Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

muppeteer wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by chance? We don't really have a good theory for the creation of the universe yet.

you can say that again ... in relation to the naturalistic 'explanations' proffered to date!!!!:)

marienbad wrote: »

Have you read the testimony to those others Gods ? How do you know yours is the correct one ?

I've read quite a bit about other religions. Indeed in my local area, I've started to dialogue with a number of Muslims, and get to know about them and their beliefs more seriously. In short, I've spoken to lots of people about their beliefs, and I'm interested in listening to them and understanding more about them and what they believe.

I trust Jesus - because I can study the eyewitness accounts and see that they hold up in every respect. I trust Jesus - because I can see what He's doing in my life, and the life of others. I trust Jesus - because I can see that His words hold up in this generation. I trust Jesus - because what He says is demonstrably true in the world around us.

I'd challenge you to read through Mark's Gospel chapter by chapter and see what you can object to. PM me if you're up for the challenge, and I'll be ready to listen to anything you have to say to me. That applies to any atheist on boards.ie.

J C wrote: »

That's a fundamentally different question to the issue of whether God(s) exists ... you are now questioning the type of god(s) and not whether they exist in the first place ...
... so before we go there, are you now accepting that God/Gods exist?

Not in the slightest- so now would you answer the question please ?

philologos wrote: »

Can I ask you what do you find so objectionable about Jesus Christ as He's presented in the Gospels? Why do you run from Him? That's the core of the issue.

A very interesting and important question.

In my own case, I didn't so much run from Him ... as ignore Him ... until I realised how much I needed Him ... and when I was Saved, how much I admired and loved Him for what He did for a wretch like me.

Sorry for butting in ... now over to the Atheists and Agnostics ... to answer your question.

marienbad wrote: »

Not in the slightest- so now would you answer the question please ?

As you don't accept that God/Gods exist ... we shouldn't divert the thread down a route examining the merits of various gods ... when you don't accept that god(s) exist, in the first place.

J C wrote: »

A very interesting and important question.

In my own case, I didn't so much run from Him ... as ignore Him ... until I realised how much I needed Him ... and when I was Saved, how much I admired and loved Him for what He did for a wretch like me.

Sorry for butting in ... now over to the Atheists and Agnostics ... to answer your question.

Great point - I think the crux of understanding Christianity is when you really understand that Christ died for people like us (Romans 5:8). When you start to realise that your constant rebellion against Him actually matters. When you realise that you've been living the wrong way all your life until now. That's when you're convinced to commit your entire being to the Gospel. I can relate to that, it was a huge part in my coming to know Jesus.

My faith has had ups and downs since, but I can still remember the day when I decided to live for Him rather than living for myself. It was literally the best day of my life, and it changed every single day after.

I think we should look to Jesus in this discussion. I want to know why Jesus is an issue to atheists. I'd like to know from looking to Mark's Gospel what would their objections be to what He says?

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

I have extensively. It's why I rejected agnosticism about 5 years ago and decided to accept Jesus Christ as my Saviour and follow Him. Simply put, I find the atheistic naturalism that you guys put across as deeply lacking, on a logical level as well as on any other level. Christianity provides a much better explanation for why we are the way we are as human beings than atheism does. Christianity explains the fallen state of man, much much better than atheism does.

You don't even understand the meaning of the word atheism. All it is means, you just don't believe in religions. That's it - nothing else! It doesn't try to offer an explanation for anything.

This is why I wouldn't bother wasting my time debating with you. You obviously have no interest interest in any sort of meaningful research.

philologos wrote: »

I've read quite a bit about other religions. Indeed in my local area, I've started to dialogue with a number of Muslims, and get to know about them and their beliefs more seriously. In short, I've spoken to lots of people about their beliefs, and I'm interested in listening to them and understanding more about them and what they believe.

I trust Jesus - because I can study the eyewitness accounts and see that they hold up in every respect. I trust Jesus - because I can see what He's doing in my life, and the life of others. I trust Jesus - because I can see that His words hold up in this generation. I trust Jesus - because what He says is demonstrably true in the world around us.

I'd challenge you to read through Mark's Gospel chapter by chapter and see what you can object to. PM me if you're up for the challenge, and I'll be ready to listen to anything you have to say to me. That applies to any atheist on boards.ie.

You do see that this is a purely subjective view and could equally apply to any individual in any other faith ?

So what made you pick your particular brand of faith as opposed to any other ? Was it just a subjective decision or was there an element of objective proof involved ?

[Deleted User]

philologos wrote: »

Can I ask you what do you find so objectionable about Jesus Christ as He's presented in the Gospels? Why do you run from Him? That's the core of the issue.

I don't think it's accurate to say that atheists "run from [Jesus]." It's a matter of belief; one can't force oneself to believe something; a person can only accumulate knowledge, perhaps in the hope that such knowledge will change their belief -- it's important to note that belief can't be altered on a whim, its alteration is an unconscious process. I'm sure you understand this, and I'm sure you've heard it before, but most atheists cannot bring themselves to believe in Jesus; it's not a matter of rejection, or running, or finding it all objectionable ... it's simply a matter of not being able to bring oneself to believe something that one finds unbelievable. The same principle applies to a lot of aspects in life.

Tim Robbins

philologos wrote: »

My faith has had ups and downs since, but I can still remember the day when I decided to live for Him rather than living for myself. It was literally the best day of my life, and it changed every single day after.

I think we should look to Jesus in this discussion. I want to know why Jesus is an issue to atheists.

Again, this makes no sense.

Some atheists might have an issue with Jesus. Some may not. The only generalisation you can make about atheism and atheists is that they don't believe any of the supernatural claims of any religion.

That's it.

I think the Gospels are a pack of chinese whispers written by ignorant people who had about the same knowledge of the universe as a 7 year old would today. I think the same of all religious scripture.

If I want real truth, I go to science, logic... There is much more substance to these things. Religion is like a big convoluted fairy tale in comparison for mainly scientifically ignorant people or people with insecurity issues. I see no intellectual substance in it whatsoever.

marienbad wrote: »

You do see that this is a purely subjective view and could equally apply to any individual in any other faith ?

So what made you pick your particular brand of faith as opposed to any other ? Was it just a subjective decision or was there an element of objective proof involved ?

No I don't realise that this is "subjective". By the by, whether or not it is "subjective" comes down to whether or not God exists. If God exists, the matter is no longer subjective no matter what I think there is something true about Him whether I like it or not!

gvn wrote: »

I don't think it's accurate to say that atheists "run from [Jesus]." It's a matter of belief; one can't force oneself to believe something; a person can only accumulate knowledge, perhaps in the hope that such knowledge will change their belief -- it's important to note that belief can't be altered on a whim, its alteration is an unconscious process. I'm sure you understand this, and I'm sure you've heard it before, but most atheists cannot bring themselves to believe in Jesus; it's not a matter of rejection, or running, or finding it all objectionable ... it's simply a matter of not being able to bring oneself to believe something that one finds unbelievable. The same principle applies to a lot of aspects in life.

Many atheists run from Christ. I would say most. Particularly those who have been received the Gospel. I don't believe that atheism is as founded on intellectual issues as much as many would like to say.

I believe it's false that atheists can't bring themselves to believe in Jesus, it's more likely that atheists don't want anything to do with Him.

A lot of the atheism I find on boards.ie particularly in After Hours is based on ignorance of the Gospel rather than knowledge of the Gospel and subsequent rejection.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You don't even understand the meaning of the word atheism. All it is means, you just don't believe in religions. That's it - nothing else! It doesn't try to offer an explanation for anything.

... but that isn't really true ... Atheism attempts to have a naturalistic explanation for everything ... the fact that it hasn't succeeded in doing so (except very superficially) doesn't mean that it isn't trying to do so!!!

Tim Robbins wrote: »

This is why I wouldn't bother wasting my time debating with you. You obviously have no interest interest in any sort of meaningful research.

If we took you at your word, that Atheism (and by extension Atheists) doesn't try to offer an explanation for anything ... we would conclude that it is you that has no interest in any sort of meaningful research!!!!

philologos wrote: »

No I don't realise that this is "subjective". By the by, whether or not it is "subjective" comes down to whether or not God exists. If God exists, the matter is no longer subjective no matter what I think there is something true about Him whether I like it or not!

Many atheists run from Christ. I would say most. Particularly those who have been received the Gospel. I don't believe that atheism is as founded on intellectual issues as much as many would like to say.

I believe it's false that atheists can't bring themselves to believe in Jesus, it's more likely that atheists don't want anything to do with Him.

A lot of the atheism I find on boards.ie particularly in After Hours is based on ignorance of the Gospel rather than knowledge of the Gospel and subsequent rejection.

How about answering the second part of my question Phil

''So what made you pick your particular brand of faith as opposed to any other ? Was it just a subjective decision or was there an element of objective proof involved ? ''

On the issue of atheists running from christ- I must say I have yet to meet such a person and I assure you I have met a hell of a lot of atheists. You are making the mistake in thinking that because your faith is important to you then it must also be the to others- it is'nt.

[Deleted User]

philologos wrote: »

Many atheists run from Christ. I would say most. Particularly those who have been received the Gospel. I don't believe that atheism is as founded on intellectual issues as much as many would like to say.

Perhaps some do, if that's your experience. Speaking about myself, and about the experiences of atheists whom I know, a conscious rejection -- as "running from Christ" would imply -- is not exercised. It's more subtle than that.

I believe it's false that atheists can't bring themselves to believe in Jesus, it's more likely that atheists don't want anything to do with Him.

Again, I disagree. For me, at least, it's about the inability to believe in something that I find to be absurd (not meant in a derogatory sense). I can't bring myself to believe in Jesus no more than you can bring yourself to believe in Krishna or Ahura Mazda.

A lot of the atheism I find on boards.ie particularly in After Hours is based on ignorance of the Gospel rather than knowledge of the Gospel and subsequent rejection.

Perhaps some of it is, but not all atheists hold a belief based solely on ignorance. Again, for most, it's not about a conscious rejection, it's about an inability to force belief.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

I've read the OP, but few other posts. I expect that anything I say has been covered many times in this thread, but I just wanted to contribute on this point.

philologos wrote: »

Honestly that is enough for me.

And that's fine as your choice - nothing I say next is commenting on that at all. I'm just setting out why it isn't enough for me.

philologos wrote: »

... are you afraid of the possibility that Jesus might be Lord, and you might be living a life of blasphemy against the God who created you?

I'm not really. I'll admit it as a remote possibility - but (and I don't mean this to be offensive) I rate it as about as likely as the existence of vampires and werewolves.

I'm not a big fan of Dawkins, but I do share his opinion that, if we are wrong, our defence in the divine court should be "not enough evidence".

I just feel that it's such a roundabout and obscure way of the creator of the universe communicating to me what it is I'm supposed to be doing. As a mental exercise, I can appreciate that a creator god might expect me to exert myself to earn salvation. Maybe I'd have to lift some heavy weights, or solve a particularly difficult sudoku, or something.

OK, that bit is facetious, but you know what I mean. Having to show form by resisting temptation, being required to act honesty and show compassion to people who might be quite unappealing. All of that I could go along with, as part of the exercise. I'd just feel that, if this was what it was all to be about, it would be set out more clearly. It would be a situation where you were being obviously obtuse if you said "I'd no idea what I did, I just didn't understand the implications of ignoring Christianity". It should be as obviously lame an excuse as an Irish property developer saying "I'd no idea what I was signing when the bank put this oul' loan agreement in front of me".

But it's not so obviously lame. It's not obviously lame to say that Jesus only preached to the Jews during his lifetime, and that the extension of the religion to non-Jews was a later invention of his followers. It's not obviously lame to say the Bible story is just a mish-mash of the kinds of legends that many religions put out there, including cargo cults.

I'm not saying that just because it's not lame to deny it doesn't mean denying it is the right thing to do. (I read that last sentence again, and I'm actually not sure what it means, but I think where I'm coming from is clear enough). But I don't see how any reasonable person could feel that denying Christianity is such an obviously wrong choice that the denier should be tormented for eternity.

I can't see the point of this whole business around doubt and faith. Like I say, the idea of a god who wants to challenge us physically, intellectually, morally, that I can get. But a god who measures our goodness by rating our credulity? I just don't get it.

J C wrote: »

... but that isn't really true ... Atheism attempts to have a naturalistic explanation for everything ... the fact that it hasn't succeeded in doing so (except very superficially) doesn't mean that it isn't trying to do so!!!

If we took you at your word, that Atheism (and by extension Atheists) doesn't try to offer an explanation for anything ... we would conclude that it is you that has no interest interest in any sort of meaningful research!!!!

I don't really see your point here JC, my atheism dos'nt inform anything whereas your belief informs everything.

I just don't belief in gods, nothing else is really different , I know right from wrong , I support Munster I love music and books and poetry , free speech freedom of belief and expression etc.

I just don't need an external all powerful moderator to know these things.

lmaopml

muppeteer wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by chance? We don't really have a good theory for the creation of the universe yet.

That's a good and honest answer

In the meantime, do you think that people are being held back by Christianity? Or do you think there is a better worldview? and even apart from Christianity, is a scientists opinion, or even lots of scientists opinions - because there are lots - in any given period - more valuable to us 'collectively' as human beings? Is the 'truth' as it unfolds right now and debunked 1000 years from now different?

Muppeteer, there was once a scientist who decided to conduct a survey on a certain type of intelligence, because there are different types that people score in, and reasoned out for himself based on the results, that a person with a certain type of intelligence is more likely to be an Atheist and this was valuable to humanity - like Science should be.

He also reasoned that ugly women are more likely to have sons and beautiful more likely to have daughters...pml....so says opinion and evolutionary psychology. His conclusions in many cases were criticised because they only took certain factors into consideration, and not others, as any survey does, and well, they added nothing really of any particular value to anybody. Does this guy sound clever?

I have an old divil that rises up inside me when I see people think it's clever to only associate here or there, or think one thing is more valuable than the next - and a terrible distaste for cleverness by association. Which seems to be the case in SOME cases, not all - yours was a good answer I think.

When one sees a correlation in a crap survey, does that mean it's the 'cause'? Does it mean it's 'true' - Science by it's very nature is a tool, a method of understanding, discovery, nothing more - and furthermore it's self correcting too, always questioning always searching - that's the beauty of the method, not the beauty of the people who were wrong 500 years ago and thought they were right, and those who may or may not be proven wrong 500 years from now...

In the meantime, I think it's ok for people to be Christians. It will always be ok, and always should be.

J C wrote: »

As you don't accept that God/Gods exist ... we shouldn't divert the thread down a route examining the merits of various gods ... when you don't accept that god(s) exist, in the first place.

Sorry J.C just saw your reply now- the existence of god is the title of the thread , so unless some of us don't believe that Gods exist there would'nt be much point to the thread .

And I agree that examining the existence of all gods individually may be a diversion, that is not really the point I am pursuing , but rather why you or phil choose one God rather than another , or one version of Christianity rather than another.

And that is a valid argument to consider as each version believes it speaks the truth.

muppeteer

philologos wrote: »

I have extensively. It's why I rejected agnosticism about 5 years ago and decided to accept Jesus Christ as my Saviour and follow Him. Simply put, I find the atheistic naturalism that you guys put across as deeply lacking, on a logical level as well as on any other level. Christianity provides a much better explanation for why we are the way we are as human beings than atheism does. Christianity explains the fallen state of man, much much better than atheism does. It gives a robust explanation as to why this world is as screwed up as it is, and indeed it provides a solution to it - namely that Jesus stood in my place (and yours if you're willing to accept it) and by His blood He paid the price for sin. Atheism - offers nothing. Moreover, the Biblical accounts hold up under the tightest scrutiny. There's no other text as historically authentic as the New Testament in the world today. You might as well give up on any classical history if you're going to reject the manuscript evidence that shows that the New Testament hasn't been significantly changed.

Atheism doesn't say anything about the way we are as humans. Naturalism however offers testable explanations as to how we are the way we are. Your god based theory lacks this. Naturalism lacks a philosophical why but this is only a problem if you are wed to the idea of a why even existing. What you are doing here is choosing a belief which offers any explanation(however flawed) over one which offers no explanation.

With the fallen nature of man you are choosing to create a problem to fit your pre determined solution, God and Jesus. Humans being dicks is not something that is surprising considering we are no more than a slightly smarter balder ape.

As for your biblical text as I understand it it was written by a cult group to their own agenda. We could find an original copy written the day after Jesus was killed and it would still be the account of a cult, written by that cult. We have records of other cults which haven't changed over time but that doesn't mean anything if the original writers were deluded/liars/mad.

Except, they haven't been dealt with before. Take a look back at this thread, and look at the paltry responses given to the Resurrection, look at the responses given in respect to moral subjectivism. They are weak at best. You claim that the Christian Gospel has been destroyed, and there's no case for it. But this is far from the truth.

I find the testimony sufficient, because the testimony is demonstrably reliable. I find the testimony sufficient because I see that it is evident in the world around me. I find the testimony sufficient because I can see living evidence of the Gospel in my life and in the lives of others.

I do have to take exception to the claim that they haven't been dealt with before. They have been dealt with, most recently here, but there are other posts between us on this topic too which have gone unanswered. Each of the other issues have also been dealt with by myself and by others

Can I ask you what do you find so objectionable about Jesus Christ as He's presented in the Gospels? Why do you run from Him? That's the core of the issue.

On face value he's not as bad as a lot of other characters, the only really objectionable thing off the top of my head is his wish to see is followers give up their lives and families to be offered false hope or the threat of damnation and apocalypse within the lifetime of his followers. What is really objectionable is the supernaturalism built up around him. I no more run from Jesus as I run from Sathya Sai Baba.

Tim Robbins

J C wrote: »

If we took you at your word, that Atheism (and by extension Atheists) doesn't try to offer an explanation for anything ... we would conclude that it is you that has no interest in any sort of meaningful research!!!!

It's not my word, it's the common meaning of the word.

For meaningful research - I go to science.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

muppeteer wrote: »

Humans being dicks is not something that is surprising considering we are no more than a slightly smarter balder ape.

In fairness, the existence of a concept of "being dicks" is surprising. I think you're also tripping over one of the causes of belief.

If we all agree (for purposes of the argument, at least) that humans are dicks, the next question is do we need to do anything about this. Atheism would suggest not - at least, given that we only assert that there is no god, we've no particular programme in mind after that.

The problem starts when people aspire to being more than being dicks who are slightly smarter balder apes. Atheism won't object, clearly. We've nothing against dick monkeys, or monkey dicks, bettering themselves. But, equally, we've nothing to assist in the process. It can even be a bit debilitating, as people tend to perform up to the level that's expected of them. So if you expect people to be monkey dicks, that will tend to be how they'll behave.

Religion, on the other hand, tends to offer a programme aimed at transcending monkey dickness. So, I'd expect, someone who wants to satisfy some aspiration could do worse than follow a religion that supports that outcome.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, the existence of a concept of "being dicks" is surprising. I think you're also tripping over one of the causes of belief.

If we all agree (for purposes of the argument, at least) that humans are dicks, the next question is do we need to do anything about this. Atheism would suggest not - at least, given that we only assert that there is no god, we've no particular programme in mind after that.

The problem starts when people aspire to being more than being dicks who are slightly smarter balder apes. Atheism won't object, clearly. We've nothing against dick monkeys, or monkey dicks, bettering themselves. But, equally, we've nothing to assist in the process. It can even be a bit debilitating, as people tend to perform up to the level that's expected of them. So if you expect people to be monkey dicks, that will tend to be how they'll behave.

Religion, on the other hand, tends to offer a programme aimed at transcending monkey dickness. So, I'd expect, someone who wants to satisfy some aspiration could do worse than follow a religion that supports that outcome.

you can do all of that without following a religion or a god

GCU Flexible Demeanour

marienbad wrote: »

you can do all of that without following a religion or a god

Yes, that's what I've said.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Atheism won't object, clearly. We've nothing against dick monkeys, or monkey dicks, bettering themselves. But, equally, we've nothing to assist in the process.

Although, it's more accurate to say "nearly all". You do need a religion or god if you want to conceive of yourself as being something other than a monkey dick.

muppeteer

lmaopml wrote: »

That's a good and honest answer

In the meantime, do you think that people are being held back by Christianity? Or do you think there is a better worldview? and even apart from Christianity, is a scientists opinion, or even lots of scientists opinions - because there are lots - in any given period - more valuable to us 'collectively' as human beings? Is the 'truth' as it unfolds right now and debunked 1000 years from now different?

Muppeteer, there was once a scientist who decided to conduct a survey on a certain type of intelligence, because there are different types that people score in, and reasoned out for himself based on the results, that a person with a certain type of intelligence is more likely to be an Atheist and this was valuable to humanity - like Science should be.

He also reasoned that ugly women are more likely to have sons and beautiful more likely to have daughters...pml....so says opinion and evolutionary psychology. His conclusions in many cases were criticised because they only took certain factors into consideration, and not others, as any survey does, and well, they added nothing really of any particular value to anybody. Does this guy sound clever?

I have an old divil that rises up inside me when I see people think it's clever to only associate here or there, or think one thing is more valuable than the next - and a terrible distaste for cleverness by association. Which seems to be the case in SOME cases, not all - yours was a good answer I think.

When one sees a correlation in a crap survey, does that mean it's the 'cause'? Does it mean it's 'true' - Science by it's very nature is a tool, a method of understanding, discovery, nothing more - and furthermore it's self correcting too, always questioning always searching - that's the beauty of the method, not the beauty of the people who were wrong 500 years ago and thought they were right, and those who may or may not be proven wrong 500 years from now...

In the meantime, I think it's ok for people to be Christians. It will always be ok, and always should be.

In some ways yes I do think it holds people back. Just as any belief which does not match up with reality holds people back from understanding the world.
There are more specific things in Christianity and other religions such as encouraging their children to believe the same nonsense which holds children back.

There is a difference I think should be pointed out in these "truth" shifts we go through every now and again, where the old truth is replace by the new truth. These events were more profound in the time before rigorous science, for example earth centric to heliocentric world views, a huge paradigm shift. Each new truth has become less disruptive to the old truth in more modern times however because rigorous science does not become suddenly bad science when a new interpretation is introduced. For example velocity is additive at low speeds which was verified by experiments. The new experiments with light speed showed that the old truth was incorrect but because the old experiments were rigorous their results and their "simpler truth" was still perfectly valid within their limited range. We will undoubtedly be eclipsed by new discoveries, but if we are rigorous our experiments will still be just as valuable.

muppeteer

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, the existence of a concept of "being dicks" is surprising. I think you're also tripping over one of the causes of belief.

If we all agree (for purposes of the argument, at least) that humans are dicks, the next question is do we need to do anything about this. Atheism would suggest not - at least, given that we only assert that there is no god, we've no particular programme in mind after that.

The problem starts when people aspire to being more than being dicks who are slightly smarter balder apes. Atheism won't object, clearly. We've nothing against dick monkeys, or monkey dicks, bettering themselves. But, equally, we've nothing to assist in the process. It can even be a bit debilitating, as people tend to perform up to the level that's expected of them. So if you expect people to be monkey dicks, that will tend to be how they'll behave.

Religion, on the other hand, tends to offer a programme aimed at transcending monkey dickness. So, I'd expect, someone who wants to satisfy some aspiration could do worse than follow a religion that supports that outcome.

The problem lies in the type of thinking that gets you to a religious answer. It is accepting an answer which is handed down(the big three religions anyway) without question.
We can aspire to be more than dicks through any number of ways and philosophies, humanism for example. Ones where we choose, change, adapt and think through our ethics rather than having unthinking fixed edicts.

Also your post had 7 dicks:)

nagirrac

Just came across this thread so apologies if this ground has been covered. Just like in other walks of life I find dogmatic views on this subject insufferable and frankly lacking in intellect. The greatest minds in history have pondered this question and no one has an answer. I believe this question is a human paradox, there is no answer within our narrow frame of reference. We are severly limited by our narrow range of senses, and the easy way out is to say if we cannot percieve it then it cannot exist.
The question that I find most interesting is "where did the laws of nature come from?" They were clearly there at the instant of the big bang as everything after the big bang followed these very specific laws. Man did not invent them, man has come to know them through centuries of careful study. Who knows what undiscovered laws remain to be uncovered as we continue our evolution. There is strong evidence that music is like mathematics and is already out there waiting to be uncovered like calculus. Mozart for example used to relax by having his wife read to him and after she finished he would transcribe whole finished pieces of music with no apparent effort of composing. Which begs the question, "where did such complex beautiful music come from"?
I think we just have to accept we cannot even imagine the answer to the question of what lies behind the design of the universe. We should accept our limitations because there are many topics where we just cannot understand due to our mental limitations. A good example is time. In concept people accept Einstein's work without actually pondering its significance. In discussions about the big bang theory, one frequently hears the comment "but what came before the big bang". The answer of course is there was no "before" since time as we know it came into being at the instant of the big bang. Its hard to imagine a world without time but it must exist outside the constraints of our universe otherwise our universe could not exist.

pauldla

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Perhaps it was a throwaway remark, but what knowledge could one appeal to that would resign God to the realm of squared circles and married bachelors?

Omnipotent, omnisicient and omnipresent? He is is own First Cause? It's very difficult, if not impossible, to consider these ideas logical, or logically.

Dublin Red Devil

I have come to understand that the Muslim religion and Christianity are very similar.

The only real difference is that Muslims don't believe that Jesus was the son of God but they do believe that he was one of the messengers of god but just not his son.

The reason they follow the word of Muhammad is because he was the last messenger god sent to earth and his word is the most recent word of god