Does God exist...If all the rest is created, the need for a supreme higher power is real and therefore whatever way to decide to refer to it, it is all the same. We are referring to the same real need. — Raef Kandil

Welcome to the forum. I enjoyed your post.

The forum is a fraught place to take up the existence of God. Most people here, or at least the loudest, are committed atheists. I don't think they will care much for your nuanced views. Many will see your position as irrelevant to the question of God's existence. My thoughts are in sympathy with yours, although I see things a bit differently.

For me, god is a metaphysical entity, by which I mean its existence isn't a matter of fact, but a way of looking at the world. For me, it represents the fact that many humans experience the world as a living thing. Although I am not a theist, I have no particular religious belief, I often find myself thinking that way. I feel grateful for the world and all the things it has given me. I think many religious believers feel that living connection much more strongly than I do.

I find the metaphysical basis of those feelings consistent with the way I see things. If, as you note, much of our reality is constructed by us, that means the idea of objective reality is misleading. The world as we see it is half human. That's not really all that radical a view. The writings of philosophers like Kant and Lao Tzu point in that direction. My understanding of my readings in psychology and cognitive science tell me that the structure of our minds and our thoughts is not just a function of the world outside, but also of our physical nature, our bodies, our nervous systems, our humanity.

Look, I might view things differently. I don't get what is constructed and what is not? When you say, it is all a function of the mind and neurones and the physical world, I think it is your decision to stop somewhere so that you don't get lost. For me, I refer to it as "the experience" and I don't decide to dwell in my body which is a product of my perception of the world. So, lef us say it is all physical as you said. Only substance. Are you that our spectrum of vision is very limited. Are you aware that you cannot view infra red. Are you aware that our most advanced physical equipment cannot capture the full "physical" world. Are you aware that there could be a physical creature standing right next to you but your physical senses cannot capture. You are terrified of the prospect. So, you decide to hang on to what you decide to call physical which is also what your senses can grasp. Much like someone who doesn't know how to swim hangs on to the fence of the pool.

Is this a response to me? It's hard to tell. Here's a link to a page that will show you how to tag your responses to posts and specific quotes.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13892/forum-tips-and-tricks-how-to-quote/p1

So, lef us say it is all physical as you said. Only substance. — Raef Kandil

I didn't say that.

The need for a higher supreme power is real if everything else is created. Call it "The Matrix", "Superman" or "God" or "The cosmos". If all the rest is created, the need for a supreme higher power is real and therefore whatever way to decide to refer to it, it is all the same. We are referring to the same real need. — Raef Kandil

Pre-science, primitive people were at the mercy of natural forces. They were confused by & fearful of the exigencies & vicissitudes of Nature, that did not demonstrate any concern for the welfare of Rational beings. So, those beings applied their reason to the problem of wild & unruly Nature, with no apparent purpose. Since humans instinctively organized themselves into hierarchies with a decisive strong-man at the top (civilization), it would seem that Nature might work more efficiently with a super-hero in control : a strong Fascist leader makes the trains run on time.

But their real-world experience with human rulers should teach us that "absolute power corrupts absolutely". In practice, even after prayers & sacrifices to the imaginary alpha-male in charge, Nature continued to work against their wishes. So, an equally powerful opponent for the the "good god" became necessary to blame when things went wrong, and to make sense of the continued misfortunes of humanity. Sometimes, a nurturing female counter-part was added to neutralize the macho bosses' excesses.

Over time, the pantheon of Nature gods expanded to suit every perceived human need. Still, after all the religious efforts to tame Nature from the top-down, She remains at best neutral to human preferences. So today, we are dependent on Culture & Technology to force Nature to conform to our own needs & wishes. Hence, the perceived necessity for divine succor is less today. Yet, we still feel the need for some protection from Nature's evils, or from the pinching constraints of our Cultural shields. Even The Matrix seemed to be a techno-fix for all that was wrong with both Nature and Culture. . . . . until it decided to serve its own needs above those of its biological creators.

Ironically, "If everything else is created", and the creation itself becomes a problem, then perhaps the world Creator did not intend to create a heaven-on-earth, but a heuristic (trial & error) program to search for the best compromise solution to an open-ended problem. If so, can we expect the designer to intervene every time the cosmic system fails to conform with our local personal needs? Isn't it apparent that the natural world is not a perfected Garden of Eden, but an incomplete system evolving via dog-eat-dog competition? Maybe the savior of mankind will be ever-learning humanity --- a self-serving system within the system --- instead of the absentee Creator. Perchance, we have met the Deity, and he is us. :smile:

Bishop Whalon says No

It is funny when people say: there is no evidence that God exists, what do they really mean? There is no evidence that companies exist but we wanted for them to exist and bam, they existed because we needed for them to exist. Who decided that Microsoft logo would actually refer to Microsoft. It is all a piece of our creation. Just like when we dream, we decide for our environment to be different, and bam it is different. We even decided not to call it a dream and when we dream, we decide to call it real life while we are dreaming. How far our creativity goes is totally unknown. But I know this, to every fiction there is an element of truth. Microsoft is fake, but people's need to be enabled by extensions to themselves is real. If everything else is created, Microsoft answers to real needs.

Right, and there is evidence of Microsoft, how else do you explain PCs all functioning the same way, the huge corporate HQ, the very real dividends in Bill Gates' account?

By the same token, evidence of God is everywhere. Even small towns here (the US) have several churches. About 100 million people here attend a mosque, synagogue, temple, or church on any given weekend.

IMO, an attempt to say complex entities like religions, recessions, states, etc. aren't real is fundementally flawed. We just need better tools to express HOW they are real.

This is completely aside from God as a metaphysical issue. Rather, just empirically we can speak of these things.

It is funny when people say: there is no evidence that God exists, what do they really mean? — Raef Kandil

Many contemporary atheists would not say that. There's plenty of evidence, from The Koran to personal experience. As an atheist I would simply say the evidence available has me unconvinced that there are gods. Most believers in one god use the same tools as atheists do to dismiss all the gods of other religions and perhaps to jettison belief in the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, alien abductions or ghosts.

The question of god/s existing is not about physicalism, or what we can create using our imaginations, it's about whether we have sufficient reasons to accept the proposition or not. Generally this will be tied to specific versions of god and the concomitant scriptures and traditions of belief.

For me the debate should switch focus from whether there are gods or not, to the question why should we care if there are gods? Which gods and for what reason?

The way this question is phrased amounts to meaningless internet blather. There may be a legitimate philosophical issue at stake, but the wording is poor and the reasoning specious. I'm flagging the thread for deletion.

I think the problem is: religion. Anything that is dogmatic is dead and whatever turns into religion, becomes spoiled. Mindlessness is a state corruption. Take Islam for example, it has been highly misrepresented as there was no such a thing as Islam during the prophet Mohamed's life. Islam was not a religion, it was a cult. And in the Quraan, they would refer to it as such. It was so far away from dogmatic. Verses would reverse the meanings of other verses, based on a different situations in a a very short time. The Quraan doesn't deny it. By the meaning there is a verse in the Quraan that says: "we don't reverse verses or make it forgotten unless we come up with new better verses or a similar one." New verses, meant new ways of doing things and new rules and better techniques. Unfortunately, it was very easy to become a Muslim. All you had to say was a very short phrase, "there is no God but God and the prophet Mohamed is the prophet of Allah", and you are in. That made the quality of people who join this cult were not the kind that would argue. Because they got the kinds of people nobody else would accept and he or she would be grateful for any kind of belonging. I don't think any Muslim would be able to quickly state the names of 50 of the prophet's companions who they speak so highly of and there is a reason to that. They were essentially ,except for very few of them, nobodies. We find Umar Ibn El Khattab argues a lot and he is one of the most prominent prophet companion's figures, because he was actually someone and the prophet Mohamed before he joined he prayed that "the Islam would be strong with one of the two Omar's". When Omar ruled, he actually changed things that were actually stated in the Quraan when others didn't dare to do it. Long story short: the prophet Mohamed, because of this model, enjoyed supreme powers that I doubt anyone enjoyed on earth throughout history. He became the supreme, most powerful figure in his troop with a divine connection. He would be a judge and a commander and they would teach people how to sleep with their wives and how to purify themselves after going to the toilet. And this is why after he died, these nobodies had to turn everything he said or did as a must-do. They knew.they just lost the source of their power and had to retain it somehow and they had to turn Islam into a religion. This is why Muslims until now are one of the most close-minded people of all times. They used to believe and they still do believe that following the prophet's orders as the source of their power. Having said that, the prophet Mohamed was among the most consciences, humane man of all times. Would clearly see that from the way he never tried to abuse their powers, his fairness and the unparalleled rights that he gave to women.

You can blame it on Islam, the prophet and Muslims so much but arguably anything that is successful and people don't know how to maintain it will turn into religion and ultimately lead into failure. Take the extreme leftist movement of the west as an example. This is how big companies like Kodak fail. People tend to become dogmatic when they are afraid.

Talking about science and evolution, well I don't see contradiction between evolution and the existence of God. Evolution just means that whoever is most powerful will control the world so supreme higher powers could have found their way to power through coincidence. We are hierarchical, so we must appreciate Gods sitting up there and maintaining the order. Things don't seem as chaotic as they should have been if such a hierarchy didn't exist.

The word "God" refers to an anxiety rather than an entity.

:up:

Hey @Raef Kandil , welcome to the forum.

A pointer - state your points, and link them with argument. When you're writing a post, try to make the different parts of your position link up. There's more than a few themes in your post, like the Matrix, control, gods, gods' realities being entailed by people's needs for an explanation. You also reference a distinction between what it means for a corporation to exist, a logo to refer, and a god to exist, and seem to use all of them at once. Ranging over so many topics like this, without much explanation, makes your post very hard to follow.

In addition, please try to break up large paragraphs, like:

I think the problem is: religion. Anything that is dogmatic is dead and whatever turns into religion, becomes spoiled. Mindlessness is a state corruption. Take Islam for example, it has been highly misrepresented as there was no such a thing as Islam during the prophet Mohamed's life. Islam was not a religion, it was a cult. And in the Quraan, they would refer to it as such. It was so far away from dogmatic. Verses would reverse the meanings of other verses, based on a different situations in a a very short time. The Quraan doesn't deny it. By the meaning there is a verse in the Quraan that says: "we don't reverse verses or make it forgotten unless we come up with new better verses or a similar one." New verses, meant new ways of doing things and new rules and better techniques. Unfortunately, it was very easy to become a Muslim. All you had to say was a very short phrase, "there is no God but God and the prophet Mohamed is the prophet of Allah", and you are in. That made the quality of people who join this cult were not the kind that would argue. Because they got the kinds of people nobody else would accept and he or she would be grateful for any kind of belonging. I don't think any Muslim would be able to quickly state the names of 50 of the prophet's companions who they speak so highly of and there is a reason to that. They were essentially ,except for very few of them, nobodies. We find Umar Ibn El Khattab argues a lot and he is one of the most prominent prophet companion's figures, because he was actually someone and the prophet Mohamed before he joined he prayed that "the Islam would be strong with one of the two Omar's". When Omar ruled, he actually changed things that were actually stated in the Quraan when others didn't dare to do it. Long story short: the prophet Mohamed, because of this model, enjoyed supreme powers that I doubt anyone enjoyed on earth throughout history. He became the supreme, most powerful figure in his troop with a divine connection. He would be a judge and a commander and they would teach people how to sleep with their wives and how to purify themselves after going to the toilet. And this is why after he died, these nobodies had to turn everything he said or did as a must-do. They knew.they just lost the source of their power and had to retain it somehow and they had to turn Islam into a religion. This is why Muslims until now are one of the most close-minded people of all times. They used to believe and they still do believe that following the prophet's orders as the source of their power. Having said that, the prophet Mohamed was among the most consciences, humane man of all times. Would clearly see that from the way he never tried to abuse their powers, his fairness and the unparalleled rights that he gave to women. — Raef Kandil

into smaller ones. Where possible. Also, do try to make consecutive sentences talk about the topic, or what you're responding to. The ideal conduct here is to discuss issues.

The way this question is phrased amounts to meaningless internet blather. — Wayfarer

:up:

I am not sure why is my arguments not clear or they lead to meaningless internet blather. Because you are not offering counter-arguments. Probably because you have none. Can you focus on what I said rather than how I said it? Also, when you make a claim, can you support it and tell me how it could be done better with examples if you have any?

The way this question is phrased amounts to meaningless internet blather. There may be a legitimate philosophical issue at stake, but the wording is poor and the reasoning specious. I'm flagging the thread for deletion. — Wayfarer

I don't think it's reasonable to delete this thread. It's true it was a bit unclear, but I thought it was interesting. [T Clark's usual spiel] There have been many atheist threads much less clear than this. Religious threads should be treated the same.[/T Clark's usual spiel]

consensus was, leave it, as there have been responses already. I'm not suggesting deletion because of the subject matter, only on the grounds of quality, or absence thereof.

I am not sure why is my arguments not clear or they lead to meaningless internet blather — Raef Kandil

It's been explained to you by fdrake, above. I suggest you read his post carefully and see if you can implement his suggestions.

consensus was, leave it, as there have been responses already. I'm not suggesting deletion because of the subject matter, only on the grounds of quality, or absence thereof. — Wayfarer

You're right, given it was you, I shouldn't have played the anti-religion card.

There seem to be two approaches – I won't call them arguments – in the OP. The first part is perhaps about institutional facts, and hints at the notion that god is a bit like Microsoft in being a result of our social rules. The second seems to be an expression of a desire for to be dominated.

There's a difference between nuance and lack of clarity.

Putting them together we get something like that god is a social institution that is desirable because it dominates.

Odd.

20.3k
There seem to be two approaches – I won't call them arguments – in the OP. The first part is perhaps about institutional facts, and hints at the notion that god is a bit like Microsoft in being a result of our social rules. The second seems to be an expression of a desire for to be dominated.

There's a difference between nuance and lack of clarity.

Putting them together we get something like that god is a social institution that is desirable because it dominates.

@Banno

This is a very common misconception. God is not an oppression tool. And we don't want to be dominated. But, God is at the top of the hierarchy because He is the best and He is the strongest. Fair and square. And we are willing to accept it because we know it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against it. You can have an ambition to be at the position of your boss, but that doesn't make you him. But, if you are willing to put on a fair fight to get promoted, who is stopping you? However, to say that you not at your level now because you want to be dominated is just wierd and lame.

God is not an oppression tool. — Raef Kandil

The Matrix represented a higher, oppressive power controlling us. Isn't that what God is all about? — Raef Kandil

the need for a supreme higher power is real and therefore whatever way to decide to refer to it, it is all the same. We are referring to the same real need. — Raef Kandil

Trying to be nice, for .

But your stuff in the OP seems to contradict your last post. Nor is it apparent what this has to do with

Who decided that Microsoft logo would actually refer to Microsoft. It is all a piece of our creation. — Raef Kandil

So, to put it politely, could you summaries any argument you have here? I'm not seeing it.

@Banno, okay, so the need to submit to higher powers is real. It is like when dogs are together, they have to bark on each other to find out who is the alpha dog. But, it doesn't mean they do it because they like to get dominated. They just realise it as the only way to restore order. And It is the
same for humans. We can only accept such things as fate and death by submitting to higher powers. Call it what you want, it doesn't matter. It is the same thing and there is no way around it.

We can only accept such things as fate and death by submitting to higher powers. Call it what you want, it doesn't matter. It is the same thing and there is no way around it. — Raef Kandil

Until you can demonstrate this in an actual argument this is just an empty assertion.

I have never considered a higher power at any point and never had a problem with death, I have no idea with you mean by 'fate' but if you mean 'whatever happens to us' then I 've never had an issue with that either.

I'm not a dog. Such an argument by analogy is ...unconvincing.

Also, turns out the research behind the "alpha" wolf stuff was biased by being restricted to caged animals, and that wild wolves do not rely on any such structure.

The idea that order is only ever the result of a hierarchy is also ...problematic.

So I don't agree that there is no way around it.

Trying to be nice, for ↪T Clark. — Banno

Thank you.

Until you can demonstrate this in an actual argument this is just an empty assertion.

I have never considered a higher power at any point and never had a problem with death, I have no idea with you mean by 'fate' but if you mean 'whatever happens to us' then I 've never had an issue with that either.

@Tom Storm

It is a well-known fact that people who go through suicide attempts come closer to God and you can use a simple Google search to check. I am curious to know the process by which you surpass such issues as death and unfairness in the world. Unless you mean drinking a lot of wine which is not a solution. It is just a way to numb your senses enough not to realise there is a problem.

I'm not a dog. Such an argument by analogy is ...unconvinci

@Banno

Yes you are partially in the making. Funny how you choose to be scientific or not scientific just to win an argument.

Also, turns out the research behind the "alpha" wolf stuff was biased by being restricted to caged animals, and that wild wolves do not rely on any such structure.

Where do you bring this information from? Wolves are extremely hierarchical. Sometimes, they have alpha wolves. Sometimes, they have alpha partners and sometimes, they even have beta wolves.

Yes you are partially in the making. Funny how you choose to be scientific or not scientific just to win an argument. — Raef Kandil

What?

Where do you bring this information from? — Raef Kandil

https://wolf.org/headlines/44265/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-the-alpha-wolf-idea-a-myth/
https://www.businessinsider.com/no-such-thing-alpha-male-2016-10
...and so on.

The idea that order is only ever the result of a hierarchy is also ...problematic. — Banno

And this? Order does not come only from Hierarchy.

It is a well-known fact that people who go through suicide attempts come closer to God and you can use a simple Google search to check. I am curious to know the process by which you surpass such issues as death and unfairness in the world. Unless you mean drinking a lot of wine which is not a solution. It is just a way to numb your senses enough not to realise there is a problem. — Raef Kandil

I've worked in the area of suicide prevention and have supported many suicidal people over decades and have not often seen this. But it is the case that sometimes distressed and unhappy people need to find comfort in a belief or a galvanizing idea to help them through difficult times. This belief might be religious but it could also be a hope for family reconciliation, renewed involvement in a hobby or in education or a sport.

I think the problem you describe probably starts with the presuppositions you hold. I don't consider death a preoccupation or concern, so it holds no special fascination for me. Unfairness? Well you can help disadvantaged communities to tackle unfairness through work or volunteering. The things you can't control may be best understood through a more Stoic philosophical response.

I have never considered a higher power at any point and never had a problem with death, I have no idea with you mean by 'fate' but if you mean 'whatever happens to us' then I 've never had an issue with that either. — Tom Storm

:fire:

As a possibility, probably not.