Annihilation: a welcome prospect?

[Tobael]

I have traced any fear of death I have to a fear of annihilation. I cannot bear the thought of not existing at all. I understand that atheist Jean Paul Sartre had a similar fear, and as he moved towards old age and death he masked his despair through women and drink. Do other atheists share this fear? Have they properly considered the prospect?

Nick

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I have traced any fear of death I have to a fear of annihilation. I cannot bear the thought of not existing at all. I understand that atheist Jean Paul Sartre had a similar fear, and as he moved towards old age and death he masked his despair through women and drink. Do other atheists share this fear? Have they properly considered the prospect?

I don't feel the prospect of non-existence is so fearful as it is depressing, but in either case, wouldn't such a common dread tend to explain, psychologically, why religion was developed in the first place? Just about all religions offer some hope of a possible afterlife (even reincarnation is a type of afterlife) Now, if man cannot abide the concept of non-existence (since existence is all we know) wouldn't that provide a strong motivation to invent beliefs which would alleviate that fear or despair by offering some sort of possible existence beyond this life?

 

[Tobael]

It could, Brad, but also such a yearning for eternity could point to man's implicit anticipation of such; eternity being built into his nature. It is interesting that most (all?) of our primitive ancestors had belief in an afterlife, as if such belief is a natural part of who we are.

What I am saying is that it seems to be a belief natural to man, rather than something he has made up through fear.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

It could, Brad, but also such a yearning for eternity could point to man's implicit anticipation of such; eternity being built into his nature. It is interesting that most (all?) of our primitive ancestors had belief in an afterlife, as if such belief is a natural part of who we are.

What I am saying is that it seems to be a belief natural to man, rather than something he has made up through fear.

I think that's a stretch. "Occam's Razor" would seem to apply to this question, that being, when puzzling out something which can't be proven either way, the simplest or most likely explanation is the logical choice, and the most likely explanation is that belief in an afterlife is common to humans because they can't accept the thought of non-existence, which you yourself give evidence to in your initial post. The belief in an afterlife is a "natural part of who we are" BECAUSE of our fear of dying.

Look at it this way...

Does something have to be "built into our nature" for us to yearn for it? We desire what we can CONCEIVE. I don't think dogs and cats sit around desiring an afterlife because they don't have the intelligence to develop the concept of any possible existence beyond their present lives. I am sure they don't dwell on, or even conceive, that they will one day die. But when beings have the intelligence to realize they will die, it is only natural that they invent the possibility of eternal life, in the same manner that a person "stranded on a desert isle" might eventually invent imaginary friends to talk to, because he can't accept the fact that he is totally alone.

 

[Free]

The problem is BradtheImpaler, that it is built into us and for you to deny that is to show inconsitency in your beliefs. Since you essentially deny the existence of God and that everything is the result of a natural evolutionary process, Christians should, according to this position, have no choice in what to believe, it's programmed into our DNA. Yet you want us to believe that we are wrong, which would undermine your very beliefs in naturalism. If naturalism is true then we can never really change our minds, invent beliefs, or have free will.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

The problem is BradtheImpaler, that it is built into us and for you to deny that is to show inconsitency in your belief

And my beliefs are...?

Since you essentially deny the existence of God and that everything is the result of a natural evolutionary process

I don't deny the existence of God and I am not convinced of evolution.

Christians should, according to this position, have no choice in what to believe, it's programmed into our DNA. Yet you want us to believe that we are wrong, which would undermine your very beliefs in naturalism. If naturalism is true then we can never really change our minds, invent beliefs, or have free will.

What would this have to do with DNA? People see death, they would rather live forever, so there is a logical motivation to invent a belief that grants the possibility of eternal life, and some people feel better by believing that, some people think it is a "crock", and some people just don't know. If we were programmed to believe or not to believe, there would ONLY be believers or non-believers.

Besides - if you think naturalism is guilty of predestination, you should have a talk with a CALVINIST. (I think there's one around here?)

 

[Free]

And my beliefs are...?

I don't deny the existence of God and I am not convinced of evolution.

Apparently, I do not know what your beliefs are. : : My bad.

What would this have to do with DNA? People see death, they would rather live forever, so there is a logical motivation to invent a belief that grants the possibility of eternal life, and some people feel better by believing that, some people think it is a "crock", and some people just don't know. If we were programmed to believe or not to believe, there would ONLY be believers or non-believers.

I am not arguing that it is programmed into our DNA. That was my argument against your naturalistic beliefs, which apparently are not so naturalistic (realizing of course that those beliefs come in varying degrees).

However, I agree with Tobael that there is something in all of us that yearns for eternal life and the existence of God. Yes, some deny it, but even they wish it were true; some don't know, but this means they also wish it were true and are considering it. But some also believe apart from fearing death or because it makes them feel better. Some are compelled to believe and it seems as though they cannot not believe.

Besides - if you think naturalism is guilty of predestination, you should have a talk with a CALVINIST.

Which is one reason why I reject Calvinism.

 

[ThinkerMan]

I agree there is something in us yearning for eternal life. We are unique among life on earth in that we KNOW we will die.

All animals have a desire to survive and procreate. These are base assumptions for life to continue.

Since we recognize that we will die, we still yearn to survive in some other place. God (or belief in God) offers a way to prolong life and survive (in this case for eternity.)

Personally, I am not too scared of death, except for the pain part. I don't remember anything bad or regretful before I was born, and I suppose I will feel the same after I leave.

 

[Tobael]

Have you really considered, Thinkerman, the possiblilty of annihilation? I can't bear the idea. But, is it really this fear that has inspired religion and belief in an afterlife? Is it common for men to deny something just because they fear it? My understanding is that men rather make things up which cause them to fear, or exaggerate existent things to make them more fearful. Examples being the Greek mythical gods, dragons, giants, etc.

I think, rather, that there is some sense within man which speaks of an afterlife and which has inspired each community to interpret this in various ways. I think that if each person was destined for annihilation at least some of them (talking primitive communities here) would have cottoned on and just accepted it.

Why is it that only in the past 200 years or so (after the so called Enlightenment) has mankind questioned the idea of an afterlife? It's not as if we are any closer to understanding the origins of the universe. In fact there are now more questions than answers. The more we delve the more we realise we know nothing. God's existence is still the most plausible explanation for the universe, yet because it is possible to wriggle out of the idea, we think we can dismiss Him.

What has such rejection of the idea of an afterlife brought? Despair and restlessness. This in turn is buried in alcohol, women and every excess. Society is sick as it has lost its perspective. If all we have is this life, no wonder people are selfish and have an attitude that says grab it while you can and let pleasure be your god!

 

[ThinkerMan]

Have you really considered, Thinkerman, the possiblilty of annihilation? I can't bear the idea.

Yes I have. I imagine I will feel (or more accurately NOT feel) the same as I did for the billions of years before my first memory at about age 3).

I won't think anymore, but I won't know I won't think. I won't feel, but I will be unaware of my unfeeling.

It may seem terrible, but I won't be there not to enjoy it.

But, is it really this fear that has inspired religion and belief in an afterlife? Is it common for men to deny something just because they fear it? My understanding is that men rather make things up which cause them to fear, or exaggerate existent things to make them more fearful. Examples being the Greek mythical gods, dragons, giants, etc.

I would throw Yahweh, or even the deity of Jesus in those examples, but my short answer would be yes.

It is not just fear of death, but also a yearning to understand the world. "God of the Gaps" filled a lot of these holes about what they knew about the world. I think it is a combination of the two that inspire man to look upwards.

I think, rather, that there is some sense within man which speaks of an afterlife and which has inspired each community to interpret this in various ways. I think that if each person was destined for annihilation at least some of them (talking primitive communities here) would have cottoned on and just accepted it.

To my knowledge, not every ancient culture had an afterlife. However, assuming they did, I again argue that it could be a function of not wanting to die. Since we are concious of our life, and aware of our death, that runs directly counter to our naturalistic zeal to survive. Providing an afterlife provides an "out" that soothes our fear of death.

I don't think that is necessarily irrational, by the way.

Why is it that only in the past 200 years or so (after the so called Enlightenment) has mankind questioned the idea of an afterlife? It's not as if we are any closer to understanding the origins of the universe. In fact there are now more questions than answers. The more we delve the more we realise we know nothing. God's existence is still the most plausible explanation for the universe, yet because it is possible to wriggle out of the idea, we think we can dismiss Him.

Again, to my knowledge, there have been skeptics throughout history.

I don't agree with your contention that because we have more questions, we know less. As the curtain of the God of the Gaps was pealed back through the advances of knowledge and science over the recent centuries, we have narrowed the room for where God can fit.

God used to be in the thunder and lightening. In the hurricanes and the blizzards. In comets and meteorites. Now, we know what they are, and God is removed.

Knowledge of our universe is like an onion. As we learn more and peal back the layers, new and exciting questions emerge. You can continue to argue that God lies beneath the next layer, but history has told us that the advancement of knowledge will continue, and that next layer will be revealed.

god (lower case) is a plausible explanation. That is different from
the most plausible". It has no bearing on which god.

Science, with respect to the operation and beginning of the universe, has no commentary on the role of god. It only explains what appears to be the mechanisms. I do not think it proves, nor disproves god.

You also fail to define what that god is. If god is eternal and self-creating, then by default I can so define the universe as eternal and self-creating.

What has such rejection of the idea of an afterlife brought? Despair and restlessness. This in turn is buried in alcohol, women and every excess. Society is sick as it has lost its perspective. If all we have is this life, no wonder people are selfish and have an attitude that says grab it while you can and let pleasure be your god!

Lost perspective? Given women the rights they deserved? Reduced slavery across the globe? Allowed people to influence their environment instead of being subject to it?

Alcohol (Noah), women (David) and excesses (Solomon) are not new to our generation or millenium. To create a downhill slide, then blame it on skepticism creates a false dilemma, in my estimation.

I don't disagree with you that through creating new freedoms, many have taken advantage to their personal detriment. However, confining them to a de facto societial slavery just to prevent such bad personal decisions I find much more immoral.

I appreciate the honest discourse Tobael.

 

[Tobael]

Have you really considered, Thinkerman, the possiblilty of annihilation? I can't bear the idea.

Yes I have. I imagine I will feel (or more accurately NOT feel) the same as I did for the billions of years before my first memory at about age 3).

I won't think anymore, but I won't know I won't think. I won't feel, but I will be unaware of my unfeeling.

It may seem terrible, but I won't be there not to enjoy it.

It's the prospect of death that is fearful.

To my knowledge, not every ancient culture had an afterlife. However, assuming they did, I again argue that it could be a function of not wanting to die. Since we are concious of our life, and aware of our death, that runs directly counter to our naturalistic zeal to survive. Providing an afterlife provides an "out" that soothes our fear of death.

Like I said before, mankind doesn't generally shun those things it fears, but often elaborates on them. If we were purely physical beings, living on instinct alone, what would be the need to believe in an afterlife? Why should our "naturalistic zeal to survive" extend beyond death? Once our reproductive life is over, then our genetic programming, if that is all that makes us function, should cause us to simply fade away in peace. But it doesn't. We often live fulfilling, meaningful lives into old age, as if continuing our character development for some further existence beyond this life.

Again, to my knowledge, there have been skeptics throughout history.

I was speaking of the trend within mankind as a whole. There will always be aberrations.

I don't agree with your contention that because we have more questions, we know less. As the curtain of the God of the Gaps was pealed back through the advances of knowledge and science over the recent centuries, we have narrowed the room for where God can fit.

God used to be in the thunder and lightening. In the hurricanes and the blizzards. In comets and meteorites. Now, we know what they are, and God is removed.

I think what science discovers is an ever more intricately ordered universe. It is interesting that we anticipate such order and set out to find it. The more we realise its intricacy, the more confused we should become, as, if we contend that it is a godless universe we are investigating, we are left with the startling and evermore irrational conclusion that such order, evermore complex as it becomes, is produced by ever-random occurrences. The only "get-out" that I have come across is the idea that such complexity need not have a designer if we have an infinite-universe model. To me, this is clutching at straws.

Knowledge of our universe is like an onion. As we learn more and peal back the layers, new and exciting questions emerge. You can continue to argue that God lies beneath the next layer, but history has told us that the advancement of knowledge will continue, and that next layer will be revealed.

But there are questions that we will never be able to answer, because our minds are finite. There has to be an element of the infinte in the universe and there is no way, even if someone told us of it, that we would be able to understand it.

god (lower case) is a plausible explanation. That is different from
the most plausible". It has no bearing on which god.

By God, I mean a designer, a first cause who is completely self-sufficient. Such a being is necessary for the universe to be here at all. Such a being is also necessarily impossible for us to understand. You may give the universe itself those characteristics (self-sufficiency, etc) but it seems more logical to me that the God that we understand through revelation has them.

Science, with respect to the operation and beginning of the universe, has no commentary on the role of god. It only explains what appears to be the mechanisms. I do not think it proves, nor disproves god.

I think it proves the need for a designer, simply because the evidence points strongly to the universe being "designed". I believe that if we cannot say that the universe is designed, from the evidence, then neither can we say that what science tells us is true. This is because science depends on an assumption that the results it provides fits our hypothesis, rather than their being the product of chance. Take the orbits of the planets. Observation tells us that the orbits of the planets are obeying the laws of gravity, because they move in a certain way in keeping with such laws. But, suppose they are really moving randomly, but by chance they appear to move in regular circular orbits. The chances of this are greater than zero, so in an infinite universe model such occurances will happen at random, somewhere. This blows scientific theories into oblivion. In short, if we say that our universe is not designed, despite the evidence, but has come about through random chance, then its apparent mechanism as discovered by science could also be random and therefore nothing that science tells us is proof of anything.

You also fail to define what that god is. If god is eternal and self-creating, then by default I can so define the universe as eternal and self-creating.

Why do you need to do this? We have been told about God and have believed in Him for millenia, plus it makes sense. Why try and find an alternative just because it is possible to do so? And even then it is a non-sensical alternative.

Lost perspective? Given women the rights they deserved? Reduced slavery across the globe? Allowed people to influence their environment instead of being subject to it?

These things are not the result of God or His laws, but are part of humanity's sinfulness. God takes men where He finds them and gradually reveals His law, the pinnacle of which is to love your neighbour as yourself and God with your whole heart and soul. No law has bettered this.

Alcohol (Noah), women (David) and excesses (Solomon) are not new to our generation or millenium. To create a downhill slide, then blame it on skepticism creates a false dilemma, in my estimation.

These display human weakness. Man is created free and often abuses his freedom. God has latterly given us His Spirit and redeemed our fallen nature through Christ, and it is only in accepting Christ that we are recreated and made able to overcome our weaknesses and only then in stages.

I don't disagree with you that through creating new freedoms, many have taken advantage to their personal detriment. However, confining them to a de facto societial slavery just to prevent such bad personal decisions I find much more immoral.

As Christ says, anyone who commits sin is a slave. We are made for God and we can only fulfill our natures by following His will. We become more free the more we follow God's will, just as, say, a knife can be said to be more free in slicing bread than in digging a ditch.

I appreciate the honest discourse Tobael.

I do as well, Thinkerman. An honest search for truth.

Nick

 

[BradtheImpaler]

However, I agree with Tobael that there is something in all of us that yearns for eternal life and the existence of God. Yes, some deny it, but even they wish it were true; some don't know, but this means they also wish it were true and are considering it. But some also believe apart from fearing death or because it makes them feel better. Some are compelled to believe and it seems as though they cannot not believe

Most people, at some point, fantasize that they can fly. We see birds, we wish we could do that. Why? Because God has placed it in our hearts that we can or should be able to fly? No, it's because we CAN'T fly that we wish we could.
Flying looks thrilling - to live forever (in an enjoyable condition) even moreso. THERE is all the motivation necessary to explain why humans would want to conceive of the possibility of afterlife, and eventually invent religions that would promise such.

 

[Tobael]

I think there is a difference between wishful thinking and what we actually believe to be true. No one would suggest that wishing to fly means there is a possibilty we can fly.

Our innate anticipation of an afterlife must go beyond our instincts, because the species doesn't depend on it. It also must go beyond our desires, because the afterlife we anticipate is not wholly pleasant and in many ways is something we would wish to avoid, namely the possibility of Hell and an eternity of suffering. If we had made it up for the sake of our desires, we would have excluded this part.

This tells me that we are looking at something that simply exists and is reflected by who and what we are: beings created for eternity.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

I wish that I could discuss this topic with you but I am forbidden.

 

[Tobael]

Yes, Gendou Ikari, UR talk is banned. In fact UR really is wishful thinking, but enough said. :

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I think there is a difference between wishful thinking and what we actually believe to be true. No one would suggest that wishing to fly means there is a possibilty we can fly.

Our innate anticipation of an afterlife must go beyond our instincts, because the species doesn't depend on it

It does go beyond our instincts - into the realm of IMAGINATION. Imagination is something our species possesses because of our level of intelligence. But just because we can imagine something isn't evidence of it's reality. The afterlife concept is just a very obvious avenue of imagination, since death is so devastating a subject to the living.

It also must go beyond our desires, because the afterlife we anticipate is not wholly pleasant and in many ways is something we would wish to avoid, namely the possibility of Hell and an eternity of suffering. If we had made it up for the sake of our desires, we would have excluded this part

True, but imagination is not confined only to desire but also FEAR. Unfortunately, we (as a race) probably utilize our imagination (unwittingly) more to anticipate what we fear than what we dont - this is called "worry".

Besides, I think the hell possibility was "stoked" :roll: by the creedalists who used it as a mind weapon to help guarantee orthodoxy among the masses.

This tells me that we are looking at something that simply exists and is reflected by who and what we are: beings created for eternity.

Well, I just think that us being prone to imagining something is not evidence for that something's reality. For instance, the majority of religions, historically, have been polytheistic. Is this evidence that there really IS more than one God? No, they got this theology from their imagination - and it MAY just be that theology itself is a product of the imagination, if we follow the reasoning through.

 

[Gendou Ikari]

Yes, Gendou Ikari, UR talk is banned. In fact UR really is wishful thinking, but enough said.

It's not wishful thinking but Biblically sound. And you are right, enough is said.

 

[Tobael]

I think there is a difference between wishful thinking and what we actually believe to be true. No one would suggest that wishing to fly means there is a possibilty we can fly.

Our innate anticipation of an afterlife must go beyond our instincts, because the species doesn't depend on it

It does go beyond our instincts - into the realm of IMAGINATION. Imagination is something our species possesses because of our level of intelligence. But just because we can imagine something isn't evidence of it's reality. The afterlife concept is just a very obvious avenue of imagination, since death is so devastating a subject to the living.

It also must go beyond our desires, because the afterlife we anticipate is not wholly pleasant and in many ways is something we would wish to avoid, namely the possibility of Hell and an eternity of suffering. If we had made it up for the sake of our desires, we would have excluded this part

True, but imagination is not confined only to desire but also FEAR. Unfortunately, we (as a race) probably utilize our imagination (unwittingly) more to anticipate what we fear than what we dont - this is called "worry".

Besides, I think the hell possibility was "stoked" :roll: by the creedalists who used it as a mind weapon to help guarantee orthodoxy among the masses.

[quote:0d09b]This tells me that we are looking at something that simply exists and is reflected by who and what we are: beings created for eternity.

Well, I just think that us being prone to imagining something is not evidence for that something's reality. For instance, the majority of religions, historically, have been polytheistic. Is this evidence that there really IS more than one God? No, they got this theology from their imagination - and it MAY just be that theology itself is a product of the imagination, if we follow the reasoning through.[/quote:0d09b]

I see belief in an afterlife as coming from an INNATE anticipation of such, rather than imagination, because it seems to be common to all peoples, whereas imagination is sporadic and would create a spectrum of ideas, from afterlife to fearful beliefs about the dreadful prospect of annihilation. I am not aware of the latter belief as naturally occurring in human societies. So, the afterlife belief seems to go deeper than imagination to something natural (innate) in our being.

You said yourself that imagination often focuses on fear and such a tendency would also produce beliefs reflecting annihilation (one of our most fearful prospects), if imagination were responsible for our afterlife beliefs.

Regarding polytheistic religions, I think this a case of imagination working on what man perceives about God, innately and also from reason. He perceives that God exists (without any details) from what he senses inside himself and from what he sees in creation. Imagination often fills in the gaps in a way that doesn't reflect reality. Man may see apparent chaos in nature, e.g. storms and earthquakes, as pointing to a conflict between rival gods. It is interesting that only after it was accepted that God is one did the sciences take off, as man began to look for an ordered universe, rather than a chaotically controlled one. He sought and he found.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

I see belief in an afterlife as coming from an INNATE anticipation of such, rather than imagination

But imagination IS "innate" also.

because it seems to be common to all peoples, whereas imagination is sporadic and would create a spectrum of ideas, from afterlife to fearful beliefs about the dreadful prospect of annihilation. I am not aware of the latter belief as naturally occurring in human societies. So, the afterlife belief seems to go deeper than imagination to something natural (innate) in our being

But concepts of an afterlife ARE as varied as religions they are part of. From the Christian "streets of gold" to the Islamic "70 virgins" to Hindu reincarnation etc. Varied concepts of an afterlife is just what we would expect from the imaginations of varied peoples and cultures.

You said yourself that imagination often focuses on fear and such a tendency would also produce beliefs reflecting annihilation (one of our most fearful prospects), if imagination were responsible for our afterlife beliefs

Actually, "annihilation" is the chief belief among the non-religious. Although they usually phrase it like -

"When you're dead, you're dead"

...that is, the cessation of existence. This concept requires the least imagination, as all the evidence we know of would point in this direction. When we consider that millions who are labelled Christian, Moslem, Hindu, etc. don't really believe in an afterlife but are statistically labelled members of a religion because of their culture or family history, it is certain that a large contingent of mankind may actually believe in what you call annihilation. If I were to use your reasoning, I could say that belief in annihilation is "innate".

Regarding polytheistic religions, I think this a case of imagination working on what man perceives about God, innately and also from reason. He perceives that God exists (without any details) from what he senses inside himself and from what he sees in creation. Imagination often fills in the gaps in a way that doesn't reflect reality

So you DO believe imagination is at work in all this to some extent - but how do you determine the extent? Why do you suppose imagination is responsible for conjecture about what God is like, or how many Gods there are, but don't entertain the possibility that it may also be responsible for what you call the innate belief in God in the first place?

Man may see apparent chaos in nature, e.g. storms and earthquakes, as pointing to a conflict between rival gods. It is interesting that only after it was accepted that God is one did the sciences take off, as man began to look for an ordered universe, rather than a chaotically controlled one. He sought and he found.

I don't know where you get this from? The sciences didn't "take off" when a religious doctrine was decided upon - it took off when western civilization began to emerge from the constraints of the "Church-State" situation of the Middle Ages when religion was actually responsible for inhibiting scientific progress.

 

[Tobael]

I see belief in an afterlife as coming from an INNATE anticipation of such, rather than imagination

But imagination IS "innate" also.

But the innate sense I believe we have of an afterlife creates a common (largely) belief in it, whereas imagination is only a tool and creates arbitrary views.

[quote:a1dfd]because it seems to be common to all peoples, whereas imagination is sporadic and would create a spectrum of ideas, from afterlife to fearful beliefs about the dreadful prospect of annihilation. I am not aware of the latter belief as naturally occurring in human societies. So, the afterlife belief seems to go deeper than imagination to something natural (innate) in our being

But concepts of an afterlife ARE as varied as religions they are part of. From the Christian "streets of gold" to the Islamic "70 virgins" to Hindu reincarnation etc. Varied concepts of an afterlife is just what we would expect from the imaginations of varied peoples and cultures.[/quote:a1dfd]

I think having eternity built into our nature creates the GENERAL anticipation of an afterlife, whereas imagination fills in the details arbitrarily for the non-Christian religions which don't have God's revelation.

[quote:a1dfd]You said yourself that imagination often focuses on fear and such a tendency would also produce beliefs reflecting annihilation (one of our most fearful prospects), if imagination were responsible for our afterlife beliefs

Actually, "annihilation" is the chief belief among the non-religious. Although they usually phrase it like -

"When you're dead, you're dead"

...that is, the cessation of existence. This concept requires the least imagination, as all the evidence we know of would point in this direction. When we consider that millions who are labelled Christian, Moslem, Hindu, etc. don't really believe in an afterlife but are statistically labelled members of a religion because of their culture or family history, it is certain that a large contingent of mankind may actually believe in what you call annihilation. If I were to use your reasoning, I could say that belief in annihilation is "innate". [/quote:a1dfd]

But I think this results from "scientific dogma" which has permeated humanity's psyche and covered over, in some, what is natural for us to believe, i.e. eternal life.

[quote:a1dfd]Regarding polytheistic religions, I think this a case of imagination working on what man perceives about God, innately and also from reason. He perceives that God exists (without any details) from what he senses inside himself and from what he sees in creation. Imagination often fills in the gaps in a way that doesn't reflect reality

So you DO believe imagination is at work in all this to some extent - but how do you determine the extent? Why do you suppose imagination is responsible for conjecture about what God is like, or how many Gods there are, but don't entertain the possibility that it may also be responsible for what you call the innate belief in God in the first place?[/quote:a1dfd]

I believe imagination works all the time, even in the Bible writers, who had to place God's revelation into human terms. This is why it is necessary to know the culture from which such writers came. I don't entertain the possibility that it may also be responsible for belief in God because God's existence is evident from creation, i.e. objectively, as the First Cause and Designer.

[quote:a1dfd]Man may see apparent chaos in nature, e.g. storms and earthquakes, as pointing to a conflict between rival gods. It is interesting that only after it was accepted that God is one did the sciences take off, as man began to look for an ordered universe, rather than a chaotically controlled one. He sought and he found.

I don't know where you get this from? The sciences didn't "take off" when a religious doctrine was decided upon - it took off when western civilization began to emerge from the constraints of the "Church-State" situation of the Middle Ages when religion was actually responsible for inhibiting scientific progress.[/quote:a1dfd]

I got it from one of my theology coursebooks on the proof of God's existence. It said that the seeds of scientific development were sown in the later Middle Ages and the Renaissance, when it was commonly accepted that the world was made by God. It said that the Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) worldview saw God as intelligible and so expected the world to "make sense."