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

michae1


Ignoring the fact totally that your god had to come from somewhere..and if he didn't and has always existed(the normal Christian response) then why can't the building blocks of the universe always existed? e=m.c.c states that energy can be turned in mass hence the energy from which the universe was created could always have been around. Problem solved based on the similar hypothesis that god has always existed.

Oh and the universe has been estimated at about 14 BILLION years old. Dinosaurs were roaming the earth millions of years ago.

Re: Mickey's responce to OK, let me explain...teapot...'

think, in order that's the:


argument from first cause ('nothing exploded')
argument from complexity/beauty (animals, plants, evolution, genetics)
argument from morality (right, wrong, good, evil, compassion, courage, sacrifice, friendship)
argument from art (music)
argument from subjective states of mind / observable behaviours (love)

and finish with a flourish: ignoring requests to define 'spiritual'

I think you only missed Scripture and Pascal's wager Mickey - and you'd have the set!

3.s

>What a surprise. You always seem to get busy when a difficult question is raised.<

Believe me, I was busy.

Ok, Martin seems to have suffered a lot. The sort of suffering that makes you think 'surely that guy's going to give up trusting in a loving God now?!' I can see why you feel passionately about it.

There are no simple answers. That's not good enough for you, I know. All I can do is try to explain why I still believe in a God of love. (I can't speak for Martin in this regard)

Right...I've suffered *big time* in my life. The sort of suffering that makes you want to end your life. Perhaps you've been there too. When I heard that there was a God of love...that Jesus was God's Son, the Light of the world, come to save lost people...I responded like a drowning man would respond if thrown a lifeline. I grabbed hold and I was grateful. That's why I go on believing in dark times.

Now, this may also be helpful (pigs might fly!). There is more to a human being than just a body imo. For the christian, there should be a deep inner peace and joy which carries him in spite of external pressures. The christian life is not supposed to be a comfortable option...having been loved unconditionally by God, the christian life should be lived selflessly for others, in spite of the cost. Now, when I hear about Martin; if I can get past the obvious question 'why?' I percieve in him a man *truly alive* on the inside. I have a friend who is going through a similar experience. She's an inspiration...she never complains but is more concerned with the needs of others than her own, and, yes, she trusts in her Father God, in spite of everything she's going through.

As a christian, I believe I am in a spiritual battle. That can be another way to interpret human suffering.

Sorry, I know I've not done the subject justice, I hope you will forgive me. If I have any other bright ideas, I'll let you know.

Mikey2

I think it amusing that some religious organizations, notably the Roman Catholic Church, claim to accept evolution by natural selection, which ultimately relegates their God to non-interventionist status.

But then, most religious seem remarkably adept at compartmentalization.

Hey, maybe the courts (or at least the Advertising Standards Agency) can decide:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7818980.stm

although I think the word 'probably' is an adequate escape clause otherwise Carlsberg would be in deep trouble.



F

Clive

>argument from first cause ('nothing exploded')
argument from complexity/beauty (animals, plants, evolution, genetics)
argument from morality (right, wrong, good, evil, compassion, courage, sacrifice, friendship)
argument from art (music)
argument from subjective states of mind / observable behaviours (love)

and finish with a flourish: ignoring requests to define 'spiritual'<

So you've labelled my points. Do I take it that you have won the argument by labelling?

No wait a minute...Mornington Crescent!!!

Ha Ha I win

Mikey2

Those poor, poor people...

Can you imagine what will be happening to their inboxes as we speak?

Also Steven Green is a

'There is more to a human being than just a body imo.'

please see: A42586266

Yes, I was being flippant, but we've had these before us now lots of times and refuted or exasperatingly ignored.

Shall we really run through the debate about what science tells us about the origins of the universe or how complexity doesn't imply design or how you can quite easily know and prove someone loves you, or how god as arbiter of morality is subject to the flaw of euthryphro's dillema or how biblical morality is either absent or abhorrent if taken literally?

Really?
Again?

And we're still waiting from someone from your side to explain what spiritual means.That you've declined to is nothing new.

This is the reason Green is moaning:

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press120.html

"Officials at the Advertising Standards Authority have recommended that a Christian group(read: Stephen Green) be censured for predicting that Government initiatives on teenage sexuality, including the HPV vaccine, will increase infertility among the young.

If the ASA Council follows the recommendation, Christian Voice's 'Advertorial' in the New Statesman earlier this year, which was headlined 'VIOLENT CRIME - SOWING AND REAPING', will be found to breach ASA codes on principles, substantiation and truthfulness."

Effers

'Believing something even if I find out its not true'

It was an irrational thought because, of course, one simply cannot believe in something you know isn't true...I think 'oxymoron' is an apt description.

What I tried to convey there in my journal was more an 'attitude of heart' than a logical progression of thought! I was 100% willing to embrace the christian faith, even to the point of kissing my brains goodbye!! (You heard it here first...and I won't hear the last of it!!)

Willingness or unwillingness play a big part in becoming a christian. The mind must accept the truth of the message but the heart must be willing.

The heart is the unseen part. Around here one sees the product of intelligent minds, unable to accept the message. What one can only guess at is the state of the hearts around here. Are they moved by the thought of a Saviour dying for them?

With love from

Mikey2

Clive

>And we're still waiting from someone from your side to explain what spiritual means.That you've declined to is nothing new.<

It was a message to Gif...I was saying to *him* that I didn't feel it necessary to define the term. I thing I'll wait for his reply rather than get sidetracked.

Hope you don't mind

Mikey2

'The mind must accept the truth of the message but the heart must be willing.'

what do you mean by 'heart'? Surely not that muscular pump we all have in our chests.

Thanks for your reply mikey.

Your 'heart' is clearly very different to my own. Since the age of seven, apart from intermittant periods of psychosis, I have been unable to perform the mental gymnastics required to entirely separate my heart from my head. If my intelligence tells me something goes against everything I have learnt likely to be true and makes no sense to believe, however much I suffer, and believe me I have and do...(but don't make a point of referring to it very often), I couldn't with any self respect start believing essentially in father christmas again. I have too much integrity. I think not becoming a 'bornagain' has as much more to do with integrity/self-respect/moral courage....than any emotive nonsense about a willing heart.

>What one can only guess at is the state of the hearts around here.<

I doubt you could even begin to guess what *my* heart is like. And I'd cringe at the idea of it actually. How typical that you should come out with such a transparently obvious but basically meaningless, emotive remark.

> Are they moved by the thought of a Saviour dying for them? <

My own opinion...what a twerp

(As I have suggested earlier, psychology is the elephant in the room)

>>Are they moved by the thought of a Saviour dying for them?<<

Possibly some are moved to tears of frustration at the intransigence of ignorance or willful stupidity necessary to phrase that question

I suspect most merely roll their eyes and shrug at the meaninglessness of it.

Hi Anhaga,

>Oh, and, you actually do have to define what you mean by 'spiritual'.

From observation, I have deduced that the word 'spiritual' is a negative. As in:
'With you in spirit' = not actually with you at all.
'Spiritual truth' = falsehood.
'Spiritually wise' = no clue.

So yes, Mikey, we could do with an explanation of what you mean by 'spiritual'.

Gif

Hi Effers,

>poor old chemistry apparantly never gets a look in.

Yeah, but chemistry is based on the atheist assumption that it's impossible for a biscuit to turn into the Son of God, even when a priest knows the magic words.

Gif

m1/2:

>>'Look at the elaborate detail of plants and animals, the wonder of evolution, and the complexity of the language of the 'genetic code'. Consider human awareness of good and evil, right and wrong. Music, love, compassion, courage, sacrifice, friendship and faithfulness. Can you seriously consider these things and then say that the notion of God's existence is ridiculous?'

Well...yes, actually. And isn't it wonderful that all these glorious and elaborate phenomena have arised through a chance process in an impersonal universe. The biological explanations for all these phenomena are, of course, incomplete - but the basic model makes a lot more sense than 'some unknown god thingy made 'em'.

Does this materialist reductionism sound awfully bleak to you? It needn't! We can still, as humans, enjoy music, love, compassion, courage, sacrifice, friendship and faithfulness for what they are without having to analyse their biological functions. What this perspective tells us (sf The Atheist Bus Campaign) is that we have this wonderful thing could life and we should enjoy it while it lasts.

Hi Mikey,

>>Why do you not accept scriptural evidence of Mohammed or Gautama Buddha?<
>Do any of them claim to be the Way, the Truth and the Life. Do any of them work miracles like giving sight to the blind and raising the dead? Did any return to life three days after being killed? Do any compare with Jesus'sublime moral perfection?

Well, those standards are clearly based on Christian ideas. Nevertheless, let's look at how they match up. In order:

Yes. Buddha does.
Yes. Healing miracles are a Christian speciality, but miracles in general are common to all religions. Could Jesus touch the Moon? *Split* the moon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Buddhahttp://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543470
Yes. Leaving reincarnation aside, we have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection#Zen_Buddhism
Yes. *All* religions claim this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma

By your own standards, it looks like you should reassess your religious beliefs. From what you've said, it sounds like Buddhism could be the one for you. You won't, of course, because those aren't the standards you've used. The standards you have given are excuses to justify your baseless selection of Christianity, not the reasons you chose Christianity.

Here are some other standards religions could be judged by:

Does Jesus claim to teach the Middle Way and teach the Path to Enlightenment? To be God's Final Prophet?
Is Christianity the oldest religion?
Is Christianity based on scripture written by a known person in the clear light of history?
Did Christ ever perform a miracle visible to the entire world, such as splitting the moon?
Could Jesus perform miracles such as teleporting or walking through walls?
Does transcendental meditation lead to Christianity?
Does Christian scripture correctly state that the world is billions of year old?
Does Christianity emphasise the unity of all things?
Did Jesus ever say that if you met him on the road, you should kill him?
Is there good historical evidence (e.g. a tomb, a footprint, a body part) of the existence of Jesus?
Did Jesus leave giant footprints?

All these seem at least equally valid to the ones you have listed.

>>Why do you discount the evidence of personal experience and prayers of non-Christians (who make up the majority of people who pray)?<
>I do not discount such things.

Excellent. So you would accept that the evidence for multiple gods is just as strong as the evidence for a single god? The evidence for a tripartite God is no better than that for an indivisible God?

>You see, if there is no creator then you must be saying that one day, millions and millions of years ago there was nothing, that 'nothing' exploded somehow and then there was a vast universe.

Yes, and for the dozenth time, if you're saying that there *is* a creator, then you're saying that one day millions of years ago something even larger and more complex that the universe 'popped into existence'.

>Look at the elaborate detail of plants and animals, the wonder of evolution, and the complexity of the language of the 'genetic code'. Consider human awareness of good and evil, right and wrong. Music, love, compassion, courage, sacrifice, friendship and faithfulness. Can you seriously consider these things and then say that the notion of God's existence is ridiculous?

Since none of the things you mention has any bearing on the existence of God, yes I can.

>I've used the analogy before but its worth repeating here...if your wife tells you she loves you, you don't immediately subject her to a battery of tests!!

And I've responded before that emotional truths are relative, and therefore need to be treated differently to absolute truths such as the existence or non-existence of God. It is entirely appropriate to ask for evidence of claims of absolute truth.

>I've suffered *big time* in my life. [...] I responded like a drowning man would respond if thrown a lifeline.

Which explains why you believe in a God - but surely is not evidence in any way that your beliefs are correct?

>As a christian, I believe I am in a spiritual battle.

A battle where one side is infinitely powerful and the *other* side is winning?

>Willingness or unwillingness play a big part in becoming a christian.

I'm perfectly willing to follow the evidence, including becoming a Christian. What I am not willing to do is, as you put it, 'kiss my brain goodbye'. I can't see how you can believe that the evidence leads to Christianity without kissing your brain goodbye. Ergo I am not a Christian, nor likely to become one.

Gif