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.
Well, I can't argue with that. I wouldn't claim to provide an absolute proof. There's always the theoretical possibility,Emma Woolgatherer wrote: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".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.
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.