Is it so unbelievable that we made God up?

[Revan]

Vampires, Werewolf’s, Witches, Aliens (Still debatable, I know), Dragons, Centaurs, Harpies, Ipotane, Lamia, Manticore (and Catoblepas and Leucrocuta), Moon Woman, Satyr, Sphinx, Mermaids, Unicorn's, Giants... there's a whole endless list of creatures that the human mind has "made up"... That some people still and will believe no matter what logical contradictions are thrown their way.

And I sometimes wonder, is it really so farfetched that we "made" up a creature that sits above all these ones? Is it really unbelievable that God was made up the way dragons are?

Some people will argue that the bible and it's intricate writing are enough proof that God was not just some "Fantastical creature" made up by man... but I disagree, there are thousands, sometimes millions of writing that try and lend proof to the creatures I listed above, yet we know the illogicalness of most of them...

Don't have a go at me...NI just thought I'd add this little topic together... and though the topic isn't very complete in its details, the central question is still there... Is it impossible that we made God up?

[High Lord Tolkien]

Is it so unbelievable that we made God up?

No.
If I think about it from a pure science point of view.....His birth began when Mankind became smart enough to fear death beyond a "fight or flight" type animal response.
With the beginning of "free time" Man created God.


(But I don't want to think about this until after Christmas. )

[The Laughing Man]

That some people still and will believe no matter what logical contradictions are thrown their way.

are you saying it contradicts logic that there is a God?

Peter: [watching a bag float in the wind - american beauty spoof] Oh, look, its dancing with me. Its like there is some incredibly benevelant force that wants wants me to know there's no reason to be afraid. Sometimes there's so much beauty in the world it makes my heart burst.

God: It's just some trash blowing in the wind. Do you have any idea how complicated your circulatory system is?!!

[lucimay]

oh Revan, you've done it now!!!

(hear robert johnson singin
i got to keep on movin', blues fallin down like hail
and it keeps on worryin me,
there's a hellhound, i mean an Esmer on my tail...)

[I'm Murrin]

Dammit, of course it's illogical to believe in the gods as our major religions see them. Religious texts are all clearly human made, as is any idea of what a creator/supernatural omnipotent being might be like, as it's so far outside our perception we can't have any chance of getting it right - it'd be either guesswork or ridiculous optimism.

However, the concept that there may be a guiding force behind everything is perfectly valid, because as yet it has not been disproven. The test of a legitimate hypothesis is not how many proofs are found, but that no disproofs are found. Until an indisputable disproof of the concept of a deity is found, the hypothesis is as valid as any other. I don't have any problem with people believing in a creator - it's trying to ascribe properties/traits to this creator that is illogical and just plain dumb. Theism: yes. Religion: no.

[The Laughing Man]

Dammit, of course it's illogical to believe in the gods as our major religions see them. Religious texts are all clearly human made, as is any idea of what a creator/supernatural omnipotent being might be like, as it's so far outside our perception we can't have any chance of getting it right - it'd be either guesswork or ridiculous optimism.


However, the concept that there may be a guiding force behind everything is perfectly valid, because as yet it has not been disproven. The test of a legitimate hypothesis is not how many proofs are found, but that no disproofs are found. Until an indisputable disproof of the concept of a deity is found, the hypothesis is as valid as any other. I don't have any problem with people believing in a creator - it's trying to ascribe properties/traits to this creator that is illogical and just plain dumb. Theism: yes. Religion: no.

exactly, but we have to admit that something so utterly and completely "unknowable" must be responsible for the universe and reality, whether you bring God into it or not, using science or religion.

Now, the "concept" of a guiding force has been proven in an incredible amount of ways, science is just hesitant to take the last step required, to ascribe "Intent" as a valid component of this force, and a likely "progenitor" of this force, and the "structure" it is contained within and ruled by, as well. And you are right, it is the ascibing of traits that is the problem, and I feel this is best seen in applying "personality" traits especially, that "God" would behave like an organic human. An organic human couldn't possibly be capable of creating the existence we live in, so how can one ascribe "human sentiment" to its "personality" exclusively as a description of whatever it may be that is "God".

BTW, I'm still waiting for what will constitute "proof" as to the existence of a "Creator". All I've heard is what "doesn't" prove it, but what DOES?

[I'm Murrin]

There is no proof, and as far as we can see now, never will be. Which is why I emphasised the need to search for disproofs.

Bemused: In what ways do you consider that the concept of a driving force has been 'proven'?

[The Laughing Man]

define:intent - The singlemost causal agency in all action, creation, destruction and change at all levels of existence. That component of consciousness which gives rise to all forms. The means by which the Will of God and Natural Law is manifest. The essence and source of motivation.

because it has been commonly defined as such, and because it is "obvious" that every single thing is in constant and perpetual "motion", and logic demands that if something is in motion, some "force" must be "responsible". "gravity" is just one component of that overall description, as of yet which remains incomplete.

now, quit dodging the question, and give me an "example" of "proof" of "God". I know you can......

[I'm Murrin]

Strange, because I know I can't, and have admitted the fact several times already.

There is no such proof. No such proof exists. The existance of such a proof is an impossibility. How many ways do I have to say it before people stop using it as a point in an argument?

[The Laughing Man]

come on, no "ideas"? you mean, something like his signature, or his old apartment? A notebook he left lying around?

Or is it only his direct and undeniable appearence to each and everyone of us at the exact same instant the only "proof" that is acceptable?

[I'm Murrin]

Yes, okay, you've made your point. And it's my point too. They are indistinguishable.

I'm saying there is nothing that can be conclusively defined as proof of god and that we should therefore look for disproofs instead, because logically if they exist they would be easier to find (this is the common practice applied to every scientific theory, btw). It only takes one disproof to discredit a theory, and before you can accept a theory a search for disproofs should be conducted to the point where you can reasonably accept the theory as 'true'.

Now stop this and lets get on with some constructive discussion, okay?

[The Laughing Man]

hehe. ALL theories in science exist as "proven" until "disproven", why can't "God" be given the same "latitude"? Well, if God exists, logic demands that he must be perceivable, there must be evidence, there must be a way to find Him, and observe Him, in whatever "form" he may exist in, eh? This is exactly where the "heart" of this "constructive" discussion lies. It is "more logical" that "God" exists than that He doesn't.

[I'm Murrin]

Scientific theories tend to be evidence before hypothesis, rather than otherwise. Even the purely theoretical hypotheses were based on existing, proven theories.
God's existance remains a possibility, but there has been no evidence for the hypothesis, and it is not based on any proven hypotheses.

[The Laughing Man]

God's existence has been proven many times to many people, countless, to be exact. Personal testimony of actual witness to "factual" existence of God, and the "methodology" (science) required to observe Him. Do you discount this simply because it requires that you can't use a microscope to see Him, only "evidence" of His presence? How can a "theory" be complete without "experimenting" in the manner prescribed by the nature of the problem?

[Nathan]

It "is" impossible to "take" what "other" people have said "as" proof of god, that would "be" like taking "a" man's claim of alien abduction seriously. There's little consistency in alien abduction stories, "and" there's little consistency "in" god performed a miracle for me stories.

Now, stop dodging the answer and "try" to see "if" you can give me a straight "question".

[The Laughing Man]

why do you consistently refer to the "kooks" and "miracles"? All "higher" religions who "claim" to have "observed" "God" have done it in one surprisingly consistent manner, "removal of the self" , or "internal silence", or any other which way you want to "define" it, it remains the same, there are "specific actions" that one may take with their "perception" to "apprehend" the universe in a "conscious" manner. These are not kooks, or charlatans, they are scientists of the highest order, that back up theory with action. The procedure is apparent, and therefore reproducible. Science demands that "proof" is contained within something being able to be reproduced in a thouroughly consistent manner. If an entire group of individuals perceives in exactly the same manner, the exact same perceptions are apprehended, and the "theory" is proven, based upon consistently similar descriptions of whatever is being perceived. You can't see a molecule without a microscope, so it would only follow that to see awareness you need to use "perception". Now, if you are just willing to say that you haven't proven God exists just because you are too unwilling to try in the prescribed manner, that would be acceptable. But to say it hasn't been proven only proves that "they" haven't tried in the proper manner or included all manner of "perception" in their calculations.

[Fist and Faith]

I think it's extremely cool that The Esmer is a cross between a Bloodguard and an Elohim!!

God's existence has been proven many times to many people, countless, to be exact. Personal testimony of actual witness to "factual" existence of God, and the "methodology" (science) required to observe Him. Do you discount this simply because it requires that you can't use a microscope to see Him, only "evidence" of His presence? How can a "theory" be complete without "experimenting" in the manner prescribed by the nature of the problem?

The problem is that none of the evidence you have in mind is recordable, repeatable, or transmittable, and therefore can't convince anyone who has not experienced the same type of evidence.

why do you consistently refer to the "kooks" and "miracles"? All "higher" religions who "claim" to have "observed" "God" have done it in one surprisingly consistent manner, "removal of the self" , or "internal silence", or any other which way you want to "define" it, it remains the same, there are "specific actions" that one may take with their "perception" to "apprehend" the universe in a "conscious" manner. These are not kooks, or charlatans, they are scientists of the highest order, that back up theory with action. The procedure is apparent, and therefore reproducible. Science demands that "proof" is contained within something being able to be reproduced in a thouroughly consistent manner. If an entire group of individuals perceives in exactly the same manner, the exact same perceptions are apprehended, and the "theory" is proven, based upon consistently similar descriptions of whatever is being perceived. You can't see a molecule without a microscope, so it would only follow that to see awareness you need to use "perception". Now, if you are just willing to say that you haven't proven God exists just because you are too unwilling to try in the prescribed manner, that would be acceptable. But to say it hasn't been proven only proves that "they" haven't tried in the proper manner or included all manner of "perception" in their calculations.

This is extremely well said, and might possibly dismiss what I said above. However, there is the possibility of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who have been told that they will experience a certain thing if they do such-and-such, they believe they will experience it, and - most important - they want to experience it, almost certainly will experience it. Now, if you took a number of people who had never heard of the concept of a creator, or anything supernatural, and taught them the prescribed manner, "Just to see if there's anything to us when we leave all thought and awareness behind," and they all experienced the same thing, I'd be willing to try it myself. But I fear it will take something like that to get me to put in the necessary time and effort. Because, without any personal experiences of my own, I don't have any motivation. Ya know? You're not talking about a simple thing that I'll try next weekend. With the limited time I have, lifetime as well as daily, why invest so much of it in something for which I have no reason to expect a return?

[The Laughing Man]

you have "the problem" in a "nutshell" right there, Fist. The time and effort. Now, I use DJM and CC just because they are "my favorite", and "clarified" what "everyone else" was saying in a reasonable and logical, and most importantly, "procedural" manner. They were referring to "discoveries" made by the "Toltecs", an ancient society around 7 -10,000 years ago, who came up with "observations of awareness" that they were able to faithfully and completely reproduce and verify what it was threy were "seeing" with each single and consecutive and subsequent individual, all of which made up an entire group, to then include an entire society, ALL who agreed on the founding principles of their observations; That we are "in essence" "luminous energy", and that this "luminous energy" is what the entire universe was made of, in it's "essence", and that it was "obvious" to each individual that the "nature" of this "luminous energy" was "awareness". This does not seem entirely impossible on even the surface of it, but indeed requires much "digging and effort": to "verify" it for oneself. It is also regarded that once this "manuever" is able to be reproduced by "oneself" in a consistent and sustainable manner, one is "convinced", and the "theory" becomes "fact". "Fact" is just another word for "widely accepted reasonable assumption" anyway, and we can accomplish this in many different ways to come up with "one truth". The struggle to apprehend the universe around is difficult to accomplish in the meager manner in which we currently attempt it, it's only a matter of course that it would be an immense struggle to apprehend it in an "unknown" manner in order to "perceive" the "Unknowable".

[I'm Murrin]

I notice, The Esmer, that you never did clearly answer my question:

Now, the "concept" of a guiding force has been proven in an incredible amount of ways, science is just hesitant to take the last step required, to ascribe "Intent" as a valid component of this force,

In what ways do you consider that the concept of a driving force has been 'proven'?

[The Laughing Man]

Murrrin, the "Big Bang" simply proves it, doesn't it? The fact that everything is in observable motion, down to it's very core, proves that some "force" is driving it, and the fact that it has "form and structure" proves that "something" is "guiding" that "force". "Laws of Nature".