God, Existence and the Human Condition

I'm not asking you to see God as the romance and beauty of the universe - I'm stating that I do. While I agree that romance and beauty are subjective, they could certainly have existed before there were people to remark on them. Romance, you see, is an imperfect human word that tries to capture a timeless idea.

Hey Jjorge, im a former catholic too, [coincidence], and not too long ago either, im only 16 and realized that religion and god were a human creation at 14. One of my reasons for getting out of the Religion was that i did not feel i needed to be hypnotized into thinking i am never going to die. I know all things die, i accept it. Lordregent, you say that god is the " inherent romance of existence, the beauty of life". existence can be dull, and life can be ugly, do you too associate that with god. As for romance being timeless, did it exist before we as humans were able to feel it? can animals feel romance or appreciate beauty?

If I may be tolerated as I delve into semantics, "romance" is simply idealism. It is often a limited version of idealism--a subclass--but that's all it is. Therefor it could not exist without a mind percieving an ideal.

Just because man takes comfort in thoughts of life after death (to which it seems we all agree), that is no basis to conclude, "therefor he invented God." It would be just as logical a conclusion to say "therefor God promises life after death to comfort man."

Your logic follows the same lines as "Women like the smell of flowers, therefor women created flowers that their noses might not be bored."

I don't base my reasons on that (you might not be addressing me, but I'll just state my reasons anyways.). I look around and see science progressing. There's no sign of God, and all other bits of information I've obtained seem to favor the non-existance of God. And seeing that the bible isn't exactly accurate (and I'd read it as a piece of fiction anyways), it seems likely that God is the creation of the mind. I would also prefer that man created God because he needed someone or something to believe in--someone to consolidate for his imperfection and weaknesses.

Etruscia, I concede that existence can be dull, adn that many things in life are ugly, but the inherent complexity and awesomeness.... it is the particular idiosyncraties of the human mind that cause us to notice the ugly and the boring. May suggest an excercise? Hold up your hand in front of you and more your fingers slowly. Now think about that. Think about how amazingly coherent and synergistic a system is required for you to be able to do that... and beyond that, for you to be concious of it. That, my friend, is what I mean by romantic.

Yes, romance predates human recognition of it, and yes, it did exist without a mind percieving an ideal. I just mentioned moving one's fingers, but I could easily have said the fins of a fish, or the wings of a bird or an insect, or the cilia of a protozoan.

Romance and idealism are not the same. Idealism is the practice of making an effort to see the romance and beauty. It, therefore, is a creation of the human mind, but romance itself is not.

Of course, this is all purely my opinion, a metaphysical belief. I don't pretend to offer any facts to back it up beyond my own gut instinct.

But romance and idealism are not mutually exclusive. If you can't interpret the romance, it's meaningless. If it's not interpreted as romantic, then who cares? It's all there, and it's there because it's natural. And since you can interpret it as ugly or romantic (this depends on perspective--some people will appreciate it, others won't, no matter what you tell them), it's subjective.

The right to agree or disagree with me is your own....but I would like you to at least understand my point...and since Scoates and Etruscas have both failed to grasp my point...I shall try to reitterate it in the simplest terms possible.

1) It is easy to imagine how planets and intelligent life would come about once there is some form of energy in the universe...and easy to see how matter could be converted from any form...therefore, the only question that remins is....where did matter come from?

2) The ONLY reason for believing in a God is to explain where the origin of matter may have come from.

3) If God is considered to be the source of matter, then we still don't know where the God came from...so instead of providing an answer, we are left with the SAME question (how did God/matter come to be?) AND an additional question -- how can something as irrational as a God exist?

4) Since there is zero evidence for believing in a God, and since the belief in a God would not resolve any questions about the universe but would only make additional much more difficult to answer questions, it is completely ridiculous to even entertain the possibility!

Stuh
I agree. This is the argument against the cosmologic proof of the existence of God given by Aquinas. If we say that matter must have an origin and then we say that the origin is God we are doing nothing but transfering the question to a new level.
There is a very curious position, from some astrophysics, that before matter exists, there was it's possibility. That means, laws of physic exist before the physical universe. It's a very platonic point of view.

To me the question has no sense. Matter is what we are. We exist interacting with other entities. We are evolucionary entities and what we call reality is nothing more that all that is compatible to us. We can not leave those conditions of experience, we cannot look at a metaphysical "objective reality", as if we were watching the world from the "outside".
Questions like "what is the origin of matter" have no answer because they are meaningless.

It's always been easier for me to respect someone that can at least entertain the notion that there might be a God in spite of one's best investigations, and that one could indeed could be wrong, notwithstanding the brilliance of his individual mind.

It seems to me the epitome of arrogance to assume that since one cannot acertain the knowledge of God with one's senses or intellect, God must therefore not exist.

It seems to ME the epitome of foolishness and arrogance to believe in something when

a) there is no evidence of any kind
b) there are no theoretical reasons for believing in it
c) believing in it would force disproving the majority of our knowledge today

What kind of fool chooses to stop believing in everything that our race has spent hundreds of years to discover, just because they feel like it?

THAT is ignorance, THAT is arrogance.

Dream on, officer...

once one realizes the absolute void of meaning, and importance which is our universe; individual possibilities become infinite!

[any other viewpoint is comparatively 'stifling'!]

we are 'starstuff'; not simply the toys of deities.

[there lies your 'romance, and beauty'!]

...and by the time we got to Woodstock, we were half a million strong...

Wait a minute, Stuh - your last point doesn't make sense.

c) believing in it would force disproving the majority of our knowledge today

Why's that? There may be no evidence to support the idea of God, but it's just as valid to say you can't disprove it either.

the burden of proof lies with the inventor of the hypothesis; it is never 'required' to disprove, but only to amass sufficient evidence to 'prove' a theory.

if you can't; drop it!

['nothing' exists quite comfortably in a vacuum!]

But romance and idealism are not mutually exclusive. If you can't interpret the romance, it's meaningless. If it's not interpreted as romantic, then who cares?

I care. I think the romance was important and meaningful before it was appreciated.

It's all there, and it's there because it's natural. And since you can interpret it as ugly or romantic (this depends on perspective--some people will appreciate it, others won't, no matter what you tell them), it's subjective.

That's true. My subjective viewpoint is that existence is romantic. I'm not trying to convince anyone of that - I'm perfectly content believing it myself. All I'm trying to say is that I believe that God was not created by the human mind because I believe that God is romance, and romance is eternal. I believe that God has been interpreted by the human mind, and appreciated, and anthropomorphized. This is all my belief and it doesn't matter to me whether you agree as long as you're tolerant.

Logically, I admit that since I don't physically or scientifically know anything about God it's just as likely that God is a big man in the metaphorical sky or an antelope or a conference of people named Abraham or nothing at all. I have simply chosen the one of these infinite possibilities that makes the most intuitive sense to me.

BoGoWo, you invoke the burden of proof, but you're making assumptions about who's the affirmative. Let's look at two scenarios:

1. Your viewpoint. God is the hypothesis; therefore the theists have the burden of proof. But they don't have any proof, so you dismiss their hypothesis.
2. A different viewpoint. The lack of God is the hypothesis; therefore the atheists have the burden of proof. But they don't have any proof either; therefore we must dismiss this hypothesis also.

We can take any metaphysical belief as the hypothesis, and it will be immediately defeated by the burden of proof. Therefore, since all hypothesese are invalid, all are equally so. We have only belief and gut instinct to guide us, and one person's belief is as valid as another.

Since you didn't present the choice with which I feel most comfortable, I was not able to vote in your poll.

Allow me to introduce the choice I think should be there:

I don't know...and the evidence is not sufficient to cause me to guess in any particular direction.


There may be no gods...and everything may simply have always existed.

There may be a God...and that God may be the cause of everything.


But there is absolutely no evidence that points unambiguously in either direction...and anyone who chooses to make a guess, it seems to me, is pulling something out of thin air.

Hello, Snood.

Long time no see.

Hope you are safe and well.