Do We NEED God?

Right. I was trying to say that attempting to create a legacy that leaves the world a better place can be seen as an evolutionary advantage because on following through, you give a better chance for your species to survive.But I also don't think everything has to have "an evolutionary reason" for existing in order for there to be no God. That is, I can imagine some crazy messed up nonsense. Some of which I'm sure has nothing to do with me living or reproducing or surviving (me or my species as a whole). Yet, I don't really see that as a reason to think that there must be "something else." To me, it's just a side-effect of having intelligence. Intelligence, obviously, can have some serious survival benefits, it just may come along with a bunch of side-effects that have nothing to do with survival benefits.So, I suppose my main point is that perhaps thinking of a beneficial legacy is just something our intelligence allows us to do. As in, our intelligence also allows us to experiment, formulate and create alcohol and drugs. It could just be a side effect of having intelligence, which is a really broad description-word.My mini-point, that I don't find all that big of a deal, is that I can actually see where the desire to formulate a beneficial legacy could easily help the species survive and therefore have an evolutionary-like motivation or purpose. Wanting to be remembered after death -> drive to do lots of good things while alive -> good things helps species survive.

But the particles themselves will endure past death.

quote:

---

We are stardust.
We are golden.
And we've got to get ourselves back to the garden.

​

-- Joni Mitchell

---

I largely agree but then again the idea of leaving a work of art that we will be remembered by isn't really about making the world a better place. People want to leave grave markers, or they write or carve their names in places so that they leave their mark when they are no longer there. People want to leave a legacy so that they will be remembered for something with most of us wanting to leave a positive one.If God exists then potentially He is or has influenced our hearts and minds to want to leave a positive legacy. For us, things are just the way they are and we have no idea whether we are being divinely influenced or not.Essentially then the answer to the question can't be known and we can only come to our own conclusions based on what we do know and our individual perception of reality.

Exactly. The particles endure as something or someone else. Particles are mindless. It seems reasonable to conclude that we are more than just the particles that make up our bodies.

I come to the opposite conclusion, that we can aspire to be particles.

...and here I didn't even realize that we had a choice.

I am failing to see how the need for this thing and the actual existence of said thing are connected.It seems quite evident that some people need god to exist whether he does or not and others have no such need (whether he exists or not). The question of need and the question of actual existence seem to me to have little to connect them. The only connection I can see is that those who do need such a thing will be convinced that such a thing does exist and those who don't have this need can, potentially, go either way. You seem to have changed the question. You now seem to be asking something along the lines of "Assuming god exists what do you think god is like?"And my answer to that question would be - She's black.

It seems that a lot of people do need god. But this need (or lack of it) tells us nothing about god's existence. There are a whole heap of assumptions wrapped up in that sentence. It is perfectly conceivable that a creative intelligence exist out there who had absolutely nothing to do with our existence isn't it?So I am still unsure what the connection is here between the need for god to exist and the actual existence of god.To conclude we need that kind of god very much seems to depend on knowing and assuming rather a lot about the nature of this (apparently) unknowable being. Well something in the sense of objective reality that exists regardless of our ability to perceive it certainly does seem to exist.But to imbue this something with human like characteristics (e.g. consciousness, the motivation to create etc. etc.) and then supe these abilities up to superhuman levels and call it "god" is just anthropomorphism, story-telling and wishful thinking combined.Three of the things humans are best at....Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Fair enough but I was talking about a specific "creative intelligence" that is responsible for our existence. I have no idea what else might be out there. My only point was that even if people feel the need for a god to exist then they are still getting by without one actually existing - ergo they don't actually need a god. There are human figures such as Mahatma Ghandi that I have a great deal of respect for. I have never seen him or heard him speak. I have only read what others have written about him. Still, I hold him in high esteem based on that having made certain assumptions based on faith that in he truly was a man who had a heart that I admire and wish that I could emulate. I believe that he lives up to the Bible verse in my signature. I believe that he humbly loves kindness and justice.I have the Bible in which people have written stories about Jesus, about what He said about the one who He called Father and about how that should impact my life.The message makes sense to me and fits with my experience of the world. I find that when I do conform to the message that God wants me to be kind, loving, forgiving etc, I do sense a connection to Him, and even a relationship with Him, so I don't completely agree that this God is unknowable. A lot of the science that I read seems to suggest that we are an emergent part of a greater reality. That is IMHO very consistent with the Christian understanding of our existence alongside a heavenly one. Well it may be wishful thinking but that doesn't make it wrong. I am sure that there is some anthropomorphism in my faith. The human mind and imagination is limited in that sense.However, our thoughts and emotions are real but they aren't, I contend, part of our physical world. If we are going to have a connection with an intelligence that exists in that greater reality it makes sense that it would be through our minds. If this is correct then it makes sense that the entity that we call God would have similar characteristics but at superhuman levels.

Good question.If communion is a possibility and is a desire of both God and humans, is there any value to the communion?

You have never shown me how "communion" is possible.

You started out talking about "god(s)"and then suddently leapt to talking about "God". In that single leap you seem to have gone from talking about a vaguety for which there is no need to something that is needed by definition.If we define "God" as something which is necesary - Necessary for us to even exist - Then (in a rather circular not to mention tautological way) we will by definition need God. Case closed.But without such assumptions I am still left asking what the connection is between the question of needing god and the actual exitence of god? Whether god does or does not exist it seems quite evident that some people need to believe in such a thing and others don't have this need.The best we can say regarding need is that humanity as a whole seems to have this inclination. It always baffles me how people can think this when these things have such a demonstrable physical basis. Hormones, drugs, brain damage etc. etc. etc. can completely transform your thoughts and emotions.Is the immaterial self you allude to the same as the "you" with a fully intact, undrugged brain and your hormones in balance? Or is the immaterial "you" as you would be in the absence of any hormonal effects?And if there is an immaterial "you" which is the real you, what on Earth is God doing faffing around with all this physical stuff for? Puss, poo, saliva, urine, sweat, blood, vomit, acne, ear wax..... I could go on (and get really quite disgusting - but you get the drift).....What is the point of it all if we could just as well exist without any physical body at all?

That was my point and of course if He doesn't exist we don't need Him. Now you are talking about needing the idea of a god not an actual one.I lived just fine for a number of years as an agnostic. I came to believe in God not out of any particular need but simply because I came to believe that God actually did exist. I'm looking for truth just as you are. We just have come to different conclusions. Just because people believe in a god does not mean that they need to. I agree, which seems to me something of an indication that in a general sense there is a very good chance that there is something to it. I don't think that we can tell the difference. I do know that the older I get the more I realize that my body is getting older but I'm not. Sure, many of my interests have changed and as well as some rather fundamental beliefs about the world but, there is something about my essence that just doesn't change.Without getting specific we can read in the papers about some despicable molestation of a child. Later we may read about the abuse that the molester had suffered in his own life. How do we sort that out. Maybe deep down that molester hates what he's done and actually desires to embrace a life based on unselfish love but for hormonal, environmental, or drug related reasons he has done what he's done.So, I don't have a good answer to your question. Personally I believe in a god that will ultimately sort all of these questions out in a manner that is perfectly just. I like CS Lewis' treatment of this in his book "The Great Divorce". I'm not convinced that we can exist, (at least in the way that we understand existence), without a physical body.

Phat was quite clear in his OP that he doesn’t want this to be a Does god exist? discussion. He wants us to assume god does exist to the extent it is relevant to the question of whether or not we NEED god. However you want us to assume that God is responsible for our very existence and that, if he exists, he is by definition therefore necessary.So I am caught in something of a theistic pincer movement here! I am being asked to assume A) That god does exist and B) That if he exists he is, by definition, necessary.With those two assumptions combined it becomes impossible to conclude anything other than a need for god. What exactly the point of this rather pointlessly tautological, assumption derived conclusion is, remains a mystery to me. But I will happily concede that if we assume both the existence and necessity of god then we can only indeed conclude that we NEED god. Isn't that what this is about?

I can give you a hint as to how it can be. Lert me ask you a question. Based on the description of the character of Jesus, in the Bible, can you imagine how He might respond to a given everyday situation that we humans face now?I say might because obviously we don't know for sure. But by reconstructing what we do know, communion (in the form of a likely response) is possible.