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?

[Willum]

Napoleon explains the Napoleonic Wars, Gravity explains why we are stuck to the ground, God explains...

But one could say that Napoleonic wars didnt happen, because French are peace loving nation that doesnt go to mindless wars, and especially dont lose in Waterloo. The whole history can be seen as subjective story and belief.

And we are not stuck to the ground, we can move. Gravity is not any explanation, it is only name for something that is not really well explained, why it happens.

And, God explains why we exist.

I absolutely agree, if one denies reality,one could certainly claim God existed.
For, as Tcg noticed, anyone who understands science this side of the 19th century, knows that God is not required for creation.

[1213]

No, it doesn't. Your belief in god explains why you believe in god. Given that you can't provide any empirical evidence for god, there is no reason to use it as an excuse for the existence of anything other than your concept of god.

Your belief in god explains why you believe in god, dont you think that is kind of circular reasoning? I think that was not very well said. I can explain why I believe in God. The explanation is this:
I believe in God, because of the Bible. And I believe what the Bible tells, because I have seen it to be true in matters that I dont think people would have written, without God.

I understand that you dont believe. My point is not to make you to believe. The point was to say, God is explanation to our existence. But people can choose do they believe that explanation, or do they rather choose other explanation.

Additionally, are you actually questioning gravity? You doubt gravity?

No, it is just thing that has no good scientific explanation why it exists.

[1213]

For, as Tcg noticed, anyone who understands science this side of the 19th century, knows that God is not required for creation.

What is required for creation then?

[Tcg]

Your belief in god explains why you believe in god, dont you think that is kind of circular reasoning?

Of course it is circular reasoning. You are using your belief in god to support your claim that your belief in god is sound.

I can explain why I believe in God. The explanation is this:
I believe in God, because of the Bible. And I believe what the Bible tells, because I have seen it to be true in matters that I dont think people would have written, without God.

This is not empirical evidence at all. It is once again a statement of what you believe and you are trying to use your belief as evidence that what you believe is true. It's the same circular argument you attempted before.

The point was to say, God is explanation to our existence.

It still isn't.

No, it is just thing that has no good scientific explanation why it exists.

I disagree, but in any case, what does this have to do with god?

[Willum]

For, as Tcg noticed, anyone who understands science this side of the 19th century, knows that God is not required for creation.

What is required for creation then?

Creation is an artificial construct used to prove a non-extent entity, God.
Matter is neither created nor destroyed. No creation or creator is necessary.

So far two ways have helped religious people understand this:
1. Consider hydrogen - say in a glass of water. That hydrogen has been unchanged since the Big Bang. Now, even if it did participate in the BB, it was not created, it was transformed from the state of matter it was before the BB, to matter as we know it now.
2. There is a concept that God is identically the universe. Use that to understand that the universe did not need a creator, as God didn't need one.
Once you have done that, just take God out of the process, and the universe doesn't need him.

And being a concept is exactly what God needs to be, to be a symbol, only.

[1213]

Matter is neither created nor destroyed. No creation or creator is necessary
it was transformed from the state of matter it was before the BB, to matter as we know it now

Please explain why do you believe those claims?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 16 by 1213]

This is too funny.

An important idea in ancient Greek philosophy was that "Nothing comes from nothing", so that what exists now has always existed: no new matter can come into existence where there was none before.

Nor has it any need to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass

It just flat out amazes me that so many principles that ancient peoples understood were destroyed by the churches and replaced with nonsense so that God could be created with definitions arising from that nonsense.

What don't you understand?

[FarWanderer]

Matter is neither created nor destroyed. No creation or creator is necessary
it was transformed from the state of matter it was before the BB, to matter as we know it now

Please explain why do you believe those claims?

I'll play it strait.

"Matter is neither created nor destroyed."

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.

"No creation or creator is necessary
it was transformed from the state of matter it was before the BB, to matter as we know it now"

This logically follows from the law of conservation. It is of course possible there is an exception to the law of conservation, but it certainly isn't necessary that there is an exception.

[William]

[Replying to post 15 by Willum]

If GOD is consciousness, how is one to remove GOD from the equation?

Stating that GOD is not required is like stating that the universe is not required, but in relation to the idea of the universe being infinite, 'requirement' - that is 'what is or isn't required' becomes redundant.

Something that has always existed, cannot be said to be or not be required.

Especially by someone who has never always existed.

Smile

See? Now assuming your belief about the universe as an infinite thing extends into the understanding that this infinite thing is mindless (without consciousness) then one can say from that - "Consciousness is not required" and it was simply a mindless accident that mind became real.

But in this happening, something came into existence which had the ability to decide for itself what was required and what was not. It is not the universe - if the universe is mindless. So we cannot say for certain that the universe is mindless - or has even always been mindless - or somewhere in between - and indeed, given what we currently know about the universe (for we have minds for such things as knowledge) it is easy enough to understand that the universe (in it's current state) appears to exhibit mindfulness and order. Only consciousness is able to determine one or the other, but in our case, we limit what we think is conscious by observing ourselves and the biological forms on this one planet. Even in that, the idea that the planet itself might be a living self aware creative entity appears to be something most of us cannot contemplate as possible, even that all the signs point to that being the case.

Indeed, I can. Not only that, but also I can understand that the whole universe is mindful - as in - is the form of a conscious self aware creative entity.

In that, I have even learned to understand that while matter is not destroyed but only transformed, consciousness should have the same properties and it may be that it also has the ultimate influence as to what form the universe will take shape as.

For if the universe has always existed then so too has consciousness. For they are not separate from each other but aspects of the same.

Our position in the universe gives us such a tiny glimpse of the whole, that we cannot simple make assertions that the universe requires no GOD, as defined as Consciousness.

Sure, we find it easy to acknowledge 'consciousness' in forms which our limited position permits, but if we were able to somehow transcend that limitation and be positioned where we could observe the whole universe, we might well see the undeniable evidence of a vibrant living being in that wholeness.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 19 by William]

I see no reason to include it.
Simply remove your "If," from the equation.
Consciousness is not required for the physical universe. Empirically, all we have/need are atoms. Atoms have no consciousness.

The consciousness requirement is not within the topic's scope.