Is God "Merely" Psychological?

Sure you mentioned something related to science. That something was 'evidence of the existence of God'. Evidence can only be used for the purposes of analysis, comparison with other objective things, testing, observation.... all which are parts of the scientific process. If those activities or others that fall into the category of scientific process, are not the reason for your request to such evidence, then please explain why you are seeking such evidence of the existence of God.

 

You prove squat. You don't even have evidence of a god. LOL

 

I read the book. It is true that the meanings behind some of the tales are good. I don't question that. The illusion to a god is unnecessary and even makes many of the tales ridiculous. The man may have been a teacher and used these parables to illustrate meanings. It does not make him a god nor does it prove there is a god.
If the book is taken as a teaching tool to show goodness that is one thing. But for millions of people to take this as some sacred proof of a god baffles me. Thanks for the lovely post it was well written.

 

I am asking you to prove your statement of gods existence. You said it so back it up. I did not say there is a god nor will I. You are the one that needs to show this proof. I said it is a delusion. I showed what a delusion is. The classic symptoms of Delusional Disorder match what people say about god. They are lead by some unseen spirit. They hear voices. They have a personal relationship with a person dead 2000 years. If a person says they hear voices and see things and commune with the dead and are lead by a spirit outside them self is delusional.
You say god is real I asked for proof and you have provided none. You can't even prove that you aren't delusional. Your belief fits the symptoms.
I have zero to prove.
I still have the card on my desk that you can identify. I notice the lack of godly help in it's identification. Seems suspect.

 

And you are being an idiot.... You already know by consensus of discussion on this forum, that there is no such thing as scientific proof. I have asked you if you would accept Ecclesiastical evidence, and you have refused to answer that question. So, without scientific PROOF, and with you refusing to acknowledge any other (Ecclesiastical) evidence, then you are merely attempting to engage in needless BS argumentation. Back to the ignore list for you.

 

Have i asked for scientific proof. No I have not.

No because they base their teaching and proof of god on the bible which is useless as proof. What I did do is pick a card and it's been on my desk for three days. You have yet to have your god identify it. That would be some serious proof.

You have ignored that I have asked you about the identity of the card. You never even mentioned it.

 

The phrase "a 'speck' on the edge of our psyche" seems to imply that humans suffer innately from the same apparition. This is not so. Instead, it can be said (and shown) that supernatural realms and entities are potential byproducts of cognitive mechanisms.

Then the status quo is upheld. Only the opposite claim is extraordinary.

If the psychology of religion was to be accepted in traditionally religious societies, religious adherence would probably drop to the level as it is in mostly atheist societies but this would have no moral implication as such.

No, it makes religions less powerful, not gods. Gods only get power through religions.

 

Where do those 'cognitive mechanisms' originate? Where do those 'congnitive mechanisms' come from?

The premise you make is requiring the existence of such 'Gods' before your claim can be considered can be considered a valid claim. Otherwise, your claim is mere speculation at best.

 

Cognition is a function of the brain.

Where does Superman get his powers from if not his author(s) and, in turn, his readers? Doesn't really require the actual existence of supermen, does it?

 

No kidding? Gee... that is interesting, but it does not address the question of where does cognition come from?
"noun

the process of knowing in the broadest sense, including perception, memory, and judgment
the result of such a process; perception, conception, etc.

Origin: ME cognicioun < L cognitio, knowledge < cognitus, pp. of cognoscere, to know < co-, together + gnoscere, know"

Perhaps in your mind it is required, considering that you are the one who, as a distraction, brought that subject into the discussion. What does superman have to do with cognition, or 'Gods'. Do you consider 'superman' to be one of those "Gods"?

 

If cognitive mechanisms being functions of the brain does not answer your question then I don't know what kind of answer you're angling for.

You've had better copouts in the past, Incorporeal.

 

You've had better cop-outs in the past, FreeWare. Perhaps you should do a little more research on the subject matter of 'cognitive mechanisms' and the 'origin of cognition'.

Try this as a starting point: http://cogprints.org/2546/

 

But what about these specific stories we have inherited from antiquity of the sky people with great powers who mankind screwed over somehow to cause a falling out?

There is clearly an idea in people's heads of "GOD" which transcends whoever those aliens were who visited man and perhaps "created" man by tinkering with ape dna. But how have those aliens come to be so readily identified with this psychological notion of the Almighty? That's what I'm wondering.

 

You've had better cop-outs in the past, FreeWare. Perhaps you should do a little more research on the subject matter of 'cognitive mechanisms' and the 'origin of cognition'.

You can start here, maybe it will help you;
http://cogprints.org/2546/

 

Giving you a chance to explicate would indeed be stupid if used as a copout.

The answer to the question you asked is that the origin of cognition is the brain. If you expect another kind of answer then please say so; I'm not a mind-reader.

So the mind generates thoughts and switches back and forth between association-based and causation-based thinking. And so? Again, please state what you're seeking from me.

 

Just a simple little suggestion that you look deeper into something before you either reject it or arbitrarily disregard it. Have a nice day.

 

LOL I simply answered your question, Incorporeal. It appears it didn't fall to your liking so I've tried to ask you what kind of answer you expected but you apparantly won't tell me. How is that a rejection or disregard, silly? And of what?

 

But you also did not answer my questions:

"What does superman have to do with cognition, or 'Gods'. Do you consider 'superman' to be one of those "Gods"?"

Instead you offered some cynical remark which I took liberty to use also (with minor modification) as a response to that cynical remark of yours.

 

Indeed, I do not answer to silly strawmen. The topic relating to that particular reply was a requirement of existence, not cognition. And you know it.

I'm of course referring to the original question about the origin of cognitive mechanisms. It's not too late for you to say why my answer that cognitive mechanisms originate as functions of the brain was not satisfactory.

 

The original statement you made "
The phrase "a 'speck' on the edge of our psyche" seems to imply that humans suffer innately from the same apparition. This is not so. Instead, it can be said (and shown) that supernatural realms and entities are potential byproducts of cognitive mechanisms.", deals with the subject of 'cognition' and functions of the mind. So, subsequent to your introduction of 'cognitive mechanisms' I also queried you on where those cognitive mechanisms originated. To the time of this posting, you still have not provided an answer that has been proven that shows where cognition originated. Your reply, when you finally did address the question, was an evasive answer simply stating the 'brain'. What you are inferring with such a remark, is that the brain is capable of its own volition to formulate intelligence without any form of input. Thus my reason for making the inquiry about where does cognition/cognitive mechanisms originate. So, per the inference, that the brain is creating intelligence without outside input, then there is no need for any further inquiry into any matter that can be conceived, because the brain is capable of resolving any such inquiry before the inquiry is made.

So indicated above.

 

Thanks for elaborating on your question. Much appreciated.

I'm not thrilled by your free interchange between cognition and intelligence so that must stand on your account. I will never do that myself.

As far as the bulk of your elaboration is concerned, my answer to you did not in any way imply that the brain works without input. It is of course a given that the entire nervous system works on input. So if your question is what the origin of input to the nervous system is then I think you should ask it according to such a phraseology, rather than asking what the origin of cognitive mechanisms is.

Otherwise, it is like asking where I bought the corndog I'm chewing on when you really wanted to know where the soil in the cornfields came from.

 

Very poor analogy and another attempt at evading the questions.

 

Your questions were, quote: "Where do those 'cognitive mechanisms' originate? Where do those 'congnitive mechanisms' come from?" End quote.

I answered those questions by saying that "cognition is a function of the brain".

Now you're trying to stick some sort of accusation on me that this excludes input from the surroundings. Which is weird. Not unlike you, Incorporeal, but still weird. No function of the brain excludes input. It's a given. Heck, simply saying "brain" means to process input.

So if you want to ask about the origin of input to the nervous system then do so. But don't tell me I'm evading a question I've already answered.

 

By saying that "cognition is a function of the brain" is not answering the question of where 'cognition' comes from. What you have said is that 'the brain' has the 'function of cognition', but does not say where cognition comes from.
"2. (24) function, purpose, role, use

(what something is used for; "the function of an auger is to bore holes"; "ballet is beautiful but what use is it?"

Now where did that purpose, role, use come from? Who or what designated the function of the brain? Who gave the brain instructions that the brain would recognize as being an authoritative source of instructions?

Your failure to provide a correct answer leaves one with the presumption that you are suggesting that the brain is independent of outside influence.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brain Says nothing about processing input, though it might be inferred by the definition.

Ah, but you are evading the question when you deliver a meaningless response. A response that does not address the question.

 

Of course it does. It comes FROM the brain. A process originates from the cause of the process.

The process of applying ink to paper comes from the cause of that process, usually a printing press.

Ah yes, now you are getting where you'd obviously like to be. As I expected, you're interested in knowing my thoughts on who built the printing press and not the processes it makes. I'm glad you finally realized that you had to ask completely different questions to get there.

So...

Who or what designed the function of the brain? Life processes as described by the various fields of biology.

Who gave the brain instructions that the brain would recognize as being an authoritative source of instructions? No one.

LOL My answer was not agreeable to you and it's your perogative to thus deem it as incorrect, but I'm really not interested in seeing you twist and turn.