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