Are you familiar with Noah Harrari? He wrote a book called "Sapiens". If you don't feel like reading the first 4 chapters of his book then just watch 2 or 3 of his books on youtube.

He basically says humans were able to dominate the planet by embracing legal fictions such as money and human rights and also fictions such as religion.

I disagree with him on alot of stuff but i feel it should be required reading in highschool.

If I decide that an invisible spirit exists and several other people agree with me, then we have all simply made the decision to believe it, even though this invisible spirit does not actually exist. I know that it is difficult for people to accept this about God because on some level they don't want to believe it, and they also want something to be there for them when they have nothing else, so perhaps it is best that these people do still have the idea of God to offer them comfort and keep their spirits up. But I feel like we must also understand that doing this does not at all change the idea of God as He relates to my invisible spirit example. This is important to remember since it could easily be forgotten by reading or listening to anything religious that talks about God in a matter-of-fact manner. — BBQueue

BBQ!

Keep in mind, the Gnostics were very keen on, more or less, that idea of spirituality. But, like Spinoza's teachings, they were excluded from the Christian Orthodoxy, as it were.

Alternatively, in the historic texts (the Christian Bible), we know that Jesus existed. The nature of that existence, in my view, is what the talk is all about ( The Mind of God). Nevertheless, since we don't even know the true nature of our own existence, what would be the existential implications/distinctions?

I disagree with the author of "Sapiens" and for that reason stopped reading his book. It is one-sided.

If I decide that an invisible spirit exists and several other people agree with me, then we have all simply made the decision to believe it, even though this invisible spirit does not actually exist — BBQueue

Tell that to every currency around the globe "Hey everyone! This little piece of paper can fund the construction of a house."
" Why?"
"Well, because we all believe it can, obviously. It has this invisible spirit inside it called 'value'."
Makes just about as much sense as collectively believing in a spirit that has influence over you and your life. And yet hey...money does?!?

I have an almost indisputable explanation regarding God and how He (or rather the idea of Him) came to be. . . . If I decide that an invisible spirit exists and several other people agree with me, then we have all simply made the decision to believe it, even though this invisible spirit does not actually exist. — BBQueue

Be careful how you use the term "indisputable" on a philosophy forum. :joke:

I doubt that ancient people arbitrarily "decided" to believe in invisible spirits. Instead, I think it was a rational conclusion, based on the primitive scientific understanding of the times. They had no concept of abstract Energy, so they created a metaphor based on the only Causal force they were familiar with : conscious intentional human agency. At first, their Nature Spirits were fairly anonymous, like ethereal wood sprites or fairies. But over time, myths arose to make them more human-like and relatable. So, the spirit world began to resemble mundane human societies, complete with war-lords and kings.

But they took their myths as seriously as we do our notions of invisible Energy, that can only be known by its effects. The main difference is modern scientists don't personify their spooky Forces ("spooky action at a distance") like gravity. They believe such intangible causes "exist", just not in a material form that we can detect with our natural senses. But we now have the advantage of advanced technology to do the detecting for us. So, those ancient beliefs in supernatural spirits, were no more irrational than our modern belief that a ghostly cell phone signal is passing through the walls of our house, in order to bring the phone to life. :cool:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Dear BBQueue,

In your post, you made the following claim:
I have an almost indisputable explanation regarding God and how He (or rather the idea of Him) came to be. The first people to define or describe the presence of a God are believed to be those who were looking for an explanation for unexplained things that happen such as natural disasters or deaths before there was knowledge of disease or bacteria, or even good things such as rain after a long drought. So they ultimately decided that these things were being caused by a celestial being that they decided existed and was causing anything that could not be explained…. However, this does not by any means change the reality of the situation, which is that the being or thing they are turning to is just that, and has no physical presence beyond that which they decide that He does.
I think your argument has this form:

1. If people believe in God, then their religious beliefs were created to explain unexplained phenomena and provide comfort for themselves.
2. If their religious beliefs were created to explain unexplained phenomena and provide comfort for themselves, then they would believe in God even if they knew he was not real.
3. If they would believe in God even if they knew he was not real, then their belief in God is irrational.
4. Therefore, if people believe in God, then their belief in God is irrational.

If this argument is successful, its conclusion presents major problems for belief in God, as it seems that no one could rationally believe in God. I have a few objections to this argument. First, premise 2 has clear problems, namely that the origin of religious belief does not determine how strong the current epistemic standing of that belief is. In other words, even if people’s religious beliefs were created for the purposes mentioned in the second premise, they could still be held based on evidence. Even if this person or the founders of their faith before them used reasons of comfort and simple explanations as justification for their belief, this does not mean that that they did not also have reasonable evidence for their beliefs. Because of this, it is quite possible that a believer in God, whose religious beliefs fit the criteria of the antecedent in premise 2, would not believe in God even if they knew he was not real, thus showing that premise 2 is false. This is because their beliefs are justified by reason and so can be debunked using reasonable arguments. For this reason, premise 2 is faulty and the argument is unsound.

Sincerely,

Joel

I disagree with the author of "Sapiens" and for that reason stopped reading his book. It is one-sided. — Victoria Nova

You were hoping for something from the Neanderthal point of view?

Alternatively, in the historic texts (the Christian Bible) — 3017amen

LOLOLOL

This totally took me here:

:rofl:

:up:

This thread is 3 months old and there really is no reason for it to have been bumped, considering the plethora of God-related threads floating around at the moment.