I’m not necessarily an advocate of GOD, but I’d like to comment on a particular argument. That is, that God exists only in the mind. I don’t disagree with this by any means, but I’m forced to ask myself the question then, what doesn’t just exist in the mind?
Surely we can make the usual arguments for the objective world and I won’t dive into all of that at this point, but only to say this; certainly what exists in the mind is somewhat a product of what exists in the world, unless of course we’re a brain in the vat (which I don’t advocate either). Having said that, surely all ideas come from the world, yes? Does David Hume’s senseless individual have ideas? Does he have any idea that he’s alive? Who knows I suppose.
The idea of God, you could say, also comes from the world. It’s not something fabricated by the mind, how can fabrication take place without stimuli. Is it possible that people are right or wrong? And in what sense is this possible? If I say for example, that 2 + 2 = 6, you’d say I was wrong. But why am I wrong? Typically (we could say) it’s because one doesn’t completely understand the symbolism. Surely if you set one apple in front of me, then a second apple a minute or so later I would understand the change. One might not be able to communicate it logically (as in 1 + 1 = 2), but this doesn’t mean that I haven’t seen or understand my change in reality.
Mathematics, science and logic are (to me) nothing more then a language whose goal is painting a picture of the world that is homogenous. One in which we all “agree” to objectively, with special attention to the quotes there. When an individual is found to be wrong after proposing a certain thing, it’s not because his eyes deceived him, or that reality somehow shifted its focus for him; what we see is what we see, the world is as it is. What’s wrong is what we *say* about what we experience relative to our communal language. What was communicated was not accurate relative to the rules of language.
That said, the language of religion is simply not compatible with the language of science. They both deal in two separate realities. The basis with which they may be wrong is not relative to reality, but relative to the way we speak about reality. Part of the problem that I see today, is that religion is starting to borrow from science to validate its own existence, and this is a problem due to they’re incompatibility. Creation again (following from below) is a scientific idea, not a religious one; religion should leave it at that. Furthermore, to say that God exists in the mind is just as ridiculous as saying science exists in the mind.
The ultimate question will be then, what does religion talk about and what is God anyway?