Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

Is the idea of a "god" inherent in our minds? posted 03 July 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionIs the idea of a "god" inherent in our minds? by Tar.Aldarion, Candidate

I don't believe the idea of God is inherent in our minds. It is more, a general weakness/flaw that is prevalent in our species, we need something to hope for etc, for the most part.
I am an Alatrist since I gave up Christianity at oh, about 8 years old. So I was never really one.
An alatrist is an agnostic that would not worship a god even if a god could was proved to exist.
My agnostic beliefs also edge towards atheism, and I find religion to be for weak people(No offence.). Weak in a way that they can not be blamed for, some people need something to believe in, to repress fear.
I also find the term god to be a paradox, and as such, a god could not exist to me. It is not possible for something to be a god rather than just a powerful alien, at the most.
Logic is just ignorance by numbers, but it is far superior to any other ignorance.

There are many forms of intelligence, that is to say, different types. From the type that allows me to get the root of 27.4 in my head, to the ability to pick up subtle nuances around you, to the ability to be in a system of evolutionary psychology and brainwashing, and step outside it etc etc.
Being intelligent is also just perspective.
I am of the opinion that since people here were brought up catholic they believe in that god, if you were brought up in Islam, that god, etc etc, ranging to Zeus...(minor exceptions due to circumstances in individuals lives occur)
Then Christians, or whoever, will go and say they have a personal relationship with their god, and that is all the evidence they need that he is real(How could he not be if they feel it in their hearts I hear them cry), a god that says that he is the only god to exist... whilst some people of other faiths have the exact same belief that they have a personal relationship with their god and therefore no other god could exist.
Ah my ramblings...

When I say I wouldn't worship a god, I mean I would not worship anything, nothing specific, as with my fellow Alatrists I'm sure. Also, 'god' is a paradox for me. As I said above, It is not possible for something to be a god rather than just a powerful alien, at the most.
This thing that might have created the universe etc, why would that be a "god" to you as opposed to simply an alien, even if that alien exists outside of your universe?
What makes something a god for you and something not a god? How powerful would it have to be?
Since it would have to have infinite power I imagine, it can not exist. I think 'god' is not tenable, for me.
How and ever, what may be a god to you, is not a god to me, so a 'god' could exist to you.
I contend that the distinctions between atheism and agnosticism have everything to do with the definition of 'god' in part, rather than the words themselves. As what constitutes a 'god' is very subjective - so must your pigeonhole be.

I think there is a contradiction in the way that the more advanced a 'god' is, the more it is worthy of an old grovel, yet the more advanced it is, surely the less it will think that it deserves one... worship being an inane human idea.
The Abrahamic god/s may want worship indeed, most people view that as a picture of a 'god' around these parts, but that god is rather undeserving.
If something was a supreme being as you put it, would it have a desire to be worshiped, or would it not need it and not yearn for it?
Something that created us and wants worship is not worthy of it and something that created us that does not need worship, does not need it. (:

An alien race with vaster intelligence aren't gods, any more than we are gods compared to dogs or bacteria. That isn't what the term "god" means. We obey the same rule of nature and physics as anything else. A god wouldn't, by definition. Why would it be subject to ego, or even thought?
It's like the Christian god naming pride as a mortal sin but him being guilty of it himself. It is a paradox.

There are so many paradoxes to a god existing, it's just impossible under most peoples definition of a god, for said god to exist.
Omniscience for instance. Is it impossible for him to know something which he does not know? (IE, knowledge of an omission is itself a knowable fact, so by implication, there must be at least one omission of which he's aware. Is it possible to reconcile this by saying that the fact of which he's unaware is the fact of the existence of this same omission?

There is an infinite class of objects with no proof against their existence, which most of us would say we know doesn't exist. yet a lot of theists find beliefs like mine untenable. They want proof 'their' god does not exist.
Theists are atheistic towards unicorns, dragons, sauron, teacups orbiting the milkyway breathing fire... without any proof, yet not against a 'god'?
Lets take Let's take vampires for a moment.
I don't believe vampires exist.
Can I prove it - in a technical 'philosophical sense' - No. So what do I mean when I say "I don't believe that vampires exist" ?
To me it means I'm going to behave and act as if the statement is true.
So I'm taking no precautions against vampires in my daily life. No garlic or holy water above my head. I don't spend time trying to find them, I don't look for the latest research.
If that position is classified by some as narrow-minded then so be it, I can live with that, but the position seems perfectly sensible to me.
But because I cannot absolutely disprove their existence, I'm supposed to be classified as agnostic on the existence vampires.
Well fine, but then we I need a new term for those who act is their lives as if vampires may exist. Those who might consider garlic above their bed "just in case", who read non-fiction books about vampires, and generally live their lives as I would describe 'Unsure whether vampires exist'.

There are a lot of things we are technically agnostic on, but functionally atheist. A god is just another, just as you would not believe in any Earthly religion without evidence for or against.
There is a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities, and the ridiculous things mentioned above. Why entertain a belief in one, and not another? If someone uses the 'can't disprove' argument (for god) then it seems reasonable to point out the same argument can be applied in defence of any silly belief.
Why abandon common sense for scientific imperialism?
Solipsism is pointless. If you had been brought up in a world of atheists you would find the idea of a god as ridiculous as a train falling on your head right now, yet both have very little evidence against them.
However people seem to define god as something which is just powerful, so I will discuss that below. If that is so, a god could certainly exist to you, but it would just be a powerful being to other people.

Only if we choose to bow down and worship them are we setting them up as Gods - a fallacy exactly equivalent to a remote tribe worshipping a Western explorer because of the latter's technology.


I'm sure I had a topic in there at some point? view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown