Does God only exist as a symbol?

[Willum]

A way to get everyone to agree with the concept of God is to agree that God only exists as a symbol.

There is no physical evidence of God, Jesus or disciples. Yet, like Superman, God has great influence.

If we make the assumption to start that God is only symbol, does this assumption introduce any incongruities or inconsistencies at all?

Or does making this assumption fit all the data for both believers and non-believers alike?

[1213]

…What don't you understand?

Why you believe those claims. Very few people have existed always, so it is interesting how do you know all those things.

[1213]

This is a natural law observed in matter without exception (the law of conservation). To question the truth of this statement is to question the value of scientific observation itself.

And does that mean scientific observation is holy and should not be questioned?

I have nothing against scientific observation, I just have difficulties to believe that people have observed universe the whole time it has existed, as it should be, if one makes the claim material has always existed, because we have observed scientifically that it is so.

[Willum]

…What don't you understand?

Why you believe those claims. Very few people have existed always, so it is interesting how do you know all those things.

If I can quote riku:

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

I am sorry, but putting it on me is odd: I was quoting wiki, who was quoting very well established observations.

This means that "I" don't know them, I accept them, based on a great deal of objective observations. You do know that the first thing any physical scientist does is implicit or direct accounting for the conservation of mass?

[FarWanderer]

This is a natural law observed in matter without exception (the law of conservation). To question the truth of this statement is to question the value of scientific observation itself.

And does that mean scientific observation is holy and should not be questioned?

It's as holy as a thing can be, but that still doesn't put it above question.

I have nothing against scientific observation, I just have difficulties to believe that people have observed universe the whole time it has existed, as it should be, if one makes the claim material has always existed, because we have observed scientifically that it is so.

If only you were half as skeptical about your religion.

[William]

[Replying to post 20 by Willum]

Consciousness is not required for the physical universe.

This assumption is based on what exactly? How do you know that consciousness is not required. Who makes the call? The universe?

Empirically, all we have/need are atoms. Atoms have no consciousness.

Are you saying that individual atoms have no consciousness? How can you tell?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 25 by William]

Well, I'll just invoke the principal of parsimony.
There is no constructive reason to make these assumptions, so until there is, or they explain anything (particularly germane to the topic) then there is no reason to bring it up.
For example, no atoms have been observed to make decisions, or display consciousness.

[William]

[Replying to post 26 by Willum]

For example, no atoms have been observed to make decisions, or display consciousness.

What would one be looking for specifically, if one were to perceive atomic decision-making and displays of atomic consciousness?

Patterns of behavior?

(((0)))

...there is no reason to bring it up

Well you brought it up. I was just asking you to explain your claim that "Empirically, all we have/need are atoms. Atoms have no consciousness."

But I understand if you would rather be frugal with your conscious resources and keep them under tight control and direction.

The universe can be a big scary place for a small insignificant 'ant' without adding to that, that it might also be conscious!!!

But really, that head in the sand approach doesn't allow one to 'see' very much...or put the pieces of the puzzle together sufficiently. That is one of the problems associated with said approach....it produces such metaphor, that one and all are simply 'ants' for what possible use any 'GOD' would have, let alone any possible way a 'GOD' could commune with said ants and give them the heads up re that

Indeed, if we are 'ants' then the Planet Entity is the Queen. Tune in bro. Wiggle those cerebral antenna - both left and right sides together.