Should we start with the presumption that we are capable of knowing everything? IF God is the creator of the universe -- all material things, all invisible dimensions of reality -- then what mankind terms "science" can only be a magnifying glass placed against the whole of reality, which scientists move once in a while (hypothesis to hypothesis) to grasp more of reality. What this may mean is that God is not "anti-science," since IF he is the creator, he created the subject matter of science.

Further, IF he is the creator of all that is, how do humans assay or survey whether or not he is being accurate when he tells us things about reality, such as that Jesus is God, and therefore can, as creator of the universe, lay down his life, and take it up again? Just because WE, in our FINITE imaginations, cannot immediately grasp what that means, since we can't lay down our own lives and take them up again, does that mean he can't?

Why start with the presumption that we, as human beings, are all-knowing? Is what we know adequate to describe all of reality? What gives us that idea? Why do we presume this, when we don't have the capacity to know what will happen in the next second, the next hour, the next month or year?

Why ascribe, a priori, bad motives to God? It's not as if we were born with the tools to test the veracity of God's claims. To assume that, we would have to make assumptions about the scope and quality of human knowledge, and about the reach of the human brain, about which we still know very little.

He says he is "spirit." This means he can't be seen, unless he so chooses. He says he is the creator of the universe and all that is in it.

If God created us, and we are but one of a multitude of creatures he created, why would he bother speaking to us in the first place? Why would he make the effort?

VK3

"I would have thought Paul was an unreceptive heart, but it happened to him".....

exactly mate :)

Now what does that tell you ? (volumes)

blessings.

Peter here provides the purpose of his article with ..."The scientific mind has become exclusively naturalistic; the rainbow is seen as Newton saw it, the refraction of the components of white light. So when we see a rainbow we think of physical mechanism and not the covenant with Noah. This is a disenchanted world. Adherents to this world, like Dawkins (nicely nailed by Terry Eaglton) and Dennett, will produce no great work of art, not because one is a biologist and the other a philosopher, but because their world is flat.".

I find it difficult to understand Peter's "disenchanted world" belief when our mind is drawn to understand some physical mechanisms. Surely we can still see poetic beauty in sunrises and sunsets with the added beauty in the knowledge of earth rotation. If I'm out spraying my chrysanthemums with water and the droplets in the light creates a beautiful pale rainbow effect I am not disenchanted with Newton's discovery of refraction. However, I am disenchanted with Newton for believing that gravity is an attraction when in fact it is a push. If we open our eyes and mind a bit we would understand that the universe is just full of material constituents that PUSH each other ..... it's a universe full of pushers.

After reading much of Terry Eaglton's comments on Richard Dawkins' Teddy Talk I cannot see how he even landed one cogent argument. Not one. However we could call on Keiran here, and this is my disenchantment with Dawkins. He still believes in a finite, expanding universe a la the big bang cosmological model. LOL Now that is belief in belief or religion which generally builds down from some anthropic principle using deduction. Of course even though billions is spent, they will not find one skerrick of deductive evidence for a finite universe.

ps Keiran of course, generally builds up from facts using induction .... where it is find and ye shall seek. Think Picasso said something like that too.

I feel sorry for Peter, he makes the mistake of trying to knit the real world with superstition and makes the mistake of trying on old spins. It convinces Christians yes , but they don’t want to analyse, truth is the enemy of God.

Science is the observation of reality. Science runs in opposition to God because God does not exist so no observation of reality will support the existence of God. To claim science improves faith means that person is a bad scientist because he/she is twisting empirical evidence to self delude to support a belief. That is bad science.

Peter is right that Evangelists parachute god into their claims, Peter does not explain why, that it is because God is a fantasy and cannot be brought rationally, logically or honestly into an argument. No God has ever made a claim of God, no person has ever claimed a God based on knowledge or empirical evidence. God is made up, a fantasy a delusion and Peter, theologians are conmen, nothing more. If theologians are not conmen then they could prove God exists because only proof of God can justify any claim theologians make.

How does God exist? Peter never answers that question even though the answer is obvious based on observation of reality. God exists by superstitious manifestations through paranoid delusion. God exists the same way a monster under the bed exists – an over indulgence in imagination.

We cannot expect Christians are capable of facing the fact that God is a superstitious manifestation of a paranoid delusion because they are suffering it. Educating christians about reality is the same as explaining to a sufferer of arachnophobia that a rubber spider wont bite.

Rubber spiders bite in mysterious ways.

Fortunately for sufferers of arachnophobia spiders are not everywhere, unfortunately for Christians reality is everywhere. Christians constantly offended by nature result in a hysteria that inevitably has led to the Oklahoma bombings, Jones Town, Waco, exorcism, the formation of the KKK, Family First and Jesus Camp, irrational and hysterical prophecy such as intelligent design and rapture.

All without God.

What is the nature of God?
Let me answer with an analogy. Imagine a jigsaw puzzle in progress, but an endless one, one with no borders/edges, that is with an infinite number of pieces. You have found some patterns of fit but still have many separate single units randomly out of pattern. You want to know what the whole picture is like. “God” if you must have a definition is simply the “unknown”. What does that mean? “God” is the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that have not yet been matched up – single pieces as well as the not yet clear relationship between the worked out small areas that do fit to a pattern. You must always allow for the “unknown” when making any decisions. You make this sort of “calculation” when solving a jigsaw puzzle. Then imagine a 3 dimensional jigsaw puzzle.
Questioner: Your “God” sounds more like a way of thinking than a formal theology. How does this nebulous “God = the unknown” concept fit with, for example “Christian” dogma/tenets?
The “religions” of today tell you that they know what the whole jigsaw puzzle picture is or represents. Man is a jigsaw/pattern solving creature and in his heart of hearts always wishes to solve the puzzle himself using logic. He may, if he believes some others are smarter/wiser or more authoritarian than himself, “believe” in one of the many current versions of the solved jigsaw puzzle. But unfortunately for those who believe in logic to solve dilemmas, there is no way to “prove” by logic that any single religion is closer to God than any other. So choosing between the various religions is an act of faith in itself. However consider this. By the jigsaw puzzle argument “God” is beyond definition – the moment you link any definition to “God” you have destroyed the concept. So the answer to your question is that any attribution of any absolute value to “God” or “the word of God” is to be considered a serious error. It is interesting that the words “world without end” are part of Christian worship

Questioner: How do you view the idea that evolution/Darwinism is proof of the non-existence of God? That pure randomness and not purpose/intelligent design drives evolution, as put forward by Richard Dawkins for example?
Kenneth Miller in his book “Finding Darwin’s God” notes that “those who ask from science a final argument, an ultimate proof, an unassailable position from which the issue of God may be decided, will always be disappointed.” “In many aspects evolution is the key to understanding our relationship with God.”
Beware of those who pronounce ultimate proof, but listen to those who say there is NO ultimate proof. The completion stage of the jigsaw puzzle is always changing, but the rules to understand the way to complete the jigsaw puzzle do not change. At the very basic level there is no clash between science and religion/a belief in God, if you believe that God is the unknown, the undefinable. You have to turn Miller’s question on its head and ask “will those who ask from religion a final argument, an ultimate proof, an unassailable position from which the issue of God may be decided, always be disappointed?” They always will be, because we wish to RATIONALLY believe the religious tenets.
Those who espouse GOD as purpose or intelligent design, then categorically tell you what the design is. If GOD is not purpose or intelligent design, they are just posturing alpha males wishing to dominate.
Questioner: What about the necessity for “posturing alpha males” and community leadership? Does God have any alpha maleness?
Society must have leaders. Human beings are “social” animals. However, if you promote any “dominance” role in the usual community pecking order sense as part of the nature of God, you are grafting a community leader role onto the idea of “God” hence an “all-knowing” God and his servants. It is this “dominance” and its interpretation that causes all the problems in and between religious systems. It destroys “God”, as it attempts to define the nature of “God”. God is not a leader/alpha male.