It is not suprising that god and gullible both begin with "G".

I agree with most of this article but would suggest that the state of affairs is more an indictment of our political system, of which our education system is a part.

There are two problems with this article. The first is the claim that a belief in religion retards the progress of science. This need not be true, and is generally not true.

The second problem is a more fundamental one. There is a problem with the writer making the claims he does about the validity of the religious view. If he believes that knowledge is to be pursued via some kind of scientific methodology, it ought to be difficult for him to make a definite pronouncement on religious belief, as this is not testable by scientific means.

In what way can the writer "disprove" the idea that there exists a supernatural reality, if his own tools of trade are limited to the natural? Yes, he can be a sceptic - but he cannot pronounce on this issue with any authority.

Absolutely correct Mr Richardson.

As I once pointed out previously in one of these sorts of science-vs-religion articles, all hold to a faith of one kind or another. The scientist has faith in his science that one day it will reveal the answers to the riddle of the universe, life and everything and the religious has faith in his religion to do the same.

Both know exactly the same information, no more, no less, yet each prefers to hold a different faith. Some of us don't mind holding both faiths simultaneously and don't see any conflict.

Until the answers are revealed, it's just another argument about "my football team is better than yours".

Maximus,"The scientist has faith in his science that it will reveal the answers to the riddle of the universe, life and everything --" has a couple of rough edges which are a fundamental impediment.
Firstly, science has no faith in the revelation of such riddles. Science is a search for better understanding. It is a journey. If it were ever to reach a destination of completeness (an understanding of "life and everything, it would have committed hari-kari.
Secondly, scientists working in their fields of endeavour and wishing to find complete and final answers would be at their wits end if ever their search was successful.
What a dull world it must be for those who already have the answers to "life and everything", those who have the answers already delivered on a plate: poor creationists and their ilk; Homo sapiens with their evolutionary heritage of curiosity amputated. Fertile minds castrated, and intellectual agility downgraded to below that of a cat.

colinsett, you cheered up my Saturday afternoon. I see you are a person of good humour, salute. Many thanks.

"... all hold to a faith of one kind or another. The scientist has faith in his science that one day it will reveal the answers to the riddle of the universe, life and everything and the religious has faith in his religion to do the same."

Ah yes, Maximus, but at least the scientist will still be alive to tell the tale.

First define your terms … I’ve been called an idealist, not because I think of the world as an idea, but because I believe that humans can be better than they often are, that qualities of love, compassion and trust can be more prominent. And I’ve found that this can be so, not through blind faith but through a process of self-observation that can be described as scientific. This is “evidence based”, but it’s not a “belief”. We have a belief when we hold something to be true without being sure of the facts; when the facts are known, that’s reality, not a belief.

Most scientific understanding is based on observation of externals, although nothing we observe is actually external. We experience external phenomena at our sense doors, through the interaction of visible spectra with our eyes, audible waves with our ears, tangible objects with our skin, etc. Physicist Louis Alvarez got the Nobel Prize when after 20 years of experimentation with a “bubble chamber”, he measured the rapidity with which sub-atomic particles arose and passed away. But people I knew who visited him reported that this knowledge didn’t change him as a person. By contrast, the Buddha 2500 years earlier observed the same phenomenon within his own mind and body and became enlightened, free from the causes of misery, free from craving, aversion, ignorance and delusion. His process was a scientific one – detached observation of reality as it manifested from moment to moment within his own mind and body, with a highly developed concentration which allowed him to see at the deepest level. He showed how my ideal could be realised, with no resort to real or imagined outside forces, beliefs or ideas. No “astrologists, fortune-tellers and assorted charlatans” or pre-ordained plans involved.

I met and admired Bertrand Russell; but after I learned and benefited from the practice of introspection taught by the Buddha, I felt sorry for him, that he had been limited to the realm of rational thought without being able to develop the wisdom which comes only from deep observation of the reality within. (349)

John,

Thanks for your article.

Similar to what others have written, my main difficulty in accepting a purely scientific approach to life is the inability of science to answer some of the fundamental questions of life. For example, science can't provide an answer to why we consider humans to be of greater worth than other animals nor can it assist us in determining the ethical status of our actions.

For these questions people can look to philosophy and embrace some philosophical theory for their answers. However the theory which they select will be no more provably correct than the answer given by a particular religion. An atheist could easily provide reasons why they consider their philosophy to be superior to other philosophies and religions, but they will not be able to provide any scientific support for why their reasons are valid.

Science has its limits. All people rely on claims about reality and morality that can't be proven or disproven scientifically. For some people these claims include an omnipotent being.

Greg.

Yes Mark Richardson, religion is not testable by scientific means. Which is why it is just as credible to assert that the universe was created by fairies as it is to assert that it was created by a God. All religions are just as “in”credible as each other.

As John Warren wrote “the material basis of science is that any idea, hypothesis or theory (and there are many of them, good, bad or indifferent) is not accepted into the useful body of scientific knowledge until it has been applied in practice and shown to work. If it works it’s true, at least until a situation is found in which it doesn’t work and it must be revised.”

Science doesn’t, and does not expect others to, blindly believe anything. Anything which is “accepted into the useful body of scientific knowledge” has been tested and can be verified and reproduced. If better knowledge comes along, then that “useful body of scientific knowledge” is revised.

As far as science is concerned, there is no God or other supernatural being until it can be proven otherwise. Until it is, the God theory is just another hypothesis. Those who come up with the God theory are welcome to prove it, those who don’t, don’t have to prove anything.

You seem to believe that scientists or anyone else should have to “disprove” the existence of the supernatural, which has been manufactured in the minds of others, in order to “pronounce on the issue with any authority”.

Religious believers pronounce on the issue without any proof or authority whatsoever – and they fervently believe what they pronounce. Yet when asked to provide proof that “God” exists, they can’t and then claim that we must have "faith" (i.e. trust me I'm a priest). But they insist that because scientists can’t “disprove” such made-up stories, they can only be skeptics.

Maximus, the reason people who choose to believe know “no more, or no less” than those who don’t, is because science has discovered the information in spite of religion.

To say there is no God is to say you have enough knowledge to know for sure that there is no God.

Science can never be certain that there is no God. It will always have the dilemma of what created it all?

Science can only observe and deduce what was already there. Inventions and technical advancement are no doubt great, but these do not answer the “material” (creation from nothingness).

The human brain - that can conceive science in the first place - is largely taken for granted by the atheist scientist.

Evolution? Something has to exist first, then be given a reason for advancing in a specific direction, a motive to adapt, a knowledge to mutate, and a comparative system (standard) to reorganise itself constantly, until who knows where or what … super humans perhaps?

Give us a break, as long as there is the element of the unknowable, something outside our current knowledge, that something could include God.

Since no one can claim total knowledge, therefore atheism is self–refuting because no one can prove ‘there is no God’; the question becomes irrelevant and so does atheism.

Therefore, creation, intelligent design, however what it is called today, can never be ruled out as a potential alternative to other theories.

Evolutionist are worthless to humanity.Its just a hobby as far as I'm concern.Nothing but man made scrappy racist science.

Coach, if there is a god, does this mean that there is also a heaven and a hell?

And what about angels, sons of god, devils etc?

tao, you may be being a bit two generalised in the comment "Which is why it is just as credible to assert that the universe was created by fairies as it is to assert that it was created by a God. All religions are just as “in”credible as each other."

A religious belief/theory has a place while it's claims do not conflict with observed reality. As with any other theory it remain just that until such time as the body of evidence to support it overwhelms that supporting any other theory - then we start to trat it as something more.

Some religious beliefs are clearly in conflict with the bulk of evidence or require some massive stretches of twisted logic to support. A literal 7 day creation some thousands of years ago is one well known example of this which some still persist in treating as reality.

If all theories which contain a supernatural element are dismissed on that basis then fall into the same trap as those who dismiss all theories which do not conform to their own supernatural bias. Let them all be judged on the weight of evidence.

R0bert

Coach, my late Auntie Tessie used to sprinkle holy water over me every time I left the house, and say a prayer for my safe return. When I did return, dismissing the care I’d exercised in dodging lightning bolts and runaway buses, she’d say, “See, it worked.”

This simple woman’s certainties are very seductive in our fast-changing times, but now as then, there’s no substitute for looking right and left when you cross the road.

You are a little confused about what Warren is arguing. He has not stated that there is no god, neither has anyone else in this discussion. The argument is that because god and the supernatural are not amenable to scientific proof, they are not appropriate guides for our decision-making. To give a practical example, we base our decisions about airline pilots and heart surgeons on their science, not their religion, and we do this for very good reasons.

Your point about it being impossible to prove that god doesn’t exist is as illogical as Tessie’s belief that the holy water had protected me and brought me home. It’s normally impossible to prove a negative, so it’s equally possible to argue that since you can’t prove otherwise, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/) could be the creator and guiding spirit of the universe.

Like Auntie Tessie’s, your faith and devotion are both worthy and endearing. Still, I’m sure you would prefer to choose arguments which place your god on a higher footing than Anubis, the bunyip, Pegasus, Santa Claus, Puff the Magic Dragon ...

Mark Richardson: Anyone who believes that they know the answer retards the progress of investigation. This is so in science as well as with religion. There have been many cases of scientists believing that they know the result and adapting experimental results to confirm it. When they are found out they are regarded as cheats. Religious people believe that the final answer to everything is God and this retards their ability to investigate the real mechanism behind earthly phenomena.

Of course it is not possible to disprove the existence of the supernatural, or fairies for that matter. It is evident that religious ideas exist in people’s brains because people say they are there. The scientific approach is to study how those ideas got there. I have tried to present some ideas about that in a previous article: http:/www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3252
And I would welcome your comments.

Tao: I can only agree. By their failure to base education on an understanding of the material basis of existence our politicians obscure the real economic relations which exist between people. It is a great encouragement for demagogues to retain power.

John Warren,

“Religious people believe that the final answer to everything is God and this retards their ability to investigate the real mechanism behind earthly phenomena.”

Not necessarily so. There are many God believer scientists, surgeons, judges, politicians, etc,. Believing in God is the beginning of wisdom in life’s journey – not an end.

Part of God’s creation was to rest (on the 7th day) and let man carry on with managing it...this includes scientific research and discoveries.

_______________

”Of course it is not possible to disprove the existence of the supernatural, or fairies for that matter. “

If you meant God by “the existence of the supernatural”, I find the comparison to fairies very distasteful and childish.
_______________

“It is evident that religious ideas exist in people’s brains because people say they are there.”

Faith is not a belief as such – if that is what you are implying. It is a total and absolute conviction that is based on historical, social, observed facts and reported phenomena…

I believe in Jesus’ life, death and resurrection because of the above – and not because someone or some external image got planted in my brain.

Your dismissal of God as the creator of all things visible and invisible is like ignoring the foundation of a building just because no one can see it.

Dig a little and presto you also can connect with the founder of the universe.

No magic or tricks – It was there all the time – but some did not want to discover it.

Dear John Warren,

Your arguments appear logical, but they require the premise that thought itself is logical. What basis do you have for asserting that logical thought is not just a product of a meaningless universe, and hence logical thought itself is invalid? As biologist JBS Haldane put it, the conclusion "my thoughts are just the product of the movement of mindless atoms" suggests that that conclusion is itself the product of such mindless atoms, invalidating itself. It disproves itself. Belief in rational thought itself seems to require the belief that reason is ultimately not completely determined by the physical universe. Physical and environmental circumstances are important, but they can't completely determine thought, otherwise that conclusion itself is invalid, and we must look elsewhere for truth.

In what way does your view of materialism allow that thought itself is rational, and not utterly determined by circumstances such as biology, chemistry, social and economic factors, and what the thinker had for breakfast this morning?

Kind regards,

Tomess

"
. . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!' --Douglas Adams

I just love this quote because we as humans have a propensity for this kind of anthropocentric mindset. We just love systems and seem to be able to only think in beginnings and endings. BUT consider this ..... neither empty space nor solid matter can exist because they are human idealisations ..... i.e. absolutes. The reality is an infinite material universe that can only be the continuum between ..... never being an absolute solid nor an absolute space that we call a vacuum. Of course we may like to consider why every attempt to create an absolute vacuum or to find one has failed. i.e. we just get a process.

If there can be no true vacuum then it is reasonable to conclude that the NON-existence of the universe is an impossibility. If the universe is infinite and has always existed then what role is there for a teddy (fantasy big brother god)? Where are you Coach?

No, Tomess. Arguments don’t assume that thought is logical – they assume that logical thought is possible. An argument is valid if it stands up to all the logical tests we can throw at it.

Coach, you have no excuse for finding the “comparison” distasteful. You argued that since the non-existence of god can’t be proven we have to take divinity and creationism seriously. This argument applies equally to bunyips, fairies and leprechauns. Following your argument, we can’t prove that fairies don’t exist, so we have to take them seriously.

The person giving rise to comparisons between gods and goblins is you. If you want to support your god with logical arguments, they need to be better than this one.

Religious belief can be shown to be heavily influenced by upbringing. In some regions certain religions dominate to the exclusion of virtually all others. On the other hand there are countries like Australia with little tradition and a mosaic of faiths.

Christianity is a minority religion. So why do Christians (and Muslims, and Jews, and Buddhists, and...) think they're right and everyone else isn't? The human race has always believed in gods. And spirits. And fairies. And more recently, leprechauns.

You can't all be right. But you could all be wrong.

There are six billion people on this planet. Thus by definition there are six billion religions on this planet.

Some think it their duty to convert others ("good morning, I'm from the Sceptics Society. Have you ever thought about paganism?"), others keep their self-righteousness to themselves, much as Jesus suggested we should.

Wrong bennie,

Matthew’s 28 reports these words:

18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19Therefore GO (my emphasis) and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

We call that our “Great commission”. We are not doing it for the fun of converting others to a religion but to bring them to know the truth.

Relativism is dangerous – "all religions are the same" is a fabrication of the far left tolerent multicutural rubbish.

God is not one of many gods as you put it. And certainly God is not to be compared with fairies and leprechauns... (are you still there W.?)

I grant you that the social environment has a lot to do with “faith and beliefs”.

But believers in fairies out there are to be guided for their own good – don’t you agree?

If someone you knew believed that some fairies will protect him or her if they jumped from the 8th floor – would you let them try?

Same with religions – they all believe that they worship a god or gods that will protect and bless them. That’s called superstition not faith. They must be guided to reason.

You cannot seriously believe that two or more ‘faiths’ can all equally be true. If one is found to be true the others by definition or deductibility must be 'not true' = false.

This is where “relativism” and postmodernism is so illusive and deceptive. The certainty of black and white is replaced by shades of grey.

If there is a creation there must be a creator. Cause and effect. Something cannot exist from nothingness.

Truth and true knowledge must be searched, not accepted or refuted on a whim.

"Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."John 8:32

coach - If someone you knew believed that Jesus will protect him or her if they jumped from the 8th floor – would you let them try?

For the rest of you butt out of that one - I know it's tempting to come up with a list of those you would let try but coach has come up with a valid question which I would like him to answer in relation to his own faith.

I'm guessing that he ducks the core issue and comes up with a reason why the person should not jump other than his Gods ability (or otherwise) to protect the feet of those who plummit from mid sized buildings.

R0bert

coach,

You said "You cannot seriously believe that two or more ‘faiths’ can all equally be true. If one is found to be true the others by definition or deductibility must be 'not true' = false."

Who says any of them are true? The basis on which you believe that your "faith" is true, is exactly the same basis on which others believe their "faith" is true. That basis is "faith", the definition of which is "strong or unshakeable belief in something, especially without proof or evidence" (Collins English Dictionary).

And you said “Same with religions – they all believe that they worship a god or gods that will protect and bless them. That’s called superstition not faith. They must be guided to reason.”

Another definition of “faith” is “a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, especially when this is NOT BASED ON REASON”. (Collins English Dictionary).

You seem to need to justify your belief and faith with words like “proof” and “evidence” and “reason”.

Please stop kidding yourself. Your faith in your version of the supernatural is exactly the same as others’ faith in their version of the supernatural, none of which is based on evidence or reason

Message for R0bert

Due to constraints on second posts, am unable to complete my response to you on the "Censoring debate" thread until tomorrow.

Keep up good work.

Cheers

Dear W,

You stated that arguments assume that logical thought is possible, and that an argument is valid if it stands up to logical testing. I agree, with respect. My point is simply that the possibility of logical thought requires the belief that all of our thoughts are not totally determined by circumstances. Atheism denies that possibility, so far as it requires that our thoughts are totally determined by the biological, chemical, physical, social, economic and other forces acting upon us when we think. I don't see how it allows for the possibility that we, when thinking, are not totally controlled by our circumstances. Instead it seems to suggest that even our thoughts are totally determined by our circumstances.

Kind regards,

Tomess

"If there is a creation there must be a creator. Cause and effect. Something cannot exist from nothingness." says Coach with some certainty.

Earlier i posed a question (.... to Coach too) about "nothingness" expressing the thought that neither empty space nor solid matter can exist because they represent human idealisations and not material "constituents" of a material universe. John's excellent article draws attention to the problems associated with adopting a purely anthropocentric mindset. The rote learning in wrong order and parroting Coach makes an excellent example here, where if we truely insist then let's have a teddy (..... a god bod) created vacuum planted in our heads. LOL

This anthropocentric mindset also gives us this reverse notion of mind or intelligence first. i.e. an extraordinary intelligence existed unsustained before any material constituents of the universe. The idea is then put forward to "disprove" the idea that there pre-existed such a supernatural reality. Silly isn't it? This is not hard to do when we examine our evolution as an ever-expanding living process from stardust to us developing some sort of contemplative intelligence. We see that intelligence cannot exist without causality.

Because the state of existence is a logical one, intelligence of any type cannot develop without information. You cannot have intelligence without information and you cannot have information without logic because they are aspects of the same thing and existing simultaneously. For a supernatural intelligence or teddy to have existed when there was nothingness, (if you even believe nothingness could exist lol ) is impossible and absurd to have then supposedly created the universe.

There is no reason why information and logic cannot exist without a teddy but on the other hand it is impossible for a teddy to exist in the absence of logic and information.

Coach: My reference to belief in fairies was not meant to be smart-alec. I think you found it distasteful because the parallels between belief in any supernatural beings and fairies is confronting for you just as w has pointed out. In the past many people have taken belief in fairies very seriously, Arthur Conan Doyle for instance. We don’t believe in fairies now because the concept is useless in explaining things that happen in our daily lives. By the same token, neither you nor I can prove that God or angels do not exist but many of us, including you, do not use the idea of these supernatural beings to explain the mechanisms of earthly events. I have tried to make the point elsewhere that scientific investigations, whether by Newton or any other scientist who believes in the supernatural, never ever include a factor for a supernatural being or force in their calculations or explanations. That does not prove the non-existence of the supernatural but it does confirm its irrelevance.

I personally believe that God and fairies exist in people’s brains and, to that extent, influence those people’s behaviour but they are not external forces. Sparating what is inside one’s brain from what is outside it is one of the great philosophical problems of the ages and the basis for the distinction between idealism and materialism.

Dear John Warren,

Your use of 'supernatural' invites a response. You state that 'scientific investigations, whether by Newton or any other scientist who believes in the supernatural, never ever include a factor for a supernatural being or force in their calculations or explanations. That does not prove the non-existence of the supernatural but it does confirm its irrelevance'.

Something that is not stated can be either irrelevant or so fundamental as to be assumed.

The existence of the supernatural is perhaps best expressed in terms of a person who was somehow able to live in a 2 dimensional world (such as a circle), trying to explain to other '2 dim' folk (no pun intended!) the existence of a 3rd dimension (such as in a sphere of which that circle is part). The sphere is nowhere to be seen, because it is present everywhere. It touches each part of the circle, and yet is invisible to those who insist that there is no 3rd dimension.

If the supernatural does exist, as I believe it does, it would operate at every point of the 'Nature' to which it is 'super', or beyond. If it was just an attachment to one part of Nature, it would merely be part of Nature instead.

Kind regards,

Tomess

I find it interesting that the religious continually expound that science can't answer every question. Their favourite example of this is in positing that science can't fully explain the creation of the universe, there being disagreement over the big bang theory and so on. Where science cannot provide an explanation is commonly referred to as the god of the gaps.

Where science fails, there must be god.

Apart from the fact that science is continually growing, evolving, refining and discovering more all the time, lets assume there is a supernatural being that created everything. My question to the religious is WHERE DID GOD COME FROM?

WHO/WHAT CREATED GOD?

IF GOD ALWAYS EXISTED, HOW COME?

HOW CAN ANYTHING ALWAYS EXIST?

And we are back to the same argument. How did it all start? Religion can never answer this question, however there is a chance (not in our lifetimes) that science will.

My point is that god cannot be rationally explained and therefore it is impossible to hold a rational debate with the religious. They will always retreat into 'faith', 'belief' and so on.

So for the religious, where proof fails, god exists; god of the intellectual vacuum.

Scout nicely put.

I've done some more pondering on the differences between believers in fairies and monothiests.
- Believers in fairies don't come door to door marketing
- Believers in fairies don't threaten me with eternal punishment if I don't share their beliefs
- Believers in fairies don't try and interfere in what I do behind closed doors
- Believers in fairies do help kids deal with the loss of those early teeth in a fun manner
- Believers in fairies don't get a tax (or rates) exemption to help spread their beliefs
- Believers in fairies don't spend their spare time telling us how terrible elf believers are and why they should all be deported or bombed (nor do elf supporters do so regarding fairy believers).
- Mostly believers in fairies have the good grace to allow for the possibility that they may be wrong.
- Believers in fairies don't try and have their beliefs treated as science in schools.
- Believers in fairies create much more entertaining films than monothiests.

All in all a belief in fairies looks like a lot less trouble to the rest of us than monothiestic beliefs. Apologies to those who live out their monothiestic beliefs with respect for the beliefs of others - well done if you do so.

R0bert

Tomess: Your dimensional illustration reinforces a point I have been trying to make. If your 2 dimensional being goes through life, unaware of the 3rd dimension and unaffected by it, then its existence is irrelevant just as the existence of the supernatural realm is irrelevant to us. Speculation about its existence maybe entertaining and the subject of novels but it remains speculation.

If someone robs you of your purse; is that the result of original sin, or is it the result of poverty? We can’t do much about original sin except pray but we can take action against poverty. Prayer is no substitute for understanding reality. And understanding is the goal of science.

John Warren,

>>I personally believe that God and fairies exist in people’s brains and, to that extent, influence those people’s behaviour but they are not external forces. <<

This is where you are wrong about God (we will leave fairies alone for this discussion). Because you have dismissed the idea of an external invisible spiritual ‘force’ doesn’t mean it does not exist. If you have deregistered the concept of God from your intellectual consciousness, it does not mean it is not real in many real life experiences.

To throw an example here: – miracles. Unexplainable, outside science comprehension yet visibly there, and physically occurring daily.

If a documented phenomenon outside the scientific observables is happening, there must be an outside force – call it spiritual or magical – the fact is it’s there. Your denial of its existence is not going to make it obsolete or imaginary.

You admit that science does not have all the answers yet. Maybe there is an 'outside-your-brain' reason for that...

It is impossible to prove God scientifically (He is outside our confines of time and space). But we can prove Him historically. The evidence is overwhelmingly everywhere...except in your own belief.

coach "To throw an example here: – miracles. Unexplainable, outside science comprehension yet visibly there, and physically occurring daily." The most remarkable thing about them is their ability to absent themselves from any kind of controlled independent observation.

Scout coverered part of the issue earlier regarding an intellectual vacuum. There are things we don't yet understand in particular the human minds ability to manage our bodies but that does not imply the existance of a particular supernatural being.

For an unexplained phenonema to give any kind of justification to the belief in a particular supernatural being those phenonema would have to occur exclusively in association with one particular belief system. The reality is that they are much less discriminating than that.

I guess you can fall back to the idea that the bits you like are the works of god and the stuff that happens to other types of believers is from the devil but that is a bit to much of a copp out to bother with.

Now about that 8th floor window and christian jumpers -

R0bert

Coach

Who or what created god?

Am waiting with a-n-t-i-c-i-p-a-t-i-o-n for your polite and erudite answer.

;-)

Scout,

I-thought-you-were-asking-rhetorical-questions. Furthermore-you-were-addressing-your-post-to-"the religious”-which-as-I-explained-many-times- don’t-feel-I-belong-to-that-group.(TIC)

If you are really seeking answers – and I hope you are – I am willing to give it my best.

WHERE-DID-GOD-COME-FROM?
WHO/WHAT-CREATED-GOD?
IF-GOD-ALWAYS-EXISTED,-HOW-COME?
HOW-CAN-ANYTHING-ALWAYS-EXIST?

I have answered that in my previous posts – by saying that God is outside our (scientific) confines of time and space.

The bible starts with: “In-the-beginning-God-created-the-heavens-and-the-earth…”

God is the creator of all things; assuming of course that the bible is not a fairy tale. It does not start with “…Once-upon-a-time-…”

So there is a beginning and there will be an end (then a new heaven and a new earth).

Before that beginning there was nothing. God created all things from nothingness. God existed in that nothingness. He always existed; outside the beginning and the end.

Therefore God did not need a creator. It is beyond our human capacity to understand : “HOW-CAN-ANYTHING-ALWAYS-EXIST?” but-hey-this-is-God-we-are-talking-about.

Which takes us to science versus faith.

Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena; to gain a greater understanding of our natural universe NOT the supernatural.

I have a complete “faith” in God and a great admiration for science; knowing that one is perfect, and the other (science) has limitations.

I get my faith in God by knowing and having faith in His Son Jesus – who is the fullness of God himself. So God in His ultimate love for us becam human to make us believe in Him.

I get my faith from His Word, and faith in His Holy Spirit for guidance in understanding.

The word of God is alive. It is not just text. It was not meant to be scrutinised scientifically (although most of its assertions have been proven by science). The bible is also the most reliable historical account of humanity.

What I am saying is my faith is not a blind faith, but based on enough evidence and deductions that refute any sceptical criticisms.

You should have started your questioning by : WHO IS GOD? Then is would have been easier to understand (and maybe not ask) the other questions.

I appreciate the time you have taken in answering my question.

You stated: “I have answered that in my previous posts – by saying that God is outside our (scientific) confines of time and space.”
This confirms my earlier statement that it is impossible to have a rational debate about the existence of god. You state that you don’t include yourself as a part of the ‘religious’ contingent, yet you frequently make the most literal interpretations of the bible among all the Christians I know. For example, damnation of non-believers no matter how decent and well they lived their lives.

You use bible text to prove your belief when you state: “The bible starts with: “In-the-beginning-God-created-the-heavens-and-the-earth…”

Coach this does not answer my original question – how did god start?
You say god always did exist - cannot you not see how impossible this is?

OK.

Lets assume that god did indeed create life, the universe and everything….. I am sure that you are aware just how vast our universe is, our galaxy is just one among trillions of galaxies, there may even be more than one universe.

This brings me to another question.

In terms of the currently know size of the universe, our planet is to the universe as an atom is to the ocean, why would a god create such vastness only to concentrate on a bunch on humans. There are other planets, no doubt there are other life forms. So why planet earth, in particular? Did god get it so wrong an infinite number of times that the only intelligent life s/he could create was us? Out of all the trillions of other planets?

You state: “Which takes us to science versus faith."

To Be Continued.............

Coach states: “Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena; to gain a greater understanding of our natural universe NOT the supernatural.”

Er, Coach, the ‘supernatural’ as you call it may well have a rational explanation – we just don’t know it yet.

Further, you state: “The word of God is alive. It is not just text. It was not meant to be scrutinised scientifically (although most of its assertions have been proven by science)..”

Wrong, virgin birth; impossible, great flood; not the entire earth, the Ark; couldn’t have possibly contained ALL the earth’s creatures, turning people into pillars of salt and so on – you say it isn’t a fairy tale, when that is just what it reads like.

Then you state: “The bible is also the most reliable historical account of humanity”

It omits more of human history than it accounts. Stone age people, other races on other continents, such as Inuits, Native Americans, Native Australians; none of these people rate a mention in the bible. All it accounts is confined to the middle east.

I am sure you gain much comfort from your beliefs, therefore, can you not understand those of us who hold other beliefs are surely entitled to be treated with respect and not condemnation as you frequently do. That you actually believe good people will suffer for ever, simply for not believing as you is the ultimate absurdity and reveals religion as the furphy it is.

Finally you have the arrogance to actually TELL me what I should do when you stated: “You should have started your questioning by : WHO IS GOD? Then is would have been easier to understand (and maybe not ask) the other questions.”

Coach or should I say Grasshopper, there are NO wrong questions, only wrong answers.

Dear John Warren,

You state that: "Tomess: Your dimensional illustration reinforces a point I have been trying to make. If your 2 dimensional being goes through life, unaware of the 3rd dimension and unaffected by it, then its existence is irrelevant just as the existence of the supernatural realm is irrelevant to us. Speculation about its existence maybe entertaining and the subject of novels but it remains speculation."

[On the contrary, I argued that the supernatural, if it exists, would affect the 'Natural'. The 3rd dimension would affect the 2 dimensional world at every point of that world, despite a 2nd dimensional being only dimly aware of that further dimension.

As to original sin and poverty, why this 'either/or' distinction? Why can't social ills be both. This is precisely my point that a 3rd dimension would impact a 2nd dimension in the form of discrete and yet simultaneous phenonema.

Finally, who's suggesting that prayer is a substitute for taking action against poverty? Certainly not Bono, with his (and Peter Garrett's and the church's and unions' and others' campaign to Make Poverty History), nor Tim Costello's World Vision campaign, just for starters.

The statement "prayer is no substitute for understanding reality. And understanding is the goal of science" goes pretty close to the arrogant suggestion that science is the only logical system that seeks understanding. Just because understanding is the goal of science, does that mean it is not also a goal of religion, or magic for that matter.

Kind regards,

Tom Spencer

Coach, I know we cannot help you but let's try again. The anthropocentric mindset seeks a finite created universe where we get fashionable teddies of all types, creators of all sorts and the big bang religion which talks about an expanding universe and is akin to that old flat Earth theory. We also get nonsense like multiple universes, parallel universes, collapsing universes, designed universes, etc. Just why do so many people imagine that any self respecting teddy would make one of those with a ME in the centre? LOL

To help you overcome your obvious anthropocentric mindset and much rote learning, you may like to consider this ..........
If from the formation of our solar system to the present represents a walk of one mile (1.6 Kilometres), then 0.001 of an inch (.0254 millimeters) or half the thickness of a medium human hair = human lifetime.

Also, prior to 1920 we humans couldn't see beyond our galaxy the Milky Way and this was thought to be the whole universe. We now see countless galaxies with much improved instruments. Some are huge. Because there is so much that cannot be explained or known it is still not unreasonable to make the statement that we have an infinite environment always existing. We can only base this on reasoned and logical deductions from what we do know and this all points to infinite processes.

The problem as I see it is that our human minds have a tendency to think in finite closed systems and impose this notion to everything. This attitude now looks out dated because it will never come to grips with the imperfections produced by INFINITY. We have an infinite ever changing and irreversible universe. It is an environment. It's a pity many people don't get it nor want one of these beauties.

If people need something more in their lives than just the material world then just study what is, and you'll find that it already is far more uplifting than anything you could imagine needing.

Dear Keiran,

I'd like to jump in if I may. You ask 'why do so many people imagine that any self respecting teddy would make one of those (universes/worlds) with a ME in the centre? LOL'? It's as if you're suggesting that the world is so big that there is no centre. I have a friend who once thought that his Grade 7 was the centre of the universe. Later he thought that his Grade 12 year was the centre, and then later university. Like Y.B. Yeats (if I understand and remember him correctly) he asked 'where is the centre; there is no centre, the centre does not hold'.

But what if there is no one 'centre', because EVERY point is the centre?

Religious thought has long posed the existence of things that transcend the physical universe. If such things exist, as I believe they do, then the bigness of the physical universe isn't a problem for them, as it is for us. It is possible that like a circle on or in a sphere, the higher dimension acts on and through EVERY point of the lower dimension. Each and every point on every circle in a sphere, is where the sphere acts (mathematicians, please correct me here!).

Every point on the circle is really the centre of the circle so far as it is recognised as the point where the sphere acts through the circle. Current cosmology, so far as I know, casts the universe as infinite, and thus allows that each point on the circle can be conceived as its centre.

Out of curiosity, you also stated that 'if people need something more in their lives than just the material world then just study what is, and you'll find that it already is far more uplifting than anything you could imagine needing.' What exists or 'is' other than the material world?

Kind regards,

Tomess

Tomess, speaking of centres, the question of questions and perhaps our centre of interest, has always been, whence did we come from, what are the limits, to what goals do we tend, and to what place do we occupy in nature with our relations to the universe of things. AND, look how easy it is for people to disregard the major issue of guardianship of the planet with pathetic little religious wars on everything. Nature is a trillion times more important and interesting than these superstitious teddies that dumbos are so attracted to. Just seems we have to manage the change over to living with the disasters of the religious past and understand that we live in a material universe.

We need to come to terms with the enormous data bank our little tiny lonely planet has bequeathed us where all processes are irreversible, and all effects have an infinite number of material causes, where all decreases in order in one portion of the universe results in equivalent increases in order in another portion and that evolution is the process occurring at all times with respect to each electron, atom, cell, organ, organism, species, ecosystem, planet, and galaxy.

Dear Kieran,

First, I'd like to address your point that we have to understand that we live in a material universe. Does that view allow for rational thought, or reason, as an explanation of experience? If the material universe is all that there is, then what basis is there for concluding that our thoughts are not totally determined by physical, chemical, biological and other circumstances, and therefore just as meaningless as those processes when taken in themselves? If reason is totally determined by the material universe, then any conclusions we can reach appear suspect, because they're not underpinned by rational thought or reason, but merely material processes, like those that digest our food. Though they're pleasant to experience and they keep us alive, they don't mean anything in themselves. They don't claim to.

Thought itself would just be an effect of an infinite number of material causes, as you seem to suggest in your second paragraph. If so, there's no point in arguing about anything. We should really just not say anything more, turn on Big Brother, and follow the leader who promises to only protect our mortgage and keep those other, different people away from the telly.

I don't believe that's the case, because reason and rational thought instead appear to be an accurate guide to the things I experience. It seems that the more I reason, the more accurate a picture of the universe I seem to build up, one which better explains the things around me.

Finally, I'd be interested to hear more about your view of evolution, where it involves inorganic things as well as life forms.

Kind regards,

tomess

Everybody is right - In the beginning was the word (idea), and the word became god (expression) and the word was god (manifest)

aternatively.... In the beginning was the word (idea), and the word was with god (thought) and the word is god (action).

Dear Kevin,

"Everybody is right - In the beginning was the word (idea), and the word became god (expression) and the word was god (manifest)

alternatively.... In the beginning was the word (idea), and the word was with god (thought) and the word is god (action)."

Does this mean that 'god' is manifest action? Is this just power? It's pretty mystical stuff. It might have a lot of meaning and beauty for you, but if you want me to understand it, you'll need to 'unpack' it a bit.

Kind regards,

tomess

Tomess, I appreciate your probing thoughts and all that I can offer are my own assumptions with some explanations as to why and where they evolve. Previously, I have been critical of what amounts to an anthropocentric mindset that gives us this reverse notion of mind or intelligence first. i.e. an extraordinary intelligence existed unsustained before any material constituents of the universe. Now perhaps we can only accept this premise or reject it but we can also claim we don't know or that the premise itself is incorrect. I hold the view and there has been a virtual consensus among many philosophers and scientists for years, that the universe is essentially physical where if all matter were to be removed from the universe, nothing would remain ...... no minds, no vital forces and no entelechies. (i.e. from telos meaning end, purpose, completion, and echein meaning to have).

Materialism holds that everything in existence is reducible to what is material or physical in nature. It is opposed to dualistic theories which claim that body and mind are distinct, and directly antithetical to a philosophical idealism that denies the existence of matter. John W's article covers this point quite well.

On a materialist view, all codes of conduct must ultimately be human-made or socially constructed in that there are no objective moral laws existing independently of sentient beings in the way that laws of nature do. Tomess, do accept this belief? If not then just how does your belief system function?

I might add that rather than a materialist view, I prefer a new understanding of determinism, where determinism encourages us to seek answers and knowledge, while indeterminism says there are none and maintains ignorance. I may also say that determinism and indeterminism both seem necessary to our survival BUT there needs to be a connection and it is this connection/relationship that counts. BUT do you think someone’s all-powerful teddy has confiscated it?

Dear Keiran,

Thanks for the kind words and detailed response.

Sorry I've taken so long to reply.

You refer to the consensus among many philosophers and scientists, that the universe is essentially physical. As I understand it that's only (in western thought at least) since the eighteenth century. Before then, going back to time immemorial, all the greatest minds (eg Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Boethius, Aquinas, Hooker) seem in consensus that there is more than the physical universe. And even in the modern era, there's Einstein, a theist of some sort.

Your point that 'if all matter were to be removed from the universe, nothing would remain ...... no minds, no vital forces and no entelechies. (i.e. from telos meaning end, purpose, completion, and echein meaning to have)' doesn't seem to exclude a supernatural mind still animating the universe, from its outside at least.

You later remark that materialism holds 'that there are no objective moral laws existing independently of sentient beings in the way that laws of nature do'. That's an interesting statement, because as I understand it 'natural law' originally referred to a moral law. I don't accept it. I believe that through reasoning, we articulate a moral law that exists independently of ourselves. A TV set articulates a TV signal that originates independently of the TV. You can improve the TV set by fine-tuning it, or you can throw a brick at it and destroy it if there's crap on TV. Similarly, it seems that reason exists independently of us. We can improve our articulation of reason, or 'reasoning' by practice or reading, just as we can also hinder it by getting drunk. In each case reason itself remains independent of us. I hope I've addressed your question as to how my belief system functions.

When you state that you prefer a new determinism, how can determinism encourage us to seek answers? Doesn't it say that our reasoning is totally determined by circumstance? If so, doesn't determinism discourage us from seeking answers? As to the determinism/indeterminism point, I'll have to think more about that one.

Kind regards,

Tomess