I have an almost indisputable explanation regarding God and how He (or rather the idea of Him) came to be. It is a known fact that the first people to define or describe the presence of a God were 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. This is believed to be the foundation of the first so-called religion, and things just took off from there. It makes sense when you consider in those times that people likely suffered a great deal of hardships and losses when people got sick and died or when their crops failed, which happened frequently, and I can imagine that the idea of having someone or something to look to for answers offered them a great deal of comfort, as it does to people even today. 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.
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
If you are an atheist do you atleast agree that scientific determinism (~Fate) determines all of our actions? I'm not sure how someone who claims to embrace reason and rationality can at the same time reject scientific determinism (~Fate). — christian2017
If you are an atheist do you atleast agree that scientific determinism (~Fate) determines all of our actions? I'm not sure how someone who claims to embrace reason and rationality can at the same time reject scientific determinism (~Fate).
— christian2017
I don't entirely believe that fate determines our actions, simply because it is said that we have the ability to choose and to make choices. I agree that we may not always be conscious or aware of what we are doing at any given time, for example if I move my foot without realizing it or thinking about it, but very often we are forced to become aware of our actions, such as when making decisions or performing very specific tasks. Moreover, it is primarily in cases of decision-making that we become the most self-aware and have a conscious ability to choose, even in spite of of actions that we don't think about but that we are taking subconsciously outside of the decision-making process. But the fact that any task can be performed consciously without us being made directly aware of us doing it, shows that task is a matter of free will and not of fate. For instance a person doesn't choose to do something without being aware that they are making a choice, or what the choice is.
I also don't believe that so many decisions would be stressful or difficult to make if we actually knew in hindsight that the decision was determined by fate, so the fact that we still have to make decisions and often don't know what to decide is another indication that the decision is not predetermined. But we also can't allow ourselves to believe that our decisions are predetermined, as we may ultimately allow that thought process to determine what decisions we make. — BBQueue
But the fact that any task can be performed consciously without us being made directly aware of us doing it, shows that task is a matter of free will and not of fate. — BBQueue
But we also can't allow ourselves to believe that our decisions are predetermined, as we may ultimately allow that thought process to determine what decisions we make. — BBQueue
But the fact that any task can be performed consciously without us being made directly aware of us doing it, shows that task is a matter of free will and not of fate.
— BBQueue
Read that back a couple of times...
But we also can't allow ourselves to believe that our decisions are predetermined, as we may ultimately allow that thought process to determine what decisions we make.
— BBQueue
Could not allowing oneself to believe in determinism alter one's decisions in any way? Or does it only work the other way around, as you stated. — Key
I have an almost[?] indisputable explanation regarding[...] — BBQueue
It is a known fact that the first people to define or[...] — BBQueue
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
It doesn't even necessitate that the originator believes in the god either, look at scientology. L Ron Hubbard must have known he was making it all up on some level, even if he claimed it was revelation, and yet people still believe in it. It doesn't even necessitate that the originator intended for others to believe in it. — Kenosha Kid
You are assuming that this is a hypothetical scenario and that I am simply pretending that a spirit exists to prove a point, while all along knowing that it does not exist — BBQueue
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.