Archbishop of Canterbury not sure that God exists

[standards]

MikeO996 said:

What have you made exist by the power of thought?

Relativity is a scientific theory open to hypothesis testing, and as such has developed greater credibility, whereas the ontological has never been credible even amongst theologians

The Ontological argument doesn't 'work' in the way a scientific hypothesis might. That's because it's not science.

But then its inventor possibly/probably didn't intend to anyhow-intending it as theological reflection on his own faith-although greater minds than mine (there are many) disagree.

[Derek Smith]

MikeO996 said:

What have you made exist by the power of thought?

Relativity is a scientific theory open to hypothesis testing, and as such has developed greater credibility, whereas the ontological has never been credible even amongst theologians

My schooling days are a bit vague now, due to my age and the distance in time, but I seem to remember a discussion where the teacher argued that a thought has existence and it could be proved to have existed. One example he used was a made-up name in a film.

It didn't exist before the script writer thought of it, so he or she brought it into existence.

His argument was that just because you can't hit it with a club it doesn't mean it isn't real.

[Qwert1e]

Which do you prefer?

1. I think. Therefore I am.

or

2. Mohammed said God wants me to go around with a blanket over my head with just a slit so I can see out.

[johnxjsc1985]

Qwert1e said:

Which do you prefer?

1. I think. Therefore I am.

or

2. Mohammed said God wants me to go around with a blanket over my head with just a slit so I can see out.

Don't know if its still relevant but Catholic women were not allowed out of the house without a head scarf.
religion doesn't treat women well yet they seem to be all too ready to be told how to live their lives by some man in a frock and a funny hat.

[MikeO996]

Derek Smith said:

My schooling days are a bit vague now, due to my age and the distance in time, but I seem to remember a discussion where the teacher argued that a thought has existence and it could be proved to have existed. One example he used was a made-up name in a film.

It didn't exist before the script writer thought of it, so he or she brought it into existence.

His argument was that just because you can't hit it with a club it doesn't mean it isn't real.

Yes, if you think of something it exists: as a thought.
The argument is about whether you can think something into existence, purely by thought. Ironically the ontological argument can be taken to work well for atheists because it can be taken to show that god was created by man.

Edited by MikeO996 on Monday 22 September 21:43

[MikeO996]

ash73 said:

Yes the ontological proof relates to something inconceivable which cannot be tested..

Then it's not a proof.

[MikeO996]

You can be patronising, but if it's inconceivable and untestable then it can't be a proof.

[Qwert1e]

MikeO996 said:

the ontological argument can be taken to work well for atheists because it can be taken to show that god was created by man.

Is there a better explanation?

As Dawkins rightly says, religion gets in a muddle where people can't work things out and "make stuff up" to fill the void. Hence his expression of God as "God of the gaps".

But even if you accept that point of view you are still left with the same fundamental and apparently unanswerable question, why is there "anything" and not "nothing"?

[BMWBen]

Qwert1e said:

MikeO996 said:

the ontological argument can be taken to work well for atheists because it can be taken to show that god was created by man.

Is there a better explanation?

As Dawkins rightly says, religion gets in a muddle where people can't work things out and "make stuff up" to fill the void. Hence his expression of God as "God of the gaps".

But even if you accept that point of view you are still left with the same fundamental and apparently unanswerable question, why is there "anything" and not "nothing"?

This is the difference between an atheist and a religious person is it not? The atheist says "I don't know, maybe one day we'll work it out using science" and the religious person would say "god".

But the "god" answer isn't a satisfactory one, because the atheist then asks "why is there god and not no god"? At which point we are effectively back at the start.

[Derek Smith]

There was research a few years ago which suggested there was a significant improvement in 'satisfaction with life' for those professing a religion compared to those who did not. One would assume it is a placebo effect.

I found it rather odd given that, according to some of the manuals, everyone is a sinner and therefore there is the ever-present threat of hell for all but those with tremendous conceit. One might almost say conceit of biblical proportions.

So belief in something bigger than yourself seems to help keep you calm.

I'm not happy with the fact, a fact to me, that when I die that's its. No more Derek. Others, of course, might feel otherwise.

But if someone wants to believe in homeopathy, astrology, lay lines, Chelsea FC or a religion then it is no problem for me. I don't like the fact that the last oppress certain sections of society and they must conform to the mores of society, but other than that, let them get on with it.

But no tax concessions, no special privileges, no oppression allowed against them. They should be treated the same as model railway clubs.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Derek Smith said:

There was research a few years ago which suggested there was a significant improvement in 'satisfaction with life' for those professing a religion compared to those who did not. One would assume it is a placebo effect.

I found it rather odd given that, according to some of the manuals, everyone is a sinner and therefore there is the ever-present threat of hell for all but those with tremendous conceit. One might almost say conceit of biblical proportions.

So belief in something bigger than yourself seems to help keep you calm.

I'm not happy with the fact, a fact to me, that when I die that's its. No more Derek. Others, of course, might feel otherwise.

But if someone wants to believe in homeopathy, astrology, lay lines, Chelsea FC or a religion then it is no problem for me. I don't like the fact that the last oppress certain sections of society and they must conform to the mores of society, but other than that, let them get on with it.

But no tax concessions, no special privileges, no oppression allowed against them. They should be treated the same as model railway clubs.

Tax concessions for Chelsea fans....I like that idea. Can we have 26 Chelsea fans in the House of Lords whilst we're about it.

[Blib]

Derek Smith said:

There was research a few years ago which suggested there was a significant improvement in 'satisfaction with life' for those professing a religion compared to those who did not. One would assume it is a placebo effect.

Or, it could be God?

[vetrof]

Then surely only the people believing in the right god in the right way would benefit?

[Blib]

vetrof said:

Then surely only the people believing in the right god in the right way would benefit?

"professing a religion".

Seems not. And, don't call me Shirley.

[Derek Smith]

vetrof said:

Then surely only the people believing in the right god in the right way would benefit?

Got it in one.

[Blib]

Derek Smith said:

vetrof said:

Then surely only the people believing in the right god in the right way would benefit?

Got it in one.

Read your own post. This could show that Faith is enough to contact God and that the way to that faith - ie the doctrine - is not in itself important?

[Moonhawk]

Surely he must know god exists - who does he think signs his paycheck every month.

Unless of course - the church is little more than another cog in the capitalist money making machine

[Foppo]

I like his honesty what do we know about a God.It is a belief not a certainty.

A priest once mentioned to the pope that he had doubts about his belief in God.

The pope said fake it my son fake it.> Or words to that effect I believe.

[MikeO996]

Foppo said:

I like his honesty what do we know about a God.It is a belief not a certainty.

A priest once mentioned to the pope that he had doubts about his belief in God.

The pope said fake it my son fake it.> Or words to that effect I believe.

At last we're back to the Archbish, bout time too.
All these arguments about proof are a bit of a red herring, if they had any significant power then all this would have been sorted centuries ago and God would be smiling down at us from the sky saying "it's a fair cop cop, you got me, the gates of heaven are opened.
What's interesting about the Archbish and vaguely newsworthy is
a) it's not what you expect from leadership, conventionally you would expect a top leader to have a vision that he or she inspires in their underlings so as to bolster up their moments of doubt, and although the Anglician church is primarily wispy washy in this country (with some big evangelical exceptions) it's pretty muscular in its core constituencies e.g. Africa
b) I can't imagine previous Archbishops saying this (or the Pope for that matter), and this, together with the recent comments from him and his predecessor that the UK is Christian (following on from Cameron's comments on the matter) for "historical" reasons does I suspect mark a shift.
What I also find interesting in his comments and in this thread is that no-one has said that the best evidence for his (it must be he given the misogyny in the bible, assuming it is remotely divinely inspired) existence is in his actions and impact. Not even the Archbishop of Canterbury ffs seems to feel that he has had direct experience of god, or seen evidence of him in action; ""The other day I was praying over something as I was running, and I ended up saying to God 'look this is all very well, but isn't it about time you did something, if you're there?'".

[Derek Smith]

Blib said:

Derek Smith said:

vetrof said:

Then surely only the people believing in the right god in the right way would benefit?

Got it in one.

Read your own post. This could show that Faith is enough to contact God and that the way to that faith - ie the doctrine - is not in itself important?

There are two arguments: one is that there is/is not a god, the second is that a specific religion is the only right one.

If we leave the first alone for a while as there is, nor can there be, proof either way, we are left with religions. Hundreds of them. If you suggest that doctrine is unimportant then it would appear that they are all right. But that can't be because each religion, in one way or another, says that the followes are the chosen people. Despite using, to an extent, similar books to an extent, each of the main divisions of abrahamic religions consider the other two to be guilty of mortal sin.

I could go on, of course, but that would be patronising. All religions are wrong, according to most - almost all - other religions.

If there is a god, which I'm willing to concede, then what can one have faith in? All that is left is one's own beliefs. So if there are nBN believers, there are nBN religions. It seems they cannot all be right.

It is not contact with a god, their own personal god, that those who profess a religion share, but a belief that there is one.

If we return to arch bish, then he will know, as anyone who studies its history knows, how the roman christian religion came about. He will know that it was a political move by a pagan, that many eye witness accounts of the times were discarded as they were inconvenient, and the basis of the religion had been written some time after the events and had been altered a number of times. If the bloke didn't have his doubts then he'd be an idiot or had refused to accept history.

Religions are man made, divisive, confrontational and particular about doctrine. Of course they are all wrong.

That said, there might be a god.

I think that arch bish knows full well his professed religion is baseless. He's not stupid so he knows that he can't believe one is right and all the rest wrong. His doubt is in the existence of a god, any god. So he's just like a lot of people. Not an atheist but really, on those dark mornings in the wee smalls when he can't get back to sleep, he must admit to himself that much of what he professes if rubbish.

But what's wrong with telling people to love your neighbour as yourself, and to do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Sounds pretty good to me. I believe in that.