Why do people believe in god?

You certainly seem to be postulating God exists:

But there is physical evidence, not just beliefs, that water and elephants exist indepent of any one’s beliefs. That is not true about the existence of god – only the beliefs of some, not even all, humans are the foundations for postulating he exist (other than in some human’s beliefs).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It isn't true about the existence of consciousness either.
We believe we are conscious, or that consciousness is a function of the brain, and that this is common to humans (perhaps animals as well). Brains exist physically, but we have no actual physical proof that minds exist. What we have is a correlation between brain activity and very general kinds of "mental" activity--sleeping, reading, watching movies, listening to music, meditating.

We believe that this correlation supports the theory that mind is somehow a function of the brain, but we can't "see" thoughts or dreams except in our own minds (that is, there is no proof that anyone else but you has thoughts or dreams, or even a mind). Hence, no proof that mind is a function of the brain beyond a generally accepted theory--the mind/brain paradigm.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe you forgot:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2827913&postcount=705

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Probably because, as you stated,

in other words, why confuse the issue when the word "god" tends to mean something completely different? With different attributes.

But it's got "much the same definition" as these.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Those books being...?

 

It doesn't mean something completely different. You're conscious when you dream (at least I know I am). I'm conscious when I think too. Similarly, I'm conscious when I can hear and see. Thus, by a process of elimination, "it" isn't consciousness, isn't thought, and isn't dreams.

from #705:

No "we" can't verify thoughts exist. I can verify this because I experience thinking, and I assume you can do the same and so can anyone else. How can I, or you, or anyone verify this beyond a belief in common experience?

Books about the subject of God. Duh.

 

Yes we can.
The activity registers in the MRI corresponds to occasions when thoughts are stated to occur. With sufficient accuracy to establish a correlation.

Let me try again: which books specifically?

 

I completely agree - there is no basis to claim consciousness (or God, IMO) exists, except in the activity of brains.

In your post 717 (and some earlier ones) you sure seem to be asserting that God existed as something more than the mental activity of SOME human brains. "much like elephants exist, even if no one believes in them."

Thus let me ask for a simple, clear reply: Is God only the creation of human mental activity or does God have some existence even if brains did not exist?

As I stated earlier, I think man created God, not the other way around. I explained why man has done so - In brief, the God idea / meme / has survival value for the human species. Especially in that God is an agent for encouraging more civil behavior in / under the "Social Contract" instead of rule by the strongest, for the strongest.

 

But this is just as good, thanks. See, she - the soon to no longer be my wife - just has a couple of witnesses. Pfft. Not remotely everyone. Let alone some things she says happened where she has no other witnesses.

Oh dear me it wasn't the existence of the divorce I want to call into question, I am really quite fine with that. It is the existence of certain expensive Xs I am ready to challenge inspired by your logic.

 

The courts take the same attitude: if something can't be "proven" then it didn't happen.
If there is no evidence of something occurring (at all) then it cannot be said to have occurred.
How simple can it be?

 

Oh, no they take witnesses quite seriously, even if there is only one. I tried telling the judge that the cleaning lady was just one person and certainly not everyone, so the X she saw could only be in her mind, but the judge didn't buy this line.

Oh, but that's not what you said.

I feel my hoped for divorce settlement slipping through my fingers.

 

Then you had a poor barrister. He couldn't discredit her story. The judge accepted it as reliable testimony. (The law is not science, it has different standards of "evidence").

Please go back to read what I did say.
Was the cleaning lady the ONLY person to have this story? I.e. your ex-wife (or whoever) didn't have a similar story?

 

You mean to say, "corresponds to occasions when thoughts are believed to occur according to the theory of mind-brain identity", don't you?

So IF that theory is correct and is a proper scientific hypothesis, THEN the correspondence verifies that thoughts occur in general.

Try a library, I'm sure if you ask to see such books they'll be able to help. You could try googling, too.
But if you're asking which books I would recommend, the answer is: "all of them".

 

Ah, your English or something along those lines. Now, we have to give my barrister a break. Not all testimony can be discredited, even false testimony.

Yes, yes, never thought otherwise.

I did, I did. You said.

I can understand the first part, how they failed to prove it, I can, of course, duh - the 'duh' not directed at you, directed at anyone who thinks a single person saying something happened is proof. But then your conclusion, that's the part I was so enthusiastic about.

 

It's tied to consciousness, for sure. As to being specifically "mental activity", I don't know that it is. What I'm conscious of seems to be independent of what I think about it.

 

Again please be clear - are you stating you believe god exist even if you (and others who believe he does) do not ?

What do you mean by "seems"? Are you in fact an agnostic like me? - not sure if God exist even if no human did. Are you admitting that only the neuro transmitter flows and Na+ ion influxes in your brain (what I meant by "mental activity") are creating the God meme in you and others? That there is no other reason to think God has any existence independent of man and his beliefs, as the elephant clearly does?

 

To use your terms, I would say "God" is both personal/internal as well as social, but is not indiscriminately external.

Ie. God is recognizable to a specific group of people with specific qualifications,
but not to just anyone.

 

Well, say I believe that my parents must have existed before I did. So I also learn that, now, my existence includes a conscious awareness of something other than my thoughts, or even feelings. It isn't like dreaming because that is apparently affected by (not independent of) thoughts and emotions.

I have to suppose that, like my parents existence, it existed before I did, this thing I'm now conscious of. But it is not dependent on my thoughts, or any theory I might form about it.

Perhaps it's just my brain "talking to itself"; perhaps the other mental activities I characterise as thinking or feeling are at another level of my consciousness; or perhaps it's consciousness itself, 'undirected' towards any particular externalities, which perhaps is what thoughts and feelings really are.

It's certainly something that I can focus or concentrate on, and it isn't an idea or a theory. Much the same as listening to music or birds singing isn't, and in fact any experience, internal or external, does not depend on what you think about it before, during or after. Perhaps it's just a way to look beyond your mind's thinking capacity, or a way to understand what thinking is more clearly, because you don't think, you experience. This actually is not an easy thing to do, your mind is conditioned to be distracted in todays materialistic world.

But "what" am I talking about? Well, whatever it is, it must have always been a part of my conscious experience. It isn't hallucinating--I know what that's like--and it isn't a way to think. More a way to not think and just be aware.

 

I don't see how you could know this felling /experience / you have is:

(1) not made by your mental activity (which I defined in last post and now contrast in the footnote with the bio-chemical and physical brain activity)* I do agree that somethings, including feelings and behavior pattern dispositions, are part of the human endowment - like Young's Archetypes, and instincts, like smiling when happy and dozens of other facial expression, lifting eye brows puzzled, etc., many of which are built into the genes of the great apes too. I.e. yes, there are parts of your unconscious / automatic mental activity that existed way back in time to when apes and humans had a common ancestor.

(2) Is due to something once existing outside of you, even before you were born. How can you know what existed before you did - only by reading or being told. Neither of which is error free, especial about postulated unobservable, where many conflicting versions exist in different cultures. (Gods, unicorns, sea monsters, ghosts, origins of man, etc.)

Note if you are not claiming any "god like thing" ever did or does exist outside of you, then cease telling us of your mental aberrations, which many do not share. It is still not at all clear what you are or are not claiming about the existence of God (other than some processes, probably unconscious ones as most are, in your brain).

But you do say you are only "supposing," not claiming, this felling/ experience you relate to god's existence outside of you and prior to you is valid. Thus, you still come across as an agnostic wishing that God existed, not as a theist asserting that he does.

I can agree your feeling /experience is not a typical hallucination, certainly not a visual or auditory one most associate with that word; however hallucinated feelings and experiences are quite common. Some consider "love" to be hallucinated feelings and experiences. Some people are completely disable by feeling of danger and/or ill defined but constant threats. - Medically termed "panic attacks."

Thus, when "hallucination" is understood in this more general way, you have no reason to believe your feelings / experiences are not just hallucinated feelings / experiences. No reason to believe they are due to something now within your mental system, but which existed externally before you did. – To conclude that is quite a very wild leap of faith with zero foundation.

Also it is reasonably well established that what we are conscious of is the end product of prior unconscious mental processes. In addition to complex solutions "suddenly popping in to your head," there are neural signals picked up by probes contacting the brain that allow an external observer (typically a doctor checking to learn what part of the brain he can remove without significant damage to your behavior / abilities as he tries to eliminate your focal epilepsy) to tell even seconds before you are consciously aware of fact that the decision has already been unconsciously made, but of course you falsely think you consciously decided / made it later when your consciousness was informed of the decision. - See: thread "Free will, Ha! you will be the last to know." at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2227485&postcount=1

Thus, most of what you think is result of your conscious processes many not be. Consciousness, may have evolved to provide a final check / filter to eliminate dangerous behavior that might otherwise thoughtlessly occur.

-------
* An example of “bio-chemical brain activity” (in contrast to "mental brain activity") is the production of energy via oxidation mainly to run the "sodium pump" which restores the -70mV internal "resting potential" of nerves after they have discharged. I.e. pumps Na+ ions to the exterior of the nerve in some cases doing so in less than 0.002 seconds!

An example of "physical brain activity" is the dilation of the lumen of blood vessels in the currently more active parts of the brain. I.e. the blood vessels sense the increase in the local CO2 concentration and become larger to increase the blood flow rate taking CO2 more rapidly to the lungs. (That also increases the local availability of O2, but AFAIK, it is all driven by the change in CO2 concentration which is a much greater percentage change than the slight O2 concentration decrease.)

 

So is schizophrenia.

 

So are nuclear physicists.