Can the existence of "God" be tested? perhaps..but that depends on your def. of "God"

[prattymcpratt]

***attention readers!*** through this post, I am not attempting to influence anyone to the views brought up in the text. I am however trying to offer a unique perspective that I find interesting. PLEASE please please, if you have any comments, questions or insight (even opposing these ideas) I would greatly appriciate if you would post.

 

I haven't heard these ideas presented before, to my knowledge, they are are purely the result of my own conceptual logic based on questions I would like to answer.. It is difficult for me to write these ideas so that other people can understand, so I ask that you would please bear with me and try to understand what I am saying as best you can based on your own knowlege.

 

What changed us from ordinary animals into human beings that created the society we now live in?

 

And if "God" doesn't exist, as many atheists claim (I [used to/may still be] one of them) why does everyone else think that he/she/it does? I mean really! for all the great minds over the centuries, and all the great discoveries... you think we'd be over religious part of philosophy if there really wasn't anything "special" about religion.

 

tough questions... kinda got me thinking...so I thought of some answers in the form of more questions.

 

what if the concept of "God" was in fact an evolutionary advancement for the human race?

(i.e. instead of God creating us, did our species evolve to create "God")

Could this "understanding of God" be the key to explaining the origin of our consciousness? What is the point of having a conscience?

could we as humans posses a form of extra-sensory perception (esp)? what if all humans contributed and percieved a simple form of esp? What if...what if inter-human esp forms the basis of the concept of God... I mean, for all the seemingly endless reports of people saying that they can "feel" God or his "presence"... could there be something there to be felt or percieved?

 

what are morals? how did they come to exist? They don't seem to make sense for any other animal on the planet. Could morals have to do with esp? Are morals the reason we have conscious thougt?

 

In just about every enduring religion I looked at, those who lived closer to what they believed (based on personal beliefs and morals) seemed to have had a closer experience to "God."

 

Why would we have or develop these, and call them morals (with spiritual overtone) instead of simply calling them rules. Why don't morals neccesarily promote self-preserving behavior?

 

Could morals be an evolutionary advancement that allows humans as social animals a way to tweak or change "pack rules?"

 

could "God" actually represent "the pack?"

 

speculation::::::::::::::::::::::::::

In religion: what have the "saviors" "messiahs" and "great ones" all had in common? in my opinion, complete moral actualization, or in other terms, complete loss of self (or loss of attachments). So as to say that the key to becoming a "messiah" is to be completly pure in the eyes of one's self. (including the ego and self-image...assuming one's self concept is influenced by other people's reactions to your actions and so on)

 

If one has a mission of improving the human race, with nothing personal to lose or gain,, what is the quality of the thought? honest? logical? "pure thought?" It seems all religions have commonalities in philosophies, and in general, these seem to be the major philosophies (what I consider to be the "pure-thought" type).

 

What I think may be a possibility is that the "saviors, enlightened ones, and messiahs" have actually eliminated all thoughts but ones of "God" (through moral self actualization)

and in doing so become "the pack's speaker", setting down the new set of morals and standards for the next generation of the community.

I think this mental state may be something that other people can percieve. All of the religious texts I have read so far have seemed to support this view.

 

I don't think this distinctive mental state could be based purely on behavior or speech or things that could be falsely imitated. It would seem that if it were possible there would be "pretenders" everywhere... and likely that large groups of the population would follow the "phonies" just the same as the "real deal".

 

 

 

 

In short, the idea involves a simple esp sense in which higher levels of sensitivity are attained through increasing percieved self-moral integrety through conscious thought. The person with the most dominant esp production (most actualized morals) becomes the moral determiner of the religion, assuming no outside factors interfere.

 

 

that's all for now. thanks for reading.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oh yeah, and I almost forgot...if it actually exists, the esp could probably be tested (air compression, electric current, etc.)

[Tormod]

oh yeah, and I almost forgot...if these ideas are in fact true, the esp could be tested (air compression, electric current, etc.)

 

ESP has been thoroughly tested and discredited so I wouldn't base any scientific theory on it.

 

But I commend you for a thoughtful post. The concept of god and divinity as an evolutionary advantage.

 

I'd like to ask "advantage over what". For something to be an evolutionary advantage it would seem that it put human beings over others. Are you saying (for example) that humans were "better" than the Neanderthals because we had religion and they didn't? (Or did they? If so, then it was no advantage).

 

Here is an interesting read from an atheist on this subject:

http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/Neanderthals.htm

[Boerseun]

Easy solution to see who's right:

 

Get a few Christians of different denominations, Jews and Muslims of different flavours to stand on top of a mountain in a rainstorm and get them to all simulateously blaspheme.

 

See who gets struck by lightning.

 

On a more serious note, I have to agree with Tormod that this is a pretty good post. However, in my opinion, I have issues with religious factions of all kinds trying to take exclusive ownership of morality.

 

In my opinion, morality is what drives civilization, and back in the old days, allegory and metaphysical explanations and presentations was more in tune with their understanding of the world, albeit a flat one at the time. Therefore, Moses bringing the Ten Commandments (there was fifteen, but he dropped the one slab :hihi: ) down from the mountain, was just a set of rules and laws in a virtually ungoverned society. And, seeing as the "State" back then didn't have any teeth to enforce laws, a supernatural authority had to be linked to it to get the people to follow the laws. And it worked. People followed the laws, 'cause they knew they would pay for it after their deaths for eternity, or be rewarded for eternity. And that belief has propagated through the ages till today.

 

The reason that we still haven't given up on religion, in my opinion, is that religion resonates very well with ignorance. And whilst there are thousands of scientists having a fair idea how the universe works and being very skeptical about supernatural explanations, they still for a very small minority of the world's population. Ignorance is at the order of the day.

 

Maybe a proper test will be (although totally immoral and nobody except someone like Hitler would try it) would be to raise a community from babies to adults with no influence from outside and to see if they come up with a God-explanation by themselves, in other words, to see if the God-impulse exists naturally, or is enforced upon us by society, having had thousands of years of practice to refine their techniques.

[prattymcpratt]

I appreciate your comments

 

interesting experiment suggestion by the way :hihi:

[Chacmool]

Recently I went to the opening of a new bookstore. The guest speaker was a well-known author. Just as she was telling an amusing story about her mother who always insists on praying for her (the author is obviously not religious) and was making fun of the Virgin Mary (it was bordering on blasphemy), the power went out. Some people were frightened, and others were amused.

 

Was this little event proof that God exists, and that he will punish those who disrespect him? Or is it just a sign that the power supply in the area is inadequate, since there is a power failure almost every day?

 

Maybe it merely shows that **** happens - whether or not God exists.

[Fishteacher73]

Maybe it merely shows that **** happens - whether or not God exists.

If nothing eles with Muphy's Law it shows at the bare minimum not a kind and loving god...

[Tormod]

Was this little event proof that God exists, and that he will punish those who disrespect him?

 

Easy. Just repeat the event and see if it happens again. And make sure you try it in several bookstores - maybe God had a problem with that particular store (price of Bibles a bit high). :hihi:

[Beelzebub]

humans are a collective species. We cannot survive as individuals. Morals are basically selfishness backwards. Humans in order to survive we need to cooporate and protect each other.

[adnaan]

well everything sounds really good.. but just a thought and a question.. how bout those scientific miracles.. people say that the bible and the Quran had scientific miracles.. and that they can be proven correct.. then they say "how could someone have known this 1000s of years ago when its just been currently discovered."

 

anywayz thats exactly what people tell me.. and i just stare at them..

[adnaan]

oh yeah these scientific miracles.. they use this excuse to "prove" an existence of GOd..

 

tell me your opinion of that...

[UncleAl]

Science is empirical. Religion is faith. The two are orthogonal. You do not "test" for god. You believe or you do not. Go ahead, pray on a lightbulb. We'll wait.

 

1) Everything that supports religion supports religion.

2) Everything that ignores religion supports religion.

3) Everything that contradicts religion (e.g., Christian Scientist with appendicitis) supports religion - test of faith!

4) Anybody who criticizes is thereby proven unfit to judge, or a heretic, or an agent of the Devil.

 

Uncle Al says, "Human life is sacred. Sacrifice it to your god(s).

[Tormod]

people say that the bible and the Quran had scientific miracles.. and that they can be proven correct.. then they say "how could someone have known this 1000s of years ago when its just been currently discovered."

 

anywayz thats exactly what people tell me.. and i just stare at them..

 

Keep staring. A) there is no such thing as scientific miracles and :hihi: it is amazing what people can dig out a religious text given a few half-millennia or so.

[Boerseun]

McDonalds have done some testing to this effect, and they have come up with the following results:

 

Sacred Cows make the best hamburger.

[Biochemist]

...The reason that we still haven't given up on religion, in my opinion, is that religion resonates very well with ignorance....

Probably true. But it is also true that atheism resonates well with the arrogant.

 

Neither statement establishes a fact basis for a Creator.

[TeleMad]

There have already been a number of books written about "man inventing God" psychologically and how the concept of God is adaptive.

 

I can't find the exact one I was thinking of (saw it at my local bookstore, but can't remember it's title), but here's one that's close.

 

“[Why Would Anyone Believe in God?]

 

Because of the design of our minds. That is Justin Barrett's simple answer to the question of his title. With rich evidence from cognitive science but without technical language, psychologist Barrett shows that belief in God is an almost inevitable consequence of the kind of minds we have. Most of what we believe comes from mental tools working below our conscious awareness. And what we believe consciously is in large part driven by these unconscious beliefs. Barrett demonstrates that beliefs in gods match up well with these automatic assumptions; beliefs in an all-knowing, all-powerful God match up even better. Barrett goes on to explain why beliefs like religious beliefs are so widespread and why it is very difficult for our minds to think without them. Anyone who wants a concise, clear, and scientific explanation of why anyone would believe in God should pick up Barrett's book.” (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0759106673/ref=pd_sxp_elt_l1/102-7361556-1866554)

[Boerseun]

I still say the only way to prove this empirically is to raise a whole bunch o' babies from scratch and see if they come up with the whole God hypothesis by themselves.

[TeleMad]

I still say the only way to prove this empirically is to raise a whole bunch o' babies from scratch and see if they come up with the whole God hypothesis by themselves.

 

Man creating God is (probably) the result of an extended, evolutionary process related to human psychology. [Once it arose, the idea of God persisted because of its "adaptive" nature (makes people feel loved, makes them feel like there's a purpose to life, makes them not give up hope, makes people feel they belong to a group, etc. - all positive emotions), and is persisted by means of cultural dissemination (a "meme").] A one-generation 'lab' experiment is not likely to be a valid empirical test of this.