New Debate

[Scrumpy_kid]

each to there own i guess

[annanimo]

That's a fantastic post and I agree with much of what you have said. My dad is a theology professor at Oxford University and I have had many similar debates with him about this topic.

I would mainly like to follow up the last point about doing good in the world if one does not have a faith in an afterlife - I admit this is a little off the original topic, but I have my own theology about whether there is a God and after I posted the first post I realised that my second question is probably more like what I wanted to ask. All I will say about your point that "Whether I believe in "God" or not I will leave you to guess at. But I will say, if there is a God, He bears little resemblance to the God "created" by the Christian church" is that even within the Christian Church there is quite a bit of ambiguity even on the topic of God himself (for exapmle Catholics percieving the Virgin Mary to be as important if not more than Jesus). I believe that God is perfect and the very fact that we are not means that there is no way that even the most learned theologians could paint a perfect picture of God. Therefore I believe a personal theology is more important than what any institution can feed you. Of course I think institutions are vital and I do go to Church every Sunday, but at the end of the day, for what I believe it is a personal relationship whith God that is what counts.

"As for doing good in the world, well, you can be a socialist, a humanist, an ethicist or an environmentalist and have plausable reasons for wanting to do good." - I would love to be able to think that, and if you can convince me then I would be the first to thank you, but for me it always seems to boil down to the fact that at the end of one's life death is inevitable and if one has done good deeds in one's life it will only lead to 'nothingness' or a firey eternity, thus the good deeds will in fact result in nothing. People say that motives to be good for atheists include the various philosophies of the groups you named above, but I would like to put forward that these are in fact all selfish motives.

Why would I want to help the poor if I did not believe in an afterlife? Because I feel obliged to as I am much more blessed in Western Europe than people in the developing world. There is nothing exterior willing me to do this apart from my personal feeling and desire to do good and therefore by carrying out the 'goodness' I am (if you boil it down) satisfying my desire to be good i.e. selfish motive. You may say that society will benefit due to good deeds, but again, what is driving you to create a better society? - personal guilt that you are not doing your bit or desire to help others and therefore by creating a better society that is in fact selfish (as you have satisfied your desire to make society better).

I guess what I am trying to say is that one definition of being an atheist is that you are on your own in the world without any external force or power telling you to be good. So, the only thing which seperates an atheist who want to do 'good' and one who's only goal is to make the world better for him is a personal drive to be 'good' and by fulfilling it, the only concievable motive can be selfish (it cannot be the desire to go to heaven by definition or the desire to do what the creator has said it is 'right' to do - what I believe). For an atheist, Hitler, Stalin, Amin and Pol Pot will have the same fate when they died as Mother Theresa, Ghandi and Martin Luther King. The former persued totally selfish lives, putting personal pleasure and desire before others, the latter put themselves last and were wholely selfless.

If we are all going to have the same fate why should I put others first in my life?

I'm sorry if this sounds totally radical and screwed up - which a lot of it does in my head (that is why I would love for someone to prove me wrong) - but this is not a new philosophy so don't brand me as a wiered ultra conservative Christian. I just cannot see the basis of secular morality. I believe that secular ethics is too superficial and lacks metaphysics and a basis for values and obligations (see George Mavrodes). I'm afraid I do see secular morality as inferior, but would be open to believe otherwise if someone could convince me.

My aim to be moral, by the way, is not the fear of punishment, it is what I believe my God wants me to do and it is what it says in the Bible.

I'm going to give you a reply, gater2, because of the effort you have gone to in putting forward your point. However, if you're interested in taking up this further, I am very happy to discuss it via e-mail or even meeting up before a game, but not on here because it may seem I will be belittling your belief and faith whereas nothing could in fact be further from the truth.

I will start with the sentence you concluded with - your aim to be a moral person and to do what it says in the Bible. I sense that's your aim, hence the WWJD signature. Well, my interpretation of Christianity is entirely different. It is not about morality. And it doesn't matter how much you look at your WWJD wristband, there's no earthly way you can do what Jesus would do. Just as I can't do what Michael Owen does, much as I try.

The Old Testament underlines the futility of religion as a moral code. The end product of the Ten Commandments is a legalistic, intolerant, inflexible and uncomassionate church. Legalism breeds sectarianism and division, as rife in Christ's time as in certain parts of the world today. Now whatever we think of Christ, he was not conventional.. He did not conform to the religious understandings of his time and he challenged them. He questioned their morality. He went to the most "upright" and "moral" people of his time and called them "a brood of vipers". Why? Because they were interested in doing everything by the book, in making laws about making laws, in formulating religious codes and in being seen to be good while effectively doing nothing to help anyone. These religious authorites I am sure would have considered themselves "good" people, they kept the Ten Commandments, they gave money to "charities" (or their 1st century equivalent) and they were of good moral standing in the community. They did not have affairs, murder people, steal money, etc.

But Jesus calls them "whitewashed walls". Why? Superficially, they were moral, they kept the laws. But, and this is Jesus' big point, the Ten Commandments and the thousands of other laws the religious had made out of them could not change a person. These so-called "moral" people were actually entirely corruopt and couldn't see it. They were filled with hate against those who were different. What Christianity should be about is a changed life, as Jesus preached it. It's about "loving one another". And when you think of it, that's why he says it "fulfils the law". There's no need to remember the commandments when you love people. I mean, why would you think of stealing from or killing someone if you loved them?

The thing is, the church is still legalistic, and realistically there is very little evidence of the changed life Jesus and St Paul said was the mark of a believer. "By their fruits you know them". Now, you can't try to have fruit. You can't try to have faith. You either believe or you don't. Similarly, you can't try to be a moral person. Either you are fundamentally changed so that your attitudes become inclined to doing good or you become a "whitewashed wall".

"As for doing good in the world, well, you can be a socialist, a humanist, an ethicist or an environmentalist and have plausable reasons for wanting to do good." I would love to be able to think that, and if you can convince me then I would be the first to thank you,

OK, I'll try. As I said, you can't be a moralist by doctrine. It's an expression of what's within you. I know there have been many Christians moved with compassion down the years like William Booth (founder of the Salvation Army). Even 100 years after his death, his institution is helping people in desperate need. This is morality - not some written code. It has to have a practical outworking. It has nothing to do with that "it always seems to boil down to the fact that at the end of one's life death is inevitable" and everything to do with being moved by compassion for others. And while religious people should be, it's not only the religious are are motivated in that way.

"People say that motives to be good for atheists include the various philosophies of the groups you named above, but I would like to put forward that these are in fact all selfish motives." You contradict yourself. You mention Gandhi as an example of a selfless person. If I am correct, he was a great man, but not a Christian.

"Why would I want to help the poor if I did not believe in an afterlife?" I don't know, that something you have to ask yourself. I would argue if your motive for doing work is reward in an afterlife then you are at best as selfish as the people you mention above and at worst misguided. I mean, the Archbishop of canterbury mentions as one of his influences Lech Walesa, leader of Solidarity. The plight of mineworkers in Poland has a profound effect on Mr Williams and motivated him to do something where his roots are, in Wales.

Well, I could discuss this a lot more, but I'm not going to say much more for the time being. I hope this makes sense. It's just that I feel that although religions have moral responsibilities, morality and religion are in fact entirely seperate issues.

Edit: two meny sily speling mistaiks

[annanimo]

but your all crazy people at the end of the day, can't you see it?!?!

Don't get me on Islam...

And I thought Buddhists were supposed to be non-judgemental and tolerant of other religions?

[Guest C.T.I.D]

no, of course there is no god, don't be so silly!

don't be stupid of course there is

it's Gary Johnson

[gater2]

heh! heh! heh! Nice debate opening up here. Even if it is a rather narrow-minded one!

OK, where do i start? Why not with the Genesis/creation story? Yes, God (or Gods, as I suggested earlier)supposedly created the world in seven days. The word "day" in Hebrew not actually relating to a fixed period of time, it is obvious to anyone with a rational mind that these "seven days" are actually stages in the creative process. The notion that the universe was created in seven 24-hour days is not one held by many Christians other than American neo-Conservative evangelicals and, let's be honest, no-one takes much notice of what they say. It's not that a super all-powerful God couldn't have created the world in such a short time, it's that the evidence tells us otherwise.

One thing I will say for the genesis story is that is is scientifically pretty accurate. other than the debatable creative power behind the world's coming into being, for a non-scientist writing at least 600 years before Christ to accurately detail the chronologocal development of life forms (i.e. seeds, plant life, sea life, birds, larger mammals and then mankind emerging at the end of the process) is quite remarkable. What the writer of Genesis guesses at through spiritual bias, is essentially what evolutionary science tells us over 2000 years later. "Creation" did not happen at once, different life forms emerged at different stages and human beings are the final link in a chain of creation/evolution.

Genesis contains very few details and therefore I find it strange that so many Christians find detail in it that evidently isn't there. I don't think it was ever meant to be a detailed history, merely to give a representation of "God's" creative power. The Adam and Eve story is purely figurative, a poetic fable to help us understand God's supposed purposes. But this doesn't in itself mean that God does not exist.

Does it not occur to people that evolution might in itself be a creative process?

There was a Channel 4 series recently called "What we still don't know". I don't know if any of you watched it, but it was intriguing viewing. Contrary to popular belief, science as yet does not have all the answers. The "big bang" theory is not really a theory, just a label for a collection of non-creative notions about how the world came into being, and there are merits to each of the various ideas as well as flaws. The thing that interested me the most is that contemporary science and the intelligent design theories are not necessarily diametrically opposed to each other. This does not mean that today's religions have the answers either, but many of the scientific brains in the series accepted that intelligent design was indeed a possibility.

Whatever happened at the beginning of time, either some creative force or forces brought the universe into being or else a major miracle of chance occurred that brought into being (from nothing) our universe, the galaxies, the solar system, earth and the complex life forms and everything needed to sustain them. Bearing this in mind, I concur with gater2 that to definitively adhere to either view takes a huge amount of faith.

Again, good post and I do agree with pretty much everything you argue.

"Contrary to popular belief, science as yet does not have all the answers." That is very true. The big philosophical debate with regard to the creation theory is of course not how (which I and the majority of Christians have accepted that science has basically proved) but why?

"This does not mean that today's religions have the answers either, but many of the scientific brains in the series accepted that intelligent design was indeed a possibility." There is no way in this life to ever find a why which is concrete in the way which science can prove how - this is why religions have to live by faith and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). However science, by definition (I seem to be using that phrase a lot ) cannot come up with a why something came from nothing as there are no scientific explanations - it is against science to argue that something can come from nothing. Therefore the only feasible way of explaining a why is through religious or supernatural means (this does not mean that they are right). The is no way of knowing the truth until we pass from this life into the next or into nothingness (or we may never know if the truth is a karma/nirvana).

"Whatever happened at the beginning of time, either some creative force or forces brought the universe into being or else a major miracle of chance occurred that brought into being (from nothing) our universe, the galaxies, the solar system, earth and the complex life forms and everything needed to sustain them." Again this might be some mental block I'm having, but I cannot conceive that there could have been even the remotest chance of a "major miracle" happening to make something from nothing. What could have done this, save an omnipresent power?

The key question is, if there is a God, who created him? Religion cannot have it's cake and eat it. If life on Earth is too complex to have evolved, then "God" must be infinitely more complex than that, so where does he come from?

I heard a quote once that all religious wars are just groups of people arguing about who has the best imaginary friend. Made I laf..

The God I believe in is omnipresent (has always and will always exist), omnipotent (has unlimited power) and he does not exist in "time" as we know it. Therefore he does not need to be created, he is and was always there. Complicated I know, and I don't even really understand the metaphysics of this, but that is how religion explains this.

[gater2]

Sorry, posted already above. Nm

[purple_monkey_dishwasher]

[gater2]

We now teach small children concepts that were impossible to explain or believe a few hundred years ago (such as the planets revolving around the Sun). So a few hundred years from now humans might be able to answer your question with ease.

Full (and excellent) speech here: http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

The concept of God and creation are entirely different to the concept of scientific discoveries like the planets revolving round the sun. The planets always revolved around the sun even when people thought differently. It was only a matter of time until humanity made the technology capable to see this. If a deity exists such as the God Christians believe in, then he will have to exist beyond this world and there is no way that we will ever be able to see it like we can see the planets revolve around the sun now.

The same applies to ex nihilo (the idea that out of nothing, something can become). With the planets around the sun, science had another explanation before the truth was found out, but as far as physical matter suddenly coming into existence, science has no answers - the only possible explanation is that of a God saying : "let there be light (or matter as it may be)". I am afraid that by the definition of a Christian God of which I speak, there is no possible way science or any philosopher can prove or disprove it. We will only know when we die.

Also, in the history of mankind, massive scientific advances have been made of course and they will continue to. But on the philosophical front, we may as well still be at the beginning of time: we still do not know why we are here (as well as why/how something came from nothing) or have any more of an idea as to whether there is a God or not. What makes you think that we could have an answer in a few centuries time if we haven't even had an inkling (apart from the existence of a God who made it happen) in our two million year history before now?

What makes you think we are anything other than an evolutionary accident?

Full (and excellent) speech here: http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/

Firstly, as I have mentioned before, there is no other explanation for something coming out of nothing the the first place, and secondly even if we do ignore that fact for a moment, the sheer improbability of the chemical conditions and reactions coming to fruition after a big bang is so high that I, personally, can only conclude that the universe has been intentionally designed and created for life.

Did you know that the chance of the expansion of the universe after the big bang being just right for the formation of Earth and life is 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000? If it was just the slightest bit faster there could have been no galaxy formation, and the slighest bit slower then the universe would have collapsed before star formation. The chances for the exact gravitational force were even smaller: 1 x 10 to the power of 100 (that's 1 in 1 then 100 zeros), if it had been just the slightest bit stronger, stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and unevenly, and if it was the slightest bit weaker then the stars would be too cool and nuclear fusion would not ignite - therefore no planet formation. These are just two examples of numerous chemical conditions which needed to be absolutely perfect for the formation of a world like ours and the consequential formation of life of any form, let alone intelligent life like ours. Fair play to you if you can have faith that this happened by chance, but putting it that way, it seems that the chances are that it was all planned. Does it not?

[Glastonbury Red]

Did you know that the chance of the expansion of the universe after the big bang being just right for the formation of Earth and life is 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000? If it was just the slightest bit faster there could have been no galaxy formation, and the slightest bit slower then the universe would have collapsed before star formation. The chances for the exact gravitational force were even smaller: 1 x 10 to the power of 100 (that's 1 in 1 then 100 zeros), if it had been just the slightest bit stronger, stars would be too hot and would burn up too quickly and unevenly, and if it was the slightest bit weaker then the stars would be too cool and nuclear fusion would not ignite - therefore no planet formation. These are just two examples of numerous chemical conditions which needed to be absolutely perfect for the formation of a world like ours and the consequential formation of life of any form, let alone intelligent life like ours. Fair play to you if you can have faith that this happened by chance, but putting it that way, it seems that the chances are that it was all planned. Does it not?

What's to say there's not already been 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 big bangs previous to this bang?

Personally, I subscribe to no theory. I accept that life is stranger than I can or will ever imagine.

[Guest Mrs Miles from Yeovil!]

I did think there was a god up until last thursday! His name was Gary Johnson!

Colin Miles is my god! and Huish Park is my church!

[Guest MaloneFM]

I did think there was a god up until last thursday! His name was Gary Johnson!

Colin Miles is my god! and Huish Park is my church!

Ahhh bless! You're a bit bonkers aint you my chicken? Bless!

[Guest Mrs Miles from Yeovil!]

Ahhh bless! You're a bit bonkers aint you my chicken? Bless!

Yea On www.Ciderspace.co.uk the Yeovil Forum they know that i'm crazy but thats why they love me!!!!!

[gater2]

What's to say there's not already been 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 big bangs previous to this bang?

Personally, I subscribe to no theory. I accept that life is stranger than I can or will ever imagine.

Thats a very good point. But going back to my main point, what could have set these big bangs off if nothing existed before them?

[Glastonbury Red]

I would never say there was nothing before, nor could I.

I've always wondered how they can come up with that theory.

I've always liked Bill Baileys way of thinking .......... "if someone smarter than me has done the research and believes it so, I'll go probably along with it"

[All Those Wasted Years]

This is interesting to read.

I don't really have the particular knowledge to contribute to the theological discussion. However, my point would be that I can't realy rationalise a God in the christian sense specifically.

Whenever I have talked with christans they have all spoken of an emptiness inside that, they say, Jesus has been able to fill. Threfore, I guess, the question has to be did God create (wo)man or did (wo)man creat God - 'the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions'.

[basils2005]

people say that god invented earth and everything else etc...others say big bang...either way nothing makes sense.

If god created everything/big bang woteva

. what created god

. what created the thing that created god

. what created the thing and created the thing that created god etc....

Somewhere along the line something must have just existed....but surely thats impossible??? What do u lot think..

[purple_monkey_dishwasher]

Also, in the history of mankind, massive scientific advances have been made of course and they will continue to. But on the philosophical front, we may as well still be at the beginning of time: we still do not know why we are here (as well as why/how something came from nothing) or have any more of an idea as to whether there is a God or not. What makes you think that we could have an answer in a few centuries time if we haven't even had an inkling (apart from the existence of a God who made it happen) in our two million year history before now?

But I was saying science will one day have answers to exactly what occurred at the beginning of the universe, not answers about the existence of God....you said there was only one possible explanation for the big bang (God), science one day will provide another theory I am sure. You think God is the only answer as no other answer if forthcoming. Similarly, people once thought the world was the centre of the universe because there was no evidence of anything else. All it took was Galileo looking at Jupiter's moons with his telescope and suddenly there was proof that God didn't put us at the centre of his universe at all.

Firstly, as I have mentioned before, there is no other explanation for something coming out of nothing the the first place, and secondly even if we do ignore that fact for a moment, the sheer improbability of the chemical conditions and reactions coming to fruition after a big bang is so high that I, personally, can only conclude that the universe has been intentionally designed and created for life.

Again, you have sidestepped what I actually said. I was asking why you think the universe was created for humans NOT life in general. Evolution and the universe will continue long after humans have died out, what makes you think this universe was created for us? The world survived a long time without us on it and will cope just as well when we are gone. Dinosaurs were the dominant creatures for a much longer time than we have been around. They probably thought the world was meant for them but we know how ridiculous an idea that is now...

Humans evolved to fit the Earth...the Earth was not created to fit us.

[annanimo]

But I was saying science will one day have answers to exactly what occurred at the beginning of the universe, not answers about the existence of God....you said there was only one possible explanation for the big bang (God), science one day will provide another theory I am sure.

Science has come up with an answer: the possibility of a black hole "in reverse", successfully re-created under laboratory conditions.

How this itself came into being though is something of a mystery!

[Guest SW Valleys Red]

It has been interesting to read this topic.

I think the most critical contribution has been that of 'All Those Wasted Years':

Did God create man or man create God?

Perhaps so significant that nobody on here has been able to address it.

For me personally, I believe in God but haven't found Jesus.

[Sir Colby-Tit]

I don't believe in God. I think the human race is the result of an extra-terrestrial experiment that has gone horribly wrong.

[annanimo]

It has been interesting to read this topic.

I think the most critical contribution has been that of 'All Those Wasted Years':

Did God create man or man create God?

Perhaps so significant that nobody on here has been able to address it.

For me personally, I believe in God but haven't found Jesus.

There is no question that man has created God, or at least the idea of God most religions hold to. As Voltaire said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary for man to create Him."

But the fact that man has created him to an extent doesn't necessarily mean God doesn't exist at all.

Actually Sir Colby-Tit has a valid point. What if our ideas of "God" are all wrong, and that the creative power behind our being is not in fact a benevolent God but a bunch of experimental aliens with no real interest in our welfare at all?

Again, just thought I'd ask!

[Evocare]

The fact is that the vast majority of Christians do not believe in the 7 day creation theory. I believe that God made the big bang

Gater, are you really this stupid?, you say that you and most Christians don't belive in the 7 day theory, yet you belive he made the big bang?!? Think about what your saying....Jesus H Christ ,you just can't pick and choose the bits that suit you!!

Anyway, let me ask you a toughie: why would there have been any physical matter in the very beginning if it was not prompted by a God

Trying to be clever don't suit you Gator, it's crystal clear your a complete imbecile !

Check the internet under Albert Einsteins theory on the Big Bang, while your there check out Charles Darwin too!

Let me put it to you that it actually takes more faith to be an atheist than believe in a God.

I suppose that makes me agnostic then, i don't pretend to know the things idiots like you are sure of.

By the way, I never called you stupid, only ignorant, your spelling does that for me. Happyness? Nieve?

Oh dear....how pathetic you look resorting to an attack on my spelling...there is a name for people like you Gator.

[Gerry Gows' Tash]

Yep - he's called gary johnson !

I'll get me coat...............