Is there a God?

[Y'man]

My opinion runs thus:- Religion does not exist, per se. What does exist is a wholly illogical breakdown of our cerebral capabilities, this causing a blindness to reality and a compound of forced indoctrination, weakness, gullibility and sadness. One's personal beliefs are neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned but what this world really needs is an absolute separation of what can be proven and what cannot; reality vs. superstition. The personal beliefs of some should not influence or affect the lives of others.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Huge

I think curly is many things, and I probably disagree with everything they say but a troll isn't one of them

I think curly actually believes those things

[mockney piers]

"What does exist is a wholly illogical breakdown of our cerebral capabilities, this causing a blindness to reality and a compound of forced indoctrination, weakness, gullibility and sadness."

That's really rather unfair. I'd say religion and supersttion are the very products of mans amazing capacity for observation, analysis and learning.

Look at sonehenge for instance as a testament about how we are able to learn and quantify that which is predictable through empirical observation. Contrast that wih the vagaries of climate, disease, food supply and natural disasters and in lieu of a more complete scientific picture, then I'd say that greater beings control these things according to their incomprehensible motives and/or whims, is probably a pretty understandable conclusion to come to.

I mean, I still believe in Sod's law, it's just I have faith that there's a mathematical algorithm to quantify it somewhere that'll help us understand why. If that why turns out to be Loki then hats off to our ancients frankly!

The second part of your statement is bad science, a doesn't cause b. B is a facet of social cohesiveness, traditions as well as maintenance of power and fear of change among many other things, not badly working brains surely.

[mockney piers]

Huguenot, this forum is beset with enough real trolls to bandy about this word at genuine posters. Curly is a self-confessed literal interpreter (ooh there's that word again) of the bible.

The world is 5000 years old, all the animals in the world (apart from the fish presumably, well maybe the fresh water ones) were on the ark etc etc

he's simply arguing from a specific viewpoint much like the rest of us, surely this forum is big enough to encompass polar opposite views without us getting upset about them?

[Y'man]

According to The Administrator, 'Troll' is an acceptable name to call someone. For if it weren't, "maybe we will give them detention or tell their parents". Were it that name calling was kept where it belongs, in the playground but ho hum, here's to mentality 21st Century style.

I'll get back to you on that MP, when I have time and if I'm allowed!

[????]

Now,was that 9/10 trolling or touching naivety from someone who doesn't understand the vocabulary of the internet? I genuinely don't know..

[Administrator]

I did not say that calling someone a troll was ok.

Y'man said "...what kind of forum are you running? It's like a primary school playground."

I said "We will monitor the discussion between the two people and act if we deem appropriate, maybe we will give them detention or tell their parents."

Please can we get this back on topic.

[Huguenot]

I'm not upset chaps, I wasn't levelling an accusation merely musing for reasons below...

I've never heard anyone argue that God is simply more plausible than evolution. It's like arguing God is more plausible than infrared in remote controls.

Evidence for physical (and testable) processes in play every day exist for both evolution and remote controls.

Curly speaks with such erudition I simply can't believe that he could argue that God is a more plausible explanation. Perhaps trees don't grow according to the prevailing winds, it's just God recreates them whilst we're sleeping?

Ergo, either he believes he's right (and manifestly denying everyday observtions), or he's playing devil's advocate without disclosing it (which isn't a poor definition of a troll).

Or again (musing), perhaps he's just bogged down in a poetic conceit revolving around biblical interpretation. The harsh reality of biology didn't meet with the rosy rhythm of mythos?

[Curly]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> I've never heard anything so ridiculous as someone

> saying something spectacularly contentious and

> then forbidding comments on it.

Because I know what you lot are like, lol! One comment turns into a character assasination.

> Do I understand you're backing 'God' based on the

> odds?

Let's just get the comment into context here. Someone was saying they thought humans living for 800 years wasn't plausible. Given that our bodies cells have the capacity to renew forever and scientists do not understand why old age sets in it, I was comparing this to the mathematical probability of the necessary components of life finding each other by chance, something even scientists cannot reproduce in a laboratory. The purpose of this comparison was to help someone to consider that some things may not be as impossible as first thought. It was not put forward for general discussion as it's something you have to decide for yourself.

[Curly]

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> The world is 5000 years old,

Of course the earth is billions of years old. You've been listening to those people that misunderstand the bible again.

[Curly]

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> You say the bible isn't incomplete but in the

> following sentence you go on to interpret why

> there is an implicit acceptance of incest until

> Leviticus outlaws it.

>

> If it wasn't incomplete wouldn't the bible have

> had a few more begats to fill in the gaps

I've thought about this a bit more and you actually ask a very good question here. Why are there not more 'begats'?

The purpose of the 'begats' was not to retell Adam's lifestory so it was not necessary to record all his children.

Instead it was for a record of the lineage leading to the promised Messiah.

[Curly]

Dear Administrator,

How can I change my username to 'troll', as the Oxford Concise defines it as 'a fabulous being' and I do have a sense of humour.

[Huguenot]

How convenient. So it's only the 'Bible' when it suits you?

I loved your comments on scientists mate, like it's either one messiah or another. If the 'scientists' can't prove they're right then they're just one more in a string of false gods?

[HAL9000]

Curly Wrote:

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

> The purpose of the 'begats' was ... for a record of

> the lineage leading to the promised Messiah.

What do you make of the Messiah's genealogies in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38: on the surface these different listings appear to be a contradiction in the scriptures?

[Huguenot]

I guess that as any policeman will tell you, when you're making stuff up, the devil is in the detail.

[Curly]

HAL9000 Wrote:

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

> What do you make of the Messiah's genealogies in

> Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38: on the surface

> these different listings appear to be a

> contradiction in the scriptures?

One genealogy is through Joseph, the other Mary.

The Messiah was fortold to come through Abraham and David. Luke records the ancestry of Mary showing Jesus' natural descent from David. Luke does not name Mary and passes straight from Jesus to his grandfather because women were not named in genealogical links as was the tradition of both Greeks and Jews. Matthew shows Jesus' legal descent from David through Joseph as his legally adoptive father.

The Jews kept very careful records and there were public offices where anyone who wanted to check the records could go. There were a large number of people who wanted to discredit Jesus and so they would have used the records office to dispute the geneologies Matthew and Luke recorded if they were wrong.

I could go on in more detail but you get the picture.

[Curly]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> How convenient. So it's only the 'Bible' when it

> suits you?

What do you mean? 'Bible' comes from the Greek word meaning 'little books' not the 'complete works of'.

> I loved your comments on scientists mate, like

> it's either one messiah or another. If the

> 'scientists' can't prove they're right then

> they're just one more in a string of false gods?

That's an interesting conclusion that I hadn't considered but one you have come to yourself. Well it's not a matter of scientists can't prove themselves right. More of the impossibility of it.

For life to have begun by chance required the right quantity of chemicals to come together under the right conditions, such as temperature and pressure, and be repeated thousands of times. If a jigsaw puzzle was put in a box and the box shook for a million years, what's the chance of ever expecting to find a completed puzzle when you open the box? Whether evolutionists are serving the god of Good Luck or not is something you have to decide for yourself.

(By 'the god of Good Luck' I mean a socially constructed idea rather than an intelligent being).

[Curly]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

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

> Huge

>

> I think curly is many things, and I probably

> disagree with everything they say

No, I'm just one thing. Me.

[Mark]

Curly

Who created God?

[SeanMacGabhann]

It would appear from curly's logic that my choices are

a) a spectacularly random sequnce of events with such improbability as to be meaningless

or

b) Some "being" who has created "us" for... well, for what I'm not sure but the point is we need to look over our shoulders lest we be judged

Hmmm - I'm still going for a) on this one curly

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Behind you!

[HAL9000]

Curly Wrote:

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

> HAL9000 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38: ... appear to

> > be a contradiction in the scriptures?

>

> One genealogy is through Joseph, the other Mary.

Please provide the Scriptural authority for that interpretation.

[mockney piers]

No HAL there is no 'interpretation', only those who understand and those who don't.

[HAL9000]

mockney piers Wrote:

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

> No HAL there is no 'interpretation', only those

> who understand and those who don't.

Well, let's see how the process of 'understanding' works - we might learn something.

[mockney piers]

I too am most curious HAL.

I guess if we're honest to ourselves we can always learn something new.