DevilSolution Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Without over explaining it; I think our need and belief in a god might stem from our earliest childhood where our nuerons have limited or no structure yet. I purpose that the foundation of all our neurological circuits are built from this original "god" circuit that we create from the perception of our parents, the all loving, knowing and powerful being. When we first open our eyes our neurological structure has no connections at all, by perceiving this all loving, knowing and powerful force we therefor build our first structure on this perception. Any ideas? Edited March 21, 2013 by DevilSolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 OK, since I neither "need" nor believe in any God, you are plainly wrong because your ideas fail to distinguish between me and, for example, the Pope. We had the same neurological start, yet we clearly didn't end up in the same "place". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilSolution Posted March 22, 2013 Author Share Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) You dont *need* to believe in organised religion, but you *need* a placeholder for the unknown. How else do you explain the origins of life or the universe ? Yours and the popes circuits will never have been identical, both perceptions of this original "god" circuit would slightly differ with the added variable of how that circuit then evolved. I didnt define god as someone who sent his son to repent for us, i defined it as the neurological circuit created because of the perception of our parents. Edited March 22, 2013 by DevilSolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 "you *need* a placeholder for the unknown." I call it "stuff I don't know": there's lots of it. It hardly needs some weird deity or anything like that. When I was a little kid I didn't know how to tie my shoelaces. That doesn't make the act of tying laces supernatural does it? "How else do you explain the origins of life or the universe ?" On the basis of the evidence. As far as I know, that's the only rational way to do it. "I didnt define god as someone who sent his son to repent for us, i defined it as the neurological circuit created because of the perception of our parents." Yes, you did define it that way. But nobody else does. If I define God as "a pair of integers a and b such that they have no common factor and the ratio a^2/b^2 = 2" then I can prove the non existence of God. But it doesn't really help anything dose it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilSolution Posted March 22, 2013 Author Share Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) yes you are right everything you said is right, how does it feel? I dont know why you bother. My whole post was a concept explaining why people create this concept of god and why it is innately built into all of us.... Im not trying to redefine god. Edited March 22, 2013 by DevilSolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 "My whole post was a concept explaining why people create this concept of god and why it is innately built into all of us...." It doesn't seem to be built into me I can't help thinking that most people believe in God because someone told them about Him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilSolution Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) This theory does a good job explaining why religion exists, its not attempting to prove gods existence. It works for pretty much anyone to be honest. Perhaps you dont believe in any religion (much like myself) but i dont imagine you claim that the universe spontaneously popped into reality 14.5 billion years ago and 11 billion years later life decided to show up. Its difficult but imagine being 2 weeks old with no comprehension of language etc etc and then think about how your brain might develop (honestly try it). I suggest the only solid thing that would seem to exist would be your parents nurturing you, i think your perception of your parents would be the first to hold any value, hence the primary structure for the brain. Another way to interpret it is by asking yourself without this base structure, say perhaps you were raised by wolves, what do you think your perception of god would be?? At the end of the day gods just a concept, just like the concept of nature, its whatever you believe is true. Im just hypothesizing on what our very first belief would have been and then asserting that the perception of our parents is very closely related to the generalized concept of god (not the concept that eve ate the apple, the concept of a loving, wise and powerful creator). Just because you dont believe in the word "god" does not mean you have a different base structure, it means you're (probably) opposed to the idea of religion or know something i dont. Theres lots of reasons not to believe in religious definition of god given you have to take over 2000 years of folklore as fact. Your last argument isnt solid, everyone was told the tooth fairy was real but no one congregates in her name. Edited March 25, 2013 by DevilSolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Does it have to be any more complicated than some people valuing answers — any answers — more than the veracity of those answers? As opposed to those who can accept imperfect knowledge but place a higher threshold on the (perceived) correctness of that knowledge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilSolution Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 (edited) Does it have to be any more complicated than some people valuing answers — any answers — more than the veracity of those answers? As opposed to those who can accept imperfect knowledge but place a higher threshold on the (perceived) correctness of that knowledge? I had to think about how to reply because i agree with your statement but yet it felt like you dismissed the theory......... I appreciate your point and i agree but potentially my theory is an answer; as i stated in the OP this theory explains why people are so attached to this idea of "god", perhaps some people might look at this and rethink the strength of their belief in god, or atleast organised religion. Im not even sure how to prove a concept such as this, any ideas? I think a solid scientific theory such as this would shake the foundations of *some* organised religions, obviously it says nothing regarding personal spirituality. Im not exactly sure how other beliefs would be associated to this foundation. Edited March 25, 2013 by DevilSolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 The Jesuit saying "Give me a child for his first seven years and I'll give you the man" pretty much sums it up for me and let’s be honest how many are brought up in an entirely secular environment? So we generally see that most/all have at least questioned the idea of a god. I think your idea is just an extension of a natural superstitious inclination, one that we share with many other animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 I had to think about how to reply because i agree with your statement but yet it felt like you dismissed the theory......... I appreciate your point and i agree but potentially my theory is an answer; as i stated in the OP this theory explains why people are so attached to this idea of "god", perhaps some people might look at this and rethink the strength of their belief in god, or atleast organised religion. Im not even sure how to prove a concept such as this, any ideas? I think a solid scientific theory such as this would shake the foundations of *some* organised religions, obviously it says nothing regarding personal spirituality. Im not exactly sure how other beliefs would be associated to this foundation. I did kinda dismiss your hypothesis. I don't think it's right, and as you admit, it is unconfirmed. A theory needs to do more than simply explain. You refer to making the "first structure" of neurological connections, which I think is demonstrably wrong. Young children, who do have neurological connections, don't even have object permanence, and you have them with a concept of a god. I disagree with that. You need to come up with some actual scientific studies to show that development occurs this way, and that kids are capable of what you claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilSolution Posted March 25, 2013 Author Share Posted March 25, 2013 I think your confusing language and comprehension with positive observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 It sounds like you are claiming that a child raised by parents who never mention God would still come up with the concept of an all loving, knowing and powerful being on their own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJ Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 The theory seems to be ad hoc. If there is a God there is no need for it. Perhaps children are closer to Him, and better able to intuit His presence. Just causing trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nghosh@india Posted April 14, 2013 Share Posted April 14, 2013 I think it is just an idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilSolution Posted May 10, 2013 Author Share Posted May 10, 2013 I think it is just an idea By the exact same token as " god is just an idea ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilSolution Posted May 10, 2013 Author Share Posted May 10, 2013 (edited) It sounds like you are claiming that a child raised by parents who never mention God would still come up with the concept of an all loving, knowing and powerful being on their own. Im confident that something would arise in its place, maybe in a more interconnect fashion the concept of religion arises but i believe the perception of your parents from birth will only be replaced by your belief in something else.....something greater than yourself. Maybe your country, or language, or philosophical outlook or divine creator as is most commonly settled upon. Also i dont mean to say were not born with a set of hard wired neurons, things that give us sight and hearing and virtues such as curiosity or determination. What i mean is the software, the black hole of what that curiosity and determination create, that eventually creates circuits in the minds, of which the first being your perception of your parents. Edited May 10, 2013 by DevilSolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Who would be responsible for the scary stuff in life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilSolution Posted May 10, 2013 Author Share Posted May 10, 2013 Nobody said parents were perfect or god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photon propeller Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Does it have to be any more complicated than some people valuing answers — any answers — more than the veracity of those answers? As opposed to those who can accept imperfect knowledge but place a higher threshold on the (perceived) correctness of that knowledge? intelligent response preceeds you Swansont. People need answers in order to cope with the unknown. People seek answers in order to attain enlightenment. In order to find the right answers we must ask the right questions. For instance, what determined the scale of the natural constants of the universe? Will we have the complete handbook for our universe when we have mastered the laws of physics? These questions certainly give us something to work towards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 intelligent response preceeds you Swansont. Not sure what this means. People need answers in order to cope with the unknown. Some people need answers in order to cope with the unknown. People seek answers in order to attain enlightenment. In order to find the right answers we must ask the right questions. For instance, what determined the scale of the natural constants of the universe? Will we have the complete handbook for our universe when we have mastered the laws of physics? These questions certainly give us something to work towards. And what if science can't find what determined these numbers? All we can conclude is that we don't know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 Without over explaining it; I think our need and belief in a god might stem from our earliest childhood where our nuerons have limited or no structure yet. I purpose that the foundation of all our neurological circuits are built from this original "god" circuit that we create from the perception of our parents, the all loving, knowing and powerful being. When we first open our eyes our neurological structure has no connections at all, by perceiving this all loving, knowing and powerful force we therefor build our first structure on this perception. Any ideas? Without over explaining it; I think our need and belief in a god might stem from our earliest childhood where our nuerons have limited or no structure yet. I purpose that the foundation of all our neurological circuits are built from this original "god" circuit that we create from the perception of our parents, the all loving, knowing and powerful being. When we first open our eyes our neurological structure has no connections at all, by perceiving this all loving, knowing and powerful force we therefor build our first structure on this perception. Any ideas? Your suggesting an actual God does not exist but is a perceived idea created in the image of our parents. God today is a mystery figure unless you are a believer then you don't doubt Gods existence as an all powerful ruler as outlined in many religious texts.But what actually is God is best explained by people who have had personal experience with his presence there really is nothing else to go on. The list of people have told of the impact that God's personal intervention in their lives has had, which is backed by concrete facts, is far too long to say that they are all delusional as Richard Dawkins type scientist claim. There also is structure in reality that cannot be explained be pure science which indicates a creator overseeing reality which leads to the concept of God which most likely is an evolutionary trait, those that had a concept of God survived and those that didn't, didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krash661 Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) Your suggesting an actual God does not exist but is a perceived idea created in the image of our parents. God today is a mystery figure unless you are a believer then you don't doubt Gods existence as an all powerful ruler as outlined in many religious texts.But what actually is God is best explained by people who have had personal experience with his presence there really is nothing else to go on. The list of people have told of the impact that God's personal intervention in their lives has had, which is backed by concrete facts, is far too long to say that they are all delusional as Richard Dawkins type scientist claim. There also is structure in reality that cannot be explained be pure science which indicates a creator overseeing reality which leads to the concept of God which most likely is an evolutionary trait, those that had a concept of God survived and those that didn't, didn't. Edited May 21, 2013 by krash661 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterJ Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 (edited) Your suggesting an actual God does not exist but is a perceived idea created in the image of our parents. God today is a mystery figure unless you are a believer then you don't doubt Gods existence as an all powerful ruler as outlined in many religious texts.But what actually is God is best explained by people who have had personal experience with his presence there really is nothing else to go on. The list of people have told of the impact that God's personal intervention in their lives has had, which is backed by concrete facts, is far too long to say that they are all delusional as Richard Dawkins type scientist claim. There also is structure in reality that cannot be explained be pure science which indicates a creator overseeing reality which leads to the concept of God which most likely is an evolutionary trait, those that had a concept of God survived and those that didn't, didn't. This seems sensible up to the final sentence, where something goes amiss. I agree about the significance of first-person reports, but some care is needed in appealing to them. For Buddhists God would be the result of misinterpreted medatative experiences. That this would have nothing to do with heresay or education, which are irrelevant to anything for Buddhists, but would simply be a (very natural) misinterpretation of empirical data. The data would not be false, but the creation of God out ot it would be a mistake. Still, it would be a first approximation to the truth. I'm glad to say that generally there seems to be move towards a more sophisticated idea of God than people like Dawkins rants against, but it makes the discussion a lot more complicated. Keith Ward points out that for early Christians it would have been incorrect to state that God exists. Then this religion moved towards a more naive view. But now it seems to be slowly reverting to its origins, praise the lord. Edited May 21, 2013 by PeterJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted May 21, 2013 Share Posted May 21, 2013 This seems sensible up to the final sentence, where something goes amiss. The concept for the foundation of God is best explained this way, it lies in science. God and/or the creator is a strucured intelligence that must have an origin otherwise God will always remain an unexplainable mystery, in system based on science in makes no sense at all the God would fall outside the realm of science. Everything in our reality points to an evolutionary origin why would God be the acception? I think when the God is fully known and understood by science he will fall totally within the realm of science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now