i love god..thus accept the contradictions...just as science has accepted a quark can symoultaioniously appear at different places..you deney gods egsistance thus need to point them out...and because i love god i will try to rationalise the way of the unseen.

the cause of causes has a policy of allowing freewill of our belief, thus..dosnt work via obvious ways..ways..that would indicate and evidence..beyond doudt..the proof of his sure egsistance..that would remove say..your freewill to disbelieve

god works by subtil co-incidences...an unseen hand..[that helps..[not hinders]..those who sustain their belief in the onipresent..[omnipotant]..as well as the unbeliever..who are more foolish for their failure to appriciate those chance events..that they dismiss as mere luck or coincidence

noting these unseen fortuinate[luck]..events are all ways positive..or if seemingly negative[at the time...later reveal themselves to have been a better option than what would/could have been

no evil comes from good/god...any that ascribe the negative..[to an act from the positive are clearly mistaken...anyhow its a thing where words fail to do justice...if your not sealising god with us[emmanuel] means god is with[in] you right this moment..well thats your free choice...god would never interfere with your choice to believe or disbelieve

it makes me sad people miss the amasings hand even in the mundane,but its your choice...maybe you have learned to apriciate shakespear[or poetry]...

but i have never been taught/nor learned..to appriciate them...so naturally..[for me]..they are pure tripe..but those who love meta or cadences or lust of murder..just love those meaningless bits of[what is to me..verbal diareria..

just as my rambling on about gods good seems...no doudt to..you..[who simply hasnt sought..to know..the ever loving...its the same thing..[how does it go..[seek and find..[dont seek..never find]...its faith then belief..[i guess]

Ludwig,
What superior wisdom do commonsense atheists have above those you supose are still have primitive mind sets. sockpuppet are you the font of intelligence found in atheists viewing theists in baby boots.

Ludwig, where are we heading if we follow your common sense? Past generations have all considered they used common sense in the development of combustion, the industrial revolution and medical technology. What do you view as common sense? Going back to primitive living and allowing nature to take the lives of the weak?

Rainier & CJM

I thought the same thing. Good to know there are others who share similar ways of looking at things.

As for the actual topic, it has no meaning for me at all given that I never considered god to be present ever.

Cheers

Dear Houellebecq,

Welcome back!

In answer to your question - No - I don't watch
"make-over," shows.

I prefer - "Australian
Story," in that genre.

Back to the subject ...

There are many ways of thinking about God.
Agnostics question the existence of God.
Atheists deny God's existence.
Theists believe that a Supreme Being exists.

Many theologians have used rational arguments to
defend the existence of God. Some have developed
cosmological arguments, which state that a first
cause must have begun the process of creation,
a cause that must be God. Others have set forth
teleological arguments based on belief in a grand
design or purpose for the world that only a supreme
God could have created.

Many others feel that, "God is dead," They argue
that the traditional image of God as a father figure
with supernatural powers does not reflect the modern
world's scientific view of reality.

Others have kept the idea of God - but have not used
names that are personalized or limited.

For many years it was widely felt that as science
progressively provided rational explanations for
the mysteries of the universe, religion would have
less and less of a role to play and would eventually
disappear, unmasked as nothing more than superstition.

But, there are still gaps in our understanding on the
ultimately important questions - of the meaning and
purpose of life and the nature of morality.

Few people would utterly deny the possibility of some
higher power in the universe, some supernatural,
transcendental realm that lies beyond the boundaries
of ordinary experience, and in this fundamental sense
religion is probably here to stay.

Ludwig wrote;

"God's a bloomin drongo"

"Der gee Mahther"

"God'th a bloody bloomin blithththtering dthrongo"

"Ahhh hahahaha another maththterpiethe of a point Mathter"

"God's a bloody drongo"

Woops, in my last post that should have read ‘abrogate one’s responsibilities’. Not abdicate! (:>|
.
OUG, you wrote;

“…no doudt to..you..[who simply hasnt sought..to know..the ever loving...”

Oh I have sought to know. For some years I was open to the possibility of embracing Christianity, Hinduism, the Baha’i faith or whatever religion might have fitted with my deep love of nature, strong environmentalism and sustainability ethic.

But in the end, for all the good aspects of these faiths, I found the very concept of believing in a god figure to be too much at odds with a world that is governed by the laws of physics and ecology and in which I can see no sign of divine intervention and a whole lot of dog-eat-dog, eat-and-be-eaten, survival-of-the-fittest, no-mercy-given-to-the-weak, very-high-infant-mortality-rate-in-just-about-every-species-of-plant-and-animal-on-the-planet sort of stuff.

Of course, I have a fundamental problem with Genesis 1:28: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/attenborough-genesis-it-can-go-forth-and-multiply-1521668.html

David Attenborough says that the bible is to blame for the devastation of the planet.

I’m not sure I’d go quite that far, but I reckon the bible or the Christian faith (or any faith?) certainly hasn’t helped stem the rate of devastation one iota.

So it’s a godless world to me.