RedFive

A Dutch writer once said: blessed be the ones who are passionate about things.

davegtt

In all respect its a bl00dy good arguement, a flat screen telly didnt exsist in the 17th century. Simple. Now if you had said try proving that one day man will create a flat screen telly then thats a bit different but it still has no resemblance to your comments

Generic User

Similar approach tactic.

I was lying paralyzed in the intensive care ward of a spinal injuries hospital, unable to move anything whatsoever and a priest appeared from behind the curtains.

I was unable to see who it was due to lying flat on my back but I heard this guy introduce himself and ask if I'd like to talk to him.

I said no I'd rather not. The cheeky ****** continued to tell me that I was paralyzed because god had chosen me knowing full well I'd cope with it for the rest of my life.

Next words from me were "why don't you just **** off". The sister of the ward overheard me and come inside the curtains to see what was up.

I asked her what right he had spouting cr4p to me and what right he had just walking in my curtains when my own family are vetted like terrorists when visiting?

Father Jackass never stopped at my bed again for the months I was there

Crazy Chick

Ben v7

I personally feel that we are not here simply by coincidence. If you look at this world and the number of variables that had to be exactly correct for life to flourish on this planet it is mind boggling. It is as if the planet has been perfectly 'designed'. You see similar evidence of this perfect design in the creatures that inhabit the planet. This is why many top scientists believe in a higher power – the probability of all this happening by coincidence is just too small.

Sure maybe we ask the questions simply because we are here to ask them, but to say that this higher power doesn't and cannot exist because you or even 'we' have no evidence is like saying that just because we can’t understand something means it isn't there. How many times have people made that mistake in the past? Has anyone been able to confirm what caused the 'Big Bang' as per the theory or explain in full the Universe? Would you expect ants to understand a Sky Scraper?

I do think organised religion is very unproductive though and is undoubtedly the root of a great many problems in the world – ignorant people blindly following the ramblings of a few power hungry 'leaders'.

I personally believe in a higher power or a God if you like and that there is a point to living a good life. I do feel accountable for the way I treat people and the things I do. It is called having faith because that is exactly what it is – a belief without proof.

OllyK

Actually most of the "designs" are very poor, but they work sufficiently well in the environment. Your massive variables argument was tried recently by the ID crew in the US. The worked out how many variables would be needed in terms of numbers of organisms, generations etc to show evolution to be viable. It was shown that those variables existed in about 1 cubic meter of soil over 20 years with bacteria. Scale it up to 13 billion years and it's a wonder the universe isn't teaming with life.

Citation please?! Again a myth perported by the ID crew. Do a search on "scientists called steve" There are more scientists called Steve that disagree with ID than there are in total that agree - go figure!

IPU - do a wiki on it. Abscence of evidence may not be evidence of abscence, but it sure as hell is not any kind of proof of existence. The top end physicysts know the universe pretty well, far better than I do, and so for we nothing requires the invention of a super natural being.

What mistake? Science is self correcting. Things may not be possible in a current context, it doesn't deny anything that can be well argued and it always accept the possibility that new data will come along that will change things. How many people with religious faith can even admit they would change their mind if they could be shown they were wrong?

And???

Why would they want to? Termites however...

So without the threat of god hanging over you, you'd be imoral and criminal?

Wow - the last 4 words I agree with, now understand what that really means and how many other things you are prepared to accept on the same basis.

Ben v7

I was talking about the planet it's self rather than the evolution of life...

Physicists have theories on the Universe. I’ve read much of Stephen Hawking's and others work and while they explain a great deal, the basic questions, those a child would ask, remain unanswered.

You've missed my point. Depends how you want to view it - I see it as keeping an open mind and again making a personal choice.

It was an illustration of how silly it is for us to presume we have the mental capacity to understand everything.

No I wouldn't, but some do appear to take the view that no God means no accountability.

I can't honestly think of anything else off hand! Again it's personal feeling on the matter and is something I have considered over and over.

Edit: Corrected quote error.

Ben v7

Yes it is isn't it...

OllyK

And you consider "god dunnit" an acceptable answer? I prefer to say, we honestly don't know all the answers yet, but as every day passes our understanding improves.

But you don't have an open mind - you have decided what created the universe - god. I am still asking questions as I don't feel the answers we have do fully explain things although they go a long way towards it.

Hypothetically, what would it take for you to change you mind an accept that there is no god? It wouldn't take much for me to change my mind, or any other atheist, and it would easily be within the power of a god to provide what I need.

Personally I just think it was a silly illustration period. You are not comparing apples with apples.

Who, exactly?

So what makes the origins of the universe a special exception?

OllyK

I'd certainly be surprised if there was no other life anywhere in the universe. However, either way it throws up lots of questions. Why did god create all the other stars and planets and only put life on earth? Were the others practice runs? Why does there need to be all the other planets if god created us? Does he have a bigger future plan for mankind (or the species that takes over from us when we destroy ourselves), does that then presume and omnipotent god? If so we have no free will, so we do exactly as he wants us to do. If we have no free will then much of what is in the bible is a lie (and many other religious texts).

The big question is where did the universe come from (assuming it did, there are some theories that it has always been)? Saying god did it doesn't answer the question, it just moves the problem up a level to "So who created god then?" Whatever answer you choose to accept for god's creator is equally applicable directly to the universe without the need for a god.

Ben v7

The illustration… okay... it's like an ape trying to understand astrophysics.

Regarding the above objection to 'the everything must have a cause and that cause must be God' argument. Basically you either choose to believe that there is a self existent God or a self existent universe at the end of the day. However the universe is not behaving as if it is self existent is it?

The more we learn about thermodynamics the more apparent it is that the universe is cooling down etc and is not constant. Therefore we cannot apply to the Universe what applies to 'God' – whatever that higher power may be.

Asking if God created the Universe then who created God is a bit like asking 'Who made the unmakable'… beyond our comprehension… back to the ants or whatever…

brihoppy

i would say there is very little beyond human comprehension nowadays, as long as someone can come up with the answers...we may not understand it as such, but the human imagination is vast...yes, you couldnt explain space travel or smoothie makers to cro-magnon (couldnt spell neande...neau...?!) man, but our demand for proof is disproportionate to our capacity to imagine...

give me the answers, and i can imagine them if not understand them...but ill still need proof

kelvin

At the risk of also sounding like an "insensitive ba5tard" (not intended); given that it was a Church (presumably Christian) funeral, I would have expected comments along the same lines. Perhaps not so blunt as "you should be thankful", but at least a reference to God's will.

Why have a Christian ceremony if you're not religious?

OllyK

Good grief. Don't dumb the rest of mankind down, just because you don't understand the way the universe works, doesn't mean that other people don't have a very good understanding.

Errr no. The universe exists, I have a modicum of evidence that supports that unless you want to wander off in to the realms of solipsism. Now show me the evidence for a god, any god. Indeed we are still waiting for somebody who belives to actually provide a consistent definition / description of god(s) that we can test for existence.

You seem to be putting forward a lot of arguments used by the YEC / ID groups. By self existent I assume you are trying to claim the universe is in violation of the first law of thermodynamics? Have you looked on the web for the scientific refutation of that argument? - it's a one liner.

No, asking who created god is like asking who created the Invisible Pink Unicorns, it's pointless as there is no evidence to suggest either of them exist in the first place.

So instead of trying to find the origins of something we know exists, the universe, we claim it was created by something we have no evidence for then wrap it up in a whole load of caveats an bunkum to avoid people asking questions about it or testing it and instead insist it is taken on "faith".

Thankfully many people don't just accept or believe and so keep trying to find the true origins of the universe. Maybe they will finally find evidence of a god and maybe it did create the universe, but at least then it will be founded on research, thought and proof and not some cleric's say-so.

Sbradley

Just for a moment to return to the original title of this thread...

Personally I don't have any patience or respect for people who take their own prejudices and hangups, dress them up with a veneer of compassion and faith, call it religion and shove it down other people's throats. The Swedish idiot is a fine example.

Why do people thank God but blame other people? I guess it's down to human nature and long term established reactions. "Thank God for..." is a very common phrase among believers and non-believers alike. Right or wrong, I don't think it's actually an issue of faith, just a turn of phrase.

Now I've been challenged to define God.

I can't.

I can say how I see God, but that's not a definition, even in the loosest sense. merely a personal viewpoint.

Before I do so, though, a couple of caveats and background statements. I'm a scientist by nature, I have an open and enquiring mind and I spent some time in HM Forces in various crappy locations. I'm not a born-again Christian, I don't believe that my faith is really anyone's business but my own and I am not seeking justification or vindication. This exercise is, to me, an enjoyable bit of intellectual sparring with some intelligent people who see things differently to me. That's all.

Let's do it, then...

SB

Sbradley

What/who is God?

I don't know.

But I have some ideas that may make sense. They do to me, anyhow, and as this is just my own take on a very big question then I guess that's all that matters.

First of all, I do not believe that God is a chap with a long white beard sitting on a cloud. In fact, I don't believe God has a clearly defined physical form at all. Think of a vaguely shaped mass of, for want of a better word, energy, and you're in the right direction. And that works with both the bible and science, too. God made man in his own image, and we evolved from single celled creatures. So God made life as a single celled creature that looked like he does. Hey - Eve came from Adam. That'll be single celled creatures replicating by cell division, then. It still works.

Some people say that God is love. That may well be fairly close to the truth, if we accept love as a positive force. It's not necessarily something you can measure using methods we have available to us now, but it's certainly very strong.

So if God is energy then we can have souls. How so? We run on electricity. Our nerve impulses, thoughts, dreams are all no more than electric currents pasisng through different areas. Where does that electric current go when we die? hey - perhaps it goes to the great capacitor in the sky. And if God is energy then he can be polarised and have an opposite. Which means that energy of the wrong type goes to the other terminal. Heaven and Hell, then.

But in truth I see God as a concept more than an entity. And I see God, or the hand of God, all around me in the everyday wonders that we take for granted.

For example. I understand why sunrises and sunsets are the glorious spectacles that they are. I know about refraction and the scattering effects of lower atmosphere particulates and I know the scientific reason why you get beautiful patterns in the sky. but why does refracted sunlight look so beautiful? Why does the atmosphere work exactly the right way to have that effect?

Why are some chemical bonds water soluble and some not? Ever farted in the bath? Course you have. But if the carbon-carbon and hydrogen-carbon bonds in your fart weren't insoluble, you'd get some pretty nasty acid burns every time you did it.

I'm not disputing that there is a scientific explanation for most, if not all, things we see. But that doesn't mean that the hand of God isn't involved in the grand design in the first place.

My belief is simple. I live right, I try to treat my fellow man with respect and courtesy and I have no doubt that when I die I will find out for sure whether there is an afterlife (and a God) or not. I believe, however, that there is. I hope I'm a decent person. I know I'm open minded. I'm sane as I reasonably can be, am fairly intelligent and I hope I'm rational.

Though some of you may question the last part...

SB

Sbradley

Oh. Who created God? It had to come up at some point.

Here's a better one. Where did the matter come from that conglomerated to form the Big Bang?

Nowhere?

Somewhere?

Where, then?

SB

OllyK

I prefer "Phew" of "Thank f*ck for that" to be honest. I could almost accept that if they hadn't been stood in the church for 2 hours praising god for saving the miners. It wasn't just a throw away comment, they were quite literally praising god. I just wonder why they were not berating him in his church when it turned out they were dead.

Not being funny, but that is no great surprise - religion hasn't come up with a unified definition to date, I was setting an unrealistic target.

Sure, but we can look at that as a specific example and examine if there is anything in your claim / definition that is testable, that would allow is to determine if you are right or wrong. What religion usually does, is ensure that there are caveats around the definition which explicitly makes god untestable, this protects their world view as they can never be shown to be wrong.

OK I'm happy with that. And thank you for being prepared to try and shed some light on things. Having a science background, I hope, will avoid the usual prickely response one gets from believers in a "higher power" when they feel others should just accept and not question. You will be aware of the thought processes that fellow scientists go through and what is considered reasonable in terms of proof. I'd be amazed if we get to a proof of a god, but having a definition on the table for discussion is 1 heck of a starting point.

Leslie

Red Five,

Your points which you made are about individuals in particular cases and their personal beliefs or excuses in Dubya's case. Nothing to do with a religion's basic teachings.

OllyK,

You have attempted the old trick of trying to take my points out of context.

Surely denial stems from disbelief, those two must go hand in hand. Perhap's you could explain the differences you mention.

Of course there are degrees of belief or disbelief. Basically you can accept God and religion, you can say you just do not know so remain an agnostic, or you just don't accept any possibility of an all powerful being. As I said, you are entitled to think what you like or more honestly to follow your own conscience. I personally would not castigate anyone for that whichever way they want to go. Why should I jump up and down and get frustrated because someone else wants to believe something different to me? As far as I am concerned it is their own business and good luck to them.

I do object however to people running down religiously minded people purely because they don't believe it is correct that they should do so. Live and let live I say. What harm are they doing to you? And all this tosh about blaming the world's troubles on religion is a non argument. It is people who cause the trouble and if they use the religion to their own selfish ends then that is not the fault of the religion or its true followers.

You say you have come to your conclusions through your own reasoning. Fine that is entirely down to you. I could not prove to you that there is a God and you cannot prove that there is not. And please don't waste time by trying to pull that one about it is down to prove His existence rather than His non existence. It does not hold water. Incidentally, your beliefs are based on scientific theories, not facts.

Finally let me point out a few things. Where have I said anywhere that there is a God? Let me remind you that I mentioned Natural Law in my previous post and that should answer your own final point in your post because I also did not say that you had to be religious to lead an honourable life.

Les

Reality

Do you believe in Santa ?

You can call me a Pillock like SBradley if you want - but given your stance on proof requirements he clearly does exist - along with the tooth fairy & God.

lightning101

You can visit santa though

Reality

Hey - I'm more ready to believe in santa than God

Holy Ghost

richard dawkins said "without religion, good men do good and evil men do evil. in the name of religion, good men will also do evil." sums it up for me.

individual faith? fine. organised religion? rancid.

is there a god? nobody knows. what went bang? nobody knows. is evolution a reliable theory? looks like it. was there a virgin birth? unlikely. was there an historical figure called jesus crucified for heresy and subversion? looks like it. did he look on the bright side of life? probably not when he was on the cross. did he rise from the dead? unlikely, he probably rose from a coma if he rose at all.

all i know is that dinosaurs don't figure in the book of genesis and that makes literal creationists completely tonto in my book. however, the idea of a "garden of dudley" instead of a "garden of eden" does make me smile ...

one way or another, we'll all find out about paradise and the life everlasting when we kark it.

OllyK

OK...

I don't think too many other people do either

OK - these are some attributes of your conceptual god, that's fine, and so far nothing that involves intelligence, or supernatural power. Indeed nothing out of the ordinary.

I don't think to many die hard Christians would be in agreement with you, but I accept you could interpret the bible in such a way, however, I do believe that using the bible as any kind of reference for a fact / science based exploration of the universe to be seriously flawed.

OK, still, as far as I would interpret, well away from the biblical god. Still very much emotion and energy. Things that are observable and explainable in scientific terms. So far your god exists - but it isn't supernatural or supreme.

Ahhh - wow, you're jumping ahead a bit here for me. Have you finsihed the definition of god or is a soul and integral part of it? I think you also need to define soul as well (sorry!). You are also stretching the definition of nerve impulses a little as well, they are not purely electrical, they have a bio-chemical component as well.

Why should it go anywhere? The body generates the electical impulses when the body dies part of the process is that the nerves stop producing the impulses. Are you suggesting they carry on somewhere else when you die?

Why not just say, you can't destroy matter, only convert it to various forms of energy and when you die your physical matter is converted to energy becomes part of the energy cloud? And to be honest, that isn't too far from the truth if you say god is the universe and your body decomposes in to gases and other materials which are released back in to the atmosphere or reused by other organisms. No need for super natural, but it still fits with your basic concepts does it not?

Still sounding very much like your god is just our universe and great that you find wonder in it every day, I certainly do.

And if it was a slightly different composition you would get some other effect. Is another affect caused by something else any less beautiful? Does it need to have guidance or intelligence behind it?

Ask a chemist, this is nothing special.

Nor does it mean that there was. Are you suggesting there is still day to day involvement or that it was "fire and forget"?

Thanks for that. I should point out that the concept of an afterlife does not require a god. Certainly there is nothing super natural, intelligent, supreme, omnipotent, omniscient etc about your particular god. Indeed to be me you have defined our natural universe reasonably well. Even the afterlife element works quite well as you don't try and suggest consciousness is transferred only energy. You seem to have a well justified and very great wonder about the universe around you and the things within it.

OllyK

I don't profess to know, but saying "God made the universe" doesn't actually add anything, it just moves the question from a thing called "universe" to a thing called "god". The same problem of how anything came from nothing exists.

Some believe that the universe has always been, and in some context that is true as before "the big bang" there was no time. It may also be true in a broader context as well. It kind of makes sense to me in some ways if that is true as it gets round the need for creation and indeed a creaotr, it does however cause some head scratching over the concept of it always having existed.

Sbradley

Olly, I reckon we're not too far short of being in agreement.

We just use different terminology

The soul comment, by the way, was a bit of an aside...

Happy New Year and may you long continue to find wonder in all around you

SB

OllyK

I was questioning your definition actually, however, here's mine

denial - A refusal to accept the truth even when provided with evidence
disbelief - doubt about the truth of something due to lack of evidence.

Denial is saying something is wrong when given proof that it is right. As there is no proof currently of a god, then it is pretty hard to deny one. In reality some people deny there is even the possibility of a god which is the relams of hard atheism. Agnostics sit on the fence and say we don't know nor can we ever know. The soft atheists say there is nothing out there to suggest there is a god, however, if presented with some evidence I'll reconsider. The deniers / hard atheists are, in my experience few and far between and are no more likely, I would suggest, to commit attrocities and such than a religious fanatic.

The soft atheists on the whole are in their current position after many years of reading, digging and "soul" searching. Many even originally came from strong religious backgrounds.

It just struck me that your comment relating to "convenience" was more aptly fitting to the apathetic. I'm certainly not an atheist out of any kind of convenience.

Are there, I always thought it rather black and white. I do agree that ones willingness to accept new ideas and evidence may affect the likelyhood of your belief or disbelief changing to the other. I just don't see how you can part believe in something.

You are describing the hard atheists again. I accept the possibility, I'd even believe if given the evidence. I do however think it is highly unlikely any evidence will ever be presented. The differences are subtle, but there.

Who's running anybody down? There is some healthy debate going on and I am asking a lot of questions, however, apart from SBradley - those of a religious persuasion tend to either avoid addressing them, quote scripture as if it were a definitive explanation or misquote scientific text. I am still seeking my answers Leslie, I have not got any evidence to allow me to believe in a god, any god, why is it wrong for me to ask for help in finding that evidence and why is it wrong for me to question what I am told?


Is the rest of this aimed at somebody else as it doesn't seem to have much bearing on what I have been saying?

If you want to deny science and the scientific process that's fine, let me know when you have returned to the forests and I'll take that last paragraph seriously. Yes absolutely it is down to the claimaint to provide evidence, it always has been in science, that's how it works. Absolutely you cannot prove non-existence, if you think you can - please explain how, science would love to know.

Now who is trying to misrepresent? A scientific theory means so much more than a "hunch". Theory used in day to day English is the equivalent of a hypothesis. And what about the Laws??

I wasn't aware that I had claimed you did?!

I know you didn't say that explicitly, but it was there implicitly by the way you worded the sentence. If you meant to say "I see nothing wrong with any belief if its followers lead a good, honest, and blameless life." then fine, I appologise.

OllyK

Ben v7

Olly…

I don’t believe that there is 'very little' beyond human comprehension nowadays. If you really do think that, I would view it as perhaps naive. We have speculated a great deal about the Universe and what we see around us, but these are just theories or hypotheses based on our own comprehension and observations. This is why there is so much interest in black holes – those laws that physics is built on break down and what we know about the Universe no longer rings true - we have been forced to reconsider.

If you look into the most cutting edge research into the Universe you will find speculation about forces, dimensions and so on that in one form or another are undetectable to us – operating on a sub-space type level in you like. Again it’s all just mathematical theory, but it is an attempt to explain yet more of the Universe, for which unquestionable proof is probably not possible.

I don’t believe Science will ever be able to give us absolutely all the answers, firstly because we can't observe all these forces and energies that are now being discussed, and secondly because we do have finite mental capacity. This is not dumbing down mankind – just accepting that we do have limitations! You put words into my mouth there…

Something else that may be food for thought. We have already established that an incredible number of variables had to be exactly correct to make it possible for life to flourish on this planet. The same is true with the Universe – a similar number of variables had to be exactly right for planets and stars to form in the first place. It's like rolling a thousand six's that made it happen that we are here on this planet having this debate about the existence of a God or higher power. A fact that nobody can denying is not absolutely mind boggling. Maybe we are living in one of a trillion Universes...

It's personal choice. You choose not to believe in a God or a higher power because you see no evidence to suggest otherwise. Myself and many others think somewhat differently because from our view point it is very plausible. Yes mankind's knowledge will increase and we will be able to explain ever more. For me this takes us closer to, not further from 'God'.

I think we are both going through the same thought processes. You have just reached a different conclusion to me beyond the point at which proof one way or the other is possible.

Regarding my views on organised religion. I think in essence that anything, including religion, which encourages people to live a better life, is good. Given my views though, I don't personally understand why the higher power I believe in would care whether I went to Church on Sunday, ate Pork or not on Thursdays, or cut my hair short and didn't pray several times a day. Some of my friends are very religious though and think differently – I entirely respect their views!

OllyK

You are joking right?

Oh please, read some science books published post 1000 BC. I'm going to have to try and refrain from treating you badly, but honestly. Please go away, and read up on the science process and understand, truely understand what it is about. A theory is about as close to a certainty as you can get. Understand the relationship between, observation, hypothesis, experimentation, repetation, theory and finally law.

No they don't break down, please show the peer reviewed scientific paper that shows this. What happens at the "extremes" is that many existing theories fail to describe the situation fully. Newtonian theories on motion worked fine for many years, and indeed unless you travelling at the speed of light or damn close to it they still hold true. At these speeds however you need the refinements of general or special relativity to properly explain what is going on.

Yes there are many hypotheses put forward, the big difference between them and god is that they are falisifiable and could be proved true (or not) if not now in the future when we have the ability and technology to devise a suitable experiment. This is not the case for god. Please also note that mathematical theory is very powerful, and is often considered the finalising proof for many theories previously only shown to be so through experimentation.

I say it again - go away and actually read up on science, you really are trying to dumb down something that seems patently beyond your comprehension. We can observe, mostly indirectly, most of the "energies" (particles) that you mention. Your limitations and mine are way below the sum of that mankind and indeed even some individuals.

Proof please.

You love to make assertions without any supporting evidence don't you? And what's the big deal about rolling a thousand sixes? Especially when you have 13 billion years to do it in?

Plausible based on what? It is not plausible, but I do agree it is your choice to believe the inplausible.

Straw man. It takes us closer to understanding the origins of the universe, whatever they may be.

Wrong, oh so very wrong. I have drawn no conclusions at all. I just have a belief based on current understanding of how the universe operates, I'm happy to change my view as new evidence becomes available. You assume to know the answers (god) - with no evidence.

Define living a better life - Stalin and Hitler arguably lived better lives than the citizens of their respective countries, but I'm not sure that's to be applauded.

If you are trying to promote living a "moral" life where you respect life as a whole then fine, but why do you need to believe in a supreme being to do this?

I believe everybody has the right to their opinion I just try to help them look at the facts when they are currently basing their opinions on incorrect information and poor understanding.

If you want to try and "knock" science then fair play, indeed science is always trying to pick holes in its own theories. But you will lack credibility if your undestanding of the basics is shown to be seriously lacking. If you want to get in to understanding the scientific process and critically evaluating your own thoughts and ideas (assuming you are prepared to re-open your mind) then I'd be happy to point you in the direction of some good web based resources to get you started. Likewise, if you can provide links to sites that put a convincing case for a supreme being then I'd be happy to read them, but please note that it needs to be based on evidence and not "feelings" and anecdotes.

As a starter have a look at this this forum, you need to register but it's free.