Is there a God?

[Ladymuck]

Of course God doesn't exist...even children know that!

[SeanMacGabhann]

paulanoucier

Who are we "encouraged by" to recognise that the universe could not possibly come into existence on it's own?

The painting analogy is particularly unfortunate - pick up a brush , use some paint and lo and behold you are a painter. If I come across said painting I wont think "did someone do that or must I always be in doubt that it simply came to be" just because I don't know you

Whilst we aren't yet at a stage where we can with any certainty know how the universe came to be (with all of the myriad cruelties it holds), to say that a God (which one again?) did it is baffling. And even if it's true, it goes from baffling to horrific - I know if my parents were to bring me into this world and then spend the next 80 odd years hiding behind bushes, whispering to other people about how they might exist, that if I ever got hold of them I wouldn't be best pleased

[HAL9000]

paulanouicer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> WE know that no one has ever actually seen God -

> at least not in this lifetime.

The Old Testament documents a number of sightings of the God featured therein:

?Now when Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, "I am God Almighty ; Walk before Me, and be blameless;" (Gen. 17:1)

?Now the LORD appeared to him [Abraham] by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day.? (Gen. 18:1)

?So Jacob named the place Peniel, for he said, ?I have seen God face to face, yet my life has been preserved.?? (Genesis 32:30)

?God spoke further to Moses and said to him, "I am the LORD; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.?? (Exodus 6:2-3)

?Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank.? (Exodus 24:9-11)

?He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, shall make Myself known to him in a vision. I shall speak with him in a dream. "Not so, with My servant Moses, He is faithful in all My household; With him I speak mouth to mouth, Even openly, and not in dark sayings, And he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid To speak against My servant, against Moses?" (Num. 12:6-8)

 

[Ladymuck]

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> The Old Testament documents a number of sightings

> of the God featured therein:

Yep, and here's another sighting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Crlmg1tSwaU

[Narnia]

Are you not confusing the Lord with God? That is the Lord is an enlightened person who can show you the way to God. What makes anyone think you have to see God anyway for him/it to exist? Is God not for blind people? Surely by now you realise that God is something 'felt' or an 'experience' for want of another word. You can analyise all you want but without the experience of it you wont know. Thus God does not exist.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Possibly quite a few people will have seen this already, but a wonderful speech Stephen Fry on the Catholic Church (not Catholics per se)

[silverfox]

Interesting ... he was having a bit of a hissy fit there trotting out unoriginal arguments to a like-minded audience. Disappointing really, I expected a bit more intellectual rigour from Stephen Fry but it was a bit twitter-ish.

[mockney piers]

I definitely saw an African nun clapping at the end there. Clearly she felt there was a great deal of truth in what he said.

When something is simple obvious and undeniable it's hardly going to be original is it, but si

what. The irony of an institution representing a religion based upon poverty charity and love being powerful, wealthy dogmatic and invidious has been pointed out for centuries, mostly by voices from within, often quashed, many times labelled as heresy and killed.

I don't see anything twitterish about that.

[mockney piers]

I definitely saw an African nun clapping at the end there. Clearly she felt there was a great deal of truth in what he said too, hardly a like minded audience, more a persuaded one I reckon. .

When something is simple, obvious and undeniable it's hardly going to be original is it, but then so what.

The irony of an institution representing a religion based upon poverty, charity and love being powerful, wealthy, dogmatic and invidious has been pointed out for centuries, mostly by voices from within the church, often quashed, many times labelled as heresy and killed.

I don't see anything twitterish about that.

[SeanMacGabhann]

was it a like-minded audience? I thought this was just his part of a debate with Widdecombe on the other side - so I imagine the audience was fairly split

As Piers says, repeating truths doesn't diminish them and I thought it was as concise and eloquent a summary as I've seen

[silverfox]

... stop calling me names because I'm gay and hand out more condoms in Africa and you'll be a force for good in the world ... (cue rapturous applause)

Come on, these aren't facts they're opinions of dubious merit.

The institution's been in existence for nearly 2000 years, undergone myriad doctrinal disputes, schisms, made many mistakes, educated people, fed people, catered to people's spititual needs etc etc.

I feel sorry for Stephen Fry, the topic's too vast and in my opinion he was ill-equipped to try to tackle it. It was more of a square root of intelligence talk than an intelligence squared debate.

[mockney piers]

The facts of Ratzinger specifically saying that truth about child rapists must be suppressed on pain of excommunication wasn't much good for you then? Or Ratzinger saying that AIDS deaths is, and I quote, "the lesser of two evils" or even lying about the efficacy of condoms, just opinion?

As for the 2000 years, so what, syphilis has been in Europe here for 600 hundred years, and like the church is becoming less harmful than it was. Still doesn't make it on balance a force for good does it.

[silverfox]

I don't approve or condone such statements but you're plucking at low hanging fruit here mockney - easy targets.

Ratzinger's words about the abuse do not imply approval, rather it was an attempt to cover up the scandal of bad priests (much of this has been discussed on the thread in the lounge). The Catholic Church didn't create the aids crisis and is heavily involved in providing care and assistance to victims of this terrible disease. The Church's opposition to condoms is well known and it would be naive to imagine the aids problem will be solved by the Church handing out free condoms. There are plenty of organisations distributing condoms in these areas (and companies making big profits as a result) and not distributing them doesn't make a body evil.

Perhaps one of the biggest criticisms that can be levelled against the Church is the speed with which it adapts to scientific and medical advances which cause ethical dilemmas. However it cannot claim to be the guardian of spititual truths and at the same time bow to the latest whims of popular opinion or the preceived wisdom of pressure groups.

The Catholic Church isn't the simple monolithic incarnation of evil that some people like to think. There are many branches and camps to it, left wing, liberal, theology of liberation revolutionaries and right wing conservatives such as the present pope. Some of Fry's criticisms may be addressed when the Church appoints an African or South American pope, ie, in the same way Pope John Paul II swung back to a rigid conservative stance with his experience of religion being suppressed under communism, so an African or South American pope who are well aware of the day to day misery of the poverty and inequalities of those continents may take the church in a different direction.

One thing is for certain, the Catholic Church will be around when we're long gone and people will still find things to criticise about it. I don't know whether Stephen Fry implied he believes in God when he asked what Jesus would make of it if he walked into the Vatican, but it's a good question.

[mockney piers]

Ratzinger's word do not imply approval no, they do certainly imply a criminal obstruction of justice.

Again, unoriginal, low hanging fruits. How either of these assertions somehow wipe clean the stain or dismiss the church's many crimes is beyond me.

"ohh, everyone knows they rape children and then cover it up and move them elsewhere to do it again, but it's not all of them, plus some of them are nice and help people"

And not distributing condoms and discouraging the use of condoms based on bad science and threats of eternal damnation are two very different things.

Most revealing of all "However it cannot claim to be the guardian of spititual truths and at the same time bow to the latest whims of popular opinion or the preceived wisdom of pressure groups."

Well that rather sums it up, all it can claim is to be the guardian of spiritual truths. It doesn't bow to popular whim at all, hence the condoms issue and why saving the souls of people is more important than saving their lives, hence his 'lesser of two evils comment'

The debate was quite clearly that the Catholic Church is a force for good in THIS world. However well you may think it serves to protect everyone in the journey to the next one (and remember, they made up limbo (actually they've now disowned that one finally, perhaps on a whim), purgatory and hell) it's on balance a not a force for good in this one, the good it does is outweighed by the bad.

Therein lies the essence of the question; you think the scales tip to the good, I think they tip the other way.

On that latter point belief in the historical character Jesus, and appreciation of his teachings (or at least what was finally written down decades after his death), and belief in his divinity are entirely separate questions I would have thought.

But you're right, it has always been clever and cunning and bent on survival and it will outlive me for sure.

[Brendan]

[SeanMacGabhann]

funny, but not the Lounge. My glass of water has started to vibrate - I suspect The Chair is a comin...

[Brendan]

I was merely responding, through the medium of .jpg, to the point made by the learned Mr Mockney in the eighth paragraph of the aforewritten post regarding the interpretation and accuracy of the remaining contemporary recordings of the teaching of the historical figure known as Jesus.

M?lud.

[silverfox]

Okay, let's take a different tack.

As I write, across the world, from the worst slums and impoverished villages of the third world to the richest cities of the western world, homeless street children are being given somewhere safe to stay tonight, people with nothing are being given something to eat, clothes to wear, are being taught to read and write to improve their chances in life, wells are being dug, mothers are being given help and advice on child care, those with no health insurance are being given medicine, people are being given training in skills in animal husbandry, the best way to look after crops, to find jobs or start their own cooperatives, loans are being made for necessities.

Catholic charities and workers* are quietly getting on with all this because they believe in God, being financed by millions of other catholics who put money in a collection plate and make monthly direct debits.

In this sense the Catholic Church is a force for good in THIS world. It's a shame Stephen Fry chose to ignore this side of the organisation.

(* along with many other religious and secular charities)

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Stewards please Chair - this is all veering away from the OP.

I've sat on my hands a lot during this thread - please lounge it then I can let rip.

[Narnia]

Unfortunately some people equate the subject with religion and nothing else. Thus when something bad happens some lose their religious belief as what has happened does not equate with the type of God their religion has brought them up to believe in. A simple 'God works in mysterious ways' will not suffice. If God exists we would all like the chance to know him/her/it I'm sure. How you try and do that, if you bother to, is your business. Fact is if you did know him you would probably need to lie down for a while. You don't need a religion to look though, IMO.

Ever wonder why we have the ability to admire a sunrise or a sunset?

[mockney piers]

Of course I get your point Silverfox. Yes there is a great deal of good work done by catholic charities.

The thing is you cant seperate it. Until the bad is acknowledged and changed the good is tainted.

It's not unlike some oil company having all sorts of good works done by their charitable arms and donations. Water pumps shoved in villages, innoculation drives etc. But then they continue to meddle in the politics of unstable countries, through bribes and backhanders they keep the environment healthy for the kleptocracies to thrive.

The catholic church is almost by definition regressive, it is by definition dogmatic. I they continue to believe that people are spiritually better off dying of AIDS than sinning by condom use then it undermines all the many good works. If they continue to suppress knowledge of rapists rather than accept responsibilty and offer abusers up for temporal

crimin punishment then they will always be corrupt.

[The Chair]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Stewards please Chair - this is all veering away

> from the OP.

>

>

> I've sat on my hands a lot during this thread -

> please lounge it then I can let rip.

I'm inclined to agree PGC, but I shall give it one more chance to get back on topic. Any discussion of the fallibilities of the Catholic Church should be on another thread, please. We've managed 15 pages - don't make me "lounge it" now.

[SeanMacGabhann]

mea culpa

apologies and new, more specific thread can be found

here

[HAL9000]

Earlier in this thread, the discussion turned to the statistical improbability of life having originated on earth - the main argument against being that biochemistry requires molecules too long and complex to have arisen by chance during the brief window of opportunity thought to have been available at the time.

A recently published article describes the discovery of an RNA enzyme only five nucleotides long that is able to catalyse a key reaction needed to synthesize proteins:

Scientists Create Tiny RNA Molecule With Big Implications for Life's Origins

[Brendan]

How does that compare to the statistical possibility of a 3 dimensional thing called space which can house energy and matter and is bound by another seemingly linear dimension all spontaneously coming into existence?*

*And how did existence know to become existence before existence existed?**

**And before, before existed for that matter?