Now don't be silly George- I wasn't asking to be converted. My question was rhetorical.

If God is as all powerful as you claim, creator of the Universe and all that, then God could quite easily communicate directly with all of us at the same time.

The fact that this imaginary being doesn't do this, leads me to think that it doesn't exist.

God needn't be shy, need he/she/it?

It is up to religionists to prove the existence of God, not us to prove the non-existence of same. I think that religionists have been doing a really bad job of that; maybe it is because there is nothing there?

What is the difference in believing in God and believing in the spaghetti monster? What about the people who believe they have been abducted by aliens from Space? Scientology, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses etc etc etc...One sure sign that there is something wrong with religion, is that there are so many different religions, all claiming to be the only right one.

Just too ridiculous for words. I'm wasting my time, because religious people don't need verifiable, repeatable facts in order to convince themselves.

Richard Dawkins is right.

goodthief, you are still simply playing with words here. It is really very, very simple.

>>I’m not criticising you guys for getting your thinking started by means of an assumption, but just pointing out that that’s what you’re doing<<

The whole point about empiricism is that no assumptions are required. It is simply axiomatic that experience, or awareness, precedes knowledge. You don't have to assume anything. There is, in fact, nothing to assume. It simply states that unless you are aware of something, you cannot know it.

Surely it doesn't get any easier than that?

It poses absolutely no threat. It encompasses the idea and experience of religion and spirituality.

You and your fellow religionists try to paint it into the corner of being "just another belief".

It does not require any leap of faith, simply an understanding that as sentient beings, before knowledge can exist, there has to be experience.

Let's take your illustration.

>>“Fear of God is the beginning of knowledge”<<

If you knew nothing about fear, and nothing of God, it is impossible to begin the process you describe here as "knowledge". Something - and that something we empiricists call "experience" - has to precede knowledge.

You refute this by saying

>>Things can exist without anyone knowing them... I believe God exists whether experienced or not<<

That, frankly, makes no sense. Build me a scenario in which such statements can be true. Can you do that?

I suggest you will find it difficult to achieve. You may make some good progress along the path, but there are some difficulties. I'm particularly interested in how you cope with the idea that God made man in his own image.

froggie wrote "must be aware of our physical limitations. If that is so, then why does God make "him/her/itself" so difficult (in fact impossible) to communicate with?"

If I may...you asked the question froggie...now get out there and start searching for the answer...you would eventually find the path that leads you to the fact or here the truth...

eg...using science...everybody knew that when an apple dropped from a tree it fell straight down but never 'clicked' to ask why...it took isacc newton(1697) to click and work out and along the way of applying a scientific mind found the path that led to the 'laws of motion'...it didnt just come to him...

http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physics/mechanics/forces/newton/newton.html
and look at the third law...every action has an equivalent and opposite reaction...budhist jump up saying that is karma...christians as in sin...athesist as badluck...so a reasonable person would inquire if such a principle exists in the spiritual realm too...and approach it in the same spirit as a scientist...ie with an open mind to the answer...(even a 'bamboo' flexibility of the mind will be a limitation to finding the truth...but a firm mind on the 'observed' ie empirist is good(careful that the 'assessment' on the observed is exactly what it should be...ie nothing added to it or removed(bias per statistics)... but keep moving on the path of discovery...)

so hopefully you will set out to search and find the answer and then tell us...I expect that god might say 'its always been in front of you but you refused to see or hear'...

Sam

Pericles, “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. “ Not something with in the conceptual understanding of the empiricist I guess. What we are on the inside, what we continually think about, eventually shows in our words, actions, and even our countenance. In time we become the embodiment of our thoughts and actions. They define the heart of each self.

It isn't about “feeling” guilty. Though that is an interesting look at your emotional self. It's about being guilty. Mankind is not innocent. We are guilty of our collective history, our treatment of one another. One can not transfer their participation and thus proclaim themselves free of “being guilty” of mans collective transgressions. Unless your stating that your empiricism exonerates you and you are therefore free from error.

One doesn't put faith in God. One has faith or one doesn't. One may put faith in his equipment based on a percent of reliability. For example, seat belts save lives 50% of the time when they are used properly. Ones faith in the use of seat belts is dependant. One does not get to know God by playing the percentages.

And Pericles, if you could just say something and I would loose my faith. Then I would never have had faith to begin with. There is nothing anyone can do or say that could loose someone their faith. People have to do that kind of damage to themselves. It's like suicide. You can not suicide someone. The COPs'll do ya for murder.

Froggie, step outside and look into the night sky. Don't blame God for not speaking to you if your too clever not to listen. You have chosen not to.

TR, you need to come into the conversation from the beginning. Twisting my post to BOAZ out of context just to appear smug does you no favour. No one is comparing astrology to astronomy. BOAZ was slagging my definition of my self-styled internet handle aqvarivs. Your too late to the game to poach one of my post to BOAZ. It's a carry on from other conversations

I believe that the original statement for discussion was;

'Islam's coming renaissance will rise in the West : Comments'

I would agree with that statement except to say that the Islamic religion would have to rebuilt from the ground up. There would be no tinkering around the edges. The foundations laid down by Imams Shafi, Bukhari and Ghazzali HAVE to be ruptured.

Obviously then, any Islamic renaissance is going to be a tortuous process but it must begin by embracing the natural sciences; not just practically but philosophically. The same principle would apply for the 'religious-right' in the United States.

The end.

Keep it up, TR, only wish there was many more like you.

Cheers, BB