God is real... in the mind only.

[playhavock]

In here, I will forward my theory that God is real in the mind only, giving reason that we should conclude this is true.

I will refer to "God" as (G) for this theory, as God could also be taken to be Gods/god/gods.

---------

(G) is a universal. Not a particular.

We can verify this to be so by looking at what (G) is. When we do so objectively we see that no group of people can agree upon what (G) is the definition itself is up for debate, because of this, we can infer that the idea of (G) is simply this - an idea. If it was a actual thing, it would seem to be that all would be able to agree upon what (G) was - the particular (G) that religion claims to be true, can not be shown to be true - whats more, even a singular group religion, in our case we are talking directly to Christens - is not agreed upon - so there is no particular.

Stranger still, there is no agreement on the universal of (G)! Still, for now we will let this problem sit on the sideline, for now.

A universal is a concept - like "triangle" or "cat" or "human" these things do not exist outside of the mind - only the particular of a cat, triangle or human can exist outside of the mind. If one were to bring up a concept foreign to us and our understanding and name it something, the concept would be the universal that points to a particular. In our case with (G) we can not reach the particular at all, and so we should conclude that it is a reference to a universal.

Since universals only exist in the mind, it is then reasonable to think that (G) is only exists in the mind.

[Flail]

Nor do they have to do 'God's non-actuality, or with anything at all 'about' God; all religious ideas assume too much when it comes to God, down to the very definition of the thing itself.

I think it depends on how the religion is approached. For the majority of people I think this probably is the case. But I also know from study that most of the world's greatest religions have wiithin them a mystical tradition. There are the Sufis in Islam, for example. There is the Kabala in Judaism. Christianity has its mystics as well. These are people who craved and found a deeper understanding of their religious practice and an actual experience of God.

In fact, doesn't religion presuppose and assume EVERYTHING when it comes to 'God'? Name one solitary thing we do not presuppose when we talk about God. We can't even meaningfully discuss the existence/non-existence or characteristics of 'God' without making basic assumptions. And then some of us have the audacity to go so far as to presuppose what their 'God' would have us do, and who to judge and who is saved, and call it 'truth'.

A great deal of religious people are like this. It has led to a great deal of misery in the world.

So we call 'God' love or nature and then claim to know that God exists because love and nature exist. You can't get much more dizzyingly circular than that.

LOL. I suppose it does sound that way. But my claim is not based on these facts. It is based on a disciplined practice in seeking a God experience and actually having a God experience.

I have no doubt as to the fact that you have such experiences....with or about whatever it is you have talked yourself into that becomes real for you.....call it God if you choose, but, quoting you, 'such things have nothing to do with the actuality' (or non-actuiality) of 'God'.

I frankly enjoy and gain insight from the mystical, contemplative, ethereal ideas expressed in many religions....but it's when their most ardent believers begin expounding that they have discovered 'truth' in their promotional literature as well as the existence of actual supernatural beings that I ...scoff....(':roll:')

[kayky]

I have no doubt as to the fact that you have such experiences....with or about whatever it is you have talked yourself into that becomes real for you.....call it God if you choose, but, quoting you, 'such things have nothing to do with the actuality' (or non-actuiality) of God.

I think you are misrepresenting what I said. People's ideas about God may or may not have anything to do with who or what God actually is.

I frankly enjoy and gain insight from the mystical, contemplative, ethereal ideas expressed in many religions....but it's when their most ardent believers begin expounding that they have discovered 'truth' in their promotional literature as well as the existence of actual supernatural beings that I ...scoff....(':roll:')

And I , sir, scoff at your scoffing. :2gun:

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 14:

But ya still need something if that cup's gonna get filled.

Very true. That's why I believe in God.

I've read much of your work here on the site. I like ya 'cause I find ya trustworthy. You're smart as ya are nice and you're a good bit of that. You represent the god of your beliefs quite well.

I find the world around me sufficient to fill my cup. Tales of gods and demons and judgement and retribution just ain't my bag. Give me a good comedy any day.

My conclusion is that god belief is a psycho-social response to the question, "why", or "who am I". I don't consider religious belief alone to be irrational, just some of 'em doing it. I can't a bit claim my position is the "absolute truth" or the only rational way to go, but I'm a-holdin' to it.

(tagulational edit)
(we have a late entrant in the tagulational edit division)

[Flail]

Flail wrote:

I have no doubt as to the fact that you have such experiences....with or about whatever it is you have talked yourself into that becomes real for you.....call it God if you choose, but, quoting you, 'such things have nothing to do with the actuality' (or non-actuiality) of God.

kayky wrote:

I think you are misrepresenting what I said. People's ideas about God may or may not have anything to do with who or what God actually is.

Thanks for narrowing it down...

[kayky]

I find the world around me sufficient to fill my cup.

I find that to be a refreshing point of view.

Tales of gods and demons and judgement and retribution just ain't my bag.

That's not my bag either. I sometimes wonder if God is the best word to use because it comes with so much baggage and so many preconceptions. But I can't think of a word to take its place. Besides, there's nothing to be gained by freaking out my 81- year-old fundamentalist mother any more than I already have.

Give me a good comedy any day.

After all laughter is the best medicine. That's why I watch Ellen every day.

My conclusion is that god belief is a psycho-social response to the question, "why", or "who am I". I don't consider religious belief alone to be irrational, just some of 'em doing it. I can't a bit claim my position is the "absolute truth" or the only rational way to go, but I'm a-holdin' to it.

This is a rational conclusion though different from mine.

[Mr.Badham]

---------

(G) is a universal. Not a particular.

We can verify this to be so by looking at what (G) is. When we do so objectively we see that no group of people can agree upon what (G) is the definition itself is up for debate, because of this, we can infer that the idea of (G) is simply this - an idea. If it was a actual thing, it would seem to be that all would be able to agree upon what (G) was - the particular (G) that religion claims to be true, can not be shown to be true - whats more, even a singular group religion, in our case we are talking directly to Christens - is not agreed upon - so there is no particular.

Stranger still, there is no agreement on the universal of (G)! Still, for now we will let this problem sit on the sideline, for now.

A universal is a concept - like "triangle" or "cat" or "human" these things do not exist outside of the mind - only the particular of a cat, triangle or human can exist outside of the mind. If one were to bring up a concept foreign to us and our understanding and name it something, the concept would be the universal that points to a particular. In our case with (G) we can not reach the particular at all, and so we should conclude that it is a reference to a universal.

Since universals only exist in the mind, it is then reasonable to think that (G) is only exists in the mind.

This argument makes no sense. The reality of something does not depend on the human ability to define or understand it. It either exists or does not exist--regardless of human concepts about it.

All we want to know is if there is anything "outside" of your mind that makes you (and we're are looking for something from you, something personal, an experience you've had) that makes you believe. Or is it all simply in your head, like placebo?

[bernee51]

Nor do they have to do 'God's non-actuality, or with anything at all 'about' God; all religious ideas assume too much when it comes to God, down to the very definition of the thing itself.

I think it depends on how the religion is approached. For the majority of people I think this probably is the case. But I also know from study that most of the world's greatest religions have wiithin them a mystical tradition. There are the Sufis in Islam, for example. There is the Kabala in Judaism. Christianity has its mystics as well. These are people who craved and found a deeper understanding of their religious practice and an actual experience of God.

It seems to me that religions are a codification of a personal spiritual experience. For the majority of beleivers in any particular religion it is a translative experience. i.e. it translates, for instance, the apparent suffering we perceive into sometning that is more understandable - it brings meaning and legitimacy to the believer's life experience.

For a very few, as you observe, the mystics, religion is a transformative experienec p the god concept transforms the mystic from a mere believer to being the divine. The cup is emptied, as you so eloquently put it. However the mysti does not so much fill the cup - he/she BECOMES the filled cup.

So we call 'God' love or nature and then claim to know that God exists because love and nature exist. You can't get much more dizzyingly circular than that.

LOL. I suppose it does sound that way. But my claim is not based on these facts. It is based on a disciplined practice in seeking a God experience and actually having a God experience.

I too have a disciplined practice, I do not presuppose it will lead me to a god experience, nor did I embark on it with the hope of a 'god experience'. It has, however, lead me to an understanding of the nature of being, which I hold to be sacred. It has not lead me to a god belief, be it a personal god or a deist version.

perhaps, as you claim, the word god itself comes with too much baggage to be of any use in discussing spirituality.

[Flail]

Bernee51 wrote:

I too have a disciplined practice, I do not presuppose it will lead me to a god experience, nor did I embark on it with the hope of a 'god experience'. It has, however, lead me to an understanding of the nature of being, which I hold to be sacred. It has not lead me to a god belief, be it a personal god or a deist version.

perhaps, as you claim, the word god itself comes with too much baggage to be of any use in discussing spirituality.

Absolutely....I agree....and the baggage that the word 'God' carries for most is so indoctrinated and presupposed that any meaningful discussion between faiths is a rare and often tortured event. And it is our very indoctrinations that tend to make God non-spiritual, an almost secular being that has lost 'His' sacredness via clowning around so often in the marketplace of judgment, bigotry and hatred.

[playhavock]

Before responding to all of you that added your own ideas (thank you for doing so) I must first point out that none of my premices have been addressed. And at this point, we are on several tangents that may, or may not - be relevent to the topic at hand. If my premices are sound, and my logic is sound, my conclusion should follow.
Still, some of you seem to be addressing my premices so I will respond to you as I am able.

kayky

No. You have let go of your preconceptions about God before the actuality of God can present itself. If you want to fill a cup with one substance, it must first be empty of all other substances.

You assume (for sake of this I am assuming that you assume) that one HAS a preconception about "God" in fact- isnt the nature of any relgion to TELL one what God is?

Secondly - if God exists- why would your (or mine) preconceptions "get in the way" as it were to fourming any connection to it? And add to this the problem that the Christan God (for most but maybe not all christans) is a God that WANTS us to connect to it - why then would God alow and/or have barriers in the brain that could possibly or even probley prevent people from reaching the thing God wants most?

Finaly - if one DOES reach this "actual" God - how can one ever know - what if they reached a false God? What if they were wrong? How can they know?

Lastly, I sugest for your cup that this is a false analigy fallacy.

But God isn't just a concept

Thats a nice assertion there. And it is your view and/or belife and/or opionion, however - you can not simply assert something as true and leave it at that - certenly I did not do that in my OP. What, if any reasion do you have to suport your statment?

---

Flail

God as an extant supernatural being is, so far as we can possibly discern or verify, most certainly a concept.

I agree. *hugs*

Indoctrination can and often does create a 'God' in the mind of the believer to such an extent that God seems real to them, but such emotions have nothing whatever do do with existence.

Indeed, again people can belive things, and experance things - that are not true externaly. They are true in the essance that they cause and/or create chemical reactions inside of them that may, or may not - effect there body phyiscaly - this might result in a postitve or negitve effect. But it has no baring on if the thing they are refering to is actual. More then likely - it is not.

As indoctrinations vary, so does God. The only consistency in God comes with group think believers who share identical indoctrinations processes. So God just 'depends', and can never be consistent, verified or tested and is nothing other than a mental image engendered by religious promotion.

I agree.

Compare gravity; gravity exists and operates independently of what we think about it, or whether we think about it. A rock falls from a precipice by the same process in Iran as in Indiana; but the God concepts in each location differ. What makes the gods dissimilar is differing indoctrinations, and indoctrination is indeed a mental, emotional process that creates contingent Gods.

I agree. Anther way to say this might be "the truth is the truth regardles if we like it, want it to be, know it to be, or belive it is so - it is still true."

kayke

I agree. The transcendence of God is a mystery to us and cannot be known by us.

How can you know that it can not be known?

But the aspect of God that actually IS nature is not "supernatural" at all.

Questonmark!? This seems to fly in the face of Christantiy and most (but not all) views of (G)

It can be experienced and known by us and, therefore, is not merely a concept

What would it be, if not just a concept - an emotion?

Emotions, are in essance chemical reactions. The feeling - is just that a feeling, maybe a good one, maybe a bad one. I can generate them in myself by thinking about postive or negitve things, I can generate them by watching happy or disturbing immagary / movies. So - in that sence we can experance and feel things - those feelings are real in our brains - but "real" out side ourselfs - no. "Fear" "Happy" (etc) do not exist "outside" of us. So this would still put (G) into the relm of existing only in the brain.

As a child I was indoctrinated into a very fundamentalist view of God, so I know what you mean. Obviously that indoctrination doesn't always stick.

I really hope that one day we as a socity will find a way to make sure this does not happen. But, for this talk - this is not relevent. It might be that the "fundy" view is actualy true - sure they are koo-koo for cocopuffs, insain, etc but that does not meen what they claim is not true - of course , I see no reasion to think it is true.

My experience of God tells me only two things: God is love, and I am a part of who God is.

Okay. So when you focus on (G) your brain trigers the love cheicals in your brain. You feel disconected from this, but also connected to it, thus you are part of it, and you feel that you are not. You have helped me show again , that (G) exists in your brain. You could also make yourself feel love by focusng on someone you love , someone you want to love, watching a romantic movie, just THINKING about love. And verous other meens, some might even be beter at producing love in your brain then thinking about (G) does. Some less so.

If I tried to say more, for example what powers God has or God's view of morality or whatever, I would either be engaging in speculation or spouting what my Sunday school teacher told me or what I read in a book.

I agree. I would interject that whenever we say anything about (G) we are placing our own ideas about it into play... because that is all (G) is, an idea. Nothing more.

Such religious notions have nothing to do with the actuality of God

How do you know what the actuality is?

[kayky]

All we want to know is if there is anything "outside" of your mind that makes you (and we're are looking for something from you, something personal, an experience you've had) that makes you believe. Or is it all simply in your head, like placebo?

I do not think it is just inside my head like a placebo. My experience has shaped my beliefs.