Is there any validity for religious dogma to challenge scientific empiricism, and if so what proper evidence has religion for such an assertion?

First topic message reminder :

I have listened to theists and creationists make what I view as the most absurd claims about the validity of religious doctrine and scripture. So here's a thread designed for anyone who thinks they can to show any evidence for these claims.

Of course everyone will then be entitled to comment on the veracity of what is presented and whether it has at least as much validity as scientific evidence, or indeed if it really is evidence at all.

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that this thread is not just about evolution vs creationism,but seeks to uncover why anyone thinks faith based belief has as much or more validity as scientifically validated evidence.

               

polyglide wrote:Please do not ask where the energy came from because I have no idea

I know you don't. Our personal views on matters of physics may be of passing interest but they don't add anything to the topic under discussion.

marcolucco,
I must apologise for my lack of realy putting my opnion regarding the rainbow and the Bible in perspective.

God said it was a sign of his covenant and nothing more.

marcollucco,
You can challenge anything that cannot be explained in a manner that cannot be challenged, religion and sciene in many cases.

As matter of interest I listened to a lecture on the Big Bang theory, it went something like there was a Big Bang that took millionths of a seconds.

I took great interest in all that followed but the last little bit tickled me the most.

He said "however we have no idea what went Bang nor what went before the Big Bang.

I thought it most interesting.

More recently scientists having discovered that gasses do not behave in the universe as first thought there may be an explanation that the universe was formed in a very gentle manner etc;

Then we have the dark matter, that they cannot explain, the balck holes which originally they said nothing could excape from and now they say emit winds that stop stars from forming etc; along with matters that may put Einsteins theory to the test etc.

So I feel there is lots of reason why both religion and science can be disputed.

Who gave that lecture, some creationist no doubt. Else they'd know that the Big Bang refers to a vast rapid expansion of energy rather than an explosion in the traditional sense. Your scientifically illiterate Polyglide, all young earth creationists are.

by polyglide Today at 3:14 pm

marcollucco,
You can challenge anything that cannot be explained in a manner that cannot be challenged,

Argumentum ad ignorantiam, 'again'.

Polyglide wrote:
So I feel there is lots of reason why both religion and science can be disputed.

Science admits when it's in error, and always follows the evidence, religion does not, but relies on blind faith, and adherence to doctrine and dogma, The two positions are complete opposites. Religion can and has been challenged and shown to be wrong by science many times, and yet people like yourself still deny scientific facts in favour of myths and superstitions, but science simply follows the evidence itself, and will revise it's position if the evidence demands it, even if on very rare occasions this has involved scientific theories being revised. Abandoning scientific fact in favour of unevidenced bronze age superstitions about creation myths though is absurd.

               

polyglide wrote:God said it was a sign of his covenant and nothing more.

He may have said this; and that would be interpreted as meaning the appearance of a coloured arc in the sky was a creation specifically for the purpose of showing a covenant. A rainbow in ancient times would require some divine explanation and this was it. Nowadays we know about the break-up of white light and we would certainly not assume a divine presence when we noticed a rainbow now. I am saying that early ignorance ascribed a supernatural meaning to something that has a perfectly simple explanation. I believe we continue to do this, reading the supernatural into things that will have an explanation, albeit one beyond our present science.

The Big Bang Theory, in my view, can itself be altered if and when more information reaches science. It affords an explanation but if it has flaws, then we don't discard science - we amend our ideas. Dark matter and Black Hole Theory are being examined today. A friend has written a paper on Event Horizons that seems to verify one of Einstein's postulates. Beyond this there might as well be dragons, explicable in future centuries perhaps.
I'm afraid I see God talking rainbows as close to embarrassing. I don't claim to understand the workings of the world; I had fun at University on things such as the maths of Earth's rotation but all the calculations in the world don't replace gods with golden certainty. I accept that for many people today, a God who made the Earth, with its flaws and wonders, who gave us bits of rock plunging around in space, who let beast eat beast to survive, such a God explains things for them. I am sure that some very intelligent Romans made offerings to their household gods with the same piety.

Anthropomorphising deities is a very old tradition, as is gifting them magical powers of course. I mean where's the fun in creating a deity with no more power than you yourself possess? It wouldn't exactly scare the neighbours after all. They might even think you weak, and decide to conquer you.

marcolucco,
I have looked further into the rainbow saga and I felt I had missed something regarding the actual facts.

The Bible does not mention rainbows at all, what it says is that God will at times will show a Bow in the clouds, not a rainbow.

I have in fact created a rainbow whilst spraying the pond in bright sunlight with water.

So I feel it reasonable to say that as a rainbow does not appear in clouds and can be made by humans God did not mean a rainbow as we see it.

marcolucco,
Yes you are right, I myself wonder why it should be that one animal depends on another for survival, however, can you think of any other manner in which such a variety of both plant and animal life can survive in any other manner.

As far as I am concerned I think the answer is two fold, God did not intend it to be so in the first place but due to Satans interferance he has had to make alternatives to that intended.

I realise one can say that as God is omnipotent ( mankind having defined the meaning ) could do anything he wanted but the Bible explains why that is not possible until Satan's time is up.

marcolucco,
I realy think science regarding the universe is a very interesting persuit and I try to keep up to date with matters pertaining.

The more that science discovers the more it proves that previous ideas are wrong and often back to front.

There was only one big black hole that anything entering could not escape, now there are numerous black holes that play a major part in the ongoing creation of the universe.

Science has a place and I have explained that it results in good and bad and the indifferent.

I asked previously if you thought mankind could get out of the present situation taking into account that the situation is exactly as the Bible predicted before God took over.

I am well aware that individual situations relating to the present situations have been experienced previously but never all at once.

I would realy like your opinion.

polyglide wrote: The Bible does not mention rainbows at all

Genesis 9

13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

polyglide wrote: The more that science discovers the more it proves that previous ideas are wrong and often back to front.

Simply not true, it is extremely rare for major scientific ideas established through a general scientific consensus to be reversed. This is another of those dishonest clichés that creationists love to make up. The scientific facts you as a young earth creationist are denying span multiple scientific fields and disciplines. There is no empirical evidence for the claims creationist make, none, what's more they dishonestly try to masquerade pseudo-science as if it has scientific validity, and you have often used such propaganda on here. Your problem is that you simply won't or can't take an objective view of your beliefs, and end up insulting those who keep pointing out the errancy of your claims rather than honestly addressing those refutations.

               
             

polyglide wrote: The Bible does not mention rainbows at all, what it says is that God will at times  will show  a  Bow in the clouds, not a rainbow.

Well my King James version does.

Are you serious in contending this? The word "arcus" in Latin means a bow and is commonly used for rainbow. The rainbow appeared after the flood - as it well might - and signified God's favour with humanity. I have no idea what sense could be made of a "bow" in the clouds that was not intended to mean a rainbow.


But sweeping all that aside, if I ever held a proposition that required me to revisit definitions with such deft doctoring I would discard my proposition.
             

               

polyglide wrote:Yes you are right, I myself wonder why it should be that one animal depends on another for survival, however, can you think of any other manner in which such a variety of both plant and animal life can survive in any other manner.

Yes, by direct intake of whatever element is prescribed; by a change of design. The question about animals killing animals challenges the statement that "God saw it was good." He didn't see a tiger tear a lamb to pieces?

polyglide wrote:As far as I am concerned I think the answer is two fold, God did not intend it to be so in the first place but due to Satan's interference he has had to make alternatives to that intended.

Always a bad argument to say "God didn't intend..." If a builder didn't intend something, he is called back to do the job properly. The interpolation of Satan is like introducing a witch in a fairy tale. And it brings up the problem of Good and Evil co-existing, unless we again insert an explanation of "divine war." Divine wars are nothing new in ancient religions. Incidentally if all was good then where did the evil spark come from that initiated Lucifer's rebellion? We reach the charge that God must have introduced evil into his system. Yet "he saw that it was good."

" until Satan's time is up."
What is time? Are we counting in Earth days? Years on Mercury are a lot shorter. Does Satan's existence depend on the passage of Earthly time, though he lives outside of Earth time? And what does this extended permission to do evil mean? Imagine a father sitting for seventeen years, allowing an abuser licence with his kids, and THEN deciding to act. This makes no sense and to say it makes sense in God's world means that the system of belief has a big hole in it.

               
             

polyglide wrote: I asked previously if you thought mankind could get out of the present situation taking into account that the situation is exactly as the Bible predicted before God took over. I am well aware that individual situations relating to the present situations have been experienced previously but never all at once.
 I would realy like your opinion.    

I will be happy to record my opinion when I understand what your question involves. "Present situation" ? "Before God took over"?
I honestly don't know what this means.
           

polyglide wrote: wrote:Yes you are right, I myself wonder why it should be that one animal depends on another for survival, however, can you think of any other manner in which such a variety of both plant and animal life can survive in any other manner.

It doesn't really matter whether we can think of an alternative, the claim is that this level of suffering was created and allowed by a being with limitless knowledge and power, so it is axiomatic that such a being could think of an alternative.  Yet it didn't,  we're this true then not only would sucha being not be benevolent,  it would by definition either be indifferent to suffering or take pleasure from it. What kind of designer includes things like parasitic predation in its design.

 polyglide wrote: wrote:As far as I am concerned I think the answer is two fold, God did not intend it to be so in the first place but due to Satan's interference he has had to make alternatives to that intended.

This is a contradictory argument as a deity with omnipotence need not allow this,  so simply waving away this inherent contradiction with Satan doesn't work. That's assuming there were any evidence for Satan,  and there isn't.  You're layering unevidenced claims to prop each other up. You're trying to claim a being is not responsible for suffering when it has limitless choice, by the implying its choice is limited because of Satan. Does your deity allow Satan to cause suffering in your scenario? If the answer is yes then your deity is still allowing suffering, if the answer is no then your deity doesn't have limitless choice and is not omnipotent by definition.  

We've been here before as wel, you'll now blame a deal your deity has with Satan,which of course again is either a choice or not. So again if you'reclaiming your deity is choosing to be bound by a deal to allow Satan to allow suffering....You're back where you started with a deity that you're claiming is omnibenevolent allowing suffering. Alternatively if he has no choice but to be bound by this deal that allows Satan to allow suffering then he's not omnipotent again. And on and on and on it goes. ...

"if I ever held a proposition that required me to revisit definitions with such deft doctoring I would discard my proposition. "
 This unfortunately is a mere appetiser. From here he will redefine words at will, untill he violates the English language like and drag queen at a tractor pull[size=33].[/size]

marcolucco,
I agree time is realy an unknown quantity and earth time man made regarding the earths rotation etc; however, the time regarding Satan is not in hours or minutes but the particular moment God will give Satan his just deserts.

I have always said that there is no such thing as TIME in the purest sense.

God saw that what he had originally created was good but just as mankind can create a perfect example of something another can just as easily ruin it if given the chance and mankind was given the chance by having free will.

marcolucco,
My question regarding the future is as follows:-

The problems regarding wars and rumours of wars throughout the world (worldwide as never previously known)
the nuclear threat, the lack of food throughout many parts of the world, new threat from deseases with no apparent cures, earthquakes in diverse places, pestilence, brother fighting brother, fornication, adultery, countries, where religion is comming under scrutiny, people more interested in pleasing themselves through numerous dubious means, selfishness, etc; etc;


I am well aware that on occasions most of the above have occured, however, not once have they all been as they are at the present time and my question is, under the above circumstances can you honestly see any long term future based on what man can do to eensure the earths future?.

polyglide wrote: God saw that what he had originally created was good but just as mankind can create a perfect example of something another can just as easily ruin it if given the chance and mankind was given the chance by having free will.

Predation existed before humans, so therefore did pain and suffering. In fact this would have existed for far longer than humans have. So it's erroneous to try and blame humans. Here is earth's entire history condensed into 24hrs.

polyglide wrote: The problems regarding wars and rumours of wars throughout the world  (worldwide as never previously known)

Wars are not more prevalent now than ever before, this simply isn't true. Warfare is mechanised, and that means the impact is now felt more by larger civilian populations than in the past.

Polyglide wrote:the lack of food throughout many parts of the world, new threat from deseases with no apparent cures,

Science has enabled better food production, and industrialised agriculture, combined with advances in medical science this means our population is increasing exponentially, we may be more aware of such tragedies now thanks to global communications, and they may affect larger numbers because populations are massively larger, but it is nonsense to suggest starvation is more of a problem now than at any time in the past, and ludicrous to try and assign some supernatural mumbo jumbo biblical prophesy of doom . Less people in relation to total population die now from disease than at any point in human history thanks to advances in medical science, and science has cures for and has actually eradicated some diseases totally, so your claim is utterly wrong. We're also living longer lives, due to better nutrition and those advances in medical science. Your claim simply doesn't match reality. Just how you claim to know a disease has no cure isn't clear, as this seems to be another of those factoids you roll our, and then on past any objections.

Polyglide wrote:earthquakes in diverse places,

Tectonic plate movement causes earthquakes along fault-lines in the earth crust this is nothing new, and is explained by science.  

Polyglide wrote:pestilence

Top 5 most deadly pandemics in order of death rate and with the dates they occurred:

1. The Peloponnesian War Pestilence (430 BC)
2. The Antonine Plague 165 AD, thought to be smallpox, brought to Rome by soldiers returning from Mesopotamia. At its height, the disease killed some 5,000 people a day
3. The Plague of Justinian  541-542 AD, At its height killed 10,000 people in Constantinople every day. Historians believe that this outbreak decimated up to a quarter of human population in the eastern Mediterranean.
4. The Black Death 14th century. it was thought that merchants and soldiers carried it over caravan trading routes, the fatality was recorded at over 25 million people or one-fourth of the entire population.
5. The Spanish Flu  March 1918 a worldwide pandemic infected about 1 billion people or half the world's population ...the most lethal pandemic in history......between 20 and 100 million people were killed.
So your claim is demonstrably false.

Polyglide wrote: brother fighting brother, fornication, adultery, countries, where religion is comming under scrutiny, people more interested in pleasing themselves through numerous   dubious means, selfishness, etc; etc;  

Unevidenced rhetoric is not cogent polemic..

Polyglide wrote:I am well aware that on occasions most of the above have occured, however, not once have they all been as they are at the present time

CAre to evidence that ludicrous generalisation? I'm guessing not since you haven't bothered to respond every other time I've asked.

Polyglide wrote:and my question is, under the above circumstances can you honestly see any long term future based on what man can do to eensure the earths future?.

Our planet has a finite life span, as does our sun, and there is no reason to suspect our species is immune to the random events that killed off innumerable other species, so it depends what you mean by long term, but the biggest [problems we face are population growth and global warming, and both can be tackled if we have the will and can put national interests aside long enough. Unfortunately the best ways to control our population growth, empowering women with equal rights and control of their reproductive cycles with birth control have and are resisted by established religions.

DSC wrote:This unfortunately is a mere appetiser. From here he will redefine words at will, until he violates the English language like and drag queen at a tractor pull

Sad as I may be at the anarchy of anacoluthon I am happy to have my own meanderings translated as a person pleases. My own thoughts are not intractably right and if I am to believe my opponents on the political threads, I am myself hopelessly gullible, an infant seduced by someone called Murdoch. If you are correct in your prophecy I look forward to some interesting redefinitions that shed light on our discussion. Go well.

" the time regarding Satan is not in hours or minutes but the particular moment God will give Satan his just deserts.
I have always said that there is no such thing as TIME in the purest sense."
I find this theological game between God and Satan a rather unsatisfactory use of infinite intelligence; it is precisely the sort of competition that warlike old nomads would relish. I can't accept that intelligence higher than human spends what it regards as time playing pointless games with broken toys. It surely diminishes any idea of God being good, great, omniscient, merciful.... As for TIME, well modern physics has lots of interesting things to say about it, but I'm sure none of the theories relate to its termination when God gets fed up with Satan.


               

polyglide wrote: God saw that what he had originally created was good but just as mankind can create a perfect example of something another can just as easily ruin it if given the chance and mankind was given the chance by having free will.

You are too ready with your "but" to modify the bold statements of Genesis. God saw that it was good. Full stop. If it turned out not to be good, God was wrong is the conclusion. There is no way that, in creating Blake's Tiger and Lamb, God could have pronounced the result good.
Theologians argue over free will; moral philosophy departments get some fine question material there. If God did grant free will, he gave it in varying proportions. The baby can't make much use of it; the deranged murderer can argue he was short-changed....
I think arguments to justify evil don't do a lot for the existence of God.... at least not a good God.



               

And a good god is what both Christians and Muslims claim to believe in. As you say m, can anyone really think it compelling to claim an omniscient omnipotent deity was pleased with its design but that through no culpability of that deity it's gone wrong? The notion stetches credulity way past breaking point for me I'm afraid. This is before we discovers radio carbon daring techniques and evolution that reduce even the most subtle or nuanced interpretations of genesis to absurdity for any objective reader.

Polyglide polyglide wrote: wrote:[size=37]God saw that what he had originally created was good but just as mankind can create a perfect example of something another can just as easily ruin it if given the chance and mankind was given the chance by having free will.[/size]

This deity purportedly spent roughly 10 billion years creating black holes then another 4 billion plus first cooling then bombarding with frozen asteroids this one tiny planet in one galaxy. Then spent 100s of millions of years evolving dinosaurs including some pretty nasty predators and horrendous diseases. Then about 200000 years ago evolved the first human. Then watched immovable as they lived suffered and died, until finally just 2000 years ago felt an intervention and personal appearance was apropos, and then apparently only to torture his son/himself to death to appease his own anger for a curse he himself placed on all humans in perpetuity, because two humans disobeyed him and ate some fruit they has been told not to.

Now I'm sure I'm missing a nuanced interpretation of this, but for the life of me can't fathom any of the ones religions have offered thus far.

marcolucco,
Perhaps however would be better than but.

I can assure you that one must have faith rather than being able to prove the obvious ( to me) fact that there in no satifactory explanation for the existance of anything without a creator of some kind.

I am well aware that there are numerous anomolies in every attempt to explain the exitance of the universe and all that is involved including the belief in one God.

You could make out just as rediculous any present alternative claim to God.

All mankind has done in that respect is make certain discoveries that prove that there are basic laws that govern everything without which we would be unable to do many of the things we do, being able to rely on the outcome.

Of course it appears that God in many instances does not relate to a loving and benevolent God, however, we can only consider matters from a limited (very limited in some cases) human intelligence and I feel if anyone thinks humans are the most intelligent being then I feel sorry for them.

Polyglide wrote:there in no satifactory explanation for the existance of anything without a creator of some kind.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. ......sigh

marcolucco,
It must be obvious to anyone interested in the origin of life that there is an answer to how everything was created and created everything must have been because you cannot possibly get something from nothing. ( or I would like a full explanation and proof of how).

So the first consideration is how and possibly the second why.

I am aware of many of the theories put forward but none have any firm foundation, they are all just theories and more alternatives come up time and time again that are the exact opposite of the existing theories etc;

This in itself proves the complexities involved and the obvious fact that it is beyond our comprehension to ever understand all that is involved.

We do not know if there are other universes, where ours starts or finishes, if it finishes what is on the other side? what was there before ours was created? what was ours created from and where did that come from?

There is one thing for certain the universe is on the move at a reasonable pace so who why and what is still very much in the balance as it has not reached whatever it's intention is.

I cannot believe that animal and plant life is as a result of a sequence of chances that would involve odds that could not be reasonably understood being beyond and far beyond, those accepted by scientists as impossible.

polyglide wrote:marcolucco,
               It must be obvious to anyone interested in the origin of life that there is an answer to how everything was created and created everything must have been because you cannot possibly get something from nothing. ( or I would like a full explanation and proof of how).

Argumentum ad igorantiam, yeeet agaaain, why can't you grasp that shifting the burden of proof doesn't evidence your deity, or any deity, or anything at all in fact. You  also keep making assertions you have zero evidence for, using words like creation presupposes creation, this isn't evidenced at all, and much of your own creation myth is contradicted by known facts.

Polyglide wrote:So the first consideration is how and possibly the second why.  I am aware of many of the theories put forward but none have any firm foundation, they are all just theories and more alternatives come up time and time again that are the exact opposite of the existing theories etc;

Asking why the universe is here presupposes there is a reason, you've been told this is an unsafe assumption before, innumerable times, yet oddly you trot it out in post after post without ever acknowledging this fact. Some of the oldest theories about how the universe came into existence of course are creation myths, but now we know that none of these are evidenced, they represent human's first attempt to explain the universe, and generally plagiarise parts of earlier creation myths as well, just as Christianity does.

Polyglide wrote:This in itself proves the complexities involved and the obvious fact that it is beyond our comprehension to ever understand all that is involved.

So you think your unevidenced assumptions, based on creation myths from bronze age superstition, proves something about the complexity of life? That;s a bizarre arbitrary ad hoc thought process, the complexity of life is explained by a scientific fact, evolution, which is itself explained and evidenced by the theory of evolution. If it is beyond our comprehension to understand something, then constantly asking why it is the way it is seems rather pointless, and leaping to the conclusion it's caused by something supernatural that you also can't explain is irrational.

Polyglide wrote: We do not know if there are other universes, where ours starts or finishes, if it finishes what is on the other side? what was there before ours was created? what was ours created from and where did that come from?  There is one thing for certain the universe is  on the move at a reasonable pace so who why and what is still very much in the balance as it has not reached whatever it's intention is.

There is no evidence it was created, it's almost as if you are repeating this like a mantra. So a long list of what we don;t know followed by the assumption that the universe has an intention behind it, guess what that is? That's right, it's argumentum ad ignorantiam. One more time...

It is logically fallacious to make assumptions based on not yet having alternative explanations.

Polyglide wrote: I cannot believe that animal and plant life is as a result of a sequence of chances that would involve odds that could not be reasonably understood being beyond and far beyond, those accepted by scientists as impossible.

Well fortunately what you want to believe can happen is superfluous, as you can stick your head out the front door and you'll see it has already happened. You're lying about the odds, and you've been asked before to show peer reviewed publications for your bogus claim and went very reticent, rather unsurprisingly, as your claim clearly isn't scientific at all, but hoovered up from one of those creationist mumbo jumbo blogs that use dishonest pseudo-science you like to quote. By all means though show us some peer reviewed evidence to refute this. I'm guessing at best we get a link to a creationist blog and some name dropping of 'scientists' who turn out after a brief Google search to be the same young earth creationist nujobs you've cited before. It seems you still can't understand why the creationist guff these "scientists" of yours make up is not peer reviewed.

               

polyglide wrote:I can assure you that one must have faith rather than being able to prove the obvious ( to me) fact that there is no satisfactory explanation for the existence of anything without a creator of some kind.
               I am well aware that there are numerous anomalies in every attempt to explain the existence of the universe and all that is involved including the belief in one God. You could make out just as ridiculous any present alternative claim to God.

I don't regard the invention of a god as satisfactory; it satisfied early peoples and they could then explain sunlight and darkness as well as the seasons or thunder. God's role in all these phenomena has been removed by science. There are still things science hasn't YET explained and so, for religious people, God still has a reduced role. That man cannot adequately explain things does not enhance God's position. I am not in the business of proposing an explanation for all things, a claim that would vie with your God proposition. There is no more need for me to HAVE to explain how everything came about than there is for me to explain all the magic of a computer. However, I am not forwarding a rival claim.

              " All mankind has done in that respect is make certain discoveries that prove that there are basic laws that govern everything  without which we would be unable to do many of the things we do, being able to rely on the outcome."

I know perfectly well that in our system there are laws that govern the motion of the universe. I am not prepared to conclude that there must therefore be a law-giver, endowed with mercy and love.

           "   Of course it appears that God in many instances does not relate to a loving and benevolent God, however, we can only consider matters from a limited (very limited in some cases) human intelligence and I feel if anyone thinks humans are the most intelligent being then I feel sorry for them.  "  
Humans seem to be the most intelligent beings on Earth. What goes on elsewhere is unknown. If we are to be criticised for NOT using our rational faculties properly and punished for behaving improperly then how can we be blamed for questioning a being that uses death and torture to signify love; or allows the destruction of innocent children? If you say our judgment is flawed, what's is the point of trying to make moral decisions with imperfect tools?        

               

polyglide wrote:It must be obvious to anyone interested in the origin of life that there is an answer to how everything was created and created everything must have been because you cannot possibly get something from nothing. ( or I would like a full explanation and proof of how).

             

Would a "full explanation" make any difference? You'd have to take a course in particle physics to see what happens to virtual particles. You contend that a God climbed on to a mountain from the invisibility of the stratosphere to give a chunk of stone to a man and somehow, on the stone, were inscribed basic commands: a rather roundabout way to impart knowledge. Is this a likelier scenario than to say that invisible particles mutate into other particles in a way that is hard to explain? The first scene cannot be verified; the second, where virtual particles become real particles, is the basic work of particle physicists, but you may prefer to say you don't believe it.

 
                             
               

polyglide wrote: There is one thing for certain the universe is  on the move at a reasonable pace so who why and what is still very much in the balance as it has not reached whatever it's intention is. I cannot believe that animal and plant life is as a result of a sequence of chances that would involve odds that could not be reasonably understood  being beyond and far beyond, those accepted by scientists as impossible.

You will find that scientists accept the most likely explanation, based on all the information before them. The word "certainty" is pretty hard to employ. I have already said that "acceptable chance" is a statistical method for discarding the unlikely. If something has a probability of 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 we can dismiss its possible occurrence. But such small quantities and mind-numbingly large quantities are the stuff of our amazing universe. So while we can, in our day to day lives, say something is absurdly impossible, we can make no such claim when we are dealing with vast amounts of time. Here the unlikely becomes likely.

But for most folk this reasoning is unacceptable and it's not really a question of Chance replacing God. My first question would be: is there the remotest evidence for a merciful, loving God? No, there isn't; you can find as much nastiness as goodness, evidence for sadism as much as for beauty. If I am asked to state my alternative I simply say I've no idea, just as I have no idea of a billion other things. The God you worship is perfectly explained by an examination of the ways of old tribespeople and early societies. It would be wonderful if indeed we could say "Help me, please, I'm in pain or my son needs your assistance." Such words are absolutely futile. They are answered in complete accordance with the laws of chance, laws you seem to have set your mind, like flint, against.
                                     

             

marcolucco,
As things are at present chance and circumstance play a major roll in everything.

What is not disputable is the fact that mankind is his worst enemy in every respect.

Just look at what the actual prospects are and what mankind has made of them.

Forget any religion or anything else and just look at the state of the world.

There has always been the opportunity for mankind to make the best of all that is a vailable for the benifit of everyone.

There is not one aspect of life that mankind has not corrupted in one way or another.

You cannot blame anything other than mankind.

You have mentioned certain events in the Bible that appear to us not those of a loving God ( we are not of course ware of the facts and the result of God not doing so).

Let us look at what mankind does:-

Kills thousands of other humans on a regular basis for diffrent reasons.

Indulges in every dispicable activity possible.

Kills animals for no reason and others for food but in disputable manners.

Lets many of the people starve when there is ample food to feed all.

Refuses treatment to thousands of children when it could be made available to save their site etc;

Many show no concern for anything other than their own pleasures.

Of course there are laws of chance but when the laws give a bad hand to some it is the responsibility of those with a good hand to lend a hand and in the majority of cases this is not so or we would not be in the present state the world finds itself in.

polyglide wrote: Forget any religion or anything else and just look at the state of the world.

Irrational claim as religion influences almost every society on the planet, and has done for thousands of years.

Polyglide wrote: There has always been the opportunity for mankind to make the best of all that is a vailable for the benifit of everyone. There is not one aspect of life that mankind has not corrupted in one way or another.  You cannot blame anything other than mankind.

I'm not sure this is true at all, whilst humans are culpable for the mistakes they make, they can hardly be blamed for natural disasters, and diseases. I'm not sure what this has to with thread topic though.

Polyglide wrote:You have mentioned certain events in the Bible that appear to us not those of a loving God ( we are not of course ware of the facts and the result of God not doing so).

of course we are, when the bible claims god commanded the Hebrews to attack cities and kill everyone, men women and children alike, and all the animals, but to keep any women and girls that were virgins to be raped later, then obviously we can make an informed moral judgement. Indeed I'd be deeply worried about anyone who didn't find such actions amoral.

Polyglide wrote: Let us look at what mankind does:- Kills thousands of other humans on a regular basis for diffrent reasons.

Not all humans do this, and you have claimed to be fine with this anyway, as long as your deity does it, would like me to quote the post where you made this astonishing claim?

polyglide wrote:Dr, Shedlon,
                As I have explained elsewhere God does what is necessay under the prevailing circumstances and has no need or reason to explain the reasons because those who believe in him will know that all he does is for the best interests of his people.

I've removed the long list of human misdemeanours as I don't see the relevance, no one has disputed that some human behaviour is morally repugnant, but as we see from your post I quoted above you have already claimed to be ok with any behaviour or atrocity, even when it is committed by a being with limitless power and knowledge, so citing the failures of fallible humans is a little silly. Again I'm not sure what this has to do with the topic.

             

polyglide wrote:    There is not one aspect of life that mankind has not corrupted in one way or another.  You cannot blame anything other than mankind.

Humans are capable of being stupid and ingenious; they can show incredible kindness and perform unspeakable acts of cruelty. Thus people range from being saintly to diabolic. This is what one would expect from a random sample. I can't see how this enhances God's position. No one is denying that some people are wicked but you are denying God behaves in wicked ways. In any case, you are using a part to condemn the whole; that some people are murderers is not a charge to be levelled at all people. And all should not be blamed or punished for a few - though admittedly that is how your God seems to operate.

               " You have mentioned certain events in the Bible that appear to us not those of a loving God ( we are not of course aware of the facts and the result of God not doing so).  Let us look at what mankind does:-

                    Kills thousands of other humans on a regular basis for different reasons etc. etc. "
If I was saying man is good and God is not, then your counterexamples would work. I have not taken up any position against which your list of human misdemeanours provides an argument. We are in agreement that SOME people act badly. It is patently wrong to regard an act of brutality as being of dubious goodness, given we don't know the attendant circumstances. Murdering children isn't nice, even for a god.

                    "Of course there are laws of chance but when the laws give a bad hand to some it is the responsibility of those with a good hand to lend a hand and in the majority of cases this is not so or we would not be in the present state the world finds itself in.  "            

Again I don't see what you are arguing against here. There are countless examples of horrors happening and of people rallying in support of others. There are many events over which man has no control (tsunamis for example). Man is in his present position of advancement because we have had outstanding examples of good, clever people who made their discoveries not from reading the New Testament (for Christ was remarkably silent on anything that could give practical assistance to humanity) but from hard work and sometimes chance. Your God does not warn, assist, provide ... he functions exactly as one would expect were the proposition of his non-existence true. It is hard to fathom what could rationally be gained from his hiding from his creation.
           
                   

" There are many events over which man has no control (tsunamis for example). Man is in his present position of advancement because we have had outstanding examples of good, clever people who made their discoveries not from reading the New Testament (for Christ was remarkably silent on anything that could give practical assistance to humanity) but from hard work and sometimes chance. Your God does not warn, assist, provide ... he functions exactly as one would expect were the proposition of his non-existence true. It is hard to fathom what could rationally be gained from his hiding from his creation."

I wholeheartedly concur. Pretty much my response to this straw man he's created. If a deity exists and wants me to know it, then I am either at home or can be reached on my mobile, and yes I am being deliberately facetious as the idea that I have to do all the assuming in order to find a deity with omnipotence and a desire to have me love it is just irrational.

" Pretty much my response to this straw man he's created. If a deity exists and wants me to know it, then I am either at home or can be reached on my mobile, and yes I am being deliberately facetious as the idea that I have to do all the assuming in order to find a deity with omnipotence and a desire to have me love it is just irrational. "

Unfortunately, the God that man has invented is made of more than straw, DSC (I have never seen the Big Bang) as we can hear in the shouts of Allah Akbar. Christians will argue it's a different God but I'm sure that heaven has room for only one such overpowering personality. His strength comes of course from the faith of his followers; they burn, behead, excommunicate, vilify, torture... as they see (or have seen) fit. It is ironic that Science, not God, has provided the worshippers with Kalashnikovs and rocket launchers.

You are right in suggesting that the onus is on the greater entity to identify itself to the lesser; the suggestion (mentioned passim in the Koran) that unbelievers will suffer eternally would be a risible proposition in science. As for love of God (God loves us or we love God) it is one of the curiosities of human behaviour. To render love warmer Christians have invented a family trio, Father, Son and Uncle (all one being) complicit in murder and suicide, which are labelled the insignia of perfect love. The warmth of affection we have for our children, or even for our pets, is as nothing compared with God's murderous variety. Jesus was very much into identifying cruelty with kindness: leave your kids, your wives, your homes, your jobs and hitch up with me, listening to my stories and doing not much else. O perfect love!

Jesus was very much into identifying cruelty with kindness: leave your kids, your wives, your homes, your jobs and hitch up with me, listening to my stories and doing not much else. O perfect love!

Little wonder that such an attitude has spawned so many copy cat narcissists who lead groups of breathless hapless salivating followers, and nearly always involve sexual abuse of some sort and ultimately their early demise when an 'end times' prophesy is trotted out yet again. You always get the sense that such ludicrous notions are nothing to do with a genuine dread of the human propensity for destruction and war, but a longing for their deity to reveal itself in a global destruction that they alone will be spared. I never miss the hilarious irony of theists always proclaiming atheists as arrogant and egotistical, Polyglide loves that one as well. The entire universe, space, and even time itself was created to save him whilst the vast majority will die repeatedly for all eternity for their stupid incredulity, yet it's we are arrogant, hilariously ironic.

I don't mind playing with theories and speculating on the scientific explanation of the supernatural. I was reading that the Koran says nothing about forgiveness and a Muslim gentleman has stepped up to correct this infelicity. There are hundreds of mentions of "mercy" in the book. I wonder how many involve the phrase "show no mercy...." Followers will always find convoluted arguments to justify what seems unjustifiable.

I daily pass a sign that invites me to repent "for I know not the hour when the Lord cometh". And it is perfectly true that I am ignorant of this piece of information. The same warning would have been given to people some 2000 years ago, and regularly since then. People would have lived their three score years and ten to depart frustrated. What's he waiting for?

Apparently he will come in a cloud with a great sword which he will find inadequate to deal with the Kalashnikovs of ISIS (assuming he's opposed to them, of course.) We don't really know who will be sheep and who will be goats, though we have the conundrum "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven." We also know that Donald Trump is certainly denied access, as is Bill Gates - despite his charity - for a camel can squeeze through the eye of a needle more easily than a rich man can get into heaven. It is all a great puzzle, but the Father (how I wish they hadn't deposed Jupiter. I loved his swan seductions and showers of gold, and his charming bisexuality) has the answers. Ask and it shall be revealed to you; knock and somebody will open the door. I've tried this but there's never anyone at home. Mind you, I prefer an absent Christian God, to the Islamic one that loves a suicide, rewarding it with virgin girls who can be used again and again and still retain their virginity; a god that loves to burn beings again and again for the hell of it! I wouldn't like to meet him on the road to Damascus - if I ever took that road (perish the thought.) Best frivolous regards!

I daily pass a sign that invites me to repent "for I know not the hour when the Lord cometh". And it is perfectly true that I am ignorant of this piece of information. The same warning would have been given to people some 2000 years ago, and regularly since then. People would have lived their three score years and ten to depart frustrated. What's he waiting for?

That's just since this deity felt an appearance was apropos of course, what about the other 200,000 years of human existence one wonders? Well one wonders if one isn't denying known facts from almost every field of science of course, otherwise you can smile happily and knowingly smile at the stupidity of those who refuse to accept that the light from distant stars was created 'en route' roughly when the Ancient Sumerians were inventing glue.