Is there a god?

[LeedsRhinos]

Is there a god? I mean look at all the different relgions around the world who all believe that THEY are right & the others are wrong. They can't all be right can they. Which is why in my opion it all rubbish.

[Merlin]

CLANAD. I was beginning to think it was all over. It slipped my mind that we might be in different time zones. This is going to be a long one. LONG ONE (1). The ��history�� of God is a fascinating subject and I expect that I will eventually get around to reading about texts other the Bible. What I seek to get to when in dialogue is the nature of God as understood by a philosopher, theologist, priest, religion adherent and, yes, even by a document historian. �� I can��t comment on the documents you mention because I��m not familiar with them and by the same token would not question that what you can see now is a faithful copy of what was written by Moses himself. If a set of tablets were produced and claimed as the original recording of the 10 commandments of the covenant, I would still not be too disturbed. I am also unconcerned about distortions, losses in translation, or even deliberate misrepresentations, as fascinating as all those things may be. I will accept, for now and for the sake of continued discourse, that the documents are genuine in themselves, i.e. that they are the original or faithful copies of texts written by the alleged authors. What I am concerned with is the truth of what��s written, and when it comes to this particular subject, there is no way we can go out with a magnifying glass and tape measure to verify what��s written. We also cannot know what was in the mind of the author. What we must do, therefore, is examine what is written about the nature and existence of God and see whether the description has coherence and integrity. If, for instance, a document describes God as having a non-physical form and being absolutely nice and kind in every way and also tells a tale of how he came to earth and slew a village of innocents to provide housing for the Israelites, then we would be entirely justified in calling that (somewhat extreme) description into question.

[Merlin]

LONG ONE (2). That is my interest and the absence to date of a description of God that has coherence and integrity is what encourages my view that there is no God. I ask a RC, for instance, for his view on evolution. We agree that evolution is more or less as described by Darwin. I will say that genesis and evolution were entirely natural and therefore �accidental�, but he will say that genesis and evolution were caused by God and that God�s design is inherent in evolution. Then I ask the killer question � �What is �God�?�. As El D rightly pointed out, this inevitably raises more questions than can be answered even by the RC himself and invariably leads to internal contradictions that negate the validity of the answer to �What is �God��. Since the term �God� cannot be defined, then the term �God� cannot rationally be used as an answer to anything. It makes so much more sense not to introduce God into the equation in the first place. I have exposed myself (ooooo eerrrrrr!!) to open and honest rational debate and welcomed opportunities to learn more and hear different views but nothing has persuaded me that I should think any differently. So I would even entertain a description of God that has been entirely fabricated for the purpose of presenting a coherent description. That God cannot act outside the rules of logic (he can�t make 2+2=5) is important. It points to God being trustworthy and worthy of faith, (rather than capricious and mischievous) but it does lead to other questions, depending on the other characteristics claimed for him.

[Merlin]

LONG ONE (3). The Mono/Dual/Trinitarian nature is interesting. One God? In Genesis he walks in the garden and refers to himself(ves) as �Us�. In the Gospels, JC refers to himself and the Father being one and the same entity, yet God the Son was abandoned by God the Father. Trinitarian? � As I understand it, the Trinity was invented by Rome as a logical necessity to explain the events of the passion. Now, I am well aware that the absence of an acceptable description does not of necessity mean that God does not exist. It is just irrational, to my view, to accept that God is a factor in anything. I have no reason to believe that what you tell me is false (yet!). And philosophically, I have to concede that you are an intelligent entity and probably have an independent existence. One can investigate independently, but it is more productive, I find, to bounce ideas around. I never expect to convert anyone to the dark side and I don�t deliberately provoke discussion with anyone who is not volunteering themselves in the first place. I do not have �faith� there is no God � it�s not quite like that and my view conveniently means that I do not have to prove or even provide evidence for the non-existence of God. I am quite happy for anyone to believe want they want to, but I see no logical, rational or philosophical reason that I should accept God as a factor in anything in a universe that is already explained to me in rational and logical and empirical terms.

[Merlin]

LONG ONE(4).My �last man standing� jibe was only a crude attempt to stimulate more debate from volunteers and to bring back some of the earlier contributors. If it turns out that I am wrong, then I win. I try not to be smug when I have a little victory in a debate, but I�m only human. Now I must take a while to consider your description of God.

[Merlin]

CLANAD. The minor queries are: 1. The etymology of the name that I found made no suggestion of being �Other�, but that�s no matter. 2. How �plural� is Elohim? Does it represent a multitude of �parts in one�, dual or trinity? 3. Is Elohim�s �desire� to be understood as his �will� and his will unopposable? 4. When he became human himself, was it in his entire self or as an �inseparable part� (e.g. as in the Trinity)? 5. Other questions arising from a clearer picture. But the major inconsistency that struck me immediately is this, the one that El D alluded to and the sort of inconsistency that is common in descriptions of the nature of God: 1. It is to be assumed, since Elohim created the universe, that he is omnipotent. 2. An omnipotent being, by definition, can achieve any effect that he desires (whether he can achieve an illogocality is another matter) 3. If an omnipotent being does everything possible to achieve an effect that is within his power to achieve, then that effect must necessarily be achieved � failure is not an option. 4. There are members of his created that do not recognize his existence. 5. It therefore necessarily follows that either he has not done everything possible to reveal himself to his created, or he is not omnipotent. Before going on to examine the human incarnation, I would ask that this inconsistency be clarified. I am not saying that this proves that God does not exist, just that this description is logically impossible.

[bobbyx]

COPIED FROM 'QUIZZES & PUZZLES' SECTION: We, as humans, need an answer for things we can't explain. Thousands of years ago when early mankind experienced things such as thunder & lightning, volcanoes, earthquaqes, severe weather, comets, total eclipses..etc they devoloped a presumption that these things were controlled by unseen forces which later developed into various 'gods' (the gods were pleased or angry depending on whether good or bad things were happening, and all sorts of explinations were made up for various phenomena). Closer to our time the Bible was written in an effort to control the masses: keep them living in fear of the almighty, one-and-only God with a bunch of stories, which all had a convenient moral to them, telling the people that their gods weren't real and it turned out to be the best PR stunt ever! Now we have a scientific explination for most things, in my opinion (I don't force it upon anyone, but seeing as you asked) believing in God (or gods)is just as ridiculous as believing in the Tooth fairy or Santa (when we stop believing in these things, why do we continue to belive in God?) - Much better to have faith in yourself & your own abilities.

[bobbyx]

Take the 'Wizard Of Oz'(stay with me on this!) A great example of how having faith can help people overcome hardship & a great metaphor for religion / God etc. Poor Dorothy needs to find her way home: In order to do this she must follow the yellow-brick road to to Oz where she's told that the all-powerful, all-knowing Wizard of Oz can help her get home. Along the way she meets and befriends a scarecrow, a lion and a tin man who all have 'issues' of their own to deal with. Cutting a long story short; On their journey they encounter evil (in the form of a nasty witch) and each of them overcomes their particular problem through having faith in the Wizard, and knowing that he can help them. When they finally reach Oz however, Dorothy's dog Toto(who has no concept of religion)reveals that the Wizard is actually just a man, and that it wasn't the Wizard of Oz who helped them at all, instead they found the strength, courage & heart within themselves to complete their journey. Now to spell it out for the stupid people! Dorothy & Pals = Mankind Yellow-brick road = Religion (& life) Thw Witch = The Devil / Evil Oz = Heaven / Nirvana Wizard of Oz = God Toto = Clever little Dog! For those of you who read this and thought I was using the example to argue the point for believing in God - Think again: It's the story of us, only they proved that their 'god' didn't actually exist(which we can't prove either way, unfortunately). Having faith in something can be a good thing admittedly, but having faith in your own abilities is much better, and the sooner everyone realises that they're walking the yellow-brick road to a false god, the better.

[Merlin]

BOBBYX You nearly got there, but we must be objective. The flaw in your analogy is that Dotty & Co overcame their hardships and stayed on the yellow brick Rd because they had faith in the Wiz. The story illustrates that religion provides strength and guidance to people even if God does not actually exist in the way that we are led to believe.

[Clanad]

I'm away from home for a time, so this response will be short... I hope. El duerino, you dispute that the God of the Scripture has done everything He can to reveal Himself and His nature to His created. What further proof do you require, may I ask? I believe it was you (perhaps not) that in a previous post stated that you wouldn't believe Him if He stood before you. Again, that may have been someone else, but what does it take for you? Merlin, the last section of your 02/10/04 post wherein you say God has not done everything possible...etc., I ask you as well, what would you demand of God for proof. Again, I maintain that, since you have no proof and haven't submitted text for examination and have relied only on your on "beliefs" concerning God's non-existence, you ARE relying on "faith" only. Whereas I have tried to at least offer rational explanations for the reliability of textual sources over 3,000 years old. Briefly, how would you convince someone that your great-grandfather (assuming he is deceased) existed? You would have to rely on textual evidence. I do a great deal of genealogical work as a hobby. The textual evidence for my paternal great-grandfather is far less reliable than the Gospels, for example. I still believe my great-grandfather existed, but I never met him, I can also say that if a newspaper account of his day stated that he had been elected President of the US, people living at the same time would vociferously dispute that as being untrue. The same logic can be applied to Scripture, especially the New Testament. El duerino, jsut for clarification, the creation myth, as you call it, isn't Christian in origin, but Jewish. I only ask that you answer my original question to you... in what way is it a myth? Only because you choose not to believe it? Enough for the time on this borrowed computer...

[bobbyx]

MERLIN: I did say at the start of my last post that it was 'A great example of how having faith can help people overcome hardship' so, I wasn't disputing that having faith can have a positive effect on some people. I was pointing out that their faith was misplaced and they were basing it on a lie.

[Merlin]

CLANAD Keep smiling (1) Now�s the time to put on a big smile and keep it there while you read � put a banana or a coat hanger sideways in your mouth if it helps!!!!!! So here we go: Perhaps I didn�t make the points clear enough. I am not relying on any faith nor on any texts nor on any belief that leads me to positively or pro-actively deny the existence of God. It may seem a subtle difference, but my position is actually that I see no point in admitting the existence of God in the first place. To keep it simple: Ath: How did that cave form that way; I think it occurred through forces of nature such as erosion from wind and water � yes, that seems like a rational answer that fits with everything else we know? Th: Squibbly-dum did it. Ath: What�s Squibbly-dum? Th: I don�t know. Ath: The term �Squibbly-dum� has not been defined and therefore cannot be considered as a viable answer. It would be silly of me to change my view based on what you tell me. Now just substitute any other undefined term (e.g. �God�). I am not asking for proof of God�s existence, nor I am I saying that God has not done all he can to reveal himself. What I am saying is that the description of God that you have deduced from the texts has internal inconsistencies. There are qualities in that description that cannot co-exist and the description must therefore be wrong. It is a matter of simple logic that no entity can possess those qualities simultaneously. The description you have deduced says both that God is omnipotent and that he is not, and it therefore clearly and undeniably cannot be correct.

[Merlin]

Keep smiling (2) I could probably dig up (probably the wrong phrase!!) some documentation pertaining to the official existence of my great-grandfather, ask for a description from those who knew him and put together a picture of him that would be acceptable to any reader because that description of him would be consistent, coherent and have integrity within and without itself. The description would not, for instance, say that he was a short man of over 6 feet. It would not describe him as blind with 20/20 vision and would not say that he was as ordinary a bloke as you would find on any street and then say how he flew unaided to work every day. There would be no reason to question his existence from the description of him. (Alternatively, ask my niece about her great-grandfather � he has sufficient existence to poke out anyone�s eye!!). Now look at the description again and acknowledge that it says �He has done everything possible to reveal Himself to His created�. The point is this � he has failed to do so because he has not been revealed to me because if he had been, I would know he exists and we wouldn�t be having this discussion. It matters not what I or El D would ask for as proof � that is beside the point. The point is that this description says that the subject is not omnipotent. And that is discordant with having the ability to create the cosmos from nothing, existing outside of space/time yet interacting within it, transforming from spiritual to physical, dying a physical death and being resurrected etc..

[Merlin]

Keep smiling (3). All I have been looking for is a description that holds water, and this is not it. I�m not being obstinate or obtuse; it�s your description and you are free to change it and resubmit. Simple rational logic applied to your description reveals that it needs some clarification. Is Elohim omnipotent or not.? I tried to put a big cheesey smiley here but it wouldn�t go. The debate may be heating up now to running temperature, but I�m not and I hope you will take this in the spirit with which it is offered � as stimulating academic debate and nothing personal. I don�t want to appear arrogant or presumptuous, but it�s at this stage that some people might feel personally attacked or think that their religion is being denigrated � it�s not.

[Merlin]

BOBBYX My apologies � I stand corrected. I would still argue a bit, though (sometimes I just can�t bring myself to agree with anyone!) � some people just don�t have any confidence in themselves for whatever reason and there will always be a need for religion of some sort. Religion does not necessarily mean a belief in a god. I even have a theory, contrary to El Duerino�s thoughts (there I go again, arguing with my allies) that there is an instinctive need for some sort of religion. I am a believer in the beast within us � we haven�t been human for so long that we�ve shaken off an instinct for survival. The beast within us also explains why men don�t like grocery shopping with the wife and kids in tow but don�t mind doing it solo. Believe it or not, it�s the same reason why pet cats hang around the house!! Figure that out. Cheers.

[el duerino]

haha once again Clannad you meticulously ignore my question, even in capitals. As you choose not to answer it I will take it that you cannot and accept it as a flaw in your argument. I am not going to bother answering your point about god revealing himself. you came across initially as someone of intelligence but if you seriously believe that then you are as blind as every other dumb xstian. again your argument is too simplistic. we have no text? there is a great deal of literary evidence for creatures other than your god who have not been disproved either, e.g. unicorns, dragons, even gods of vanquished cultures. what differentiates the bible from these texts? apart from the fact it contains a huge number of contradictions it reads as any other myth from history. so answer that one - what makes the bible different from other texts that establish non disprovable (!?) deities? There is no faith in believing empirically validated fact. Of course, the great flaw in your grandad argument is that we have no reason to postulate that he never existed. and he most certainly was not omnipotent and responsible for creation. makes you think really . . . the creation account in the bible is a myth because it did not occur as depicted. it was not created in 6 periods. merlin - i too am of the opinion that people wish to have a mystical guardian. however i will not allow myself to take that attitude. you only have to think of how many people, adults, in 2004, when we have circled the globe and landed on the moon ;) are afraid of the dark? whats there? nothing. so why are we afraid?

[bobbyx]

Well, nevermind all the arguments about wether or not there is a God. Let's say for sake of argument you believe in him you'd have to admit he's not been doing a very good job lately has he? I mean granted, the creation was pretty impessive, but you can't bask in past glory forever! I MOTION TO VOTE HIM OUT. Your God doesn't love you anymore. That's why I would like to stand for the 'God 2005' campaign. I promise to look after the world. I won't be a spiteful, vengeful God like my predecessor (eat as many apples as you like!). I will rule by democracy rather than fear or punishment. I will add to the huge amount of money the church takes in world-wide by selling / leasing the actual buildings and having only one online church where instead of worship you can put forward your suggestions for a better planet (this makes much more sense than praying, as you will know that your suggestion has gone to the right place)- The people who usually worship in their local church on a sunday morning can still help by providing community services (much more fruitful I'm sure you'll agree). I don't claim to be omnipotent, however, the internet will help help me reach a lot more people. I will spend your donations in the right places - and promise to try to solve third-world starvation / debt. ***VOTE BOBBYX FOR 'GOD 2005'*** (post of Deputy God still open)

[I.R.]

Hi everyone. Took a three-day break, but I'm back now, and I can see this thread is as interesting as ever. bobbyx, its not a democracy but a theocracy. Nice campaign ad, tho. Try running for President instead, maybe I'll vote you in then! Clanad- very interesting facts. Any more where that came from?

[Merlin]

Now then, children!! Sit down and behave. El D � I don�t understand the vehemence and venom in your prejudice. It�s as though you don�t have confidence in your views; as though you fear exposure to an argument for the existence of God that you won�t be able to refute. Don�t fear it � prepare for it for it will surely come, usually in the guise of an appeal to fideism and the ineffability of God. Both of those, however, only serve to strengthen my position. Don�t rant, keep cool, be nice. And since you ask (I also like the little �how do you account for this behaviour� questions) there is an innate fear of the dark in non-nocturnal (what is that word??) creatures. It is felt to a greater or lesser degree dependent on the person�s disposition, age, experience etc. Children will be more fearful because the natural instinct is stronger than the acquired knowledge. Adults of a more developed consciousness and intellect and greater experience will be correspondingly less fearful. It�s a natural animal thang. That is, unless you have a real reason, like you go out at night boosting Caddies near 1PP and can�t see who�s around. BOBBYX. If you like � I�ll do the interviews and the aptitude test. First phase test: 1.What level of pay are you looking for and what level of perks do you expect? 2.Where will you live? 3.Where will you work from? 4.What hours will you keep? 5.Taking into account your answers to the above, how will you persuade everyone in the world that you have the best interests of each and every one of them at heart and can fulfil all their desires and aspirations. 6.What animals will be granted a soul? 7.How will you eradicate evil? 8.Will you reduce the tax on spirits (beware of the ambiguity) 9.Will you introduce global laws with associated punishments? 10.Will we have free will? 11.Could I please be made a millionaire?

[Merlin]

Hi IR It's good to see you back. The stuff that Clanad is bringing to us is fascinating. All I would warn against is an assumption that because the documents themselves are genuine, that what is contained within them is also genuine. I'm not here saying that what transcends the documents is lies, just that we should make a distinction between the document (the paper and the ink upon it, or the stone and the characters chiselled into it)and what that document purports to convey. An examination of the document must be followed by a separate examination of what it tries to tell us.

[bobbyx]

MERLIN Full Manifesto not completed yet, but here's the answer to your questions: 1. Obviously, I will be looking for a percentage of all monies received to allow me to work in comfort .5 % ought to do. PERKS = Job satisfaction 2./3./4. Don't see any reason to move, however, I understand a lot of travelling will be involved. I will have deputies to cover a 24HR service (would also consider a coalition). 5. Tough one! Obviously unless I get a 100% vote some people won't be satisfied (you can't make an omelette without...) but hopefully over time they should come to recognise the benefits which their friends are reaping. I should also point out that the current administration has put a hell of a lot more effort into 'persuading' than they have 'fulfilling desires and aspirations' 6. Don't believe in a soul (not as a commoditiy anyway) 7. impossible (without evil there can be no good) 8. Ha Ha 9. Not right away 10. Sure, but I would ask for a few years to get things right (maybe a 10 year term) 11. Well if you want to be my accountant who's to stop you skimming a few quid - just keep it on th Q.T.!