The great Church debate!

quote:

Originally posted by Simon Perry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zdyJkKA5L4

Ha, lol.

Does anybody here accept the current scientific concept commonly refered to as the "big-bang"? If so, how would you describe it? If not, why not?

What do people consider "matter" (and if necessary "anti-matter") is? Has it always existed in some way, shape or form?

What lies beyound our universe?

No need for links to papers written by others, just your own views, in your own words.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

What lies beyound our universe?

Good question Don

But surely, that would be an ecumenical matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Derry:
Did Kant, or any other philosopher, claim to have proven the existence of the Christian, or any other, God?

No. Kant is quite clear that there can be no demonstration (empirical or otherwise) of God's existence. However, it is, in some sense, reasonable to *hope* that God exists (i.e. to have faith). It is not reasonable to hope that, contrary to all the evidence, fairies (or other mythical beings) exist.

Early on, Kant states that philosophy should answer three questions that, between them, encapsulate the interests of any rational being:

1. what should I believe?
2. what must I do?
3. What may I hope for?

Kant's discussion of the idea of God forms part of his answer to question 3. Most of Western philosophy is concerned with questions 1 and 2. One of Kant's claims to greatness, in my opinion, is that he raises question 3, and takes it seriously.

Regards
Nigel

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Does anybody here accept the current scientific concept commonly refered to as the "big-bang"? If so, how would you describe it? If not, why not?

What do people consider "matter" (and if necessary "anti-matter") is? Has it always existed in some way, shape or form?

What lies beyound our universe?

No need for links to papers written by others, just your own views, in your own words.

Cheers

Don

Don,

To answer your questions:

1. I do accept the current scientific concept of the "big bang". I would describe it as indescribable (the human mind is not capable of imagining the very large or the very small).

2. Matter and anti-matter are collections of Hadrons and Leptons. I don't know enough about particle physics to comment on whether it has always existed or formed at the instant of the big bang.

3. I have no idea what lies beyond our universe.

I'm not sure where your argument is leading here but science never claims to have all of the answers - only religion is arrogant enough for that. However, a lack of complete knowledge of the universe does not constitute in any way a valid argument for the existence of God.

All the best,
Trev

quote:

I'm not sure where your argument is leading

No argument, just canvasing ideas, which might broaden our views.

I happen to believe (faith?, hope?) that the universe and its contents contents is no accident and was deliberately created. I likewise believe the creator has always existed. I have no idea of what this creator is, or why the universe, us, or our thinking was created (including evolution). I am open to other concepts and the possibility (probability?) that reality is beyond our comprehension.

Cheers

Don

I cannot think of any reason whatsoever to hope that a god exists.

"Always has been, always will be and perfect". I fail to see any point or use in such a thing. Given that all observation indicates that the universe functions without any sign of "divine" intervention whatsoever, there appears to be no point in a god, even if such silent and invisible being DID exist.

Get off your knees.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
Given that all observation indicates that the universe functions without any sign of "divine" intervention whatsoever...

One might view the wonders of the Universe as a sign that God does exist.

quote:

One might view the wonders of the Universe as a sign that God does exist.

But not necessarily that he NEEDS to exist.

No.

A view of the wonders of the universe shows that the universe has wonders.

A view of god would show that god exists.

There is no view of god, ergo...

Simples.

Or, if you prefer:

"Let us praise God. O Lord,...

CONGREGATION:
O Lord,...


...ooh, You are so big,...

CONGREGATION:
...ooh, You are so big,...


...so absolutely huge.

CONGREGATION:
...so absolutely huge.


Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.

CONGREGATION:
Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.


Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and...

CONGREGATION:
And barefaced flattery.


But You are so strong and, well, just so super.

CONGREGATION:
Fantastic.


Amen.

So, you have been to our church then Mike!

To invoke the idea of a god or gods to explain the wonders of the universe explains absolutely nothing. Who created the god? We are still left with the same problem, namely that the universe is amazing and we don't understand how it came into existence.
The god hypothesis does not help us one jot with answering this question, but it does introduce lots of other problems / challenges.

quote:

Originally posted by tonym:
So, you have been to our church then Mike!

No, I have not been to your Crutch...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
No.

A view of the wonders of the universe shows that the universe has wonders.

A view of god would show that god exists.

There is no view of god, ergo...

Simples.

Or, if you prefer:

"Let us praise God. O Lord,...

CONGREGATION:
O Lord,...


...ooh, You are so big,...

CONGREGATION:
...ooh, You are so big,...


...so absolutely huge.

CONGREGATION:
...so absolutely huge.


Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.

CONGREGATION:
Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.


Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and...

CONGREGATION:
And barefaced flattery.


But You are so strong and, well, just so super.

CONGREGATION:
Fantastic.


Amen.

So are you implying that you are not thankful that God made you and that the world would have been better off without you? There's a serious message in there, but I also append a wink

Given that you and I could never create something on the scale of this total experience and the Bible highlights that God seeks to have a relationship with us, then does it not seem logical that Christians should worship Him in a more earnest way than in which you represented above?

Andrew Randle

No.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:

quote:

Originally posted by tonym:
So, you have been to our church then Mike!

No, I have not been to your Crutch...

Must be a misprint - since I've not shared how I perceive or interact with the local church on this Forum. I might have leant against the side of it once.

Let's see. I said I was an atheist, so you think that I am nopt thankful that "god made me".
And that makes some sort of sense to you, I suppose.

About on the same level as claiming that observing big, wonderful things means that there's a god, rather than it meaning that you've obseved that there are big, wonderful things...

Religious people seem incapable of understanding that "connectivity" is not the same as "association", which does not offer evidence or prove anything at all.

Earlier in this thread I used the example of Dinesh D'Souza as a prime example of religious thinking - no matter how many times the religious have the idiocy of their argument pointed out, they just keep reiterating the same idiocy over and over again.

Religious thinking = missing the point, it seems to me.

quote:

iven that you and I could never create something on the scale of this total experience and the Bible highlights that God seeks to have a relationship with us,

And there we have it. The Bible says...

So the bible says. So the Koran says. So the Upanishads say. So the torah says. So the Tibetan Book of the Dead says. So so so so so what.

Get your head out of the bucket and look around you.

I'm tired of trying to argue with numpties who seem to think that the wind is caused by the trees waving about.

Feh.

[ QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
No.

A view of the wonders of the universe shows that the universe has wonders.

A view of god would show that god exists.

There is no view of god, ergo...

Simples.

Or, if you prefer:

"Let us praise God. O Lord,...

CONGREGATION:
O Lord,...


...ooh, You are so big,...

CONGREGATION:
...ooh, You are so big,...


...so absolutely huge.

CONGREGATION:
...so absolutely huge.


Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.

CONGREGATION:
Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.


Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and...

CONGREGATION:
And barefaced flattery.


But You are so strong and, well, just so super.

CONGREGATION:
Fantastic.


Amen. [/QUOTE]

Mike you kill me with rib ticklers. Lol.

quote:

Originally posted by Simon Perry:
This part of the forum is really living up to its name by the looks of this thread; padded cell indeed.
We appear to have plumbed new depths of crass ignorance when an ex-holder of the Simonyi Professorship - aimed at furthering the public understanding of science - is accused by an ill-informed and delusional forum member of peddling "pseudo-science".

I am not a fan of Dawkins and nor am I a fan of God but at least Dawkins exists and he is a great communicator, I will give him that, unlike God who has not had much to say since the time of Abraham. However Dawkins does irritate me. He is vastly over rated. He has inexplicably managed to carve himself a reputation as being a ferociously penetrating intellect whilst clearly indicating limitations which force him to operate on a simplistic and unsophisticated level, a level which he is incapable of dealing with quantum issues, issues which it must be held in mind are the ultimate issues. When it comes to quantum theory he tells us that:
'…this is where I must make my excuses and leave. Sometimes I imagine I have some appreciation of the poetry of quantum theory, but I have yet to achieve an understanding deep enough to explain it to others. Actually it may be that no-one understands quantum theory, possibly because natural selection shaped our brains to survive in a world of large slow things, where quantum effects are smoothed out ( Unweaving the Rainbow)'.

This lack of sufficient understanding of the fundamental theory which underpins the physical world, however, he considers to be no great problem for his task of accounting for the mechanisms driving evolution (which are surely quantum). Biologists, we are told ‘can explain elephants, provided they are allowed to take certain facts of physics for granted’. According to Dawkins it is not the job of the biologist to justify these ‘facts of the world of simplicity’. This is the job for a physicist; and, according to Dawkins ‘this he (i.e. the physicist) succeeds in doing’ (Blind Watchmaker). By employing this piece of intellectual subterfuge Dawkins seems to feel happy that he has gained the right to adopt the technique of ‘reductionism’ at a level of reduction that he feels most appropriate for ‘explaining elephants.’ And the appropriate level, according to Dawkins, is that which is ‘suitable for everyday purposes’ (Blind Watchmaker). Dawkins’ lack of capability in understanding the most significant quantum issues concerning the ultimate nature of reality leaves him no option but to analyze the facts of the world from a simplistic perspective only relevant for everyday purposes and this is surely not so much pseudo science as plain fraudulent.

I’m with the ‘ill-informed and delusional forum member’ on this – Dawkings is a dork.

Oh. I thought the 'ill informed etc...' said that Quantum Physics was a "psudo" science?

Anyway, who ever said that there was an 'ultimate nature of reality'. Follow that train of thought and you end up with, er, "god". Oops.

Still no evidence...

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Dudley:
Oh. I thought the 'ill informed etc...' said that Quantum Physics was a "psudo" science?

Anyway, who ever said that there was an 'ultimate nature of reality'. Follow that train of thought and you end up with, er, "god". Oops.

Still no evidence...

The evidence for quantum theory is overwhelming and can not be considered to be psuedo science.

The ultimate nature of reality is, inter alia, what science is about. The rest of your post is drivel. What 'evidence' do you think I was offering?

"The evidence for quantum theory is overwhelming and can not be considered to be psuedo science." - so you DON'T agree with Don Atkinson, then?

"The rest of your post is drivel." Gee, thanks for the insight. I'm born all over!

"What 'evidence' do you think I was offering?" I didn't.

quote:

Originally posted by Jonathan Gorse:
Merry Christmas to everyone - I'm just curious how many of you are going to Church on Christmas morning?

Jonathan,
To answer your opening post a little belatedly, no I didn’t go to church on 25th being an atheist but I did have a great end of the year break. Some may call me hollow but the truth is I was far more interested in unpacking four levels of IsoBlue than listening to the drones of a vicar’s sermon. Well, you did ask!

If the next man wants to believe there is a god, then that’s fine by me.

But religion is in peoples minds. And surprise, surprise, good old human nature dictates that different minds have different religions and some end up wanting war to prove their religion is the one to follow.

I personally don’t need religion to feel complete and to justify the unexplainable.

I was born, I’m living a modest but very happy and fulfilling life with a cool job and will die, not too soon I hope.

That’s about it, really.

Regards, Ian