If there were no God

  • Thread starter Thread starter clarkgamble1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
clarkgamble1 said:
How many of the seemingly unanswerable questions about the actions or non-actions of God would be answered if one examined them with the beginning premise that He doesn’t exist? For instance the fact that very ill relatives most often die despite intense prayers for their healing, the fact that not many prayers of any type are actually answered as requested, the fact that, in history, thousands of believers have been brutally murdered by invading hordes of non-believers, that thousands of innocent children die every year of starvation. Seems to me that if there were no God all these things could easily be explained as natural occurrences due to the world we live in.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right. Theists have a history of being occasionally brutal people. Non-theists seem to have no issue at all creating similar body counts. Folks that believe in Yahweh have starved to death. Folks that believe in the Brahman have starved to death.

It appears that God seems to be a non-factor here. “The rain falls on both the just and the un-just”.

For me, God is necessitated because I assent to the existence of the metaphysical. I think love is a real thing (albeit not in a purely material way). Same goes for hate, good, evil, “The Ideal”, and a host of other metaphysical ideas.

This aspect of creation requires a driver. That driver is God.

Now I’m fine with admitting that people across space and time have anthropomorphized it and attempted at various points to claim to speak for it - often conflictingly when juxtaposed, but often in harmony as well (even though many would very much prefer to not admit that).

I do think you levy a valid concern about why one believes in God, but most usually get around to asking those questions at some point in their lives.
 
Theban said:
Many very smart and rational people are atheists
Click to expand...
Maybe that’s the problem. If you are too intellectual, you can become a prisoner of your own mind. Faith requires a different part of the brain closer to the artist than the logician/rationalist.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I’d be walking downtown everyday instead of only on the weekends.
 
Man is by nature and vocation a religious being. CCC #44

“Religion” is whatever you believe in; therefore, whatever you do religiously. But, all humans seek to believe in something - themselves, another, power, fame, fortune, sex, drugs, alcohol, you name it. Humans will seek it out in their search for satisfaction, for what they perceive as grounding. Just as the laws of physics allow order in an otherwise chaotic universe, our hearts seek some sort of order in which to found our existence.
 
TheOldColonel said:
Such gymnastics, I rarely see. Looks like your vitamins are working.

I had no idea my faith in God was merely genetic.

BTW, could you post the genetic research on the “Religion Gene” so we know you’re not just making that up? 😎
Click to expand...

Loading…

www.newscientist.com

Colonel - I called it a hypothesis but a growing number of observations are helping build a theory. 🙂
 
FiveLinden said:
40.png
TheOldColonel:
Such gymnastics, I rarely see. Looks like your vitamins are working.

I had no idea my faith in God was merely genetic.

BTW, could you post the genetic research on the “Religion Gene” so we know you’re not just making that up? 😎
Click to expand...
Genes contribute to religious inclination | New Scientist

Colonel - I called it a hypothesis but a growing number of observations are helping build a theory. 🙂
Click to expand...
The genetic link to behavior can only be reasonably asserted as long as you’re being vague. There are some markers that most homosexuals have. But there are some homosexuals that do not have these genetic markers and there are some straight people that do.

No surprise that social science departments are typically in different buildings than the “hard” science departments at most of our universities. 🙂
 
I think human behavior is far too complex to explain by simple genetics. Religion plays a major role in society; it creates a common set of myths, archetypes and a backdrop for much of our conduct as individuals and groups. Political ideologies may serve the same purpose. Certainly figures like Stalin and Mao tried to promote Communism in a similar fashion, creating founding myths, and served at times as something almost analogous to a high priest. This probably says a lot about how humans create dominance hierarchies and how they perceive and respond to authority. Marx became almost a Christ-like figure; a fountain of wisdom and truth. I can’t say they were very successful, as the system required pretty strong enforcement.

But then again so did Christianity. While it’s rise wasn’t as bloody as, say, Islam, it didn’t become the dominant faith in Europe until after the Edict of Milan and the merging of state power with theocratic authority; in the Byzantine world in the form of Caesaro-Papism and in the West in the significant power the Papacy played in the conduct of the various princes.
 
Vonsalza said:
No surprise that social science departments are typically in different buildings than the “hard” science departments at most of our universities. 🙂
Click to expand...
Evolutionary biology is as ‘hard’ as any science. It is easier to understand reports of research if we distinguish between observations, hypotheses, theories, and facts.
 
niceatheist said:
I think human behavior is far too complex to explain by simple genetics. Religion plays a major role in society; it creates a common set of myths, archetypes and a backdrop for much of our conduct as individuals and groups. Political ideologies may serve the same purpose.
Click to expand...
I’m not suggesting that simple genetics explains all human behaviour. But the ubiquity of the observed behaviour, which you rightly point out extends beyond religion, points to an underlying biological basis. The diversity of Gods in which people believe also points to this, as divine origin of things believed on faith would surely tend to result on alignment of the type of God.
 
So, much scientific progress taking place and I’m still trying to figure out how to program my VCR. 😎
 
Last edited:
Bradskii said:
some clumps of atoms have evolved to become conscious parts of the universe.
Click to expand...
What is the mechanism by which non-conscious dead matter becomes conscious and self aware? Can consciousness be created in a laboratory ?
 
“Behavior” and “evolutionary biology” are not synonyms.

If you think so, your educators have done you a disservice.
 
I highly recommend this series of books. Fr Robert Spitzer goes into much depth concerning the foundations of Christian faith and belief in the Transcendent in general. Your profile says you are Agnostic. I highly recommend the green book (The Soul’s Upward Yearning). We have very good reasons to believe in God and human transcendence.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The “Problem of Evil” and suffering is what the purple book (The Light Shines On in the Darkness) is all about. At least look up Robert Spitzer on YouTube. The way he approaches God and the Faith may be up your alley.
 
Last edited:
But since the OP basically relates to the “Problem of Evil,” even though the explicit question does not concern it, I would like to mention a few points:

(1) The existence of evil and suffering is not some insurmountable problem with respect to God’ existence or the Christian Faith. Many atheists recognize this, and they often dispense with the argument against God from evil/suffering. First off, we have independent reason to think God exists. But more to the point, we can simply never judge whether or not God can’t bring about a greater good from some particular evil.

(2) On the basis of the Christian context, we have an overwhelming amount of reasons that show that, even if we do not why particular sufferings happen (“my son has cancer,” or “the 4th century plague,” etc.), we do know that God has enveloped suffering and evil with his providential care and compassion. Take the prime example: Christ on the Cross. In the Christian context, that means God literally entering into the worst of suffering. So in a sense, the Christian faith presumes suffering. In a way, it’s a philosophy of suffering.

(3) If the Christian Faith is true, then all suffering is ultimately absorbed into the great final restoration of all things in Christ, where God will “wipe away every tear,” as it goes. Suffering, evil, and death do not have the final say. Again, look at the Resurrection as the icon of that fact. So even horrible and unspeakable sufferings endured by the most innocent of children will ultimately be radically transformed into the over-abundant compassion of a loving God. Death is not the end.
 
Last edited:
catholic1seeks said:
If the Christian Faith is true, then all suffering is ultimately absorbed into the great final restoration of all things in Christ, where God will “wipe away every tear,” as it goes.
Click to expand...
Could you explain please how this applies to the millions upon trillions of animals that have dies in pain and agony?
 
Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that human beings carry a genetic code which predisposes them to believe in a God or gods. How does that move anyone towards validating a theory that there is no God? Indeed, one might argue such “evidence” leans towards supporting the contrary.

Even the ancients tell us that God’s law is “written on our hearts.” Are scientists now also confirming this divine authorship? 😎
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top