The God Delusion

[Nooby]

Brick,

 

It's only easy to blame 'religion' for those things when you ignore the MANY more deaths, tortures and other nastiness committed by the IRRELIGIOUS. In the last century alone they killed about 150 MILLION people, more than all the deaths caused by 'religion' in the whole of history. Regardless of the justification, be it 'religion' or 'the betterment of mankind' or the 'improvement of the species', the human race is just rotten to the core and while 'most' people just want to get on with life it's the number of psychopaths who seek power over others that stuff it up for everyone. Blame 'religion' all you like. My point in this is that you can't justify those kinds of things to the Christ of the scriptures.

 

Joe,

 

"The problem I have with religion is that it inevitably descends into a pissing contest about who has the greater/more powerful/more relevant imaginary friend."

 

...or a massive winge by those who don't even HAVE an imaginary friend.

 

But I wonder why is it a 'problem for you', personally, that people like to discuss/argue these things?

[brick]

Noob, I just get annoyed when ppl make comments "inane arguements" that is not very Christian!

[smokinjoe]

 

 

Joe,

 

"The problem I have with religion is that it inevitably descends into a pissing contest about who has the greater/more powerful/more relevant imaginary friend."

 

...or a massive winge by those who don't even HAVE an imaginary friend.

 

But I wonder why is it a 'problem for you', personally, that people like to discuss/argue these things?

 

I guess I should have said the problem with discussing religion.

 

Personally I couldn't care less if one's religious practice involved covering the nut sack of a dog in honey and licking it off on the first solar eclipse of the year; you go for it if that's what you believe.

 

I've always been curious, if God created everything where did he/she come from and what existed before God (of any persuasion)?

[Nooby]

 

 

Joe,

 

"The problem I have with religion is that it inevitably descends into a pissing contest about who has the greater/more powerful/more relevant imaginary friend."

 

...or a massive winge by those who don't even HAVE an imaginary friend.

 

But I wonder why is it a 'problem for you', personally, that people like to discuss/argue these things?

 

I guess I should have said the problem with discussing religion.

 

Personally I couldn't care less if one's religious practice involved covering the nut sack of a dog in honey and licking it off on the first solar eclipse of the year; you go for it if that's what you believe.

 

I've always been curious, if God created everything where did he/she come from and what existed before God (of any persuasion)?

 

 

HI there,

 

Yeah that's a popular question, it does have an answer, but not many can see it for some reason? It seems completely natural and logical to us to ask that question about God as we live in a cause-and-effect universe, for EVERYTHING that can conceive of has come into being, or had a beginning or some sort or another. When we ask regressive questions all the way back to the 'beginning', then why not ask one more: "Who made God"? The problem though is that the logic doesn't actually work, and it doesn't work because we are asking the question about the nature some thing (God) believing that it's a valid question in that context because it's valid to ask it about different things (the universe and everything in it). Here's what I mean, does it make sense to ask "How long is the smell of a rose"? or "What is the name of Sydney's first married bachelor"? No it doesn't, the question doesn't apply to the things you are asking the question about. In the same way it doesn't make sense (logically) to ask "Where did God come from"? or "Who made God"? as God is the (ultimate) SOURCE of everything else and there was literally no 'where' for him to come from. Now this doesn't work if you try to apply it to a purely physical universe as we have already noted, everything in the universe and even the universe itself had a beginning at some point or another and all of those things in the universe either came into being through natural causation or through agent (personal) causation. So when we ask regressive questions about the nature of the universe we get all the way back to the big bang but as (for the atheist/naturalist) their is no outside causation agent we end up have to believe that the universe popped into being out of nowhere caused by nothing which is again a logical absurdity. There are ways around this of course, you can claim that the universe itself is God or that everything is an illusion anyway but those have never been very satisfying answers to me and leave a lot of questions unanswered.

 

All very hard for our finite minds to come to grips with I realise, but hope that kind of makes sense.

[smokinjoe]

All very hard for our finite minds to come to grips with I realise, but hope that kind of makes sense.

 

Absolutely none and provides no further explanation, however I wasn't really expecting one; not least a logical explanation in any case.

[Nooby]

All very hard for our finite minds to come to grips with I realise, but hope that kind of makes sense.

 

Absolutely none and provides no further explanation, however I wasn't really expecting one; not least a logical explanation in any case.

 

In what was is it not logical?

[Frazz]

owwww rite it does make sense

thanks for the perspective

 

[smokinjoe]

All very hard for our finite minds to come to grips with I realise, but hope that kind of makes sense.

 

Absolutely none and provides no further explanation, however I wasn't really expecting one; not least a logical explanation in any case.

 

In what was is it not logical?

 

I don't know where, how or when the universe "popped" into being, nor do I pretend to, and frankly nor do I really care. It's there, it's a mystery I may or may not get to discover the secret at some point in time or in another life or whatever, but at the end of the day there is no explanation more plausible than another in my view.

[Nooby]

So there was nothing 'illogical' about what I postulated then?

 

If you prefer to remain agnostic about it all then that's your choice, but if you already have your mind made up then I wonder why you asked the question in the first place?

 

And maybe for you "there is no explanation more plausible than another in my view." but if we eliminate some of the logical impossibilities that should narrow the field down a bit. (At least for the handful of people who DO want some kind of answers)

[smokinjoe]

Nooby, I would prefer to discuss MJ than JC.

 

I really respect some of JC's teachings, they hold value and really should be common sense, but the paranormal clap trap that goes along with it is in my opinion just that.

 

I see absolutely no logic whatsoever in your post above.

 

How long is the smell of a rose? Simply as long as the perfume lasts.

 

What is the name of Sydney's first married bachelor? not possible to be a married bachelor, what's your point?

 

You are "asking" me to accept your version of the answer as the truth, when in fact you can not demonstrate it to be true, or even close to it.