[Ignoramus]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
True, when talking about God, we can only examine and evaluate ideas through human eyes. But are morals really so objective, that they are defined by the likes of God? Can we not consequentially and reasonably assess what is ethical, and what is not - can we not think rather than simply 'obey'? Taking a step back, is a God who creates a creature like the parasitic worm someone/thing we, as humans really want to worship? I can't see how its existence can be justified morally with the likes of an all-loving God.

Well, I think that conservative Christianity would simply disagree with you on this - as human beings, they would argue that our role is to interpret and carry out the will of God, as opposed to anything we might want. "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven." (taking a rather literalist interpretation here, alas, but the verse jumped out at me)

Although we interpret the will of God, central to Christian belief is the idea that God defines good things. I can see where you're going with the idea of a God that human beings can judge, but it simply isn't how traditional Christianity operates afaik (I might be wrong, in case any Christians feel free to correct me!).

[Ignoramus]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punakaiki

This rock formation is intricate, beautiful, and old.
Was it created by somebody?
No. We know the geological forces that caused its formation from our scientific knowledge.

The two latter statements above are not mutually exclusive, and so your conclusion is, in my view, false. (Of course, it may be true by accident!)

(Original post by Hypocrism)
The problem with your post was that it assumed that that something detailed, intricate or complex can only arise by design. Such a thing is not true- clouds are not designed, and they are hugely complex. Limestone caves are not designed, but they are extremely intricate. And let me tell you, our nervous system was not designed, and it is so complex we have only a minuscule understanding of it today.

How do you know our nervous system was not designed? Or clouds or limestone caves? I'm intrigued as to what knowledge you have that gives you the surety to say such a thing.

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Let me tell you something else. The universe was not designed, nor was our galaxy, or our solar system; neither was our beautiful earth, or our fragile human form. What seems complex and irreducible can be built up in tiny steps that are favoured due to their ability to propagate. In this way many small, likely occurrences build up slowly to one complex result that is unimaginably unlikely. To me, propagation is the most fundamental concept in our universe. Entropy propagates; matter propagates; disease propagates; genes propagate; memes propagate. Things that are stable in their environment, able to replicate accurately, and last for a long time will, by definition, be common, and will become suited to their environment at the expense of less propagation-prone entities. We are not created: we are evolved, and reducing this beautiful inevitability of nature to the simple work of design is, to me, "blasphemy".

As a Christian, I may choose to argue that all of the concepts you mention above are simply incomplete models which are used to describe the work and output of a "higher power" designer. And though I don't have any evidence for that, you don't have any evidence against it.

[Ignoramus]

(Original post by Gofre)
We're not claiming that he doesn't exist, only that there's no evidence that he does. Without evidence, we don't believe, simple.

That is fair enough, as long as it makes you happy.

[Gofre]

(Original post by Ignoramus)
That is fair enough, as long as it makes you happy.

It's not really about what makes us happy, it's about what's right [=

[R.P.Everything.]

(Original post by Ignoramus)
Well, I think that conservative Christianity would simply disagree with you on this - as human beings, they would argue that our role is to interpret and carry out the will of God, as opposed to anything we might want. "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed by thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven." (taking a rather literalist interpretation here, alas, but the verse jumped out at me)

Although we interpret the will of God, central to Christian belief is the idea that God defines good things. I can see where you're going with the idea of a God that human beings can judge, but it simply isn't how traditional Christianity operates afaik (I might be wrong, in case any Christians feel free to correct me!).

Regardless of whether one is a creationist, a liberal, or an atheist, I don't think it's too much to ask for people actually to understand their beliefs. Rather than simply 'obeying', everyone should know the reasoning behind their actions and their beliefs. I simply don't buy 'God told me to', or 'We can't understand God' because the very least God could do, is give us an understanding of why we are doing what he wants, or why we are believing what he wants.

Therefore, going back to the parasitic worm, I don't buy 'we can't understand God's will'. That seems like a bit of an excuse to move the evil of such a creation into the realm of transcendence. The only justification seems to be 'we can't understand', rather than there being a true explanation.

[Ignoramus]

(Original post by R.P.Everything.)
Regardless of whether one is a creationist, a liberal, or an atheist, I don't think it's too much to ask for people actually to understand their beliefs. Rather than simply 'obeying', everyone should know the reasoning behind their actions and their beliefs. I simply don't buy 'God told me to', or 'We can't understand God' because the very least God could do, is give us an understanding of why we are doing what he wants, or why we are believing what he wants.

Therefore, going back to the parasitic worm, I don't buy 'we can't understand God's will'. That seems like a bit of an excuse to move the evil of such a creation into the realm of transcendence. The only justification seems to be 'we can't understand', rather than there being a true explanation.

But these properties of God are things *you* want from God. One can understand ones' beliefs even though they are dogmatic, and whether you buy it or not is irrelevant. People will conceive God in ways based on their culture, traditions and emotional preferences, and I don't think anyone could argue that there are any properties God necessarily has in common between the different religious people of the world. As far as "the very least God could do" is concerned, many believers are content enough in the knowledge/hope that he exists. I'm uncertain of whether many believers even believe it's important to fully understand God at all; we don't even understand other people fully, after all.

I'm sorry this answer has been rambling, but I guess in a nutshell, modern Western understanding of a moral God cannot by itself dictate the properties of God as envisaged by religious believers throughout the world and across millennia.

[Ignoramus]

(Original post by Gofre)
It's not really about what makes us happy, it's about what's right [=

Why should it be? Is there a right answer?

[Gofre]

(Original post by Ignoramus)
Why should it be? Is there a right answer?

Inevitably, yes. We don't know it yet, but that's no reason to settle for a falsehood simply because it makes us feel better.

[Ignoramus]

(Original post by Gofre)
Inevitably, yes. We don't know it yet, but that's no reason to settle for a falsehood simply because it makes us feel better.

Why is it a falsehood? Also, I dunno, personally I'd rather settle for a falsehood if it made me happier. I'd rather live my life happy, in a delusion. Much rather. (maybe that's why I like getting drunk on occasion XD)

[amime]

(Original post by Ignoramus)
Why is it a falsehood? Also, I dunno, personally I'd rather settle for a falsehood if it made me happier. I'd rather live my life happy, in a delusion. Much rather. (maybe that's why I like getting drunk on occasion XD)

So you're gonna take the blue pill, Neo?

[Gofre]

(Original post by Ignoramus)
Why is it a falsehood?

Because in numerous places the bible/quran/torah lie in direct contradiction with scientific and historic evidence, and have no evidence of their own whatsoever.

Also, I dunno, personally I'd rather settle for a falsehood if it made me happier. I'd rather live my life happy, in a delusion. Much rather. (maybe that's why I like getting drunk on occasion XD)

Then we have different priorities. And drunkenness doesn't change reality, it just makes it more fun

[tssf_skye]

My mum split some milk a couple of years ago, and it came out in the symbol of a christian fish.
Now, i don't really know if i believe in God or not, but it was pretty crazy.
All the lines were perfect, you won't believe me because if someone said that to me i wouldn't but it freaked me the **** out

[Gofre]

(Original post by tssf_skye)
My mum split some milk a couple of years ago, and it came out in the symbol of a christian fish.
Now, i don't really know if i believe in God or not, but it was pretty crazy.
All the lines were perfect, you won't believe me because if someone said that to me i wouldn't but it freaked me the **** out

Thankyou for reminding me of this.

[tssf_skye]

Also, i think people go into too much detail about this whole idea.

Has anyone ever considered that maybe some things cannot be explained by science or the human brain, who said the function of the human brain was limitless?

Scientists have theories that there are paralell universes through an exploding star which turns into a black hole..how are we ever going to prove that? At the end of the day we probably can't.

Just as IF God exists, we can't prove that.
Maybe we should stop searching for answers that arn't supposed to be found.

[tssf_skye]

(Original post by Gofre)
Thankyou for reminding me of this.

There really is no need for cynical comments.
If you want to say God doesn't exist. Go and ****ing prove it.
Otherwise what leg do you honestly have to stand on.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Ignoramus)
The two latter statements above are not mutually exclusive, and so your conclusion is, in my view, false. (Of course, it may be true by accident!)



How do you know our nervous system was not designed? Or clouds or limestone caves? I'm intrigued as to what knowledge you have that gives you the surety to say such a thing.



As a Christian, I may choose to argue that all of the concepts you mention above are simply incomplete models which are used to describe the work and output of a "higher power" designer. And though I don't have any evidence for that, you don't have any evidence against it.

The point (obviously, if you weren't clutching at straws) was to refute the watchmaker argument. Something that appears intricate and complicated is not necessarily designed, meaning that the universe cannot be evidence for god. It's not evidence AGAINST god, like you are trying to imply I said, but it's removing what some people would use as evidence for god.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by tssf_skye)
There really is no need for cynical comments.
If you want to say God doesn't exist. Go and ****ing prove it.
Otherwise what leg do you honestly have to stand on.

Same right back at you/theists. Want to say god exists? Proof please. Otherwise the default view must be that the worlds does not break its own rules, which means the default view is "no God". Burden of proof lies deep in the theist camp.

[KingMessi]

(Original post by tssf_skye)
Also, i think people go into too much detail about this whole idea.

Has anyone ever considered that maybe some things cannot be explained by science or the human brain, who said the function of the human brain was limitless?

Scientists have theories that there are paralell universes through an exploding star which turns into a black hole..how are we ever going to prove that? At the end of the day we probably can't.

Just as IF God exists, we can't prove that.
Maybe we should stop searching for answers that arn't supposed to be found.

Of course it's been considered.

Of course logic implies that there are limitations for the human brain, and human intellect, but the idea that one shouldn't do their damndest to find out as much as we can about the universe and our place in it is a deeply negative one. Whilst there are unprovable assertions currently, we are progressing, and, whilst it's cliche, three hundred years ago so many of our ideas and achievements would have been mere fantasy.

We can't 'prove' very much at all - I believe I'm correct in saying that only in Mathematics do true 'proofs' exist, but we can purport a probability from testing what's observable.

[Gofre]

(Original post by tssf_skye)
There really is no need for cynical comments.
If you want to say God doesn't exist. Go and ****ing prove it.
Otherwise what leg do you honestly have to stand on.

A) Sorry if you found my response distasteful, but you said itself, it's not a convincing argument. Finding images of god in the charring on cheese on toast or, in this case, finding a fish in milk, is one of the worst evidences that can possibly be posited. I just thought I'd use you bringing it up as an opportunity to introduce some comic relief into the thread [=

B) I don't need to prove god doesn't exist, burden of proof lies with the side making the positive claim, that is the theists claiming existence. Until such evidence is provided atheists are justified in rejecting your assertion.

[tssf_skye]

(Original post by Hypocrism)
Same right back at you/theists. Want to say god exists? Proof please. Otherwise the default view must be that the worlds does not break its own rules, which means the default view is "no God". Burden of proof lies deep in the theist camp.

I didn't say i believed in God either.
I said i'm not sure but i agree, either way you want to say 'God exists' or 'God doesn't exist' you have to have proof.