Why do we need a God?

Do we need [there to be] God?

  • Total voters
    28
Half the world would sooner praise themselves than submit to any higher power. And a quarter of those praise Ares. Least the remainder follow to acquire his protection.

The diety ceases to exist, but the thought still remains in the whole of society. God is not some object, some being to be given a day. Take the day for yourself and find some feeling of god within it.

I feel no god at any church or from any man who illogically validates his existence. I would rather preach atheism all day than reveal what inside me has this logical distaste for "god in the eyes of men". I would rather die than tell some imbecile who he believes his god to be.

But I can still live wishing someone can teach me about God. And wish just like worry is just a feeling and means nihil of God.
 
God, is a limiting concept; the alpha and omega. The concept of infinity in math and science is an example of a spin-off limiting concept. The concept of infinity important to math and science, since although you can't prove infinity, but can only define it, it nevertheless establishes an asymptote in the mind. This is mind expanding.

We can approach infinity or God, but we can never quite get there, in terms of a final proof of a limit. Once you define infinity or God in terms of a tangible limit, it is not infinite anymore. Trying to prove God runs into the same problems of trying to prove infinity. If you expect a tangible result, it cannot happen by definition. If one looks for proof of God or proof of infinity, one is looking for an illusion.

The question I have asked is why does science keep infinity if it can't be proven using the scientific method? Science has its own version of faith. Still this expands the mind, if one dare gaze across the asymptote gap.
 
We're limited no matter how one looks at it, limitations are not just universal in us but universal in us in all views.
 
The thread is problematic. It asks a question, then answers it with "we don't need a God", and then passes it to theists. So the only poster who can post their real reply is the OP, and the theists.
 
Big Chiller said:
We're limited no matter how one looks at it, limitations are not just universal in us but universal in us in all views.
Click to expand...

We are only limited by choice. God is the conscious universe manifesting lower levels of reality such as physical matter. If you dare to achieve greatness it will happen.
 
Cortex_Colossum said:
We are only limited by choice. God is the conscious universe manifesting lower levels of reality such as physical matter. If you dare to achieve greatness it will happen.
Click to expand...

What the hell is a "lower level of reality"? I'm curious because I've never heard that scientific term before.
 
Depending on the person I would say belief in something can be good if you have nothing else left sure, but surely by now we should have come to the point where we can tell the difference between right and wrong without the need of one.
 
ashpwner said:
Depending on the person I would say belief in something can be good if you have nothing else left sure, but surely by now we should have come to the point where we can tell the difference between right and wrong without the need of one.
Click to expand...

I dont think this makes sense. What does a person have that is not belief .... since even issues of eating and sleeping are governed by preferences values and ideals ..... what to speak of the higher ground occupied by ruminations on right and wrong
 
I was triangulating between you and ashpwner.

"Belief" is often perceived as a weakness, a statement of "uncertainty" - and "certainty" is what is desired.

"If you only believe, then you don't know and you're not sure. So you might as well do away with the belief altogether."
 
wynn said:
I was triangulating between you and ashpwner.

"Belief" is often perceived as a weakness, a statement of "uncertainty" - and "certainty" is what is desired.

"If you only believe, then you don't know and you're not sure. So you might as well do away with the belief altogether."
Click to expand...

its belief that provides the framework for what a conditioned soul is sure of .... if it was otherwise pursuing questions of truth would be as straightforward as the pursuit of simple mathematics

iow there is no great historiographies on 3+3 =6 since the absolute singularity of the values in the problem grant prohibit any diverse answers
 
I think you are addressing here an epistemological foundation that naive realists (and most atheists seem to be naive realists) and perhaps a few others do not acknowledge to begin with.

Instead, they claim to be in possession of a certainty that is beyond the limitations of the senses and the mind.
Basically, they in effect claim to have the atheist version of divya-pratyaksa (of course, they believe they simply "know how things really are," not that there is any "atheist," or "version" or "divinity" involved).
They will sometimes admit that their senses and mind are faulty and subject to delusion, but they nevertheless claim that they, the atheists, are right and know for sure.
 
wynn said:
the atheists, are right and know for sure.
Click to expand...

Besides the straw man of naive realism, this indeed is a valid point - and the reason why I am not a militant strong atheist. I am an atheist precisely because we may be wrong and dont know for sure. Until be can be certain of both, it makes no more sense to consider god real than it does to consider faries real.
 
spidergoat said:
Wouldn't it be better if the things we believe in were true or likely to be true based on the evidence?
Click to expand...

I personally believe in nature-because it simply exists (like I said I don't believe in God), all the environment, all the universe..., but you can't blame someone to believe in something invisible and undetectable, because science is all about detection, measurement and calculating. If you can't something detect, than you can't measure and calculate. And what makes you think there is no matter or energy that cannot be detected and never will be detected?
This is why I'm talking about. We can easily also say that tachyons (or anything else) are based on faith and this fate was based on some mathematical calculations. When you're dealing with something undetectable or you simply make it out just because the science says so, this time science becomes religion or philosophy (it depends if you believe in tachyons than it's matter of of fate, if you only discuss about it without believing or not believing, than it's a pure philosophy, since there is no single proof or even indication) obviously.

However, some people say God=Nature/Universe, Nature=Universe-I truly don't know if this is correct or not, it's not correct based on definitions of (I looked at encyclopedia).
Cheers.
 
Arioch said:
@wynn --



So sorry to hear that you're too closed minded to gain any happiness from science. I, and hundreds of millions of others, don't have that problem.
Click to expand...

Actually, western science is the one who is close minded, they left spiritual part of a human being, and because of that I dislike it, it's all about materialistic view, but western science does not accept challenges when some inovator goes and tells I bet the law of entropy, instead of "spitting", they should show himn why he is wrong, but they are afraid what if he is right-that's what they are afraid of.
Discoveries that were made by scientists are not the scientists who followed scientific dogma of that time, but they simply made the revolution by not following the thinking of those modern times.
If you're not happy spiritually, you are not happy at all, you're pseudo-happy, and that is the part which western science ignores. it's all about competition which is not healthy, just look wha there is so much people who because of the stress and similar things get sick so often, not to mention they are poisoning us with gm foods, chemicals and etc. there is no control of any of these productions.
Competition is not healthy, people simply want a normal, peaceful life not the competitive one.
Cheers.
 
Gravage said:
I personally believe in nature-because it simply exists (like I said I don't believe in God), all the environment, all the universe..., but you can't blame someone to believe in something invisible and undetectable, because science is all about detection, measurement and calculating. If you can't something detect, than you can't measure and calculate. And what makes you think there is no matter or energy that cannot be detected and never will be detected?
This is why I'm talking about. We can easily also say that tachyons (or anything else) are based on faith and this fate was based on some mathematical calculations. When you're dealing with something undetectable or you simply make it out just because the science says so, this time science becomes religion or philosophy (it depends if you believe in tachyons than it's matter of of fate, if you only discuss about it without believing or not believing, than it's a pure philosophy, since there is no single proof or even indication) obviously.

However, some people say God=Nature/Universe, Nature=Universe-I truly don't know if this is correct or not, it's not correct based on definitions of (I looked at encyclopedia).
Cheers.
Click to expand...

Again, why believe in something for which there is no evidence? Science does not do that, in spite of your claim that it does. If God cannot be detected, then it's unreasonable to believe in it. That is not the same thing as saying there cannot be a God. I admit a slim possibility for the sake of argument, but at this point in history, there is no evidence for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top