Are you an atheist?

[Rabbie]

Rabbie,

I can't see why Genesis must be the universe.

001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters.

001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the
light from the darkness.

001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

001:006 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Since I regard Genesis (and the rest) as a fairy story don't ask me to explain it to you. I am sure our Christian friends believe that God created everything and is not just a branch manager as you put it.

 

[Rich]

Rabbie,

I can't see why Genesis must be the universe.

001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters.

001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the
light from the darkness.

001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

001:006 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

How many books contain and support these statements with evidence?

 

[Mike375]

How many books contain and support these statements with evidence?

They are a bit light on But thereare a lot of books trying to refute it

Although if you believe Big Bang there was a beginning.

 

[Rich]

Although if you believe Big Bang there was a beginning.

By the same token your god must have a beginning too

 

[ColinEssex]

By the same token your god must have a beginning too

Anyone know where god came from? (if there is a god)

Col

 

[Mike375]

Anyone know where god came from? (if there is a god)

Col

If is supernatural then that is not relevant. Whatever it/he/she are is above or outside any physics.

There are two possibilities. The universe either had a beginning or has always been there. In either case it is outside physics.

 

[Rabbie]

Mike, reading your recent posts I am a little confused. You seem to saying that

1. Some supernatural power created the universe via the Big Bang
2. This supernatural power delegated his authority to the god of the bible to create the solar system.

Step 2 seems to be completely unnecessary to me so I reject it under the principal of Occam's razor.

The Big Bang however it was caused approx 14 billion years ago is sufficient to account for the creation of the solar system approx 4.5 billion years ago. No need to introduce a second supernatural creation.

Having looked at the options of supernaturals I think Father Christmas is a better bet than your supernatural being who doesn't give a halfpenny for this part of his creation according to you or the god of the bible who seems to have a lot of personal problems.

 

[Mike375]

Mike, reading your recent posts I am a little confused. You seem to saying that

1. Some supernatural power created the universe via the Big Bang

That is a possible scenario.

2. This supernatural power delegated his authority to the god of the bible to create the solar system.

My feeling for the last few years is that there are different levels of superanatural.

Step 2 seems to be completely unnecessary to me so I reject it under the principal of Occam's razor.

On the surface I agree. However, it is impossible for the little lizard in the backyard to work out what the man is doing. To try and work out why or what a supernatural does it is necessary to keep in mind that we are the liitle lizard or ant in the back yard.

The Big Bang however it was caused approx 14 billion years ago is sufficient to account for the creation of the solar system approx 4.5 billion years ago. No need to introduce a second supernatural creation.

As above.

Having looked at the options of supernaturals I think Father Christmas is a better bet than your supernatural being who doesn't give a halfpenny for this part of his creation according to you or the god of the bible who seems to have a lot of personal problems.

Like many people you want to base the existence of a supernatural on the basis of how we think it/he/she should act and if it does not measue up then we deny its existence. Kids collect insects for short term pets, get bored and then pull their wings off but that does not change the fact that the kid rules the back yard.

The reasons I think the way I do and have for a few years is:

1) Something is outside or above physics when it comes to the existence of the universe. Blokes like Hawking and Davies have basically said this themselves. Hawking has said pre Big Bang no longer relates to us and we will never know so it can be ignored. They are probably wrong but they are at the engine room of this sort of stuff. I don't know about others but I certainly don't have the qualifications to over ride them.

2) I find it very difficult to see how a supernatural at this level is involved with us. Hawking and Co would also seem to indicate this.

3) However, I see and continue to see things which to me indicate some sort of outside force at work. Perhaps this is the god portrayed in the Bible...I don't know. Medical specialists as a group say the same thing. Here we have people who probably have the highest level of tertiary education there is, a training/filtering system so that they see a person as no more than object etc and etc.

But if this topic runs again in the future my views might be different. I am an agnostic and currently have a leaning to a supernatural as well as lower levels. Lower levels of supernatural might not be supernatural in the full sense. They could be beings that compared to us are like us compared to lizards, insects or chimps etc.

 

[Rabbie]

1) Something is outside or above physics when it comes to the existence of the universe. Blokes like Hawking and Davies have basically said this themselves. Hawking has said pre Big Bang no longer relates to us and we will never know so it can be ignored. They are probably wrong but they are at the engine room of this sort of stuff. I don't know about others but I certainly don't have the qualifications to over ride them.

It doesn't seemed to have stopped you from trying in some of your earlier posts

Remember just because we can't know something does not prove a supernatural solution. Similarly we cannot disprove a supernatural solution. You cannot actually disprove that the entire universe was created yesterday including the evidence that says it is much much older.

 

[Mike375]

It doesn't seemed to have stopped you from trying in some of your earlier posts

I have used them to support my case.

Remember just because we can't know something does not prove a supernatural solution. Similarly we cannot disprove a supernatural solution. You cannot actually disprove that the entire universe was created yesterday including the evidence that says it is much much older.

None of this stuff can be proved and that is one of the reasons I find it amazing that someone can be 100% sure that the answer is coming from physics. The poeople who go with religion is easy to understand because their's is a faith thing.

I really think the atheist thing is more about stating a position.

 

[Rabbie]

I really think the atheist thing is more about stating a position.

Now I am worried. We seem to be in agreement over this. I hope it doesn't mean i need to denormalise my databases

 

[Alisa]

None of this stuff can be proved and that is one of the reasons I find it amazing that someone can be 100% sure that the answer is coming from physics.

Who in this thread has claimed that they are 100% sure that the answer will come from physics? The only thing I have said is that I believe the answer will not turn out to be supernatural.

The poeople who go with religion is easy to understand because their's is a faith thing.

Religion is not "easy" to understand, if fact, you have said in this very thread that we are not supposed to understand it.

 

[Alisa]

No, you say you are 100% correct while allowing for other possibilities. Hardly scientific. Allowing for other possibities means you are not 100% and thus you are agnostic.

That is the very definition of scientific. It is scientific to draw a conclusion that you are happy with for the moment, but that you are open to reconsidering if the evidence changes.

Would you please provide your definition of agnostic? You obviously prefer to stick with the semantics of this argument rather than the underlying issues which I have tried to bring into the discussion several times. I think it is very funny that you are hellbent on proving that I am "agnostic", which would put me in the same category as you. Do you really want to be associated with someone like me?

 

[Alisa]

Maybe you should be then.
The USA citizens are so insular they care or know nothing of what happens outside the USA borders.
Col

That may be true of some (or many?) Americans, but I know many people that are very concerned about what goes on in the rest of the world, and the image the rest of the world has about us.

Perhaps - just perhaps the world may be a safer place if the USA citizens did a little more to influence their leaders into doing something to benefit the world and not destroy it for all mankind.

Unfortunately, the U.S. ceased to function as a democracy quite some time ago. The influence that us average citizen's hold is close to null. All legislation is written by and passed for the benefit of the corporations who send their lobbyists to Washington. Who we vote for no longer matters at all - the supreme court already decided that it is not necessary to even maintain the appearance of counting ballots. Maybe if we rioted more often like the French do, we would excercise some influence . . .

 

[Alisa]

I would agree with the absurdity of putting restraints on God or gods.

That is exactly my point. It is impossibile to definitively prove that there is no god. So I can't outright dismiss the possibility of his existence. I can however say that natural explanations for supernatural phenomena have been found over and over again throughout history, while supernatural explanations for natural phenomena have never been found. Not even once in all of human history. Therefore, I believe that there are no supernatural forces in the universe. I allow for the possibility that I am wrong. But I think that my conclusion is reasonable given the (lack of) evidence we have so far. So while I cannot say for sure that god does not exist, I can say that if there was a god, I believe that he would exist within the natural universe. This is obviously absurd in the context of the image that religions paint of god, who has the powers of every comic book superhero and then some. Every religion attributes to god any and all abilities that they feel he should have. My point is that this image of god that the major religions portray IS ridiculous and absurd, and I reject it. Even though I cannot definitively reject the possible existence of A god, I can and do reject the existence of this "superhero" god who can with the snap of his fingers (does he have fingers?) create the entire universe and earth and all life on earth, but yet does not stop world hunger or wars.

 

[dan-cat]

That is exactly my point. It is impossibile to definitively prove that there is no god.

You didn't say this at all.

This is what you said.

The possible god that I allow for exists within the constraints of the natural universe, while the possible god that you allow for is firmly outside the natural universe. Two completely different concepts.

You allow for the possibility of a God that exists constrained within the boundaries of natural law. That is to say, a being which is subject to the laws of nature and is therefore NOT supernatural. If it is therefore natural, according to you, it can be proven to exist/not exist via the laws of nature can it not?

 

[Alisa]

You allow for the possibility of a God that exists constrained within the boundaries of natural law. That is to say, a being which is subject to the laws of nature and is therefore NOT supernatural. If it is therefore natural, according to you, it can be proven to exist/not exist via the laws of nature can it not?

Yes, that is right.

 

[dan-cat]

Yes, that is right.

A god that is subject to law isn't really the God that this poll addresses is it?

 

[Alisa]

A god that is subject to law isn't really the God that this poll addresses is it?

This poll addresses all different conceptions of god.
I believe that since I started the poll, I can say that with 100% certainty, without allowing for the possibility that I am wrong.

 

[Rabbie]

You allow for the possibility of a God that exists constrained within the boundaries of natural law. That is to say, a being which is subject to the laws of nature and is therefore NOT supernatural. If it is therefore natural, according to you, it can be proven to exist/not exist via the laws of nature can it not?

In my opinion a being defined as above is not a god but just an example of a being more advanced than us.