Why do you have to believe in fantasy to believe in God?

[Greatest I am]

There's a another problem with the view that dismisses God because people have emotional reasons to believe in Him. Let's turn the question "Is God just a fantasy?" on its edge for a moment and turn it around. Is believing that there is not such thing as the "Bible God" a reality, or is it just a fantasy, an emotional crutch, wishful thinking? It goes both ways.

Instead of inventing God, have people invented non-God? Have they invented this idea to escape some of the frightening implications of God's existence?

People of all cultures, from the most primitive to the most advanced, believe in God. There's a reason. They don't have to work themselves into belief. Quite the contrary, it's a natural conclusion based on the observed order of the world, more like an effortless response. Most people, when left to their own intelligence, see beyond the visible to what's behind it and what explains it.

The belief in a non-God, is the real anomaly - the response that's unnatural, forced, and artificial. Disbelief, not belief, takes the real effort. It's almost as if one has to talk themself out of believing in God.

Why would anyone do that when the evidence is so apparent? The motive, I think, is obvious. If we can somehow convince ourselves God doesn't exist, then He won't be cramping our life style. When it comes to our own lives, we don't like riding shotgun; we want to hold the reins.

Someone asked for a counter argument.
Now I do.
If you have another bone you want to worry then start an O P.
It is bad form to try to derail mine.

Regards
DL

 

[Diggin Deep]

Nicely put garbage. Just kidding. Smile.
I recognize your effort here.

Regards
DL

Unfortunately, I can't view any of your youtube clips at work And I'm going to take that comment as a compliment

 

[itsmeJonB]

I do apologize Tim, I did not mean to capitalize "God" in that context.



I disagree - there is evidence of a higher power and it is apparent. Look around you at any living thing. Is that not evidence of a higher power?

No that's not evidence. Proof of existance is the objects existance itself. Everything in this world can be explained with science, a god cannot, because its existance is not apparent.

If it were so simple then questioning of faith wouldn't be so common

 

[Diggin Deep]

Someone asked for a counter argument.
Now I do.
If you have another bone you want to worry then start an O P.
It is bad form to try to derail mine.

Regards
DL

I do apologize and that was not my intent. My response comes in many parts and they are all tied together.

 

[Diggin Deep]

No that's not evidence. Proof of existance is the objects existance itself. Everything in this world can be explained with science, a god cannot, because its existance is not apparent.

If it were so simple then questioning of faith wouldn't be so common

If you argue that science can only 'explain' something by proving it (for example, we know that the most abundant element in the Earth's atmosphere is Nitrogen, and science can prove this), then science can never know EVERYTHING, as there are many things that cannot be proved.

One example of something that cannot be proved is the creation of the universe. No one will never know how this occured, as obviously, nobody was around at the time, and so science can only ever make 'educated guesses'.

 

[Tim]

If you argue that science can only 'explain' something by proving it (for example, we know that the most abundant element in the Earth's atmosphere is Nitrogen, and science can prove this), then science can never know EVERYTHING, as there are many things that cannot be proved.

One example of something that cannot be proved is the creation of the universe. No one will never know how this occured, as obviously, nobody was around at the time, and so science can only ever make 'educated guesses'.

You are right, but an educated guess is much better than story created from fantasy.

 

[itsmeJonB]

If you argue that science can only 'explain' something by proving it (for example, we know that the most abundant element in the Earth's atmosphere is Nitrogen, and science can prove this), then science can never know EVERYTHING, as there are many things that cannot be proved.

One example of something that cannot be proved is the creation of the universe. No one will never know how this occured, as obviously, nobody was around at the time, and so science can only ever make 'educated guesses'.

But to say god did it doesn't educate us either, its so childish in my eyes to chalk everything up to a miracle that cannot be explained

And going back to your argument that you believe that we have to talk ourselves out of believing in god, well its so force fed to us and atheist are shunned in society that its not convincing that's needed its common sense and courage. I questioned my faith early, while attending catholic school and my logic was far easier to believe than the man in the sky whose judging me and giving babies in africa aids

 

[Panacea]

I suppose that depends on what one defines as "god". If god means "the world as we know it", that is a naturalist definition requiring no fantastical beliefs whatsoever. (I personally don't understand why one would need to call the world god, it feels like pandering to religion in some cases...I feel god is clearly just an unsupported ancient concept that carries on through generations from its immense power, so why bother to call it that, idk...). If god means "entity not of this world", then I believe that scatters into the supernatural, which is usually associated with fantasy.

 

[Greatest I am]

I do apologize Tim, I did not mean to capitalize "God" in that context.



I disagree - there is evidence of a higher power and it is apparent. Look around you at any living thing. Is that not evidence of a higher power?

You are right but not the way you think.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YotBtibsuh0&feature=related

This may seem like I am contradicting what I said in my previous post to you above but it is not.

It is just saying that you have to fit what we see as imperfection within perfection.

It gets rather complicated. Yes?

Regards
DL

 

[Diggin Deep]

You are right but not the way you think.

This may seem like I am contradicting what I said in my previous post to you above but it is not.

It is just saying that you have to fit what we see as imperfection within perfection.

It gets rather complicated. Yes?

Regards
DL

Yes...extremely complicated!

 

[Greatest I am]

it was believed that Mary was a virgin and was spoke by the angel Gabriel. but then again so was Anakin's mother....but she wasn't spoken to by an angel.....

I have known a few angels. Or at least they sure felt angelic-------oops, sorry I drifted off in a daydream there for a moment. Christ, another sin on my soul.
But I have never seen invisible flying sperm that could target virgins.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Unfortunately, I can't view any of your youtube clips at work And I'm going to take that comment as a compliment

It was meant that way. off topic but quite good.

As to my post, take your time and get back to me.

You said you like to think and what you come back with will tell me if you do it well.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

If you argue that science can only 'explain' something by proving it (for example, we know that the most abundant element in the Earth's atmosphere is Nitrogen, and science can prove this), then science can never know EVERYTHING, as there are many things that cannot be proved.

One example of something that cannot be proved is the creation of the universe. No one will never know how this occured, as obviously, nobody was around at the time, and so science can only ever make 'educated guesses'.

This is true but you will note how Christianity uses the myth of Eden to keep women somewhere below men. Not to mention the persecution of Gays all these years. All without any proof.

Regards
DL

 

[Panacea]

Look around you at any living thing. Is that not evidence of a higher power?

Quite simply, no. Your "if a, then b" argument makes too grand a leap in assumption to be valid. What about life's existence makes a higher power's involvement in its inception more likely than that of a "lower power"?

Let's look:

We know that complex things are often built from simpler things, which would support the idea that life came from a "lower power", if you will, a possibly fallible entity. This isn't good logic, because we do not have evidence this is the case.

The watchmaker's argument would counter that those complex things (watch) built from simpler things (watch parts) are built by a higher power, being a human...therefore god. Well, humans are built as well, from other humans...which nullifies that argument's bad logic as well. We do not currently have any evidence of this.

As Wyndex said, life itself is only proof of life itself.

 

[Diggin Deep]

Tieing it all together -

Maybe we made a trade-off. By creating a fantasy god who makes demands we surrendered a little autonomy, but we received meaning, significance, and security (or at least the illusion of it) in the swap. But then there's a different problem.

If we were to invent a god, what would he be like? If we fashioned a god of our choosing, would we create a god like the one in the Bible? A god formed by human hands would mirror human sensibilities and human proclivities. He would think and act, more or less, like we do. As our invention, his morality would reflect our desires. When we erred, he'd cluck his disapproval and then dismiss our frailties with an affectionate kids-will-be-kids shrug. After all, nobody's perfect. And this is the kind of god many religions seem to produce. Not Christianity, though.

The curious thing about the God of the Bible is how unlike us He is. His wisdom confuses us; His purity frightens us. He makes moral demands we can't live up to, then threatens retribution if we don't obey. Instead of being at our beck and call, He defies manipulation. In His economy, the weak and humble prevail and the last become first.

Is the Christian God just a fantasy? Did we invent Him? Could we invent Him? Is He the kind of god we would create if left to our own devices? Or have we seen the true God and trembled--closed our eyes, hid our faces, and turned our backs?

 

[Diggin Deep]

It was meant that way. off topic but quite good.

As to my post, take your time and get back to me.

You said you like to think and what you come back with will tell me if you do it well.

Regards
DL

Thank you :thumbup

 

[Greatest I am]

I suppose that depends on what one defines as "god". If god means "the world as we know it", that is a naturalist definition requiring no fantastical beliefs whatsoever. (I personally don't understand why one would need to call the world god, it feels like pandering to religion in some cases...I feel god is clearly just an unsupported ancient concept that carries on through generations from its immense power, so why bother to call it that, idk...). If god means "entity not of this world", then I believe that scatters into the supernatural, which is usually associated with fantasy.

Nice.

God should mean rules to follow to a good life
or
hope, as opposed to faith.

I see a huge difference between hope and faith.
What do I know. I'm French.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Tieing it all together -

Maybe we made a trade-off. By creating a fantasy god who makes demands we surrendered a little autonomy, but we received meaning, significance, and security (or at least the illusion of it) in the swap. But then there's a different problem.

If we were to invent a god, what would he be like? If we fashioned a god of our choosing, would we create a god like the one in the Bible? A god formed by human hands would mirror human sensibilities and human proclivities. He would think and act, more or less, like we do. As our invention, his morality would reflect our desires. When we erred, he'd cluck his disapproval and then dismiss our frailties with an affectionate kids-will-be-kids shrug. After all, nobody's perfect. And this is the kind of god many religions seem to produce. Not Christianity, though.

The curious thing about the God of the Bible is how unlike us He is. His wisdom confuses us; His purity frightens us. He makes moral demands we can't live up to, then threatens retribution if we don't obey. Instead of being at our beck and call, He defies manipulation. In His economy, the weak and humble prevail and the last become first.

Is the Christian God just a fantasy? Did we invent Him? Could we invent Him? Is He the kind of god we would create if left to our own devices? Or have we seen the true God and trembled--closed our eyes, hid our faces, and turned our backs?

This should speak to you.
if you can access it somewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg&feature=player_embedded

Regards
DL

 

[Panacea]

Nice.

God should mean rules to follow to a good life
or
hope, as opposed to faith.

I see a huge difference between hope and faith.
What do I know. I'm French.

Regards
DL

Haha well, French people know enough, I am sure.
I see no need for god at all, but I am in favor of people taking action to live a good life, and be kind, etc.

I also see a difference between hope and faith, as well as a different between faith and religious faith. A hope is a wish, to me...something I want or need...a turn of events I would like to see happen. Faith is that silent security, trust that worldly events will typically go as they always have (I have faith the floor won't open up into a volcano right now) or people will act as I suspect they might (my boyfriend is not a serial killer). We can be proven wrong with either hope or faith. Religious faith seems like something socialized that can never be proven wrong, and simply is, and always will be, whether we choose to accept it or not.

 

[HK]

The curious thing about the God of the Bible is how unlike us He is. His wisdom confuses us; His purity frightens us. He makes moral demands we can't live up to, then threatens retribution if we don't obey. Instead of being at our beck and call, He defies manipulation.

To a modern audience then of course Gods appear to be unlikely creatures for one of us to willingly dream up. But it's important to remember that we didn't invent this God at all - people several thousand years ago started it. Not just the Christian God, God's of all religions mainly have a basis in much more primitive cultures, which based their ideas about God on the world around them behaving in ways they couldn't explain.

If you want a more modern God for comparison, consider the Wiccans. They're far more recent than most and although I'm not exactly an expert, from what I've heard they have much more relatable Gods. Which makes sense, because they were invented when people were more self-aware and were more likely to have a desire for Gods that were kind and gracious, rather than biblical and angry.

In His economy, the weak and humble prevail and the last become first.

This more than anything sounds so man-made - the idea that being weak and lesser than others could actually somehow make you a winner