Does God Exist?

[redwhine]

What, are you the spelling Police this week

No.

 

The difference between astronomy and astrology is much more than spelling. One is science, the other is that one twelvth of the world is going to meet a tall dark stranger, or inherit millions, or 'make your own stuff up' in the next day or two.

[flamingjimmy]

Fine I'll do my best for you.

 

Let's pretend for one moment that past humans never invented the concept of things existing outside the reality that they see around them except in the most basic toolmaking sense, ie they can think ahead, but they can't think in pure abstract terms, so that means no religion, no fairy tales, no imagination, no sense of anything except themselves, what they can see and what they can create. They are purely rational beasts trapped in a cage of reality.

Is it not just as likely that we have built in a sense of the abstract innately and that religion is a a consequence of that rather than a cause?

 

I'm not suggesting that that is the case, just that it is just as likely (and there is an an equal amount of evidence) for that idea than there is for yours.

 

Now rationaliity has led our hypothetical scientists to investigate astronomy. They can see the stars, they can build telescopes to see more stars, but they cannot cannot conceive of anything that lies beyond this and their interest stops at the point at which technology prevents them from seeing anything more.

I am not at all convinced that the world would be this way, I find it very hard to believe indeed, and will need more than just your hunch to believe that this would happen.

 

Now what I've been suggesting is that religion may have had an important influence on a modern scientists ability to think in this abstract manner. I said in an earlier post that young children cannot understand pure abstract concepts, it may be that it's something that must be taught or it will be lost.

 

I can't think of any other aspect of human life throughout history that has continued to reinforce and teach the purely abstract concept of things existing beyond what we can experience more than religion has. Perhaps you can?

Yes, everyday life. Imagination is so very easy it's silly.

 

The world full of "purely rational beasts trapped in a cage of reality" that you have described is completely ridiculous.

 

Babies don't understand abstract concepts, they think that only what they can see/hear/touch is real. This is why playing that 'peekaboo' game works so well. The baby literally thinks you are popping in and out of existence in front of his very eyes.

 

Babies do not need religion to grow out of this, they just need to learn that the world goes on, even when they are not looking.

 

In your ridiculous fictional world of people with no concept of the abstract then adults would fall for the peekaboo game, our ancestors would've been eaten long ago by predators because they wouldn't have done anything to protect themselves unless they could actually see one at the time. The very idea is ridiculous, and in the absence of any evidence apart from your hunch, can be disregarded.

 

I'd love for science to take over this role, but I'm not sure that young children will respond well to astrophysical or quantum mechanical theoretical explanations.

I'm not arguing some sort of 'science is kickass, there should be science and ONLY science' line, I'm just challenging what you said.

[Cavegirl]

Is it not just as likely that we have built in a sense of the abstract innately and that religion is a a consequence of that rather than a cause?

 

I'm not suggesting that that is the case, just that it is just as likely (and there is an an equal amount of evidence) for that idea than there is for yours.

 

I never suggested it was a cause, I only suggested it has served to reinforce and develop our ability to use abstract thought.

 

I am not at all convinced that the world would be this way, I find it very hard to believe indeed, and will need more than just your hunch to believe that this would happen.

 

Yes, everyday life. Imagination is so very easy it's silly.

 

The world full of "purely rational beasts trapped in a cage of reality" that you have described is completely ridiculous.

 

Of course the world wouldn't be this way- you asked me to simplify my argument so you could understand my point. Of course this world view is ridiculous- it's simplified down to the extent that I was making the basic points of my idea in the simplest manner I could think of- for you, as you asked me to do.

 

Babies don't understand abstract concepts, they think that only what they can see/hear/touch is real. This is why playing that 'peekaboo' game works so well. The baby literally thinks you are popping in and out of existence in front of his very eyes.

 

Babies do not need religion to grow out of this, they just need to learn that the world goes on, even when they are not looking.

 

In your ridiculous fictional world of people with no concept of the abstract then adults would fall for the peekaboo game, our ancestors would've been eaten long ago by predators because they wouldn't have done anything to protect themselves unless they could actually see one at the time. The very idea is ridiculous, and in the absence of any evidence apart from your hunch, can be disregarded.

 

I'm not arguing some sort of 'science is kickass, there should be science and ONLY science' line, I'm just challenging what you said.

 

Feel free to challenge what I say, but do try to refrain from asking me to simplify arguments just so you can accuse me of being too simplistic and therefore 'ridiculous'. It's your way of discussing things that's ridiculous.

 

I like your idea that imagination could have played just as significant a role, but I find that a lot of prehistoric art is in fact very conservative in nature. This is a page from a book on Egyptian art that you may find interesting in this respect:

 

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4112949

 

As it states- very little art, statuary or architecture was produced for its aesthetic value, it was almost all related to religious beliefs. This can be said of the vast majority of art from almost all societies through time until about the late 19th century.

 

The only time that ancient Egyptian art really underwent a transition in style was during the reign of Akhenaten. This pharoah denounced the Egyptian pantheon of gods and demanded that his subjects worship the Aten (sun disc). This was in fact, the first monotheistic religion although it was short lived and during the reign of his successor, Tutankhamun (originally Tutankhaten) the priests managed to reinstate their old religion and with this their old artistic styles.

 

This is an interesting overview of religious art by a Christian Professor of Theology that considers some of the ideas I've been trying to convey:

 

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=514

 

You can't just wipe religion from history because you don't happen to like the concepts, it has been very pervasive in past societies, it's still playing a significant role in society today and I believe it deserves to be questioned not just from an opposing stance but also in terms of what it has contributed. (I'm not saying this is what you're attempting to do, I'm simply justifying my stance here).

 

You keep calling my theory a hunch, but it's more than a hunch, I've studied the development of humans and societies. I have good knowledge of the facts and I've studied the evidence and therefore I have a sound basis from which to develop my theory.

 

I'll be very happy if you can either add to my theory or produce something that will refute it because either way I'll learn something new. Until then, it's just a theory and I think, an interesting one.

Edited July 15, 2010 by Cavegirl

[Cavegirl]

(My bold.)

I do hope that's a typo, and you were aiming for astronomy.

 

Yes?

 

Oops yep, well spotted thanks I meant astronomy.

[Clown Shoes]

Born as an Irish roman catholic and all my schools were catholic, one of which was a De la Salle school. I am well versed in Catholicism and pretty much know the bible word for word.

 

But early in my adult years i came to the conclusion that god was created by man is a pretty archaic theory on the universe & the creation of life.

 

Now i agree faith is a wonderful thing and no one wants to believe that there is nothing after we die but science has explained a lot of what people believed were acts of god.

 

There is not one piece of evidence that god exists and people are going to war over it but im not sure that the world would be a better place without religion anyway.

 

I mean hardened Catholics believe that the world was created in 7 days & that the world is only 5000 years old. And the story of Noah getting 2 of every animal on the arc just sounds ludicrous.

 

It applies to all religions not just Catholicism.

 

Does anyone have proof cause id love to hear it?

[JFKvsNixon]

Born as an Irish roman catholic and all my schools were catholic, one of which was a De la Salle school. I am well versed in Catholicism and pretty much know the bible word for word.

 

But early in my adult years i came to the conclusion that god was created by man is a pretty archaic theory on the universe & the creation of life.

 

Now i agree faith is a wonderful thing and no one wants to believe that there is nothing after we die but science has explained a lot of what people believed were acts of god.

 

There is not one piece of evidence that god exists and people are going to war over it but im not sure that the world would be a better place without religion anyway.

 

I mean hardened Catholics believe that the world was created in 7 days & that the world is only 5000 years old. And the story of Noah getting 2 of every animal on the arc just sounds ludicrous.

 

It applies to all religions not just Catholicism.

 

Does anyone have proof cause id love to hear it?

 

For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.

[PRESLEY]

He has retired now but years ago you could see him playing at Bramall Lane, AKA Tony Curry.

[Clown Shoes]

He has retired now but years ago you could see him playing at Bramall Lane, AKA Tony Curry.

 

Haha.....good answer!

[andyofborg]

Born as an Irish roman catholic and all my schools were catholic, one of which was a De la Salle school. I am well versed in Catholicism and pretty much know the bible word for word.

 

But early in my adult years i came to the conclusion that god was created by man is a pretty archaic theory on the universe & the creation of life.

 

Now i agree faith is a wonderful thing and no one wants to believe that there is nothing after we die but science has explained a lot of what people believed were acts of god.

 

There is not one piece of evidence that god exists and people are going to war over it but im not sure that the world would be a better place without religion anyway.

 

I mean hardened Catholics believe that the world was created in 7 days & that the world is only 5000 years old. And the story of Noah getting 2 of every animal on the arc just sounds ludicrous.

 

It applies to all religions not just Catholicism.

 

Does anyone have proof cause id love to hear it?

 

As regards the existance of a creator then yes and the proof is that we are here.

[SnailyBoy]

As regards the existance of a creator then yes and the proof is that we are here.

 

Oh dear...., unless you mean your parents.