Does God exists?

God and Religions
Does God exits? Yes! Of course!
Why there are questions about this?
Because the religions got stuck in kindergarden!!
Religions preach the same philosophy of two thousand years ago. It was fine then, these teachings were for adults of those times. But now? I think we have advanced farther than the cave man, further than romans with their slaves and all, further than the mid-evil ages, further than the sadistic war mongers… Further than the fanatics who follow blindly without using their God-given healthy brain!
Yes, God does exist!
But we do not have the proof of this in the Bible, or the Karan, or any other book of religion from any part of the world. We have the proof when we study Nature.
If I was the God of all things, I would not put my message on some book, or some idiot human who could misinterpret my message. No! I would put my message through nature! For everyone to see, analyze, observe, study… And when the human race become abusive of my laws, then I would change Nature and create a few disasters to alert this race to correct their doings or else…
Yes! Religions have done a fantastic job at brain washing a great number of humans!!!!!!!
Salusmart

Agree with your points above.
God do not exists from the empirical and rational perspectives but,

faith (in various degrees) is an imperative element to facilitate the evolution of humanity since some million of years ago.
At one extreme end of faith (blind), the concept of gods and a God emerged to soothe the pychological angsts arising from the terror of the primordial fear of mortality.

The unfortunate thing is, humanity is not weaning off the concept of god as fast as expected via weaning off the faith element with true knowledge.
The majority are still clinging to God based on a high degree of faith and this weakness open up opportunities for all sort of abuses leveraged on an illusionary god.

Humanity must expedite in introducing greater truths to replace the faith element in the majority to wean them off the security blanket of clinging to god(s).
Hypothesis: one option is to perform total or partial amygdatomy (cut off the amydala(s)) to eliminate that sense of primordial fear (including death) and most humans will give up the concept of god.

Until then, I acknowledge the concept may be necessary in this phase of our evolution, but we must wean off this illusionary concept from humanity as soon as possible to eliminate the hindrances to greater progress which will enable humanity to tackle greater global and planetary threats.

ps: this OP should be in the religion forum?

Until then, I acknowledge the concept may be necessary in this phase of our evolution

A lot of people, me included, somehow manage to soothe their angsts without resorting to superstition.

Why then is this concept necessary? It is easy to grasp and cling to, comfortable - yes; but in no way necessary! Unless you want to condescendingly claim that atheism can only work for some people and the majority need illusions to help them cope.

P.S. I like your amygdala idea.
But what about a healthy does of benzodiazepines?

Until then, I acknowledge the concept may be necessary in this phase of our evolution

A lot of people, me included, somehow manage to soothe their angsts without resorting to superstition.

Good for you, perhaps you could share your good fortune.

Why then is this concept necessary? It is easy to grasp and cling to, comfortable - yes; but in no way necessary! Unless you want to condescendingly claim that atheism can only work for some people and the majority need illusions to help them cope.

I do not mean absolute necessity but conditionally to the path of evolution humans has taken in some parts of the world that had been habituated over hundreds of years to cope with the terror from the primordial fear of mortality.

Atheism literally meant there is no beliefs in God or gods. Babies are born atheists and many (e.g. communist countries) adults has atheism imposed upon them via political and ideology. A large number may be born into atheist families (note Buddhism and Taoism).

Natural and spontaneous atheism or non-theism is supported by those who has the natural or cultivated neural circuit that support the non-necessity for a god.

In a way, the majority who are still dominated by their reptillian brain would need illusion or fantasy to cope with the terror arising from the primordial fear of mortality.

However, imo, the trend is, humanity is slowly evolving towards non-theism. What we need is some catalyst to make quantum jumps to wean off theism and move on to natural non-theism.

P.S. I like your amygdala idea.
But what about a healthy does of benzodiazepines?

I wish the solution would be as easy at removing the amydala(s).
In reality there are a lot of other opposing implications. Removing the amygdala would mean people would have no fear of anything and they could be reckless and be exposed greater dangers and death, thus compromising the optimal survial of the individuals and the specie.
Drugs - maybe for temporary and for the short term.

My Response
Spectrum, thank you for your response, I appreciate your comments. I am new in this site, I think this is a fantastic place to communicate our thoughts and get opinion from other philosophers.
I am a believer of Nature, as we study it we realize that simplicity is the way of truth. Also reality is a good way to follow, by this I mean everything that exists is real, all we have to do is understand it correctly and fully.
My philosophy consists on studying the reason as to why humanity is moving at a snail pace towards understanding its existence. As I mentioned earlier we got sabotaged greatly by allowing religions to have too much control over our philosophical lives. Now we have the groups which are infatuated with God to the point of forging their lives, and also the groups which are so disgusted by the whole concept, that it catapults them into refusing to believe there is a greater and more intelligent force than the human race.
Yes, in great part people should be weaned from the kindergarten material and star to learn a greater truth. But, who is in charge of doing that? Yes you are right, the religions of the world!
And aren’t those religions the ones that want people sucking their tit for years and millenniums?
And why do we have this scenario in our present day?
May be this is part of the test that God gave us for being humans?
Aren’t we independent thinkers?
Were we not created unique?
Don’t we have a will of our own?
The problem here is that we do not have any religion or spiritual teaching which makes complete sense.
All we have at present are religions which confuse you more than whatever is they teach you.
As a result people have two options; to be a believer even if you disagree on some or much of the teachings, or be a revel and declare anarchy on your spiritual believes.
There is no room here for being neutral!
The reason which you can’t be neutral is the need which your mind has to be in touch with your Creator.
There is no need on cutting of the “Amygdale”. If it is there it means it has a function and we must respect it.
“Been a butcher does not make you a good doctor”.
Yes, God those exist! Salusmart

[Scott]

I don't see any evidence in "nature" of the existence of any gods.

There is no room here for being neutral!
The reason which you can’t be neutral is the need which your mind has to be in touch with your Creator.

Whether one like it or not, and whatever one believes, nature is never neutral.
Nature is always in flux, is dynamic and evolving.

From the begining of abiogenesis, nature was never neutral but changes, evolve and progress.
Living organisms had changed from single cell entities to a complex entity with self-awareness.
This change is accompanied by complex changes in the neural circuits of the brain and body.

With changes progressing to self-awareness, a concept of a creator or God was established to soothe the angsts from the primordial fear of mortality.

Changes is the only constant.
With humanity trend of change, evolution and progress, the concept of a 'creator' or 'God' would be dynamically weaned off humanity.

Rather than letting the mind be in touch with a Creator, the mind will evolve and progress to enable the mind to flow more in alignment with nature and with minimal intervention from egoic-self.

That will be as if humans are reverting to being instinctual, like their animal ancestors.
But the difference is, this time the 'instinct' is spontaneously manifested and supported with self-awareness, free will, higher reasoning power, compassions and other higher human faculties.

At that point, there is no need for a fear-driven creator/god for those who in that state of higher mind where the angsts of primal fear of mortality can easily be modulated (not eliminated by managed).

The specific small circuit in the amygdala would be inhibited by relevant neurotransmitters to prevent communication to pure reason to trigger the concept of 'god'.
After a while this neural circuit to pure reason will atrophized due to lack of activation.

Then we will get rid of the concept of God/Creator/Designer and its related abuses.
(notably the Islamic god)

There is no room here for being neutral!
The reason which you can’t be neutral is the need which your mind has to be in touch with your Creator.

Whether one like it or not, and whatever one believes, nature is never neutral.
Nature is always in flux, is dynamic and evolving.

From the begining of abiogenesis, nature was never neutral but changes, evolve and progress.
Living organisms had changed from single cell entities to a complex entity with self-awareness.
This change is accompanied by complex changes in the neural circuits of the brain and body.

With changes progressing to self-awareness, a concept of a creator or God was established to soothe the angsts from the primordial fear of mortality.

Changes is the only constant.
With humanity trend of change, evolution and progress, the concept of a 'creator' or 'God' would be dynamically weaned off humanity.

Rather than letting the mind be in touch with a Creator, the mind will evolve and progress to enable the mind to flow more in alignment with nature and with minimal intervention from egoic-self.

That will be as if humans are reverting to being instinctual, like their animal ancestors.
But the difference is, this time the 'instinct' is spontaneously manifested and supported with self-awareness, free will, higher reasoning power, compassions and other higher human faculties.

At that point, there is no need for a fear-driven creator/god for those who in that state of higher mind where the angsts of primal fear of mortality can easily be modulated (not eliminated by managed).

The specific small circuit in the amygdala would be inhibited by relevant neurotransmitters to prevent communication to pure reason to trigger the concept of 'god'.
After a while this neural circuit to pure reason will atrophized due to lack of activation.

Then we will get rid of the concept of God/Creator/Designer and its related abuses.
(notably the Islamic god)

Thank you Spectrum,
But the God you speak off is the same as all the religions have been preaching, imposing fear, punishment etc. In other words, “Kindergarten God”.
The God which I talk about, is one who is pleased with the accomplishments of everyone of us humans. As we evolve He/She allows this god-like knowledge to flow to the minds of our inventors and consequently we have more understanding and are more proud of ourselves. Yes, we develop and progress all by ourselves but, that is because we follow the laws of nature which puts us in contact with our Creator.
You all have been influenced by the kindergarten god and that is why you are confused in this subject.
Again you insist on changing the mechanism of the mind by cutting off the “amygdale”, you have to go on faith here! “If it exists, it means that is meant to be there to do its job” an example: a baby is born and it takes several years to grow up, we can not say “he does not grow up fast enough for me therefore I will remove him from existence.” As we allow this child to grow against our best wishes, we realize he gives pleasures we did not think existed.

Yes God exist! But He/She is different than the kindergarten god.
Atheism is wrong because it does not nourish the mind, and it does not nourish the mind because it has no purpose other than to exist for his own sake. We need a purpose for the fulfillment of our existence and a goal, without this we are not fed the necessary ambition to put ourselves into action to accomplish it.
Analyze your daily activity every day and find out when are you happier. Reality folks is the way to go! What is real and not imaginary!
The amygdale has to stay because it exist! If it does not function properly, then find out the reason and correct it. Cutting things off is the way of Armageddon! We want to live! Life is the purpose! Fear is good! Just listen to your mind and find solutions to the problems. There are solutions if we look long enough.
Salusmart

I understand what you are pointing out with reference to the "Kindergarten God" which leverages on 'fear' to reinforce its belief.

I am not refering to the "Kindergarten God" alone.
A belief in god has a range from 'kindergarten' to 'PhD'.
At the same time, the primordial fear of death also has a range of its manifestations in human minds,say from degrees of a low 1% to the highest of 100%.

The range of primordial fear is inversely proportionate to the range of belief in a god, i.e.

"Kindergarten God" .........>>............."PhD God"
..100%......Primordial Fear of Death............1%..

What I meant is, the underlying factor for a belief in god(s) is influenced by the subliminal primordial fear of death.
It is subliminal because one could be ignorant of it or is not conscious of it all the time.

Those who belief in a "Kindergarten God", e.g. fundamentalist Christians or Muslims, will tell you glaring that they has a high degree of fear of death and it is god that provide them the salvation. Some maybe totally ignorant of that it is the fear of certain death that drives them to a belief in god.

Those who belief in a "Phd God", e.g. Pantheists, Mystics, etc., may tell you that they do not have any fear of death. The fact is while they are very conscious of that they are not afraid of the certainty of death, their beliefs are subliminally or subconsciously influenced by their amydala and the primordial fear of death.

As you has stated, reality is the way to go. I agree, if one were to explore and expand one's range of knowledge, one will come to be aware of how a belief in god, either 'Kindergarten' or 'Phd', one is essential and fundamentally influenced by the primordial fear of eventual certain death.

You seem to have the wrong idea of what is Atheism. Perhaps you are the one who is talking about "Kindergarten Atheism".
'Atheists', I prefer 'non-theists', are merely those who do not have a belief in god. Non-theists do have a subliminal primordial fear of certain death, but they are not influenced by exposure or make a choice to adopt a belief in a God.

I raised the point about cutting off the amygdalae, but I was not serious about it due to its far reaching implications.

I was once receptive to the concept of a god, but after detailed explorations into why humans believe in god, I manage to reach the point of weaning off my belief in the concept of a god.

Btw, I am not advocating others to be atheists, and if you have the inclinations to adopt a belief in god at whatever level (kindergarten to PhD), you have my blessings.

The God concept is a human construct but that does not mean that it has no value. It just needs to grow up and escape the nonsense describing its human attributes in the main organized religions.

I like this:

The kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:21)

The God concept is a human construct but that does not mean that it has no value. It just needs to grow up and escape the nonsense describing its human attributes in the main organized religions.

I like this:

The kingdom of God is within you (Luke 17:21)

Care to provide an example of a 'grown up' God? Or God for grown-ups? :p

It should be noted that no contemporary mainstream religion (e.g. Catholicism, Islam) actually believes that God has human attributes. Divine Wrath is not human wrath experienced by God, Divine Love is not human love, but felt by God towards His creatures. These are divine attributes.

Whether such approach makes any sense is another question, but it is a strawman to think that religions consider God to have human attributes. They explicitly deny it (e.g. anti-idolatry in Islam and Judaism) insisting on utter unsayability of God.

It doesn't matter what they say about divinity; if they describe God as the Father, loving, vengeful against the enemies of Israel (so this God takes sides as well) etc then they are assigning their God human feelings and attributes.

If they say that God created man in his own image then they have assigned the ultimate human attribute in that he apparently even looks human! The fact that the Christian God is male is synonymous with the attitudes held toward women in society at the time the scriptures were written.

To say the words of scripture are divinely inspired is a cop out of what is plain for all to see, that the scriptures were written by humans expressing their feelings about their God in their own time and context.

God was never about a chap up in the sky with a beard, or to suggest Jesus bodily rose UP to heaven is silly. There is no up, my up in New Zealand is a very different up to that in the UK for example. This was written at a time when the concept of heaven was just out of view, behind the clouds, and the earth presumed flat by many.

There are many examples along these lines. The basic nativity level belief is the lowest level of understanding of the Christian faith. There are other stages, as described in Fowler's stages of faith 1 to 6.

Fowler suggested that there is a natural incremental progression of faith from the basic naive accepting level through to a transcending universal level. He suggested that some people never operate above a stage 3, which is where organized Christian faith generally sits. The group conforms and to question anything openly is frowned upon. This traps many in this level who might be slightly uncomfortable with aspects of their faith but do not feel free to question.

Stage 4 begin to question and reason. This group is often asked to leave the Church or leave of their own free will because they cannot reconcile the difference in their personal interpretation of the faith and that of the church. Those who leave sometimes go on to become critics of the church, and some atheists. Those who stay can progress to the last stages.

Stages 5 and 6 are for those enlightened individuals who seem to have a more universal understanding of faith and can speak in universal truths that seem to transcend religion, love your enemy, that kind of thing.

I would argue that the grown up God is the one experienced by those who are in stages 5 and 6. I would further argue that this grown up God lives within us and around us in the form of nature and reality.

I speak in broad terms because I am not an academic and I have a limited understanding of these things myself. If you will pardon me for this and gently point me in another direction you think may assist my understanding, please do. Here is a link to Fowler's stages of faith in any case:

http://www.usefulcharts.com/health-and- ... sychology/ stages-of-faith.html

I would argue that the grown up God is the one experienced by those who are in stages 5 and 6. I would further argue that this grown up God lives within us and around us in the form of nature and reality.

I think that concepts of God should be submitted to Nittzsche's nihilism which is more radical by a long shot than 'nature and reality'. True, it's difficult for me as with most modern people to accept the notion that nature and reality are also concepts and no more than concepts.But I think that love of God demands that we have to accept that nihilism as described by Nietzsche according to which nothing at all exists,neither God, nor 'nature and reality' until we create whatever from our own subjectivities.

I would argue that the grown up God is the one experienced by those who are in stages 5 and 6. I would further argue that this grown up God lives within us and around us in the form of nature and reality.

I think that concepts of God should be submitted to Nittzsche's nihilism which is more radical by a long shot than 'nature and reality'. True, it's difficult for me as with most modern people to accept the notion that nature and reality are also concepts and no more than concepts.But I think that love of God demands that we have to accept that nihilism as described by Nietzsche according to which nothing at all exists,neither God, nor 'nature and reality' until we create whatever from our own subjectivities.

Was it his view that the "death of God", of the Christian God, was in the context of the bible and its relevance to the post modern era coming to an end? That God now having little relevance or value in establishing the morality of an educated free thinking society. Or was he meaning the general concept of God for any faith or in any concept of God has lost its meaning?

Personally I think the old God of the bible is a gonna simply because that God doesn't and can't fulfill that role any more; that God has no relevance today. I am not sure what is left behind though. There still remains a human need for God and for that reason I can't agree that God is dead completely, because the concept still has value. The concept must change though.

Bishop John Shelby Spong believes that the new God is the "ground of being" and that God resides in us all, the life force within if you like, binding us all together in our reality. The God or "spirit" can be recognized individuals as it was in Jesus, a charismatic Jewish sage. His ability to be at peace with himself and give himself so selflessly, sharing love across cultural and traditional boundaries in a very human way, and clearly had a huge impact on people as a consequence.

This inner quality was recognized by those around him and the stories lived on as a result (albeit added to and written with a first century Jewish world view). He thinks that they expressed their feelings about their God with their limited God language from a very traditional Jewish perspective, which makes sense.

It would be nice to be able to think of God inside of each of us in these terms. Something to which we could aspire to, which transcends organized religion and is truly universal.

Well, it sounds nice anyway

PaulNZ wrote

Was it his view that the "death of God", of the Christian God, was in the context of the bible and its relevance to the post modern era coming to an end? That God now having little relevance or value in establishing the morality of an educated free thinking society. Or was he meaning the general concept of God for any faith or in any concept of God has lost its meaning?

The latter.Not only God has no objective meaning but nothing has any objective meaning. Nietzsche won through this nihilism into the 'joyful wisdom'(gaya scienza) as did many religious mystics.

Lloyd Geering and Bishop Spong are soul mates, I think.