Why did man creat god?

[Tyler]

"Common usage has turned it into a proverb. I never read the poem, but am familiar with the image."

It's just a pet-peeve of mine, but I hate the "common usage" thing.
http://www.mcs.newpaltz.edu/~pletch/blindmen.html


"That is the reason I chose it. It was the point I was trying to make. There is an underlying whole that using just rational argument will never reveal."

I realize what you're saying - that there exists a reality that can only be understood by using all parts of the mind. However, and I didn't reply to this last post, you assume a "spiritual" part of the mind. ("Perhaps even a spiritual mind"). You say "perhaps", but it is evident in the rest of your post that you integrate the spiritual mind into your whole idea.


"I agree - if I were to limit myself only to logic, then there is no logical formulation for belief in God."

And where else in the mind may we see proof that god exists?


"But does it neccessarily follow that there is no logical reason to limit the argument to logic."

Yes, it does logically follow. But the point I think you wish to make is that logic leads to logic, limiting itself in doing so.


"Talk about God REQUIRES that a style of thinking other than logic"

Why? Are you saying that my instincts will lead me to further insight about god? Or are you talking about that spiritual part of the mind that you assumed exists?


"Thank you for using the term 'seemingly'. That was polite. And I admitted up front that it was a rant. Please accept that as an apology."

My apology, actually.


"Nice editing job. You left out the IF..."

My mistake. I ensure you I didn't do that on purpose.


"But I'm saying that you don't understand the nature of man"

Of course I don't. I don't think any of us truly understand all of man's nature.


Edit: I did have a whole nother part of replies to what I labelled your rant, but Cris did a very similar and in parts better reply so I'm going to just take it out.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Cris
Jan,

Well the idea exists and has been voiced by humans so presumably it was their idea, especially since no other intelligent species is apparent, and chimps, apes and dolphins just don't appear to be sufficiently vocal.

Now i have 2 questions;

1) Where is the evidence that man created God?

2) Where is the evidence that God is just an idea?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Tyler]

Jan; where is the evidence that man created the idea of the cyclops?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Tyler
Jan; where is the evidence that man created the idea of the cyclops?

Am i supposed to get some kind of revelation from your seemingly sarcastic question, or is it a real question?

If it is a real question, then probably the same place where man created the idea that everything came about by chance.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Tyler]

It's a serious question, and I expect proof of this.

"If it is a real question, then probably the same place where man created the idea that everything came about by chance."

1) Why do you think this?
2) What proof do you have of this?

 

[Turduckin]

The logical thinking mind vs other thinking

quote:Originally posted by Turduckin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It will never do what needs to be done to find the answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
reply by Cris
You mean they won't do what you consider needs to be done. What gives you the authority to say what is the correct method?

Your use of the pronoun 'they' versus my use of the pronoun 'it', indicates to me that I may not have been clear about what I was talking about. My basic premis this: The part of the mind that thinks logically using a 'personal voice' similar to speech, and which can be trained to use formal rules of logic and mathematics, is only one fractional portion of human cognition and data processing. I use for this claim my own informal research and anecdotal observation of almost a thousand people over 16 years in teaching and assisting various meditation classes. This is also confirmed by studies of brain activities using different imaging techniques. In an of itself, this is a rather modest claim - The brain can do more that think logically.

It is also common knowledge among practitioners of various forms of meditation, that there must occur a disociation between the identification of self and the logical thinking mind - generally characterized in terms of becoming the observer of your own thoughts, without identifying them as yourself. I will stop here to avoid a full lecture on the different types of meditation and how to practice them. Many people who meditate for any time become aware of discrete boundaries between thought, emotion, visual imagery and will (ability to direct and focus), and also the interactions between. They also begin to realize that thought is a reaction to insternal or external stressors (In the physiological sense of the term).

Once this disociation becomes apparent, you begin to question basic assumptions about the nature of thought and epistemology. For instance, 'I think, therefore I am' becomes, 'I am aware, therefore I am'. I am aware that human cognition and processing is more than logic, and the logical thinking mind represents only a portion of our cognitive capability. This is why I keep posting links referring toAndre Kekule ( haven't read this one yet, but it looks good.)

So Cris, when I referred to "it", I was referring to the logical thinking mind rationalist thinkers, and not to the whole human being "they". It is the logical thinking mind that is small - fractional in comparison to the whole of cogintion. I've been trying to figure out how to make rationalists such as yourself consider a different way of thinking about thought. It's not a question me understanding a different attitude other than my own. I had your attitude 20 years ago. I am a great lover and admirer of science and the intrinsic elegance of a well thought out construction - or an advance in knowledge. It's a question of getting folks like you... scientists, logicians and mathematicians who rely solely on logic and rational thought to consider the possiblilty that, however smart they might think they are, they are only consciously using a fraction of there minds.

Last night, I began to see that there isn't any way to get the idea across. Unless we've both investigated the subject matter, there can't really be a point of discussion. But this is matter is at the heart of the misunderstanding between science and religion. Either each side is using different cognitive processes and are unable to communicate their respective 'truths', or worse, are using the same logical processes and are unable to agree. Nuff space wasted for now. This discussion is only marginally related to the topic and I apologize for the distraction.

Thanks

Turd~

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Tyler
It's a serious question, and I expect proof of this.

Proof of what?

1) Why do you think this?

Why do i think "what" is?

2) What proof do you have of this?

You're jumping ahead of me here.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Tyler]

English isn't your first language, is it Jan?

"If it is a real question, then probably the same place where man created the idea that everything came about by chance."

-- Proof of what? -- Of this ^


-- Why do i think "what" is? -- Why do you think this (^) is true? And what proof do you have?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Tyler
English isn't your first language, is it Jan?

"If it is a real question, then probably the same place where man created the idea that everything came about by chance."

-- Proof of what? -- Of this ^


-- Why do i think "what" is? -- Why do you think this (^) is true? And what proof do you have?

What does the term "probably" mean to you?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Tyler]

That there is a likely chance. Basically - above 50% chance.

Now I'd ask you to kindly prove that the cyclops is an invention of man.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Tyler
That there is a likely chance. Basically - above 50% chance.

Now I'd ask you to kindly prove that the cyclops is an invention of man.

OK, lets see where this is going, i cannot prove that it was an invention of man, if indeed it was.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Tyler]

There is no way to prove something like this. There is evidence.

Like, for instance, scientists discovered a pre-elephant creature made it's way to a Greek island at some point. The Greeks would have found the skull of said animal; a skull which looked similar to a large creature with a giant eye in the middle of the head. This is circumstancial evidence, it shows a possible way man was inspired to come up with the story of the cyclops.

The same goes for the creation of the existence of god. There is no way to prove god does or does not exist. But there is circumstancial evidence that man invented the idea of god and many of the ideas around god(s). For instance, there was a giant flood in mesopotamia that wiped out much of the land. To the people there, this would have seemed like the whole world was flooded. The story would have passed through generations and been incorporated into myth. There we have a nice, neat little way on how the myth of Noah's Flood began.

Man originally attributed fire to the gods. Along with many other things this shows that man attributed originally what he did not understand to an idea we now know as "god". Since then, these myths have all but vanished. God has always been a way to describe what we don't know. Many people point to science's lack of proof on how the Universe began and say "There is no answer, therefore god did it!" The exact same way people would say "There is no answer on how the growing season is determined, therefore gods do it!"

Surely you can see how there is no more reason to believe god is not man's creation than there is to believe the cyclops is not man's creation. But you don't believe in the cyclops, now do you Jan?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Tyler
This is circumstancial evidence, it shows a possible way man was inspired to come up with the story of the cyclops.

But does not prove or show anything of value to come to that conclusion.

But there is circumstancial evidence that man invented the idea of god and many of the ideas around god(s).

But supposing God does exist, whether we know it or not, then man would not have invented God.

For instance, there was a giant flood in mesopotamia that wiped out much of the land. To the people there, this would have seemed like the whole world was flooded.

To some maybe, or maybe not.

The story would have passed through generations and been incorporated into myth. There we have a nice, neat little way on how the myth of Noah's Flood began.

Are you assuming the peoples of such times, had the same mentality and mental capacity as we have to day?
How can you be sure, people are akin to their social, political, religous and economical atmosphere, do you know what the atmosphere was like?

Man originally attributed fire to the gods. Along with many other things this shows that man attributed originally what he did not understand to an idea we now know as "god".

Or, fire is attributed to the gods, do you know for sure.

Many people point to science's lack of proof on how the Universe began and say "There is no answer, therefore god did it!"

How do you know for sure God didn't do it?

Surely you can see how there is no more reason to believe god is not man's creation than there is to believe the cyclops is not man's creation.

But all what you have said means nothing in the grand scheme of things. There is so much you leave out, so much you're not prepared to understand, so it is hardly surprising that you think like this.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Tyler]

"But supposing God does exist, whether we know it or not, then man would not have invented God."

Not necessarily.
I invented in my head the idea of a giant, purple squid-rhino hybrid. I have no knowledge of such a creature.
Perhaps it lives on some planet many millions light years away. That doesn't mean that I didn't invent the idea in my head.


"To some maybe, or maybe not."

To almost all Mesopotamia would have been "the whole world". It all flooded. Therefore to most, it would have seemed like "The whole world" was flooded.


"Are you assuming the peoples of such times, had the same mentality and mental capacity as we have to day?"

Well, the notion of a world flood began shortly after this. Am I assuming they were physically the same structure as us (brian structure)? Yes. Because it's a fact.


"Or, fire is attributed to the gods, do you know for sure."

There is no logical reason to believe everytime I light a match god makes figre happen.


"How do you know for sure God didn't do it?"

I don't. Just like I don't know for sure a cyclops didn't just walk past my door. But there's no logical reason to believe either.


"There is so much you leave out, so much you're not prepared to understand, so it is hardly surprising that you think like this."

A rather pompus remark, no?
Regardless, I have shown that there is no logical reason to believe in god any more than there is logical reason to believe in the cyclops. I have shown that there is just as much proof that god is an invention of man's as the cyclops.

This does not attempt to prove god does not exist.

 

[jayterrier]

.

"Perhaps because some of us are more than atheists, perhaps some of us want a society free of the imposition that religions place on human progress. Perhaps it is a quest to understand the mind of the theist and religionist so that we can more effectively oppose what they support. "

Wow, first there are religous persons trying to convert everyone who isn't and now non-religous persons trying to convert religous persons. This just keeps getting better

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Tyler
"To some maybe, or maybe not."

To almost all Mesopotamia would have been "the whole world". It all flooded. Therefore to most, it would have seemed like "The whole world" was flooded.

That is just your assumption, i could easily say, not.

Am I assuming they were physically the same structure as us (brian structure)? Yes.

That is not what i asked, please read again.

There is no logical reason to believe everytime I light a match god makes figre happen.

I didn't say that.

"How do you know for sure God didn't do it?"

I don't. Just like I don't know for sure a cyclops didn't just walk past my door. But there's no logical reason to believe either.

So you're saying God exists as much as you're sure a cyclops didn't just walk by your door?
That is just another way of saying God does not exist.
That's fair enough, there is nothing more to say, we cannot reason on this subject because we are both completely sure of our opposite beliefs.

A rather pompus remark, no?

Not intended.

Regardless, I have shown that there is no logical reason to believe in god any more than there is logical reason to believe in the cyclops. I have shown that there is just as much proof that god is an invention of man's as the cyclops.

You have shown that you do not believe God exists, that is all.

This does not attempt to prove god does not exist.

What then?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Tyler]

"That is just your assumption, i could easily say, not."

And you'd be dead wrong. Mesopotamians at the time of the floods only knew of Mesopotamia and very little beyond. It's not an assumption, it's historical fact.


"That is not what i asked, please read again."

If they think the same way? But that doesn't matter. I'm telling you an historical fact.


"That's fair enough, there is nothing more to say, we cannot reason on this subject because we are both completely sure of our opposite beliefs."

I'm completely sure no god exists is not what I'm saying. I am saying that there is no logical reason to believe in god(s), therefore I don't.


"You have shown that you do not believe God exists, that is all."

No, I have shown that there is no logical reason to believe in god. That there is logical reason to believe man invented god.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Tyler
And you'd be dead wrong. Mesopotamians at the time of the floods only knew of Mesopotamia and very little beyond. It's not an assumption, it's historical fact.

Who do you know that was there at that time?

If they think the same way? But that doesn't matter. I'm telling you an historical fact.

And who is the authority on this?

I'm completely sure no god exists is not what I'm saying. I am saying that there is no logical reason to believe in god(s), therefore I don't.

That is a relative statement, i can say the opposite, who is right?

No, I have shown that there is no logical reason to believe in god.

And why would we need a logical reason to believe?
Chances are you believe we came about by chance and you believe it is logical to believe that, but you cannot say for sure so what is the use of your logic?

That there is logical reason to believe man invented god.

I don't think man has the capability to invent God, even today with all our technological advancement, so to me there is no logic in what you are saying.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Tyler]

"Who do you know that was there at that time?"

How do you know the country Azerbajin exists? Do you know anyone there? No? Then it must not exist.
You see, Jan, there is a serious problem in your logic. Or lack thereof.


"And who is the authority on this?"

A number of historians. Do you want me to drag out my history textbook? To learn more about Mesopotamia just go to; http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/


"That is a relative statement, i can say the opposite, who is right?"

No, it's not a relative statement. I showed that logic states no reason to believe in god.


"And why would we need a logical reason to believe?"

And there comes the end of our debate. I depend on logic. I try to only believe something if I have a logical reason to. You, as with most religious folk, don't care as much for logic.


"Chances are you believe we came about by chance and you believe it is logical to believe that, but you cannot say for sure so what is the use of your logic?"

Perhaps, and in all likelyhood, one day science and logic will be able to answer how the Universe came about. The fact that we don't know yet for certain does not indicate that god did it.


"I don't think man has the capability to invent God, even today with all our technological advancement"

You don't grasp the concept at all, Jan. The less technology and understanding we have, actually, the easier it is to come up with the idea of god.


"so to me there is no logic in what you are saying."

What does it matter? You don't care for logic.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Turduckin
Like the proverbial blind men touching an elephant in different locations and declaring 'this is what an elephant looks like', we argue back and forth about the existance or non-existance of God without experiencing enough about the underlying nature.

Of course, for atheists, the analogy here is that we have been reaching through the fence and are not finding anything living there at all. You seem to be suggesting that we are simply not reaching far enough or in the proper manner yet cannot describe just how we should be reaching so that we can feel the elephant.

The most common advice is that one must first believe or have 'faith' yet this, indeed, seems to be a situation of the self-fulfilling fantasy. It also fails to address those, such as I, who started out from such a belief.

How can you say that you understand something if you are not willing to use the full measure of the mind you have in your skull.

How presumptuous and arrogant of you. Please do let me know what mental component or methodology it is that I have yet to investigate. Because frankly, this stuff you've posted so far is all old hat to me. Meditation is a tool that I use often and from which I derive a great deal of value. I use any number of methodologies that make use of non-logical means to assist my thinking and have been doing so for years. I have yet to 'see' God manifest there.

There are other parts to the human mind

The mind is one thing. While certain areas of the brain are more active and perhaps more involved than others in performing particular tasks there are no true divisions... research tends towards the notion that the thought/mind/consciousness experience is a gestalt phenomenon. Please, can you come up with a better argument than 'atheists aren't using their entire brains'?

But in order to think with those minds, the logical mind - the ego - has to get out of the way.

The ego is not the same thing as the 'logical mind'. Logic is not, primarily, a method of thought but a method for elucidating thought. What, I think, you are getting at here is the 'stream of consciousness' or 'verbal process' of thought that often runs at will through our focus. In this, I agree, that disrupting or learning to dam that stream is extremely beneficial.

The fear is generated by the ego's desire to live at any cost. Like a yammering little speck of a demon, it puffs itself up and blocks any attempt at a greater understanding than it is capable of providing. It's overweening mantra is "I MUST BE RIGHT, I MUST BE RIGHT...."

I find it amusing that you direct this at the rationalists. Generally, I find that it is the theists whose ego is in such desperate need of support while the rationalists are willing to accept change based upon the weight of evidence. Of course, this is an unfair generalization in either direction. The ego is simply a fragile construct. The solution; let go of it.

So the infinitesimal mind has the arrogance to say - "prove it in my terms or it must be fantasy, and you must be wrong", when in fact, It doesn't want to know the answer. It will never do what needs to be done to find the answer. The most weaselly response of the ego is that "Since no one can see the truth, everyone must be wrong".

You're missing the entire point of logic here. Logic is a means to elucidate thought and bring it forward for inspection and communication. In this it is similar to our informal verbalization of thought but the formal system of logic is better suited to analysis. Granted, not everything translates well but all thought suffers in communication no matter if it is informal or formal verbal/written, music, art, dance, etc. Each method has it's strengths and weaknesses but until we develop a method of communicating pure thought it will remain locked in the mind of the individual and must necessarily suffer in translation.

Again, all the evidence is indirect and subjective.

Then please do illuminate us. How is such 'evidence' garnered?

But tracking implies that you want to find the thing you are tracking.

Again, why do you assume 'we' would not want to find God, if indeed it exists?

You will never find God because you aren't looking for him - so sit back and enjoy your self fullfilling prophesy.

Actually, I was looking for God and continue to watch for him. I've yet to find anything convincing. Of course, I can bounce the self fulfilling accusation back at you... you want to find God and thus you convince yourself that you have.

What frustrates me is that true intellectual and spiritual growth is sacrificed at the alter of fear. The fear of being wrong.

I concur. Of course, this is hardly a one-sided failing.

Our logic prevents us from seeing the ultimate consequences of the way we think and behave, and therefore it will eventually destroy us.

While I can see the errors in relying solely upon logical thought constructs I find there are similar problems relying upon any single paradigm. Yet I cannot agree with your assertion here. Care to validate it? I find logic to be one of the most reliable methods for examining a situation.

~Raithere