h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm not sure I understand why we need a God to "carry on" or to put meaning into our lives. Personally my life is so full that I don't need some artificial injection of the supernatural to keep me going. *I* am the reason *I* carry on. It's as simple as that.

As for the argument that "if proof of God was incontrovertible, there would be no need for any religion or faith, as everyone would believe in God" well, what's wrong with that?

We all believe in gravity without making a song and dance about it or making up some ridiculous stories about it. It seems to me that people believe in God because they don't have any other explanation.

As for your challenge: "If you can prove anything to me incontrovertibly, go ahead and do so. I would suggest that you think about it properly before you do so."

1 < 2

Is that incontrovertible enough?

Agonistes

"We all believe in gravity without making a song and dance about it or making up some ridiculous stories about it. It seems to me that people believe in God because they don't have any other explanation."

But people believe in "gravity" because no-one has a more sensible explanation!

"As for the argument that "if proof of God was incontrovertible, there would be no need for any religion or faith, as everyone would believe in God" well, what's wrong with that? "

You're looking for an incontrovertible proof that God exists. I'm saying that an incontrovertible proof does not exist. This does not mean that God does not exist.

"As for your challenge: "If you can prove anything to me incontrovertibly, go ahead and do so. I would suggest that you think about it properly before you do so."

1 < 2

Is that incontrovertible enough?"

No. I refuse to believe you. Mathematics is a human construct designed to help us try to understand the world around us. You cannot prove anything in mathematics without using mathematics to do it, so you cannot do it incontrovertibly. I could invent a new branch of mathematics where your statement is not true.

"I'm not sure I understand why we need a God to "carry on" or to put meaning into our lives. Personally my life is so full that I don't need some artificial injection of the supernatural to keep me going. *I* am the reason *I* carry on. It's as simple as that."

So why are you looking for an "incotrovertible proof" that God exists then?

me[Andy]g

"I've seen many theories in physics that get disproved because there is no proof that they can actually occur. It's pure speculation, until you can actually see it first hand. So what would make the theory of god existing, or even even agonistas creating the universe any different. There is no first hand evidence of either happening."

Well yes.. but by definition there cannot ever be any first hand evidence of either of those things happening. There is no first hand evidence that William Shakespeare wrote, say, Romeo and Juliet, apart from his signature on the original manuscript. But people believe that he did. So a Christian would say that they see the "signature" of God in the created world is good enough evidence for them to believe.

"as to the meaning of life, I (and i think most of the athiests that I know) have given up on this question. There is no point to it. Why should life have a meaning? We are alive, and the only thing that we attempt to explain (as scientists) is how the mechanism works. I could be wrong in this view, but so could the christians. There are as many holes in each, and neither is more beleivable thatn the other. It really is a question of faith, which is something that is not really definable, it is simply a feeling, different for each individual human."

If you are willing to believe this, I have no problem with that. Everyone is free to choose how they live their life. But if there are "as many holes in each" then I don't think that "giving up" on the meaning of life is a logical conclusion. You should still be trying to search for it. Of course, if you're happy the way you are, then possibly you don't need or want to do so, but if there are "holes" in what you do believe (and you do believe in something - you believe that there is no reason for life to have a meaning) then you still need to ask yourself why you believe it.

me[Andy]g

All very good points, but if I don't beleive we need to search for a meaning to life, then why whould I search for it? That's the point.

<>

I'll have to disagree with you on that point, if you proved that agonistes statement is untrue, by inventing a branch of mathematics, it would disprove mathematics, which is what you used to disprove it. It really wouldn't work. Mathematics works by an entirely different, it doesn't move forward by disproving what was laid down before hand. It progresses by building on the definition. Which is what it is, mathematics is defined to explain the world around us, just as a hammer is defined as something you use as a tool to hammer nails and do all sorts of other jobs. And there are many types of hammers to do specific jobs, same with mathematics, small subsections that can be used to do other kinds of work.

Further to the point. Mathematics is simply a tool, just as a hammer is. No one is going to argue that a hammer is wrong fundamentally because it was constructed by human beings. It works for the job it was defined to do, the same is true with mathematics.

"All very good points, but if I don't beleive we need to search for a meaning to life, then why whould I search for it? That's the point."

I thought that was what I said too! You're perfectly free to choose to live your life the way you want to - no-one has any right to force you to do otherwise. You should come to your own logical conclusions about life and live based on those.

I think I worded my response to the maths proof wrongly. As you say later, maths was designed to do something to help humans understand the universe. The universe does not run because of maths - if maths did not exist, the universe still would exist. Hence nothing outside of maths can be proved incontrovertibly by maths. Maths / common sense / what we see in the universe can prove maths incontrovertibly, but if you took maths away then the universe would still be there.

me[Andy]g

"if you took maths away then the universe would still be there"

Atheists have taken God away from the universe - and it's still there and running just fine.

Agonistes

And that's my point exactly. And your point too. You can take any concept you want out of the universe and it will still run fine.

If you're looking for an incontrovertible proof (of any concept), then you're not going to find one. Some Christians would probably say that Jesus is an incontrovertible proof of God. I say that given the evidence that I have on paper, it's good enough for me at the moment and I see no reason to change my mind at the moment.

If you try to claim that the universe was not created, or came from nothing, then you're on dodgy ground scientifically. You can believe it all you want to, but you're running the risk of being totally wrong.

At the end of the day, the way everyone lives their life means they are running the risk of being totally wrong. But that doesn't mean you should blindly follow whatever you first believe in - or that you should blindly follow what someone else believes. It's up to you to question why you exist, where you came from, and where you are going - and if you attach no importance to those three questions, then fine - but there's really no point looking for an incontrovertible proof of God if you're not going to at least consider them.

me[Andy]g

What we all seem to be forgetting in this discussion is that the new testament is a collection of texts agreed on by various church councils during the 3 & 4 centuries CE.

Numerous texts in common usage at the time were left out, principally because they did not fit with the dogma proposed by the church elders & or were used by opposing christian sects.

The new testament is at best a partial collection of religious teachings and should be considered in the context of the political and religious climate of the times within which it was created. We should also consider how much editing of the texts that were included was carried out in order to make them also confirm to the dogma of the day.

Further, it does none of us, christian or otherwise, any service to poke fun at the bible by taking passages out of context or picking up on minor errors such as measurements. This is a sacred book to those who believe and for those of us who don't (myself included) it is still a useful text as it helps us to understand the motivations and actions of many people today and in the past.

That's a very good point Ross. I think we were simply trying to confront the text on the basis of how most people who beleive in it do so. They (for the most part) do not see this text as being written at that time, as foolish as that seems. Just from the historical infomation provided, it had to have been written in a book form after the last event that happened in it. (which I don't happen to remember off hand)

<>

I do hope you're referring to the entry itself and not to the discussion, because I don't think any of us really care about those minor inconsistancies that much, they're humorous yes, but that's about it. If you are referring to the entry, it has the ending 'a perspective' for a reason. It's an opinion. If someone has a problem with the perspective given in that entry....then maybe it's time somebody wrote a response essay.

"That's a very good point Ross. I think we were simply trying to confront the text on the basis of how most people who beleive in it do so. They (for the most part) do not see this text as being written at that time, as foolish as that seems. Just from the historical infomation provided, it had to have been written in a book form after the last event that happened in it. (which I don't happen to remember off hand)"

I'm sure there is evidence (I don't know how much) for the gospel texts at least being around in the 1st century AD.

Quite apart from that though, why should a "religious textbook" have to be historical? Why does "truth" have to be based on verifiable facts and historical occurences?

me[Andy]g

Engels, in suggesting that it does us no good to poke fun I was referring to the general habit we have, myself included, to highlight the absurd, the inconsistent etc in an argument book etc rather than taking a more holistic view.

For myself as a non believer, I would rather take argument with the bible as a whole rather than with its internal inconsistencies or absurdities (of which there are numerous - a number of which this discussion has highlighted).

Further, I feel that the real problem today is not the bible itself, but the way that christian sects (I include in this all christian churches of all denominations) teach their members to interpret it. There are as many interpretations as there are denominations, yet you all claim to be christians, but you on the whole forget to show tolerance and "christian goodwill" to your fellow men (& women).

"Further, I feel that the real problem today is not the bible itself, but the way that christian sects (I include in this all christian churches of all denominations) teach their members to interpret it. There are as many interpretations as there are denominations, yet you all claim to be christians, but you on the whole forget to show tolerance and "christian goodwill" to your fellow men (& women)."

Most of the time the interpretations that create the differences are unimportant when it comes to the true centre of Christianity. Most Christians would tell you that the same person - Jesus Christ - is at the centre of their faith, and that he is the reason for their faith.

I accept that many interpretations have caused problems / wars / denominations etc. etc. etc. but these interpretations do not represent true Christianity.

However, I think I show tolerance (most of the time; maybe I'm different to other Christians you know)... I will argue what I believe, but I should be allowed the right to argue that. I have said it before in this conversation, and I will say it again: people are free to make up their own mind about Christianity, Jesus Christ and God. That's the way I believe God created it to be, and it seems perfectly fair to me. At the end of the day, no Christian can claim to have saved anyone else except themselves - the conscious decision has to be made by the individual, not their friends - and say, if someone became a Christian due to peer pressure (I've seen it happen), they would not be making a decision for themselves.

me[Andy]g

me[Andy]g I agree that everyone has a right to express their opinions, views and beliefs.

What I disagree with and I am not suggesting that you have done this, is when people use their views as a cudgel to beat those with opposing views around the head with.

An example from the christian denominational differences arena would be the much celebrated quote by Rev Dr Ian Paisley that "all catholics should be killed at birth" - this demonstrates all the things that are currently wrong with "organised" christianity; it also clearly ignores the ten commandments and the broader message of the bible.

You are right that if you are a practicing christian your first responsibility is to save yourself, though this should not prevent you from coming to the aid and assistance of others.

"You are right that if you are a practicing christian your first responsibility is to save yourself, though this should not prevent you from coming to the aid and assistance of others."

Very true - I guess this is the reason why I joined this conversation in the first place - to try and answer people's questions from my perspective.

As reagrds Mr Paisley (I have no respect for him, so I don't want to call him Rev Dr), most Christians I know ignore everything he says. I think most people (not just Christians) have given up trying to reason with him, because his views are so far from the general views that most Christians hold.

me[Andy]g

<>

I definately agree with you in full on this point. And I fully agree as well that people are allowed to have their own thoughts and opinions. All I'm trying to say is that there shouldn't be any problem what so ever with this entry if you beleive in that. This article is just that, an opinion.

My true problem with christianity also lies in the inconsintancies, although I wouldn't say that those inconsintancies are the only reason that I'm athiest, there's way more to it than that. I truly don't see how the bible, or any other religious text could possibly be the true words of a deity, as it's written by human hands.

I would on the other hand say that religious works are more of a clouded history...but there's no way in knowing whether or not it's an actual history (probably not IMO)

And I'm not going to get into a debate about objectivity or subjectivity of those works, unless I really have to, my head hurts still from the last time...

<>

There's nothing really hard to understand about that. You've heard of a secretary, who just gets told what to write. It's the same situation exactly.

As for being an atheist, there are only really two ways to believe we got here, through evolution or creation. And while creation is a pretty simple matter, evolution is a bit of a long shot, wouldn't you say? DNA molecules coming together of their own accord? Molecules being oxidised in a reducing atmosphere?
The more I learn about science, the more firmly my belief in God grows. In fact, while coming up with a model of the universe that allowed for both predestination and free will, I eventually found that I had restated the theory of relativity, only without the formulae. (It was largely to do with spacetime, and my theory predicted a speed limit for the universe(but not what it was) and the time and space would appear to distort as you approached that speed)

<<There are as many interpretations as there are denominations, yet you all claim to be christians, but you on the whole forget to show tolerance and "christian goodwill" to your fellow men (& women).>>
If there were a group of scientists, and a group of alchemists who claim to be scientists. Would this mean that science was wrong? What if there were 10 false groups? What if there were 1000? The true scientists would always be there somewhere, and practising the true idealism of science (theory based on fact). The fact that some religions like Catholicism have promoted wars, intolerance of independant thought etc. doesn't mean that there are no true christians. Indeed, we usually refer to such religions in contradiction to Jesus as 'Christendom', rather than Christianity.

<<<<There are as many interpretations as there are denominations, yet you all claim to be christians, but you on the whole forget to show tolerance and "christian goodwill" to your fellow men (& women).>>
If there were a group of scientists, and a group of alchemists who claim to be scientists. Would this mean that science was wrong? What if there were 10 false groups? What if there were 1000? The true scientists would always be there somewhere, and practising the true idealism of science (theory based on fact).>>

My point was that as individual christians many, though not all, fail to adhere to even the simplest of biblical teachings. I was not trying and as a non believer am not qualified, to decide/judge which is the "true faith"/"most faithful sect" etc and which isn't.

I do believe that the bible has many things in it that are a good guide to civilised behaviour and are applicable to all irrespective of creed/religion. e.g. thou shall not steal. In fact if we all (the whole world) were to simply follow the 10 commandments we would all be a good deal better off.

<>

Yes insight, I have heard of a secretary, and that's a decent point. My only problem with that is the secretary is millions of people passing down information for thousands of years before it was actually written down anywhere. Have you ever heard of something called the 'telephone game'? I've seen kids play it, and there's not really all that much going on except the possible alteration of one fact. That one fact spreads out and changes the rest of the intereperetations. So it's not really the same situation at all you see. It is for this reason that we have no way of knowing whether or not this information presented in any religious text is wholly accurate.

<>

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. Sure, there's creation and evolution, but there's definatley more to evolution than random creation from the 'primordial soup' of the early Earth. I'm not even sure if that's the most leading theory anymore, that's just what they teach you in the high school books to get the idea across. There's bunches of other ways for life to have gotten here, or at least the spark of life anyways. Although one isn't more beleivable than the other.

Since that's really the only question isn't it?.

Evolution is pretty beleivable when you look at it macroscopically. Look at fossil records, it seems to fit pretty nicely. I have a fish on my desk that breathes through lungs as well as gills. It's because of it's natural habitat of living in small pools of water that it has this. Want something else for evolution? This fish is not brightly coloured in the wild naturally. The only reason it's brightly coloured now is that we've speeded up it's evolution (or changed it) by selecting a variable we like. Corn is much the same way. Originally corn was a vegtable that existed as the size of your thumb. Now you can find varieties that grow to be almost two feet long in some instances. Why is this? because we have changed it's evolution, we selected a property we liked (bigger corn) and propogated those genes.

The only problem with either creation of evolution in my mind is that there's equal proof for the two, and equal proof against the two.

The only real way to go is with your own intuition, you have to know what you beleive. I'm not going to try and tell you that you're wrong, because you're not, but neither am I. There is no 'right or wrong' since there is no real way of knowing what really happened.

<>

Is there any way you could explain this? It sounds really interesting...and being interested in relativity myself, I thought maybe I'd take a look

Oh and Ross, I definately agree with you that religion has many good qualities to it. It'd be wonderful if we all followed the ten commandments. It's just good common sense. There's many other ideas in other religions that would be nice to follow.

PHEW!!

Engels42 I agree - at the heart of all the religions I have looked at there is a core of beliefs that dictate a humane and civilised way to behave to your fellow men.

If we followed these, things would be much more hunky dory.

Regarding the commentry re evolution, as a former science student (biochemistry) my beliefs/views, like yours tend towards the evolution rather than creation theory for life on earth.

Any way thats it for now folks the weekend is upon us and Im off to enjoy myself.

David's theory (aka Insight), as far as I can remember, concerns itself partly with prediction - he stated that God cannot know the result of an action until He has enacted it, and that the course of any universe He made would immediately become known to Him after he made it - so, for example, in the Garden of Eden, God could not have known that Eve would fall into temptation until she was made.
HIs illustration of this went thus: he produced a piece of string and called it the universe with two dimensions - one of 'space', one of 'time'. 'Making' the universe consisted of dropping it on a table, calling the direction from left-to-right the spatial dimension, and that from far edge to near edge time: -

###=### ^Time
####\\## |
####||## |
####//## |
<--------->
Space

He was basically stating that, once dropped, he knows the 'future' direction of the string - but not before hand. I can't recall where the speed-of-light thing came in, but it *could* have had to do with the fact that the string could not be more than 90? to the 'time' dimension. Notice that this is a *guess*...
I am aware of this much because David took it upon himself to explain it all at great depth with me in RL. Hopefully, that will suffice for an explanation, since (from my knowledge) David seldom has the patience to clarify his ideas. Please do not address any questions to me - David long ago exceeded all human measure of intelligence (or so it often seems) and therefore I am not qualified to say any more on his behalf. If you ask David, best be prepared to wait a month - or several. If you understand any of it, you are now overqualified to live - please report to the suicide chamber on your left...

- Jordan