Is there a GOD?

[Sean K]

May be the question should be: Can it be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is not a God?
If the dot below is everything that we know. And the space surrounding it (not limited to this page) is everything that we are yet to know, is there a possibility that God may be found in that sphere outside of our current knowledge and understanding...

.​

This is such an incredibly poor argument for the existance of God that I can hardly breath. ANYTHING can exist around that dot. Even NOTHING. Why call any of it God? Maybe nothing is God. Really!!!

 

[weird]

For those interested in further exploring Christain faith there is some available informal short and social courses, such as the APLHA course (Anglican Church) and also CAFE (Catholic Faith Exploration).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_course

http://www.catholicevangel.org/

 

[2020hindsight]

For those interested in further exploring Christain faith there is some available informal short and social courses, such as the APLHA course (Anglican Church) and also CAFE (Catholic Faith Exploration).

As you probably guessed weird, if I was free to study what I wanted - I'd study science for at least 365 days a year - maybe I'd study faith on 29Feb on the fourth year.

Sorry , but particularly after watching Richard Dawkins, I believe ( more than ever) that rational thought is the only course of action that permits any optimism for the future.

And by the way, we should all admit that not one of us knows that God does or doesn't exist. - hence the crazy result shown in the graph above.
Darwin was not only a clever man, but was honest enough to admit to being an agnostic

 

[wayneL]

As you probably guessed weird, if I was free to study what I wanted - I'd study science for at least 365 days a year - maybe I'd study faith on 29Feb on the fourth year.

Sorry , but particularly after watching Richard Dawkins, I believe ( more than ever) that rational thought is the only course of action that permits any optimism for the future.

The thing is, Dawkins is not all that rational a lot of the time IMO. He is still a VI

 

[2020hindsight]

The thing is, Dawkins is not all that rational a lot of the time IMO. He is still a VI

without specifics wayne - I can't really comment lol

 

[weird]

With a degree in manufacturing systems/mechanical engineering, I am biased also in only wanting to deal with what is 'real' and 'quantifiable'... however take most engineers into a social situation, mathematical formulaes don't really help ... your just the nerd in the corner, with a pocket calculator and an ink stain ...

"Gettin' Jiggy Wit It" doesn't compute but it feels right

 

[2020hindsight]

I am biased also in only wanting to deal with what is 'real' and 'quantifiable'... however ....

weird, I wouldn't have a problem with faith and all its implications - except that it is taking us steadily into WWIII.

You say it's their faith that's the problem , they say it's your faith that's the problem

Dawkins says you're both to blame
and I think I agree with him

PS at least you dont think that the earth is only 6000 years old - like almost 50% of Americans

 

[wayneL]

weird, I wouldn't have a problem with faith and all its implications - except that it is taking us steadily into WWIII.

You say it's their faith that's the problem , they say it's your faith that's the problem

Dawkins says you're both to blame
and I think I agree with him

Do you really think it's about faith?

I don't. Faith is merely the tool used for the powers to obtain canon fodder. It's about OIL/MONEY.

If the west wasn't messing around there, there would never be a problem.

The only truly religious conflict is Palestine/Israel. Even then the genesis of that was the west's meddling.

 

[weird]

I agree with Wayne,

Race, religion ,sex etc are abused and provided as a false means for an individual or even a group of individuals (a government) to obtain "power" or keep a status quo.

As an example, since war was raised ... let's add the American Civil War to the discussion.

Another example, although perhaps flawed, if a person withholds sex from their partner, to obtain "power" in a situation, sure the other person may be ticked off ... but it shouldn't distract from the overall joys and pleasures from sex itself, although "sex" is what is being used to manipulate.

 

[retroaugogo]

Books on atheism garner criticism from unlikely places

By Peter Steinfels
Published: March 6, 2007

Hey, guys, can't you give atheism a chance? Yes, it is true that "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins has been on The New York Times best-seller list for 22 weeks and that "Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris can be found in virtually every airport bookstore in the United States.

So why is the new wave of books on atheism getting such a drubbing? The criticism is not primarily, it should be pointed out, from the pious, which would hardly be noteworthy, but from avowed atheists as well as scientists and philosophers writing in publications like The New Republic and The New York Review of Books, not known as cells in the vast God-fearing conspiracy.

The mother of these reviews was published last October in The London Review of Books, when Terry Eagleton, better known as a Marxist literary scholar than as a defender of faith, took on "The God Delusion."

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds," Eagleton wrote, "and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology." That was only the first sentence.

James Wood's review of "Letter to a Christian Nation" in the Dec. 18, 2006, issue of The New Republic began, "I have not believed in God since I was fifteen." Wood, a formidable writer who keeps picking the scab of religion in his criticism and fiction, confessed that his "inner atheist" appreciated the "hygienic function" of Harris's and Dawkins's ridiculing of religion and enjoyed "the 'naughtiness' of this disrespect, even if a little of it goes a long way."
But, he continued, "there is a limit to how many times one can stub one's toe on the thick idiocy of some mullah or pastor" or be told that "Leviticus and Deuteronomy are full of really nasty things."

H. Allen Orr is an evolutionary biologist who once called Dawkins a "professional atheist." But now, Orr wrote in the Jan. 11 issue of The New York Review of Books, "I'm forced, after reading his new book, to conclude that he's actually more of an amateur."

It seems that these critics hold several odd ideas, the first being that anyone attacking theology should actually know some.

"The most disappointing feature of 'The God Delusion,'" Orr wrote, "is Dawkins' failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology" and "no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions."

Eagleton surmised that if "card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins" were asked "to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Africa, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could." He continued, "When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster."

Naturally, critics so fussy as to imagine that serious thought about religion exists, making esoteric references to Aquinas and Wittgenstein, inevitably gripe about Harris's and Dawkins's equation of religion with fundamentalism and of all faith with unquestioning faith.

"Not even the dim-witted clerics who knocked me about at grammar school thought that," Eagleton wrote.

In The New Republic last October, Thomas Nagel, a philosopher who calls himself "as much an outsider to religion" as Dawkins, was much more patient. Extracting a theoretical kernel of argument from the thumb-your-nose- at-religion chaff, Nagel nonetheless had to point out that what was meant by God was not, as Dawkins's argument seemed to assume, "a complex physical inhabitant of the natural world." (Eagleton had less politely characterized the Dawkins understanding of God "as some kind of chap, however supersized.")

Nor was belief in God, Wood explained two months later, analogous to belief in a Celestial Teapot, the comic example Dawkins borrowed from Bertrand Russell.

Several reviews went on to carp about double standards.

Orr, for example, noted the contrast between Dawkins's skepticism toward traditional proofs for God's existence and Dawkins's confidence that his own "Ultimate Boeing 747" proof demonstrated scientifically that God's existence was highly improbable.

Eagleton compared Dawkins's volubility about religion's vast wrongs with his silence "on the horrors that science and technology have wreaked on humanity" and the good that religion has produced.

"In a book of almost 400 pages, he can scarcely bring himself to concede that a single human benefit has flowed from religious faith, a view which is as a priori improbable as it is empirically false," Eagleton wrote. "The countless millions who have devoted their lives selflessly to the service of others in the name of Christ or Buddha or Allah are wiped from human history ”” and this by a self- appointed crusader against bigotry."

In Orr's view, "No decent person can fail to be repulsed by the sins committed in the name of religion," but atheism has to be held to the same standard: "Dawkins has a difficult time facing up to the dual fact that (1) the 20th century was an experiment in secularism; and (2) the result was secular evil, an evil that, if anything, was more spectacularly virulent than that which came before."

Finally, these critics stubbornly rejected the idea that rational meant scientific. "The fear of religion leads too many scientifically minded atheists to cling to a defensive, world-flattening reductionism," Nagel wrote.

"We have more than one form of understanding," he continued.

"The great achievements of physical science do not make it capable of encompassing everything, from mathematics to ethics to the experiences of a living animal. We have no reason to dismiss moral reasoning, introspection or conceptual analysis as ways of discovering the truth just because they are not physics."

So what is the beleaguered atheist to do? One possibility: Take pride in the fact that this astringent criticism comes from people and places that honor the honest skeptic's commitment to full- throated questioning.

 

[Bobby]

Do you really think it's about faith?

I don't. .

Helllo Wayne,

I do wish you well .


Ive always admired your intellect, why post a reply to the inconsequentials ?

Bobby.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

I would argue most strongly against what have bolded in your comment. Humans alone are responsible for religion, whether or not there is a God.

But if I were God, I would definitely agree with the bit in red. If God wanted us to worship him (using the masculine gender purely for convenience, because I'm sure he doesn't have a gender) surely he would show up somehow and say "worship me this way you dopey bastids!"

And before the religionists point to their scriptures.... puleeeeze... written by men folks.

One needs to look at who constructed the bible for the early Christians under the Romans. Why was it constructed in such a manner?

And once again GOD is a construct of the powers that manipulate the believers. It has no existence or recognition beyond Earth.

 

[2020hindsight]

Do you really think it's about faith? I don't. Faith is merely the tool used for the powers to obtain canon fodder. It's about OIL/MONEY. If the west wasn't messing around there, there would never be a problem. The only truly religious conflict is Palestine/Israel. Even then the genesis of that was the west's meddling.

Wayne,
As you say Palestine /Israel is surely about religion, nothing to do with oil as you say. Nor was 9/11 about oil. (One thing leads to another in this deadly game).

But oil was quite likely a big factor in Iraq I guess. (That and the fact that Hussain laughed at George W's father after the first Gulf War maybe - who knows how these Bushes think?)

When you say "Faith is the tool for powers to obtain cannon fodder" , I think that is pretty much in agreement with Dawkins. (and what I was getting at). If there was no religion, (and instead we considered what we are doing to the earth) then all these wars would go away.

Is George Bush truly religious / in a moral sense? i.e. you have to decide is George Bush purely manipulative (without belief, going after oil), or is he also deluded. And here I think the jury is probably out.

Anyone who poses for the cameras balancing his Christian halo - and running for the most powerful democratic position on the world. .... but once in power (assuming he was correctly quoted on ABC website) says "I don't give a flying f*#$ what the polls say (we're doing it my way... - paraphrasing)." has gotta have a hint of hypocrite in him you'd think.

I agree with your summary of religion and science in your post #63 on "serious question do you believe in the (devil)"
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2319

Incidentally, I notice that that thread petered out after 20 posts, and this one is up to 470 plus - which proves that God wants us to talk about him, but the Devil doesn't because he wants to keep under the radar. (yeah right ). Guess we feel happier talking about the possibility of good guys running the show rather than than bad guys.

possibility? - some would apparently say
certainty ,
some probability,
improbability,
impossibility etc.

Your post referrd to above read as follows:-

Bobby, it's one of those topics that a bit taboo. Folks tend to polarize themselves into either

1/a purely scientific camp, where any sort of faith/spirituality is regarded as infantile/stupid. This is evident in the article.

2/a purely religious camp where evolutionists are considered as satan personified.

...and never the twain shall meet.

Just because religions suffer from some truly ludicrous propositions, does not disprove God.

Science also contains some bizarrely outrageous and unprovable claims also, and cannot disprove God.

Both sides promote their doctrine with a preposterous and indefensible arrogance, refusing to concede valid points from the other side. Both sides suffer blinkered vision.

I love this topic and it is best discussed comprehensively and at length. Internet forums suffer a time lapse between responses that degrade the quality of discussion appropriate.

Thats why I'm staying out of it.

I notice you are still staying out of it lol

 

[2020hindsight]

..biased also in only wanting to deal with what is 'real' and 'quantifiable'... however take most engineers into a social situation, mathematical formulaes don't really help ... pocket calculator and an ink stain ...

To me Mother Nature is a good guy, despite her occasional cruelty. - and learning about her is enlightening (listening to Attenborough etc) - but in the end, she's just another name for "the fascinating intricacies of science and life" I guess

And btw, weird, when I said I would prefer to study science 365 days a year - I meant that compared to taking any leap of faith. I didn't mean to imply that I would restrict my imagination to what can or can't be proven, but if it can't be proven, I'm not going to believe it. - and that goes for both the existence and the non-existence of god. I'm happy to smell the roses along the way, and to toast the moon, and neither you nor I need a calculator for that

Let's talk rainbows :- some would argue...
we don't have the sense of awe or reverence when we see a rainbow, as does a primitive native, purely because we understand what causes it - we have lost as much as we have gained in delving into the matter"

there's some truth in this, but personally I try to marvel at the inner workings - the concept of refraction - and still get a buzz.

Then of course there are diffraction gratings. You know the stuff that bumber stickers are often made of. I used to cut them into small triangles and put them on a spinning windmill - the colours were indescribably beautiful
The windmills were solar powered incidentally, - I used to sell em, way back - but lol I spent too much time enjoying the colours, and not enough time selling the bludy things.

But - suppose you told me that a thin layer of oil on the surface of the ocean also produced colours - no way would I find them beautiful - because they are associated with mans destruction of the birdlife. - perhaps it's called "science with emotion".

 

[Rafa]

Wayne,
If there was no religion, (and instead we considered what we are doing to the earth) then all these wars would go away.

2020, normally you talk a lot of sense, but that is pure rubbish... if you really beleive that, then one must seriously question the value of all your posts!

but a handfull of wars, of the hundreds and thousands of wars that have existed are caused on religious grounds...

most are caused becuase of greed and power... almost all use some sort of divisive issue to motivate the populace...

look at all the conflicts in africa... has anything there got to do with religion... !
what about the ones in eastern europe?
heck, what about WWII...?
what about east timor, solomon islands, fiji...?

the motivating factor in those are racism, ethnic cleansing, culture, etc.... brought about mainly becuase one group of people had more power than the other group of people.

i know everyone loves talking about the middle east... its a media darling at present... but if you bothered looking outside that, or indeed go back in history, i'd be surprised if in any more than 2% of the cases, religion was the actual CAUSE of war... and moreover, i'd be surprised if in more than 20% of those cased, religion was used as the MOTIVATING tool in war!

I am happy to be corrected by you if this is not the case!

 

[2020hindsight]

Raf, maybe you have to read that post / sentence in context, it followed on from discussion of the following and was more about future wars:-
a) Israel / Palestine (religion)
b) 9/11 (religion)
and maybe
c) Iraq. (past war)

Of these Iraq is maybe oil - and maybe linked to a) in that there were big guns being designed etc, and a few other possibilities discussed there.

You're probably right, not all past wars were started by religion - just that the next ones look like they will be (imo)

 

[Rafa]

thanks for clarifying that 2020...
this is actually something that has bothered me for quite a while...

religion has been around for mellenium... yet purely religious wars seem to be a recent phenomenon besides the odd expection here and there in the middle ages.

i have written previously on these forums about the policy of divide and rule...

India Pakistan is a classic example of this, where muslims and hindus lived side by side for hundreds of years... yet now are arch enemies after british devised the policy of divide and rule to make it easier for them to govern

Serbia / Croatia is another classic example of two groups who lived together for centuries... yet now are sworn enemies.

many, many more to name...


I think i have one possible explanation

in the old days of kingdoms and emperors, there was no election to decide on who was in charge... it was the king and his army, end of story.
nowadays, in the age of democracy, and people rights, more power to the masses, politicians need new ways to control the people...

its suits them that good people can be distracted by such issues, allowing the real villans to hide behind these made up issues.

i think secretly, those in power are loving the growing dawkins clan... very soon they will have another means to divide the populace... the beleivers and the non beleivers!

whats the odds on a war between the two in the next 100 years

 

[disarray]

given complete freedom people of differing religions / races have NEVER lived side by side in harmony. the only time they do is when an authoritarian power crushes dissent and forces people to live together.

when islam arrived in india it converted people by the sword (as islam tends to do). hindu / muslim conflict was going on long before the british ever arrived.

religious wars are as old as the bible (old testament anyone??) and are closely tied in with race wars. this is just the human condition so i think you are well wide of the mark rafa with your statement that religious wars are a new thing in human history.

 

[Rafa]

hindu / muslim conflict was going on long before the british ever arrived.

first i've heard of that!

 

[2020hindsight]

... the beleivers and the non beleivers! whats the odds on a war between the two in the next 100 years

IF they are both reasonable non-extremists, (that's a big If if concede) , there's probably less chance even than being started by sex as I think weird hinted at or alluded to

But stranger things have happened.
(PS All extremists should be shot !)

PS Maybe you could argue that the Romans lost their last wars because they were too much into lounging around swimming pools eating grapes with concubines - so yes , maybe even sex and wars are related.

PS I'm told that War and Peace also has a love story and a few raunchy scenes - not that I've ever read it

PS More muslims in India than in Pakistan (now) - and apparently relatively happily coexisting, so you might be right about separation not being the answer