Total Posts:121|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Innate Desire

ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 10:50:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The belief is that innate desire is birthed and shaped by evolution. We desire food because evolution shaped us to feel hunger, we desire partners because evolution shaped us to desire sex, and so on.

It is obvious also that a pressure must precede a desire. For us to be photo-tropic for example, there must first be light. For us to desire shelter, there must be heat or cold.

You can see that the argument is referring only to innate desires. Desires which humans are born with and are true for all ethnicities, from Swedes, to Bushmen, to Arabs, to Irish. Not learned desires like my desire for Game of Thrones, which is the best show ever to grace TV. But I digress.

I propose that there is an innate desire in man for God. Every human society on Earth has developed a doctrine for God. All these doctrines are similar enough to conclude that they are all expressions of desire for the same thing.

The argument concludes then that in order for humans to have developed an innate desire for God, (whatever "God" is) there must exist a God to have evolved that desire. It is impossible to have an innate desire for that which does not exist.

If you take little children and place them in a room for years with no outside interaction, and no hints, they will still figure out sex and make babies. Place toddlers alone among food and non-food items, and most will find food and reject non-foods without any prior training.

What explains our innate desire for God?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 11:02:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
And it's assumed that humans are born atheists. I don't see any evidence of that whatsoever. Personally, I was raised in a non-religious environment, and as an infant I believed God exists. It wasn't until I became of age that I questioned God's existence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think the "desire for god" is probably a misnomer. I would argue that the desire is for answers to questions or explanations for mysteries of our natural world. Where did we come from? "God" seems to fill that gap nicely for many folks. What is our purpose? "God" answers that question for many. So I would say we have a desire for knowledge that some people superficially sate with their god concept. Rather than accept that their question has no answer yet, they name the absence of answer "god" and stop investigating.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 11:20:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 11:02:54 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
And it's assumed that humans are born atheists. I don't see any evidence of that whatsoever. Personally, I was raised in a non-religious environment, and as an infant I believed God exists. It wasn't until I became of age that I questioned God's existence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

So do you agree or disagree with the claim that humans have an innate desire for "God"?
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I think the "desire for god" is probably a misnomer. I would argue that the desire is for answers to questions or explanations for mysteries of our natural world. Where did we come from? "God" seems to fill that gap nicely for many folks. What is our purpose? "God" answers that question for many. So I would say we have a desire for knowledge that some people superficially sate with their god concept.

That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Rather than accept that their question has no answer yet, they name the absence of answer "god" and stop investigating.

History doesn't support you. Many of the most curious, most investigative men were religious. People seemed not to need God to address scientific mysteries, but to satisfy some other deep longing. Though our technology has advanced, the number of religious people on the planet has increased.

Though your answer may have some truth, I think it's too pat and can be challenged on some of it's assumptions.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 11:41:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 11:20:36 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:02:54 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
And it's assumed that humans are born atheists. I don't see any evidence of that whatsoever. Personally, I was raised in a non-religious environment, and as an infant I believed God exists. It wasn't until I became of age that I questioned God's existence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

So do you agree or disagree with the claim that humans have an innate desire for "God"?

Whoops! Sorry.

I agree.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I think the "desire for god" is probably a misnomer. I would argue that the desire is for answers to questions or explanations for mysteries of our natural world. Where did we come from? "God" seems to fill that gap nicely for many folks. What is our purpose? "God" answers that question for many. So I would say we have a desire for knowledge that some people superficially sate with their god concept.

That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Rather than accept that their question has no answer yet, they name the absence of answer "god" and stop investigating.

History doesn't support you. Many of the most curious, most investigative men were religious. People seemed not to need God to address scientific mysteries, but to satisfy some other deep longing. Though our technology has advanced, the number of religious people on the planet has increased.

Though your answer may have some truth, I think it's too pat and can be challenged on some of it's assumptions.

Those "most curious, most investigative men" (and women) that I assume you're referring to lived in times when it was literally criminal not to openly profess your devotion to one religion or another. Furthermore, they were investigating subjects that they determined to not be directly influenced by god. Newton didn't believe that his god literally pushed physical bodies together in space.

The best challenge to my answer would be to find someone who claims their god is the cause of something and still investigates for another cause of that thing. I mean someone who actually says "god did this, but I'm still investigating for a cause other than god." I would honestly be interested to see evidence of someone saying that.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 12:29:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:


That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Hinduism, and even Buddhism are not independent of the belief in an ultimate supreme being. In Japan for instance, which is a Buddhist and Shinto nation, prayers to God are written on pieces of paper in places of worship. In Buddhism, the belief in God is optional.

There are also studies done by missionaries who have walked the walk, going into remote, untouched parts of the world who have studied religious beliefs, and their connection to the Gospel message.

http://www.net-burst.net...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 12:47:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I think the "desire for god" is probably a misnomer. I would argue that the desire is for answers to questions or explanations for mysteries of our natural world. Where did we come from? "God" seems to fill that gap nicely for many folks. What is our purpose? "God" answers that question for many. So I would say we have a desire for knowledge that some people superficially sate with their god concept.

That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Rather than accept that their question has no answer yet, they name the absence of answer "god" and stop investigating.

History doesn't support you. Many of the most curious, most investigative men were religious. People seemed not to need God to address scientific mysteries, but to satisfy some other deep longing. Though our technology has advanced, the number of religious people on the planet has increased.

Though your answer may have some truth, I think it's too pat and can be challenged on some of it's assumptions.

Those "most curious, most investigative men" (and women) that I assume you're referring to lived in times when it was literally criminal not to openly profess your devotion to one religion or another. Furthermore, they were investigating subjects that they determined to not be directly influenced by god. Newton didn't believe that his god literally pushed physical bodies together in space.

The best challenge to my answer would be to find someone who claims their god is the cause of something and still investigates for another cause of that thing. I mean someone who actually says "god did this, but I'm still investigating for a cause other than god." I would honestly be interested to see evidence of someone saying that.

Um, basically all theologains and scientists of the past did. They distinguished between ultimate and secondary/proximate causes. The ultimate cause is God, science is the study of proximate causes.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 12:52:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 10:50:08 AM, ethang5 wrote:
The belief is that innate desire is birthed and shaped by evolution. We desire food because evolution shaped us to feel hunger, we desire partners because evolution shaped us to desire sex, and so on.

It is obvious also that a pressure must precede a desire. For us to be photo-tropic for example, there must first be light. For us to desire shelter, there must be heat or cold.

You can see that the argument is referring only to innate desires. Desires which humans are born with and are true for all ethnicities, from Swedes, to Bushmen, to Arabs, to Irish. Not learned desires like my desire for Game of Thrones, which is the best show ever to grace TV. But I digress.

I propose that there is an innate desire in man for God. Every human society on Earth has developed a doctrine for God. All these doctrines are similar enough to conclude that they are all expressions of desire for the same thing.

The argument concludes then that in order for humans to have developed an innate desire for God, (whatever "God" is) there must exist a God to have evolved that desire. It is impossible to have an innate desire for that which does not exist.

If you take little children and place them in a room for years with no outside interaction, and no hints, they will still figure out sex and make babies. Place toddlers alone among food and non-food items, and most will find food and reject non-foods without any prior training.

What explains our innate desire for God?

Inasmuch as I understand your reasoning, one can't ask for an explanation of a feeling not felt. I have no such 'innate' desire. I do, however, understand that the vast majority of gawds were invented to explain the theretofore unexplained. Superstition appears to have grown one helluva tap root.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 1:05:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 12:47:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I think the "desire for god" is probably a misnomer. I would argue that the desire is for answers to questions or explanations for mysteries of our natural world. Where did we come from? "God" seems to fill that gap nicely for many folks. What is our purpose? "God" answers that question for many. So I would say we have a desire for knowledge that some people superficially sate with their god concept.

That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Rather than accept that their question has no answer yet, they name the absence of answer "god" and stop investigating.

History doesn't support you. Many of the most curious, most investigative men were religious. People seemed not to need God to address scientific mysteries, but to satisfy some other deep longing. Though our technology has advanced, the number of religious people on the planet has increased.

Though your answer may have some truth, I think it's too pat and can be challenged on some of it's assumptions.

Those "most curious, most investigative men" (and women) that I assume you're referring to lived in times when it was literally criminal not to openly profess your devotion to one religion or another. Furthermore, they were investigating subjects that they determined to not be directly influenced by god. Newton didn't believe that his god literally pushed physical bodies together in space.

The best challenge to my answer would be to find someone who claims their god is the cause of something and still investigates for another cause of that thing. I mean someone who actually says "god did this, but I'm still investigating for a cause other than god." I would honestly be interested to see evidence of someone saying that.

Um, basically all theologains and scientists of the past did. They distinguished between ultimate and secondary/proximate causes. The ultimate cause is God, science is the study of proximate causes.

That was my point: that once you assign god as the ultimate cause, you stop investigating for any other ultimate cause.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 1:12:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 1:05:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 12:47:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I think the "desire for god" is probably a misnomer. I would argue that the desire is for answers to questions or explanations for mysteries of our natural world. Where did we come from? "God" seems to fill that gap nicely for many folks. What is our purpose? "God" answers that question for many. So I would say we have a desire for knowledge that some people superficially sate with their god concept.

That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Rather than accept that their question has no answer yet, they name the absence of answer "god" and stop investigating.

History doesn't support you. Many of the most curious, most investigative men were religious. People seemed not to need God to address scientific mysteries, but to satisfy some other deep longing. Though our technology has advanced, the number of religious people on the planet has increased.

Though your answer may have some truth, I think it's too pat and can be challenged on some of it's assumptions.

Those "most curious, most investigative men" (and women) that I assume you're referring to lived in times when it was literally criminal not to openly profess your devotion to one religion or another. Furthermore, they were investigating subjects that they determined to not be directly influenced by god. Newton didn't believe that his god literally pushed physical bodies together in space.

The best challenge to my answer would be to find someone who claims their god is the cause of something and still investigates for another cause of that thing. I mean someone who actually says "god did this, but I'm still investigating for a cause other than god." I would honestly be interested to see evidence of someone saying that.

Um, basically all theologains and scientists of the past did. They distinguished between ultimate and secondary/proximate causes. The ultimate cause is God, science is the study of proximate causes.

That was my point: that once you assign god as the ultimate cause, you stop investigating for any other ultimate cause.

Not sure I get you. I could think that God is the ultimate cause or the best candidate for being the ultimate cause but still have my mind open to other possiblities or there being no ultimate cause of that sort at all. I don't see how this was any different from the scientists of the past.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 1:14:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 12:29:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:


That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Hinduism, and even Buddhism are not independent of the belief in an ultimate supreme being. In Japan for instance, which is a Buddhist and Shinto nation, prayers to God are written on pieces of paper in places of worship. In Buddhism, the belief in God is optional.

There are also studies done by missionaries who have walked the walk, going into remote, untouched parts of the world who have studied religious beliefs, and their connection to the Gospel message.

http://www.net-burst.net...

There is no "supreme being" singular god in Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, all gods in Buddhism are inferior to humans (as far as the religion goes) since only humans can attain enlightenment.

As to your link, all I see there are wild interpretations of events that attempt to shoehorn "pagan" beliefs into a framework that fits with Christianity.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 1:34:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 1:12:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:05:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 12:47:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I think the "desire for god" is probably a misnomer. I would argue that the desire is for answers to questions or explanations for mysteries of our natural world. Where did we come from? "God" seems to fill that gap nicely for many folks. What is our purpose? "God" answers that question for many. So I would say we have a desire for knowledge that some people superficially sate with their god concept.

That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Rather than accept that their question has no answer yet, they name the absence of answer "god" and stop investigating.

History doesn't support you. Many of the most curious, most investigative men were religious. People seemed not to need God to address scientific mysteries, but to satisfy some other deep longing. Though our technology has advanced, the number of religious people on the planet has increased.

Though your answer may have some truth, I think it's too pat and can be challenged on some of it's assumptions.

Those "most curious, most investigative men" (and women) that I assume you're referring to lived in times when it was literally criminal not to openly profess your devotion to one religion or another. Furthermore, they were investigating subjects that they determined to not be directly influenced by god. Newton didn't believe that his god literally pushed physical bodies together in space.

The best challenge to my answer would be to find someone who claims their god is the cause of something and still investigates for another cause of that thing. I mean someone who actually says "god did this, but I'm still investigating for a cause other than god." I would honestly be interested to see evidence of someone saying that.

Um, basically all theologains and scientists of the past did. They distinguished between ultimate and secondary/proximate causes. The ultimate cause is God, science is the study of proximate causes.

That was my point: that once you assign god as the ultimate cause, you stop investigating for any other ultimate cause.

Not sure I get you. I could think that God is the ultimate cause or the best candidate for being the ultimate cause but still have my mind open to other possiblities or there being no ultimate cause of that sort at all. I don't see how this was any different from the scientists of the past.

If you are open to other possibilities, then my understanding is that constitutes a lack of faith. Allegedly, the scientists of the past that the OP was referring to had faith. Or are you under the impression that you can be a theist without faith?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 1:50:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 1:34:01 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:12:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:05:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 12:47:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I think the "desire for god" is probably a misnomer. I would argue that the desire is for answers to questions or explanations for mysteries of our natural world. Where did we come from? "God" seems to fill that gap nicely for many folks. What is our purpose? "God" answers that question for many. So I would say we have a desire for knowledge that some people superficially sate with their god concept.

That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Rather than accept that their question has no answer yet, they name the absence of answer "god" and stop investigating.

History doesn't support you. Many of the most curious, most investigative men were religious. People seemed not to need God to address scientific mysteries, but to satisfy some other deep longing. Though our technology has advanced, the number of religious people on the planet has increased.

Though your answer may have some truth, I think it's too pat and can be challenged on some of it's assumptions.

Those "most curious, most investigative men" (and women) that I assume you're referring to lived in times when it was literally criminal not to openly profess your devotion to one religion or another. Furthermore, they were investigating subjects that they determined to not be directly influenced by god. Newton didn't believe that his god literally pushed physical bodies together in space.

The best challenge to my answer would be to find someone who claims their god is the cause of something and still investigates for another cause of that thing. I mean someone who actually says "god did this, but I'm still investigating for a cause other than god." I would honestly be interested to see evidence of someone saying that.

Um, basically all theologains and scientists of the past did. They distinguished between ultimate and secondary/proximate causes. The ultimate cause is God, science is the study of proximate causes.

That was my point: that once you assign god as the ultimate cause, you stop investigating for any other ultimate cause.

Not sure I get you. I could think that God is the ultimate cause or the best candidate for being the ultimate cause but still have my mind open to other possiblities or there being no ultimate cause of that sort at all. I don't see how this was any different from the scientists of the past.

If you are open to other possibilities, then my understanding is that constitutes a lack of faith.

Notto my understanding. Faith doesn't imply 100% certainty, nor does it imply rigid, unflexible dogmatism.

Allegedly, the scientists of the past that the OP was referring to had faith. Or are you under the impression that you can be a theist without faith?

You can be a theist without "faith", yeah. But being being a religious theist without faith is a different story.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 2:01:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 1:50:46 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:34:01 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:12:22 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:05:35 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 12:47:05 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:
I think the "desire for god" is probably a misnomer. I would argue that the desire is for answers to questions or explanations for mysteries of our natural world. Where did we come from? "God" seems to fill that gap nicely for many folks. What is our purpose? "God" answers that question for many. So I would say we have a desire for knowledge that some people superficially sate with their god concept.

That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Rather than accept that their question has no answer yet, they name the absence of answer "god" and stop investigating.

History doesn't support you. Many of the most curious, most investigative men were religious. People seemed not to need God to address scientific mysteries, but to satisfy some other deep longing. Though our technology has advanced, the number of religious people on the planet has increased.

Though your answer may have some truth, I think it's too pat and can be challenged on some of it's assumptions.

Those "most curious, most investigative men" (and women) that I assume you're referring to lived in times when it was literally criminal not to openly profess your devotion to one religion or another. Furthermore, they were investigating subjects that they determined to not be directly influenced by god. Newton didn't believe that his god literally pushed physical bodies together in space.

The best challenge to my answer would be to find someone who claims their god is the cause of something and still investigates for another cause of that thing. I mean someone who actually says "god did this, but I'm still investigating for a cause other than god." I would honestly be interested to see evidence of someone saying that.

Um, basically all theologains and scientists of the past did. They distinguished between ultimate and secondary/proximate causes. The ultimate cause is God, science is the study of proximate causes.

That was my point: that once you assign god as the ultimate cause, you stop investigating for any other ultimate cause.

Not sure I get you. I could think that God is the ultimate cause or the best candidate for being the ultimate cause but still have my mind open to other possiblities or there being no ultimate cause of that sort at all. I don't see how this was any different from the scientists of the past.

If you are open to other possibilities, then my understanding is that constitutes a lack of faith.

Notto my understanding. Faith doesn't imply 100% certainty, nor does it imply rigid, unflexible dogmatism.

Allegedly, the scientists of the past that the OP was referring to had faith. Or are you under the impression that you can be a theist without faith?

You can be a theist without "faith", yeah. But being being a religious theist without faith is a different story.

Well now we're way off into the weeds and probably not going to agree on that stuff. Regardless, you have said more eloquently what I was trying to say: the theist scientists the OP was referring to were investigating secondary/proximate causes, rather than an ultimate cause. And that doesn't conflict with my original point.
PureX
Posts: 1,516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 2:12:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"God" is a complex concept.

It began as an awareness of "spirit". That spirit being the life-force that animates humans and animals other living things and that is apparent to all humans by both it's presence and it's absence. And because we could not see it enter or leave the body of these living things, we assumed it to be invisible to us, yet still real and present. Thus all cultures from the dawn of time came to conceive of 'spirits', and of a spiritual realm of existence that interacts with the physical realm.

Eventually, nearly all cultures, over time, developed the idea that there must exist a kind of ultimate spirit that governs, causes, and emanates the many individual spirits. And this ultimate spirit we currently call "God".

We were, indeed, predisposed to develop the idea of invisible spirits, and of "God", by reality, itself. And that 'life force' remains just as much of a wonder and mystery to us, today, as it has always been, even though we have found better explanations for many of the superstitions that we used to apply to those disembodied "spirits" in the past. And likewise, the concept of "God" is still just as apropos today, as it always was, in that it is the term we use to refer to the 'great mystery' of being. A mystery that we have not solved, and perhaps never will.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 12:36:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 1:14:42 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 12:29:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:


That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Hinduism, and even Buddhism are not independent of the belief in an ultimate supreme being. In Japan for instance, which is a Buddhist and Shinto nation, prayers to God are written on pieces of paper in places of worship. In Buddhism, the belief in God is optional.

There are also studies done by missionaries who have walked the walk, going into remote, untouched parts of the world who have studied religious beliefs, and their connection to the Gospel message.

http://www.net-burst.net...

There is no "supreme being" singular god in Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, all gods in Buddhism are inferior to humans (as far as the religion goes) since only humans can attain enlightenment.

First off, I think you're trying to over emphasize differences in regional religions to argue that these cultures don't have an innate desire for God. It really doesn't matter whether or not Brahma in Hinduism is a singular god, or a triad of 3 gods. Yes, in Hinduism there are many gods with various degrees of status. Christianity speaks of created beings called angels that are also referred to as sons of God. The differences between Eastern religion and Christianity being greater than the differences within the Abrahamic religions is not of real significance in that there are still nonetheless differences between the 3 Abrahamic religions as well.

And you missed the point about Buddhism. Just because Buddhism doesn't proclaim any supreme god does not mean that Buddhists themselves don't believe in a god. The concept of god is throughout Asia including countries like Japan. Being a Buddhist doesn't demand disbelief in a god. There are atheist Buddhists, and Buddhists who believe in a god.

As to your link, all I see there are wild interpretations of events that attempt to shoehorn "pagan" beliefs into a framework that fits with Christianity.
I'm going to leave this alone in this thread since the OP does not specify Christianity being ultimate truth.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 5:18:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/3/2014 12:36:09 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:14:42 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 12:29:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:


That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Hinduism, and even Buddhism are not independent of the belief in an ultimate supreme being. In Japan for instance, which is a Buddhist and Shinto nation, prayers to God are written on pieces of paper in places of worship. In Buddhism, the belief in God is optional.

There are also studies done by missionaries who have walked the walk, going into remote, untouched parts of the world who have studied religious beliefs, and their connection to the Gospel message.

http://www.net-burst.net...

There is no "supreme being" singular god in Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, all gods in Buddhism are inferior to humans (as far as the religion goes) since only humans can attain enlightenment.

First off, I think you're trying to over emphasize differences in regional religions to argue that these cultures don't have an innate desire for God. It really doesn't matter whether or not Brahma in Hinduism is a singular god, or a triad of 3 gods. Yes, in Hinduism there are many gods with various degrees of status. Christianity speaks of created beings called angels that are also referred to as sons of God. The differences between Eastern religion and Christianity being greater than the differences within the Abrahamic religions is not of real significance in that there are still nonetheless differences between the 3 Abrahamic religions as well.

And you missed the point about Buddhism. Just because Buddhism doesn't proclaim any supreme god does not mean that Buddhists themselves don't believe in a god. The concept of god is throughout Asia including countries like Japan. Being a Buddhist doesn't demand disbelief in a god. There are atheist Buddhists, and Buddhists who believe in a god.

As to your link, all I see there are wild interpretations of events that attempt to shoehorn "pagan" beliefs into a framework that fits with Christianity.
I'm going to leave this alone in this thread since the OP does not specify Christianity being ultimate truth.

The OP seems to think that "everyone came up with something ... similar." If you're trying to defend that by responding to me, you're doing some serious gymnastics. And you're ignoring all of the religions that came before, which were mostly polytheistic, as well as some other existing polytheistic religions. Unless you zoom out to a point of saying "these are all religions," which is not under contention, it's ridiculous to claim any of them to be similar except in regards to the similarities shared by those that are directly related. The very fact that Buddhism is a nontheistic religion is a direct contradiction to the OP's claim that everyone came up with something similar.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 5:30:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Does anyone seriously find this argument convincing? That we can objectively stare that we 1. Have an innate desire and 2. That innate desire is divine in origin.

It seems to be an argument that only works if you start from the position that God is highly likely to begin with, and simply demonstrates nothing but bias in how the facts are received.

A good argument is usually substantially more objective, and convincing for even the people who assign a low intrinsic probability to God.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2014 5:32:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/3/2014 12:36:09 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:14:42 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 12:29:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:


That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Hinduism, and even Buddhism are not independent of the belief in an ultimate supreme being. In Japan for instance, which is a Buddhist and Shinto nation, prayers to God are written on pieces of paper in places of worship. In Buddhism, the belief in God is optional.

There are also studies done by missionaries who have walked the walk, going into remote, untouched parts of the world who have studied religious beliefs, and their connection to the Gospel message.

http://www.net-burst.net...

There is no "supreme being" singular god in Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, all gods in Buddhism are inferior to humans (as far as the religion goes) since only humans can attain enlightenment.

First off, I think you're trying to over emphasize differences in regional religions to argue that these cultures don't have an innate desire for God. It really doesn't matter whether or not Brahma in Hinduism is a singular god, or a triad of 3 gods. Yes, in Hinduism there are many gods with various degrees of status. Christianity speaks of created beings called angels that are also referred to as sons of God. The differences between Eastern religion and Christianity being greater than the differences within the Abrahamic religions is not of real significance in that there are still nonetheless differences between the 3 Abrahamic religions as well.

And you missed the point about Buddhism. Just because Buddhism doesn't proclaim any supreme god does not mean that Buddhists themselves don't believe in a god. The concept of god is throughout Asia including countries like Japan. Being a Buddhist doesn't demand disbelief in a god. There are atheist Buddhists, and Buddhists who believe in a god.


A lot of cultures developed concepts of dragons independently as well, but those don't exist.

The comparison is perfect, actually. You might respond by saying that the "dragons" in each culture were astronomically different and thus grouping them all together to make a generalized conclusion is faulty. It's the same with deities in different cultures. Zeus and Juno are astronomically different from Yahweh. The only similarity is that they are more powerful than humans, but lots of mythical creatures are also more powerful than humans, so why not suppose they exist as well?

Also, there are plenty of secular societies in the modern day, so that defies the anthropological claim that "God" is an essential concept in all cultures.

As for Buddhism, I think the fact that it is a major world religion that doesn't even remotely require belief in gods also destroys this notion that God is essential to our human nature.

As to your link, all I see there are wild interpretations of events that attempt to shoehorn "pagan" beliefs into a framework that fits with Christianity.
I'm going to leave this alone in this thread since the OP does not specify Christianity being ultimate truth.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 9:39:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/3/2014 5:18:24 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/3/2014 12:36:09 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:14:42 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 12:29:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:


That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Hinduism, and even Buddhism are not independent of the belief in an ultimate supreme being. In Japan for instance, which is a Buddhist and Shinto nation, prayers to God are written on pieces of paper in places of worship. In Buddhism, the belief in God is optional.

There are also studies done by missionaries who have walked the walk, going into remote, untouched parts of the world who have studied religious beliefs, and their connection to the Gospel message.

http://www.net-burst.net...

There is no "supreme being" singular god in Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, all gods in Buddhism are inferior to humans (as far as the religion goes) since only humans can attain enlightenment.

First off, I think you're trying to over emphasize differences in regional religions to argue that these cultures don't have an innate desire for God. It really doesn't matter whether or not Brahma in Hinduism is a singular god, or a triad of 3 gods. Yes, in Hinduism there are many gods with various degrees of status. Christianity speaks of created beings called angels that are also referred to as sons of God. The differences between Eastern religion and Christianity being greater than the differences within the Abrahamic religions is not of real significance in that there are still nonetheless differences between the 3 Abrahamic religions as well.

And you missed the point about Buddhism. Just because Buddhism doesn't proclaim any supreme god does not mean that Buddhists themselves don't believe in a god. The concept of god is throughout Asia including countries like Japan. Being a Buddhist doesn't demand disbelief in a god. There are atheist Buddhists, and Buddhists who believe in a god.

As to your link, all I see there are wild interpretations of events that attempt to shoehorn "pagan" beliefs into a framework that fits with Christianity.
I'm going to leave this alone in this thread since the OP does not specify Christianity being ultimate truth.

The OP seems to think that "everyone came up with something ... similar." If you're trying to defend that by responding to me, you're doing some serious gymnastics. And you're ignoring all of the religions that came before, which were mostly polytheistic, as well as some other existing polytheistic religions. Unless you zoom out to a point of saying "these are all religions," which is not under contention, it's ridiculous to claim any of them to be similar except in regards to the similarities shared by those that are directly related. The very fact that Buddhism is a nontheistic religion is a direct contradiction to the OP's claim that everyone came up with something similar.
What the argument made appears to me is that there are enough similarities to suggest an innate desire in man to know God. Whether God is considered a separate singular being, a conglomeration of multiple gods, or one with universe, the desire is basically the same which involves a desire to be in communion with a higher power. The fact that Buddhism is non-theistic isn't much different than communism and atheism being non-theistic. The only difference is that Buddhism is considered a religion. There's nothing particularly magical about the concept of religion in relation to a creator. Religion is a term that's difficult to identify. We can see this in that a number of folks don't view Buddhism as a religion. And some view Atheism as a religion.

Buddhism came out of a society in India that is very religious. It spread into other parts of Asia that already had their own religious beliefs in gods and creator gods.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 10:06:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/3/2014 5:32:30 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/3/2014 12:36:09 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:14:42 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 12:29:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:


That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Hinduism, and even Buddhism are not independent of the belief in an ultimate supreme being. In Japan for instance, which is a Buddhist and Shinto nation, prayers to God are written on pieces of paper in places of worship. In Buddhism, the belief in God is optional.

There are also studies done by missionaries who have walked the walk, going into remote, untouched parts of the world who have studied religious beliefs, and their connection to the Gospel message.

http://www.net-burst.net...

There is no "supreme being" singular god in Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, all gods in Buddhism are inferior to humans (as far as the religion goes) since only humans can attain enlightenment.

First off, I think you're trying to over emphasize differences in regional religions to argue that these cultures don't have an innate desire for God. It really doesn't matter whether or not Brahma in Hinduism is a singular god, or a triad of 3 gods. Yes, in Hinduism there are many gods with various degrees of status. Christianity speaks of created beings called angels that are also referred to as sons of God. The differences between Eastern religion and Christianity being greater than the differences within the Abrahamic religions is not of real significance in that there are still nonetheless differences between the 3 Abrahamic religions as well.

And you missed the point about Buddhism. Just because Buddhism doesn't proclaim any supreme god does not mean that Buddhists themselves don't believe in a god. The concept of god is throughout Asia including countries like Japan. Being a Buddhist doesn't demand disbelief in a god. There are atheist Buddhists, and Buddhists who believe in a god.


A lot of cultures developed concepts of dragons independently as well, but those don't exist.

Dragons do exist. Not the fire-breathing Hollywood version no. But what most likely were labeled dragons were various reptiles.

The comparison is perfect, actually. You might respond by saying that the "dragons" in each culture were astronomically different and thus grouping them all together to make a generalized conclusion is faulty. It's the same with deities in different cultures. Zeus and Juno are astronomically different from Yahweh. The only similarity is that they are more powerful than humans, but lots of mythical creatures are also more powerful than humans, so why not suppose they exist as well?

Zeus and Juno are not creators. That might be a reason for the astronomical difference.

Also, there are plenty of secular societies in the modern day, so that defies the anthropological claim that "God" is an essential concept in all cultures.

What do you mean by secular society? Are you talking about a secular State?

If so, a secular State merely implies a nation that doesn't employ an official State religion. A good example is Turkey. They are an Islamic nation as far as the quantity of Muslim practitioners, yet they are a secular State.

If you're talking about secular in terms of lack of religion, the more materialistic a nation becomes, like Japan, the less religious in the traditional sense.

As for Buddhism, I think the fact that it is a major world religion that doesn't even remotely require belief in gods also destroys this notion that God is essential to our human nature.

You might be confusing my statements in regards to Buddhism with them implying a lack of significance.

Buddhism originated from a man in India. It didn't just pop up and become a major religion in Asia. The nations it spread into already had their own religions.

In a lot of ways it's not much different than someone like Tony Robbins developing a self-improvement course marketed to those looking for personal empowerment. If Tony Robbins' philosophies were embraced by 95% percent of Americans, this wouldn't necessarily imply any change in American religion. Tony Robbins doesn't promote a particular god. Therefore those who attend his seminars and put his teachings into practice would include Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, etc.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 12:07:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 10:06:48 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/3/2014 5:32:30 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/3/2014 12:36:09 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:14:42 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 12:29:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:


That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Hinduism, and even Buddhism are not independent of the belief in an ultimate supreme being. In Japan for instance, which is a Buddhist and Shinto nation, prayers to God are written on pieces of paper in places of worship. In Buddhism, the belief in God is optional.

There are also studies done by missionaries who have walked the walk, going into remote, untouched parts of the world who have studied religious beliefs, and their connection to the Gospel message.

http://www.net-burst.net...

There is no "supreme being" singular god in Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, all gods in Buddhism are inferior to humans (as far as the religion goes) since only humans can attain enlightenment.

First off, I think you're trying to over emphasize differences in regional religions to argue that these cultures don't have an innate desire for God. It really doesn't matter whether or not Brahma in Hinduism is a singular god, or a triad of 3 gods. Yes, in Hinduism there are many gods with various degrees of status. Christianity speaks of created beings called angels that are also referred to as sons of God. The differences between Eastern religion and Christianity being greater than the differences within the Abrahamic religions is not of real significance in that there are still nonetheless differences between the 3 Abrahamic religions as well.

And you missed the point about Buddhism. Just because Buddhism doesn't proclaim any supreme god does not mean that Buddhists themselves don't believe in a god. The concept of god is throughout Asia including countries like Japan. Being a Buddhist doesn't demand disbelief in a god. There are atheist Buddhists, and Buddhists who believe in a god.


A lot of cultures developed concepts of dragons independently as well, but those don't exist.

Dragons do exist. Not the fire-breathing Hollywood version no. But what most likely were labeled dragons were various reptiles.


? Except for the vast size differential.

The comparison is perfect, actually. You might respond by saying that the "dragons" in each culture were astronomically different and thus grouping them all together to make a generalized conclusion is faulty. It's the same with deities in different cultures. Zeus and Juno are astronomically different from Yahweh. The only similarity is that they are more powerful than humans, but lots of mythical creatures are also more powerful than humans, so why not suppose they exist as well?

Zeus and Juno are not creators. That might be a reason for the astronomical difference.


Oh that's true I didn't think of that. That just supports my point though. Why group them in with the Judeo-Christian creator god?

Also, there are plenty of secular societies in the modern day, so that defies the anthropological claim that "God" is an essential concept in all cultures.

What do you mean by secular society? Are you talking about a secular State?


No, I just mean a society where the majority is secular.

If so, a secular State merely implies a nation that doesn't employ an official State religion. A good example is Turkey. They are an Islamic nation as far as the quantity of Muslim practitioners, yet they are a secular State.

If you're talking about secular in terms of lack of religion, the more materialistic a nation becomes, like Japan, the less religious in the traditional sense.


That seems like a false correlation, but I digress.

I don't really see how this invalidates my point?


As for Buddhism, I think the fact that it is a major world religion that doesn't even remotely require belief in gods also destroys this notion that God is essential to our human nature.

You might be confusing my statements in regards to Buddhism with them implying a lack of significance.

Buddhism originated from a man in India. It didn't just pop up and become a major religion in Asia. The nations it spread into already had their own religions.

In a lot of ways it's not much different than someone like Tony Robbins developing a self-improvement course marketed to those looking for personal empowerment. If Tony Robbins' philosophies were embraced by 95% percent of Americans, this wouldn't necessarily imply any change in American religion. Tony Robbins doesn't promote a particular god. Therefore those who attend his seminars and put his teachings into practice would include Christians, Buddhists, Atheists, etc.

Right, I've studied eastern worldviews. What are you trying to say though? I'm saying that Buddhism is an example that invalidates the claim that God is part of human nature, are you disagreeing?
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 12:49:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ethan - But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Burzmali - Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other

Then I find it curious that atheists here for the most part tend to bunch religions together as if they are all the same. They are similar as explanations for life's mysteries. They all point to a transcendent creator being/force that we must seek/worship/emulate. I think the similarities are enough to cause wonder when one considers the fact many of the cultures were separated by thousands of miles and thousands of years.

Burzmali - Those "most curious, most investigative men" (and women) that I assume you're referring to lived in times when it was literally criminal not to openly profess your devotion to one religion or another.

Yet they were able to research and discover and lay the foundation for all science today. I think this re-enforces my point that religion does not necessarily inhibit scientific inquiry.

Burzmali - Furthermore, they were investigating subjects that they determined to not be directly influenced by god. Newton didn't believe that his god literally pushed physical bodies together in space.

Which is exactly my point that people did not use religion to answer scientific mysteries. Religion has been primarily used to answer metaphysical/moral questions. But my point still stands that Newton's religion did not inhibit his scientific curiosity or his scientific inquiry.

Burzmali - The best challenge to my answer would be to find someone who claims their god is the cause of something and still investigates for another cause of that thing.

That is disingenuous. If one claims to have the cause of something, why would he then continue search for the cause of that thing? Even scientists don't do that. I think what you believe is the "best challenge" to your answer is irrational. Researchers, both religious and secular, stop searching for causes when they are sufficiently satisfied that they found the cause.

Burzmali - That was my point: that once you assign god as the ultimate cause, you stop investigating for any other ultimate cause.

Science does not look for "ultimate" causes. Evolution for example freely admits that it does not concern itself with the "ultimate cause" of life. And even if science did assign an ultimate cause, it too would then cease to search for an ultimate cause. That is what would be rational.

Burzmali - Unless you zoom out to a point of saying "these are all religions," which is not under contention, it's ridiculous to claim any of them to be similar except in regards to the similarities shared by those that are directly related.

But for things to fall under a single classification, they must share some similarity! In fact, that is precisely why they are all called "religions". The word means something.

Burzmali - The very fact that Buddhism is a nontheistic religion is a direct contradiction to the OP's claim that everyone came up with something similar.

Untrue. The fact that Buddhism is a nontheistic religion is a direct contradiction to the claim that "everyone came up with something identical." The OP does not make that claim.
-----------------------------------------------------
irreverent_god - Inasmuch as I understand your reasoning, one can't ask for an explanation of a feeling not felt. I have no such 'innate' desire.

Two answers. First, at the risk of insulting you (not my intent) people can be deluded and people can lie. I know of a friend who denied for years that he ever felt homosexual desire. He said it was a desire for masculine camaraderie. I also know that many girls will deny sexual desire because they think their society would find that unbecoming. I can easily see why an avowed atheist would readily fall into one of these two categories when it comes to admitting a desire for the transcendent.

Second, the exception does not break the rule. You may simply be an exception to a general rule. But if you were once a believer, the odds are that you did, at least at one time, feel the desire. Have you ever believed the existence of God or have you always been an atheist?

irreverent_god - I do, however, understand that the vast majority of gawds were invented to explain the theretofore unexplained.

I agree that the vast majority of gods were invented. That is obviously true and easily provable. I do not believe they were invented to explain the theretofore unexplained. They were invented for other reasons.
-------------------------------------------------------
Envisage - Does anyone seriously find this argument convincing? That we can objectively state that we 1. Have an innate desire and 2. That innate desire is divine in origin.

You have missed the argument a little. First, that we have an innate desire is one of the premises, it isn't the argument. Second, the OP does not say that the desire is of divine origin, but that the desire is a biological response to a real stimulus. As when light caused organisms to first develop a chromo-sensitive patch and then eventually, eyes.

Envisage - It seems to be an argument that only works if you start from the position that God is highly likely to begin with,.....

No. You have misunderstood the argument. The argument begins not by assuming the existence of God, but by noting that a every innate biological desire is a response to a real stimulus. The difference is important.

Envisage - ....and simply demonstrates nothing but bias in how the facts are received.

What facts?

Envisage - A good argument is usually substantially more objective, and convincing for even the people who assign a low intrinsic probability to God.

Since I corrected your understanding of the argument, you can see that the probability of the existence of God is immaterial to the validity of the argument. The argument simply states that every innate biological desire has a real world cause. For example, your innate desire for food has nothing to do with the "probability" of the existence of food.*

If one denies the existence of God, one must then explain the existence of the desire.

* Please notice, "..your innate desire for food has everything to do with the existence of food." Note the difference before you respond.
-------------------------------------------------------
RoderickSpode - What the argument made appears to me is that there are enough similarities to suggest an innate desire in man to know God. Whether God is considered a separate singular being, a conglomeration of multiple gods, or one with universe, the desire is basically the same which involves a desire to be in communion with a higher power.

Excellent.
SkepticalStardust
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 2:41:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 10:50:08 AM, ethang5 wrote:
The belief is that innate desire is birthed and shaped by evolution. We desire food because evolution shaped us to feel hunger, we desire partners because evolution shaped us to desire sex, and so on.

It is obvious also that a pressure must precede a desire. For us to be photo-tropic for example, there must first be light. For us to desire shelter, there must be heat or cold.

You can see that the argument is referring only to innate desires. Desires which humans are born with and are true for all ethnicities, from Swedes, to Bushmen, to Arabs, to Irish. Not learned desires like my desire for Game of Thrones, which is the best show ever to grace TV. But I digress.

I propose that there is an innate desire in man for God. Every human society on Earth has developed a doctrine for God. All these doctrines are similar enough to conclude that they are all expressions of desire for the same thing.

The argument concludes then that in order for humans to have developed an innate desire for God, (whatever "God" is) there must exist a God to have evolved that desire. It is impossible to have an innate desire for that which does not exist.

If you take little children and place them in a room for years with no outside interaction, and no hints, they will still figure out sex and make babies. Place toddlers alone among food and non-food items, and most will find food and reject non-foods without any prior training.

What explains our innate desire for God?

First, Your first premise is incorrect. For a desire to exist in a species, that desire must be more beneficial for the survival and ultimately the reproduction of that species than it is harmful. Whether the desire has a way of being fulfilled in irrelevant.

Second, your second premise is wrong. People learn to desire god(s); it's not innate. A baby wants food, water, love, sleep, etc. because it needs them. It's evolutionarily beneficial for a baby to want these things. A baby does not want, and cannot comprehend, god(s). It's either learned through being taught about it or out of a desire to understand how things work and filling in gaps in knowledge with god(s).

Lastly, Your conclusion is wrong even if we assume your premises are true. Here's another option for your conclusion:

1: all innate desires can be fulfilled.
2: people innately desire a god.
C: people are capable of believing in a god.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." " Christopher Hitchens
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 6:30:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 9:39:01 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/3/2014 5:18:24 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/3/2014 12:36:09 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:14:42 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 12:29:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:


That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Hinduism, and even Buddhism are not independent of the belief in an ultimate supreme being. In Japan for instance, which is a Buddhist and Shinto nation, prayers to God are written on pieces of paper in places of worship. In Buddhism, the belief in God is optional.

There are also studies done by missionaries who have walked the walk, going into remote, untouched parts of the world who have studied religious beliefs, and their connection to the Gospel message.

http://www.net-burst.net...

There is no "supreme being" singular god in Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, all gods in Buddhism are inferior to humans (as far as the religion goes) since only humans can attain enlightenment.

First off, I think you're trying to over emphasize differences in regional religions to argue that these cultures don't have an innate desire for God. It really doesn't matter whether or not Brahma in Hinduism is a singular god, or a triad of 3 gods. Yes, in Hinduism there are many gods with various degrees of status. Christianity speaks of created beings called angels that are also referred to as sons of God. The differences between Eastern religion and Christianity being greater than the differences within the Abrahamic religions is not of real significance in that there are still nonetheless differences between the 3 Abrahamic religions as well.

And you missed the point about Buddhism. Just because Buddhism doesn't proclaim any supreme god does not mean that Buddhists themselves don't believe in a god. The concept of god is throughout Asia including countries like Japan. Being a Buddhist doesn't demand disbelief in a god. There are atheist Buddhists, and Buddhists who believe in a god.

As to your link, all I see there are wild interpretations of events that attempt to shoehorn "pagan" beliefs into a framework that fits with Christianity.
I'm going to leave this alone in this thread since the OP does not specify Christianity being ultimate truth.

The OP seems to think that "everyone came up with something ... similar." If you're trying to defend that by responding to me, you're doing some serious gymnastics. And you're ignoring all of the religions that came before, which were mostly polytheistic, as well as some other existing polytheistic religions. Unless you zoom out to a point of saying "these are all religions," which is not under contention, it's ridiculous to claim any of them to be similar except in regards to the similarities shared by those that are directly related. The very fact that Buddhism is a nontheistic religion is a direct contradiction to the OP's claim that everyone came up with something similar.
What the argument made appears to me is that there are enough similarities to suggest an innate desire in man to know God. Whether God is considered a separate singular being, a conglomeration of multiple gods, or one with universe, the desire is basically the same which involves a desire to be in communion with a higher power. The fact that Buddhism is non-theistic isn't much different than communism and atheism being non-theistic. The only difference is that Buddhism is considered a religion. There's nothing particularly magical about the concept of religion in relation to a creator. Religion is a term that's difficult to identify. We can see this in that a number of folks don't view Buddhism as a religion. And some view Atheism as a religion.

Buddhism came out of a society in India that is very religious. It spread into other parts of Asia that already had their own religious beliefs in gods and creator gods.

Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds? The OP says we all have a desire for god. And now you say it doesn't matter, basically, what that "god" is. A being, a force, multiple beings, just a higher power.... It's so ambiguous as to be a meaningless statement. It could include the universe, or an imaginary friend, or an alien race. What's the point of talking about this if we could be talking about anything or nothing?
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 7:08:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 6:30:50 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/4/2014 9:39:01 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/3/2014 5:18:24 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/3/2014 12:36:09 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:14:42 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 12:29:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:


That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Hinduism, and even Buddhism are not independent of the belief in an ultimate supreme being. In Japan for instance, which is a Buddhist and Shinto nation, prayers to God are written on pieces of paper in places of worship. In Buddhism, the belief in God is optional.

There are also studies done by missionaries who have walked the walk, going into remote, untouched parts of the world who have studied religious beliefs, and their connection to the Gospel message.

http://www.net-burst.net...

There is no "supreme being" singular god in Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, all gods in Buddhism are inferior to humans (as far as the religion goes) since only humans can attain enlightenment.

First off, I think you're trying to over emphasize differences in regional religions to argue that these cultures don't have an innate desire for God. It really doesn't matter whether or not Brahma in Hinduism is a singular god, or a triad of 3 gods. Yes, in Hinduism there are many gods with various degrees of status. Christianity speaks of created beings called angels that are also referred to as sons of God. The differences between Eastern religion and Christianity being greater than the differences within the Abrahamic religions is not of real significance in that there are still nonetheless differences between the 3 Abrahamic religions as well.

And you missed the point about Buddhism. Just because Buddhism doesn't proclaim any supreme god does not mean that Buddhists themselves don't believe in a god. The concept of god is throughout Asia including countries like Japan. Being a Buddhist doesn't demand disbelief in a god. There are atheist Buddhists, and Buddhists who believe in a god.

As to your link, all I see there are wild interpretations of events that attempt to shoehorn "pagan" beliefs into a framework that fits with Christianity.
I'm going to leave this alone in this thread since the OP does not specify Christianity being ultimate truth.

The OP seems to think that "everyone came up with something ... similar." If you're trying to defend that by responding to me, you're doing some serious gymnastics. And you're ignoring all of the religions that came before, which were mostly polytheistic, as well as some other existing polytheistic religions. Unless you zoom out to a point of saying "these are all religions," which is not under contention, it's ridiculous to claim any of them to be similar except in regards to the similarities shared by those that are directly related. The very fact that Buddhism is a nontheistic religion is a direct contradiction to the OP's claim that everyone came up with something similar.
What the argument made appears to me is that there are enough similarities to suggest an innate desire in man to know God. Whether God is considered a separate singular being, a conglomeration of multiple gods, or one with universe, the desire is basically the same which involves a desire to be in communion with a higher power. The fact that Buddhism is non-theistic isn't much different than communism and atheism being non-theistic. The only difference is that Buddhism is considered a religion. There's nothing particularly magical about the concept of religion in relation to a creator. Religion is a term that's difficult to identify. We can see this in that a number of folks don't view Buddhism as a religion. And some view Atheism as a religion.

Buddhism came out of a society in India that is very religious. It spread into other parts of Asia that already had their own religious beliefs in gods and creator gods.

Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds? The OP says we all have a desire for god. And now you say it doesn't matter, basically, what that "god" is. A being, a force, multiple beings, just a higher power.... It's so ambiguous as to be a meaningless statement. It could include the universe, or an imaginary friend, or an alien race. What's the point of talking about this if we could be talking about anything or nothing?

Yeah I have no idea what RoderickSpode is trying to say, and I don't know if he knows.
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2014 7:28:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 7:08:25 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 7/4/2014 6:30:50 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/4/2014 9:39:01 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/3/2014 5:18:24 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/3/2014 12:36:09 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 1:14:42 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 12:29:04 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:52:43 AM, Burzmali wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:27:03 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/2/2014 11:19:32 AM, Burzmali wrote:


That is possible. But don't you think then that is is curious that everyone came up with something so similar?

Are you joking with that question? The only similar religions are the ones that are built on each other. Judaism led to Christianity led to Islam. Hinduism and Buddhism are nothing like the Abrahamic religions. Native American religions are nothing like those others. None of the independently developed religions are alike in any meaningful sense.

Hinduism, and even Buddhism are not independent of the belief in an ultimate supreme being. In Japan for instance, which is a Buddhist and Shinto nation, prayers to God are written on pieces of paper in places of worship. In Buddhism, the belief in God is optional.

There are also studies done by missionaries who have walked the walk, going into remote, untouched parts of the world who have studied religious beliefs, and their connection to the Gospel message.

http://www.net-burst.net...

There is no "supreme being" singular god in Hinduism and Buddhism. In fact, all gods in Buddhism are inferior to humans (as far as the religion goes) since only humans can attain enlightenment.

First off, I think you're trying to over emphasize differences in regional religions to argue that these cultures don't have an innate desire for God. It really doesn't matter whether or not Brahma in Hinduism is a singular god, or a triad of 3 gods. Yes, in Hinduism there are many gods with various degrees of status. Christianity speaks of created beings called angels that are also referred to as sons of God. The differences between Eastern religion and Christianity being greater than the differences within the Abrahamic religions is not of real significance in that there are still nonetheless differences between the 3 Abrahamic religions as well.

And you missed the point about Buddhism. Just because Buddhism doesn't proclaim any supreme god does not mean that Buddhists themselves don't believe in a god. The concept of god is throughout Asia including countries like Japan. Being a Buddhist doesn't demand disbelief in a god. There are atheist Buddhists, and Buddhists who believe in a god.

As to your link, all I see there are wild interpretations of events that attempt to shoehorn "pagan" beliefs into a framework that fits with Christianity.
I'm going to leave this alone in this thread since the OP does not specify Christianity being ultimate truth.

The OP seems to think that "everyone came up with something ... similar." If you're trying to defend that by responding to me, you're doing some serious gymnastics. And you're ignoring all of the religions that came before, which were mostly polytheistic, as well as some other existing polytheistic religions. Unless you zoom out to a point of saying "these are all religions," which is not under contention, it's ridiculous to claim any of them to be similar except in regards to the similarities shared by those that are directly related. The very fact that Buddhism is a nontheistic religion is a direct contradiction to the OP's claim that everyone came up with something similar.
What the argument made appears to me is that there are enough similarities to suggest an innate desire in man to know God. Whether God is considered a separate singular being, a conglomeration of multiple gods, or one with universe, the desire is basically the same which involves a desire to be in communion with a higher power. The fact that Buddhism is non-theistic isn't much different than communism and atheism being non-theistic. The only difference is that Buddhism is considered a religion. There's nothing particularly magical about the concept of religion in relation to a creator. Religion is a term that's difficult to identify. We can see this in that a number of folks don't view Buddhism as a religion. And some view Atheism as a religion.

Buddhism came out of a society in India that is very religious. It spread into other parts of Asia that already had their own religious beliefs in gods and creator gods.

Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds? The OP says we all have a desire for god. And now you say it doesn't matter, basically, what that "god" is. A being, a force, multiple beings, just a higher power.... It's so ambiguous as to be a meaningless statement. It could include the universe, or an imaginary friend, or an alien race. What's the point of talking about this if we could be talking about anything or nothing?

Yeah I have no idea what RoderickSpode is trying to say, and I don't know if he knows.

YAY! We can define a God as anything now! No more logical arguments, because the Universe is a God in the same sense that Yahweh is a God, now that anything that you have an innate desire for MUST exist. Because babies who cannot talk yet can comprehend the concept of a God, therefore it must be innate!!!!!!!!1one!11
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2014 6:00:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/4/2014 2:41:37 PM, SkepticalStardust wrote:
At 7/2/2014 10:50:08 AM, ethang5 wrote:
The belief is that innate desire is birthed and shaped by evolution. We desire food because evolution shaped us to feel hunger, we desire partners because evolution shaped us to desire sex, and so on.

It is obvious also that a pressure must precede a desire. For us to be photo-tropic for example, there must first be light. For us to desire shelter, there must be heat or cold.

You can see that the argument is referring only to innate desires. Desires which humans are born with and are true for all ethnicities, from Swedes, to Bushmen, to Arabs, to Irish. Not learned desires like my desire for Game of Thrones, which is the best show ever to grace TV. But I digress.

I propose that there is an innate desire in man for God. Every human society on Earth has developed a doctrine for God. All these doctrines are similar enough to conclude that they are all expressions of desire for the same thing.

The argument concludes then that in order for humans to have developed an innate desire for God, (whatever "God" is) there must exist a God to have evolved that desire. It is impossible to have an innate desire for that which does not exist.

If you take little children and place them in a room for years with no outside interaction, and no hints, they will still figure out sex and make babies. Place toddlers alone among food and non-food items, and most will find food and reject non-foods without any prior training.

What explains our innate desire for God?

First, Your first premise is incorrect. For a desire to exist in a species, that desire must be more beneficial for the survival and ultimately the reproduction of that species than it is harmful.

I said nothing which contradicts this. Lets be more precise. You mean here that that, "For a desire to For a desire to PERSIST in a species, that desire must be more beneficial for the survival and ultimately the reproduction of that species than it is harmful." My point was (and still is) is that some outside environmental pressure MUST exist and affect the organism BEFORE the desire can develop and exist.

My premise stands.

Whether the desire has a way of being fulfilled in irrelevant.

You have it backwards. The desire cannot exist in the first place unless the "satisfier" also exists. A potential desire cannot exist in actuality unless a "satisfier" of that potential desire already exists. If the desire has no way of being fulfilled, it will not exist..

Second, your second premise is wrong. People learn to desire god(s); it's not innate.

Ah. I expected someone to bring this up. If the desire is not innate, how do you then explain the fact that every culture learned it? New research has found that human desire for language/communication is innate. The brains of babies are pre-configured for language. If a desire for God is learned and not innate, why do we not have a single culture that did not "learn" it?

A baby wants food, water, love, sleep, etc. because it needs them. It's evolutionarily beneficial for a baby to want these things. A baby does not want, and cannot comprehend, god(s).

A baby does not want, and cannot comprehend food, water, love or sleep either. The desire for God has persisted in humans from their beginning. If the desire for God was not evolutionarily advantageous, it would not have persisted.

It's either learned through being taught about it or out of a desire to understand how things work and filling in gaps in knowledge with god(s).

This is a claim. Do you have any support for it? Or any answers to its criticisms?

Lastly, Your conclusion is wrong even if we assume your premises are true. Here's another option for your conclusion:

1: all innate desires can be fulfilled.
This is not what I said. I said the desire cannot exist unless the environmental stimulus which precipitated the desire exists first.

2: people innately desire a god.
This is my conclusion, not one of my premises.

C: people are capable of believing in a god.

Sorry, you make no sense. The desire is not for belief, but for God. And the only way the desire could exist is if the existence of God exerted some influence on the organism in the real world before the desire existed.

Take the desire for food for example, no matter how much a person may believe in food, unless he consumes it, he will die. His desire is not to "believe in" food, his desire is for food itself. And the desire for food directly implies, demands even, the existence of food.