How can God not exist?

[wesmorris]

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

I don't know.

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

Erm, well they had round things and made a name for them.

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

Sounds like you have a lot of research to do. Maybe it's just easier if you say "god did it" and move on.

You're kidding aren't you?

No.

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.

Could be. I could perhaps, if supplied the appropriate quantity and quality of weed, describe something pretty complex in pretty sweet detail. Wow especially if I didn't spend all my time dicking around online with zero attention span. Hmm.

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

Uh, I'm not skeptical of god. Not at all. I'm skeptical of people who say they know things about "him", or could possibly fathom anything remotely... well, whatever. I'm not at all skeptical. God cancels itself out via 'way beyondness', except in the eyes of those who well... don't understand what the fuck they're really saying. As I've stated: "GOD" is the anthropomorphization of nature, period. It is ego projecting itself onto the majestic, and reporting back whatever it must as a byproduct of that ego. It's a function, embodied by the emotionally needy as "the creator who created me in HIS image". *puke*

Narcissists.

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.

Well I'm not sure, but "people made that shit up to feel better about stuff" sits pretty easy with me. I'm satisfied with that.

Well personally, I see "god" as an evolutionary conceptual tool that's largely responsible for the success of the species, so yeah once that ball got rolling its utility was way to valuable to release. Biggest meme EVER (probably.... nevermind).

Big ups.

 

[wynn]

I know why the sun rises.

I mean, I'm damn sure I understand why it appears to rise.

There is How? and there is Why?
They are very different questions.

How? is something we can easily enough fiddle with and come to quite reliable conclusions.
Why? is another matter.

 

[Sarkus]

There is How? and there is Why?
They are very different questions.

How? is something we can easily enough fiddle with and come to quite reliable conclusions.
Why? is another matter.

Mostly the "Why?" is "Because it can't do anything else..." but some consider that a meaningless response... which others would consider somewhat matches the question, and that any other answer would be unsubstantiated supposition.

 

[wesmorris]

What Sarkus said.

Like, twice and stuff.

 

[SciWriter]

The Why and How of existence:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2749616&postcount=261

 

[Jan Ardena]

Firstly: what do you mean by "knowledge of God"? To my mind, there is no such thing....

Secondly: if, by "knowledge of God" you simply refer to what is said by believers about God, then clearly, you're using some irregular usage of the term "knowledge".....

The knowledge of God espoused by those ancients from the source I provided. It's all there in the Bhagavata Purana.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

I think the origin of belief in God is lost to us entirely.

Why do you think there is an origin in the first place?

We will never be certain how it came about, but I would envisage that it began long before even this civilisation, and was first conceived when Man was able to observe patterns (such as the sun, moon cycles etc) but not understand why.

I know what you think.
What i'd like to know is why you think that.
That scripture is relaying information that had already been known
from previous generations. It makes no mention of a time when some humans
didn't know the things it mentions.

Once the belief in God becomes prevalent, it pervaded society (via the marketing genius of religions and the desire/need for traditions and maintaining patterns) although with the concept of God being pushed back with each new level of understanding of the natural world.

Sarkus, doesn't that text tell you anything?

At some point they would reach an understanding of God that put it beyond all further examination, and thus ""future-proofed" it from further (possibly conflicting) understanding of the natural world.

Either that or God exists (the simpler option).

Once at that point it is just a matter of continued advertising and marketing.

That carpet is looking very bulgy with all the sweeping.


Ok Sarkus.
I see we're not going to get past your world view.


jan.

 

[wynn]

Moreover, such an 'experience' (sic) is strictly, and necessarily wholly subjective....

I think it is is actually communal - in the sense that it is limited and meaningful within a particular group of people who "speak the same language" and live together.

 

[Sarkus]

Why do you think there is an origin in the first place?

Because there was a point in the past when Man did not exist. Man now exists and has belief in God.
Hence it is rational to assume that there was an origin of that belief.

I know what you think.
What i'd like to know is why you think that.

Because I consider it the rational position... wholly within the ability of Man without any need to invoke the reality of the tenet of the belief in question.

That scripture is relaying information that had already been known
from previous generations. It makes no mention of a time when some humans
didn't know the things it mentions.

Given that it is a document of religious intent, is it likely that it would mention things that would damage the view it was trying to portray?
However, I do not know that scripture well enough to know what it doesn't mention. But because it doesn't mention a negative, you take it as support for the positive? "It doesn't mention that they didn't know... therefore we should assume that they did know!" sort of thing?

Sarkus, doesn't that text tell you anything?

It tells me that they had a surprisingly advanced level of understanding for the time compared with the European civilisations of the same era, and that their understanding was entwined within their religion... and at the boundaries of their understanding they appear to put God (something beyond testing)... and that their understanding was subsequently lost to the masses when their civilisation collapsed.

Either that or God exists (the simpler option).

One reason religion survives is because many people do see God existing as the "simpler option" and are not driven enough to seek beyond that answer.
And as for actually being the "simpler option"... on one side you have the natural world, on the other you have a God that has no evidence to support it beyond that which is identical to that found within the natural world.
So - which side is "simpler"... the Natural World... or the Natural World + God?
Admittedly this is a somewhat "simplistic" analysis but it should highlight a flaw in considering God in any way the "simpler option" to anyone who bothers to think about it.

That carpet is looking very bulgy with all the sweeping.

Would that the be an actual carpet or the one that has no evidence to support its existence but under which people try to hide everything?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Because there was a point in the past when Man did not exist. Man now exists and has belief in God.
Hence it is rational to assume that there was an origin of that belief.

It's not any more rational than any other explanation.

Given that it is a document of religious intent, is it likely that it would mention things that would damage the view it was trying to portray?
However, I do not know that scripture well enough to know what it doesn't mention. But because it doesn't mention a negative, you take it as support for the positive? "It doesn't mention that they didn't know... therefore we should assume that they did know!" sort of thing?

It is a historical account of the creation of the material world.
In short, the entire knowledge is filtered down by certain people according
to the different times, place, and circumstances.
That would explain how some people were in possession of knowledge beyond
their physical human capabilities (so to speak)

One reason religion survives is because many people do see God existing as the "simpler option" and are not driven enough to seek beyond that answer.

Ancient people who had scientific knowledge were highly religious, so I don't
see that what you say makes any difference. It seems knowledge can be gotten through religion, and scripture.

And as for actually being the "simpler option"... on one side you have the natural world, on the other you have a God that has no evidence to support it beyond that which is identical to that found within the natural world.

Sarkus, why talk of ''evidence''?
You wouldn't know evidence of God if it paraded itself infront of you. For all
you know it may be doing that.
The natural world, as we see it, is an illusion. Meaning it's not really ''as it actually is'' in the real sense of particles. Our ability to fathom the real world is seriously flawed, as our senses are faulty. So we need help in making sense of it. In ancient times they didn't have the tools of modern science to view into outer space, but yet they knew about space. How so?

So - which side is "simpler"... the Natural World... or the Natural World + God?

Let's assume we have a soul. A spiritual particle which is responsible for the animation of our physical bodies. The soul = God, and our bodies = the natural world. There is no question of one being simpler than the other, as one is merely a medium for the other. For the purpose of the material world, they work perfectly together.

Admittedly this is a somewhat "simplistic" analysis but it should highlight a flaw in considering God in any way the "simpler option" to anyone who bothers to think about it.

It's simple only because it is easily accessed by any human (should they choose), which is what one would expect if God existed. But it is scientifically
difficult (by science I mean pertaining knowledge of God) in this day and age.
But such knowledge was obtained by some ancient religious people.

Would that the be an actual carpet or the one that has no evidence to support its existence but under which people try to hide everything?

The one you keep sweeping information that doesn't fit, under.
You know, the lump you keep tripping over.


jan.

 

[Sarkus]

It's not any more rational than any other explanation.

Provide me with an alternative explanation and let's take it from there, shall we?

It is a historical account of the creation of the material world.
In short, the entire knowledge is filtered down by certain people according
to the different times, place, and circumstances.

Key here would be "filtered down by certain people".
The only linkage to a divine source would be because one of those people said as much.
And each layer of filtering has bias (unintentional or otherwise).

That would explain how some people were in possession of knowledge beyond their physical human capabilities (so to speak)

You generally do the ancient civilisations a disservice, and come across somewhat arrogantly in favour of modern society and our achievements.
Do you consider them unintelligent, stupid people? They were mostly religious, so I could see why you might!

Ancient people who had scientific knowledge were highly religious, so I don't see that what you say makes any difference. It seems knowledge can be gotten through religion, and scripture.

Fallacy of correlation vs causation (correlation does not imply causation)...just because they were religious, living in a religious society where religion was pervasive and dominated... much like the Dark Ages of Europe... etc
I do not deny that knowledge can be passed on through religion, and I could imagine that one of their tools to get people to believe in the unprovable aspects was to say "well, it says X and we now know X is correct... therefore this MUST also be true".

Sarkus, why talk of ''evidence''?

If we can't go back to or consider the evidence then we are working purely on authority, and there it is often just a matter of "he who shouts loudest... or kills the most."

You wouldn't know evidence of God if it paraded itself infront of you. For all you know it may be doing that.

It may be... but while there exists the possibility of an entirely natural explanation I see no reason to invoke God as a possible cause of that evidence.
Maybe if you do see evidence you should be looking at yourself and asking why you do?

The natural world, as we see it, is an illusion. Meaning it's not really ''as it actually is'' in the real sense of particles. Our ability to fathom the real world is seriously flawed, as our senses are faulty. So we need help in making sense of it.

Sure. Yet you are relying on these same senses to identify something as evidence of "God"? :shrug:

In ancient times they didn't have the tools of modern science to view into outer space, but yet they knew about space. How so?

I would imagine they looked upward at night.
It really is that simple.
From repeated observations they would see patterns in the sky... the most obvious being the phases of the moon, then the passage of the constellations. From there come theories, models, predictions, testing, refinement etc.
But again, you have a rather disparaging view of ancient societies and just how advanced they might have been.

Let's assume we have a soul.

Let's not. There's no proven need to assume such.

It's simple only because it is easily accessed by any human (should they choose), which is what one would expect if God existed.

It's also what you would expect from an idea that is unprovable and offers no meaningful answer to any question that is answerable.

But such knowledge was obtained by some ancient religious people.

And you can demonstrate the truth of this knowledge, and thus separate it from merely a belief?

The one you keep sweeping information that doesn't fit, under.

Such as?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Provide me with an alternative explanation and let's take it from there, shall we?

As I said, the knowledge could have been passed down by higher conscious
beings. At least that would explain the gravity of the knowledge possessed by these people.

Key here would be "filtered down by certain people".
The only linkage to a divine source would be because one of those people said as much.

So?
That's how these ancient people describe the passage of knowledge. It's called an ascending process.

And each layer of filtering has bias (unintentional or otherwise).

Maybe you judge by your own standard.
Why would they want to distort the message of God?

You generally do the ancient civilisations a disservice, and come across somewhat arrogantly in favour of modern society and our achievements.

On the contrary (without arrogance).

Do you consider them unintelligent, stupid people?

We've already been over this.

They were mostly religious, so I could see why you might!

Erm! Erm! Erm! Erm!

just because they were religious, living in a religious society where religion was pervasive and dominated... much like the Dark Ages of Europe... etc

I take it you have some knowledge on the Dark Ages.
Get some knowledge on vedic culture, and have fun seeing how mistaken you are.

I do not deny that knowledge can be passed on through religion, and I could imagine that one of their tools to get people to believe in the unprovable aspects was to say "well, it says X and we now know X is correct... therefore this MUST also be true".

You're way of the mark with regard vedic society, and how God was percieved by the people, especially in the ages that preceeded Kali-Yuga.
Go do some research.

If we can't go back to or consider the evidence then we are working purely on authority, and there it is often just a matter of "he who shouts loudest... or kills the most."

Why have you taken my response out of context?

It may be... but while there exists the possibility of an entirely natural explanation I see no reason to invoke God as a possible cause of that evidence.

You're entitled to you opinion.

Sure. Yet you are relying on these same senses to identify something as evidence of "God"? :shrug:

Hardly the same thing.

I would imagine they looked upward at night.
It really is that simple.
From repeated observations they would see patterns in the sky... the most obvious being the phases of the moon, then the passage of the constellations. From there come theories, models, predictions, testing, refinement etc.

So they looked up at the sky, saw the planets in the solar system, calculated how far each one was. Saw that they all moved in their own orbit. Calculated the universe (beyond the solar system) contained more planets...

Now you have to explain their amazing physiology.

But again, you have a rather disparaging view of ancient societies and just how advanced they might have been.

What does the theory of evolution suggest regarding progression of species?

Let's not. There's no proven need to assume such.

A famous Aristotle quote would just fit nicely here, but it escapes me at present.

And you can demonstrate the truth of this knowledge, and thus separate it from merely a belief?

Understanding how they came across the knowledge is good place to start.

Such as?

I'd start another thread for that one.
If I have the time, I will.

jan.

 

[wynn]

A famous Aristotle quote would just fit nicely here, but it escapes me at present.

It's in James R's profile, that's where I look it up when I need it.

 

[Sarkus]

As I said, the knowledge could have been passed down by higher conscious beings.

First, to introduce the concept of "higher conscious beings" as an explanation relegates it in terms of rationality until such time as those "higher conscious beings" are necessary in order to explain the situation. Since an alternative exists that does not require them, that other explanation is more rational.
Next?

At least that would explain the gravity of the knowledge possessed by these people.

Are you saying that it is not possible that they could have garnered this information merely from looking at the skies and establishing ideas... i.e. an entirely natural process?

So?
That's how these ancient people describe the passage of knowledge. It's called an ascending process.

You say "So?" as though you don't recognise the appeal to authority inherent in such a process?

Maybe you judge by your own standard.
Why would they want to distort the message of God?

They may genuinely not want to or indeed know that they are doing so.
I can offer possibilities, such as wishing to project a message more appropriate to the times, wishing to bring people into line, wishing to promote their own positions within the society... one can not say for sure.

On the contrary (without arrogance).

While you continue to suggest that the knowledge could only have come through divine intervention you do them a disservice.

I take it you have some knowledge on the Dark Ages.
Get some knowledge on vedic culture, and have fun seeing how mistaken you are.

I can only assume that you are confusing my reference to the European Dark Ages with the similarly worded Dark Ages of Vedic scripture?

You're way of the mark with regard vedic society, and how God was percieved by the people, especially in the ages that preceeded Kali-Yuga.
Go do some research.

Feel free to at least explain where you think I wide of the mark and how it negates the possibility I gave?

Why have you taken my response out of context?

I haven't. You asked "Why talk of 'evidence'?" in relation to how something is seen as being more rational or not. The response I gave is thus not out of context and thus remains appropriate.

You're entitled to you opinion.

Indeed I am, as are we all. Although I do struggle to understand why people invoke that which is not shown to be necessary in order to give an explanation, rather than say "I don't know".

Hardly the same thing.

Why not? You claim the senses are flawed, yet you are relying on those same senses, and thus your criticism was called out as being hypocritical.

So they looked up at the sky, saw the planets in the solar system, calculated how far each one was. Saw that they all moved in their own orbit. Calculated the universe (beyond the solar system) contained more planets...

If that is what you say they did.
And how accurately would you say they managed these things - preferably with some examples?

Now you have to explain their amazing physiology.

What about their physiology? Are their skeletons unusual?

What does the theory of evolution suggest regarding progression of species?

Define "progression".
We remain fit for purpose, and still go through some evolutionary changes as our diet changes, and as we cope with increased population etc, but I can't see evolution having too much of a say with regard the rise and fall of societies and information.

A famous Aristotle quote would just fit nicely here, but it escapes me at present.

While I of course can assume that we have a soul, for the purpose of this discussion it is enough to say that it is not rational to do so.

Understanding how they came across the knowledge is good place to start.

Sure. And with such pursuits for understanding one can either start with the simple / natural explanations and only invoke things as they become necessary, or start with the irrational position by invoking that which has not (yet) been shown to be necessary.
A famous Sherlock Holmes quote would just fit nicely here, but it escapes me at present.

 

[glaucon]

I think it is is actually communal - in the sense that it is limited and meaningful within a particular group of people who "speak the same language" and live together.

It may be treated as being communal, but the experience itself (the source of purported information) is purely subjective...

 

[wynn]

It may be treated as being communal, but the experience itself (the source of purported information) is purely subjective...

Since this applies to all human experiences anyway, its not a counterargument here.

 

[Kennyc]

33 pages, you've got to be kidding!

Gods are a natural and normal invention of the human mind to satisfy our innate need to know and predict how things work in order to survive. Nothing more than that.

 

[wynn]

33 pages, you've got to be kidding!

Gods are a natural and normal invention of the human mind to satisfy our innate need to know and predict how things work in order to survive. Nothing more than that.

I guess my sin is to envy people their certainty, whatever it may be about ...

 

[Kennyc]

I guess my sin is to envy people their certainty, whatever it may be about ...

Are you certain?

 

[wynn]

Are you certain?

Well, I don't envy them 24/7/365 ...