There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe.

[studiot]

Thank you Arete for providing this balanced view and analysis and introducing pertinent material from Biology theory to us in general and me in particular. +1

[Janielle]

The discussion is quite interesting, some has gone over my head.

However, I am concerned though with validated an existence about a God; why the necessity?

What will it solve?

There would still be the need for clarification as to why all the atrocities were allowed to happened when the God who is alll-everything exists with the premise of him being all good? 

It becomes a circular argument really..and I wished we focus on fixing and unifying the world rather than debate things that are no consequence to development. It is simple a pat on the shoulder to gain a high over others.

If the God is *justified* which more that likely is the judeo-christian God..please let him explain why my ancestors and their land raped and pillaged for over 500 years and still we are being discriminated against.

[studiot]

4 hours ago, Janielle said:

If the God is *justified* which more that likely is the judeo-christian God..please let him explain why my ancestors and their land raped and pillaged for over 500 years and still we are being discriminated against.

Only 500 hundred years?

Caeser came to Somerset over 2000 years ago, for just that purpose, and he wan't the first. We have had many more since.

[mistermack]

You mean Manchester United have played Taunton ?   

 

Edit :     On the OP, John Lennox makes a habit of misquoting people, and using their words out of context. I've seen Richard Dawkins on Youtube complaining when Lennox did just that, after a live debate with him. Lennox will take a phrase that you said, remove the context, and bend it's meaning, once he's no longer face-to-face with you.

Edited July 14, 2018 by mistermack

[ALine]

You have made a claim or a statement that "A god does exist" and you are searching for evidence to support your claim that a God exists. However what lead you toward the conclusion that such a being would exist. One of the key hallmarks of science is questioning everything which includes questioning every step you take in order to make sure that your next step is observable and knowable through testing and observation. You are asking a question about an idea that has not been proven to either be true or false. Even though it is not proven you cannot take random steps into the darkness attempting to create new ideas and experiments from that said darkness. This is like trying to find a wall without a flashlight. The God hypothesis must be questioned first before you can even attempt to build on top of it in order to determine if you can build up from it. This is how science works. A building of continually tested ideas which sustain themselves against the tests of time by being consistently tested over and over again. With a concept like you God it requires you to throw away the scientific method thus removing science from the topic as a whole so asking for scientific reasoning for the existence of God is a fools errand on the account that you want to prove such a hypothetical God exists even though at the same time this hypothesis must through away the scientific method. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You must either throw away the concept of God because you cannot test it or throw away the concept of science because it is preventing you from believing in the concept of a God. One or the other; atheist or theist.

Edited July 14, 2018 by ALine
remove the you

[Janielle]

2 hours ago, ALine said:

You have made a claim or a statement that "A god does exist" and you are searching for evidence to support your claim that a God exists. However what lead you toward the conclusion that such a being would exist. One of the key hallmarks of science is questioning everything which includes questioning every step you take in order to make sure that your next step is observable and knowable through testing and observation. You are asking a question about an idea that has not been proven to either be true or false. Even though it is not proven you cannot take random steps into the darkness attempting to create new ideas and experiments from that said darkness. This is like trying to find a wall without a flashlight. The God hypothesis must be questioned first before you can even attempt to build on top of it in order to determine if you can build up from it. This is how science works. A building of continually tested ideas which sustain themselves against the tests of time by being consistently tested over and over again. With a concept like you God it requires you to throw away the scientific method thus removing science from the topic as a whole so asking for scientific reasoning for the existence of God is a fools errand on the account that you want to prove such a hypothetical God exists even though at the same time this hypothesis must through away the scientific method. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. You must either throw away the concept of God because you cannot test it or throw away the concept of science because it is preventing you from believing in the concept of a God. One or the other; atheist or theist.

A lot of cognitive dissonance taking place in trying to ascertain the answer to these questions. 

However, the God concept is something that forms a crucial part in society and it has impacted us in a wide variety of ways. I would simply want that despite our beliefs we do not allow it to affect our judgement but it seems as if that is impossible seeing that is exactly what is going on....

Circular arguments really.

7 hours ago, studiot said:

Only 500 hundred years?

Caeser came to Somerset over 2000 years ago, for just that purpose, and he wan't the first. We have had many more since.

Sorry I left out was it the post before. I have been looking up Somerset and Caesar..I am not seeing anything really. Could you provide clarification?

Also, I do know that there were more incidence of slavery but as a young black woman, the fact that we were enslaved for so long and then indoctrinated to serve the God of the slave masters is like...

...But thou are so merciful...yes.

[mistermack]

20 hours ago, Janielle said:

I have been looking up Somerset and Caesar..I am not seeing anything really. Could you provide clarification?

Also, I do know that there were more incidence of slavery but as a young black woman, the fact that we were enslaved for so long and then indoctrinated to serve the God of the slave masters is like...

...But thou are so merciful...yes.

Probably meant Somerset and Cheddar. 

Back in those days, slavery was everywhere and involved every race. There have always been varying degrees of it, and still are. It was only with the discovery of America that black people were singled out, with a particularly nasty version. 

[studiot]

4 hours ago, mistermack said:

Probably meant Somerset and Cheddar. 

Back in those days, slavery was everywhere and involved every race. There have always been varying degrees of it, and still are. It was only with the discovery of America that black people were singled out, with a particularly nasty version. 

Yes indeed

and whatsmore we have the phrase "Hard Cheddar"

+1

 

[Itoero]

On ‎12‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 8:58 PM, Strange said:

Not always. The Japanese concept of kami, which is nearly always translated as "god", is definitely not like that. Other pantheistic religions have their own concepts of god which are very different from the Abrahamic idea.

True, but I meant that it goes in against science/evolution to believe in a defined supernatural being.

[Strange]

6 hours ago, Itoero said:

True, but I meant that it goes in against science/evolution to believe in a defined supernatural being.

I don’t think it goes against evolution; the ability/need to believe (in something) seems to be a fundamental part of human nature. 

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Itoero said:

True, but I meant that it goes in against science/evolution to believe in a defined supernatural being.

 

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don’t think it goes against evolution; the ability/need to believe (in something) seems to be a fundamental part of human nature. 

 

Interesting exchange that leads me to ponder thus:

 

We think we are the highest level on evolution on our planet, and further as far as we know we are the only religous creature. But what does that mean?

Well for one thing perhaps there is a critical level of evolution that is needed to be religous.

But taking this one step further,

Animals know about fire, but are a fraid of it and run away from it.
A bit like humans and religion.

Humans have learned to control fire, to some extent, but have they learned anything but the most basic aspects of religion. That is, are they at the same evolutionary level with religion as animals are with fire?

Could a future more evolved human then surpass religion?

 

[Moontanman]

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

 

Interesting exchange that leads me to ponder thus:

 

We think we are the highest level on evolution on our planet,

Says who... us? Maybe sperm whales thing the same thing, or elephants... 

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

and further as far as we know we are the only religious creature. But what does that mean?

As far as we know? How could we know? 

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

Well for one thing perhaps there is a critical level of evolution that is needed to be religious.

Yet another baseless assertion. 

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

But taking this one step further,

Animals know about fire, but are a fraid of it and run away from it.
A bit like humans and religion.

Can you elaborate? i'm not sure what you mean, my dogs aren't afriad of fire. 

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

Humans have learned to control fire, to some extent, but have they learned anything but the most basic aspects of religion. That is, are they at the same evolutionary level with religion as animals are with fire?

Again can you elaborate how you know this? 

17 minutes ago, studiot said:

Could a future more evolved human then surpass religion?

I hope so, I think we are on the cusp of this now. 

[DrP]

10 hours ago, Moontanman said:

Says who... us? Maybe sperm whales thing the same thing, or elephants... 

...  An article I read a few months back that when they scanned an elephants brain whilst it looked at different objects it suggested that when they look at humans they go all gooey and think we are cute - the same way we look at kittens and puppies. I thought that was lovely.  

[Ten oz]

On 7/14/2018 at 10:34 AM, Janielle said:

Also, I do know that there were more incidence of slavery but as a young black woman, the fact that we were enslaved for so long and then indoctrinated to serve the God of the slave masters is like...

...But thou are so merciful...yes.

This is a powerful insight. To this day much of the conflicts in Africa stem from the manipulation of identity and allegiances. Slavery itself ended hundreds of years back by the religious indoctrination, image shaming, cultural appropriation, and racial dominance has continued. We see it today in the immigration and refugee debates. This idea that peoples must conform culturally and spiritually else be considered threats within western society. The old Hamitic Theory still governs much of the western worlds understanding of history. 

 

[Scott of the Antares]

To add a balanced view of history, William Wilberforce who headed the movement to end the slavery was a Christian.

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Scott of the Antares said:

To add a balanced view of history, William Wilberforce who headed the movement to end the slavery was a Christian.

And so were the advocates of slavery, both used the same book to justify their stance... 

[Scott of the Antares]

16 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

And so were the advocates of slavery, both used the same book to justify their stance... 

True, but it was a Christian who saw the error in the behaviour of his fellow men. That’s all I’m saying:)

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Can we get back to the topic of the OP, please?

 

If you start talking about a specific religion, you have strayed too far, and your post will be hidden.

 

[DrP]

1 minute ago, Scott of the Antares said:

True, but it was a Christian who saw the error in the behaviour of his fellow men. That’s all I’m saying:)

When was this - a couple hundred years ago?  Most people professed to be Christian at the time - no-one knew any different/better. The advancement in science has come on a lot since then and proven a lot of the bible to be untrue, so most people drop the superstition as the holes in our knowledge shrinks.

1 minute ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Can we get back to the topic of the OP, please?

 

sorry swansont

[Itoero]

19 hours ago, Strange said:

I don’t think it goes against evolution; the ability/need to believe (in something) seems to be a fundamental part of human nature. 

Yes, religion seems to be an evolutionary trait. But evolution/science prevents any religion from being correct. Evolution basically started at the big bang. After abiogenesis on this earth, biological evolution started. This biological evolution is what we call neo darwinism and it implies the evolution theory.

Evolution implies how matter changes over time. From an evolutionary point of view, a person has as much value as an atom a couple lightyears away.

Therefor any belief in something supernatural with defined properties is wrong.

Ietsism is an unspecified belief in an undetermined transcedent reality. I tend to acknowledge the scientific value of that beliefsystem.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ietsism

Quote

There are methods to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe.

 

When you use Math to treat the validity of the theory that a God exists and created this universe.then you use Mathematical logic. There is no way of knowing if those logical ideas are correct so the method you showed is false.

Edited July 17, 2018 by Itoero