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

I Find it interesting how many of you answered my question with a preconceived notion of what I meant! I enjoyed all the responses, but my question did not concern religion or morals, yet many assumed it did! My question, quite plainly, was, Is there a Prime mover, a grand intelligence, a divine hand behind all that we see, or did all this just happen with out the direction of an intelligent hand? It was not ,Did Jesus come to save us, or, is it a sin not to believe in God, or, is the bible the truth, etc., etc., etc.
I am really glad this thread has been resurrected as I am looking forward to reading more of your responses!!!

Thanks again to all that have already posted!

I am a rabid atheist, but I don't mind if other folks believe in some sort of supernatural beings.

As long as they don't get aggressive and try to shove it down my throat or label me as a freak for not thinking like they do.

Magical thinking has never made sense to me, except when it comes to honing...

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.

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 believe there is a God, and that we are his children. I wouldn't try to force that belief on anyone, but I will discuss it whenever and wherever I can, and not just in church. This is a part of who I am, not just an hour on Sunday. That said, I am truly ashamed of the spectacle put forth by many of the televangelists and money-grubbers. I think it is worthwhile to note that the only time Jesus really got angry in the gospels was at the money-changers in the temple.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

...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...

To assume that your perceptions and logical assertions should frame and define the possibility of the existence of your Creator is an error in common sense

In other words, if the created could frame and bind the creator, then wouldn't the creator be the created of its creation? And is that what you're implying?

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.

Hog: 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), but not only that, it requires that the impossible happened in an extremely sophisticated manner to boot.

But yes, history will show that god is as much a creation of man as man is said to be a creation of god.

Even if you play the unintelligible card, your still ceding the notion that a creator is imperfect by the vary act of creating and is therefore not worth worshiping.

Anyone care to comment on the "collective unconscious" as a model for developing religious beliefs?

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.

Hog, even if you allow for supernatural events and laws that are unintelligible to us, it's still holds that there are equal odds of the "creator" being an intelligent being or an interplay of different forms of energy and suffusing fields and to posit opinions on his form is an exercise in futility.

Norman, when we say supernatural, it's implied that the statement involves anything outside of the natural laws of nature. So if your view is that the order and workings of nature are what you call "god" than there is no contradiction to my statement. A natural creator is simpler than a supernatural one, but he is then bound by the laws that restrict every other constituent of the universe.