that their parents and other members of their society have. It certainly doesn't seem to arise spontaneously, nor is it what we would call "sophisticated" in every culture.

[ynquirer]

That's a pretty big "if". Human beings tend to have the concept of gods that their parents and other members of their society have. It certainly doesn't seem to arise spontaneously, nor is it what we would call "sophisticated" in every culture.

Yet humankind has been ready to drop those ideas proven definitively false, like the idea that the earth is flat, the idea that the sun turns around earth, the idea that the stars are fixed on a sphere, the idea that burning bodies release phlogyston, and so on. Why the idea of god(s) has been instilled in human beings for thousands of years, and still counting, if it is pure propaganda?

[TNorthover]

Why the idea of god(s) has been instilled in human beings for thousands of years, and still counting, if it is pure propaganda?

cf Quack remedies, and various other wrong beliefs that have persisted for thousands of years. Also consider how difficult it would be to prove god(s) wrong if they didn't exist compared to the other things you mention

[alienward]

"The parts that we have been able to figure out" do not (and pretty much never will) represent the amount of information neccesary to provide a deductive proof for the sum and source of existence.

It is simply very difficult to deductively prove anything of real value about our existence....No, it’s a real simple fact that everything we have figured out about our existence demonstrates that our existence is the result of natural processes that do not require the concoctions of some god concept.

So? Natural processes is simply a statement about methodology not ontology.

Let alone the fact that everything we experience, by definition, is natural. It occurs within the natural world and therefore any action by God within the world would also be natural...
Again, no. Any action by a god or gods within the world would be a supernatural action. The fact here is there is not a single shred of evidence that a god or gods has ever interacted with the world.
"Huh?

If you want to be conned you will be conned and most likely assume that it is the others that are believing in a scam...Bingo. Theists want to be conned.