Archbishop of Canterbury not sure that God exists
Discussion
If I were to have "faith" I would probably put it into something real something I could see and feel. The Sun the Moon the seasons Nature itself are all far more real to us than some mystical being.Even the Christian Scientists at least come up with a story worthy of Superman. Having some bloke walk on water or in fact turn water into wine just doesn't sit with me.To each there own
standards said:
Derek Smith said:
The obvious question.
The thing is, though, that atheists do not suggest they have it all cracked. Only the religious suggest they do.
The raving fundie might suggest that they've got it ALL cracked. I think the point of the thread is that the dear old C of E has loads of people in with a faith that allows of other possibilities-hopefully more a modest & quieter faith than that the sweeping claims of the extreme factions.The thing is, though, that atheists do not suggest they have it all cracked. Only the religious suggest they do.
Some who feel science is the ONLY way of establishing any 'truth' are close to claiming to have cracked it.
Maybe they're right. If they were I'd find that a little depressing.
But anyway, the fact is, it doesn't matter how you, I or anyone else feels about it. Doesn't really change a thing.
i thought today after years of being an atheist maybe there is something, maybe we are here from a creator, but the creator hasn't made us on purpose we are just here thru circumstance.
i don't believe in the afterlife, religion etc but maybe there is something that started it all, over science, something we can't conceive.
i don't believe in the afterlife, religion etc but maybe there is something that started it all, over science, something we can't conceive.
The Spruce goose said:
i thought today after years of being an atheist maybe there is something, maybe we are here from a creator, but the creator hasn't made us on purpose we are just here thru circumstance.
i don't believe in the afterlife, religion etc but maybe there is something that started it all, over science, something we can't conceive.
And what started "the thing" that started it then? You don't answer any questions by this method, you just create a new one.i don't believe in the afterlife, religion etc but maybe there is something that started it all, over science, something we can't conceive.
The Spruce goose said:
i don't believe in the afterlife, religion etc but maybe there is something that started it all, over science, something we can't conceive.
This is it for me too. The thing is though the scientists just cannot accept that we may never ever know or understand how we got here.Then on the other hand if you have a "faith" you don't need to ask any questions.Ignorance is bliss.
ash73 said:
BMWBen said:
And what started "the thing" that started it then?
It's inconceivable.
t and has a really confusing sense of logic. If it is inconceivable then it doesn't really matter. So why concern yourself with it? If as occupants of this universe, limited by space and time we are unable to ever explain what laws, systems, existences there might be outside of it, things which do not interact with our existence any any measurable way, then why exactly would you care about the their existence? It makes no functional difference to us whether they exist or not. It's a pointless question.
Edited by BMWBen on Saturday 20th September 23:48
ash73 said:
p.s. if any atheists on here enjoy logic puzzles, have a go at dismantling Kurt Gödel's ontological proof, it's quite fun. Basically it says, by definition, God is that for which no greater can be conceived; and while God exists in the understanding of the concept, or in the mind, we could conceive of him as greater if he existed in reality. Therefore, God must exist. 
Someone, who needs to get out more, has actually programmed the logic here
Presumably it would also prove the existence of the devil (more evil than anything we could conceive of), and anything else unimaginably perfect.Someone, who needs to get out more, has actually programmed the logic here
Edited by MikeO996 on Sunday 21st September 08:27
ash73 said:
Your logic is flawed, that which can create the universe can also interact with it; whether it is conceivable to us or not.
Maybe it was a one off interaction, a set of circumstances that occurred just once by accident.I banged my head yesterday, the door frame created a bruise, but it's not going to interact with my bruise any more
BMWBen said:
It's only depressing if you've been brought up believing in a religion that tells you there's "something else" and that there is some kind of greater meaning to everything. If you don't have that, then it's amazing. Your existence is amazing. The more you understand about it the more amazing it becomes. Religious beliefs about the greater purpose of everything take away from the reality.
But anyway, the fact is, it doesn't matter how you, I or anyone else feels about it. Doesn't really change a thing.
I take your points.But anyway, the fact is, it doesn't matter how you, I or anyone else feels about it. Doesn't really change a thing.
The things that for me are insuperable:
I don't think there is a personal god. By personal, I mean one which reacts to the person. The idea that the universe was created (whether overnight, in a few days or over 14bn years is immaterial) for the purpose of bringing forth HS seems to me to be the ultimate conceit.
If one allows this, then a god who has created the wonders of the universe, the mysteries of which we are only just discovering, would be concerned as to what we eat - no shellfish or else, would required us to torture animals when we kill them, would be all that concerned whether I masturbated or not, would be that concerned if I 'lay with another man' and would really want me to stone an adulterer seems to me to ridiculous.
I don't think a god would have a sex. Not if there's only one and he's a bit miffed about self satisfaction.
I don't think a simple god, like the ones described in the literature, with all the pettiness, would be capable of building anything as clever as the solar system.
If something outside the universes did create this one, then that could, by a stretch of the definition, be a god but I don't think it would be that bothered about creating what is, in effect, a model railway system to play with.
Mind you, if you take what the christ is reported to have said then I have to say it is pretty good stuff. But that is another matter.
No wonder the archbishop has got doubts.
In a way I feel sorry for the bloke. Most vicars I've had dealings with have been nice blokes. In a village I used to live in we had a methodist chap who was admirable. Did an awful lot for the community at all levels. But I don't think it was religion that made him that nice, it just gave him a tool to do 'good'. He didn't convert me but both my wife and I helped out with the church and its activities. Most of the other volunteers were, like me, not believers.
But as you say, it matters not what we think. And that goes for the religious: there's no one up there who is concerned about your thoughts, nor how you kill your animals, whether you only walk on a certain day, or have sex before marriage - or get married of course.
ash73 said:
BMWBen said:
How do you know? Maybe it's not. If it's able to interact with our universe we may be able to measure its interactions. Anyway, just because it's inconceivable doesn't make it likely to be the God of religion. You know, the one that sends prophets and st and has a really confusing sense of logic.
If it is inconceivable then it doesn't really matter. So why concern yourself with it? If as occupants of this universe, limited by space and time we are unable to ever explain what laws, systems, existences there might be outside of it, things which do not interact with our existence any any measurable way, then why exactly would you care about the their existence? It makes no functional difference to us whether they exist or not. It's a pointless question.
Your logic is flawed, that which can create the universe can also interact with it; whether it is conceivable to us or not.t and has a really confusing sense of logic. If it is inconceivable then it doesn't really matter. So why concern yourself with it? If as occupants of this universe, limited by space and time we are unable to ever explain what laws, systems, existences there might be outside of it, things which do not interact with our existence any any measurable way, then why exactly would you care about the their existence? It makes no functional difference to us whether they exist or not. It's a pointless question.
Anyway, all of this is complete conjecture - there is nothing that we've encountered so far that has indicated that the scenario we're talking about is the case. Let's just keep going with observe:hypothesis:test:measure for the moment. It's not failed us so far!
BMWBen said:
ash73 said:
BMWBen said:
How do you know? Maybe it's not. If it's able to interact with our universe we may be able to measure its interactions. Anyway, just because it's inconceivable doesn't make it likely to be the God of religion. You know, the one that sends prophets and st and has a really confusing sense of logic.
If it is inconceivable then it doesn't really matter. So why concern yourself with it? If as occupants of this universe, limited by space and time we are unable to ever explain what laws, systems, existences there might be outside of it, things which do not interact with our existence any any measurable way, then why exactly would you care about the their existence? It makes no functional difference to us whether they exist or not. It's a pointless question.
Your logic is flawed, that which can create the universe can also interact with it; whether it is conceivable to us or not.t and has a really confusing sense of logic. If it is inconceivable then it doesn't really matter. So why concern yourself with it? If as occupants of this universe, limited by space and time we are unable to ever explain what laws, systems, existences there might be outside of it, things which do not interact with our existence any any measurable way, then why exactly would you care about the their existence? It makes no functional difference to us whether they exist or not. It's a pointless question.
An online copy of 'Connections' by J Orlin Grabbe could help at this point. Well worth it (finding, then reading through) but increasingly difficult to dig out.
ash73 said:
MikeO996 said:
Presumably it would also prove the existence of the devil (more evil than anything we could conceive of), and anything else unimaginably perfect.
It could be fun to test, although I'm not sure I can get my head round it. It relies on 5 axioms as an input, and if you accept them I think the logical proof is then inescapable; God is instantiated in a formula 
It's just a bit of fun really; if you accept the universe is a mathematical entity then you have to accept mathematical proofs. Einstein was a friend of Kurt Gödel apparently and they spent time debating it.
ash73 said:
The ontological argument has been discussed in philosophy for 1000 years; nobody actually takes it seriously as an argument for the existence of God, the cosmological argument may be more compelling in that sense, but it's an interesting logical exercise. I expect most of those who experiment with it don't actually understand it properly (hence the pigs can fly examples).
Does anyone understand the ontological argument?Isn't it a bit like the Schleswig-Holstein question?
Kant and Hume sorted it out IIRC in the 18th century.
At a common sense level it obviously doesn't hold water, the problem for philosophers has been explaining why from a theoretical logic point of view.
Basically saying something exists doesn't make it exist, there needs to be some other independent evidence in the real world before it can be said to exist.
At a common sense level it obviously doesn't hold water, the problem for philosophers has been explaining why from a theoretical logic point of view.
Basically saying something exists doesn't make it exist, there needs to be some other independent evidence in the real world before it can be said to exist.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff