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]

Dear candidate No. 1 (Bobbyx) 2/3/4: You must personally provide a 24/7 monitoring / answering service. You don�t have to answer all calls, but you must be seen to take them all. 6: Your body is your physical extension, it�s what you use to bump into things with. Your mind is your consciousness, it�s what you use to consider the input from your sensors and to have abstract and philosophical reflection. That just leaves the set of stuff that includes your personality, your sense of self (of the �inner person�), your character, your predisposition to act in a certain ways, the inner bit of you that feels satisfaction. You would need a collective noun for that stuff. How about if we called that �soul�? (Just for argument�s sake). I like to think that my dog has a soul. 7.Sorry. Now that we know what evil is, we could do without it and have good only. 9 & 10: These were actually pre-requisite conditions and their absence from the manifesto really lets you down. 11. Ooooooooooooooohhhh � this is the killer!! You have assumed that I am dishonest and are tempting me to indulge in naughtiness. Unfortunately, you have failed the aptitude test. The board recognised that you may have some decent ideas and personal qualities and would like you to re-apply for the post in about AD4008. Meanwhile, the board wish you good fortune in any other venture that you engage in in the meantime.

[I.R.]

lol!

[Merlin]

Please forgive my ignorance of e-chat protocol, but what is 'lol'? El D used it to greet Clanad and IR used to greet me (I presume) and I can't think of a single phrase with those initials that fit both occasions!!! Lots of love? Lots of laughs? Loony On Line? (Don't try to kid me that no-one has thought that one!!)

[Merlin]

GOT IT!!!! - LAUGH OUT LOUD!!! Right on.

[I.R.]

You know, Merlin, I still can't get rid of that your "what happened to the body" question. I guess that same body was resurrected, but in spirit form..... But I suppose it doesn't really matter what happened, as long as you believe the eyewitness accounts of the resurrection as stated in the bible.

[bobbyx]

MERLIN You seem to have apponted yourself head of a board! (I hope it's a board of one! - At least I was going for a vote!) Assuming I recognised your board; here's the answers to your objections: 2./.3./4. I refer to my first post on the suject 6. The definition of a soul is wideley debated and will never be laid to rest. If you think your dog has a soul, presumably you must think all animals have a soul, therefore, I wouldn't have to grant any animals a soul, and you will already be satisfied! 7. If you could completely eradicate what we call evil, then a portion of what's left would become evil. 9. 'Law' is such a harsh word - I would prefer to make suggestions. 10. I said 'sure' (=yes) just want time to prove myself. 11. My scapegoa.. I mean assistant wasn't privvy to that aspect of the manifesto and has made the desiscion to stand down. I personally would never make such an assumption (The role of Demi-god should pay well if you're interested!)

[Merlin]

IR Part 1 Luke�s account could be interpreted as "JC blessed them and left them and later ascended � maybe out of sight". Matthew doesn�t mention the ascension at all. Maybe it happened out of sight. Mark�s passage clearly includes an assumption rather than a witness account that JC ascended. John�s ending is really ambiguous and leaves everything �up in the air�, so to speak. I would go with John�s ending � it really leaves it up to the reader! To maintain integrity with the idea that JC and God the Father are one and the same entity (as claimed by JC himself), then it would be rational to assume that JC was somehow relocated with the Father at the end of his earthly mission so that he(they) could rule forever.

[Merlin]

Part 2: Now, I personally don�t subscribe to a resurrection nor to the ascension. But if you say that JC died, was resurrected and ascended to heaven out of sight of witnesses and that this was possible because he was divine as well as human, then the fate of the body becomes less of an issue. You would probably then have to say that it was possible because God is omnipotent and can do anything he wills and that you can�t imagine how he did it because God�s power, nature and reality are beyond human understanding (I�m struggling now!) and you know that it happened because you have faith or because it was revealed, or whatever. Then you approach a coherent and rational account of that episode � but only of that particular episode. The problem that I would have is when you try to extend that account to link it with the nature of God and other episodes and other implications of God. I say that if you give �God� as an answer to anything, then you must refer to God in an answer to everything. Further, if you claim your knowledge is by faith and your ignorance is due to God�s ineffability, then our discussion on this particular episode must peter out. Something no-one can deny is that another person has faith in the reality of their God. It still leaves my atheism intact and rational.

[Merlin]

Candidate BOBBYX I�m head of the board as the only unopposed candidate. As I believe in myself, I too failed the aptitude test. Otherwise you wouldn�t have had a look-in. I don�t think worms and viruses and lesser insects should have a soul. I think there must be the possibility for abstract reflection and self-consciousness (come to think of it, if I was a worm, I would be very self-conscious) � what do you think? (An essay of 10 words is required). I wouldn�t want to live in a universe where the ultimate power delivered the cosmological constitution in the single sentence �Hey man � yeah, whatever!!!�. Too much subjective anything goes freedom to sin. What laws would you introduce (list 3)? In order to enforce laws, there must be a system of punishment � what would you introduce? (Don�t forget the free will thing). I want to be a millionaire without commission of sin to get the dosh and without guilt in having it. And it wouldn�t mean anything if everyone was a millionaire. Could you make that happen? You have been allowed another bash as there are no other candidates for the job yet. No-one wants it. It�s a job for life � and that may be for longer than you think.

[el duerino]

yes yes I unfortunately do have to admit to ranting and getting annoyed in this kind of thing. re the bible, I actually have read some very interesting stuff which specifically invalidates certain accounts, especially OT stuff, based on archeological digs etc. let me ask you clannad, are you an inerratist? (learned that one yesterday :) ) do you believe the bible to be free of error? oh and i nominate myself for god. im petty, spiteful, etc . . . lol only joking. I vote for thierry henry.

[Merlin]

Loony On Line. Thierry Henri is not eligible (I could have said illegible, but then no-one would have read it). I always assumed God to be an Englishman and TH therefore does not qualify. Bobbyx may or may not be an Englishman but so far I have no reason to doubt that (s)he is. You may be next in line if Bobbyx doesn't come up with the right answers. You would have only one question to answer in the selection test: As a deity, how could you bear to live with yourselves for eternity? Sorry - must go now and stitch up my sides!!! LoLoLoLoL.:-))))

[Merlin]

Anyway, we don't want the AnswerBank Editor to strike us off for trivial chat - not now that each of us may be on the brink of learning something. Clanad has to come back on the description of God deduced from texts. IR may confirm that re-interpretation of the Gospels is useful. El Duerino may have somethig to contribute - (s)he seems to be working up to it. Bobbyx - the job is yours if you can show beyond rational doubt that the present incumbent is out of the office. I shall to continue to argue (constructively, I hope) with everyone. TTFN.

[I.R.]

Just a question, Merlin, to get us back on track. You do believe in the "big bang" and evolution, don't you? Then how come insects and the like remain insects year after year? When on earth are THEY going to evolve into something more complex? And how come humans have remained the most complex of all evolving species? How come we haven't moved on and become "super-humans", perhaps? Or has the "evolution thing" given up trying? We suposedly evolved from monkeys, how come the monkeys on earth right now haven't moved on, and become humans too? Or perhaps nature is just preserving them as artifacts to tell us where we came from?

[Merlin]

IR Good question. I shall try to answer quickly because I want you to know that this is what I think and I'm not looking up the answers (I will, though, if there's a challenge!!). Evolution is still proceeding insects are developing and adapting. Man is still evolving. The rate of evolution is so slow, though, that one generaion is unlikely to witness a noticeable change. You can see some moths, for instance, adapting to new environments & predators because one person can witness several generations of months. Evolution occurs over generations and most evolutionary steps are not noticeable. There's also the matter of 'branches' of development. I don't think we actually developed from minkeys, as such. An ant will never have an ape as a descendant and chimps will never have humans as descendants - they can only develop into what their current state would allow. There won't be another advent of man.

[I.R.]

check http://www.creationdesign.org. Some interesting review of the topic.

[Merlin]

IR And as a supplementary answer; evolution is compatible with genesis and the fall of man. You could say that man was 'created' when the first creatures that could be called 'human' first appeared on earth. God created man by granting souls to the first humans. They dwelt for a while in 'The Garden' and eventually their intellectual abilities developed to the point when they got self-consciousness and knowledge and realisation of good and evil - they 'ate from the tree'. So God bestowed mortality upon them for original sin. Or something like that. As I said before, separate episodes can be rationally compatible with an interpreted bible. I have a problem when it's all put together for the big picture.

[Merlin]

IR That is a link to a commercial business - not the one you intended, I suspect! (It's a business website specialist). If you are about to challenge me with the "creation from design" argument, then I look forward to it!

[Merlin]

That was too quickly answered, I think. What I meant was: 1. You can see some moths, for instance, adapting to new environments & predators because one person can witness several generations of moths (not months). 2. I don't think we actually developed from monkeys (although 'minkeys' sound much nicer!). In short, evolution occurs in minute steps from one generation to the next. It is more obervable in creatures with short lifespans.

[I.R.]

Oh then, try http://www.creationdesign.org/If%20you%20believe%20in%20evol ution.html then. Hope it works this time.

[I.R.]

I now see the problem with the first link I referred to, the last dot shouldn't be there. Try http://www.creationdesign.org/ for the homepage