Is there a GOD?

[Hedders]

No problems Hedders. Though, if I had've known you had done tertiary level pure maths and nuclear science I would not have spent as much time in my explanations. You should in fact be giving the explanation.

Out of curiosity, were you a believer before you went to Uni and the assumptions within the science were the only places left for God to have any possible role? Or did the fact that assumptions were required disillusion your view of the science and you reasoned that a higher power was required to make it make sense?

When you start asking why is a quark a quark and why does it interact in specific ways? Why are the fundamental parameters of the universe as such? Why is matter so ordered on so many levels? For some a creator is required for it to make sense. For me, while it totally amazes me and is boggling, it is another facet of science that is waiting for an explanation. I am happy to wait and are happy not to know for now.

As for life requiring a meaning. Life does what life does, it replicates and changes within the boundaries that the universe and the local environment allow it to. On Earth, within these bounds it has attained some amazing feats, humans not being the least of these. Life on Earth has now reached a level where it can contemplate why and how it arose. The contemplation is an evolution in itself with religion being a part of that journey. As part of that evolution science has begun to fret away at the role religion plays in that contemplation. That breaking down of a requirement of a creator has accelerated and advanced to a degree now that a creator is not required to explain our origins. The concept of a creator is now a redundant part of our ongoing contemplation of origins.

I think the question should not be Is there a God?
It should be Is a God Necessary?

I became a Christian during uni- up until then I was brought up in a nonreligious home. Living on campus, I spent a good deal of my time getting drunk, and lectures didn't feature too highly in 1st year. I always had these niggling thoughts that there was more to life than what I was doing at the time. After looking into various things I finally looked into Christianity, via the Bible and other Christians. The experiences I had studying science and maths did contribute to the search for more meaning/more answers. Mind you the compassionate and loving aspects of Christianity probably left a greater impression. I spent some time doing missionary work in Africa and that kind of cemented my desire to live for God.

I used to think religion was for losers and I was very guarded, even hostile towards religious people. So I know what it's like to view religion as pointless. A whole host of things has changed that for me- some things were learnt, some things appear to be inherent in me. Getting back to science for a moment, I love the stuff, and probably like yourself, I look forward to the next discovery in the fields that I'm interested in. Probably the most fundamental shift I made in my approach to science occurred when I was back at uni though, when I struggled with the limitations of the human brain to even establish evidence-based starting points, as I mentioned before. I couldn't dismiss the notion that a being of greater intelligence existed, one that could know more and do more than us. There's no absolute proof that I'm right or wrong in this assumption, yet the infinite nature of sceince and maths reassures me that it will remain as reasonable an hypothesis as any other. I have athiest friends who feel just as sure that science will eventually explain the "gaps plugged with religious ideas" to use their term. I still don't see science as any kind of threat to what I believe, but I'm aware of how foreign this attitude is to them. I enjoy living in a world that remains full of future discoveries.

 

[Bobby]

Bulldoza, you have made 55 posts in just a few days, all about God. You have been astonishingly persistent in the repetitive nature of these posts.

Something has been ringing a bell at the back of my mind here. I have finally woken up to what it is. Here we have Bullmarket back again after being banned about three years ago.

You know what really gave you away? The use of the phrase "I'll pop in tomorrow".
No young website designer would use that expression, and it was an absolute favourite of Bullmarket's.

Up to Joe, of course, but I'd hope other ASF members will stop feeding this troll.

Well spotted Julia , old bullmarket seems to never give up

Cheers Bob.

 

[Tink]

Great post Hedders

I grew up in a Catholic family, being italian heritage

We travelled to Rome when I was 8 and I had an experience that has never made me question God

So I just say, each to their own when it comes to belief or no belief

 

[Sdajii]

Julia: Thanks for pointing that out! I should have seen it, I obviously need to improve my troll avoidance skills!

Hedder: Once upon a time religion was used as an explanation for how some very basic things worked, because we had no idea how even the most basic aspects of the world and universe worked. "I don't understand it, so god must have done it" seems like a very strange reasoning, especially given our track record of explaining more and more of what religion used to explain. Once upon a time you were seen as challenging god if you said the world was round or the Earth went around the Sun. Now that we fully understand the things which had us boggled back then we have advanced to a stage where we can understand much more advanced things, and in time we will solve those mysteries and come up with some new ones which are even more advanced and we can't even see as mysteries just yet.

We do not need to be able to understand everything, and we never will. Why would you explain something you don't understand by making up something even more unexplainable? Are you not brave enough to say that it is okay for us not to know everything? If we did get to the stage where we understood everything there was to understand about the universe, and fully explained the way everything came to be, and that satisfied us that there was no god, would it still make sense for monkeys to believe in god because they could not yet understand it all? Should we be arrogant enough to think that we are so incredibly awesome that we will be able to understand any natural aspect of the universe, and that the only way something could possibly be too difficult for us to understand is if a supernatural power had intervened?

Let's assume for a moment that there is no god, the universe did just evolve naturally, the brain is a product of evolution, etc. In that godless universe, anyone in a primitive species with the "If I can't explain it god did it" mentality will wrongly believe that there is a god, and they will accept that there is no god once they manage to explain the whole lot, and if they can't explain the whole lot because it's just too difficult, they will continue to wrongly believe in god. Obviously even not so long ago, in well-documented history we didn't have the ability to even work out what some of the basic organs in the body did.

But what makes even less sense about this line of thinking is that you can't accept that the brain came into existence on its own even though you can see a clear evolutionary progression to the brain between the simplest forms of life which still exist and the most advanced modern brains, while on the other hand you can accept that some magical superbeing came into existence on its own from nothing, even though there is absolutely no explanation for it at all and no way at all to detect it. I can't think of a more flawed argument.

I think I'll just accept that if someone believes in religion they are someone very much willing to suspend logic and reason, so I am bashing my head against the wall in trying to reason with them.

 

[Boognish]

Heard a great quote yesterday from an expert on cold reading - you can't rationally argue someone out of a belief that was not arrived at rationally. The religion/culture war debate is probably my favourite topic, not because any religion has ever harmed me personally but because the idea of god/gods has had such a huge influence on human history and development. Having said this, I've realised that arguing about it on the internet, even on more high-brow forums like this one, is pretty futile.

 

[explod]

Well spotted Julia , old bullmarket seems to never give up

Cheers Bob.

Well Julia, time and time again you turn out to be a staunch treasure to us all on ASF.

About God, well I love the debate and trying to clear think it all, but it seems you cannot get through to some so our task perhaps is to do what we can to minimise the dogma being forced onto children and encouraging better education for all.

A good friend, privvy to the forums discussions sent me a very moving message overnight and got me thinking about my spirituality. I do not know the answer about God but find I may be by nature a Buddist.

 

[Julia]

This is probably not the best thread for this post, but I didn't want to start a new one.

The following discussion on Radio National's "Big Ideas" between social researcher Hugh McKay and Jon Cleary (producer of ABC Radio's religious programmes) is an hour of absorbing thought on the part of both people.

Hugh McKay has just had his latest book released: "What Makes us Tick", the desires, aspirations and beliefs of Australians.

He talks about the need of human beings to believe in something, and suggests that to remain sceptical is a more difficult position to maintain than to fall in with the reassurance of joining a group of believers.

Imo you could extrapolate this to being part of a group about pretty much anything, such is the need most of us have to enjoy a sense of connection with others and a feeling of belonging.

He thinks many Catholics would like to see the Latin mass brought back, because it's the gathering in church, the rites and ceremony that many find so reassuring, rather than the clarity and reality of the English words which for many believers detract from the sense of religiosity.

I'm paraphrasing here, and would not want to suggest that Mr McKay is being anti-religion, because he's not.

It's a discussion that I think believers and non-believers can equally enjoy.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/3038586.htm

 

[Wysiwyg]

Chaosi mate or anyone really I don't give a ship. Wondering what your thoughts are on the thousands of people over the centuries that have exploited the god belief? Were they within their rights to manipulate their followers through fear, lies (see prophecies) and guilt?

 

[burglar]

Since you brought it up:

The sh!te meter registers intolerance of others views ...

Why is Pi on the meter?

 

[wayneL]

Why is Pi on the meter?

Pi is the critical mass of of shyte required for a spontaneous chain reaction.

 

[explod]

Chaosi mate or anyone really I don't give a ship. Wondering what your thoughts are on the thousands of people over the centuries that have exploited the god belief? Were they within their rights to manipulate their followers through fear, lies (see prophecies) and guilt?

Absolutely and well said.

The Chief installed the Witch Doctor to put fear into the tribe so that the Chief could lead them placidly to heaven.

And control the poor bas ards all the way to the grave.

Did anyone notice the tears being shed at the Queens Jubilee.

 

[Tysonboss1]

You'll never know the sunshine outside if you stay in your room the whole day.

Thats the thing though,

The magic of reality is so much better than any religous story.

 

[Tink]

Agree bellenuit, and thanks for the link.

Yes, I believe in God.

 

[bellenuit]

This is a brilliant response to those who use Pascal's wager as a reason to believe in God.

 

[Tink]

Thanks bellenuit, we seem to have the same talks go round and round in all these threads. We have all stated our whys and our experiences, its a pity we couldnt have put them all in here with peoples experiences.

Many that have gone from atheist to christianity, therefore all these reasons that its doctrinated is a load of crock, many have come up with their own conclusions.

and others that have gone the other way, from Christianity to atheists

 

[Ruby]

Thanks Bellenuit. I would like to see Christians refute this argument! I have given a lot of thought to this line of reasoning for years, but would never have been able to express it in such an articulate manner.

Many that have gone from atheist to christianity, therefore all these reasons that its doctrinated is a load of crock, many have come up with their own conclusions.

and others that have gone the other way, from Christianity to atheists

No, not a crock Tink; in order to go from non-believer to Christian, people have to be indoctrinated or they wouldn't know what the Christian faith was. They could not have drawn their own conclusions without being fed some information. But then, a lot of people who call themselves Christian don't know what the Christian doctrine is!

 

[Tink]

If they go looking Ruby, they arent happy with your atheist reasoning.
I believe in God, you dont - end of story.

 

[bellenuit]

Many that have gone from atheist to christianity, therefore all these reasons that its doctrinated is a load of crock, many have come up with their own conclusions.

Sorry Tink, but the evidence is very much against what you have said. Although I have no doubt there are some people, perhaps in the order of a couple of percent, who have genuinely thought about God and religion and either changed religions or stopped being an atheist and converted to a religion, the vast majority of people believe what they believe because of the place of their birth or the religion of their parents. The correlation is just too strong. To say that this is not due to indoctrination would be to imply that the majority rationally came to their beliefs through reason and the fact that most muslims are in North Africa and The Middle East across to Indonesia, most Buddhists are in East and Southern Asia and most Christians are in Europe and America is just a coincidence.

Indoctrination doesn't have to be explicit like under Mao's re-education camps or like what is in North Korea today, but can simply be a subtle process that begins from birth and continuous through one's most formative years. It doesn't mean that those doing the indoctrination are even consciously aware that they are doing it. The whole environment that the child and young adult is brought up in just reinforces a particular belief system.

If you could persuade me that you and most of your family and friends who hold the same beliefs as you would have exactly those same beliefs at this stage in your lives if you had been born in Indonesia or Turkey say (both chosen because they are moderate Muslim countries). Would you and your friends even have the same beliefs if you were born in the US bible belt?

 

[pavilion103]

Christianity has spread from its beginnings to cultures who either had no Christian background or in fact, opposing views. Rome for one. The rest of Europe. South America and now China for goodness sakes!!!

Why did they all believe? Because they bowed down before the white man who told them? Give me a break.
No because it made sense to them! They changed their conditioned views 180 degrees.


And of course in order to be a Christian you have to hear about Christianity but this doesn't differ from being a trader, you have to read about trading! To understand evolution you have to read books on it.
Staggering statement that was made!!!

 

[pixel]

This is a brilliant response to those who use Pascal's wager as a reason to believe in God.

Thanks bellenuit, the speaker puts my notions of 50 years concisely into words - many times better than I've ever been able.
I have bookmarked that video and hope it'll be allowed to remain indefinitely on youtube.