In other words, does the existence of "God" depend upon the mind of Man to support that existence?
To the best of our knowledge, yes. But it also brings to mind the question is the mind of man tied to the physical body.
Well, there's be no communicative species able to express such an existence in our kind of language. And I honestly think the other animals don't care.
GOD was maded in Man image, or is that the other way round???
Absolutely not. Not my God anyway. God is a very generic term. My God is independent of man. He doesn't need them in order to exist.
Ok, Claire. Are you able to substitute the pronoun "She?"
If "yes," how does that fit your model of "God" that exists regardless of mankind?
If "no," why must "God" have male characteristics?
I am not pushing for argument here. Just trying to deepen the understanding of what/whom your regard as your "God."
God does not technically have a sex because He is a spirit. However, Jesus referred Him to the Father. That is how I see Him. As a father figure. Jesus had to refer to God as the Father because Jesus already had an earthly mother. He can't have a Mother in heaven and on earth. That would not constitute as an immaculate conception. Also, Jews always saw God to be a male.
Good grief Claire! I don't wish to confront either.....and won't. I WILL ask for your sources re: Spirits are sexless. Spirits and sylphs and fairies and wraiths and ghosts in the mythologies and compendiums of stories and holy books of a dozen cultures spanning thousands of years and every corner of the planet present "spirits" as male and female. I don't know how many thousands of times in the Bible God is referenced as "Father" and "He"--- and remember that God WROTE that book! He breathed it thru the scribes who actually penned it down, but he Wrote the thing. I think you have to account for that too, don't you?
Do spirits have genitals? Yes or no? Of course we are going to assign sexes to ghosts, etc. Some see images of males and some see females. Remember one spirit can assume a male spirit and the other a female. One can come in the form of the incubus and then switch to a succubas. I already told you why God is referred to as the Father.
Come on, you cannot believe that God actually wrote the Bible. Where's your proof of that? And quite frankly, if God wrote the OT then I would have seriously have a problem with that. He would have been writing about some others gods in the Torah.
This conversation is moving beyond 'silly' into flat-out Dumb. I actively enjoy discussions on cosmology, where did evil come from, how can a loving God blissfully permit a world of viciousness,horror, and degradation to exist on his watch--these questions, though insoluble, are inherently at the core of the human condition and to engage them is to explore our OWN humanity and perhaps understand it a little bit better and be better men and women because of that. But asking whether spirits have genitals--with a straight face--and trying to get others to respond as tho it was worth TALKING about!! Uh - uh. You kids have fun. I'm out.
You also challenged me on the sex of spirits. Why did you respond to that? It could hardly be as ridiculous as a talking snake in the Garden of Eden.
It could hardly be as ridiculous as a dying god. But wait, are you telling me that bible is a lie?
Oh my god! So it is true that god is jealous and genocidal and can't write without contradicting himself (let us forgive him for the last, there were no schools in his time). Why do we need a satan?
Okay...but you have/had a father on earth...so what sense does it make for you or anyone who currently has both their parents to see god as a father figure and address him as such if we go by your reasoning, especially if god is a sexless spirit?
Well, you know how we guys work....up there in the garden shed, dreaming, planning, designing, trying different materials, getting the nuts and bolts together, drumming up a prototype, putting it all together and trying it out.... DAM! it didn't work!
While Mum is keeping her feet firmly on the ground, getting a meal ready for frustrated Dad, (which makes him pretty sexless!) and contending with the naughty kids when they tumble in from a fight with the gang up the road.....
Maybe this is a picture of what it's like in Heaven and Earth.
Because God the Father transcends any earthly being. Our earthly fathers can never do what God can do and that is to completely guide us in life. To know what is best for them. He is the ultimate source of love. It's not a case of having two dads.
Yes Jonny. God is in the mind of human beings.
And if no one on Earth believed in gods they would all seem so obviously imaginary.
Skeptics of the God hypothesis often talk about how our ancestors developed to make type 1 errors and not type 2 errors. Meaning our survival was due to our brains imbuing patterns in nature with agency. I've been planning to do a hub on the subject some time in the future.
This simple psychological quirk that may have helped our ancestors not get eaten - our desire to invoke agency - has rippled out of control into all the religions and cults and superstitions we see today.
Some modern pagans and many old religions believed that worship gave a god strength, like food.
The more worshipers, the more powerful the god.
So in theory if there were no more humans all the gods would starve to death.
Haha, that could be food-for-thought but not food-for-faith....
I say starve them all.They can't die being immortal, but like in the Star Trek ep where Kirk and co meet Apollo, lack of worshipers just makes them fade away, too weak to be a nuisance. And they always are a pain when they get too big for their britches.
Just like this Christian one. Imagine telling your worshipers you are the only god and you created everything! No wonder he was kicked out of heaven by the Canaanite gods.
Oh, did I let something slip? Well that's right, according to the Canaanites the Hebrews and now the Christians and Muslims worship what amounts to the devil, so to speak. lol... But hey, what did they know?
Slarty - might as well put up the funny face. Believe it or not, i have a great deal of respect for my Christian friends, but I can't help seeing the humorous side of the Christian stores. If a Believer's five-year-old rushed up and said "Mommy! Mommy! Sally has an imaginary friend whose father is also him and he's his own ghost too and makes babies out of dirt and makes them his own kids but there's no real mother but there is and everybody really really worships her and she has one child but she's never been a mother but her son can feed people from no food and he doesn't need boats to get across the water and.."...she would cut her own son off in mid-story and tell him it sounds like a wonderful fairy tale, but Mommy is tired now, so..........
If you believe the universe is contingent on god, then clearly not.
God is an imaginery being. Therefore human mind had created it.
No ... the existence of god does not depend upon the mind of man.
Scientific studies have determined that if a tree falls in the woods and no one was there....it would still make a sound. Philosophers are still debating the question. I think the same result would hold true for your question.
Ok. Thank you.
To add some complexity: if there is no one there to hear it, it cannot be proven without man-made recording technology.
If something is regarded as scientific, it must be testable and repeatable in exactly repeatable circumstances.
In the case of a tree falling, the vibrations of air associated with it can be researched mathematically and scientifically.
However, anything connected with the idea of "god" cannot receive such scientific assessment because the idea and any metaphor is not consistent from one human mind to the next.
Just ask any person to paint a picture or construct an effigy of "god" and you will never two the same.
So, my premise remains true, I suggest....it's all dependent on the human mind.
I disagree. It really all depends on whether or not there is a God. If one exists; our thoughts on its nature are simply our thoughts; they don't change the nature of its existence. If we cease to imagine it wouldn't mean one didn't exist nor would that change it in any way. Conversely, if one doesn't exist then our thoughts matter and it would cease to exist without us.
Without an answer to the primary question; the rest of the speculation is simply that.
Live to Learn nails it, and his/her comment dovetails with my position, and Jonnie's and others, that engaging the entire proposition with a deep Believer is fruitless, because the fallback position will ALWAYS be, "i have Faith", and Argument against that position is not possible.
Denise, I warm to your willingness to address such deep considerations. I see from your Profile that you also have a sense of humour. (Humor in the American lexicon).
And, as usual, in agreement with Moonfroth. He is another who can see beyond the surface banter and consider concepts outside of the square. There are some deep Believers who have the courage to re-search cherished beliefs.... but not many, I fear.
Wilderness raises one of the many contradictions, some bordering on the patently absurd, that plague the Christian story. John Donne, one of the greatest English poets and an honest Believer, put himself thru agonies of doubt and indecision over the fact that The Tradition required him to aspire to his True Self, which was pure Spirit, but always thru his physical body........which is all he'd ever known. In one of his Meditations (forget wh. one), he imagines himself finally standing before his God, glorying in the moment, IN CARNE SUA ("in my flesh"). Which of course is sacrilege, because it is presumptuous, which is the precursor to PRIDE, the deadliest of the seven deadly sins. He who embraces Pride places his Being AHEAD of the Will and Word of God.......and we can all imagine how well that would be received.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Non-Believers say that humankind, bewildered by the vagaries of his world, terrified that the "constants" (phenomena like the sun rising every morning) might go away, posited elaborate stories and Beings who controlled these phenomena. Thus the Gods of many different cultures were "born" and thus--in the monotheist tradition-- the single Christian God was created by humankind. This is, of course a grossly oversimplified sketch, but the basic premise of the non-Believer --that man created God--is sound.
To a non-Believer, God is an artificial construct, manufactured to fulfill certain needs. Since he is then a product of human imagination, if humankind somehow disappeared.......so would God. But to a Believer, God is the Creator. He created the universe and everything in it. He created Creation, for heaven's sake! He is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. If Humankind disappeared, that event would be because God Himself made it so. For Him to disappear or die from external causes would be a logical absurdity, because he exists INDEPENDENT of all things in existence BUT at the same time he is "within" all things in existence. Given all these "inclusions," it becomes extremely difficult to even TALK about the Christian God at all, certainly in rational terms.
And in the end, it all comes down to Faith anyway. The ONLY way a human being can believe deeply, passionately, abidingly, in a Being no one has ever seen, ever experienced, ever heard or touched, is through Faith. And Faith is unshakable, it can never be defeated in a proof- or evidence-driven argument.
Faith simply IS.
For that reason alone, Jonnie's question--and i mean no disrespect--devolves into little more than an intellectual exercise.
Indeed it is, Sir. Nothing more, really.
You clarify the position of "faith" here, and I am not against anyone having a faith, any time, anywhere. In numerous ways it can be a great solace at least, and I reckon in some cases a life-saver. Faith is a precious faculty that apparently resides only in the human mind.
My acceptance of it is regardless of any argument about the existence of "God" or a god.
For me, the intellectual exercise is valid regardless of anyone's faith..... if that faith is strong enough.....
We could not imagine what God would think, if human's did not exist, duh.
How would God entertain himself and his extreme ego without threating us with hell, if we do not obey. God created everything perfect on earth except somethings like the Immortal jellyfish , (the most important plant) marijuana, and gays who are not..
I prefer the story about immortal jellyfish who lives a 100 time longer than the Genesis beginnings of the earth, without a brain or backbone. When Man's uses his backbone and brain, it only gets him into trouble dealing with God. The jelly population is many times greater than humans. The jellyfish can show that the Bible IS written by people and not by any God. As we shall see, the man of God is the opposite of a jellyfish in almost every respect.
The Portuguese man-o-war has a nasty sting because it can only drift. It is easy prey. The man of God does not need a sting; he strives to be gentle. So, we see the get-up-and-go of the man of God. He is not a jellyfish, drifting along with the currents of the world. The world around us is not pursuing righteousness or godliness or faith or love or endurance or gentleness.
How is God going to ever get along with Satan or any of his other perfect creatioins if he only talks sh-t about them. I can like the jelly fish, man or the dolphin the same , why can't God?
The man of God does not need a sting; he strives to be gentle
If man ceased to exist, would God still exist?
...and he could finally take a long deserved nap.
...with one eye open to watch over the animal and plant kingdoms.
There is no leader without any followers, so as far as the universe is known to mankind . Humans are the only species which believe' s in god.if there would have been no existence of humans, the would have been no god, no holy places would have been constructed and none of them would have been filled.the mystery of God is yet unknown to mankind , but yet god exists in the world, he is alive in the thoughts , in the prayers , and in the trusts, of the people who believe his existence blindfolded . According to different mythologies , each one of them explains ' GOD' differently , this doesn't means that there are different gods . But I conclude that each of them have there own image about God.in which they believe and ..to which they worship. God of each religion is alive because of the people of that religion who believes in him , or else that particular image of God would no longer exist in the world.so according to be it is better that we can say god exist because we belive in him but not because we know that he created us
All I know about this God of our's , is that 'faith' is ALL it takes . In spite of the boring and usual God hackers on the forums ! I always imagine God sitting up there slapping himself on the forehead in disgust at attitude's of 'free range ' mankind.
Poor god, it would be frustrating not to have the power to show his face to the world!
That is funny!!! I'll always will be a God hacker because I'll never be able to know the 99% unknown world.Or greater still, the unknown spirtual world where Christians claim they are going. Maybe an Art freak, yet not lost in space as much as a God freak.
Yes. I believe that humans created God as a way to explain the unknown and to cope with their mortality. I can completely understand why people came up with it and to this day believe in God. It makes perfect sense to me. I just don't think it's real.
A footnote to Jonnie's remarks--wh. I totally endorse--about the efficacy of Faith. Countless millions live their lives honestly and productively from a platform of Faith, whether in God or the Buddha or Mohammed or The Great Pumpkin. If their Faith empowers them to deal with themselves and others with care, compassion love, and honour, who is to denigrate that? Certainly not me. Our concern in this post, however, is with a proposition, and grappling with a proposition necessarily impels one into the principles of intellectual Argument......and that's where difficulties loom for a Christian Believer. At the end of ANY Argument involving the nature and practices of God, a Believer must in the end turn to Faith as the final stand, because rational argument fails utterly to account for the many contradictions in te Christian story. And that is not a criticism. it is a fact. In the encomium to "Paradise Lost", Milton declares that the purpose of the 12,000 lines to follow is to "justify the ways of God to man." Augustine 's 1100-page "City of God" has the same noble purpose. Thomas Aquinas dedicated his writings to fundamentally the same purpse. And so it goes throughout history, the great Christian thinkers trying to make sense of a story that makes no sense. And THAT is not a criticism either. When you are trying to understand a Being who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and--perhaps the most important--omniscient, but whom no oe has ever seen or experienced in any direct way, Faith is all you have at the bottom line. "God works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform." And how it all works, in what ways it will manifest itself, how the individual Believer comes to terms with the bewildering whole is fundamentally simple and, finally, renders all speculation 'little more than a [fascinating and important] intellectual exercise'---------------FAITH.
I like to think there is life outside earth. Now if they have god ideas? I dont know.if they are thinking life forms, im betting they do.
hi I'm sitting here listening to Stryper, a band I've been a fan of since the 1997s, and "Sing-Along Song" comes on. Suddenly I realized... I *hate* that song with a passion. It's so cheesy and nauseating that it gives me a pain in my chest.
This is a very straight forward question. I don't see the need to address it in-depth. If you're a believer in God then of course he or she would exist if humans ceased to exist. Wasn't God the only entity present before any life was generated according to religious theory. Given that theory, then it doesn't matter if people were living or gone as God would still be around.
Again this is only based on the belief in God and creationism.
Chriswilliam -- I'd suggest that the QUESTION is not straightforward at all. The question cuts to the core of cosmology, one of the more tangled and hugely problematic area of human belief structures. The ANSWER, as you succinctly point out, is what's straightforward. If a person truly believes, that's the end of it. Discussion from that point is pointless--if you expect the 'discussion' to actually move thru the give-and-take of argument and arrive at conclusions based on evidence, logic, etc. The Believer will ALWAYS end up in the same place--faith. When rationality and logic and cause-effect crowd the Believer into a corner from which escape is not possible--Faith is always there. "God moves in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform". To the Believer, we are not supposed to understand "the ways of God to men".
God has a reason for keeping us in ignorance of His plans. Have Faith. There it is again................
Hi jonnycomelately , recently i started taking my Christian religious very serious, therefore I say this from a Christian's point of view. If you look at it this way, didnt God have to exist first in order to create man? I believe that God's existence is eternal, it always was . So He as the first source of any kind of existence. So to answer your question, God does not depend on man for His existence. He is a providential and mighty God.
Xaina Heuvel, welcome to HubPages and thank you for your comment.
I can understand your Christian point of view and respect you for believing what you believe. However I cannot enter into a discussion about that belief system without criticising and arguing... so I will refrain from doing that.... just give you my perspective on it and leave you to consider for yourself.
If there is the presumption that "God" has an existence which is approachable and contactable by human beings, then yes, "He" could have been the first source of existence. I don't consider such a "God," but can stretch my mind, my imagination, to the concept of some kind of creator, the nature of which would be totally beyond our ken as physical, oxygen-breathing, carbon-cycle beings.
That such an entity could have any concern for you or me as infinitely minute specks of dust in this huge universe......I don't think so. But influences my sense of awe nevertheless.
That "He" person that is the focus of religious worship is the figment of imagination which resides in the mind of the believer. Individual and unique in concept to each mind that believes.... in my humble opinion.
I could imagine a creator who 'created'...what? the universe? man? something quite fantastic...but then, like a teenage boy with a girl in the back seat of a car, pumped his juice then indifferently went about his life with little if any thought of the consequences of his act. I just get angry with people who serenely talk of this God of Love ("Jesus loves me, this I know/'Cause the Bible tells me so") and see no incongruity whatever between this Universal Love and the vicious cesspools whic most of the world's population have to live in. The corker is the passionately held belief that he is OMNISCIENT, He knows everything. Sees everything. IS everything. The cesspools of the world are fine by him. All part of the Grand Design which we mere mortals could never understand, so we shouldn't try. Sorry--a God of Love would love.
"In other words, does the existence of "God" depend upon the mind of Man to support that existence?"
Is there an agreed upon definition of God? Or is everyone just discussing their own idea of God? What about "mind"? To the Naturalist / atheist, the existence of the mind is contingent upon the workings of the brain, but is that true? Naturalism is absolute. No evidence that contravenes it's precepts can be considered. If such evidence exists (and it does), isn't it an act of faith to presuppose that Naturalism is true?
"Is there an agreed upon definition of God?" I would say No. I suggest there are many definitions of God, depending upon the individual's background learning and patterns of thinking.
"Or is everyone just discussing their own idea of God? ... or an idea of God that has been agreed upon while discussing it with acquaintances.
"What about "mind"? To the Naturalist / atheist, the existence of the mind is contingent upon the workings of the brain, but is that true?" A presumption is made here: that the mind is subject to, and only to, the workings of the brain. The mind (might) be the entire body and its organs working to a characteristic pattern of the human species.
I'm trying to persuade people to question their basic assumptions. Any reasoning that derives from false assumptions will be incorrect. "A presumption is made here: that the mind is subject to, and only to, the workings of the brain." That is not my assumption, in fact evidence that contravenes it exists. That evidence must be summarily dismissed if one accepts Naturalism as true.
"or an idea of God that has been agreed upon while discussing it with acquaintances." What would that idea of God entail? Would it be the ridiculously anthropomorphic atheistic definition? "sky daddy" ... that really refers to anything outside the artificial limitations of Naturalism?
I used to think of myself as an Naturalistic atheist. I was operating on a set of assumptions that I really didn't question. For reasons that I won't go into now I had to begin to question my own fundamental assumptions. Experience has taught me that argumentation is relatively ineffective in causing someone to challenge their own well worn mental preferences.
I like to tease people into asking questions of themselves. Sometimes it works. The real value is in questioning.
All words have limitations. Water is translated into many languages but it still remains water. Likewise the word God is translated differently and coated in many cultural shades but It still remains Itself.
On the contrary God is very responsive to our dimension.
The dictionary definition of God is not limited to just a concept.
Then that God is in your mind. No where else.
It depends on which dictionary definition you want to accept. I just searched for the Wikipedia entry and the first thing I see is "In monotheism and henotheism, God is conceived as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith. The concept of God as described by theologians ......" I did not write it.
You are right the definition is not limited to just a concept.....but each mind will fill in the gaps according to whim and desire.
For me, there is no such thing as a universal "being" that sits in judgment of you or me or anyone else.
Of course there are fellow humans who would imply the existence of such a person, because that gives them a platform on which to declare a judgment upon me.
The Wikipedia definition does not say God is an imaginary being. Neither does any actual dictionary. If we were to look at say the definition of Superman it would say "a fictitious character".
To argue correctly about say atoms we need to use dictionary definitions. What's the difference then?
Forget about judgmental fundamentalists: their agendas are political just like fundamentalist atheists.
Who made hell for satan to live in? Why didnt god just kill satan? He had no problem watching his supposed son be butcherd. I like god ideas but..storys like those are off putting to say the least
by FootballNut 16 months ago
No matter what way you look at it.If God created life, then Satan the devil was born through God's creation, this makes GOD responsible for Satan's existence. So blame GOD for all things bad, instead of just shouting hallelujah and praising him or her for typical life results.If God did create...
by PhoenixV 4 years ago
What Is The Best Evidence For The Existence Of God?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 2 years ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
by Kathryn L Hill 4 years ago
...over animals, mammals…or? - And how is it man was made in " God's Image", defined as "Our Image" in the first chapter of the Bible which attempts to explain the origins of mankind?- And why the use of the words OUR and US in the following quote? "Let us make man in our...
by Kiss andTales 4 years ago
Why do atheist and other none believers not accept as proof human existenceIncluding them ?I ask this question because atheist are persistent with this line prove that God existBut as they are given proof they persist to say the same words, example a husband and wife claims to love one...
by Stump Parrish 5 years ago
I refuse to prove that I exist, says God, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist, and so therefore, you don't," "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|