Is there a GOD?

[Pat]

Walk around the Middle East today, or 16th century Spain, with a sign strapped to you saying 'God/Allah does not exist'.

Good luck...

You could say the same about 'the great general' Kim Jong-il and North Korea. Certainly not a heavenly figure there.

I'm just saying that this god/s debate has been going on for... well... ever, and regardless of the outcome nothing will change. If EVERYONE agreed that god does or doesn't exist, or on one god, life, planet earth and the stars remain the same.

Belief in god and religion is just too 'bitter sweet' for me to see any real logic.

 

[Sean K]

You could say the same about 'the great general' Kim Jong-il and North Korea. Certainly not a heavenly figure there.

I'm just saying that this god/s debate has been going on for... well... ever, and regardless of the outcome nothing will change. If EVERYONE agreed that god does or doesn't exist, or on one god, life, planet earth and the stars remain the same.

Belief in god and religion is just too 'bitter sweet' for me to see any real logic.

Pat, my point is, that your comment is from a non believer or at least an agnostic, and not a 'true' follower.

For a great percentage of the planet, life without God would cease to exist.

Looking into the crystal ball there may well be a day when there is conflict between the believers and non believers to determine our future, and change the shape of moral fundamentals. It may be a bloody fight consuming the world. It's a way off though, God/Allah/Brahma is pretty well entrenched right now.

 

[Pat]

Pat, my point is, that your comment is from a non believer or at least an agnostic, and not a 'true' follower.

Exactly right. I don't follow a religion. God to me.... not sure, I'm open to all positive suggestion. I respect the hand that feeds me.

I still see no logic in religion. To me, Carl Sagan summed it up in the book Contact with Eleanor's (I think thats her name) thoughts on God. (Sorry can't provide quote's, the book is at my mum's )

For a great percentage of the planet, life without God would cease to exist.

Looking into the crystal ball there may well be a day when there is conflict between the believers and non believers to determine our future, and change the shape of moral fundamentals. It may be a bloody fight consuming the world. It's a way off though, God/Allah/Brahma is pretty well entrenched right now.

Agree that fanatics may 'lose' there will to live, but life goes on. I think society as we know it may cease to exist. I'm yet to be convinced humans are capable of living in peace without any religious input, so I can't say the world would be a better place without belief in God or religion.

 

[refined silver]

Not sure about that one.

Some scholars believe the Old Testament was written over about 10 centuries, between the 12th and 2nd c BC (by memory), and further revised until a final copy hit the printing presses around 4-500AD.

Hi mate,

Yes, with the emphasis on "some scholars". It depends what pre-suppositions you come to the text with.

Liberal scholars in the 18th and 19th centuries, who accepted all the pre-suppositions of the Enlightenment, eg, the universe is a closed system run only by natural laws, then began to "redact" the text according to their new pre-suppositions. That meant all miracles were out and all prophecy was out for starters. Hence for example if the book of Isaiah prophesied (round 700BC) the fall of the Babylonians, and rise and fall of Medo-Persian empire, which happened a couple of hundred years later, then these scholars decided that was impossible to predict, therefore Isaiah didn't write all of Isaiah and others must have added to it after the events.

The Old Testament was written from around 1500BC to 400BC when Malachi, the last book was written. As different books were written by different authors, they were added to the accepted list of Scriptures. The Septuagint which was the full OT in Greek was available around 200BC and was scattered through the Greek empire in the Jewish diaspora well before Christ.

So, there were probably various writers of all of the books of the Old Testament. The final five books decided to be included as the Pentateuch or Torah, are attributed to four sources, nd the authors labelled; Yahwist (J), the Elohist (E), the Deuteronomist (D) and the Priestly (P) source. The J and E are labelled as such for the way they refer to God, as either Yahweh, or Elohim. I find this interesting because the Elohim around this time are actually a pantheon of gods residing in a town called Ugrit on the coast of modern day Syria, but that's another story.

So, it might have been the story of Moses, but his story was converyed by a number of scribes over a number of years. I daresay some poetic lisence went into it and I damn well hope so.

Again, same story, liberal scholars, not because of evidence but because of their presuppositions, using the flimsiest of evidence come up with the 4 source Yahwist (Y), Elohist (E), (D) and (P) theories. Much recent archeological and literary research totally undercuts many of the arguments used against Moses authorship of the first 5 books.

 

[motorway]

Interesting comment in

http://www.worldscibooks.com/economics/5819.html

You can download chapter 1
which this is from..

3. Overconfidence and irrationality
“Extensive evidence shows that people are overconfident in their judgments” (Barberis and
Thaler, 2003). From entropy law, any biological system, as a non-equilibrium system, faces
constant dissipation of energy. Endless efforts are required to maintain a non-equilibrium system.

Entropy law has been intuitively understood since ancient times. “The gods had condemned
Sisyphus to ceaselessly rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, whence the stone would fall back
of its own weight. They had thought with some reason that there is no more dreadful punishment
than futile and hopeless labour. … If this myth is tragic, that is because its hero is conscious. …

The workman of today works every day in his life at the same tasks and this fate is no less absurd.

But it is tragic only at the rare moments when it becomes conscious.” (Camus, 1955, p. 109) In
the long course of evolution of our solar system, all life on earth will eventually go extinct in the
far distant future (Lovelock, 1988). From a purely rational perspective, life is meaningless. Since
human beings are self-conscious, the very question of why life is worth living lingers in many
people’s minds. “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of
philosophy” (Camus, 1955, p. 11). Overconfidence and irrationality are adaptive psychological
traits that help us survive in this world.


The prevalence of irrationality is reflected in the prevalence of religious beliefs in various
forms. A fundamental characteristic of various religions is that they are built on some miracles
that are not consistent with physical or biological laws, such as virgin birth, sustainable growth or
infinite human creativity (Daly, 1991).

Marx (1844) once noted:
Religion is the sigh of the exhausted creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul
of the soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is a demand for their true
happiness. The call to abandon illusions about their condition is the call to abandon a
condition that requires illusions.

Because of the inexorable increase of entropy in the universe, the condition that requires
illusion will never leave us.

 

[refined silver]

Interesting comment in

http://www.worldscibooks.com/economics/5819.html

You can download chapter 1
which this is from..

Hi motorway,

That's actually spot on.

If you start with totally naturalistic pre-suppositions, ie that we are only a product of time, chance and matter, these are the conclusions you must come to. Most people don't realise how stark the choice is.

 

[Sean K]

Again, same story, liberal scholars, not because of evidence but because of their presuppositions, using the flimsiest of evidence come up with the 4 source Yahwist (Y), Elohist (E), (D) and (P) theories. Much recent archeological and literary research totally undercuts many of the arguments used against Moses authorship of the first 5 books.

Ok, your 'recent archeological and literary research' absolutley trumps my 'some scholars'. Case closed.

There is actually no archeological evidence that proves a few hundred thousand people trampled across the Sinai following Moses. Nada. Not even a clay pot.

Only Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews hold on to this myth. And anyone else indoctrinated at an early enough age, that they refuse to see logic.

I'm not sure if you've read any historical books on the subject, other than the bible, but I can recommend one, The History of God, by Karen Armstrong. Yes, I'm logic bashing. I'm sorry.

 

[tcoates]

Is there a God?

I honestly do not think that you will really determine an answer here.

Is there a God? (31,000,000 search results from Google)
Does God exist? (831000 search results)

For those of a religious background, the answer is Yes. For those that who are not, the answer would be Yes/No/Maybe.

We live in a scientific age, where people want some scientific proof of existence. Articles from one commentator or another won't (?) convert another persons beliefs. Just as much as you might shout NO, there are others (like David123) who will shout YES. So I won't try and covert you either

Ultimately, whether couched as scientific inquiry or purely religious/moral/philosophical faith it a personal, investigative decision for each one of us - a matter of faith (or not).

Tim

 

[jonojpsg]

Ok, your 'recent archeological and literary research' absolutley trumps my 'some scholars'. Case closed.

There is actually no archeological evidence that proves a few hundred thousand people trampled across the Sinai following Moses. Nada. Not even a clay pot.

Only Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews hold on to this myth. And anyone else indoctrinated at an early enough age, that they refuse to see logic.

I'm not sure if you've read any historical books on the subject, other than the bible, but I can recommend one, The History of God, by Karen Armstrong. Yes, I'm logic bashing. I'm sorry.

Hey kennas,
couple of points - first, there wouldn't necessarily be archaelogical evidence of a couple of hundred thousand people tramping across the Sinai if they were tramping the whole time? Don't know anything really about archeology though

and second, even if there wasn't evidence that Moses led the Jews across the Sinai, this still doesn't effect his authorship of the Pentateuch.

 

[fimmwolf]

Originally posted by imajica
all religions are essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses which infect people who are vulnerable to accepting easy answers to unanswerable questions.

the church and the bible are manipulative tools for ensuring the flock don't stray too far.

+1

I couldn't phrase that better if I tried.

 

[Sean K]

Hey kennas,
couple of points - first, there wouldn't necessarily be archaelogical evidence of a couple of hundred thousand people tramping across the Sinai if they were tramping the whole time? Don't know anything really about archeology though

and second, even if there wasn't evidence that Moses led the Jews across the Sinai, this still doesn't effect his authorship of the Pentateuch.

I'm not sure if they just tramped for 40 years. I don't know anything about archeology either, just what I've seen on Indiana Jones... lol

Remember also, they were chased by most the entire population of Egypt according to Exodus, I think. I few million extra tramping...

Yep, he could have written it all, there's no difinitive answer, you just have to make your own judgement on the available information.

Some of the things he says happened in the books make me question their authenticity. That's my judgement.

 

[wayneL]

For those of a religious background, the answer is Yes. For those that who are not, the answer would be Yes/No/Maybe.

We live in a scientific age, where people want some scientific proof of existence. Articles from one commentator or another won't (?) convert another persons beliefs. Just as much as you might shout NO, there are others (like David123) who will shout YES. So I won't try and covert you either

Ultimately, whether couched as scientific inquiry or purely religious/moral/philosophical faith it a personal, investigative decision for each one of us - a matter of faith (or not).

Tim

The big problem I have with the debate is that on one side we have folks trying to prove/have faith in the Biblical style God, and on the other, folks who believe science disproves the Biblical style God. (in western society anyway)

I think as far as the Biblical Style God goes, the atheists have it in a cakewalk.

But... we humans tend to polarize ourselves in debate and disregard the infinite number of possibilities in between. There are emotional reasons for this. We humans make emotional decisions and then enlist logic to back up our decision.

Removing the emotion (guilt, hurt, fear, whatever) as much as possible, leaves the mind to consider all sorts of possibilities. The LHC at CERN is a massive opportunity to learn new stuff about the creation of the universe (not said in the religious sense) and cause a new evolution of thought, in whichever direction the person wants to take it.

The potential of CERN is in reinforcing my own particular take on things. i.e. a "natural god" absolutely unlike anything in the "scriptures".

OPEN MINDS - it's exciting!

 

[Sean K]

Originally posted by imajica
all religions are essentiallly ideological and linguistic viruses which infect people who are vulnerable to accepting easy answers to unanswerable questions.

the church and the bible are manipulative tools for ensuring the flock don't stray too far.

+1

I couldn't phrase that better if I tried.

There is another theory about belief in supernatural beings, gods, and why we form religion that I've been reading about recently and it's an evolutionary adaption theory. I've been writing some stuff on it, but it's on my own computer back home.

It's very difficult to summarise, but this news piece is a good start:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=all

 

[refined silver]

I'm not sure if you've read any historical books on the subject, other than the bible, but I can recommend one, The History of God, by Karen Armstrong. Yes, I'm logic bashing. I'm sorry.

Yes, I've read historical books on the subject but not hers. Why not? When you totally disagree with someone's premises, of course you will disagree with their conclusions.

Armstrong follows modern liberal "comparative religions" theory which suggests all religions evolved from common source, and all ideas of "god" are simply human projections from the culture of that time. She gathers data to support her theories and rejects any which contradict. She is an ultra-liberal member of the Jesus Seminars who totally reject the biblical picture of Jesus, and have regular seminars to make a "Jesus" in their own image, voting on which bits of the gospels they think authentic or not. Of course this changes as fashions change. She also denies the Bible teaches any clear theology or relevant ethics. Of course 1000s of scholars would strongly disagree with her views, her evidence and her conclusions.

Read her if you like, but don't pretend she is the only word or the authoritative word on the subject.

 

[Sean K]

Yes, I've read historical books on the subject but not hers. Why not? When you totally disagree with someone's premises, of course you will disagree with their conclusions.

Armstrong follows modern liberal "comparative religions" theory which suggests all religions evolved from common source, and all ideas of "god" are simply human projections from the culture of that time. She gathers data to support her theories and rejects any which contradict. She is an ultra-liberal member of the Jesus Seminars who totally reject the biblical picture of Jesus, and have regular seminars to make a "Jesus" in their own image, voting on which bits of the gospels they think authentic or not. Of course this changes as fashions change. She also denies the Bible teaches any clear theology or relevant ethics. Of course 1000s of scholars would strongly disagree with her views, her evidence and her conclusions.

Read her if you like, but don't pretend she is the only word or the authoritative word on the subject.

Of course many people who have blind faith will disregard a scholary historical account on the history of the idea of God.

When you totally disagree with someone's premises, of course you will disagree with their conclusions.

I'll read anything on the subject to not close myself off to the potential factual truth.

Of course 1000s of scholars would strongly disagree with her views, her evidence and her conclusions.

Well, we can add Refined Silver as one. Got a seconder?

 

[refined silver]

I'll read anything on the subject to not close myself off to the potential factual truth.

If you want research, evidence and facts, try "Who Moved the Stone" by Frank Morison. As an agnostic as well as a lawyer and journalist, he set out to disprove the historicity of the Resurrection by a thorough investigation of all the the evidence, non biblical included, and he was forced to the totally the opposite conclusion. That the bodily resurrection of Jesus is one of the most historically attestable facts in history and that under the rules of logic and evidence, any court in the world would be forced to the same conclusion.

Well, we can add Refined Silver as one. Got a seconder?

Kennas, you actually seem unaware of the evangelicals vs liberals divide in biblical, theological, and historical scholarship. Both sides have scores of PhDs, run multitudes of their own scholarly journals, run university depatments and faculties, and so on.

You have picked up a couple of liberal books, the ideas gel with your own, because many liberal theologians are practical atheists anyway, (eg -"God is dead" theology) and you assume you have the full story.

 

[Sean K]

If you want research, evidence and facts, try "Who Moved the Stone" by Frank Morison. As an agnostic as well as a lawyer and journalist, he set out to disprove the historicity of the Resurrection by a thorohttps://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gifugh investigation of all the the evidence, non biblical included, he was forced to the opposite conclusion.

Kennas, you actually seem unaware of the evangelicals vs liberals divide in biblical, theological, and historical scholarship. Both sides have scores of PhDs, run multitudes of their own scholarly journals, run university depatments and faculties, and so on.

You have picked up a couple of liberal books, the ideas gel with your own, because many liberal theologians are practical atheists anyway, (eg -"God is dead" theology) and you assume you have the full story.

LOL, Yes, picked up a couple of books and read the back covers.

I'm therefore full bottle on this religion stuff...

 

[Pat]

In drunken stupor, i've come to the conclusion, any debate regarding god or similar, is illogical, or at least the logic in doing so is flawed.

 

[Sean K]

In drunken stupor, i've come to the conclusion, any debate regarding god or similar, is illogical, or at least the logic in doing so is flawed.

God is the logic to describe the illogical.

 

[wayneL]

In drunken stupor, i've come to the conclusion, any debate regarding god or similar, is illogical, or at least the logic in doing so is flawed.

That's why it's fun.