Do We NEED God?

I think humans need "ideals". We need things that "encourages and inspires humanity to fulfill our best aspirations".If you want to anthropomorphicise and/or personlise these ideals and call it "GOD" (or whatever) then I suppose you can. Certainly a lot of people seem to need to do this...... True perfection has to be imperfect - Wise words from that noted philosopher Noel Gallagher.

Oooh you've convinced me....So, having decided that we do need god, which god do we need? Does it matter which one we choose?You obviously will tell me I need the Christian god. A Moslem will tell me I need the Islamic god. A Hindu will tell me I need a different god. A scientologist will tell me that belief in Thetans will undoubtably cure me of the inner emptiness you speak of.So what to do?I want to definitively decide which god it is that I apparently need. So I've decided to get a book of gods and goddesses (a sort or encyclopedia of deities) and try each one in alphabetical order until the inner emptiness is cured.Is this a valid approach in your view? If not how do you suggest that I find the right god without just taking your word for it?

OK. I'm sitting here with a blank page. I'm waiting to have the emptiness inside me Geno insists I have filled. I'm waiting to have the page in front of me filled.Who - But me - is going to fill it? And if I fill it, by inventing some godly character, how can it be anything other than some sort of personification of that which resides in my own mind? I don't see how it is possible for me to both write the book AND disengage myself from the contents of the book to the extent that it isn't just a reflection of my own mind....Help me here.....

Whilst I am happy to talk about that it isn't the topic of this thread. In summary the conclusion that such a thing exists seems to be borne of the same human desire to invoke conscious intent at every turn that has failed so spectacularly so many times in the past. It is based on demonstrably erroneous thinking that comes naturally to us as a result of the social evolutionary environment in which our minds evolved.The topic of this thread is "Do we NEED God" and (perhaps surprisingly - but hear me out) my answer is - Yes. Sort of.Now when I say "Yes" it comes with some big qualifiers. I don't feel any personal need for god and nor do many many others. But humanity as a whole does seem to have this massive disposition to demand purpose in the form of conscious intent wherever it looks. And this leads almost inexorably to some sort of "god" being character.Whether or not god exists it seems pretty definite that people need to invent such a thing. So in that sense I would say that yes, we (i.e. humanity) do need god even if I personally think we'd be better off discarding such notions.God is here to stay in one form or another. Because humanity seems to need gods in one form or another.

Perhaps we should distinguish between needing god and needing to believe in god......?Is there a difference in your view?

We seem to have established that what you personally need is a belief in the existence of god. Well obviously. But your need to believe in god tells us far more about you and your needs than it does whether such a thing really exists or not or even whether we need such a thing to exist or not.The only need we have established in this thread is the need to believe that god exists whether or not he actually does.

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.

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?

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?

What do you mean by "theoretically possible"? Is there some theoretical reason to think this is the case? Or do you just mean that it is "theoretically possible" in the sense of being unfalsifiable? I suspect there are a plethora of unfalsifiable ("theoretically possible"?) things which you would dismiss without a second thought. What makes this one worthy of more credence than any other? Forget proof. Simply ask yourself if the belief in question is more likely to be the result of human needs and dispositions. And if the answer to this question is "yes" then eventually that's what people will conclude and that is what the followers of said belief will have to find strategies to immunise themselves against. Look at history. What does it tell us? It tells us a number of things. It tells us that humans are naturally inquisitive creatures who eventually will question most things. It also tells us that we will never be short of those who seek to place themselves at the top of the mystic tree by claiming to have some sort of unique relationship with the divine.If the belief in question doesn't stand up to scrutiny then eventually it will crumble like a castle made of sand or (probably more likely) there will be splits and schisms as one group claims to have greater access to the unfalsifiable mind of god than the others. The less the belief stands up to reason the more those who adhere to it will be forced to entrench themselves in ignorance and denial whilst retaining conviction that they are the true followers of said entity.So whilst you may propose as some sort of premise the notion that "the result of their belief made them better people and was beneficial to humanity" I would suggest that in the long run any such belief which doesn't stand up to scrutiny will result in a culture of ignorance which is not at all beneficial to humanity. Think creationists. We know you don't have to believe in god to do good things that benefit humanity. If you met an otherwise normal 40 year old guy who genuinely believed in Santa Claus then, no matter how kind or generous or good natured he might be, wouldn't you think that he was completely deluded to the point of having some sort of problem?I'm sure there are some lovely people doing charity work and whatnot who have complete faith in biblical literalism. This is no reason to do anything other than point out the flaws with biblical literalism is it?

Shouldn't we do this anyway? Does the fact that we seem to find it so hard to do this much of the time mean that we are NOT in communion with God much of the time? Again - Does the fact that we seem to find it so hard to do this much of the time mean that we are NOT in communion with God most of the time? Again - Does the fact that we seem to find it so hard to do this much of the time mean that we are NOT in communion with God most of the time?Why do all theistic arguments seem to require that anything positive be attributed to God and anything not positive be somebody else's fault?Isn't this the sort of psychological behaviour that we would expect of those who have a psychological "NEED" to believe in some sort of perfect idealised being.......?

So when we act wisely, selflessly and conscientiously it is thanks to God. But when we act unwisely, selfishly and negligently it is down to us.That is a very depressing view of the human condition. We can only ever be responsible for the bad things we do.I don't think this is the sort of god anyone needs.........

What does this actually mean in practise?Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that I want to experience some demonic influence. What should I do and how will I know when the demon(s) is/are influencing me?

Well from a strictly practical point of view a demon that could cause me to ruin my life seems far more relevant than an "unknowable" GOD that refuses to have any interaction with me at all. I have absolutely no problem with the idea that all sorts of things could exist without my acknowledgement. In fact I'm sure that lots of things are happily existing without any reference to me or my acknowledgement at all. So I have no idea where you are getting this from.......? There are all sorts of things I'd like to experience which I don't actually think exist!!! Some descriptions of heaven sound rather pleasant for example. On this basis everytime someone eats a donut, smokes a cigarette, drinks a can of coke, has a few too many beers or consumes a cheeseburger they are doing so under demonic influence.We know these things are bad for us. In some cases we know they are literally likely to kill us in the long run. But we do them anyway.Do you really think that it is demons rather than aspects of evolved human psychology that are at play here? Really?