Religion

ZenHalfTimeCrock said:
Just because there are laws of logic does not entail that those laws have been put in place by the God of Christianity, especially not the capricious, vengeful Yahweh of the Pentateuch.

They could be the product of a team of gods working together (who also maybe combined to do that creation ex nihilo thing).

Furthermore, it is not inevitable that there has to be an ultimate cause of the universe, a causeless cause as it were. If there have been an endless series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, then reality may not have a beginning.

Lastly, most Christians believe that God is love, while the Qur’an repeatedly asserts that Allah is compassionate and merciful in all but one Surah. This hardly chimes with all the gratuitous, pointless evil that presently exists in the world that this deity happily permits, not all of which can be attributed to the misuse of free-will. Think of the millions of years of animal suffering that went on before we even arrived on the scene, for example. Or the suffering of innocent children afflicted with devastating illnesses.
Click to expand...
Can't be a product. The exist eternally . Uncreated .
 
paulsimpson said:
And who created that god? .. and so on and so forth ....it still posits an infinite regress into the past which is impossible because it would have no beginning. How do you count down the negative numbers of infinite past moments to get to the present moment? Once one sees that, a huge realisation can occur.
So 1 - whatever begins to exist has a cause
2 the universe began to exist
Therefore 3 - the universe has a cause ( outside of itself - it cannot be the cause of itself)
Also known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument originally developed by Al Ghazali , Muslim scholar.
Shades of it in Aristotle and Aquinas . Current proponent W L Craig used in debates.
Click to expand...
I love how theists set up false premises with prepositions :"1 - whatever begins to exist has a cause". We don't know if it "began" or was "created". The most honest answer is "I don't know".
If there was a creator/god, then they certainly don't want us to know about them. If they wanted us to believe, then there would be no doubt. They certainly wouldn't have left us with such a badly written, self contradicting, unknowledgable, ignorant, hate filled, evil, hilariously stupid, immoral book for us to go by.
 
Here's how I see it - I try to imagine all the matter in the cosmos, I can't - but it is a heck of a lot. Then I think, is there a purpose to all this stuff? On a balance of probabilities and with only a little doubt I think there must be a reason why it is all there. That seems to me a logical, though not infallible, position to adopt. Following on from that I reckon that if there is a purpose to the universe then something must have caused it to come into being. That "something" transcends my understanding of time and space and therefore can be considered "supernatural" - at least to me. Do I know what form that creator or causal entity takes? No - but I doubt that it consists of a man with a beard sitting on a cloud. It's convenient to call it God though it could be a collective of Gods or you could give it some other name. So far I think that my thoughts are totally rational, though I repeat, not infallible - and hence my belief. Creation is the greatest miracle.

Next I think, does it matter to me whether the universe, cosmos or whatever has a purpose or not? I decide that if the whole thing has a purpose then I must be part of that purpose. Feels right to me, but others may differ. So accepting that the whole of creation has purpose gives my existence a purpose, but puts an obligation on me to try and discover that purpose. Having swallowed, so to speak, the "camel" of the concept of a "God" that has performed the miracle of bringing the creation into being I'm not going to strain at swallowing the "gnats" of lesser miracles. I accept that others will not agree with my conclusion and we can agree to differ and remain friends. If this supernatural God has a purpose for this universe and I, we, are part of that purpose it would seem natural that that God would try to give us a guide to that purpose and our role in it. That is what I think Religion is all about. Through the ages and today there seem to be lots of different ways in which religions try to answer the question - I happen to chose Christianity though I wouldn't claim it to be the only route to understanding and I respect people of other faiths.

I was fortunate to go to Stockport School for Boys (Mile End) which was established by the good Burghers of Stockport as a sort of "science academy" to provide a skill base for the scientific and technical industries that they wanted to replace the declining cotton industry. That meant that I was given a good grounding in science and carried that on to university including, somewhat over half a century ago, an introduction to quantum theory. I won't say that I fully understood it but accepted that it had validity even if the world of mathematics seemed to have concepts that were outside the world as I knew it. I also studied biology and have no problem with the concepts of evolution. Science to me is answering a different set of questions to Religion. Science tries to deal with the "how things came about" Religion tries to deal with the "why things came about". Of course the two can interact and it is good that they do so, of course also in both theories come and go as they try to advance our knowledge, but to me both are valid and complementary.

Does this matter on a football forum? Well our beloved Manchester City developed from a Reverend's daughter responding to her faith and wanting to do something for the benefit of the menfolk of Gorton .....
 
Last edited:
paulsimpson said:
And who created that god? .. and so on and so forth ....it still posits an infinite regress into the past which is impossible because it would have no beginning. How do you count down the negative numbers of infinite past moments to get to the present moment? Once one sees that, a huge realisation can occur.
So 1 - whatever begins to exist has a cause
2 the universe began to exist
Therefore 3 - the universe has a cause ( outside of itself - it cannot be the cause of itself)
Also known as the Kalam Cosmological Argument originally developed by Al Ghazali , Muslim scholar.
Shades of it in Aristotle and Aquinas . Current proponent W L Craig used in debates.
Click to expand...
But that can also apply to God so you've proved yourself wrong.
 
Marklr said:
I love how theists set up false premises with prepositions :"1 - whatever begins to exist has a cause". We don't know if it "began" or was "created". The most honest answer is "I don't know".
If there was a creator/god, then they certainly don't want us to know about them. If they wanted us to believe, then there would be no doubt. They certainly wouldn't have left us with such a badly written, self contradicting, unknowledgable, ignorant, hate filled, evil, hilariously stupid, immoral book for us to go by.
Click to expand...

Any forgiving, peaceful, kind god will have you burning in the fires of hell for that post ;)
 
JASR said:
Bollox, he didn't invent the 'imaging' part of it.
en.wikipedia.org

Raymond Damadian - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

And he never thought his views were against the awarding of the Nobel prize which was for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

' Damadian himself said, "Before this happened, nobody ever said to me 'They will not give you the Nobel Prize for Medicine because you are a creation scientist'. If people were actively campaigning against me because of that, I never knew it'
www.smh.com.au

The man who did not win

www.smh.com.au www.smh.com.au




Edit: Interestingly he became a Christian because he was taken to a Billy Graham evangelical event at the behest of his future wife. No doubt swept up in the crowd moment along with thousands of others he heeded the 'altar call' and became a Christian.

Interestingly I became a City fan because I was taken to a City match at the behest of my family. No doubt swept up in the crowd moment along with thousands of others I heeded the 'colour call of blue' and became a City supporter.

... it's amazing what a crowd of people can persuade you to do, no? Just because one is a football team and one a religion is no different, the 'moment' is what sucks you in, and then you're trapped for 'eternity' in believing in something which, taking any outsiders view, is completely stupid and unwarranted.

I think I'd rather believe in the fairytale of City, than the fairytale of religion.
Click to expand...
You picked and chose the parts of the article to reflect your own bias. Justice wasn't served . If there had been no Damadian , no invention. The science article I included was from 1971. Way before his main competitors. The other article you didn't even mention. Plus. Wikipedia is not always accurate.
In any case you don't argue the point about eternal laws of logic which you stand on and use to deny God. But the laws are the basis for all thought ,reason, science etc., even emotion. So there's an inconsistency and contradiction.
 
paulsimpson said:
You picked and chose the parts of the article to reflect your own bias. Justice wasn't served . If there had been no Damadian , no invention. The science article I included was from 1971. Way before his main competitors. The other article you didn't even mention. Plus. Wikipedia is not always accurate.
In any case you don't argue the point about eternal laws of logic which you stand on and use to deny God. But the laws are the basis for all thought ,reason, science etc., even emotion. So there's an inconsistency and contradiction.
Click to expand...
Nothing of what you say = a god. All your argument boils down to is that there must have been a beginning...a creation.....but we don't know that. Your argument is basically the god of the gaps' argument.
 
paulsimpson said:
You picked and chose the parts of the article to reflect your own bias. Justice wasn't served . If there had been no Damadian , no invention. The science article I included was from 1971. Way before his main competitors. The other article you didn't even mention. Plus. Wikipedia is not always accurate.
In any case you don't argue the point about eternal laws of logic which you stand on and use to deny God. But the laws are the basis for all thought ,reason, science etc., even emotion. So there's an inconsistency and contradiction.
Click to expand...
The quote is on Wikipedia. But is a reference to the article that states his quote. Wikipedia is fine when the text is based and references other sources. It’s only a cesspit of bollox when it’s edited by fanatics/trolls without references.

being accused by a religious zealot of ‘picking and choosing’ is the zenith of hypocrisy.

eg
are you married? Does your wife only speak when you say she can?
If that’s not the case, why have you not followed that aspect of the bible?

edit: oh, and logic rules are generally ‘eternal’, but even they can be overturned and ‘chaos’ brought to logic. Godel (iirc) undecidedly principle wrecked many many mathematicians views on everything being black/white. Science, logic, mathematics are ever evolving and re-inventing , old ideas are changed and improved, some are cast away, some stay. Religion is the opposite , it is pure staid unchanging dogma.
 
Last edited:
Cassandra said:
Here's how I see it - I try to imagine all the matter in the cosmos, I can't - but it is a heck of a lot. Then I think, is there a purpose to all this stuff? On a balance of probabilities and with only a little doubt I think there must be a reason why it is all there. That seems to me a logical, though not infallible, position to adopt. Following on from that I reckon that if there is a purpose to the universe then something must have caused it to come into being. That "something" transcends my understanding of time and space and therefore can be considered "supernatural" - at least to me. Do I know what form that creator or causal entity takes? No - but I doubt that it consists of a man with a beard sitting on a cloud. It's convenient to call it God though it could be a collective of Gods or you could give it some other name. So far I think that my thoughts are totally rational, though I repeat, not infallible - and hence my belief. Creation is the greatest miracle.

Next I think, does it matter to me whether the universe, cosmos or whatever has a purpose or not? I decide that if the whole thing has a purpose then I must be part of that purpose. Feels right to me, but others may differ. So accepting that the whole of creation has purpose gives my existence a purpose, but puts an obligation on me to try and discover that purpose. Having swallowed, so to speak, the "camel" of the concept of a "God" that has performed the miracle of bringing the creation into being I'm not going to strain at swallowing the "gnats" of lesser miracles. I accept that others will not agree with my conclusion and we can agree to differ and remain friends. If this supernatural God has a purpose for this universe and I, we, are part of that purpose it would seem natural that that God would try to give us a guide to that purpose and our role in it. That is what I think Religion is all about. Through the ages and today there seem to be lots of different ways in which religions try to answer the question - I happen to chose Christianity though I wouldn't claim it to be the only route to understanding and I respect people of other faiths.
Click to expand...
The thing is, you tell a story which starts with you pondering about how the universe came into being, supposing a god, and then stumbling upon Christianity as a way of understanding that. And if that is genuinely what happened, then fair play. But in my experience, religious beliefs don't work like that. Instead, people typically have the religion as the starting point, and start pondering about the scientific facts later, trying to square them with their pre-existing beliefs. Religious beliefs aren't informed by science, they come from culture and ultimately tribalism, which is why the number of people who hold religious beliefs that are different from the culture they grew up in is vanishingly small.

It's also why it's hard to accept complex philosophical arguments about the beginning of the universe from people who are also on record as literally believing in the resurrection, the virgin birth or any of the other various miracles described in the Bible. They attempt to create sound logical reasoning for the most miniscule detail of creation, and act like that proves all of the other wild claims that their religious texts contain.

But as you say, they discuss different things. Religion discusses the "why" but even in doing so, it loads the question in a way that assumes that there's a purpose to things (and if there's a purpose, there must be an intelligence capable of having a purpose). There's no reason to assume that we can meaningfully ask "why" about the universe any more than we can ask "why" about a rock on the beach. Religion may discuss why, but it hasn't demonstrated that why is a relevant question, and certainly hasn't demonstrated that it's an answerable one other than with a convenient reference to the being they already assume exists or the texts that they venerate.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
The thing is, you tell a story which starts with you pondering about how the universe came into being, supposing a god, and then stumbling upon Christianity as a way of understanding that. And if that is genuinely what happened, then fair play. But in my experience, religious beliefs don't work like that. Instead, people typically have the religion as the starting point, and start pondering about the scientific facts later, trying to square them with their pre-existing beliefs. Religious beliefs aren't informed by science, they come from culture and ultimately tribalism, which is why the number of people who hold religious beliefs that are different from the culture they grew up in is vanishingly small.

It's also why it's hard to accept complex philosophical arguments about the beginning of the universe from people who are also on record as literally believing in the resurrection, the virgin birth or any of the other various miracles described in the Bible. They attempt to create sound logical reasoning for the most miniscule detail of creation, and act like that proves all of the other wild claims that their religious texts contain.

But as you say, they discuss different things. Religion discusses the "why" but even in doing so, it loads the question in a way that assumes that there's a purpose to things (and if there's a purpose, there must be an intelligence capable of having a purpose). There's no reason to assume that we can meaningfully ask "why" about the universe any more than we can ask "why" about a rock on the beach. Religion may discuss why, but it hasn't demonstrated that why is a relevant question, and certainly hasn't demonstrated that it's an answerable one other than with a convenient reference to the being they already assume exists or the texts that they venerate.
Click to expand...
From what I understand the Catholic Church have been pretty active in trying to suppress science over the years.
 
journolud said:
Yeah it works both ways and I was brought up a Catholic and went to a Catholic school but can honestly say in the last 40 years apart from the odd knock on the door from Jehovah’s Witnesses I’ve had no trouble avoiding having religion rammed down my throat. Most of the religious types I’ve known have been humble in their beliefs and we’ve maintained a mutual respect by recognising each other as humans first.
Click to expand...
I think we're quite lucky in the UK that religious people tend to keep themselves to themselves. But that's not the same everywhere. And even in the UK the amount you tend to be affected depends on who you are. If you're a woman seeking an abortion, for example, you might find yourself more likely to encounter religious people trying to impose their views on you. Or if you're a teacher trying to teach a syllabus that happens to include gay characters or sex education. Or if you're the child of a religious person who gets forced into following something you don't believe in. And as you say, everyone gets targeted when they're a young kid and aren't capable of arguing back. It's worth mentioning that it's still a legal requirement in UK schools that they have a daily act of worship (even if many ignore it or fudge it) and for non-religious schools it is supposed to be "of a broadly Christian character." Religious schools themselves are widespread, and we all have to pay for those regardless of whether we are religious.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
I think we're quite lucky in the UK that religious people tend to keep themselves to themselves. But that's not the same everywhere. And even in the UK the amount you tend to be affected depends on who you are. If you're a woman seeking an abortion, for example, you might find yourself more likely to encounter religious people trying to impose their views on you. Or if you're a teacher trying to teach a syllabus that happens to include gay characters or sex education. Or if you're the child of a religious person who gets forced into following something you don't believe in. And as you say, everyone gets targeted when they're a young kid and aren't capable of arguing back. It's worth mentioning that it's still a legal requirement in UK schools that they have a daily act of worship (even if many ignore it or fudge it) and for non-religious schools it is supposed to be "of a broadly Christian character." Religious schools themselves are widespread, and we all have to pay for those regardless of whether we are religious.
Click to expand...

Aren't religious schools private funded? i.e. jewish schools, islamic ones also.
 
MaineDAWG2008 said:
Aren't religious schools private funded? i.e. jewish schools, islamic ones also.
Click to expand...

Some are, but the English school system is complicated in that there many types of governance arrangements. Academy, voluntary controlled, voluntary aided, maintained etc.

There are state funded Jewish schools, and Islamic schools.


And Private schools can still receive state funding if some conditions apply, e.g. Special schools that sell their services to local authorities, I know of one special school that is part of a Catholic Diocese that generated about £1 million a year surplus that went to other parts of the trust.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
So it took six "periods of time" to create the universe? How specific. Why not just say one period of time and make that period of time longer?

these-go-to11-spinal-tap.gif


Or is it because they quite clearly were referring to days because that's the measurements used by the people who made all of this up? See this is what happens in religion all the time. Something that is until now uncontroversial is proven to be false, and then suddenly people come out of the woodwork to tell us "what they really meant" when they wrote it. Even "days" are only meant in a figurative sense now.

This is of course ignoring the fact that time as we know it is a product of the universe in the same way that a day is a concept that relies on the existence of earth.
Click to expand...

Here is a snapshot of Lane's lexicon published by Edward William Lane who compiled it from medieval Arabic dictionaries.

You can see in the rightmost column the word 'yawm' and how it has meanings like 'time', 'moment' etc.

I don't use Bible/Qur'an to study science, but to learn matters of faith and a bit of history. If a certain interpretation makes better sense, then that's how I prefer to understand it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top