Philosophy Discussion Forums

Felix, I keep wondering what that animal that you have for your avatar.

So then, one is not worshipping a god without attributes (who lives on the street with no name?) but a god that has a wide, perhaps infinite, variety of attributes, and one revers those attributes or qualities that one finds most appealing and inspiring?

Yes, mainly what you say. There is something else though, to continue comparing God with a work of art: you also need to be skilled at your idiom. There is not much chance of a work of art emerging from someone who has not a clue about artists' materials, or of a someone's being a musical genius who knows little about musical instruments or singing or who has never heard music being played. Traditions and reason are needed to form one's ideas about God.

According to Freud in totem and taboo, 1950, "looking up" to parents for 20 years or so becomes a habit. As we are creatures of habit, in order to continue this as adults, we have created a god in our image as an authority figure. Like parents, god now provides the comfort and hope we needed as children. Whether we can prove god or not, is not as important as whether we need god. As science spreads and we improve our knowledge of the world our fear will reduce and I am sure that the need for god will fall away to nothing over the next few thousand years or so.

Wmhoerr wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2019, 2:30 pm According to Freud in totem and taboo, 1950, "looking up" to parents for 20 years or so becomes a habit. As we are creatures of habit, in order to continue this as adults, we have created a god in our image as an authority figure. Like parents, god now provides the comfort and hope we needed as children. Whether we can prove god or not, is not as important as whether we need god. As science spreads and we improve our knowledge of the world our fear will reduce and I am sure that the need for god will fall away to nothing over the next few thousand years or so.

But is God as Authority the only role for God/

I hope that as men become more free from dictatorial regimes we can internalise our moral codes.

God is not only authority, but the provider of comfort and hope (god loves you, heaven, etc) just as the the parents are to their children. We needed god because there was no other reasonable explanation of the world at the time. Science is offering a new interpretation which will eventually replace older explanations.

Wmhoerr wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2019, 5:23 pm God is not only authority, but the provider of comfort and hope (god loves you, heaven, etc) just as the the parents are to their children. We needed god because there was no other reasonable explanation of the world at the time. Science is offering a new interpretation which will eventually replace older explanations.

Is God as Authority, and God as loving parent, the only roles for God?

How does science replace God as explanation of the world? IMO God the Creator explanation overarches scientific explanation, as it did for the deists.

How does science replace God as explanation of the world?

Transport (including planes, trains and automobiles), computers, the internet, vaccines, agriculture, gmo, electricity, radio, increased life expectancy, landing on the moon, GPS, the atom, DNA, nuclear energy. It's trivial to think of countless more examples of the explanatory power of the scientific method which have lead to real world advances in knowledge which directly effect, more or less, every single thing you do.
God on the other hand has no explanatory power. As evidence I provide nothing which was explained by God which lead to advances in knowledge.

Eduk, God overarches scientific explanation. The idea is that God created science and scientific explanations like he created everything else. The explanation is that God set up all the laws of science, but after He set up all the laws he retired and did not intervene in nature.

Eduk, God overarches scientific explanation. The idea is that God created science and scientific explanations like he created everything else. The explanation is that God set up all the laws of science, but after He set up all the laws he retired and did not intervene in nature.

That 'explanation' explains nothing.

Eduk there are a lot of definitions of deism available on Google. Here is a nice short one.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/deism

Eduk there are a lot of definitions of deism available on Google. Here is a nice short one.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/deism

Sorry if my reply wasn't clear. I was trying to say that the version of God you presented has no explanatory power. It is a simple statement offered without reason from which no conclusions can be drawn or knowledge gained.
It reminds me of a quote from a podcast which I enjoy
Q. 'how do you get snapchat?'
A. 'you just get snapchat'

Eduk wrote: ↑January 4th, 2019, 12:56 pm

Eduk there are a lot of definitions of deism available on Google. Here is a nice short one.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/deism

Sorry if my reply wasn't clear. I was trying to say that the version of God you presented has no explanatory power. It is a simple statement offered without reason from which no conclusions can be drawn or knowledge gained.
It reminds me of a quote from a podcast which I enjoy
Q. 'how do you get snapchat?'
A. 'you just get snapchat'

I think that metaphysical substances such as God cannot be proved to exist. The deists wanted to embrace science while staying friends with theists .Neither the deists' God nor the theists' God can be proved to exist. Snapchat exists and aficionados of Snapchat can prove that it exists.

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. I was saying God explains nothing, not that God can or can't be proven to exist. Those are two different things.

Several answers to this question suggest that a religion of some sort is a necessity for the smooth running of a population. This is supprising as the age of homo sapiens is at least 200,000 years with religions estimated at 4000 to 5000 years. If these figures are right, 98 percent of our history was without religion and we probably did ok.

This is the original question at the start of this thread:

To date there is no convincing proof for the existence of a God.
I have demonstrated here 'God is an Impossibility.'

Despite the above, why do theists continue to believe in a God even to the extent of killing non-theists when they perceive threats against theism?

I believe why the majority of humans believe in a God is due to a very forceful existential psychological impulse that is compelling [subliminally] them to believe in a God or some powerful forces with or without agenc

And Eduk quite rightly insists on the original question. I don't know about "the majority of humans" however I agree that a main function or even the main function,of religion, gods, or God, is to give a definite form and authority to a society's moral code. No society can exist without a moral consensus. WMHoerr wrote "a religion of some sort is a necessity for the smooth running of a population." and this agrees with what I just wrote.

WMHoerr wrote "a religion of some sort is a necessity for the smooth running of a population." and this agrees with what I just wrote.

But Wmhoerr doesn't agree.