Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Morbert wrote: »

Ok, but does this mean that the definition of Christian can include people who don't necessarily believe God came into the world as Christ and died for our sins.

Yes, it can, and while you could argue that such people are not orthodox in their Christian belief, you can nevertheless meaningfully call them Christians if they profess to follow Christ.

Less controversially, and more relevantly to Brian's position, you can envisage someone who understands the scriptural representation of God as a "person" as analogical rather than actual, who believes that there are central dimensions to Godhead better understood in terms of a a force rather than a person, but who still considers Jesus to be the incarnation of God and the redeemer of humanity. By Brian's decree, such people are not Christians; by the view of most simplistic biblical literalists, such people are not Christians; but I suggest that both of these views are marginal.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, it can, and while you could argue that such people are not orthodox in their Christian belief, you can nevertheless meaningfully call them Christians if they profess to follow Christ.
Well you would be stretching the definition of Christian to the point of meaninglessness if you did!
Less controversially, and more relevantly to Brian's position, you can envisage someone who understands the scriptural representation of God as a "person" as analogical rather than actual, who believes that there are central dimensions to Godhead better understood in terms of a a force rather than a person, but who still considers Jesus to be the incarnation of God and the redeemer of humanity. By Brian's decree, such people are not Christians; by the view of most simplistic biblical literalists, such people are not Christians; but I suggest that both of these views are marginal.

I must be a marginal then because that last bit is a pretty good definition of my understanding of God. With the small added bit ' better understood in terms of a force and related to in terms of a person'

If we allow 'christian' to mean people who think Jesus is cool and all the other variations of Jesus then SDA Mormons, and JW's all count as christian. Which they are not, people of the book, part of the set of Abrahamic religions yes but christian? No. The Creed defines Christians.

Benny_Cake

tommy2bad wrote: »

I must be a marginal then because that last bit is a pretty good definition of my understanding of God. With the small added bit ' better understood in terms of a force and related to in terms of a person'

If we allow 'christian' to mean people who think Jesus is cool and all the other variations of Jesus then SDA Mormons, and JW's all count as christian. Which they are not, people of the book, part of the set of Abrahamic religions yes but christian? No. The Creed defines Christians.

Dunno about that Tommy. The Seventh- day Adventists hold some distinctive views but they are generally considered as being Christian and have cooperated with evangelicals quite a bit in more recent years. Also, there are groups which are generally accepted as Christian but which don't prescribe a particular creed: the United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and the Quakers to name a few.

I wish I had a nice, neat definition of what a Christian is but I don't! Better to try to faithfully follow Christ than spending time worrying about who's in and who's out I guess.

joseph brand

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I wish I had a nice, neat definition of what a Christian is but I don't! Better to try to faithfully follow Christ than spending time worrying about who's in and who's out I guess.

A follower of Christ?

Benny_Cake

joseph brand wrote: »

A follower of Christ?

That works for me! I suppose I should have said a generally accepted definition. I've seen many over the years.

So we can have christians who are trinitiarian and non tritiniarian, I'm ok with that but it dose make a nonsense of most definitions then. Jews for Jesus?

In the end it down to whether your a splitter or a lumper I suppose.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I must be a marginal then because that last bit is a pretty good definition of my understanding of God. With the small added bit ' better understood in terms of a force and related to in terms of a person'

Just to be clear, Tommy, the people who I describe as "marginal" are the likes of Brian and the Biblical literalists who assert that to be Christian you must believe what [they believe or assume] the Bible instructs you to believe.

tommy2bad wrote: »

If we allow 'christian' to mean people who think Jesus is cool and all the other variations of Jesus then SDA Mormons, and JW's all count as christian. Which they are not, people of the book, part of the set of Abrahamic religions yes but christian? No. The Creed defines Christians.

Well, the Apostles' Creed doesn't mention the scriptures at all, and the only thing the Nicene Creed has to say about them is that the resurrection of Christ was "in accordance with the scriptures". So, that wouldn't provide much support for Brian's position.

As Benny has pointed out, the SDA are generally accepted as a Christian denomination, and the Mormons and the JWs certainly regard themselves as Christians. And if, like Brian, you insist that the Bible defines Christians then they can find good support in scripture for their right to the name; the Bible says that it refers to the "followers of Christ", and it's hard to say that that excludes the Mormons and the JWs.

I'm with Benny on this; arguing over definitions is pretty pointless since it's we who coined the term "Christian", we who use it and we who define it. We have no reason to think that God cares at all whether we define the term in a way that embraces (say) JWs or excludes them. My only reason for entering the thread was to point out that, whatever we may say about Christians' self-understanding, the notion that Brian is in a position to decree who is and who is not a Christian is a particularly silly one.

tommy2bad wrote: »

So we can have christians who are trinitiarian and non tritiniarian, I'm ok with that but it dose make a nonsense of most definitions then. Jews for Jesus?

A curious case. I don't know if Jews for Jesus describe themselves as Christians but, theologically, their beliefs cannot really be distinguished from Evangelical Protestantism as exemplified in, say, American Baptist denominations.

Yes I was just poking fun at the idea that christian is a neat category with boundaries that we can assume an inside of or outside of.
In the end a christian is someone who says they are a christian. It's not our place to judge it.

Peregrinus wrote: »

A curious case. I don't know if Jews for Jesus describe themselves as Christians but, theologically, their beliefs cannot really be distinguished from Evangelical Protestantism as exemplified in, say, American Baptist denominations.

Indeed and begs the question 'how Jewish is Christianity'.

Benny_Cake

tommy2bad wrote: »

Indeed and begs the question 'how Jewish is Christianity'.

I ran into some Jews for Jesus proselytising in New York years ago, and took some of their pamphlets to get away from them. I'm not sure if they thought I was Jewish as Jews were obviously the intended audience! It seemed like standard evangelical Christianity to me, albeit with liberal usage of Hebrew words and an emphasis on being able to continue to maintain Jewish traditions while following Jesus. Not sure how they could regard themselves as Jewish in religious terms, and indeed, many rabbis seem to agree, with some forming an organisation called Jews for Judaism.

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I ran into some Jews for Jesus proselytising in New York years ago, and took some of their pamphlets to get away from them. I'm not sure if they thought I was Jewish as Jews were obviously the intended audience! It seemed like standard evangelical Christianity to me, albeit with liberal usage of Hebrew words and an emphasis on being able to continue to maintain Jewish traditions while following Jesus. Not sure how they could regard themselves as Jewish in religious terms, and indeed, many rabbis seem to agree, with some forming an organisation called Jews for Judaism.

Mainstream Jews deny that "Jews for Jesus" is an expression of Judaism, even though individual members of the movement are indeed Jews, and acknowledged as such by other Jews. They tend to see it as a particularly deceptive form of proselytising Christianity, targetting Jews for conversion.

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

Indeed and begs the question 'how Jewish is Christianity'.

We've been grafted in, which means that we all inherit the promises as members of 'Isreal' in the New Covenant. So while we operate under this New Covenant and not the Old, we are indeed family in many respects.

We also have Hebrew Catholics who are 'Christians' too

tommy2bad wrote: »

Indeed and begs the question 'how Jewish is Christianity'.

Again, that's just a question of who owns a term and gets to define it. The truth is that both rabbinical Judaism (i.e. mainstream contemporary Judaism) and Christianity have moved quite a distance from their common roots in Second Temple Judaism. As it happens, the Rabbinicals have always claimed the term "Jewish", and the Christians have mostly been happy to cede it to them.

So, how Jewish is Christianity? In terms of what "Jewish" means today, not Jewish at all. In terms of a Jewish inheritance shared with mainstream Judaism, quite a lot.

sherr1ngton

I think that the number of different denominations of Christianity are a direct result and perfect illustration of just how ambiguous bibles can be.

If we were talking about any other book or film or even a newspaper article, even though different people might come away with a different interpretation of the same material, a frank and open discussion along with an examination of the material in question would resolve almost all the differences of opinion.

There are essentially two ways to read or view material. One way is to take the information that is presented at face value. In this case, one tends to suspend their critical analysis functionality and, at least subconsciously, allows oneself to be swept along, faithfully accepting each premise on the way.

The other way does eploy critical analysis but when processing information in this way, one is mindful of the author of the story, the intention of the author and the credibility of the author's tale.

I would say that most people use the former method and that there are very few who employ both.

As an example of what I mean, take The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. I thought it was a right rivetting read at first. It seemed to have credible support from generally accepted history. There was politics, intrigue, a hint of the dark side of humanity that most of us like to hide from.

I was thinking that this was very good, it looked like Dan Brown was providing evidence for the existence of Jesus and I was looking forward to a climactic ending to match my anticipation.

And Bang! Right where Silas was knocked out and smuggled on a plane to London, the credibility was shot for me and spoiled the whole book.

I know that Robert would have seen no value in taking Silas with them so why didn't he resist the old man's suggestion to take him?

Why would the old man risk being under suspicion by bringing Silas along?

These were two brilliant men; one couldn't see that the old man was in on it and the other couldn't think to leave an unconcious Silas behind but stick a map of the London underground down his shirt or something to give him a clue.

From then on, I thought the author was clutching at straws since the outcomes started to depend entirely upon luck rather than good judgement and at one stage, I entertained the notion that Dan Brown's research had brought him to the attention of the Illuminati and that he had been told to back off, then Dan Brown had to change his story in order to keep the truth obscure. In that, he might have left a clue in the style of Da Vinci himself.

The bible is like that but for a slightly different reason.

Most good stories start with 'Once upon a time' and end at 'lived happily ever after' (unless it's a tragedy) and have a sense of completeness.

Think of 'Highlander', in the end, Duncan McCloud was the one, or 'The Matrix', Neo was the one. Both of these stories were 'complete', they had the climactic ending that satisfactorily resolved the entire story.

Like a good song, they had a beginning, a middle and an end. Also, apart from the leap of imagination required to absorb the stories, they were quite simple to explain once you got it.

But then came Highlander 2 and The Matrix 2. Both of these films actually stopped the other two from making sense. The second two films caused the necessity to alter the back story of the first pair.

I understand that cash-cows will always be milked and that it is human nature that allows Hollywood to milk such cash-cows but one has to realise that religion is a cash-cow too.

In the bible, the Messiah is 'the one'. In the old testament, God tells His people how they got there, He tells them all about the fall of man, He tells them the laws they must observe, He tells them they are His 'peculiar favorites' among mankind, He tells them who they should kill and who they should allow to live and under what terms, what to eat and wear. God makes a deal with the Jews in the old testament and from what I can gather, Abraham was 'the one', the Messiah, the chosen one, the one to whom the promise was made.

The old testament tells Jews that if they live according to the law of God, they will be blessed. If they don't, they won't.

He tells them all of these things but never once mentions to them that in a couple of thousand years, He is going to open up the gates of heaven (which up to then would never have been graced by even a single Jew) to all of humanity which could include (presumably) the Moabites and Amelakites, etc.

Not once does He mention to the Jews that there is a 'soul collecting competition' going on.

To me, the old testament makes sense to some extent right up until they came out with the 'Old Testament 2' or, the new testament.

In the same way that Highlander 2 and The Matrix 2 undermined the credibility of the originals, so the new testament did with the old.

Not only that but the English translation of 'The Bible 2' is problematic -

Jesus refers to Himself as 'The Son of Man' but it is also implied that Jesus existed before the moment of creation. How can the son precede the father?

And therefore, since Jesus was around at the time of the fall of man, how come the Jews of the old testament had never heard of Him?

And why did an omniscient being wait so long to redeem mankind? In the story of the fall, there is no mention of the possibility of parole.

Jesus spoke of Abraham being in Hades, how come this was never mentioned to Moses for disclosure to the Jews?

Maybe it was and maybe Moses was the first to abuse the words of God but how is anyone supposed to arrive at any one meaningful conclusion solely based on the text of the bible without examining the motives of the authors or the characters portrayed therein?

I can see how Jews might be a little aggrieved. For about twenty centuries the only offer on the table was obey God's law or die and then the gentiles get an offer to accept Jesus as their saviour whereupon they could live directly in God's presence for eternity after they die. Or burn.

A jew might have to ask; if I go with the original covenant that has nothing to do with getting to heaven or hell, do I get to avoid the fire even though I may never be in God's direct presence?

Not even Jews went to live with God after they died until Christianity came along.

I think that there must be something about clubbing together for a throne made out of solid gold for the Holy Seat too but I'm not sure how that comes into it. I can only assume that it is a requirement of God that the Vatican should be a repository of vast wealth.

In other words, I think that the bible has less to do with the word of God and more to do with man's abuse of the power of God.

I'm not sure that God would recognise the bible as a biographical account of Himself.

And the last point I would like to make here, and I would be interested to know what everyone thinks; if someone were to attempt to translate the NIV of the bible into Hebrew, or even into Greek, it would be highly unlikely that the resultant text would be the same as that recorded by the original documents.

Personally, I can't see how it can be denied that there are forces that exist that caused the universe to come into being. There is something about the void that has existed forever, beyond time and space.

To me, quantum fluctuations in spacetime having emergent properties such that give rise to to forces which shape our universe over time creating order out of chaos is almost exactly mirrored by the way that the mind and consciousness work.

In my life, the quantum fluctuations are provided by my senses and the ordered universe is what emerges in my mind.

In a sense, I think that the mind is a fractal element of the void and as my world is made up of fleeting thoughts, the universe itself is a fleeting thought of the void.

I think that science could well find that there is another level of consciousness that can directly influence the laws of physics and that the laws of physics are the emergent, and possibly evolving, properties of the 'thought' processes that are going on in this 'mind'.

And the highest level of consciousness may well turn out simply to be the void itself.

Or God.

sherr1ngton

I'm sorry I went on there but I really wanted to add something else.

Suppose that someone, many years ago realised that the universe was a figment of God's imagination and that it was occurring in a dream that God was having.

Someone who realised that might also realise that if God wakes up, then all of this might be simply gone.

If someone was afraid to awaken God they they might advocate serenity and peace and quietness and nice smells and happy thoughts.

If he were to conceive of the universe as a dream sequence in the mind of God then he might consider an H-bomb going off over Hiroshima as a nightmare. A nightmare that God has no control over.

Are dreams not the epitomy of free-will?

Perhaps free-will only exists because God is dreaming. Free-wheeling. What shall be shall be. I am.

I realise that this view leads to a deterministic God which has implications on pre-ordainment and a divine plan, which themselves may not be insurmountable, but I think that it forms at least a basis on which an argument for the existence of God can be built.

And trying to keep it at least a little scientific, suppose that the random fluctuations in local spacetime turned out to be directly related to events that were occurring in surrounding galaxies, that galaxies were 'stimulating' each other in much the same way as neurons do in the brain.

Is it so difficult to imagine that each galaxy is like a super-neuron in a vast brain comprised of all the galaxies in the universe?

What about one universe in a vast community of universes? Each one being born, aging, dying. Could each one be a god?

And the void that contains it all? Uncountable universes, each one a super-super-neuron that give the void the ultimate level of conciousness. Could that be what God is?

Funnily enough, if you look at a scanned image of the neurons of a human brain and then look at the large scale structure of the universe, there is an uncanny resemblance in my view.

I think that once science understands the mind and consciousness a little better, it will realise that it is the behaviour of the fields around the neurons that gives rise to consciousness.

If and when this happens, science will then find comparable behaviour in the fields around stars. Is the galaxy conscious?

It may turn out that mass ejections of the sun act like neurotransmitters to local stars but at longer time-scales. Can we say that this is not the case?

Who is to say that the fields between the stars is not resonating with all the experiences of the galaxy, memories being bounced around the galaxy available for recollection by some vast consciousness?

And the galaxies themselves? What serves as a neurotransmitter between them and over what time-scale?

So, I think that the existence of God in these terms could be framed as a valid scientific question and if science does get round to examining this question then I think that science would end up proving that there is a strong likelihood that there is an ultimate level of consciousness that contains a field which constitutes a complete record of the experiences and memories of the void, that such a consciousness may be capable of introspection and that such a consciousness might influence the evolution of the universe as we know it.

I think that science will end up proving the existence of God.

Long post sherr1ngton but interesting.
I must say if Silas being knocked out and smuggled on a plane to London, was the only problem you had with The DaVinci Code, you need to get out more. That book is so historically inaccurate that it annoyed the hell out of me. I could have forgiven that if it had been a rollicking good read but Dan Brown cant write.
Anyway that's an aside and I get your point.
The mistake you are making is looking for consistency in a story that is evolving as it's being written or more acuratly as each book is adding to our understanding.
The bible isn't one author, it's not about what happened, it's about making sense of what happened.
As to 'the bible2' being a contradiction of everything that went before, it's not it's a clarification or another side of the story. Think Rashomon not the Godfather trilogy.

sherr1ngton

tommy2bad wrote: »

Long post sherr1ngton but interesting.
I must say if Silas being knocked out and smuggled on a plane to London, was the only problem you had with The DaVinci Code, you need to get out more. That book is so historically inaccurate that it annoyed the hell out of me. I could have forgiven that if it had been a rollicking good read but Dan Brown cant write.
Anyway that's an aside and I get your point.
The mistake you are making is looking for consistency in a story that is evolving as it's being written or more acuratly as each book is adding to our understanding.
The bible isn't one author, it's not about what happened, it's about making sense of what happened.
As to 'the bible2' being a contradiction of everything that went before, it's not it's a clarification or another side of the story. Think Rashomon not the Godfather trilogy.

Sorry about the length of that post. It all seemed much more concise in my head.

We seem to agree that the bible is the work of men rather than the work of God and I would even go as far as saying that the bible, and other texts of course, were in fact inspired by God but in the same way as a sunset might inspire poetry. I think that God 'speaks' to men in the same way as a sunset 'speaks' to a poet.

My point though is that an account of a man in conversation with a burning bush should be scrutinised in exactly the same way as an account of an alien abduction. Or the Da Vinci Code.

I'm not looking for consistency in the bible but I can't help being concerned with the glaring inconsistencies in stories about the same events. In a way, the bible is like a 'whodunnit' mystery. There are lots of possible scenarios but there can only be one truth and it is up to the reader to tease out that 'truth'.

The problem is that priests and vicars and popes push a particular interpretation that requires common sense to be thrown out of the window.

To me, the way religion interprets the bible misrepresents the actual meaning and, more importantly, its purpose.

It is like explaing 'The Matrix' as a story about Mr. Smith, a man who is trying to maintain the status quo of a contented society whose peace is shattered when a terrorist group led by Neo carry out strikes against his office.

Now, The Matrix could be explained that way but you would have to convince yourself that some evil things are actually good things in order to sympathise with Mr. Smith, wouldn't you?

Well, I think that religion does a similar thing to the bible. And the fact that bible-thumpers are constantly thumping the bible supports this notion; if Neo is the hero of the piece then The Matrix makes sense but if Mr. Smith is the hero of the piece then you'll have to explain it to me again.

I think that God is a subtle force that creates direction. Hot goes to cold. He didn't endow only humans with free-will, he endowed the entire universe with free-will. Be what you shall be and order and structure will proceed.

And it did. The stars and galaxies fell into order, each taking their part in the cosmic jig-saw and observing God's law until on a little rock somewhere in the vastness of the universe mankind comes into existence.

I think of each mind or consciousness as being a kind of mirror that is always in the face of God. And in the same way that single cells in the human body exhibit all the qualities of life that are exhibited by the whole of a man, human consciousness exhibits the same qualities as the cosmic consciousness.

So, we are mirrors in the face of God and free-will determines how we treat our mirror. Some people would like to keep their mirror clean and flat while others allow their mirror to become dirty and distorted. And as a result, we all reflect God in a slightly different way.

Of course though, there can be only one cosmic consciousness which cannot be in conflict with others whereas there are billions of people with minds and they can be in conflict.

In a similar way to how our mirrors reflect our view of God, our mirrors reflect off each others' too.

When we regard each other, part of us inspects the other ones mirror. If you think that your mirror is clean and a distorted reflection comes back you will see that their mirror is faulty and I think this is what gives rise to that unexplainable bad feeling we sometimes get about people.

Equally though, if my mirror is dirty and I see a distorted image, how would I know if the other mirror is making a bad image worse. In this case one might exhibit anger at the other because they see something of themselves in each other. In other words, I'm angry at him because he made me see something about myself that I don't want to look at.

So, where there are lots of minds, there is lots of conflict but eventually, because order always emerges from chaos, we will come to consider it fashionable to have clean mirrors.

But not until we begin to ignore what religion tells us about the bible.

Not sure if this makes sense but in the end, regardless of what it says in bibles, Korans or any other texts you might wish to consider, the fact that consciousness can exist at such a small scale as ours does means that a higher or lower level of consciousness cannot be ruled out.

I honestly think there is no evidence to say that there is no God and plenty to say that there is. If it wasn't for religion, we would all believe in God due to an inate understanding of our place in the cosmos that has been beaten out of us by centuries of indoctrination.

In the end though, God's law will be upheld.

There are about as many neurons in the human brain as there are stars in the galaxy and about the same amount of galaxies in the observable universe - is that just a couple of coincidences?

I see no reason to suppose that God does not exist, it is our understanding of God that is lacking and although science will eventually find God, religion has a tendency to fudge matters.

One day, religion will be regarded as astrology and alchemy is regarded today and we will laugh about that as we glorify God.

What I'm hoping is that 'clean mirrors' will be naturally selected as we evolve towards enlightenment.

And wouldn't it be cool if the physics, chemistry and biology classes could use the nature of God to help teach flawless science?

Geomy

As a mystic once said, God has a different path for us all...

Be you Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, Spiritualist,Wiccan and many other Religious beliefs. ...

We seem to agree that the bible is the work of men rather than the work of God and I would even go as far as saying that the bible, and other texts of course, were in fact inspired by God but in the same way as a sunset might inspire poetry. I think that God 'speaks' to men in the same way as a sunset 'speaks' to a poet.

This!

brian shanahan wrote:

And claiming that Yeshua of Nazareth was the son of a being which according to current understanding of the rules governing the universe (and according to descriptions in the bible) is an impossibility is most definitely an extraordinary claim.

Whilst agreeing that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (whilst wresting the definition of "evidence" from the hands of that philosophy known as "empiricism" (also frequently mis-labelled "science") I would point out that the rule governing the Universe aren't able to deny any Creator of same. Nor can they resist their being bent or set aside at the requirement/whim of their Creator.

Thou doth protest pretty much empty-handed.

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would point out that the rule governing the Universe aren't able to deny any Creator of same.

Nor do they deny the idea that the universe did not exist 1 second ago, when it was in fact constructed as is with everything in place, including me typing this message.

Alas there is a vast chasm between finding ideas _compatible_ with the universe we observe..... and finding ideas that are in any way substantiated by the universe we observe.

The "one second" idea and the "god" idea are the former. They are in no way the latter given that there is no evidence, argument, data or reasoning on offer... much less so from you... to lend either even a modicum of credibility or substantiation.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor do they deny the idea that the universe did not exist 1 second ago, when it was in fact constructed as is with everything in place, including me typing this message.

Alas there is a vast chasm between finding ideas _compatible_ with the universe we observe..... and finding ideas that are in any way substantiated by the universe we observe.

The "one second" idea and the "god" idea are the former. They are in no way the latter given that there is no evidence, argument, data or reasoning on offer... much less so from you... to lend either even a modicum of credibility or substantiation.

And the originator of the Universe which is substantiated is...?

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

And the originator of the Universe which is substantiated is...?

Currently unknown. It is an open question.

What we have is ideas. Some of them with some interesting substantiation such as the work Laurence Krauss is doing. Some without any at all such as the idea some god did it all.

Some hypothesis have been created, such as Krauss' because evidence led that way. Some have been created because people simply like them, such as the god hypothesis.

As you say, we can create hypotheses that are at least compatible with what is observed. The god one. The universe was created only two seconds ago one.

But I felt it useful to point out the vast chasm that yawns wide between hypotheses which are passingly compatible with what is observed.... and those which have some substantiation.

A hypotheses which is passingly compatible with what is observed is not automatically true, useful, credible or likely. Much more work has to be done to substantiate it. It is certainly a necessary _first step_, do not get me wrong, but not a very big one.

So as you say nothing disproves the idea there is a god. But considering the idea there is a god is.... especially where conversation with your good self is concerned.... not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated.... we come back to the old adage of "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Currently unknown. It is an open question.

Indeed. So alongside unsubstantiated God / last second we have..

ideas.

Some of them with some interesting substantiation such as the work Laurence Krauss is doing. Some without any at all such as the idea some god did it all.

Interesting they may be but hypotheses come and go - the mere fact that there is reason to put some effort into following them says nothing at all about what the facts of the matter actually are.

"Past performance is no guarantee of future performance" is as good an adage for the worship* of the scientific endeavor as it is for investing your money.

*where "worship" is a confidence that a naturalistic outcome is sure to follow if only we search long and hard enough.

You seem to be asserting the process of perpetual searching and working hypotheses can be parlayed into a superior position in the matter of concluding how it all came about. Surely a work in progress that can easily end in tears has as little value in the discussion.

A hypotheses which is passingly compatible with what is observed is not automatically true, useful, credible or likely. Much more work has to be done to substantiate it. It is certainly a necessary _first step_, do not get me wrong, but not a very big one.

So as you say nothing disproves the idea there is a god. But considering the idea there is a god is.... especially where conversation with your good self is concerned.... not just slightly but ENTIRELY unsubstantiated.... we come back to the old adage of "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

My point was that we sail in the same boat - until such time as an answer to the question manifests. Partially-built towers count for not much - no matter how promising the foundations appear to be.

I would point out too that there is no particular requirement that all bow to empiricism as the ultimate arbitrator of how it is we are to draw conclusions about our existence. There are many substantive arguments along many philosophical route for people to avail of in arriving at those conclusions.

Brian Shanahan

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whilst agreeing that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (whilst wresting the definition of "evidence" from the hands of that philosophy known as "empiricism" (also frequently mis-labelled "science") I would point out that the rule governing the Universe aren't able to deny any Creator of same. Nor can they resist their being bent or set aside at the requirement/whim of their Creator.

Thou doth protest pretty much empty-handed.

I'm sorry where did this "creator" come from if he created the sum total of existence?

Methinks your application of an empty hand to my position is more a reflection of your own empty handedness, juxtaposed onto me to hide your own embarrasment that you actually have no argument to rebut my point.

Edit: I'm not getting into it again but I have previously pointed out some of the myriad ways which the bible's own description of YHWH render it an impossibility (e.g. the mutual inabilities of omniescence and omnipotence to exist), never mind the number of ways the physical rules of the universe render it impossible. The fact of the matter is that if there actually is a god-like entity behind the depictions of YHWH in the bible it is not going to have any relation to the Trelane like figure worshipped by the three main monotheistic faiths.

Geomy

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. So alongside unsubstantiated God / last second we have..

Interesting they may be but hypotheses come and go - the mere fact that there is reason to put some effort into following them says nothing at all about what the facts of the matter actually are.

"Past performance is no guarantee of future performance" is as good an adage for the worship* of the scientific endeavor as it is for investing your money.

*where "worship" is a confidence that a naturalistic outcome is sure to follow if only we search long and hard enough.

You seem to be asserting the process of perpetual searching and working hypotheses can be parlayed into a superior position in the matter of concluding how it all came about. Surely a work in progress that can easily end in tears has as little value in the discussion.

My point was that we sail in the same boat - until such time as an answer to the question manifests. Partially-built towers count for not much - no matter how promising the foundations appear to be.

I would point out too that there is no particular requirement that all bow to empiricism as the ultimate arbitrator of how it is we are to draw conclusions about our existence. There are many substantive arguments along many philosophical route for people to avail of in arriving at those conclusions.

There's plenty of roads to the same place, sometimes only one road to some places.

At the end of the day I find it easy to accept people's directions as long as their directions aren't set out to hurt other's, but it's the individuals or organisations, who set out to throw obstacles in people's way that I can't identity with. ...

A moderate Muslim cleric once told me that God has a path for everyone, and Islam or Christianity might not be for everyone, and he has no right to tell anyone what's right or wrong in their search for God, peace of mind etc

But yet there's some Christians here still saying their path to God or contentment is better than mine. ...

Is it better for them, or should I be better off with their path, but yet I feel very peaceful in myself and content. ...

Geomy wrote: »

There's plenty of roads to the same place, sometimes only one road to some places.

Agreed.

A moderate Muslim cleric once told me that God has a path for everyone, and Islam or Christianity might not be for everyone, and he has no right to tell anyone what's right or wrong in their search for God, peace of mind etc

But yet there's some Christians here still saying their path to God or contentment is better than mine. ...

You said there may be only one path to some places. There may be only one path to God thus. No? In which case, these Christians might be right in claiming a narrow, narrow road.

That said, my own view as a Christian isn't that one need be a Christian (in any of the senses frequently described) in order to arrive at God. It's not that I think there are many roads - it's that the single, narrow road is:

a) Gods

b) narrow in what it seeks to establish from a person

c) Isn't deflected or affected in it's operation by trimmings whether religious or a-religious.

Is it better for them, or should I be better off with their path, but yet I feel very peaceful in myself and content. ...

I can't answer that for you. I think the only conclusion to draw is that your arrival at God is a possibility which must be made open to you by God if it is open at all.

If there are options to arrive at him or not then he must be the one to ensure you are presented with those options and an opportunity to take the red or blue pill.