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

This whole episode sounds exactly like the God epidemic that has been sweeping this planet for millenia.

A guy goe out looking for something. When he finds it, he is so wrapped up in what he wants it to be, rather than looking at it objectively, he starts making connections in his head with other things he thinks he knows, and before long you have a fanatic.

This is very similar to the miricle scenario here on Earth. People desperately seek a sign from a devine being, something obscure happens (as they d to all of us every day), and suddenly it is interpreted as a miracle.

Another example of the gullibility of the human condition.

I fully agree. this si the craziest thing. However, there is a little bit more evidence now for the existence of King Arthur than there is for the existence of God.

.. not that I'm religious or anything, but you do realise that you sound pretty hung up about no evidence means no chance whatsoever?

Isn't it strange though, that there seems to be more "evidence" of the existance of a fleeting mortal, than there is for a supposedly eternal divine being?

Hmmmmmmm

For anyone who wants a really good discussion of the actual evidence for a "real" Arthur, the article to read is: O.J. Padel, 'The nature of Arthur', in Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies, vol. 27 (Summer 1994), pp. 1-31. A bit academic perhaps, but a magnificent piece.
Cheers
Bran.

"Oh dear" said God and vanished in a puff of logic.

"That was easy," said Man and went on to proove
black was white and got killed on the next zebra crossing.

(Sorry that's from memory so not quite accurate)

Really guys, Dear Mr. Adams really did get in the last
word on the whole existance of God bit.....

p.s. By the way that's from the bit about the babel fish
if you are trying to find it.

For a Christian person such as myself, along with about a third of the world's population, Jesus Christ should be evidence enough that God exists... and yet many people continue to disbelieve. Meanwhile, believers are tested continually by the doubting Thomases, which ironically helps to maintain their faith, at least most of the time. So-called fanatics will continue to try, to little avail, either to sway the critics, or to find more evidence for themselves as their faith is tested.

And King Arthur? His believers are probably not much different, except that unlike JC's visit for Christians, there is no real hard evidence that he ever existed. The faithful and the curious will continue to search for anything concrete, with high hopes but few results.

But does lack of evidence signify falsehood? Not necessarily. People laughed at Columbus when he dared to sail the wrong way to the Indies. But it turns out that the world is round as he thought, and still much larger than he could even imagine.

If truth is not discovered, we usually haven't looked hard enough yet. Unfortunately, we may never find what we seek, especially if the answer is standing there right before our eyes and we choose not to accept it.

The traditional moral of the story: Do not be quick to accept or dismiss anything as truth or falsehood, but at the same time, do not be so overly critical as to waste your entire life not believing in anything at all.

Nobody disputes Jesus existed. That much is historical fact. Its the God incarnate in human form bit that people have trouble with.

What , Are you all nuts, or just blind?

1. God:
How can anyone say that there is no evidence for the existence of God? The intelligence is evident in the design of every aspect of nature, which all works together as a system. It could not have come about by chance; every aspect of the system of nature in which we live, and move, and have our being, had to be put in place in simultaneous harmony with every other piece. And that requires a Creator.

There could not have been a time when the systems of nature were not in place, other than prior to the creation. Living things could not live without the present myriad of systems intrinsic to their own bodies and their environments. If there ever was a time when the systems weren't functioning, then the living things would have died. Therefore they couldn't have come about on their own, for that would mean that there must have been a time when the present precise systems weren't in place but were evolving. If they weren't in place, then the living things couldn't have existed.

Take it in the other direction: We see today what happens to our earth and its creatures when we disrupt those systems. No one is arguing that we shouldn't do anything to save our planet, no one is saying that we will simply evolve and adapt to a more polluted world, are they? Why not?

2. Arthur:
Curious that Sir Thomas Mallory's description of the "death" of Arthur (a supposed "good guy")coincides with the Book of Revelation's description of the Beast (the ultimate "bad guy"), who was "wounded in the head with a sword", and whom the whole world wonders after when he recovers from that wound. Arthur, similiarly, was wounded in the head with a sword, and was carried off to the island of Avalon to be healed of his wound, and is to return one day to save England from her time of greatest peril.

There are other similiarities as well. But Mallory wrote in the 14th century, I think. People who lived and wrote closer in time to the supposed actual events make no mention of any "Arthur", except for maybe an obscure reference to one "Artorius" (who was made the subject of the recent action film, "King Arthur"). The more likely candidate, in my mind, woould be Aurelius Ambrosius, whom, according to Gildas (who wrote in the 6th century) was a Roman Briton who fought off the Saxons .. for a while anyway.

Charles

Just a small point,

Wasn't Arthur a Pendragon?

Pen meaning head, I think Terry Pratchet wrote about Mind Dragons,

Does anyone else think that Merlin had a hand in this somewhere or sometime? Like in writing part of the Bible in the first place?

Is this a bread crumb?