People make up fictional characters; mental models of non-existent people. Matter in our brains is rearranged to encode information about our models. This matter exists. Remove the part of the brain in which the encoded matter is found & that model is gone. Its physical manifestation has been destroyed. If this physical manifestation did not exist we could not destroy it.
Religion occurs when people misinterpret their mental model as something existing outside themselves. Nonetheless the mental model has a matter component which must exist for the model to exist. In this sense, & this sense only, can any god or goddess be said to exist in the physical world.
Therefore: If someone believes in a god there is a 100% chance that the brain matter encoding this model exists.
Good point,I would like to add that the problem with idea even if it encoded in mind it have to be consistent with deeds, if someone agree with god as idea then he have to act as god is real or else he will suffer the inconsistency.
“To understand why consistency is so powerful a motive, it is important to recognize that in most circumstances consistency is valued and adaptive. Inconsistency is commonly thought to be an undesirable personality trait. The person whose beliefs, words, and deeds don’t match may be seen as indecisive, confused, two-faced, or even mentally ill. On the other side, a high degree of consistency is normally associated with personal and intellectual strength. It is at the heart of logic, rationality, stability, and honesty.”
Emerson quote from “Self-Reliance” “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds adored by little statesmen, and philosophers, and divines.”
Trying to think & act consistently using a mental model inconsistent with realty. That's a big of a challenge. I'm not up to it. I'll stick with reality.
Many consider god is real, because there is social proof support it, not because it’s actually real.
When people are uncertain, they are more likely to use others’ actions to decide how they themselves should act.
Social evidence can be used on us—not by others, but by ourselves—to assure us that what we prefer to be real will seem to be real.
And some may say “there is no way that all these people are wrong”
But for centuries almost all the people in the world think earth is flat and stars are only decorations.
Social support for a reality paradigm. Hadn't thought about it this way.
It makes good sense. One could say that Christians & Muslims are feeling threatened because their consensus realities are being eroded through exposure to different ideas, beliefs & philosophies.
That's why some of them get so upset when I politely don't affirm their beliefs.
What is social "proof"? This in understanding what "Proof" actually means. I suspect you are saying the believe because lots of others do in what is known as an ad populum fallacy. Religions do rely heavily, if not entirely on using social control and fear to effectively brainwash and control their target audience. They also use the family structure against itself as well as peer pressure knowing many will simply concede and not want or desire to be the subject of scorn, ridicule, threat, or seen as the outsider to whom is then rejected to being an outcast. Most religions are straight up cults and highly tribal.
You welcome Jay
What those around us think is true of us is enormously important in determining what we ourselves think is true.
It’s obvious that if one born in a religious society he will grow religious, and then he have to make commitment – go church or mosque ,pray , read bible or quran- , And trifling commitments can lead to extraordinary further behavior.
Once an active commitment is made, then, self-image is squeezed from both sides by consistency pressures. From the inside, there is a pressure to bring self-image into line with action. From the outside, there is a sneakier pressure—a tendency to adjust this image according to the way others perceive him. And because others see him as believing in what he is doing or saying (even when he has little choice), he will once again experience a pull to bring self-image into line with what he do or say.
If God did exist as the object of people's religious perceptions, then those religious perceptions would be like sight.
Remove someone's eyes (ouch!) and they no longer have sight. That does not disprove the existence of things to be seen.
The religious mental model is like a computer simulation. I can play Mech Warrior but I would really be deluded if I thought I could actually steal a Madcat & go rampaging through a city. It's only software which is the product of the all programmers & artists imaginations. On one level I find this fact extremely disappointing but it's probably for the better.
Just because people think there is a god and it shows up in brain matter does not mean there is a god......It is just that people are thinking that he exists......This is what brainwashing can do...Our brain is extremely complex...Illusions of dead loved ones and even of Christ are just that....Illusions....similar to what people see on an LSD trip....Because the brain is so stimulated....
100% is close enough for me. Why allow any credence to stories made up by ancient peoples trying to explain natural phenomena? "Well, science doesn't know everything." Okay, but it certainly gets closer to reality than "just-so" stories. Science at least checks out its explanations. And the fairytale fall-back position doesn't appeal to me in the least.
Here's the closest I come to the idea that a God of some sort might exist:
The "mathematical universe" idea is that our universe is composed of mathematics. That is, our universe is a piece of mathematics. The cosmologist Max Tegmark wrote about this idea in Our Mathematical Universe.
In this theory, we are conscious mathematical subsystems of the universe. The universe is "real" because it's a complicated enough piece of mathematics to have conscious subsystems.
According to this theory, any mathematics that fulfills some conditions is real. It's a kind of Platonism.
So there would be an infinite mathematical reality, of which our universe is a sub-theory. Our universe is the working out of some mathematical assumptions, which include the laws of physics. It's like a long derivation, or plotting values given for a differential equation, or running a computer program.
Now, does our universe require something to "run" it? Does there have to be Something to "think" all that mathematics?
I don't say that Something must be conscious. Nor do I know if a Something is required to "run" the universe.
It's a deep question. But perhaps, a question for which there is a genuine non handwaving answer.
What is the difference between writing down the laws of physics and initial conditions for our universe, and our universe?