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

Yvonne
Hi

I love Douglas Adams work, it's clever and it makes me laugh, but I don't think of him as a theologian
Here's my sticking point for that sentence;
"for proof denies faith"
no it doesn't it reinforces it.

Fathom

"But He evidently does or His existence would be a matter of fact and not faith because He would have made His existence obvious. Why does God hide behind this shroud of 'unknowable', 'unprovable' invisibility? If He wants our adoration and worship why doesn't He provide indisputable proof of His existence? It would put an end to a lot of evil perpetuated in the name of religious disagreement."

Adoration and worship not required. The existance of a provable God would not put a stop to perceived evil, since God does not consider or have any desires for us to be any different to what we are. Otherwise we WOULD be different to what we are.(God being omnipotent and all
some could say that the existance of the Universe and all the amazing things within it, that we have not yet even begun to consider let alone prove to be, are proof enough. Can you think of anything more miraculous than life itself?

Hi Moth,

"some could say that the existance of the Universe and all the amazing things within it, that we have not yet even begun to consider let alone prove to be, are proof enough."

Yet many do not, so evidently it isn't.

My argument was with Toxxin's assertion that God should prefer a position of proof to one of faith. Proof would be very easy to arrange so surely God would simply provide it if that was His preference instead of hiding from us and leaving His existence as a matter of faith. The conclusion then is that God prefers the requirement of faith, as asserted by DNA.

F

Still you folks on this thread have your models of the big G are based on the basic christian one (with some minor variations) with the notable exception of the druids, wiccans, budhists etc...amongst you. Why do you think that on the whole the omnipresent gods are severly limited in their abilities to reach out to people who are not born into families that practice whorship of that paticular big G already.?

Does this inability to break new markets without using force or bribery point to the possibility that peole are infact buying into a collective mania?

Hi Fathom

I said some could, not that many did
This is merely because we are so used to seeing this miracle that it has become common place in our minds.
Those that don't see life as a miracle are wrong and even if an illuminated God figure appeared in Tescos for all to see, they would not see that either or conjour it as an illusion.
The majority do not always hold the truth you know.
So there is no evidently about it. It is not a given.
So I'll say again proof has been arranged but it up to you, on a very personal level, to see it.

hi blicky,

<>

Not me! I believe in Fred!

This basically means that I have a personal god concept that has nothing to do with religions at all (I call it Fred to avoid confusion with all those other 'gods' out there). And then I am also a part-time pantheist - for those moments when I consider all those other god concepts out there and think - well, why not?

The only other person I know who I think understands the Fred concept is probably Moth. And she doesn't call it Fred.

Hey ho . . .

az

Math...

[email protected] (only for stuff from here) send me an email and I'll drop you my mobile number.

and just to make life easier...

http://www.hippy.com/~avebury/Solstice.htm

Yes, I have my fluffy moments...

I'm the one laughing with Arthur in the staff row...

Yes, the one in the purple snakeskin velvet cloak LOL - in my defence, it IS waterproof and very practical when turned inside out... (Gortex, in fact)

Jez

I'm glad a few people replied. I can't remember who, but someone questioned why I should bother asking the question, and toxx said that by creating the universe he was making everything more good and more perfect. Firstly, I asked because everyone was running around shouting about paedophilia and things, and I felt someone had overlooked a basic flaw somewhere in the logic chain. Also, toxx - I see a lot of imperfection, even by your value system. The stuffiverse was pretty fine and perfect and dandy before anything else happened. Why change that? As for holding a mirror to itself - God needs no mirror, and wants no mirror, for needing and wanting things would deny perfection, wouldn't they? Also - have you ever read any of the "Conversations with God" series?

I'm glad a few people replied. I can't remember who, but someone questioned why I should bother asking the question, and toxx said that by creating the universe he was making everything more good and more perfect. Firstly, I asked because everyone was running around shouting about paedophilia and things, and I felt someone had overlooked a basic flaw somewhere in the logic chain. Also, toxx - I see a lot of imperfection, even by your value system. The stuffiverse was pretty fine and perfect and dandy before anything else happened. Why change that? As for holding a mirror to itself - God needs no mirror, and wants no mirror, for needing and wanting things would deny perfection, wouldn't they? Also - have you ever read any of the "Conversations with God" series?

Fnord
someone recently gave me the conversation book and but I haven't finished it.
There's some stuff that makes some sense to me, but i still apply my own rules about, corporate religions and donations and joining of clubs.
although the beginning of the book does say that God has no needs, which would include the mirror, but I didn't say god had the 'need' to have a reflection of itself. A desire to do so is a different thing. Perfection can still allow for a desire.

Blicky

Moth <...proof has been arranged, but it is up to you to see it.>

Neither of these is really quite right. People are not buying into a collective "mania", but rather into a collective worldview that explains their place in the grand scheme of things. And a proof is only a proof within the terms of such a worldview. The problem is then, is there any common ground from which to arbitrate for or against competing worldviews?

Noggin

Sorry to leave then pop back in after a while and act all dumb, but what topic was that about, Noggin?
Moth - the conversation books would suite you well. I haven't much more to say about the rest.

See posts 11564 and 11565 Fnord.

It's true that consciousness allows the universe to experience itself, but is that purpose or function? And how could you tell?

Noggin

Myst, that entire post was a waste of time.

Once again, you demonstrate a rather shameful failure to understand the principles of evolution.

"I have a hard time believing that creatures that had adapted perfectly to the ocean would bother trying to walk on land"

is an absolute logical fallacy of the sort that makes me want to find your last biology teacher and give them a good hard slap. Firstly, as I'm sure you know, a creature doesn't consciously "bother" to evolve. Secondly, there is an extremely simple explanation, which I hope you'll bother to read, seeing as that is a conscious decision which you can make, and you should.

As logic suggests, and the fossil evidence proves, plants were the first living things to move on land - seeds and spores which were carried to shallower and shallower depths, eventually breaking the surface and living on land were closer to the sunlight, thus more likely to survive and spread their genes.

The creatures which ate these plants, naturally, benefited from the ability to follow them. If you have ten fish and one of them is slightly nobblier, or with breathing apparatus slightly better suited to breathing above water, it will be able to consume more food from the shores, giving it an advantage which makes it more likely to survive. Its children will carry the same advantage over the rest of the population of the species, which means that their above-water enabling genes are more likely spread through the gene pool. Etc, etc, etc.

As for your point about molecules - well it's hardly a point at all is it? Are you disputing that molecules would be able to hold themselves together at all without God? I think you'll find that physics explains perfectly well why molecules stay together, and it won't be under the divine miracles section of the textbook.

Said you; "However, religion is not a scientific study. Religion is what science would be once it knew everything about the world. Religion is devoted to honouring God."

Hello? Anybody in there? I didn't say religion was a scientific study, I said it was one of our first cracks at an all-encompassing scientific theory, which unlike evolution, failed to predict results and stand up to experiment. Religion is not "what science would be once it knew everything about the world". That is an obscene statement. Science doesn't know anything, it is a methodology for discerning truth from fiction. Religion doesn't explain everything, or even very much at all, let alone "everything about the world".

Moth, are you aware that Douglas Adams was a convinced atheist and good friend of Richard Dawkins. He was also well-respected in the scientific community and extremely intelligent. In fact Richard Dawkins (atheist evolutionary biologist) was introduced to his wife by Douglas.

"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

Buy "The Salmon of Doubt" everyone! It's fab, and it's got lots of atheist material in it from the great man himself.

Hi Door. Would that be as in:

DNA: "Hi Richard. This is your wife" or

DNA: "Hi Richard. This is my wife"?

Well, Fathom. I say that the existence of God is a matter of fact. OK, that is perhaps only an assumption of my Natural Theology project. Do tell me though how I might go about disproving it?

The universe needs explaining. God is that explanation. There are alternative views, but all of science is like that is it not? Clearly, God can't violate His own laws in order to prove his existence. Short of that, He seems to have done everything He could to inform us. We have several holy books and millions of believers around. He must have done something right!

Higgs.



I call it 'God', not for purposes of personal gratification, but because if the cause of the universe were not personal, then the universe would be infinitely old. An impersonal cause has to have effect as soon as it is in existence. An 'always there' first cause would have instantly given rise to the universe. Needless to add, the universe is not infinitely old. Therefore it must have a personal cause. I and other persons can pick a time for action; even though this particular time can only be specified by reckoning backwards - for obvious reasons.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/kalam.htm

I'm afraid you've lost me here...

> if the cause of the universe were not personal, then the universe
> would be infinitely old.

In what sense do you mean 'personal'? What is a 'personal cause'?
Why do you think a 'non-personal' cause implies an infinitely old universe?

> An impersonal cause has to have effect as soon as it is in
> existence.

I take it you think this isn't so for a 'personal' cause? Why isn't it so?

I don't follow this 'personal' / 'non-personal' cause idea.

> An 'always there' first cause would have instantly given rise to
> the universe.

I see what you're getting at here, but you're missing the point that spacetime doesn't exist before the universe, so 'always there' doesn't have temporal meaning (nor, for that matter, does 'cause', but I think we both agree this is shorthand for the circumstances giving rise to the universe).

> Needless to add, the universe is not infinitely old.

The evidence indicates that the part of the universe we can see today is not infinitely old. However, the whole universe could still be infinitely old, by a number of different potential mechanisms - for example, there might be an infinite series of big-bangs followed by big crunches. IOW, it's not a given, though admittedly, there is less support for an infinitely old universe in scientific opinion than there once was.

> Therefore it must have a personal cause.

Whatever you mean by 'personal' cause, the logic error is, as I pointed out, that 'always there' has no temporal meaning outside of space-time.

Stephen Hawking suggests we visualise the development of spacetime as a sphere with increasing time represented as a southernly movement, originating at the north pole, with space represented as the circumference, increasing towards the equator, then decreasing again towards the south pole 'big crunch' (assuming, for the sake of argument, a closed universe with positive curvature). If you consider a northernly movement back towards the big bang at the north pole, you will find that time stops when you reach the pole, i.e. there is nothing north of the pole. It makes no more sense to ask what is 'before' the big bang than it does to ask what is north of the north pole...

Good pictures, Jez! I like to know what people look like