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

So you have confidence that God will not collapse if you sit on him in the same way as a well-made chair? How about the same way as if you sat on the ground?

Why?

I sit on chairs and generally they don't break. But I can't test God (by sitting on him or otherwise), so I don't see how it can be comparable?

I shall leave aside the semantically problematic usages of the word believe, and instead...

<>

Aren't they? If one believes in a god who is bound by the laws of nature/physics what does this belief add to science and logic? If you don't then science and logic are irrelevant - you could never know when they were operative, and when not.

<>

At what level of analysis? Plainly people have purposes, but a purpose for the universe in general?

<>

They were written by people, about the same problems of purpose and explanation that we all face. What, over and above that, seems to "ring true"?

Noggin

Oh, and yes, I have read them.

Noggin

<>
These laws are part of the world that God created. Therefore if the answer to an individual's behaviour problem is psychological, the existence of God is not called into question..rather, the psychological 'answer' to the behaviour problem is all part of God's creation. The law of gravity is part of God's creation.
One reason for the Gospels being so mind-blowing is that they are historical documents recording a God-moment in history when, at various times and in various ways God suspended the natural order and displayed the miraculous, so that we might believe.

<<<>At what level of analysis? Plainly people have purposes, but a purpose for the universe in general?>>

For 'purpose' read 'meaning' here...sorry, wrong word choice again.
Surely many people ask: "Who am I and why am I here?"
The analysis level would be deeper than intellectual here..perhaps 'spiritual' is the word?

<<<>
They were written by people, about the same problems of purpose and explanation that we all face. What, over and above that, seems to "ring true"?>>

The thing that rings true, over and above the human stories involved, is the personality of Jesus himself. The words and works of Jesus. The moral authority of Jesus. The authority of Jesus over the laws of nature! When one reads these accounts, one is left with a stark choice: either I believe that this is the Son of God before me, or some deluded madman. I don't believe you have to commit intellectual suicide in order to believe in this man...this God-man...but, if you come face to face with Christ, your life and lifestyle and worldview may all have to alter drastically.

I sincerely hope this doesn't offend you, Noggin the Nog, but I really believe this stuff

mich2ael

Hi mich2ael

My first point is simple - beware, there are some artful dodgers here who will try to lead you into all the common believer traps.

Oh yes, and I'm one of them

My following points are dangerous...

"One reason for the Gospels being so mind-blowing is that they are historical documents recording a God-moment in history when, at various times and in various ways God suspended the natural order and displayed the miraculous, so that we might believe."

Okey-dokey. Have you spent anytime reading any independent history of the early church? These Gospels of which you speak are just a few of many written in the first three centuries of the common era.

The choice of the famous four was made for political reasons, not necessarily religious ones. If they are inerrant word of your God, or even God-inspired, then they are as confused and self-contradictory set of accounts as one could not hope to find and do not reflect well of your God's state of mind.

The interpretation and misinterpretation of these historically-contentious texts have inspired hope, fear and intolerance for the best part of two millenia.

Far from bringing an age of peace and love they have plunged Western Europe into a dark age of unparalleled ignorance and savagery, an age that we then exported to all four corners of our benighted planet.

I have no idea if there was a historical Jesus or a mystical one. However, his teachings have been throroughly corrupted by his followers who continue to preach hate and intolerance to this day.

Blessings,
Matholwch the Apostate .

well I was going to say something, but you lot all did it for me.
goes back to mode for a bit.

Why would it be offend me?

<>

It could be argued that these laws actually *are* the world (whether God created or not).

<>

Of course they do. It's part of being human. This doesn't mean that they have a significance that goes beyond that which we make for ourselves.

<>

Perhaps, although I personally dislike using words that carry so much metaphysical baggage with them. I'm also not sure what you mean by "deeper" in this context. Many of our meanings and purposes are felt, rather than thought, but this does not prevent them being the objects of rational thought, which is really our only tool for excavating what lies behind the surface of our beliefs until we either get back to a foundation on which we can agree, or see precisely what it is that we fundamentally disagree about.

Noggin

Reply to Noggin...

<<<>

It could be argued that these laws actually *are* the world (whether God created or not).>>

Yep I can see that.


<<<>

Of course they do. It's part of being human. This doesn't mean that they have a significance that goes beyond that which we make for ourselves.>>

Yes that's true, these sentiments do not, in themselves, prove the existence of God.

<>

Yes our feelings and intuitions must also be subject to rational thought, that makes lots of sense too. Although the very essence of the gospels is their challenge to unbelief and the strictly rational worldview.

I'm going to have to give more careful thought to what you've said, Noggin...time is limited at the mo and I don't want to write something down in a hurry without thinking through your point, especially your final one here.

I'll get back to you later, OK?

O and matholwch, ta for the warning about where you're coming from..!..I'll certainly look into some of the interesting points you've raised too.

mich2ael

Noggin

What rubs me about the Bible is they don't talk about Jesus' early life much.

It pretty much skips from when he's born to when he's already an adult and established a following kind of.

The other weird thing I'd been wondering about Christianity is when I was reading stories about Arthurian legends and other things that are c. medieval originally in origin or so, they kept referring to it being the XXth day/week/month before or after Pentecost.
, what's Pentecost?

Excuse me. I probably should have put, HE.


Oops.

Pentecost was/is a Christian festival celebrating the gift of the holy spirit descending on the disciples, causing them, among other things, to be able to 'speak in tongues' which - unlike modern useage, where people gabble incoherently and someone else translates for the faithful - was speaking in the languages of the various foreigners who were in the crowds when they preached. The translation of the greek in the new testament says something on the lines of 'every man there heard them in his own tongie and marvelled at it'.

--

Thus, a very important day in the life of the early church, on a par with Easter.

Christmas is a much later celebration - as you already know, the date of the birth of Jesus is not actually recorded, nor identifiable, from surviving scripture.

--

Jez the heathen

<<<>

Why?

How many chairs have you sat on that collapsed?

az>>

Nevertheless, it does happen! I knew a child who was horribly injured that way... it sounds funny, but it wasn't.

Vicky

So you are saying that your god is like a chair - when you don't believe in him, he collapses and you get horribly injured?

--

Jez

Noggin

<<..rational thought, which is really our only tool for excavating what lies behind the surface of our beliefs until we either get back to a foundation on which we can agree, or see precisely what it is that we fundamentally disagree about.>>

Ok, how about the thought that human intellect may be finite and limited in its ability to fully understand the world around us. For example if the universe started with a big bang, which I think is quite possible, what happened the day before?. Or, when you've travelled as far as you can across space, what comes next?! i.e.,my point is: there are questions about our universe (particularly regarding infinity) which defy human understanding (they defy mine anyway) the answer to these impossible questions must therefore be beyond our comprehension of nature or, "super-natural"! This observation of mine does not prove the existence of God but it does challenge the notion that 'what cannot be rationally explained cannot possibly exist...'

Your thoughts...

mich2ael

<>

No argument from me on this one. However...

Time and space are properties of the universe, its connectivity if you will, so the questions that you ask have no meaning. There is no "day before" the big bang, and nowhere outside of space (I can expand on this if you'd like).

That God created the universe may be the case, though it can't be demonstrated. And it seems to me that a God who did this, and then retired from the scene, would be both scientifically *and* theologically irrelevent.

To the extent that we can understand anything we do it by seeing what is, and seeing how they are connected. What cannot, in principle, be understood by this method cannot be understood at all. "Supernatural", in the sense that you've just employed it, then simply means "we don't understand this." So why not simply say that we don't understand it, and leave out the rest?

Noggin

<>

Could you expand on this, because here is where my current train of thought stands or falls...if this infinity question can be explained then you win on this issue.


<>

a. as Creator of science, the universe and everything, he would necessarily need to be outside of it to create it...
b. my point of view is that he is active in the world, i.e.he has not retired from the scene.


I believe God is 'spirit'. Perhaps, spirituality is our sixth sense we need in order to know and understand him. (The Bible actually states this quite clearly). That part of us with which we can comprehend the Eternal God...

mich2ael

Thanks Jez.

"And it seems to me that a God who did this, and then retired from the scene, would be both scientifically *and* theologically irrelevent."

God at least has to be separate from the universe in order to create it. Therefore He is not in space and time - although He might well be aware of them and able to intervene in them. Hence we must take it that any god must be 'immaterial' unless you have a better word. Not 'supernatural' though please: that one begs an important question as you so correctly remark.

However, since the whole future of the universe may well be derivable from God's initial conditions - including laws, matter and energy - there would be no need to intervene. I think this is about as scientifically relevant as anything could possibly be.

If we assume that freewill is an (the only?) exception to determinism 'ab initio', then the only thing it makes sense for God to intervene in is human thinking. Since He couldn't do this by force without negating the logic of freewill, it would have to be by persuasion. And hey! - this is exactly what we find in the Theistic religions. There's your theological relevance.

Jbird

Okay, one expanding explanation coming up.

Time first.

We are able to reconstruct the past because structures are preserved, or change in a rule governed way, so that we can extrapolate backwards. But as far as we can tell the big bang singularity should have a *completely* regular structure. Any information that there may have been before (or beyond) it is therefore lost. This doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, but it is an absolute barrier to knowledge.

Space.

Don't think of space in the Euclidean/Newtonian way as a three dimensional arena in which events happen. Think of every object in the universe as being directly or indirectly connected (by cause and effect) to each other, and think of the connections as constituting space. Where there are no connections there is no space. Our best understanding of the universe is that it is both finite and unbounded, like the surface of a sphere, except with an additional dimension.


A god who intervenes in the universe presents a metaphysical problem with regard to the nature of cause and effect. How would such an interface between god and the universe work?

Noggin