A remote Island

rowen · Post by **rowen** » Thu Sep 11, 2008 8:31 pm

You wake up in the middle of the Pacific.

You find wrapped bread on a table

Did some entity put the bread there at one stage?

Yes or No

rowen · Post by **rowen** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:49 pm

goat wrote:
From an letter written in 1954 to Eric Gutkind

yes, he did not believe in a personal god, that gives a damm about humans, but still a God, one which he viewed our perceptions lead us

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:52 pm

rowen wrote:
goat wrote:
From an letter written in 1954 to Eric Gutkind
yes, he did not believe in a personal god, that gives a damm about humans, but still a God, one which he viewed our perceptions lead us

What part of ""The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses" does not show implicit atheism

rowen · Post by **rowen** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:54 pm

Solon wrote: How about you explicitly answer my question then. God is or is not beyond reason.

the existence we can reason,
however the nature of God, only dimly from the natural worlld

scientists spent 20 years and 6 billion dollars on the recent particle accelerator project in the news, to find a so called "god particle", a substance which pervades the universe,

they know that such a substance is there, they reason it, but not what it is composed off

rowen · Post by **rowen** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 11:58 pm

goat wrote: What part of ""The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses" does not show implicit atheism

yes he regarded common conceptions of God as simplistic, such as praying to god, or in heaven, and frankly distasted them, thats what deists believe, but deists still believe in a divine entity. They just dont like labels

OnceConvinced · Post by **OnceConvinced** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:34 am

rowen wrote:You cannot ask how God got there because he always exists and is above our rational conceptions, that is something unfathomable, something we can hardly minutely grasp, I believe we can see the brushstrokes of the creator in the world which I see as marvellous which points to the sublime entity

So then why can't the same be applied to an inanimate universe? What you have there is "special pleading". Why should God be any different? Why can't an inanimate universe be beyond rational conceptions. Why can it not be unfathomable? What you see as brushstrokes of the creator is to others examples of evolution.

however I just cannot rationally see a universe, an inanimate that stretches to infinity, I cannot see an uncaused inanimate!

Why does it have to be infinite? What does that have to do with anything? I could more likely see an uncaused animate universe than I could an uncaused supernatural being who is all knowing and all powerful.

It would have to be a superior living being that sustains life and brings into existence the material

Why? What makes you think that a supernatural, all knowing being can automatically be there, but not an inanimate univese? Apart from "special pleading" what evidence or reasoning can you offer about a God being in existance, that an inanimate universe?

How can the material, the material world just be there?

How can a supernatural, all knowing, all powerful being just be there?

Anyway I think this will go in circles

You are right. Until you can offer a good reason why a supernatural being can be there, but not an inanimate universe.

I did not say you cannot reason your way to god, but an infinite uncaused inanimate universe is not logical, theres a big difference,

It is even more illogical to claim that a supernatural, all knowing, all powerful being was always there. We know that this sort of thing can just not happen. However we can see life originate from something very simple and basic. That has been proven.

QED · Post by **QED** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:10 am

rowen wrote:
Solon wrote: How about you explicitly answer my question then. God is or is not beyond reason.
the existence we can reason,
however the nature of God, only dimly from the natural worlld

scientists spent 20 years and 6 billion dollars on the recent particle accelerator project in the news, to find a so called "god particle", a substance which pervades the universe,

they know that such a substance is there, they reason it, but not what it is composed off

And for the sake of argument, what if it turns out to be an unthinking process? All the emotional investment of the theist seems to be focussed on a sentient creator with a personality. How can we justify such grossly anthropomorphic assumptions?

rowen · Post by **rowen** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:42 am

nobody's assuming anything, I've always stated the creator is above categorization

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:55 am

rowen wrote:nobody's assuming anything, I've always stated the creator is above categorization

Rowen - you seem pretty clear in your belief that god created the universe.

Not to derail this thread I have created another.

It asks the queastion...

Is he still creating it or has he stopped?

Solon · Post by **Solon** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:20 am

rowen wrote: the existence we can reason,
however the nature of God, only dimly from the natural world

If we can reason the existence of god, then god is susceptible to reason. Let us use it to prove he exists. Clearly you believe in god, so why not lay out your reasoned argument and we can, as I suggested before, analyze it. Test its validity and then if it passed that test, test its soundness. If it passes both then I would be inclined to believe you when you say there is a god. Let us begin then, what is the reasoning which forces us to conclude god exists?

rowen wrote: scientists spent 20 years and 6 billion dollars on the recent particle accelerator project in the news, to find a so called "god particle", a substance which pervades the universe,

they know that such a substance is there, they reason it, but not what it is composed off

But they do not claim it is unfathomable, merely that we do not yet possess such information. They never say it is beyond our rational capacity. Some may term it the "god particle" because so many people believe in a creator god, but they are searching for the origin of then universe, whatever that may be. The scientists, if they are good ones, are not assuming a creator god, they are assuming as little as they can get away with. What will you do if they find the origin of the universe has no intelligence guiding it, no unmoved mover, no creator god. What if the universe itself is self-generating?

Solon · Post by **Solon** » Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:23 am

rowen wrote: the existence we can reason,
however the nature of God, only dimly from the natural world

If we can reason the existence of god, then god is susceptible to reason. Let us use it to prove he exists. Clearly you believe in god, so why not lay out your reasoned argument and we can, as I suggested before, analyze it. Test its validity and then if it passed that test, test its soundness. If it passes both then I would be inclined to believe you when you say there is a god. Let us begin then, what is the reasoning which forces us to conclude god exists?

rowen wrote: scientists spent 20 years and 6 billion dollars on the recent particle accelerator project in the news, to find a so called "god particle", a substance which pervades the universe,

they know that such a substance is there, they reason it, but not what it is composed off

But they do not claim it is unfathomable, merely that we do not yet possess such information. They never say it is beyond our rational capacity. Some may term it the "god particle" because so many people believe in a creator god, but they are searching for the origin of then universe, whatever that may be. The scientists are not assuming a creator god, they are assuming as little as they can get away with. What will you do if they find the origin of the universe has no intelligence guiding it, no unmoved mover, no creator god? What if the universe itself is self-generating? What if the universe is eternal? What then?