Is there a GOD?

[gilbo]

I don't think there is any other subject on Earth that gets people's hackles up, or more entrenched, than this one. As the survey is indicating, people's opinions tend to be polarised which is against the trend for responses on most other questions. That's why this one is such a corker to debate!

Personally I hope that God doesn't exist - because if He/She/It is so powerful and still let's the things happen that do, then we're all in trouble.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

MS, I'd be amazed if more than 5% of people around here agreed with you that Dawkins and Hovind are equally convincing.

If you insist on that line, (when one is shown to be wrong at almost every quote, and the other yet to be specifically faulted) - then I consider your recommendations of what more to read etc to be pretty optional reading .

I must say I am inspired by your resilience in continuing to exclaim that Dawkins is yet to be specifically faulted. If the previous reviews did not cover enough specific faults in Dawkins thinking then I'm happy to provide more.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html
http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/review_god_delusion.html#adf
http://www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_goddelusionreview2.htm
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/202/story_20279_1.html
http://www.bede.org.uk/goddelusion.htm

Now the populist argument that less than 5% of people around here would probably find Dawkins more convincing than Hovind may or may not be true. Even if it were, it would still be a divergence because I did not make any particular claim about what the majority of people around here think about Hovind and/or Dawkins.

I said, and stand by what I said:

"As I've elsewhere stated, the unbelievers I take seriously are guys like Michael Ruse and Quentin Smith (just for example, there are also others). But you will not move me, or in fact any thinking theist, by approvingly pointing to Dawkins. Dawkins is about as convincing as Hovind. Why is that so surprising? Do you have a prior commitment to Dawkins? Or to reasoned thought? If reasoned thought, then read reasonable atheistic/agnostic/theistic/whatever thinkers."

I think this will be my last post then. If you do reply, I'll leave you to have the last word.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Personally I hope that God doesn't exist - because if He/She/It is so powerful and still let's the things happen that do, then we're all in trouble.

Hi gilbo, my pseudonym is wysiwyg which is my general outlook on things, also allowing for the occasional paralax error .
I will assume you mean the wrong human things (bold type) and suggest that this is the fear tactic employed by religions to win the minds of people.Hence the "apocalyptic literature" in the book of revelations.There is not one shred of evidence proving that when life ends the life source continues or is saved, by solely believing that it is.Power via fear is everywhere and the most potent manipulative tool used by humans.I think you`ll agree.A question could be, why try to convert people to a belief in something if not seeking control?

 

[Miner]

Of course there is a GOD . He lives near my home and lives furthest from the Church

Regards

 

[weird]

why try to convert people to a belief in something if not seeking control?

Why have forum rules? Do they exist soley for the ego of the forum owner to have control over his subjects (the members of the forum)?

 

[weird]

suggest that this is the fear tactic employed by religions to win the minds of people.Hence the "apocalyptic literature" in the book of revelations.

From Catholic Encyclopedia,

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01594b.htm

From this cursory perusal of the book, it is evident that the Seer was influenced by the prophecies of Daniel more than by any other book. Daniel was written with the object of comforting the Jews under the cruel persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes. The Seer in the Apocalypse had a similar purpose. The Christians were fiercely persecuted in the reign of Domitian. The danger of apostasy was great. False prophets went about, trying to seduce the people to conform to the heathen practices and to take part in the Caesar-worship. The Seer urges his Christians to remain true to their faith and to bear their troubles with fortitude.

Also, http://www.curledup.com/apocalyp.htm

There are several books akin to Revelation in the Old Testament - Daniel, parts of Ezekiel, Judith, and others. This apocalyptic literature is full of symbolism, using code words or names to hide the real message from persecutors. If the persecutors of the faithful came across this subversive writing, they would either not know what it meant or think it was something from the past. This provided protection for those who understood the writing’s symbolism and codes. So the Book of Revelation is not a prophecy for the twenty-first century Christian, as some preachers would say.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

I wrote:

Now the populist argument that less than 5% of people around here would probably find Dawkins more convincing than Hovind may or may not be true.

Should be something more like: The "appeal to the majority" argument that less than 5% of people around here would find Dawkins and Hovind equally convincing may or may not be true.

Probably no-one cares but rereading my original post I confused myself and felt it needed rewording.


Wysiwig asked:

A question could be, why try to convert people to a belief in something if not seeking control?

In general, I think people try to convert not because they are seeking control, but because they think the belief to be true and therefore worthy of believing. Why believe anything if one does not think that belief corresponds with the way things really are "out there"? For example, Dawkins clearly believes that "belief in god" is a dangerous delusion and he is so convinced of that he is trying to persuade others to think similarly. Is Dawkins seeking control of others? Or does he think his belief is true and therefore worthy of attempting to persuade others to see his perspective?

 

[roland]

GOD is a belief system created by people who require a reason for being and have trouble accepting the thought of nothingness upon death.

The belief in GOD has been exploited and profitted upon for as long as people have needed to have this belief system to be available.

The belief in GOD is normally indocrinated at an early age based upon geographic and social circumastance of birth. Environmental conditioning and change affects the belief and can alter perception and change of this belief.

GOD takes many forms in peoples minds again based on environmental conditioning and peronal experience and study.

The natural human survival instinct helps to reinforce the GOD belief - the more difficult your environment, the more people secumb to this belief system.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with believing in a GOD, in many cases it is life saving and gives people hope in desperate times. The power of positive thinking is beneficial to human health, if the belief in GOD is strong enough and is supported by others then this adds to the positive thinking, similar to placebo drug tests proving the power of positive thinking and realted health benefits.

Peoples belief in GOD is generally guided by published writings setting out particular rules and guidlines written many years ago and distorted over time through misinterpretation and language changes without any allowance for cultural changes, intellectual growth, evolutionary changes, technological advances and advabces in scientific knowledge.

Since GOD is a human perception, no one is right or wrong in their belief. In all of the time of humanity GOD has never been proved or disproved and until the proof is resolved there will always be conflict.

The power struggle between religious leaders and religious extremists will continue and as the balance of power changes through technology prowess, military capability, people power, natural resource control and political dominance we will see religion being a major force in this world of ours.

GOD or not, we are yet to see the full force of this belief.

 

[Wysiwyg]

In general, I think people try to convert not because they are seeking control, but because they think the belief to be true and therefore worthy of believing. Why believe anything if one does not think that belief corresponds with the way things really are "out there"? For example, Dawkins clearly believes that "belief in god" is a dangerous delusion and he is so convinced of that he is trying to persuade others to think similarly. Is Dawkins seeking control of others? Or does he think his belief is true and therefore worthy of attempting to persuade others to see his perspective?

Hi, (reference to bold type) people `believe` for all different reasons.I`m scared, i`m lonely, i`m confused, i`m suffering, i need help, why am i here, what is the meaning of life, i need to be fathered/mothered, the world is going to end, i seek immortality, i seek peace of mind, i need protection, i need to repent my wrongs, i need to cleanse my mind, turn over a new leaf, need some direction in life, want to learn new morals, heellllppp.

There are good morals in every doctrine/belief system that all humans should abide by but the bonding of mind need not be necessary.(i think)

and some Lucretius from way back then ....

To the wide waters, touch to corporal things,
Intangibility to the viewless void.
But state of slavery, pauperhood, and wealth,
Freedom, and war, and concord, and all else
Which come and go whilst nature stands the same,
We're wont, and rightly, to call accidents.
Even time exists not of itself; but sense
Reads out of things what happened long ago,
What presses now, and what shall follow after:
No man, we must admit, feels time itself,
Disjoined from motion and repose of things.

in the end we will become non-existant, for life has a beginning and an end.

 

[weird]

Pascal's Wager, more fitting perhaps for this type of forum

If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible, since, having neither parts nor limits, He has no affinity to us. We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....

..."God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? ....

 

[moneymajix]

Hello!

 

[2020hindsight]

We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is....

.... something like this maybe?

 

[treefrog]

poll questions are poor choices since to be a disbeliever (athiest) or believer you must first know who or what god is and no one does know (beyond reasonabel doubt either way)
recall a little quote that goes like " it is impossible for a religious person to think logically, because if you are capable of logical thought there is only one conclusion.........the religious will have to guess what that is."

 

[MS+Tradesim]

poll questions are poor choices since to be a disbeliever (athiest) or believer you must first know who or what god is and no one does know (beyond reasonabel doubt either way)
recall a little quote that goes like " it is impossible for a religious person to think logically, because if you are capable of logical thought there is only one conclusion.........the religious will have to guess what that is."

I thought this was going to be a logical argument for a moment.

You want logical thinking? Here...
http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/alspaper.htm

 

[Wysiwyg]

I thought this was going to be a logical argument for a moment.

You want logical thinking? Here...
http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/alspaper.htm

Sorry to butt in but it can`t go without noting that this chappy `jumped` to a conclusion about what being created in the image of a god means.

Now according to traditional Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) thought, we human beings have been created in the image of God. This means, among other things, that he created us with the capacity for achieving knowledge””
knowledge of our environment by way of perception, of other people by way of something like what Thomas Reid calls sympathy, of the past by memory and testimony, of mathematics and logic by reason, of morality, our own mental life,God himself, and much more.

Q. How would he know what being created in the image of a god is?
Q.2 If there were no creation of a god what would be the difference?

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Sorry to butt in but it can`t go without noting that this chappy `jumped` to a conclusion about what being created in the image of a god means.

wysiwyg, you better reread the WHOLE line of thought and keep that quote in its context. This chappy did not jump to any conclusion.

Now according to traditional Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) thought, we human beings have been created in the image of God. This means, among other things, that he created us with the capacity for achieving knowledge””knowledge of our environment by way of perception, of other people by way of something like what Thomas Reid calls sympathy, of the past by memory and testimony, of mathematics and logic by reason, of morality, our own mental life, God himself, and much more.[6] And the above evolutionary account of our origins is compatible with the theistic view that God has created us in his image.[7] So evolutionary theory taken by itself (without the patina of philosophical naturalism that often accompanies expositions of it) is not as such in tension with the idea that God has created us and our cognitive faculties in such a way that the latter are reliable, that (as the medievals like to say) there is an adequation of intellect to reality.

But if naturalism is true, there is no God, and hence no God (or anyone else) overseeing our development and orchestrating the course of our evolution. And this leads directly to the question whether it is at all likely that our cognitive faculties, given naturalism and given their evolutionary origin, would have developed in such a way as to be reliable, to
furnish us with mostly true beliefs.

He is saying "According to theistic thought X, Y and Z. But if naturalism is true then A, B and C."

 

[Wysiwyg]

wysiwyg, you better reread the WHOLE line of thought and keep that quote in its context. This chappy did not jump to any conclusion.



He is saying "According to theistic thought X, Y and Z. But if naturalism is true then A, B and C."

Sorry, but since Thomas Reid,mathematics, logic by reason are introduced into the sentence, then `This means` tells me they are his thoughts/interpretation of "created in the image of God" and not a general theistic view.

And the above evolutionary account of our origins is compatible with the theistic view that God has created us in his image

This sentence refers to the first paragraph of I The Argument.Even there his `compatible` is subjective.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Now according to traditional Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) thought, we human beings have been created in the image of God.

Then could this be believed ... "So man created God in his own image, in the image of man created he him; male and female created he them."

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Sorry, but since Thomas Reid,mathematics, logic by reason are introduced into the sentence, then `This means` tells me they are his thoughts/interpretation of "created in the image of God" and not a general theistic view.

This is not just his view, but is the general theistic view as argued for by scholars and philosophers from the three main theistic traditions for centuries and millenia. These traditions, and I'm talking about the thinkers and scholars in the traditions, have always maintained that reason, logic, maths etc flow from the mind of God. On what basis can you possibly claim this is not a general theistic view? Because many street level believers don't use logic and reason? So what? Nor do many street-level non-believers. But attacking a worldview on the basis of inadequacies of populist versions is just a form of straw man burning.

 

[MS+Tradesim]

Then could this be believed ... "So man created God in his own image, in the image of man created he him; male and female created he them."

It could for true for some/many. On the other hand it has no compelling force as an argument except to those who already disbelieve. That thought is not a defeater for rational belief.