DMB

I didn't go down this road in the first place, Eric. You did.

You might ask that, Eric. I am not interested one way or the other in the answer. Since you raise the question, however, I note that you post from the UK, where the currency is £ sterling. A sizeable proportion of the male population at any time may have at least one £10 note in their pockets. So regardless of all the rhubarb about Aunt Mary etc, I would have a reasonable chance of being right if I guessed that you did in fact have such a note in your pocket. I can make this guess based on probability and statistics, without knowing anything else about you.

I don't disagree that that is the most important question about god. I hope you will now try to address it without invoking erroneous probabilities.

As for deciding and getting on with life, most people do that. Most of us here have decided that god (at least as described by religions we know) is sufficiently unlikely for us to declare ourselves atheists and get on with a god-free life. However, I am sure that most of us here are also ready to believe in the existence of god if offered sufficiently good evidence.

It is a separate question, but I offered it as an example of a probabilistic question that is much more like the question of whether god exists than like the question of whether my coin will come down heads or tails. It is not one of the most important questions for me, but nor, for that matter, is the existence of god.

Corona688

But then, doesn't this then become a rather useless mental exercise of 'what if''s? What if the sky was pink with green midgets? You can assume that, and you can deduce valid consequences from it GIVEN THAT ASSUMPTION. But since the assumption has no basis in reality, neither does anything deduced from it.

So, what's the point of this whole exercise?

Eric H

Hello DMB,
------------------------------------
quote
I don't disagree that that is the most important question about god. I hope you will now try to address it without invoking erroneous probabilities.
==========================


I suppose it is because our beliefs start of from the opposite sides of the fence, that our arguments do not make a great deal of sense to each other.

But, what if there is a horse in a race with odds of a hundred to one and then there is another horse that is the favourite with odds of two to one, it means most people backed the horse with the odds of two to one.

If the horse with the odds of a hundred to one wins, it just means that the majority of people backed the wrong horse. This can and does happen, and that’s how bookmakers make their money.

The horse race that has been run and the winner declared, becomes history.

Creation is history, so one of these statements must be a fact.

There is at least one God that created our universe.

There is no God at all.


--------------------------------------------------
quote
I am sure that most of us here are also ready to believe in the existence of god if offered sufficiently good evidence.
======================



Sadly that’s the problem there is no evidence that has made any sense to you, and I also had this same problem.

In my younger days I went to a Catholic Church, and they preached the gospels of love thy neighbours and love your enemies. But at the same time they weren’t very kind about people who believed in different faiths. We even had to ask permission to attend weddings at other churches and it made me feel very uncomfortable.

I could not agree with the way that they preached and the way that they acted, and so I left the church for thirty years.

I did return to the church around five years ago, this was not because somebody persuaded me the church was right and that I now agreed with their teaching. I still have disagreements with the way the church teaches.

I went back to the church after I spoke to my brother in law, he said that if you believe in a God you should do something.

I struggle with faith daily, it doesn’t come easy to me.

Peace

Eric.

Eric H

Hello Marcel.

quote
For one I consider it a good thing that you place such importance on loving ourselves and one another. Personally I don't think that comes from a predestined goal from a divine maker, some higher goal, but rather see it as our responsibility, a nessecity for our survival and prosperity. Not because we're made to do so, but because things turn ugly if we don't.

Different angles, but placing importance on the same thing; positivity, love and togetherness. And where atheist and theists meet, it might be better to find comon ground sometimes.


----------------------------------------




As you suggest it is not necessary to believe in a God to understand moral good; most people see this as a preferred goal.

Finding a common ground between theists and atheists as you mention can only be through relationships and morals; it is highly unlikely that the common ground will have anything to do with common beliefs.

This seems to be very much the same with diverse religions; they are now so far apart in their doctrine and beliefs, that the greatest hope we can have for peace, is if they can work together for the common good.

Love is not a very good word on it’s own; the Greek language gives a greater distinction between four types of love.



There is ‘eros’ from which the word erotic comes from, it is a passionate feeling, a feeling you might have towards a work of beauty, a dream house, or to lust after another person.
‘Storge’ is the second word for love, which means family affections or ties. Even though all the family members may not feel this bond exists between them they are still a family and it is said that blood is thicker than water.
Thirdly there is ‘Philia’ which means a friendship between people, they can often have similar interests, an affinity or chemistry can exist between them. We choose our friends but we cannot always say why we like one person and not another.
‘Agape is the word used by philosophers and teachers for what they have in mind as an ideal behaviour between people. It is not necessary to like the person as in ‘Philia’. It is an attitude towards others based on words such as compassion, understanding, empathy, respect and sympathy. It means being willing to live with the differences between oneself and others and it operates by free choice. It is a way of making life bearable between people of opposing views, such as religious or political differences. Getting on with our next-door neighbour even if we do not like them. Only doing to others as you would have them do to you. It is said to be the noblest quality that human beings can express towards each other.

There are more extreme ways to look at the word love, but I will leave it with Agape.

Peace

Eric

Eric H

Mageth

quote
Why "surely"? Is there some uber-universal law, apparently ABOVE god(s), that limits the uber-universe to one creative god? And if so, how did you come to find out about it, since you're apparently limited to this lil' ole' universe?
---------------------------------------------


Surely the only God worth searching for is the creator of every last universe, all that is seen and unseen. That includes every last atom anywhere.

How did I find out about it?

I see it, as a great risk to believe in a God, because I could be missing out on many of the attractions that life has to offer.

And all that I am left with is a belief that God exists, no more then that.

I can only say from my own point of view that it is not easy at times.

In a way I envy people who do not believe in a God, because the path of life seems easier.

Peace

Eric




Hello QoS
quote
So much of evil comes from things like natural disasters, and affects so many innocent people, including children. How this is caused by the freedom to love is not immediately clear to me.
---------------------------------------
Starting from a human perspective first, supposing nuclear power was invented for the sole purpose of generating electricity, scientists would know that there is a probability of accidents happening. However the end product of supplying millions of people with affordable power would outweigh the human cost of any accidents. Also it would outweigh all the risks of disposing of nuclear waste, some scientists believe we are sitting on a nuclear time bomb.

We know nuclear power is used and we have read about various disasters,

Where scientists and governments right to go ahead with nuclear power knowing clearly the risks involved?


Maybe there is no such thing as risk free, even for God.

Supposing there is a God and all he has to work with is a void. If he wanted to build a platform for us to live on, he could not suspend it from a ceiling, and there would be no floor to rest anything on.

Maybe there are no laws of the universe that would sustain a hover planet that stayed in the same place.

Maybe the greatest option was to hurl a universe through space travelling at sixty thousand miles per hour.

Maybe if Earth was a solid steel ball it would break up, maybe the planet Earth has to have a certain amount of flexibility to absorb the forces of travelling at that speed, a bit like shock absorbers in a car. Could Earth’s shock absorbers be what we call earth quakes and volcanoes?

Maybe God wanted to create a life system that could be self sustained, maybe he wanted minimum intervention with the mechanics of life after his creation had been set in motion.

How could a God create a plant life and cover the Earth, Maybe many seeds had to be light enough to be blown.

Maybe the only laws available to generate wind would be to create hurricane forces in a small place that would then cover the Earth in a more gentle way.

Maybe there are no laws that can be set in motion to give a gentle constant breeze.

If God knew these risks of harming life, would he have to weigh up if he felt the risks where justifiable?

Does he have a purpose great enough to create life that would make these risks worth while?


All this is just pie in the sky, just a load of maybes.

Quote
It would be much more scary, IMO, if all of humanity worshipped the same god and followed it like the rats followed the Pied Piper.
=======================

I would want to alter your words very slightly, all humanity worshiping the same God would not be a problem.

BUT all humanity worshiping with the same beliefs and in the same way would be scary- very-very scary.

Humanity was created with freedom and religion’s goal seems to be to aim for conformity of beliefs.

Sorry I am running short of time again.


Peace

Eric

Eric H

Hello Amie,
quote
I very much enjoyed reading your article
==============


Thanks for your words, but in a way I feel that you will gain more from these words by challenging them in different ways. Always look for something greater.

Why did Christ say all the law and the prophets hang on the greatest commandments?

What about interfaith relations?

What other reasons are there to love God above all else?

I have no authority to write these words, it could all be total fiction.

The reason I say this is to encourage you to keep searching, do not be content. There is far more to be discovered.

You will discover far more now if you challenge things in your mind, reading more may not help as much.

Please feel free to use any of the words I have written, in any way and for any purpose.


Peace

Eric

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Eric H
Starting from a human perspective first, supposing nuclear power was invented for the sole purpose of generating electricity, scientists would know that there is a probability of accidents happening. However the end product of supplying millions of people with affordable power would outweigh the human cost of any accidents.

The analogy doesn't wash because god is commonly supposed to be omnipotent. That means he could give people free will while preventing needless deaths.

Maybe there is no such thing as risk free, even for God.

So this god can create the entire universe but he can't prevent needless deaths?

Supposing there is a God and all he has to work with is a void. If he wanted to build a platform for us to live on, he could not suspend it from a ceiling, and there would be no floor to rest anything on.

If he wanted to build a platform for us to live on, he could suspend it in mid-air. I find it illogical to postulate a god who made galaxies and black holes but couldn't get past the problem of natural disasters wiping out thousands of people.

Maybe God wanted to create a life system that could be self sustained, maybe he wanted minimum intervention with the mechanics of life after his creation had been set in motion.

In other words, he doesn't care about what happens to innocent people? Seems somewhat less than loving to me.

Maybe the only laws available to generate wind would be to create hurricane forces in a small place that would then cover the Earth in a more gentle way.

Maybe each time a hurricane was on its way, a voice could boom from the heavens, "Everyone, get indoors." We could play this game all year.

If God knew these risks of harming life, would he have to weigh up if he felt the risks where justifiable?

I don't know - what is this hypothetical god's hypothetical motivation?

Does he have a purpose great enough to create life that would make these risks worth while?

If there's a Grand Design that could justify the suffering and deaths of millions of people, I'd love to hear it.

Humanity was created with freedom and religion’s goal seems to be to aim for conformity of beliefs.

This I do agree with.

Wait, this too : In a way I envy people who do not believe in a God, because the path of life seems easier..

It is easier. It's a lot more logical, for one thing; I don't have to reconcile a loving god with someone who could have stopped death and suffering - but didn't.

brighid

Eric,

I would offer a friendly and constructive suggestion that would make reading your responses much easier: when posting a reply there is a quote button (on the left of the screen you will see vB code with a series of buttons, Quote is one of them) just above the area where you type in the body of the text. When you desire to quote someone select the Quote option, copy and then paste the text there and then hit Enter and type your reply. Repeat as needed.

Or do as others have done and bold your text and leave some space between your reply and their quote. It is much easier to read this way.

Thank you,
Brighid

Eric H

Hello QoS

Maybe there are laws of the universe that govern the things that God can and can’t do. We can look at Black holes and galaxies and life, and we wonder at the complexities of nature, and as you say a God who could do all this should be able to do anything.

Maybe God cannot do magic, maybe there are limits to God’s powers

We say that God is omni- this, omni- that and omni the other, there are so many definitions of what god is supposed to be.

If you start from the premise that God is bad, there is enough evidence to back this up. If you start from the premise that God is good, there is also enough evidence to back this up

There is enough evidence to say that God is Catholic, Hindu and Muslim, but you would have to belong to one of these faiths to perceive it for yourself.

But if you asked a hundred Catholics about their definition of God you would probably get several answers.

You could ask a hundred people from each of the religions of the world and get even more diverse opinions about the nature and power of God.


I feel that religion can actually confuse us about the character and nature of God.

If you read my article at the start of this post, I have come up with yet another definition of what God could be. We create an image of God in our own minds, and that is the God that we worship or not as the case may be.

If there is no life after death, then life seems very unjust, because innocent people suffer for nothing.

If there is a God then I believe there is also life after death, and life after death must correct all the injustice on Earth in a good way.

I also believe that he is a loving God and he will know and do what is best.

Peace

Eric

Eric H

Hello Brighid, thanks for the tip

peace

Eric