Are you religious?

[aflyinghaggis]

A quote I heard somewhere :
"God is an imaginary friend for grown ups"

[JokerR]

"God is an imaginary friend for grown ups"

QFT

I Think the real reason people believe in god is because it gives them some sense that there is this almighty deity floating around "up there" somewhere, protecting them... sad really...

[tattybadger]

"God is an imaginary friend for grown ups"

QFT

I Think the real reason people believe in god is because it gives them some sense that there is this almighty deity floating around "up there" somewhere, protecting them... sad really...

I suspect that there are a number of reasons why religion has such a grip on mankind - it may well be that the human brain is hardwired for religion or that society demands that the masses belive or that the masses don't have access to other options.

But I would agree with the last comment.

[BuggerAll]

"God is an imaginary friend for grown ups"

QFT

I Think the real reason people believe in god is because it gives them some sense that there is this almighty deity floating around "up there" somewhere, protecting them... sad really...

Not doing a very good job on the protecting front.

[Dwarf]

"God is an imaginary friend for grown ups"

QFT

I Think the real reason people believe in god is because it gives them some sense that there is this almighty deity floating around "up there" somewhere, protecting them... sad really...

I think that is far too glib a statement, sorry but there you are.
Maybe that is true for some, in which case I agree with you.
However I don't think that most people think that the Guy on the Cloud is really there as their own personal insurance, or going to save them from being mugged or from the tsunami on holiday.
I do think that many go along with religion for that reason, or to ensure that should there really be an afterlife then they will go to the good bit as opposed to the other bit, where at least the company is more interesting.

But as someone said, and I think it was Angular, that they feel good after going to church, which sounds to me a fine reason for going. And as others have tried to explain there are many who have had an experience that persuades them that there is something. Sort of like being able to tune into a different TV channel which your mate hasn't got yet. You can see it he can't.

Buggerall:Clutching at straws. I suppose the simple minded can get some comfort from belief in the afterlife and all the other drivel but why do intelligent people get off on it?

Lets face it you've got to be quite bright to argue yourself into believing this tosh when common sense and all the evidence is screaming otherwise, but why do they want to?

You won't go along with my last because you are convinced that it is illusory, well after meditating on a point, or like today simply walking in the country with my hounds, (shirt off spring has arrived here) and tuning in to the oneness of nature then I have a personal experience that allows me to feel something that you obviously have not experienced.
Don't disparage that as a hippy experience or delusion, it was neither, but it needs a bit of practice to achieve, though isn't difficult. I can't explain the feeling in words, like falling in love is impossible to describe, but it was real.
Gnosis, personal experience, many people have felt something throughout the ages, that is what can make an intelligent person wish to explore a religious or spiritual path.

Don't persisit in applying some badly-explained christian viewpoint of a God to my beliefs, which is what you do with that statement of yours, as did Joker. I don't go along with the Guy on the Cloud either.
You are missing an element in the jigsaw, try to see that simple logic doesn't always apply, like when you are in love.

[aflyinghaggis]

"God is an imaginary friend for grown ups"

QFT

I Think the real reason people believe in god is because it gives them some sense that there is this almighty deity floating around "up there" somewhere, protecting them... sad really...

IYou are missing an element in the jigsaw, try to see that simple logic doesn't always apply, like when you are in love.

Love is a state of mind, as is God!

[Excognito]

God exists ?
Very bold statement! Hmmm... Care to prove it?
Whats that you say? you can't... Oh well, that's a surprise, isn't it, hmmmmmm...

[to be read in the voice of stewie from family guy]

So, er, who says it has to be provable by a priori analysis? As I was saying to the wife the other day, for every ω-consistent recursive class κ of formulas there are recursive class signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg(v Gen r) belongs to Flg(κ) (where v is the free variable of r) ... {pause for breath}, not only that but we can also let κ be any recursive consistent class of formulas, in which case, the sentential formula stating that κ is consistent is not κ-provable; in particular, the consistency of P is not provable in P, provided P is consistent (in the opposite case, of course, every proposition is provable [in P]). I mean, it stands to reason, dunnit?

[to be read in the voices of a certain car insurance advert]
Hey, Church-Turing! Is it true that a general solution to the Entscheidungsproblem is impossible?
Oh, Yes.

[Excognito]

Love is a state of mind, as is God!

What exactly, in a physical sense, is a "state of mind"?

[aflyinghaggis]

Love is a state of mind, as is God!

What exactly, in a physical sense, is a "state of mind"?

A state of mind has no physical sense thats the point :D

[MisellaLandica]

So, er, who says it has to be provable by a priori analysis? As I was saying to the wife the other day, for every ω-consistent recursive class κ of formulas there are recursive class signs r, such that neither v Gen r nor Neg(v Gen r) belongs to Flg(κ) (where v is the free variable of r) ... {pause for breath}, not only that but we can also let κ be any recursive consistent class of formulas, in which case, the sentential formula stating that κ is consistent is not κ-provable; in particular, the consistency of P is not provable in P, provided P is consistent (in the opposite case, of course, every proposition is provable [in P]). I mean, it stands to reason, dunnit?

[to be read in the voices of a certain car insurance advert]
Hey, Church-Turing! Is it true that a general solution to the Entscheidungsproblem is impossible?
Oh, Yes.

Is that some sort of argument for agnosticism? But that would surely only be applicable if the god-entity about which we are going to be agnostic is pantheistic, i.e. we exist within his system. The question then arises whether it is useful in anyway to even bother thinking about a pantheistic deity: in other words what utility or predictive power is given to us by imparting ontological status to that concept? Hence we can just write it off anyway, same as Russell's teapot.

If we're talking about an 'external' God, then it is not so much Goedel's incompleteness theorem that applies so much as the simple principle that it is not meaningful to say 'there exists x' (or 'there exists no x') where 'x' is not a variable within our language (i.e. an entity in our universe). But if 'x', being a god, is not in our universe, then it is safe to say automatically that there is no god, because for all x, if x exists then x is in our universe (because that's what universe means).

Unless it is not sensible to speak of a deity's existence at all: god is merely condemned to being an unbound variable useful for a handful of logical tricks; but again, following Quine, we are led to atheism, as the objects in our ontology are precisely those variables over which we are prepared to apply quantification, and if it's not in our ontology, it ain't anywhere at all.