This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy. Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

just suppose you were wrong after all...

For topics that are more about faith, religion and religious organisations than anything else.
Posts: 233
Joined: July 10th, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: just suppose you were wrong after all...

#41 Post by petemster » May 5th, 2011, 4:09 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

I don't think there's any actual disagreement with this part - just a need for some fuller explanation of terms.
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
petemster wrote:Here's my proof for the non-existence of "God". I worked it out about fifteen years ago.

The christian God exists to "give us our daily bread" and to "deliver us from evil" - a Provider-Protector (P-P).
"God" is NOT a construct of the human mind but an innate concept and survival instinct.
At the point of birth the new-born emotionally desires and mentally "knows" that there is a big P-P for them - one that is correspondngly pre-programmed to do the caring ... The brain's picture of the P-P is not species specific but indeterminate, and is most commonly the female parent ...
All because of this innate concept - which some humans reinforce and rationalise as "God" while others allow it to wither and atrophy. But if it is purely internal, then there is no external reality required, although it's not going away.
I don't entirely understand. Even if you're right about the innate concept, you surely can't assume, and you certainly haven't proved, that it is purely internal. As long as the female parent, or male parent, or someone else, is doing all the necessary providing and protecting, then there is at least one kind of external reality. There might be no other external reality required, but it does not follow that there definitely isn't an external reality. There could be a big Provider-Protector in the sky as well as an innate P-P concept. So I don't see how your "proof" is a proof for the non-existence of "God".
Well, I can't argue with that. I wouldn't claim to provide an absolute proof. There's always the theoretical possibility,
and vanishingly small statistical probability, that some kind of God exists. As Richard Dawkins has said, "Technically
we're all agnostics". But I think there are different types or degrees of proof, e.g. reasonable proof.

For instance, even in today's scientific age some people would still attribute natural disasters like earthquakes and
tsunamis to the will of God. Or, despite the overwhelming evidence in support of natural selection there are people,
(ignoring those who reject it outright) who claim that evolution in its every detail is the work of God.
But for a rational person, the weight of scientific evidence provides more than reasonable proof of natural causes
rather than of some external reality such as the hand of God or some other kind of supernatural force.

Likewise with the belief in God itself. If and when neurological science can demonstrate the existence of an innate
"concept of God" (whether my own suggestion is part of the story or not), the believers will say that this "concept" is
implanted in the brain by God, whereas I would take it as a natural explanation for why people believe in God -
and reasonable proof for discounting the existence of any meaningful reality external to nature.

When there are still theists who can trot out long-discredited logical fallacies and non-sequiturs and call them
"Proofs for the existence of God", then hopefully I can be forgiven for stretching a point and calling my own idea a
"proof" - even if it's done at least in part as a little attention grabber.

Anyway, as I said at the start, I don't think there's any actual disagreement with this part. As for the real issue, my
postulation of an innate "Provider-Protector", I'd like to come back to that a little bit later.


Posts: 233
Joined: July 10th, 2007, 7:02 pm

Re: just suppose you were wrong after all...

#42 Post by petemster » May 5th, 2011, 4:34 pm

Dave B wrote:IE8 :sad2:

Windows Vista: :sad2:

Can you see a scroll bar on the right when you reach the bottom of the window pete?
Hello Dave,

Thanks for your input. I see you disapprove of my computer setup. :innocence: I wish I knew more about computers.

Yes, I have been using the scroll bar, which does allow me to scroll down and see what I have just typed
but when I start typing again - the page jumps and the typing goes off the bottom of the page.
That is, when I get down to line 20 or so.

Anyway, I'm now a bit embarrassed for lumbering this thread with an inappropriate topic, so I'll soldier on
and maybe find a solution, failing which I'll seek further help in the right way.
Thanks again. Sorry about this.


User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: just suppose you were wrong after all...

#43 Post by Dave B » May 5th, 2011, 4:56 pm

pete, go onto the "Tech help" thread for further discussion!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Posts: 67
Joined: June 23rd, 2010, 3:55 am

Re: just suppose you were wrong after all...

#44 Post by ASHEd » October 2nd, 2011, 4:24 pm

I have no problem with Reincarnation.

I don't necessarily believe in it but something like it seems less irrational than the Christian idea.

Christianity as so many claims and a lot have been debunked. But something like Buddhism has hardly been touched for debunking. I know it doesn't try to claim nearly as much so that is why but still its elements are hard to debunk. A lot of what Gautama said wasn't all that ridiculous, he was even part of ancient asian Humanism as well.

But why would I meet the Christian god? I just think we all like to punish ourselves a little bit internally thinking of such.
What happened to all the pre-christian religion followers. They are likely to go "Who the heck are you?" But your book isn't even published yet, you can't punish us for not following a set of rules which are incompatible to Nature.

Seeing as the Devil came from images of nature gods in these pre-christian times. The antlered and the horned gods. Why are we assuming hell to be bad? Surely it'll be punishment for us to hang around god. The one people fear, the being that killed many people, the one who hardened the Pharoah's heart, the one who hates gayness in males even though there are vast quantities of males creatures jumping on other male creature all throughout nature. Why do I feel god is the bad guy and that the devil was demonised. Do I think that best that's a rational look at what the bible says and also the evidence that covers the entities stated in it?

You're asking "what would you do if the scripture is true?" Which is a bit like saying "What if darth vader/voldemort is truely real?"

User avatar
Posts: 174
Joined: January 20th, 2011, 1:45 pm

Re: just suppose you were wrong after all...

#45 Post by Griblet » October 2nd, 2011, 5:53 pm

Bertrand Russell was once asked this question. His reply was : “I will say: (to god) ‘I’m terribly sorry, but you didn’t give us enough evidence.’ ”
A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle.

Post Reply