Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

i don't suppose the creator would have created those laws to govern creation itself

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Ah, yes, well the point is that to believe in a supernatural creator requires something "impossible" to have happened (with respect to the laws we can be cognizant of)

Russel, what about a "natural creator?" Some of us (even scientists like Einstein) see God working in and through nature. Nothing "supernatural" about it; it's as natural as anything else.

I believe many people who do not believe in God (Gods?) or even a creator of any kind, have simply restricted their views to their own interpretations of what they think"God" should be defined as, and in turn, believe their version of what creation is or how it occured (and of course their definition of God, as well) could not be reality.
Personally, I think this just demonstrates a lack of free thought.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Hey Mark, thanks for keeping this focused.

I guess I answered your question with my first post: No,there cannot be a designer.

To assume that the complexity that we see around us could only have occurred through the work of a being that is more complex than the reality we see around us is an error in logic.

In other words, if simple, unintelligent, clumps of energy couldn't have always existed, or come about by chance, than neither could a supremely intelligent, ultimately powerful, creator. And since one of the two situations is obviously true, the simplest solution is the safe bet.

Hi again Russel...
As for your first point, a forest fire can be started with a single match...yet when hundreds of thousands of acres has burned along with many homes....that one act sure did cascade a bit. Likewise your own argument works both ways and is inconclusive. If simple unintelligent clumps of energy could have existed over an infinite amount of time, the same logic could be said that if there is intelligence *now* how do we know it hasn't existed before? In fact, if the clumps of energy theory requires one to believe in something that is technically unfathomable (something without a beginning or end, for instance) then it has no advantage over belief in a creator pre-existent to life here.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

As for the posts about morality, the validity of the religious doctrines of the world, etc. I think they're on topic because that kind of info ought to be incorporated into your thought process for determining such a weighty question. Obviously, there are people who rest their beliefs on superficial arguments like incredulity but for them, those arguments are very real and deserve consideration for the topic as a whole.

Do you care to exchange insights on the above opinions? I'd like to know what you're making of all of this (plotting something fun, maybe? prizes for the winner? ).

I think morality is a socially required process, and whether instated by a creator or through simple trial and error, even instinct perhaps-societies would cease to exist rapidly without it. Different religions have different versions of how one should behave, and what defines "moral"-and there is generally a basic overlap throughout almost all religions, and in their absence, civil codes. Religious doctrines often seem to ritualize some of these, in addition to certain rites each religion believes seals its good favor with whatever Deit(ies) it believes in.
Otherwise, without morality (religious or otherwise) we would have long ago slaughtered each other completely, as greed is only restrained by that same sense of morality. IF I see a pretty girl, I cannot simply kill her boyfriend and take her, likewise if my wife wants a new car I cannot simply go take one from the neighbor. Wild animals DO behave this way, but for some reason humankind has always punished this type of behavior.
Again, perhaps this has all been covered in the few pages I skipped.

John P.