Is there a God?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Speak for yoursef curly

[citizenED]

The OP asks whether or not there is a God without really defining terms. That seems crucial. There has been much spoken about whether it is the God of the bible or simply some supernatural being who started all this business of the natural world and human life and then slipped away and left us to it. Some have argued that there is no evidence that this omnipotent God doesn't exist and that the specualtions of scientists who wonder about the beginnings of the world are as fanciful as any belief in that supernatural being. So be it but from what I can see that sort of understanding of God is not really what religious people mean. Surely, how life started (finger snap by God or spontaneous material event) is one debate, but more important is how life continues. The question is whether or not God is active in life.

Perchance, I wonder if we can sort this all out by Friday so that we can have a celebratory drink?

[HAL9000]

citizenED Wrote:

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

> Perchance, I wonder if we can sort this all out by

> Friday so that we can have a celebratory drink?

Good idea. After this thread Holy Communion would be a wise precaution!

[HAL9000]

citizenED Wrote:

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

> The question is whether or not God is active in life.

The idea of an all-seeing, all-knowing god certainly has a profound influence on modern life. He exerts a decisive influence whether he is real or not so long as people believe that he is real.

Forgive me if that's not what you meant or I've just stated the obvious.

[Jeremy]

If there is an all-seeing, all-knowing god, then I think he should share his secrets with us. His bandwidth must be incredible.

[HAL9000]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> His bandwidth must be incredible.

Someone has actually bothered to quantify the question here: God's Bandwidth

For those who can't be bothered to read the entire article:

In an article for Nature, June 2002, Seth Lloyd of MIT in Cambridge gives the memory capacity of a universe simulating computer at 10^90 bits and a CPU that would have manipulated 10^120 bits of information in the time since the big bang. His estimate is based on the energy equivalent of the universe, but can be seen to be consistent with the number of particles contained within (i.e. 10^80).

Is that cool or what?

[Curly]

Silly me for not explaining my reference to mankind was plural rather than singular.

[SeanMacGabhann]

No you didn't need to explain that curly, I got the implication - But I'm saying speak for yourself in claiming to speak for or about mankind as a whole

[Huguenot]

I think mankind's done a pretty good job, compared with say turnips.

Is Curly suggesting that the Bible was actually written as a sort of legal constitution cum social framework by fortune tellers with 2009 specifically in mind?

Why didn't they mention the internet then? Or to buy Yahoo! shares in 1995?

[Curly]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> I think mankind's done a pretty good job, compared

> with say turnips.

Yes a pretty good job at killing each other, global warming, managing the economy, eradicting poverty...... I vote for turnips.

>

> Is Curly suggesting that the Bible was actually

> written as a sort of legal constitution cum social

> framework by fortune tellers with 2009

> specifically in mind?

>

lol! I don't hold much to fortune tellers.

> Why didn't they mention the internet then? Or to

> buy Yahoo! shares in 1995?

I often ask myself that about the shares...and wonder...maybe they didn't want Sean to get any.

[Fear 'n boozin]

From the bbc fact of the day -

"The dwarfs of the Cameroon recognized only malevolent deities and did nothing to placate them on the grounds that it was useless to try. WILL DURANT (1885-1981) US historian."

I'd be happy to follow that beleif.

[macroban]

Thanks to HAL9000 I have now read Anselm's Proslogion (in translation). Fortunately it only runs to 30 pages.

It's a typical example of medieval religious scholasticism.

It also exemplifies the tedious nature of the genre and takes a long time to get into the argument.

It starts with a proem explaining why the piece was written (collecting Brownie points for heaven). Then the first chapter is a doxology (more Brownie points) just in case the reader doesn't understand where he's coming from. The argument only starts with chapter two. As has already been pointed out in this thread you really do need a definition of "god" at the start of the argument. Anselm does not give one, but I will grant that some of the attributes of "god" in the doxology may go towards this.

Anselm starts by designating a class of people who believe in "god" (fair enough) and from this asserts that there is only one other class: those who are outside the class of believers - the non-believing "fools".

A flaw at the outset.

I could write more. I won't. No-one would read it.

[HAL9000]

macroban Wrote:

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

> Thanks to HAL9000 I have now read Anselm's Proslogion

If you found that interesting then you're sure to appreciate Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225-1274), assuming you're not already a fan, especially his Summa Contra Gentiles where he lays down Catholic doctrine on bizarre questions such as, 'with who?s flesh shall cannibals be resurrected on the Day of Judgement?'

Just don't get me started on Talmudic Logic :)

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

Thou shalt not make spoons from thy father's bones!

[shoshntosh]

what if, when we die, we (as in our "souls" or our "essence" or whatever you want to call it... our "spirits"??) go exactly where we think they will go??

what if those who believe in heaven go to heaven. and those who believe in heaven but deep down think they belong in hell go to hell? and those who believe in nothing end up as nothing? and those who believe in reincarnation are reincarnated?

is that possible? just as likely as one of those answers being right, i suspect.

as for me, i'm with the 10,000 Maniacs: "Think I'll just let the mystery be."

(not sure where that will leave my soul). but maybe it's possible, too, that our deep beliefs are not always reflected by our surface intellect or our politics?

[silverfox]

Interesting theory

Humans are hardwired to believe in God, say scientists

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211511/Humans-hardwired-believe-God-say-scientists.html

[macroban]

Looks like another piece of low quality journalism to me. The original Sunday Times article was bad enough.

Sunday Times article - with reader comments.

[BellendenBear]

i believe in turnips

[Curly]

shoshntosh Wrote:

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

> what if, when we die, we (as in our "souls" or our

> "essence" or whatever you want to call it... our

> "spirits"??) go exactly where we think they will

> go??

>

lol! My uncle thinks Millwall will win the premiership but his believing it won't make it happen. I've never met anyone who believes they will go to hell, they just think other people go there - so how does that work? And would there be different heavens for Muslims and Christians? And what about the Agnostics who don't know what to believe?

The truth is you can make-up whatever you like but it doesn't make it true.

[Jeremy]

shoshntosh Wrote:

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

> what if, when we die, we (as in our "souls" or our

> "essence" or whatever you want to call it... our

> "spirits"??) go exactly where we think they will

> go??

When you say "soul" and "essence", I am interpreting this as our awareness/consciousness, combined with personality. In which case, this exists in the form of neurons and synapses. When we die the neurons stop firing, and then they will rot (or burn).

It's a bit like asking where the music goes if you melt down a CD. Or where the words have gone if you burn a book.

[silverfox]

Jeremy wrote:

"When you say "soul" and "essence", I am interpreting this as our awareness/consciousness, combined with personality. In which case, this exists in the form of neurons and synapses. When we die the neurons stop firing, and then they will rot (or burn).

It's a bit like asking where the music goes if you melt down a CD. Or where the words have gone if you burn a book."

Not quite as easy as that I'm afraid Jeremy. The neurons, synapses, electrical and chemical processes are necessary for consciousness/personality to arise. Digital encoding is necessary for the CD to play music and words are necessary for the stories and ideas in books.

I don't know what happens to a person's consciousness/personality when they die. And even if it dies with them his or her 'personality' can still live on at least indiectly in the form of memories with close relatives, colleagues etc. Also, if every LP, CD and sheet of music of, say, the song 'Let it Be' was destroyed the song and words would still live on and be preserved orally and in song. Similarly with the stories and ideas in books. In short, if ideas, concepts, music can live on independent of their creators and the processes that created them why dismiss the possibility that a person's 'essence/personality ('soul')' may continue independent of the death of the biological machine or body.

[Jeremy]

Of course people can be remembered. That's not the same thing as "continuing to exist" though, is it?

[silverfox]

The concepts 1+1=2 (dinary system) and E=MC2 can be said to exist as universal truths. Beethoven's Ninth Symphony exists and Tolstoy's War and Peace exists. If mankind is destroyed tomorrow along with all records and evidence of these concepts do these concepts die and no longer exist? There certainly won't be anyone around to remember them. But presumably 1+1=2 exists as a concept/fact/truth even if surviving dolphins or cockroaches know about it or not and could be said to continue to exist, always, and may always have existed from the dawn of time.

If matter cannot be destroyed, but continues to exist in it's different constituent parts or different aspects of it recombine atomically to form other matter why should we discount the possibility that some form of 'esssence' may continue to exist as distinct from the actual brain which will of course decay.

This isn't a particularly Christian notion and has appeared in many philosophical guises.

[Curly]

Good analogy Jeremy although most people that believe in life after death think the soul is a separate entity to the physical body and so can continue to exist and be conscious in another state even if the body dies. However even the bible says that at death a person is conscious of nothing at all and their soul dies.

[silverfox]

True Curly and Jeremy. It does all depend on whether one 'believes' there is a separate entity, soul or essence, of a person that is distinct from the physical body.

Surely that's incorrect Curly about the bible saying a soul dies at death? I've never studied the bible personally but that would seem to contradict the idea of losing one's soul and the soul going on after death

[Curly]

Most people haven't studied the bible or understand it and that's why so many 'myths' about what it says continue to persist.

Have a look at Ecclesiastes Chapter 9 verses 5 and 10. And Ezekiel Chapter 18 verses 4 and 20. Yes the bible does mention some going to heaven after they die but this was for a chosen few, not all and sundry.