This is an idea that I have had for awhile, about a certain perspective one could take that would be an argument for the existence of a God. My argument is as follows, within the natural realm, we have the principle of cause and effect. And that a certain thing exists only insofar as it can be shown to interact with nature. To give an example, I exist because of the impact I have on my surroundings, whether it be by direct contact, or the influence I have on others, which then leads to changes in my life or theirs. So concerning this idea of cause and effect, it seems to me that because of the influence the idea of a God has on the world, and the impact that follows from it. A God could be said to exist in the same way that I could be said to exist. If you consider the fact that I will most likely live and die without 99.9% of the population of the world ever even knowing I was here at all, ( .1% is itself a generous assumption) and the only tangible proof we have that I actually existed at all on these forums is the writing I have left behind. My existence is for the most part hard to prove as of today, but 100 years from now it will be close to impossible, assuming I do nothing of significance. So with this in mind, it could be argued that because the idea of a God (cause) has had such a significant impact on nature, in the form of wars, the establishment of governments, schools of thought, etc (effect) that in this sense a God does in fact exist.
I know that this is strictly philosophical, and I would never present this as any form of real evidence, of any value. But from this perspective, i believe it is a valid argument that existence comes in many forms.
Thank you for your time.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I agree. God does exist, but only in the minds of many people. God is an idea that exists solely out of the need for a god to exist for most people.
For that matter, conservatism exists. The thing is that idea manifestation of ideas come to light and take hold. Most need to be stoked or resupplied to continue.
Some are constant like the continuing battle of Liberal versus conservatism. I suspect that a god idea is a constant within the imagination of humankind.
Like the political ideology, there is no constant within the constant. I.e. Liberal means many different things depending on perspective and experience. The god myths persist in the same manner. For example, Vampires were invented out of fear imagination. The description of a vampire is both constant and inconsistent. We know vampires are bloodsuckers that fear sunlight and have supernatural powers. Beyond that, they become many different things depending on who describes them. Of course, there has never been a vampire, but the idea remains.
Yes, Virginia. There is a Santa Claus.
"God is an idea that exists solely out of the need for a god to exist"
Man that is a great quote, really gets right to the core of the concept of faith.
The natural realm is all that exists. I am a part of it. Saying I exist because I interact with nature is redundant. I am nature.
No, you are apart of nature, and my comment was in line with the idea of a cause and effect, which is the foundation of naturalism.
Alphalogica: You state above that your written words may be future evidence for your existence . Then you equate the past ideas of god as evidence for a god. All we have from the past is evidence for humans , like you or me, with ideas of god. Like your writings online today ancient scriptures merely prove people tell stories and sometimes write them down.
Well, I agree with your assertion that all we have is writings from the past of people who told stories of God. Where I disagree is your claim that I equate this as evidence for a God. I went so far as to say in my OP that:
I know that this is strictly philosophical, and I would never present this as any form of real evidence, of any value. But from this perspective, i believe it is a valid argument that existence comes in many forms.
This was my point, I did not present my op as evidence for a God, but that it could be argued that from a certain perspective that a god exists, based only on the influence the idea of any one god has had on the world. In the same way that democracy exists, or any philosophy exists.
"You state above that your written words may be future evidence for your existence."
Yes, they could be used as evidence for my existence, but what if these servers crash and are never brought back up, but the influence of my writings gained popularity and all that was left was people writing about what they took as my words, then over time all that remains is interpretations of interpretations of my writings. It could then be argued that I never actually existed at all in a literal sense, that I am just a cultural phenomenon that was passed down from generation to generation, the only thing left is the influence of what people believe to be my writings. This is of course an extreme example but I think you get my point.
I once read a chinese proverb (translation of course)
It read .... 3 men say tiger in the square, There is a tiger in the square.
I found this proverb very confusing until I read the story and its implication.
The story goes; The chinese emperor had a very intelligent minister whom the other court members envied and so they convinced the emperor to reply him to the front lines of a distant uprising as he would succeed in suppressing it.
The minister feared that in his absence his rivals would rumour (lie) to the emperor about him and make him fall in disrepute.
So he made a plan.->
He got a citizen to come to the emperor claiming there was a tiger in the square. the emperor thought about it and said it seemed improbable as it was the capital. surely more would have seen it and there would be a commotion.
2nd day another citizen came to tell the emperor there was a tiger in the square. the emperor didn't believe but sent a search party to review.
3d day another citizen declared there was a tiger in the square. the emperor was convinced that theres a tiger in the square. He deployed the army to find and kill the tiger. the searched but in vein.
The minister then revealed this was his plot to educate the emperor that in his absence people would lie to the emperor about him and he mustn't pay heed as most people will believe anything if enough people will tell you its true (even if it isn't).
P.S> the minister was deployed. His rivals gossiped about him. The minister returned successfully after the campaign. But the king was convinced he was a traitor and had him executed.
Basically just because majority deems something as correct does not make it so.
"Basically just because majority deems something as correct does not make it so."
And yet, that seems to be how most governments operate: Majority Rule.
AlphaLogica,
We could also say that a unicorn has an influence on the world, certainly in art work. Could we also say that the number 1 has an influence in our world, and probably any world? I agree with mykcob4 that we are really talking about the existence of an idea rather than a physical being. The thing that would be effecting the real world would be the changes in people's brains that held the idea. Hence, many such brain areas, scattered around the world under the abstract umbrella of "God," would be the true sources affecting the world. "God," himself, would just be the abstraction of the scattered particulars (which actually exist). Kind of like "table" being an abstraction for countless, varied tables that actually exist.
OK so maybe I wan not clear enough in my OP. I tried to make it clear that I was not arguing for the literal existence of a physical being known as God. I even stated that my argument is not any evidence of any real value.
"We could also say that a unicorn has an influence on the world, certainly in art work. "
Yes we could, again I would not extend this to be any real evidence for a unicorn. But we can take this and turn it around and ask; does an idea exist at all, or does the influence of the idea exist? If an idea exists then then God exists because God is an idea, but if only the influence of an idea exists then God exists because of the influence the idea of God has had, in the same way the the number 1 exists.
"The thing that would be effecting the real world would be the changes in people's brains that held the idea. "
True, but what was the initial cause that then lead to the effect? The idea of God. So as stated in my OP we have the idea of God (cause) that lead to countless changes to the world that last to this day (effect) and if something only exists insofar as it can have a direct impact on the world, then from this perspective, God exists. Again, my argument is purely philosophical and not one to say that a physical being exists, but that existence comes in many forms and for something to exist it does not need to only come in a physical form.
Of course god exists. It's a great moldering, oppressive mass of vested interests, tyranny and hypocrisy, a life-draining money-pit, a potent tool for imposing one's will on large numbers of people, "excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet."
@Algebe
That is perfect. Do I have your permission to copy it and paste at will?
@Mislam
"Do I have your permission to copy it and paste at will?"
Be my guest. But you'll need to get Napoleon's permission for the "excellent stuff..." quote.
Considering he's been dead a while, I'll have to pay a visit to my local insane asylum...