Concept for the foundation of GOD

[Moontanman]

Any contact I may have with a higher intelligence I look for evidence of a higher intelligence and there's a lot of it.

 

Show us that evidence Semjase, you keep making these assertions, I call bollocks, either show your evidence or admit you have no more evidence that anyone else who claims to know god...

 

Semjase I am not trying to ridicule you, you keep making these assertions and i am genuinely interested in what you are trying to communicate to us. If what you say is supportable by empirical evidence then you are the bringer of the most important information of our current civilization, don't be coy, being secretive with the information borders on criminal, the fate of the human species could hang in the balance if what you say is true. You are the bringer of this information, if god has entrusted you with bringing it to us it's unfair to keep it to yourself...

[Semjase]

 

 

 

Ok I'll admit my ignorance, how does that equation show evidence of a god?

 

The equation -1=e^(i*pi) is Euler's formula it one of the more famous

equations in mathematics, mathematicians have searched for hundreds years

for another exact equation for pi using i and e with one term not derived from

Euler's equation, and haven't found one. The Alien God showed me how to derive

the pi equation. How could this be a figment of my imagination?

[Moontanman]

The equation -1=e^(i*pi) is Euler's formula it one of the more famous

equations in mathematics, mathematicians have searched for hundreds years

for another exact equation for pi using i and e with one term not derived from

Euler's equation, and haven't found one. The Alien God showed me how to derive

the pi equation. How could this be a figment of my imagination?

 

Since I am not qualified to judge the importance of that equation it would be nice to have someone who is comment on this.

[SamBridge]

Religion can be heavily impacted upon childhood, but more than that it has to do with how connected it is in your life. If it plays a large role in your lifestyle you might end up believing it simply because you're use to a religious lifestyle.

[PeterJ]

Maybe more accurately put a truth is a theorectical model that accurately models reality. To experience reality is to

truly know the reality of what you have experienced. To know God is to truly experience his presence then God is

proven to exist to you, just any object you have it is proven to exist to you, in the case of God he will no longer be a

concept that may or may not exist.

Obviously if you know God, if such a thing is possible, then to you he is proven to exist. But a truth is NEVER a theory. The minimum requirement for a truth is that you know it is true. Otherwise it is a belief, hypothesis.or conjectural theory.

[photon propeller]

Not sure what this means.

 

 

Some people need answers in order to cope with the unknown.

 

 

And what if science can't find what determined these numbers? All we can conclude is that we don't know.

It was a compliment on your constructive input rather than making ridiculous comparisons and irrelevant statements. Your right about some people, others just dont give a hoot or lack the capacity to. I believe science is the only way to answer the questions of creation. Our goal is to unlock those secrets. I have faith that humankind will do so before we destroy ourselves.

[Moontanman]

Why is it necessary to invoke a god figure? Why add yet another layer of unknowable mystery to an already unknowable mystery?

[photon propeller]

Why is it necessary to invoke a god figure? Why add yet another layer of unknowable mystery to an already unknowable mystery?

 

 

The

Creation speaketh a universal language, independently of human speech

or human language, multiplied and various as they may be. It is an

ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged;

it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it

cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it

shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the

earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and

this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of

God." - Thomas Paine

[science4ever]

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?

I think there is something to it. The body can have such memories that are non-verbal

a bodily feeling of being unconditionally cared about and loved and somebody always there.

 

I am surprised that that so few agree with you. Have you explanded on your idea or giving up on it?

[dimreepr]

Maybe your surprise would be mitigated if you read the rest of this thread? If not, then I’d be surprised.

[science4ever]

When I read OP as I guess he wanted to be read it makes sense to me.

what is wrong with his reasoning in your opinion?

[dimreepr]

My opinion is as stated in post #10; ‘swansont’ and ‘john cuthber’ put it far more eloquently and succinctly than I do but that’s all on page #1 of this thread.

[science4ever]

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?

 

When I trust that the OP meant it on a more everyday reasoning level then I find it very likely to be true.

Sure it is not a scientific theory or worked out hypothesis or anything on an academic level but it was not meant to be?

 

Sure one can say he start with too young kids too early. When this really happen only science can answer.

Paul Bloom when he wrote his book that suggests that we are born as dualists

is close to something like what OP suggests.

 

here is his latest book http://bigthink.com/Picture-This/essential-reading-paul-bloom-on-how-pleasure-works

that one takes it one step further from Dualism to Essentialism. Both can help humans to intuitively see Agents

in things with no agent like the Universe or spirits that survive death. Sure the details are often learned

but the reasoning can have been dormant and get easily triggered.

 

I agree that one can criticize detail in the OP text but seen generously it is right on the money.

Edited July 2, 2013 by science4ever

[DevilSolution]

My opinion is as stated in post #10; ‘swansont’ and ‘john cuthber’ put it far more eloquently and succinctly than I do but that’s all on page #1 of this thread.

 

The issue is either in my articulation or their interpretation. I simply offer a hypothesis, no evidence. An answer for the faithful blackhole in knowledge.

 

I could write up a more detailed thesis on this as i still think its well founded, unlike alot of my other throw away idea's.

 

On second thought, this doesnt need to be re-articulated, it is what it is, you can either comprehend it or leave it.

 

Spirituality and Science are 2 sides of the same leaf, one requires interpretation the other requires proof. Both are needed.

 

When I trust that the OP meant it on a more everyday reasoning level then I find it very likely to be true.

Sure it is not a scientific theory or worked out hypothesis or anything on an academic level but it was not meant to be?

 

Sure one can say he start with too young kids too early. When this really happen only science can answer.

Paul Bloom when he wrote his book that suggests that we are born as dualists

is close to something like what OP suggests.

 

here is his latest book http://bigthink.com/Picture-This/essential-reading-paul-bloom-on-how-pleasure-works

that one takes it one step further from Dualism to Essentialism. Both can help humans to intuitively see Agents

in things with no agent like the Universe or spirits that survive death. Sure the details are often learned

but the reasoning can have been dormant and get easily triggered.

 

I agree that one can criticize detail in the OP text but seen generously it is right on the money.

 

Cheers dude, ill have a read.

Edited November 5, 2013 by DevilSolution

[DevilSolution]

 

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.

 

 

No it doesnt, nameless amounts of scientists have dreamt up theories that at that time couldnt be scientifically proven due to lack of apparatus. They were'nt wrong because they didnt have the means to prove it, they were shunned for what they believed. Without the help similar minded people having the same beliefs, the truth may never have been brought to the light.

 

You know what im saying, centuries after idealising something the means become available. Its certainly not uncommon for a theory to be announced before the science is able to prove it.

Edited November 5, 2013 by DevilSolution

[iNow]

No it doesnt, nameless amounts of scientists have dreamt up theories that at that time couldnt be scientifically proven due to lack of apparatus.

You guys are using different definitions of theory. What you're referring to is more accurately described as a conjecture or a hypothesis. What swansont is referring to is a *scientific* theory. When swansont uses the term "theory," he's not conflating it with something a guy scribbles on the back of a napkin at the pub one night after a few too many beers like you are.

 

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[DevilSolution]

You guys are using different definitions of theory. What you're referring to is more accurately described as a conjecture or a hypothesis. What swansont is referring to is a *scientific* theory. When swansont uses the term "theory," he's not conflating it with something a guy scribbles on the back of a napkin at the pub one night after a few too many beers like you are.

 

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

The title clearly states "concept", one which is extreamly hard to scientifically prove, but within the realms of possibility. More importantly is the logic defining the concept, which is concrete.

[iNow]

The title clearly states "concept"

Okay, but swansont clearly stated "theory." I was trying to help you better understand the source of the misunderstanding / miscommunication. That was my only point. I'll let you two discuss the rest.

[DevilSolution]

Okay, but swansont clearly stated "theory." I was trying to help you better understand the source of the misunderstanding / miscommunication. That was my only point. I'll let you two discuss the rest.

 

I feel bad now, i was just being defensive. The pull and push is purely scientific yet i feel this to be well founded both philosophically and scientifically, its just difficult to express my comprehension of it especially in any scientific terms.

[swansont]

No it doesnt, nameless amounts of scientists have dreamt up theories that at that time couldnt be scientifically proven due to lack of apparatus.

If it wasn't yet scientifically demonstrated, it wasn't yet accepted as a theory.

 

 

They were'nt wrong because they didnt have the means to prove it, they were shunned for what they believed. Without the help similar minded people having the same beliefs, the truth may never have been brought to the light.

No doubt a few were, but that's irrelevant to the topic.

 

You know what im saying, centuries after idealising something the means become available. Its certainly not uncommon for a theory to be announced before the science is able to prove it.

In this case, though, science is able to demonstrate aspects of this idea, and you have yet to present any evidence that it has.

[Moontanman]

 

God is such a far reaching concept with no real tangible evidence for atheists,

they are unable to accept the concept of God wtihout first hand experience

of his existence, as the saying goes "seeing is believing".

 

 

Seeing might be believing but seeing is not knowing... really really believing in something is not knowledge...

[DevilSolution]

 

 

Seeing might be believing but seeing is not knowing... really really believing in something is not knowledge...

 

I really really believe (2 > 1 && (1 != 0 || 1==0)), its quite a vague statement and totally off topic, Semjase seems to be preaching about religion and god, not where, why or how our mind creates these concepts. It doesnt seem anyone has any specific knowledge about my OP. However im interested in knowing if there's any scientific data regarding what i believe. (i know i should do my own research but if anyone has insight, i'd be much obliged)

 

Regards.

In this case, though, science is able to demonstrate aspects of this idea, and you have yet to present any evidence that it has.

 

I asked you by what means already. I honestly dont know. As far as im aware it would require the tracking of neurological paths straight out the womb, being able to map concepts into neurological groups and pathways and then show a correlation between the earliest structures of the brain and irrational belief in god or religion. Say for example; The memory of when you cried and received milk as a baby compared to an adult who believes their prayers will be answered by a higher power. Im still convinced there will be a 99.9% correlation.

Edited November 10, 2013 by DevilSolution

[swansont]

 

I asked you by what means already. I honestly dont know. As far as im aware it would require the tracking of neurological paths straight out the womb, being able to map concepts into neurological groups and pathways and then show a correlation between the earliest structures of the brain and irrational belief in god or religion. Say for example; The memory of when you cried and received milk as a baby compared to an adult who believes their prayers will be answered by a higher power. Im still convinced there will be a 99.9% correlation.

 

You don't know and yet you're convinced that you're right, which is a pretty good indicator that it's not science. Believing you're correct despite contradictory evidence is in fact the opposite of science. You could, for example, investigate the development of the brain and the parts that are responsible for memories and see the level of development and if you could even have memories. There's also the issue of object permanence I mentioned. Investigating all of this is your responsibility, since it's your hypothesis.

[DevilSolution]

 

You don't know and yet you're convinced that you're right, which is a pretty good indicator that it's not science. Believing you're correct despite contradictory evidence is in fact the opposite of science. You could, for example, investigate the development of the brain and the parts that are responsible for memories and see the level of development and if you could even have memories. There's also the issue of object permanence I mentioned. Investigating all of this is your responsibility, since it's your hypothesis.

 

What contradictory evidence?

 

You've told me you dont believe what i believe but purely speculatively due to the fact of lack of evidence, not because there is any evidence that disproves it. Im aware the onus is on my to supply that evidence but it doesnt make the theory wrong because i have none.

[swansont]

The absence of object permanence contradicts your claim. For the third time.