The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Post-2012 Global Atheist Convention: a celebration of reason > Comments

Post-2012 Global Atheist Convention: a celebration of reason : Comments

By David Nicholls, published 18/5/2012

For most attendees at the GAC it was a time of being reborn into the rational.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 34
  11. 35
  12. 36
  13. All
sharan,

A belief in God and an acceptance of the rationality of evolution are not mutually exclusive. It is just as rational to accept that God created a situation in which the origination of life would be possible, by 'natural means', opening the way for a flourishing of 'life' in multitudinous variety, as it is to suggest that God directly initiated original life. These two scenarios are also not mutually exclusive.

Given the reality of our magnificent universe, and our magnificent planet, what is irrational, however, is to contend that God must have played a direct part in the creation of all life, in all its multitudinous and magnificent variety, or that God created an 'old world' (on Earth) replete with 'falsified fossils'. What is irrational is to believe God played a trick on us by falsifying the passage of light from distant stars and galaxies to make it only appear that this light would have taken many thousands of years to reach the Earth, but at the same time providing 'evidence' (only in written form) that the Earth and the Universe was only 'created' a mere 6,000 years ago (our time). What is irrational is to believe that God falsified the Earth's geological record - by speeding up erosion and the movement of tectonic plates so that the formation of the Himalayas, the Grand Canyon, the Rocky Mountains, etc, would only 'appear' to have taken many, many thousands of years to 'evolve'.

Is one better to believe the realities of life and the natural universe, or some words penned by Man? Where the magnificence of the universe contradicts the word of Man I would rather place my faith in the evidence God has provided all around me. God is no 'trickster' in my book, but I cannot say the same of Man.
Posted by Saltpetre, Friday, 18 May 2012 2:50:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>'Where did God come from? '
Why don't you ask Him?<<

I tried that. He wouldn't answer me. Maybe you could ask Him for us runner?

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 18 May 2012 3:07:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll give it a shot, Jon J.

>>Now, do I hear six? Anyone?<<

How about this?

"I'm an atheist, but that's irrelevant to my visceral reaction to pompous bloviation, which is that I feel compelled to snark."

I wish you unconfined joy - sorry, "powerfully exquisite joy" - when you attend the next Global Convention of Pretentious Tossers.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 18 May 2012 3:15:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Saltpetre,

If you are referring to the words of the Jewish scientist which I brought in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13535&page=25 ,
then he himself did not believe in the "old world creation" model, but rather he used it to prove that there is no logical contradiction between Genesis and science, and once it can be shown that there is no contradiction, then many other and better scientific models may be possible, whether we can think of any yet or otherwise.

Thus his conclusion was: "in my lab I do science and in synagogue I do religion. I may not understand how those two fit together, but it doesn't matter because somehow they do."
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 18 May 2012 3:48:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

I didn't state that God came from anywhere. I asked runner where did he think God came from. He appears to surmise that the physical universe requires a cause (arising from some action or entity) - that being "God".
I'm merely asking if God had a beginning, and if that beginning requires a cause. I'm happy to accept that God may not require a "beginning" - only an "always was" - although our minds have difficulty assimilating such a proposition.

What is God?
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 18 May 2012 4:11:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

<<What is God?>>

The question "What" can only be asked about a 'something', an object.
Since God is not an object, the question has no meaning and so are other questions such as whether God has a beginning or requires a cause.

You can, if you like, negatively say what God is not:
God is not _________ (fill in the blank with whatever you like).

Regarding the physical universe, isn't it meaningless to ask whether it has a cause without first establishing what it is?
Do tell me what it is, then I can tell you whether or not it requires a cause.

My answer to this question of "what is the physical world" is included in the general postulate - there is nothing but God!
If you accept my answer, then it becomes clear that the world requires no cause, for God doesn't.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 18 May 2012 4:38:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 34
  11. 35
  12. 36
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy