The God Hypothesis

[Davin]

If God is the Sun, then i'm reapplying my sunblock before I catch skincancer.

You don't want godcancer?

[Davin]

A few interesting replies I read here, people do not seem to like God, I assume it's probably because of the Qur'an.

First: don't assume. The problem with these kinds of baseless assumptions is that you're more often wrong causing lot's of clarification and time wasted. So instead of assuming, ask and listen or just go off of what was said.

Second: I can't like or dislike something that doesn't exist (except cyborg, zombie, pirate ninjas... those are awesome).

[Too Few Lions]

The Qur'an is nothing more than a mirror which shows our current progress, of who we really are deep inside.

Having read the Qur'an, I think it's more a mirror of seventh century Arabia, which is rather different from the 21st century Europe I live in.

[iSok]

ISoK

It is pointless discussing God with people who value critical thinking, are skeptical and who value evidence over assertion. That sort of person also tends to be an atheist nowadays. In the West theists can no longer get their own way through bribery, seduction and bullying. Everybody has to justify their world view. If they can't justify it then it will be ignored. Atheism isn't a dogma, an orthodoxy or a faith, it isn't a cause of a way of thinking, it is a result of a way of thinking.

The basis of theism is institutionalised superstition and as such it can't stand rigorous examination. To believe in something one can not adequately describe used to be acceptable but that is no longer the case. In addition humanity has grown up and can live knowing it doesn't matter if we don't know everything. In the days when we didn't know what a star or planet were then our ancestors filled in the gaps with stories, fiction that kept away the fear that ignorance brings.

We don't need comfort stories anymore, not because we know everything, but because we know enough. It's time to leave the stories from our past in the past and create new stories of our future, a future free from superstition. One can't produce a god hypothesis because, to put it bluntly, there is apparently no god.

Regards
Chris

Tank, I hope you'll value my opinion also.

I am of the opinion that Intelligence consists of two major factions, namely Reason and Imagination.
Western thought has taken Reason as THE intelligence instead of AN intelligence.

Science works mainly through reason but it forgets to recognize imagination (for example in art) as a faction.
The post above for xSilverPhinx, explains what happens when people adopt the way of reason solely, they become atheists or agnostics.
I had my doubts when I entered this topic whether it was a good idea to use the scientific method to define God, apparently it was not.
God is tanzih + tasbih, and one can not rest on tanzih to know God.

That doesn't mean that I am against science, I attend university myself and study a branch of science.
But science has it's place and should not be considered as an universal tool.

A few interesting replies I read here, people do not seem to like God, I assume it's probably because of the Qur'an.

First: don't assume. The problem with these kinds of baseless assumptions is that you're more often wrong causing lot's of clarification and time wasted. So instead of assuming, ask and listen or just go off of what was said.

Second: I can't like or dislike something that doesn't exist (except cyborg, zombie, pirate ninjas... those are awesome).

The reply over there was from another forum in a different discussion, as I mentioned clearly to xSilverPhinx.
Not about the people here.

[The Magic Pudding]

The Qur'an is nothing more than a mirror which shows our current progress, of who we really are deep inside.

Having read the Qur'an, I think it's more a mirror of seventh century Arabia, which is rather different from the 21st century Europe I live in.

I see it as an anchor chaining many to seventh century Arabia.

[Tank]

ISoK

It is pointless discussing God with people who value critical thinking, are skeptical and who value evidence over assertion. That sort of person also tends to be an atheist nowadays. In the West theists can no longer get their own way through bribery, seduction and bullying. Everybody has to justify their world view. If they can't justify it then it will be ignored. Atheism isn't a dogma, an orthodoxy or a faith, it isn't a cause of a way of thinking, it is a result of a way of thinking.

The basis of theism is institutionalised superstition and as such it can't stand rigorous examination. To believe in something one can not adequately describe used to be acceptable but that is no longer the case. In addition humanity has grown up and can live knowing it doesn't matter if we don't know everything. In the days when we didn't know what a star or planet were then our ancestors filled in the gaps with stories, fiction that kept away the fear that ignorance brings.

We don't need comfort stories anymore, not because we know everything, but because we know enough. It's time to leave the stories from our past in the past and create new stories of our future, a future free from superstition. One can't produce a god hypothesis because, to put it bluntly, there is apparently no god.

Regards
Chris

Tank, I hope you'll value my opinion also.

I am of the opinion that Intelligence consists of two major factions, namely Reason and Imagination.
Western thought has taken Reason as THE intelligence instead of AN intelligence.

Science works mainly through reason but it forgets to recognize imagination (for example in art) as a faction.
The post above for xSilverPhinx, explains what happens when people adopt the way of reason solely, they become atheists or agnostics.
I had my doubts when I entered this topic whether it was a good idea to use the scientific method to define God, apparently it was not.
God is tanzih + tasbih, and one can not rest on tanzih to know God.

That doesn't mean that I am against science, I attend university myself and study a branch of science.
But science has it's place and should not be considered as an universal tool.

Science cannot function without imagination. One has to be able to imagine something one does not have evidence for. This is the basis of a hypothesis. Every scientific discovery started out with "I wonder if...", that is imagination. I have a very, very vigorous imagination, I read fiction and fantasy books. What the scientific method does is allow one to choose which imaginings are fact and which are fantasy.

The trouble is that science has proved to be a very good universal tool in telling us what is real and what is not, and it continues to tell us that god is not real by continuing to expose the true mechanisms of the universe that we inhabit.

[Stevil]

This is just leading to nowhere, it's pointless to discuss God with atheists...
You're thinking in terms of the scientific method, you are expecting that God can be carefuly defined among
the lines of science. In terms of God's weight, size, tasks (and how?); in other words you want God to be carefuly defined, no matter
the limits you put on Him.

I gave a few methaporical examples of how you can see God and in what way God sustains.
Like the sun making the grass  visible, without the sun the grass would be no longer perceived.
But you twisted it into a literal understanding.

As for your question; no.

I understand your frustration, and believe me when I say that I am frustrated too.
I am really trying hard to keep an open mind with regards to god and belief in god.
But I am who I am and I am trying to find a bridge of understanding from my world to your world.

I really struggle to believe in something because a person tells me it is true or because a book tells me it is the truth.
I need something more tangible, something that suggests that the idea is more than pure imagination.
Surely there is some way of proving.
People say that god answers prayer, we could test for this, but then they say god only answers certain types of prayer, after indepth probing it turns out that the answered prayer is of the type that is untestable, which is no different to if there were no god.
Catholics tell me that the wine and bread taken at eucharist becomes Jesus blood and flesh once eaten, I suggest examining stomach contents and then they suggest that I would only find wine and bread.
Catholics talk about eucharist miracles where the blood and flesh of Jesus have been gathered in an incorruptible state over different time periods and they get excited that all these samples are AB+
I ask for DNA testing but they come up with excuses.

Don't you find it strange that god is so shy and that the universe acts in a way that could easily be consistent with a theory that there is no god at all?

The requirement for faith reeks of a cover up with regards to there being absolutely no proof or evidence. The requirement to be a believer or face the consequence of eternal damnation reeks of this as well as points to an unjust, vain god, if one were to exist.

How can an adult that doesn't currently believe in god get to a point where they believe absolutely that god exists?

[Stevil]

it continues to tell us that god is not real by continuing to expose the true mechanisms of the universe that we inhabit.

I don't agree.
Science focuses on that which is provable.

Religion focuses on theology and philosophy (of sorts), they keep their understanding within the realm of conceptual, likely because they know if they cross over into the world of physical then science will apply its magic and eventually they will have to face the scrutinisation that they so desperately attempt to avoid.

Science is a search for the truth
Religion is an imaginative exploration of the idea of a god.

[Asmodean]

What Pudding said.

And iSok..? Why do you feel the need to attribute properties to me which I do not have..?

You see, the mirror image of my metaphorical innards is nothing like your old piece of literature.

[Sweetdeath]

If God is the Sun, then i'm reapplying my sunblock before I catch skincancer.

You don't want godcancer?

No

I think it's completely wrong to say science doesn't take imagination.   I mean, has anyone seen any movie that involves an actor in a body suit colored in tiny green foam balls to be transferred onto a computer?   It's simply amazin! Lord of the rings, harry potter and bejamin button all used this technology.    If science isnt fueled by imagination, and wonderous things, I don't know what is.   I love science.   It allows us to stop being ignorant  simpletons, amused by shiny superstitions .

[Crow]

Science works mainly through reason but it forgets to recognize imagination (for example in art) as a faction.

This is grossly incorrect, especially with the example given. Not only does science recognize the imagination of art it is embraced by it and artists embrace the sciences. Many people consider mathematics just a tool of science but it is immensely imaginative and in its most efficient forms is a work of art in itself whether its intentional or not. The argument that disregards the lack of imagination is appalling as its quite obvious to anybody that understands the basic concepts of science that imagination is a prerequisite. Imagination is also a defining factor in what separates the amazing scientists from the average, take string theory the imagination involved in the concept of that theory goes far beyond anything any religious organisations have ever invented.

Why is it that the biggest names in contemporary art, design, photography, fashion, ect are atheist? and why is it that no notable art has come out of the religious institutions since there golden years?

I had my doubts when I entered this topic whether it was a good idea to use the scientific method to define God, apparently it was not.

I don't think you have defined your idea of god using a hypothesis, not even close. You gave initial points to your concept of what is a god but the initial points didn't add up to your reasoning (the evidence) nor was the concept explained in a way that helps others gain any understanding, it may make sense to yourself and perhaps those with a similar interpretation of a god but to people that have heard so many different god concepts before it is vague to put it mildly. Think of a hypothesis as a pitch for a job. You are selling an idea; you need the client to understand your idea in the most efficient form necessary but need to be thorough at the same time giving an explanation for each section showing your reasoning whilst not being condescending.

[Medusa]

Logic and reason is great. But that can ONLY happen without the human. Face it we are more than facts and figures .

[Asmodean]

Face it we are more than facts and figures .

We are also numbers and equasions.

[Medusa]

Face it we are more than facts and figures .

We are also numbers and equasions.

yes yes. I just think we all get a bit too high and mighty with the whole I AM LOGICAL spheel. It's all phooee if you ask me. We are a mix of chemicals all just a stone's throw away from crazies. 

[Asmodean]

It's all phooee if you ask me. We are a mix of chemicals all just a stone's throw away from crazies. 

Chemistry is numbers and equasions too. Nothing at all crazy about it.