Does God Exist?

Think about it for a minute, if you were a very wealthy man how would you go about finding a wife that truly loved you or how would you find true friends?

What if you used your wealth to bribe them to be friendly? How would you know they were true? Or are they only there for what they can get from you, to use you?

Now stop and think what if God is that "wealthy man"? What could you do to show him that you want to be a true friend to him and not just someone in it for what they can get?

 

I really like how you can be so succinct sometimes.

 

Imagine that there is a set of holy books in all cultures in which there are a few enigmatic phrases that God or the gods tell our ancestors are to be passed on to the future with no change. Very important to get it exactly right. Now, so far that's not very different from the actual circumstances of alleged holy books. But suppose that the phrases in question were phrases that we would recognize today that could not have been recognized then. Simple example: The Sun is a star. Now, nobody knew that, let's say, in the sixth century BC, when the Jews were in the Babylonian cosmology from the principal astronomers of the time. Ancient Babylonian science is the cosmology that is still enshrined in the book of Genesis. Suppose instead the story was "Don't forget, the Sun is a star". Or "Don't forget, Mars is a rusty place with volcanoes. Mars, you know, that red star? That's a world. It has volcanoes, it's rusty, there are clouds, there used to be rivers. There aren't anymore. You'll understand this later. Trust me. Right now, don't forget".

Or, "A body in motion tends to remain in motion. Don't think that bodies have to be moved to keep going. It's just the opposite, really. So later on you'll understand that if you didn't have friction, a moving object would just keep moving." Now, we can imagine the patriarchs scratching their heads in bewilderment, but after all it's God telling them. So they would copy it down dutifully, and this would be one of the many mysteries in holy books that would then go on to the future until we could recognize the truth, realize that no one back then could possibly have figured it out, and therefore deduce the existence of God.

There are many cases that you can imagine like this. How about "Thou shalt not travel faster than light"? Okay, you might argue that nobody was at imminent risk of breaking that commandment. It would have been a curiosity: "We don't understand what that one's about, but all the others we abide by". Or "There are no privileged frames of reference". Or how about some equations? Maxwell's laws in Egyptian hieroglyphics or ancient Chinese characters of ancient Hebrew. And all the terms are defined: "This is the electric field, this is the magnetic field". We don't know what those are, but we'll just copy them down, and then later, sure enough, it's Maxwell's laws or the Schodinger equation. Anything like that would have been possible had God existed and had God wanted us to have evidence of His existence. Or in biology. How about, "Two strands entwined is the secret of life"?

This business of proofs of God, had God wished to give us some, need not be restricted to this somewhat questionable method of making enigmatic statements to ancient sages and hoping they would survive. God could have engraved the Ten Commandments on the Moon. Large. Ten kilometers across per commandment. And nobody could see it from the Earth but then one day large telescopes would be invented or spacecraft would approach the Moon, and there it would be, engraved on the lunar surface. People would say, "How could that have gotten there?" And then there would be various hypotheses, most of which would be extremely interesting.

Or why not a hundred-kilometer crucifix in Earth orbit? God could certainly do that. Right? Certainly, create the universe? A simple thing like putting a crucifix in Earth orbit? Perfectly possible. Why didn't God do things of that sort? Or, put another way, why should God be so clear in the Bible and so obscure in the world?

I think this is a serious issue. If we believe, as most of the great theologians hold, that religious truth occurs only when there is a convergence between our knowledge of the natural world and revelation, why is it that this convergence is so feeble when it could easily have been robust?

So, to conclude, I would like to quote from Protagoras in the fifth century BC, the opening lines of his Essay on the Gods:

About the gods I have no means of knowing either that they exist or that they do not exist or what they are to look at. Many things prevent my knowing.

Among others, the fact that they are never seen.



- Carl Sagan

 

You were characterizing God as a "Knowledgeable Man" and most all knowledgeable Men I know, particularly those who assume the role of 'prophets' such as Jesus, have attempted to share their knowledge.

 

I choose to say he is neither.

He cares deeply and is hurt by mankind's cruelity.

He can and will fix it and if you want I will provide you with the reasons why he has not stepped in as of yet, not that you really have any interest in knowing.

He has already answered, it is not his fault that you can't be bothered to listen.

There is none so deaf as those who will not listen.

 

I wonder what has made you so angry.

 

The question was not offered to you.

 

Okay.

Interesting you should mention Jesus, Jesus spoke in parables and would only explain them to those who were truly interested in the explainations, some how I get the impression you are not interested in the explanations. (Matthew 13:13-15)

 

Thanks for clarifying. So you're including "quality of life"-seeking as a biological imperative (as it surely is for humans) and subsuming the quest for meaning under that rubric. Fair enough. But conceptualizing it that way may tend to trivialize it by suggesting that it's "just another" behavior characteristic of human animals, and one at the bottom of a "hierarchy" instead of a qualitatively distinctive and higher form of experience. And that may be. As I've said, reality seems to be thoroughly ambiguous. We could describe what we're doing now as "typing behavior" satisfying a human need to keep busy and feel good about verbalizing thoughts. Does that capture the concept of exchanging ideas? Human ideals of justice, truth and beauty can be reduced to values" in sociology text, or can be appreciated as things worth living for. In the classic Rosenhahn experiment in which mental health experts disguised themselves as mental patients to see how they would be treated, their normal behaviors were diagnosed as schizophrenic by hospital personnel. When a patient took notes, that was characterized as "writing behavior", and dismissed as pathological. So we might consider from time to time, how things might look if we step outside of our matrix of circular assumptions about what is real. We can reduce music to its primitive origins, possibly imitation of the sounds of nature as functional in hunting lures, shammanic practices, territorial signals, etc. Or we can recognize that Bach and Mozart represent a qualitatively different experience that we can appreciate as a glorious expression of human achievement. Both perspectives can be valid in their own context. I happen to think that religious behavior, if not hardwired into the human psyche by evolution is easily learned as a result of other hardwired traits like pattern-seeking, agency attribution, and the satisfaction of needs deeply rooted in the unconscious. It has also been shaped by social needs: group solidarity, legitimation of leadership, and yes, outgroup rejection. Does that capture its essence? I don't think so. Your characterization of religion as "First World" fails to explain its universal presence in prehistory and Second and Third World experience. There are pockets of the modern world where the dominant mode is atheistic, but these mostly overlap the first and second worlds in urbanized, industrial or post-industrial settings. That religion has had survival value since the dawn of humanity suggests that it's roots are very deep, and warrants caution when launching an assault against it.

 

That's not what I meant, perhaps I should have said meaning of life questions are analogous to First World Problems instead of akin. I thought my descriptions regarding circumstance to contemplate Meaning of life question(s) such as necessarily living enough years to ponder such questions might have made it fairly clear.

Meaning regardless if it is a Prehistory Third World civilization, it still requires the circumstances of a certain amount of development to pose such questions. A toddler which has not formed the ability to speak is not posing these questions, regardless of what culture it is, however said toddler still has needs from biological imperatives.

 

By the way saying I characterized religion as "First World" is a pretty egregious quote mining effort to what I did in fact say.

 

To Mr. Writer: Science is good at showing how things work in reality with regard to statistics and facts. Religion is more focused on how to relate to things with regard to the heart and soul. When I say they will merge I mean that including both gives us a holistic approach toward relating to reality using all of who we are. Mind, body and soul.

 

^ From what I understand of the new age movement, which I'll concede is not a lot, that is what they were attempting to do.

The problems with that approach however is that many of the science aspects of the new age movement were framed as pseudoscience. I believe more traditional religious teachings also viewed the new age movement in a negative light, as not really authentic in some regards.

 

So what if the statement is contradictory? So is yours. I can see that whether you worship God or not you do worship the Word, which is virtually the same concept.

 

The truth of a statement works just like a math problem. When you lay down a line of reason it is like saying one plus one equals 2 or if you have one and you add another then it makes two. A self contradictory statement works like this, one plus one equals zero. If you say everything is in constant motion and then say there are no absolutes that makes one of those claims not true. If there are no absolutes then there is no all encompassing everything is and if everything is then that is an absolute. Assertions based on self contradictory statements are not reasonably sound.

Now about my statement/statements being contradictory I don't know what statement/s you are talking about and how you come up with I worship the Word. What word are you talking about and why do you come to the conclusion I worship it. I understand words. My consistent statement on words is that they are symbols for conditions. I am not a worshiper of any kind however I am studious or devoted to my function of tasting and knowing. The truth illumines the world and sets us free from ignorance.

One might ask how does this guy know what truth is. Truth is relative to true terms and the true terms are is it the same or is it different and what is it's purpose. Everything is and there are no absolutes is not a true statement because everything is and no absolutes are not the same and if the purpose of the statement is to disseminate a true regard then it doesn't accomplish the desired aim. Here are some examples of true statements. An apple is not an orange. Both apples and oranges are fruits. Some fruits are nourishing for humans to eat. Fruits are the means by which some plants disseminate seeds.

 

We are never upset for a fact but only for the interpretation of it or for our own nervous systems response to stimulus. To apprehend dispels the need for caution but to contend with demands it. I think the world struggles with itself because it condemns to correct instead of learning to appreciate

 

I expect more from the omnipotent creator of the universe than what we call the biblical scriptures; frankly they are on par with schizophrenic ramblings and the writings of many other religions (and much less insightful and relevant than many in my opinion, but what do I know, I'm just using my intellect that yaweh gave me).

The almost universally spoken fallacy that science and religion are somehow compatible and nay, even endeavour after the same things. Also your blind ignorance, and the force with which you trample any good argument shown to you with sunday school rhetoric and biblical fundamentalism.

I'm just supposed to BELIEVE without good evidence? Then why did god make me so skeptical and inquiring? Why did god make skepticism so important to survival when it comes to food, safety, and sex, but when it comes to his existence and the meaning of life, we are to shut down this faculty or diminish it greatly in order to just blindly believe? I require more from the omnipotent creator of the universe; this all reeks of human charlatanism.

So god loves us and wants to save our souls, but only if we make the first move? Is god a 20 year old club girl?

 

There is no subsuming to be done; the quest for meaning is a direct facet of our effort to improve the quality of our lives.

I don't know why you say "just another behavior", you might as well say we are "merely alive" inside "basically a universe". Behavior is a word which describes our actions; nothing more, nothing less. I would say our actions constitute a fundamental, crucial, and massive component of what it means to be human, in all the glory and power which that word means. If you think that the quest for meaning is above "mere actions" then the onus is on you to provide evidence for why this is so.

As the zen saying goes, in so many words,

What is enlightenment? When hungry, eat. When tired, sleep.

Where you place this on a conceptual hierarchy is a matter of preference.

It doesn't capture the concept in its entirety, just as if you say that red light is "radiation of 620-750nm wavelength", this does not capture the experience of seeing red, or anything else about red. This doesn't mean that the statement is false; it means its part of a bigger picture. Try not to jump to conclusions and think that anyone is arguing for material reductionism or something like that; we are only pressing for moderation in jumping to conclusions and flights of fancy which proclaim us and our endeavors to be suspiciously auspicious.

They can be both, of course. It's not an either/or situation at all. We can live for truth and beauty, and we can also describe them in soc and psych textbooks as the human behaviors and thoughts that they are; we certainly cannot access them in any way other than this. Perhaps they exist as Platonic Ideals, though how would we know, and what would that change? If an idea only complicates the matter without adding anything, I would say drop the idea.

This is indicative of problems in psychiatry, and more specifically in asylums, and more specifically in how we determine mental health and illness given the wide range of parameters of human behavior. This has nothing to do with "up there" concepts of human meaning and truth. These are down to earth, practical problems.

It's important that we watch where we step or we start to mistake that which we would like to be real for that which is real.

Both perspectives are correct; the former seeks to explain the behavior from an evolutionary perspective, while the latter is concerned with lauding and appreciating it for the pleasure it gives us. They are 100% compatible and can coexist simultaneously. For example, I think music developed as an expressive outlet for human emotions power by the intellect, material prowess, and an innate desire to communicate; and I get goosebumps everytime I listen to Debussy's Prelude a l'Apres Midi d'un Faun. No conflict here.

We need no caution, there is no risk here of any harm, other than to incorrect ideas. We are now wise enough as a species to start to look at the "big picture" outside of religion; to wonder why there have been so many of them, and so many gods now litter the celestial graveyard, most of them completely forgotten. We can ask what that means about our own religions, especially about their truth values. We can look at what they have given us over the centuries, and inquire as to other sources for those things (group cohesion, morality, etc). It turns out that there is not one single thing which religion offers which cannot be gotten outside of religion, often in better ways. Religion is only one mode of organizing thought and inquiry; it is not actually sacred, unless you will it to be so for yourself.

If "mere" facts do not engage your "heart and soul" then I don't think you've been exposed to much science, you sentient cloud of electrochemical brilliance composed of stardust from different stars. Also your language is flowery but I wonder what it points to; when you say "heart", do you just mean "mind"? You do, in fact. You certainly don't mean your cardiac muscle. When you say "soul", to what are you pointing? Certain facts about consciousness; in other words, more "mind".

 

God is perceived as an experience with the same mind as unto Time . The longer this string exists
the greater your understanding - lets try for 200 years . 200 years is xa~ . Should you be remembered
200 years beyond either your death or banishment you'll have done well-enough .

 

Do you get a lot of people to do things for you by insulting them and telling them they haven't done enough for you?

God is the one who designed and created the Universe and it is his laws for the Universe's existence and it is those very laws that "science" is trying to understand, so tell me again why you think God and science are incompatible?

My blind ignorance? In actuality, I probably understand your arguments better than you do mine. For one thing I'm not a "biblical fundamentalist" and have never been to "sunday school" and so would have no idea what "sunday school rhetoric" is. And if your "arguments" can't stand up to a good trampling, perhaps they need a little strengthening?

No, you are not to believe without evidence and that is exactly why God made you so skeptical and inquiring. I just hope that one day you will see the evidence you are so intent on ignoring.

This sounds a little like a spoiled child, not satisfied with what he got for his birthday, stomping his feet and screaming you didn't give me enough.

No God loves you and went to the point of sending you his beloved son with an invitation and you killed him and yet God still holds his hand out to you and instead of going to him, you compare him to a 20 year old club girl and you wonder why he doesn't do more for you .