Is there proof God exists?

I agree with you sentiments totally. Relating to "god" is no problem for me personally, but when others say I must find "god" it seems tautologous. Spirituality is difficult enough to harness for oneself let alone being told what you must harness by others.

Yes, ironically, the need for a personified deity to relate to on a personal basis seems rather ego centered.

Yes. As I see it, everything is just conceptualizations anyway. Even the most obvious seeming facts of physical existence are merely perceptions dressed in concepts we have invented.

Well, I differ on your views about delusions. People do suffer from these blind spots. Some of these are wishful, while some are shadows of the society. Some delusions are petty and harmless, while some are down right dangerous.

@Fresco, @Cyracuz
I think this also relates to the notions of "personalization", The moment a person is involved, the relationships are inevitable. This relationship creates its own world view. It can never quite match "reality" view. In Sanskrit they refereed it as "JeevSrishti" (Personal view) vs "IshwarSrishi" (Reality view). The gap is our version of delusion. But a certain degree of personalization in our interaction with world is inevitable. So many meditative practices work with that and use that personalization to create a movement out of our own world view....just as poison can be used to cure a disease...or like in matrix movies, the zion is a matrix to step out of matrix.

Most would agree that hold of relationships is very strong, and hence personalization can be a good antidote, but I suspect it is not the only way, nor it is a sure way. There is also another way suggested. "Neti Neti" in vedas, which is like deleting your personal profile by negating all relationships... deactivate your facebook!

Either way, I think meditation offers an opportunity, but to go so far as to claim that "God will be found" seems bit much to me.

fresco, surely the answer to your question is to turn it around and ask what is "simple" about "psychological security"? Or at least, if it is simple, it is a simplicity of an all-consuming kind. Since I cannot think of a more desperate desire for all "selves", be it in the midst of a football cup final, a heated boardroom or an argument with the wife, than self-fulfilment and completion. So the personification is the ultimate appeal to complete a sorely lacking self. In this sense, it might be better to say what is gained, is an identity. But more than that, it's an identity through which fear is abated. If one lacks fear of the other, such a one does not attempt to subjugate the other. And that, is the point. To what extent is this a valid method, I'll not say, but it's not exactly limited to the Abrahamic faiths.

I appreciate the point that it's not enough for there to be "harmless" believers out there if such faith gives succor and justification for the malevolent to wreak havok. But, I'm trying to appreciate the wider perspective or flip-side and it's not as if they're dispassionate, floating heads who choose God.

And it's only ironic for the personification of a deity to be ego-centric if we take religion or spirituality to only be about self-transcendence. Maybe in a wider sense it is about the transcendence of "petty" selves but a great many people engage in the religious, not at all to lose themselves or to merge with the absolute but to find consistency of self.

It comes back to establishing one's own identity, wouldn't you say?
In broad strokes, in the view of those who have yet to examine the nature of "self", we have "self" which is often thought of as the known variable. You are your self, and this is a finite concept with clearly defined contents.
To contrast such an idea you need the ultimate unknown. It must be unknown, but also definable. And for "self" to be real, this "ultimate other" must also be real.

Someone who understands the nature of "self" has no need for any contrast points, as he understands that this self is merely a contrast point to whatever it comes up against at any given time. He doesn't see it as a fixed value, but rather as something that is highly adaptable and circumstantial.
Such a person may appreciate a concept of everything as a single unit, but would feel no need to establish a standing contrast to it. He would understand that even if this single unit were to be eternal and never changing, that would not matter, because the self is not. So the whole concept would be rather useless.

If you want to be concerned about animals eating the young of others, why not also consider humans eating lamb or chicken. Are they unethical? It takes life to support life. This is not a question of ethics. Animals still behave far more responsibly towards each other and their young than many humans. I have bush turkeys in the yard and I quite often feed them with all sorts of tasty morsels. And it would not be hard for a breeding turkey to consider the good tucker immediately in front him than the minding of his nest and yet I have seen repeatedly that is not the case. If a goanna comes along, (these are giant lizards/large reptiles that come into the yard, some are 1 to 2 meters long) it doesn't matter how tasty the morsel, he will rush off to defend his next and then come back. And yes they sure compete with each other for what I give them but at the same time they do not act in a senseless and destructive fashion. I don't think there is one ethical system that covers all life on the planet. However humans, despite the Darwinian's point of view are not in the same class as animals. Even cannibals only ate those that they captured in battle, POWs. They didn''t just hunt down people of another trible willy nilly. Clearly there is an anthropomorphic set of "natural laws" that relate to human behaviour. My point is that ethics are natural laws owing to our connectedness and in so much as that if we do acknowledge them and abide by them then we not only survive as a species but flourish. If not, then we perish. Evil/inhumane people are without ethics, indeed they abhor anything ethical. They do harm to other people as a way of life. If they were ever to be able to destroy all non-evil people /humane people, which I do not believe is possible, they would then go on to extinction because harm and destruction of one another does not support community and without that there is no support for life.

In admidst the uncertainty of the unknown, the 'self' is merely a magicians trick to interact with the audience. But we can't deny the mechanics behind the illusion. Like everything we 'know' about life, there always seem to be an infintesimal amount of constituents making up the whole.

If our 'identities' were the interface (for lack of a better term) with reality then it is our choices rather than our nature which determine the way we engage with everything around us. But I see that being problematic. I don't think our 'ego's', 'identities', 'selves'.. etc, have any function apart from keeping in touch with society and 'constructing' things for ourselves.

I think there is another sensibility where we often neglect in the huslte and bustle of today's human made environments. I often wonder what it is that is so awe inspiring when confronted with an environment that has been untouched for millennia? Sometimes I honestly think that to get lost is to find 'yourself'. ( I don't mean the 'self' you would perhaps be in a coffee shop in the city, rather a 'self' that surprises even 'yourself')

I agree we wouldn't need to stand in contrast of the concept that everything is a single unit but I would also add that we should be appreciative of the things that make up the whole. I'm not too sure if the whole is eternal and never changing cos I'm not outside this 'Petri Dish', but just like the concepts of our 'selves', the concept of everything as a single unit can be concieved by redefining it's constituents into this whole.

Sometimes it is easier to deal with a world of absolutes.
Some ask for proof that god exists, but what if we ask for proof that 'self' exists? Is that any easier to come by?

I know some 'sciency' dudes looked at scans of the brain when the subject was asked questions about themselves and it turned out that a 'self' was inconclusive to pin point (which is no surprise). But I totally agree that it is easier to deal with a world of absolutes rather than the complex workings of it's constituents. But my problem with 'God' is the semantic baggage the word itself carries, so sometimes I think it's okay to leave the name alone and deal with our feelings on the matter. But then again sometimes it's easier to just say that name that we all grew up with.

I think you would have your work cut out arguing that "ethics" are "natural laws". There are several species that kill for "sport" (killer whales and chimpanzees for example) not to mention those which are cannibalistic. The concept of "ethics" is undoubtedly an anthropomorphism in my mind. And even if it were not, you would need to evoke a picture of "life as an aspect of a caring God" in order to maintain your theism.

I appreciate your lengthy responses since they indicate you are actually "thinking about it" rather that falling for the catch all clause of " God is ineffable". I have to admit it would be "nice to be a believer", but I am mindful not only of the contradictory evidence, but also of the pernicious history of mass belief. I therefore conclude, like Marx, that belief is an opiate which is pleasant at the psychological level, but dangerous at the social level, and it is perception of that danger which may constitute a moral impetus for atheists to stand up and be counted.

The closer you look, the less you see.
You're looking to close to reality.
Your little minds
keeping time,
As you contemplate
within the space
Of your imagination.
Who is right,
If everybody's wrong?

I completely agree with you about the baggage the word 'god' carries. You might have a feeling of cosmic interconnection, to call it something, but as soon as you name it god everyone thinks they know what you are talking about, but what they relate to is their own understanding of the word, not yours.

Absolutes may be easier to deal with, but I have little belief in them beyond death and taxes.

Some take the problems in thoroughly defining 'self' as an entity as confirmation that their ideas about god are true too, because 'self' is self evident. For myself I think of self, in this context, as the experience of the breaking point between the energies 'I' command and those that I don't command.

Cyracuse: (quote) I completely agree with you about the baggage the word 'god' carries. You might have a feeling of cosmic interconnection, to call it something, but as soon as you name it god everyone thinks they know what you are talking about, but what they relate to is their own understanding of the word, not yours.

The use of the word god is anthropomorphising, regardless of intent, in my view. I think only the religious have need of this word.

I disagree with Marx. Belief is not dangerous, it is the people who exploit other people, those that are unethical and evil in society that use anything, belief being one of that anything, that will enable them to exploit others. Religion is just another institution in human life that can be invaded by bad people and used to their own ends. Communism has many ideals, as indeed the belief in equality that were socially disasterous, not because of the ideal/beliefs in themselves but because evil people exploited them.
And the topic of ethics.. I consider ethics is not the domain of any particular religion or group such as the humanists. Ethics are natural laws with respect to human society because they govern how the individuals interact between themselves and how individuals interact with larger groups and the whole society, if such a society is to be integral, peaceful, healthy, and prosper. And by prosper I don't just mean economics. I mean for each individual to be free to express themselves and reach their full potential. Animals have different codes of behaviour between themselves and between species. And such behaviour sustains life and at the same time diversity. I don't see humans as animals, so I suppose you could say that ethics has an anthropomorphic character.

I make this note to say the word domain as I wrote it has nothing to do with the domain that is indicated in ".com DOMAINS". I don't know who is doing that but it is not me.

I have to agree with you, edgar. Whenever someone mentions that word, and when they speak of it after, there is always at least the insinuation of an entity behind it.

My apology for spelling your name wrong.

Well a fluctuating self in respect of the law is problematic. One self commiting the crime, another carrying out the sentence so to speak. Plus expecations and assumptions about the nature of culpability, ethics, forethought etc are based on my being the same person I was yesterday or whatever. I think a similar kind of analogy can be seen with some religious systems. It's a particular framework for filtering experience that applies some sense of meaning from perhaps, the meaningless. In this sense, god as creator is a competing currency against established systems like law, one that encloses the latter and potentially feeds in to it. I guess this is where the social issue lies as you have the problem of "negotiating the peace" so to speak. The historical examples of this "peace" have occasionally resulted in some pretty nasty stuff as justice is brought to the heathens in the name of god.

What I would say though, is that it seems to me we can reasonably think of two quite different theists. Religiously speaking, a typical idea is that of "development" or "progression". We might say that a great many of us are engaged in ego gratification of one form or another and some use religion as a vehicle for just such means. This might include "social duty" style gratification as well, i.e. performing ones social duty in killing the infidels or whatever.

It doesn't follow that everyone does though of course and I think some come to god through a profound sense of unease with themselves. There is a plethora of contextual I's so to speak, is there an I that relates in some way to ALL contexts, an I that surpasses understanding. Religions attempt this move by providing an "overall context" or total picture through which all experience is understood and hence the "I" is "brought under the yoke" so to speak. Or at least, we might call that, their "advertised promise"! A simple, somewhat abstract example might be imbuing the world a priori, with inherent meaning such that every experience means something. An example of how a typical myth might be viewed through these different uses of religion could be the creation myth itself. On the one hand we have god, the creator, and the children of god, all equal before the almighty etc. One coming to such an idea through ego gratification, might shift this to a 3 tier model giving god, believers and unbelievers etc.



To someone with that understanding of self, indeed it would!

By the way, it's interesting to me to think of this discussion of self/god in respect to the objections to theism and what exactly constitutes atheism. Atheism means a lot of things to a lot of different people now as well, it seems. How many atheists do you think there would be in the world if the only version of it for people to engage with, was the one that poured as much doubt on self being real as god? Not many if you ask me! And I think that says an awful lot.

We are not real.
We are a construct of our imagination..
The first man Adam, became a living soul.
The second man Adam, became a quickening spirit.
The evolution of the mind, completes the purpose of time.