I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
But we are all of this Universe. There must have been a bright spark somewhere.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
What about Occam's Razor though? If you need God to explain how the universe was created, what/who created God?
I honestly have no idea.
All I am suggesting is that the explanations to suggest why the Universe was created without a God seem to get themselves tangled up in all sorts of mind-boggling theories that haven't been proven. My original question was a simple one - how can you create something from nothing? So far, there have been snippy comments but no one has actually attempted to explain what is backing up their confidence there is absolutely no God.
We don't know, but I don't see how adding a God helps to provide an explanation. What created God? How did He come into being?
You're no further along in providing an explanation, and so the addition of a God is simply useless.
Fine, then go with agnosticism. Just don't say atheism is rational.
But I accept that I have beliefs that are not rational and I don't have a problem with that. So I'm content to describe myself as an Atheist, just as my mother who objected to being put down on a form as agnostic by the religious nurse who didn't want to put anyone down as atheist.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
@algarkirk has explained it far better than I ever can do so let me reprint his argument:
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum. And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on; While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
It was then that Marvin got religion. Not the quiet, personal kind, that involves doing good deeds and living a better life; not even the kind that involves putting on a suit and ringing people's doorbells; but the kind that involves having your own TV network and getting people to send you money.
At worst (for the unionists) it's 50/50 on the major issue.
We've been a divided nation since 2014 since your side failed to concede defeat.
Concede defeat?!
In a democracy, you are never “defeated”. All survive to contest the next election. Unless you are advocating that the Yookay abandon democracy?
You’ll be sending round the goons to lock us up.
Well Nippy should be in jail for sedition. But it's actually her stormtroopers that drive round in the police vans up here so I'm pretty sure that it's me that should be more fearful than you.
"Co-operation 30. The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are committed, through the Memorandum of Understanding between them and others,to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect. The two governments have reached this agreement in that spirit. They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom. "
For us not fluent in DementedTwatish, what obscure point are you attempting to make?
Nippy should be treated as a criminal in the same way those Catalonian politicians were.
Ah. So. You are of the granny-bashing persuasion. Quelle surprise.
Gunships up the Forth at dawn Pike!
Also misogynistic. Very. Nippy sweeties and all that.
Typical unionist thug behaviour.
You lot:
You're Sean.
No, you're Sean.
No, you are..
etc.
Watch it. You’ll hurt the wee petal’s sensibilities. He’ll seek assistance from the mods. Oh, the irony.
It was then that Marvin got religion. Not the quiet, personal kind, that involves doing good deeds and living a better life; not even the kind that involves putting on a suit and ringing people's doorbells; but the kind that involves having your own TV network and getting people to send you money.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
What about Occam's Razor though? If you need God to explain how the universe was created, what/who created God?
I honestly have no idea.
All I am suggesting is that the explanations to suggest why the Universe was created without a God seem to get themselves tangled up in all sorts of mind-boggling theories that haven't been proven. My original question was a simple one - how can you create something from nothing? So far, there have been snippy comments but no one has actually attempted to explain what is backing up their confidence there is absolutely no God.
We don't know, but I don't see how adding a God helps to provide an explanation. What created God? How did He come into being?
You're no further along in providing an explanation, and so the addition of a God is simply useless.
Fine, then go with agnosticism. Just don't say atheism is rational.
But I accept that I have beliefs that are not rational and I don't have a problem with that. So I'm content to describe myself as an Atheist, just as my mother who objected to being put down on a form as agnostic by the religious nurse who didn't want to put anyone down as atheist.
That's fine, what isn't (and I am not saying you do this FYI) is the assumption that, if you are 'smart', atheism is the logical choice whereas belief is for dummies. Both are two sides of the same coin.
This isn't some reverse four yorkshireman tale of lack of bravery, but I can barely even watch that stuff. I don't like standing too close to the edge of a 1st floor balcony. In China there was this hotel that was like 50 stories, but all within a skyscraper, so there was a viewing floor at the top where you could look down to the lobby, all enclosed so no chance of falling, and I hated that.
I have a complete terror of heights. Watching anything like that makes me feel queasy.
When I was a teenager, I had a little job working on a power station cooling tower. Not one of the concave jobs on 1960s power stations, but a Borg-cube like thing. For the first few hours, I would inch along the 18-inch wide concrete beams with caution. After a couple of days, I would run along them.
You get used to it.
Being in the rigging of a tall ship in a breeze, at night, was a very different matter. I'd never get used to that.
I hate heights. I foolishly agreed to accompany my daughter and her friends when she had a birthday party at Go Ape. I could have watched them from the ground but thought I should go up with them in case any of them got scared and needed a hand. In the end they were all totally fine with it, and it was me who needed coaxing across the scariest bits by a load of 8 and 9 year old girls: "Don't worry, *******'s dad, you're almost there."
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
@algarkirk has explained it far better than I ever can do so let me reprint his argument:
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
Sure: but then I fail to see what is wrong with the response:
The Universe exists. It has always existed. It will always exist. The Big Bang is the just the start of this particular iteration of the universe.
I don't see anything particularly troubling about this. It certainly seems no more troubling than the belief that God has always existed. I mean, did God create other Universes before this one?
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
TO put it in physical terms there are more stars out there than grains of sand on all the Earth's beaches!
Yes.
Unlike Leon I don't see the vastness of the universe as a reason for believing in God but I think we've had this kind of discussion on here before.
I look up at the stars above and I'm filled with wonder. I find it comforting to think I am nothing and I will return to nothing. The universe will go on through timespans that make us seem even smaller than one of those grains of sand you mention.
Only Zaphod Beeblebrox managed to out-ego the universe. And Boris Johnson, obvs.
It isn't really that interesting. There's lots of things, some very big and far away. Wooo.
Well I agree.
I wrote my 'Yawn' before reading this.
You literally wrote: “the universe: YAWN”
Consider which approach might be the more diseased
Atheism is a tragic cul de sac of the frightened middlebrow mind
Atheism and disinterested agnosticism is also a symptom of the decline of self confidence in the West.
Atheism combined with contempt for your nation's history. If you look at growing economies and growing nations, Nigeria, Brazil, India etc they are all religious. The least religious parts of the US however are also generally the most Woke and least patriotic.
Even Putin recognises the strength of the Orthodox Church in entrenching pride in Russia (not that he is really a Christian of much devotion). China is atheist but then it has its own alternative religion ie devotion to the Communist Party as the backbone of China
On the other hand, religion can really screw people up.
My paternal grandfather was Plymouth Brethren. My paternal grandmother was not. When they got married, both sides of the family disowned them - and the marriage 'that would not last' lasted 60+ years, and produced four great kids, many grandchldren, and many, many superb great-grandchilren.
The pain this religious rift caused that side of the family was intense, and the effects still reverberate to this day. Fortunately it was not as bad as it could have been, thanks to granddad volunteering from a reserved occupation in WW2.
It was a pain caused by people seeing religion - or 'their' sort of religion - as the most important attribute a person could hold.
It's bullshit.
I would call that pure restrictive, and social dogma, rather than anything to do with the spiritual possibilities of thing , myself.
Religion is the restrictive and dogmatic aspects of spirituality. which is why religions try to say 'we are right, you are wrong' when they come against other forms of spirituality.
Religion is power. People crave power over others. Spirituality is personal.
Although I partially agree with aspects here, too, the other problem with it is that in our now very aggressively atheist society, religion has become a widely understood shorthand for anything vaguely spiritual at all. Anything spiritual is tainted by the same concepts of power.
"aggressively atheist society"
Given the harms caused by organised religions over the last few thousands years, I wouldn't call our current somewhat atheistic society 'aggressive'.
I also disagree with your underlying comment. People are fine with spirituality. They are very dubious when they say that another person's spirituality and beliefs should impact their lives. Spirituality is becoming more personal and less public. Which, with a country containing many different beliefs, is a good thing IMV.
I don't agree with the idea of a trend of still existing but less collective spiritual belief at all. Spiritual beliefs are actually becoming rarer and rarer among young North Europeans and North Americans, I would say. The default modern approach to anything remotely spiritual in Britain and many other Western countries among younger groups tends to be very quick scorn.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
What a stupid question! Your imaginary Santa solves nothing. For, in the absence of a better explanation, I can simply suggest that the two atoms came from the same place that your big man in a red furry suit came from.
Which is what? Surely a man of obvious intelligence and repartee as shown by your answer can explain things? Surely I can't assume you just don't know the answer.....?
Now you're just being silly.
If you're struggling with the question "who/how created X?", inventing a Y to solve your problem with "Y created X" simply invites the question "who/how created Y?".
Any answer you might give in respect of Y (such as "Y has always existed", or "Y exists above or beyond the concept of time") I can give in respect of X.
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
TO put it in physical terms there are more stars out there than grains of sand on all the Earth's beaches!
Yes.
Unlike Leon I don't see the vastness of the universe as a reason for believing in God but I think we've had this kind of discussion on here before.
I look up at the stars above and I'm filled with wonder. I find it comforting to think I am nothing and I will return to nothing. The universe will go on through timespans that make us seem even smaller than one of those grains of sand you mention.
Only Zaphod Beeblebrox managed to out-ego the universe. And Boris Johnson, obvs.
It isn't really that interesting. There's lots of things, some very big and far away. Wooo.
Well I agree.
I wrote my 'Yawn' before reading this.
You literally wrote: “the universe: YAWN”
Consider which approach might be the more diseased
Atheism is a tragic cul de sac of the frightened middlebrow mind
Atheism and disinterested agnosticism is also a symptom of the decline of self confidence in the West.
Atheism combined with contempt for your nation's history. If you look at growing economies and growing nations, Nigeria, Brazil, India etc they are all religious. The least religious parts of the US however are also generally the most Woke and least patriotic.
Even Putin recognises the strength of the Orthodox Church in entrenching pride in Russia (not that he is really a Christian of much devotion). China is atheist but then it has its own alternative religion ie devotion to the Communist Party as the backbone of China
On the other hand, religion can really screw people up.
My paternal grandfather was Plymouth Brethren. My paternal grandmother was not. When they got married, both sides of the family disowned them - and the marriage 'that would not last' lasted 60+ years, and produced four great kids, many grandchldren, and many, many superb great-grandchilren.
The pain this religious rift caused that side of the family was intense, and the effects still reverberate to this day. Fortunately it was not as bad as it could have been, thanks to granddad volunteering from a reserved occupation in WW2.
It was a pain caused by people seeing religion - or 'their' sort of religion - as the most important attribute a person could hold.
It's bullshit.
I would call that pure restrictive, and social dogma, rather than anything to do with the spiritual possibilities of thing , myself.
Religion is the restrictive and dogmatic aspects of spirituality. which is why religions try to say 'we are right, you are wrong' when they come against other forms of spirituality.
Religion is power. People crave power over others. Spirituality is personal.
Without trying to be too provocative, I think that's a rather lazy categorisation.
Can you define your understanding of "spirituality"?
I don't associate Desmond Tutu or Trevor Huddleston, or Lavinia Byrne, or Sheila Cassidy (wrote "Good Friday People"), or the members of the Corymeela Community, or for that matter your average Vicar, or the volunteer lay chaplains at my local hospital, or those at the various homelessness projects in London, as being on power trips.
I'd go some way with your definition of a contemporary understanding of spirituality as being 'personal', but I'd associate a lot of it with rich (by world standards, we all are) Westerners trying to get a benefit without facing the awkward challenges and answering the difficult questions that come with involvement in a religious community (the normal Anglican term would be 'worshipping community'.)
It's one thing to be aware of the Sermon on the Mount in an ancient book; it's quite another to have to work out how to follow it through in 2022.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
@algarkirk has explained it far better than I ever can do so let me reprint his argument:
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
I mean, did God create other Universes before this one?
You'll be saying there's likely to be eleven Universes next.
I've think we've got enough on our hands trying to handle this one.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
@algarkirk has explained it far better than I ever can do so let me reprint his argument:
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
Sure: but then I fail to see what is wrong with the response:
The Universe exists. It has always existed. It will always exist. The Big Bang is the just the start of this particular iteration of the universe.
I don't see anything particularly troubling about this. It certainly seems no more troubling than the belief that God has always existed. I mean, did God create other Universes before this one?
I hope God and heaven and hell exist. For I should like Fred West and Idi Amin and Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot to pay for the misery and pain they caused other people.
It would be a real shame if they just ceased to be.
Even sadder if you ended up there with them? Depending on what text you trust, it's easily done
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
TO put it in physical terms there are more stars out there than grains of sand on all the Earth's beaches!
Yes.
Unlike Leon I don't see the vastness of the universe as a reason for believing in God but I think we've had this kind of discussion on here before.
I look up at the stars above and I'm filled with wonder. I find it comforting to think I am nothing and I will return to nothing. The universe will go on through timespans that make us seem even smaller than one of those grains of sand you mention.
Only Zaphod Beeblebrox managed to out-ego the universe. And Boris Johnson, obvs.
It isn't really that interesting. There's lots of things, some very big and far away. Wooo.
Well I agree.
I wrote my 'Yawn' before reading this.
You literally wrote: “the universe: YAWN”
Consider which approach might be the more diseased
Atheism is a tragic cul de sac of the frightened middlebrow mind
Atheism and disinterested agnosticism is also a symptom of the decline of self confidence in the West.
Atheism combined with contempt for your nation's history. If you look at growing economies and growing nations, Nigeria, Brazil, India etc they are all religious. The least religious parts of the US however are also generally the most Woke and least patriotic.
Even Putin recognises the strength of the Orthodox Church in entrenching pride in Russia (not that he is really a Christian of much devotion). China is atheist but then it has its own alternative religion ie devotion to the Communist Party as the backbone of China
On the other hand, religion can really screw people up.
My paternal grandfather was Plymouth Brethren. My paternal grandmother was not. When they got married, both sides of the family disowned them - and the marriage 'that would not last' lasted 60+ years, and produced four great kids, many grandchldren, and many, many superb great-grandchilren.
The pain this religious rift caused that side of the family was intense, and the effects still reverberate to this day. Fortunately it was not as bad as it could have been, thanks to granddad volunteering from a reserved occupation in WW2.
It was a pain caused by people seeing religion - or 'their' sort of religion - as the most important attribute a person could hold.
It's bullshit.
I would call that pure restrictive, and social dogma, rather than anything to do with the spiritual possibilities of thing , myself.
Religion is the restrictive and dogmatic aspects of spirituality. which is why religions try to say 'we are right, you are wrong' when they come against other forms of spirituality.
Religion is power. People crave power over others. Spirituality is personal.
Although I partially agree with aspects here, too, the other problem with it is that in our now very aggressively atheist society, religion has become a widely understood shorthand for anything vaguely spiritual at all. Anything spiritual is tainted by the same concepts of power.
"aggressively atheist society"
Given the harms caused by organised religions over the last few thousands years, I wouldn't call our current somewhat atheistic society 'aggressive'.
I also disagree with your underlying comment. People are fine with spirituality. They are very dubious when they say that another person's spirituality and beliefs should impact their lives. Spirituality is becoming more personal and less public. Which, with a country containing many different beliefs, is a good thing IMV.
I would question "aggressively atheist society" in general. Most people are considerate, whatever their views.
Certainly there are atheist organisation around that behave aggressively. On one occasion I noted the National Secular Society were encouraging their members to go into hospitals and abuse Chaplains as being a waste of NHS money. One of their members did (in a Lincoln Hospital), then they were acting proud in their newsletter.
Of course the silly oaf had gone in and abused a volunteer chaplain who cost the NHS nothing.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
@algarkirk has explained it far better than I ever can do so let me reprint his argument:
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
Sure: but then I fail to see what is wrong with the response:
The Universe exists. It has always existed. It will always exist. The Big Bang is the just the start of this particular iteration of the universe.
I don't see anything particularly troubling about this. It certainly seems no more troubling than the belief that God has always existed. I mean, did God create other Universes before this one?
I was reflecting on the absurd spectacle of Guto Harri greeting Johnson with a salute, and then them singing a chorus of I Will Survive. And this is the new grown-up team? You really couldn't make it up. The scene would have been too implausible to be used even in The Thick of It, let alone Yes Prime Minister. As somebody else pointed out, Boris is more like David Brent - The Office is the best metaphor for the current shower.
As an aside, I would have thought that humans have a predilection towards belief because that conferred survival advantages. Your group, sharing beliefs, looked out for each other. Individuals that lacked that belief gene, were more likely to find themselves alone, being eaten by a lion.
Sure, but it also seems to have a special affinity for the very cruel torture and murder of outgroups - if you look at the reasons for which people get burned or boiled alive and so on, it is disproportionately for being the wrong sort of believer as opposed to doing anything particularly dreadful. This should be a worry
That's nothing to do with religion per se. Primitive tribes also behave in this way.
I was reflecting on the absurd spectacle of Guto Harri greeting Johnson with a salute, and then them singing a chorus of I Will Survive. And this is the new grown-up team? You really couldn't make it up. The scene would have been too implausible to be used even in The Thick of It, let alone Yes Prime Minister. As somebody else pointed out, Boris is more like David Brent - The Office is the best metaphor for the current shower.
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
TO put it in physical terms there are more stars out there than grains of sand on all the Earth's beaches!
Yes.
Unlike Leon I don't see the vastness of the universe as a reason for believing in God but I think we've had this kind of discussion on here before.
I look up at the stars above and I'm filled with wonder. I find it comforting to think I am nothing and I will return to nothing. The universe will go on through timespans that make us seem even smaller than one of those grains of sand you mention.
Only Zaphod Beeblebrox managed to out-ego the universe. And Boris Johnson, obvs.
It isn't really that interesting. There's lots of things, some very big and far away. Wooo.
Well I agree.
I wrote my 'Yawn' before reading this.
You literally wrote: “the universe: YAWN”
Consider which approach might be the more diseased
Atheism is a tragic cul de sac of the frightened middlebrow mind
Atheism and disinterested agnosticism is also a symptom of the decline of self confidence in the West.
Atheism combined with contempt for your nation's history. If you look at growing economies and growing nations, Nigeria, Brazil, India etc they are all religious. The least religious parts of the US however are also generally the most Woke and least patriotic.
Even Putin recognises the strength of the Orthodox Church in entrenching pride in Russia (not that he is really a Christian of much devotion). China is atheist but then it has its own alternative religion ie devotion to the Communist Party as the backbone of China
On the other hand, religion can really screw people up.
My paternal grandfather was Plymouth Brethren. My paternal grandmother was not. When they got married, both sides of the family disowned them - and the marriage 'that would not last' lasted 60+ years, and produced four great kids, many grandchldren, and many, many superb great-grandchilren.
The pain this religious rift caused that side of the family was intense, and the effects still reverberate to this day. Fortunately it was not as bad as it could have been, thanks to granddad volunteering from a reserved occupation in WW2.
It was a pain caused by people seeing religion - or 'their' sort of religion - as the most important attribute a person could hold.
It's bullshit.
I would call that pure restrictive, and social dogma, rather than anything to do with the spiritual possibilities of thing , myself.
Religion is the restrictive and dogmatic aspects of spirituality. which is why religions try to say 'we are right, you are wrong' when they come against other forms of spirituality.
Religion is power. People crave power over others. Spirituality is personal.
Although I partially agree with aspects here, too, the other problem with it is that in our now very aggressively atheist society, religion has become a widely understood shorthand for anything vaguely spiritual at all. Anything spiritual is tainted by the same concepts of power.
"aggressively atheist society"
Given the harms caused by organised religions over the last few thousands years, I wouldn't call our current somewhat atheistic society 'aggressive'.
I also disagree with your underlying comment. People are fine with spirituality. They are very dubious when they say that another person's spirituality and beliefs should impact their lives. Spirituality is becoming more personal and less public. Which, with a country containing many different beliefs, is a good thing IMV.
I would question "aggressively atheist society" in general. Most people are considerate, whatever their views.
Certainly there are atheist organisation around that behave aggressively. On one occasion I noted the National Secular Society were encouraging their members to go into hospitals and abuse Chaplains as being a waste of NHS money. One of their members did (in a Lincoln Hospital), then they were acting proud in their newsletter.
Of course the silly oaf had gone in and abused a volunteer chaplain who cost the NHS nothing.
I wouldn't share that view. Among people under around 40 in UK, the trend I observe most commonly against anything even remotely spiritual is actually something like open contempt, or fashionable mockery. Something that marks one out as soft-headed.
I was reflecting on the absurd spectacle of Guto Harri greeting Johnson with a salute, and then them singing a chorus of I Will Survive. And this is the new grown-up team? You really couldn't make it up. The scene would have been too implausible to be used even in The Thick of It, let alone Yes Prime Minister. As somebody else pointed out, Boris is more like David Brent - The Office is the best metaphor for the current shower.
As an aside, I would have thought that humans have a predilection towards belief because that conferred survival advantages. Your group, sharing beliefs, looked out for each other. Individuals that lacked that belief gene, were more likely to find themselves alone, being eaten by a lion.
Sure, but it also seems to have a special affinity for the very cruel torture and murder of outgroups - if you look at the reasons for which people get burned or boiled alive and so on, it is disproportionately for being the wrong sort of believer as opposed to doing anything particularly dreadful. This should be a worry
That's nothing to do with religion per se. Primitive tribes also behave in this way.
It was also nothing to do with why Hitler hated the Jews, or Stalin his own opponents too, for instance.
Really? No religious element at all? How do you know?
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
@algarkirk has explained it far better than I ever can do so let me reprint his argument:
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
Sure: but then I fail to see what is wrong with the response:
The Universe exists. It has always existed. It will always exist. The Big Bang is the just the start of this particular iteration of the universe.
I don't see anything particularly troubling about this. It certainly seems no more troubling than the belief that God has always existed. I mean, did God create other Universes before this one?
Right. Thing is, to conceive of god as the creator of time and space we must be able to conceive of no time and no space. Which we can't, so we cannot in any meaningful way conceive of god.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
What about Occam's Razor though? If you need God to explain how the universe was created, what/who created God?
I honestly have no idea.
All I am suggesting is that the explanations to suggest why the Universe was created without a God seem to get themselves tangled up in all sorts of mind-boggling theories that haven't been proven. My original question was a simple one - how can you create something from nothing? So far, there have been snippy comments but no one has actually attempted to explain what is backing up their confidence there is absolutely no God.
You are confusing quite a lot of different arguments, there. The physical state of the universe needs explaining, God or not. As to the actual existence of God, it is easier than you think. If you define God as omnipotent being who loves humanity like his own children, the answer is no such being can exist, because Auschwitz (shorthand for a lot of equally dreadful stuff which has always happened and continues to do so). If you think they can, you don't understand the words involved. It's like saying How can we know that somewhere among all those trillions of stars there isn't a planet with a 4 cornered triangle on it?
The typical answer re Auschwitz would be "we cannot begin to explain why God allowed this but there must be a reason". You are attempting to use human wisdom and logic - with its limitations - to explain something that is not human.
My own pathetic view would be it's a variation on the story of someone who wins the lottery, everyone says he is lucky, then he nearly dies in a crash involving the car he bought with the lottery and everyone says he is unlucky but then when he is in hospital, his house catches fire and he would have been dead if he wasn't in the hospital. Maybe Auschwitz stopped even worse horrors from occurring in the future (it certainly fatally undermined Racism). Who knows?
The simple truth is I don't know and I don't have a clue but Atheists do seem to and I wanted to see what underpinned their certainty, Arguments such as "a God wouldn't have allowed Auschwitz" is not proof of anything.
You say the moon is made of ice cream, I say why hasn't it melted, you say wobble but there must be a reason, who knows?
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
TO put it in physical terms there are more stars out there than grains of sand on all the Earth's beaches!
Yes.
Unlike Leon I don't see the vastness of the universe as a reason for believing in God but I think we've had this kind of discussion on here before.
I look up at the stars above and I'm filled with wonder. I find it comforting to think I am nothing and I will return to nothing. The universe will go on through timespans that make us seem even smaller than one of those grains of sand you mention.
Only Zaphod Beeblebrox managed to out-ego the universe. And Boris Johnson, obvs.
It isn't really that interesting. There's lots of things, some very big and far away. Wooo.
Well I agree.
I wrote my 'Yawn' before reading this.
You literally wrote: “the universe: YAWN”
Consider which approach might be the more diseased
Atheism is a tragic cul de sac of the frightened middlebrow mind
Atheism and disinterested agnosticism is also a symptom of the decline of self confidence in the West.
Atheism combined with contempt for your nation's history. If you look at growing economies and growing nations, Nigeria, Brazil, India etc they are all religious. The least religious parts of the US however are also generally the most Woke and least patriotic.
Even Putin recognises the strength of the Orthodox Church in entrenching pride in Russia (not that he is really a Christian of much devotion). China is atheist but then it has its own alternative religion ie devotion to the Communist Party as the backbone of China
On the other hand, religion can really screw people up.
My paternal grandfather was Plymouth Brethren. My paternal grandmother was not. When they got married, both sides of the family disowned them - and the marriage 'that would not last' lasted 60+ years, and produced four great kids, many grandchldren, and many, many superb great-grandchilren.
The pain this religious rift caused that side of the family was intense, and the effects still reverberate to this day. Fortunately it was not as bad as it could have been, thanks to granddad volunteering from a reserved occupation in WW2.
It was a pain caused by people seeing religion - or 'their' sort of religion - as the most important attribute a person could hold.
It's bullshit.
I would call that pure restrictive, and social dogma, rather than anything to do with the spiritual possibilities of thing , myself.
Religion is the restrictive and dogmatic aspects of spirituality. which is why religions try to say 'we are right, you are wrong' when they come against other forms of spirituality.
Religion is power. People crave power over others. Spirituality is personal.
Although I partially agree with aspects here, too, the other problem with it is that in our now very aggressively atheist society, religion has become a widely understood shorthand for anything vaguely spiritual at all. Anything spiritual is tainted by the same concepts of power.
"aggressively atheist society"
Given the harms caused by organised religions over the last few thousands years, I wouldn't call our current somewhat atheistic society 'aggressive'.
I also disagree with your underlying comment. People are fine with spirituality. They are very dubious when they say that another person's spirituality and beliefs should impact their lives. Spirituality is becoming more personal and less public. Which, with a country containing many different beliefs, is a good thing IMV.
I would question "aggressively atheist society" in general. Most people are considerate, whatever their views.
Certainly there are atheist organisation around that behave aggressively. On one occasion I noted the National Secular Society were encouraging their members to go into hospitals and abuse Chaplains as being a waste of NHS money. One of their members did (in a Lincoln Hospital), then they were acting proud in their newsletter.
Of course the silly oaf had gone in and abused a volunteer chaplain who cost the NHS nothing.
I wouldn't share that view. Among people under around 40 in UK, the trend I observe most commonly against anything even remotely spiritual is actually something like open contempt, or fashionable mockery. Something marking you out as soft-headed.
I think I would ask for a definition of 'spirituality', and I think that the generation you choose are likely to have something in their lives which meets that definition but are perhaps calling it something else.
I was reflecting on the absurd spectacle of Guto Harri greeting Johnson with a salute, and then them singing a chorus of I Will Survive. And this is the new grown-up team? You really couldn't make it up. The scene would have been too implausible to be used even in The Thick of It, let alone Yes Prime Minister. As somebody else pointed out, Boris is more like David Brent - The Office is the best metaphor for the current shower.
As an aside, I would have thought that humans have a predilection towards belief because that conferred survival advantages. Your group, sharing beliefs, looked out for each other. Individuals that lacked that belief gene, were more likely to find themselves alone, being eaten by a lion.
Sure, but it also seems to have a special affinity for the very cruel torture and murder of outgroups - if you look at the reasons for which people get burned or boiled alive and so on, it is disproportionately for being the wrong sort of believer as opposed to doing anything particularly dreadful. This should be a worry
That's nothing to do with religion per se. Primitive tribes also behave in this way.
It was also nothing to do with why Hitler hated the Jews, or Stalin his own opponents too, for instance.
Really? No religious element at all? How do you know?
Well, Hitler was not very Christian, and didn't want to elevate Christianity in Nazism. He basically considered Jews inferior and an intrinsic enemy because they were physically different, which made them biologically unable to be anything else. This in fact continued a nineteenth-century secular trend of racial hierarchy - racial "science", in fact, as it was believed to be then. With this he mixed his own extreme personal resentments and crazed sociopathy, and a dash of Nietzcheanism and elements from the German intellectual tradition.
As an aside, I would have thought that humans have a predilection towards belief because that conferred survival advantages. Your group, sharing beliefs, looked out for each other. Individuals that lacked that belief gene, were more likely to find themselves alone, being eaten by a lion.
Sure, but it also seems to have a special affinity for the very cruel torture and murder of outgroups - if you look at the reasons for which people get burned or boiled alive and so on, it is disproportionately for being the wrong sort of believer as opposed to doing anything particularly dreadful. This should be a worry
That's nothing to do with religion per se. Primitive tribes also behave in this way.
It was also nothing to do with why Hitler hated the Jews, or Stalin his own opponents too, for instance.
Really? No religious element at all? How do you know?
That of course all assumes a particular definition of 'religion'.
I was reflecting on the absurd spectacle of Guto Harri greeting Johnson with a salute, and then them singing a chorus of I Will Survive. And this is the new grown-up team? You really couldn't make it up. The scene would have been too implausible to be used even in The Thick of It, let alone Yes Prime Minister. As somebody else pointed out, Boris is more like David Brent - The Office is the best metaphor for the current shower.
I dunno. These two have worked together for years back in the London days. I can imagine two close work colleagues who share a certain sense of humour and have known each other for years doing similar. Indeed, I suspect I might myself with one or two of the guys I have worked with in the past. It's a humour thing. Far too much being read into this.
The real worry is that the New Grown-Ups thought it was a good idea to share this moment with the oinks.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
@algarkirk has explained it far better than I ever can do so let me reprint his argument:
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
Sure: but then I fail to see what is wrong with the response:
The Universe exists. It has always existed. It will always exist. The Big Bang is the just the start of this particular iteration of the universe.
I don't see anything particularly troubling about this. It certainly seems no more troubling than the belief that God has always existed. I mean, did God create other Universes before this one?
Nothing at all is wrong with this response. It's fine. It may be true. It is BTW equally consistent with the existence or non existence of God. Creation ex nihilo is a Christian and Jewish doctrine, but that may be mistaken but God still exist.
My bigger problem is about intention, purpose and values. Suppose that this common sense view is correct: "Torturing children for fun is always wrong". As a theist I believe this will stay true even if everyone thought it was false. In other words it is objective. A fortiori that objective status can only come from somewhere outside the human. Occam's razor suggests a single divine intention is the simplest explanation of this extraordinary phenomenon. Other, more complex explanations and analyses are, of course, available
I was reflecting on the absurd spectacle of Guto Harri greeting Johnson with a salute, and then them singing a chorus of I Will Survive. And this is the new grown-up team? You really couldn't make it up. The scene would have been too implausible to be used even in The Thick of It, let alone Yes Prime Minister. As somebody else pointed out, Boris is more like David Brent - The Office is the best metaphor for the current shower.
Yes, I can see that emblazoned all over social media at the next GE:
Vote Boris: not a complete clown.
To be clear, Johnson is completely NOT a clown. Clowns are entertaining, funny and harmless. Johnson is none of those things. Johnson is a sociopath turd. Big difference.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
@algarkirk has explained it far better than I ever can do so let me reprint his argument:
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
Sure: but then I fail to see what is wrong with the response:
The Universe exists. It has always existed. It will always exist. The Big Bang is the just the start of this particular iteration of the universe.
I don't see anything particularly troubling about this. It certainly seems no more troubling than the belief that God has always existed. I mean, did God create other Universes before this one?
Right. Thing is, to conceive of god as the creator of time and space we must be able to conceive of no time and no space. Which we can't, so we cannot in any meaningful way conceive of god.
Briskin accepts the challenge (yes, I might just have solved Religion)
1. No time and space.
2. Cognito Ergo Sum
3. Someone who did not exist had a thought (the bright spark)
4. The Universe began and that person who had a thought while no-one existed may reasonable be described as God.
I think that's it: this is the moment the rest of the letters go in to the 1922. It's too reminiscent of the Capitol.
Ch 4 News full of it. Though I loathe Johnson more than most blaming him for a bunch of anti vaxers chanting 'Saville' at Starmer is a bit of a stretch. On the bright side at least these crazies knew who Starmer was.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
@algarkirk has explained it far better than I ever can do so let me reprint his argument:
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
Sure: but then I fail to see what is wrong with the response:
The Universe exists. It has always existed. It will always exist. The Big Bang is the just the start of this particular iteration of the universe.
I don't see anything particularly troubling about this. It certainly seems no more troubling than the belief that God has always existed. I mean, did God create other Universes before this one?
Nothing at all is wrong with this response. It's fine. It may be true. It is BTW equally consistent with the existence or non existence of God. Creation ex nihilo is a Christian and Jewish doctrine, but that may be mistaken but God still exist.
My bigger problem is about intention, purpose and values. Suppose that this common sense view is correct: "Torturing children for fun is always wrong". As a theist I believe this will stay true even if everyone thought it was false. In other words it is objective. A fortiori that objective status can only come from somewhere outside the human. Occam's razor suggests a single divine intention is the simplest explanation of this extraordinary phenomenon. Other, more complex explanations and analyses are, of course, available
I rather suspect that humans had the moral value of not killing each other (or at least certainly the ones they already knew that presented no threat) for no reason, long before the idea of any religion came along.
At worst (for the unionists) it's 50/50 on the major issue.
We've been a divided nation since 2014 since your side failed to concede defeat.
Concede defeat?!
In a democracy, you are never “defeated”. All survive to contest the next election. Unless you are advocating that the Yookay abandon democracy?
You’ll be sending round the goons to lock us up.
Well Nippy should be in jail for sedition. But it's actually her stormtroopers that drive round in the police vans up here so I'm pretty sure that it's me that should be more fearful than you.
"Co-operation 30. The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are committed, through the Memorandum of Understanding between them and others,to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect. The two governments have reached this agreement in that spirit. They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom. "
For us not fluent in DementedTwatish, what obscure point are you attempting to make?
Nippy should be treated as a criminal in the same way those Catalonian politicians were.
Ah. So. You are of the granny-bashing persuasion. Quelle surprise.
Gunships up the Forth at dawn Pike!
It's you that is the Nationalist dimwit.
Please look up Duck test on your beloved Wikipedia.
You look like a British Nationalist, you blog like a British Nationalist, and squawk like a British Nationalist, then you probably are a British Nationalist.
Says the Scottish Nationalist.
It's a relatively small island - Can't we just all get along?
You look like a whining bully, you blog like a whining bully, and squawk like a whining bully. You are a whining bully.
I was reflecting on the absurd spectacle of Guto Harri greeting Johnson with a salute, and then them singing a chorus of I Will Survive. And this is the new grown-up team? You really couldn't make it up. The scene would have been too implausible to be used even in The Thick of It, let alone Yes Prime Minister. As somebody else pointed out, Boris is more like David Brent - The Office is the best metaphor for the current shower.
I dunno. These two have worked together for years back in the London days. I can imagine two close work colleagues who share a certain sense of humour and have known each other for years doing similar. Indeed, I suspect I might myself with one or two of the guys I have worked with in the past. It's a humour thing. Far too much being read into this.
The real worry is that the New Grown-Ups thought it was a good idea to share this moment with the oinks.
But that was my point: why on earth did Guto Harri choose to share this private moment - he must have known it would sound absurd to outsiders?
At worst (for the unionists) it's 50/50 on the major issue.
We've been a divided nation since 2014 since your side failed to concede defeat.
Concede defeat?!
In a democracy, you are never “defeated”. All survive to contest the next election. Unless you are advocating that the Yookay abandon democracy?
You’ll be sending round the goons to lock us up.
Well Nippy should be in jail for sedition. But it's actually her stormtroopers that drive round in the police vans up here so I'm pretty sure that it's me that should be more fearful than you.
"Co-operation 30. The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are committed, through the Memorandum of Understanding between them and others,to working together on matters of mutual interest and to the principles of good communication and mutual respect. The two governments have reached this agreement in that spirit. They look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two governments are committed to continue to work together constructively in the light of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom. "
For us not fluent in DementedTwatish, what obscure point are you attempting to make?
Nippy should be treated as a criminal in the same way those Catalonian politicians were.
Ah. So. You are of the granny-bashing persuasion. Quelle surprise.
Gunships up the Forth at dawn Pike!
It's you that is the Nationalist dimwit.
Please look up Duck test on your beloved Wikipedia.
You look like a British Nationalist, you blog like a British Nationalist, and squawk like a British Nationalist, then you probably are a British Nationalist.
Says the Scottish Nationalist.
It's a relatively small island - Can't we just all get along?
You look like a whining bully, you blog like a whining bully, and squawk like a whining bully. You are a whining bully.
Lol - don't think I've ever been described as a bully before but it that's what you think I might just be doing something right.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
@algarkirk has explained it far better than I ever can do so let me reprint his argument:
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
Sure: but then I fail to see what is wrong with the response:
The Universe exists. It has always existed. It will always exist. The Big Bang is the just the start of this particular iteration of the universe.
I don't see anything particularly troubling about this. It certainly seems no more troubling than the belief that God has always existed. I mean, did God create other Universes before this one?
Right. Thing is, to conceive of god as the creator of time and space we must be able to conceive of no time and no space. Which we can't, so we cannot in any meaningful way conceive of god.
The conclusion does not begin to follow from the premise as currently formulated. I wouldn't accept it as homework from a Year 9.
Why do those who want to privatise religion in the name of atheism (or whatever) spend their time on intellectual speculation about the existence (or not) of God?
Whilst religious people, who are supposed to be obsessed about life after death and the rest, so often form the core of the groups serving their local communities in the here and now?
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
@algarkirk has explained it far better than I ever can do so let me reprint his argument:
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
Sure: but then I fail to see what is wrong with the response:
The Universe exists. It has always existed. It will always exist. The Big Bang is the just the start of this particular iteration of the universe.
I don't see anything particularly troubling about this. It certainly seems no more troubling than the belief that God has always existed. I mean, did God create other Universes before this one?
Nothing at all is wrong with this response. It's fine. It may be true. It is BTW equally consistent with the existence or non existence of God. Creation ex nihilo is a Christian and Jewish doctrine, but that may be mistaken but God still exist.
My bigger problem is about intention, purpose and values. Suppose that this common sense view is correct: "Torturing children for fun is always wrong". As a theist I believe this will stay true even if everyone thought it was false. In other words it is objective. A fortiori that objective status can only come from somewhere outside the human. Occam's razor suggests a single divine intention is the simplest explanation of this extraordinary phenomenon. Other, more complex explanations and analyses are, of course, available
I rather suspect that humans had the moral value of not killing each other (or at least certainly the ones they already knew that presented no threat) for no reason, long before the idea of any religion came along.
Possibly true, but it does not affect my point in any way at all.
I think that's it: this is the moment the rest of the letters go in to the 1922. It's too reminiscent of the Capitol.
Ch 4 News full of it. Though I loathe Johnson more than most blaming him for a bunch of anti vaxers chanting 'Saville' at Starmer is a bit of a stretch. On the bright side at least these crazies knew who Starmer was.
Exactly, Piers Corbyn addressed the protestors too.
It was an anti vaxxer, anti Covid restrictions, pro Assange protest mainly
I think that's it: this is the moment the rest of the letters go in to the 1922. It's too reminiscent of the Capitol.
Ch 4 News full of it. Though I loathe Johnson more than most blaming him for a bunch of anti vaxers chanting 'Saville' at Starmer is a bit of a stretch. On the bright side at least these crazies knew who Starmer was.
Only because Johnson had told them the lie that he was some kind of paedo protector under coverage of immunity in Parliament.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
@algarkirk has explained it far better than I ever can do so let me reprint his argument:
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
Sure: but then I fail to see what is wrong with the response:
The Universe exists. It has always existed. It will always exist. The Big Bang is the just the start of this particular iteration of the universe.
I don't see anything particularly troubling about this. It certainly seems no more troubling than the belief that God has always existed. I mean, did God create other Universes before this one?
Right. Thing is, to conceive of god as the creator of time and space we must be able to conceive of no time and no space. Which we can't, so we cannot in any meaningful way conceive of god.
Briskin accepts the challenge (yes, I might just have solved Religion)
1. No time and space.
2. Cognito Ergo Sum
3. Someone who did not exist had a thought (the bright spark)
4. The Universe began and that person who had a thought while no-one existed may reasonable be described as God.
But you can't conceive of 1. You can say it but it remains inconceivable to you. So you've failed.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘a recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
Who is going to grant this "referendum"?
Certainly not the Tories. Even if Boris goes, any Tory replacement will encounter the same logic. Why risk the Union, when there is a perfectly good argument ("once a generation") to say no to a vote?
Not gonna happen. That takes us to 2024. If the Tories win, then again they will say No for the same reason
So you need Starmer to win. If he gets a majority he will also say No, for the same reasons, with the ADDED incentive that one day the Labour Party needs to win again in Scotland, not secede it forever
So that leaves just one shot, Starmer as PM of a NOM Labour govt, dependant on the SNP for any votes. In that situation it is, I suppose, just about conceivable he might yield a vote, but I gravely doubt it as there is no way the Nats will vote him down and put Boris/Tories back in, so he is assured of their support if it comes to the crunch
AT SOME POINT if the Scots keep electing a Nat government which wants another indyref then yes, Westminster will reluctantly yield, but they won't do that until the "generation" argument is exhausted, and they are even less likely to do that any time the polls look good for the Nats
So you're a bit fucked. I reckon Sindyref2 will happen in the 2030s and this time London will be much harder in negotiating the timing, the question and the suffrage
I think you're right, in terms of what will happen, but the once in a generation argument is not a good one, nor is it sustainable for harmonious relationships between the constituent countries. It risks storing up a lot of resentments and greivances (what harm one more, I hear you say?) for the future and I think will make a future sindyRef both more likely to occur and harder to win.
The big problem, as I see it, is the constitution. Perniciously, it's not Scotland's place within it that is the problem but (essentially) England's. A new constitutional settlement between the Nations is required, one that allows a mechanism for the expression of English will outside of the national government but that will be inclusive to all the nations. Unfortunately, constitutional issues do not drive English politics and so it is difficult to see a democratic way through the impasse.
The only future for the United Kingdom is Federal. Without some major constitutional overhaul, all Westminster can do is refuse referenda and offer the devolved government more power by turn.
Think that's all fair comment but nothing likely to happen very soon. No-one is going to be interested in a constitutional overhaul while we're facing a "cost of living crisis".
The big picture, however, is that Scots will never knowingly vote to make themselves poorer. Everything else is just so much wind and water. The ridiculous pensions rammy just shows what a dead duck Indy is becoming, as the economic case is unwinnable.
I have been confident all along that the union would win indyref2 and why I do not fear it
Furthermore, a scintilla of doubt in Scots minds about their pension will guarantee the union
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
@algarkirk has explained it far better than I ever can do so let me reprint his argument:
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
Sure: but then I fail to see what is wrong with the response:
The Universe exists. It has always existed. It will always exist. The Big Bang is the just the start of this particular iteration of the universe.
I don't see anything particularly troubling about this. It certainly seems no more troubling than the belief that God has always existed. I mean, did God create other Universes before this one?
Right. Thing is, to conceive of god as the creator of time and space we must be able to conceive of no time and no space. Which we can't, so we cannot in any meaningful way conceive of god.
Briskin accepts the challenge (yes, I might just have solved Religion)
1. No time and space.
2. Cognito Ergo Sum
3. Someone who did not exist had a thought (the bright spark)
4. The Universe began and that person who had a thought while no-one existed may reasonable be described as God.
But you can't conceive of 1. You can say it but it remains inconceivable to you. So you've failed.
Are you trying to say that Briskin has failed to solve Religion???
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
.
s is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
@algarkirk has explained it far better than I ever can do so let me reprint his argument:
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
Sure: but then I fail to see what is wrong with the response:
The Universe exists. It has always existed. It will always exist. The Big Bang is the just the start of this particular iteration of the universe.
I don't see anything particularly troubling about this. It certainly seems no more troubling than the belief that God has always existed. I mean, did God create other Universes before this one?
Nothing at all is wrong with this response. It's fine. It may be true. It is BTW equally consistent with the existence or non existence of God. Creation ex nihilo is a Christian and Jewish doctrine, but that may be mistaken but God still exist.
My bigger problem is about intention, purpose and values. Suppose that this common sense view is correct: "Torturing children for fun is always wrong". As a theist I believe this will stay true even if everyone thought it was false. In other words it is objective. A fortiori that objective status can only come from somewhere outside the human. Occam's razor suggests a single divine intention is the simplest explanation of this extraordinary phenomenon. Other, more complex explanations and analyses are, of course, available
Goes away for 3 hours, comes back and .... they're still stuck in C19th arguments for the existence of God. This time it's Immanuel Kant's Categorical Moral Imperative.
Meanwhile, back in the real world ... what happened today outside Parliament is absolutely disgraceful. This country is heading into a very dark place under the British Trump.
The footage of Sir Keir Starmer being hounded tonight is disturbing, as is the way some of his pursuers picked up on the Jimmy Savile slur. This is surely a moment for the PM and all those who have defended those words to reflect and withdraw. https://twitter.com/LordWalney/status/1490766647073849345
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
TO put it in physical terms there are more stars out there than grains of sand on all the Earth's beaches!
Yes.
Unlike Leon I don't see the vastness of the universe as a reason for believing in God but I think we've had this kind of discussion on here before.
I look up at the stars above and I'm filled with wonder. I find it comforting to think I am nothing and I will return to nothing. The universe will go on through timespans that make us seem even smaller than one of those grains of sand you mention.
Only Zaphod Beeblebrox managed to out-ego the universe. And Boris Johnson, obvs.
It isn't really that interesting. There's lots of things, some very big and far away. Wooo.
Well I agree.
I wrote my 'Yawn' before reading this.
You literally wrote: “the universe: YAWN”
Consider which approach might be the more diseased
Atheism is a tragic cul de sac of the frightened middlebrow mind
Atheism and disinterested agnosticism is also a symptom of the decline of self confidence in the West.
Atheism combined with contempt for your nation's history. If you look at growing economies and growing nations, Nigeria, Brazil, India etc they are all religious. The least religious parts of the US however are also generally the most Woke and least patriotic.
Even Putin recognises the strength of the Orthodox Church in entrenching pride in Russia (not that he is really a Christian of much devotion). China is atheist but then it has its own alternative religion ie devotion to the Communist Party as the backbone of China
On the other hand, religion can really screw people up.
My paternal grandfather was Plymouth Brethren. My paternal grandmother was not. When they got married, both sides of the family disowned them - and the marriage 'that would not last' lasted 60+ years, and produced four great kids, many grandchldren, and many, many superb great-grandchilren.
The pain this religious rift caused that side of the family was intense, and the effects still reverberate to this day. Fortunately it was not as bad as it could have been, thanks to granddad volunteering from a reserved occupation in WW2.
It was a pain caused by people seeing religion - or 'their' sort of religion - as the most important attribute a person could hold.
It's bullshit.
I would call that pure restrictive, and social dogma, rather than anything to do with the spiritual possibilities of thing , myself.
Religion is the restrictive and dogmatic aspects of spirituality. which is why religions try to say 'we are right, you are wrong' when they come against other forms of spirituality.
Religion is power. People crave power over others. Spirituality is personal.
Although I partially agree with aspects here, too, the other problem with it is that in our now very aggressively atheist society, religion has become a widely understood shorthand for anything vaguely spiritual at all. Anything spiritual is tainted by the same concepts of power.
"aggressively atheist society"
Given the harms caused by organised religions over the last few thousands years, I wouldn't call our current somewhat atheistic society 'aggressive'.
I also disagree with your underlying comment. People are fine with spirituality. They are very dubious when they say that another person's spirituality and beliefs should impact their lives. Spirituality is becoming more personal and less public. Which, with a country containing many different beliefs, is a good thing IMV.
I would question "aggressively atheist society" in general. Most people are considerate, whatever their views.
Certainly there are atheist organisation around that behave aggressively. On one occasion I noted the National Secular Society were encouraging their members to go into hospitals and abuse Chaplains as being a waste of NHS money. One of their members did (in a Lincoln Hospital), then they were acting proud in their newsletter.
Of course the silly oaf had gone in and abused a volunteer chaplain who cost the NHS nothing.
I wouldn't share that view. Among people under around 40 in UK, the trend I observe most commonly against anything even remotely spiritual is actually something like open contempt, or fashionable mockery. Something that marks one out as soft-headed.
Utter rubbish. Maybe amongst your left liberal young white peers, not amongst young conservatives and not amongst young ethnic minorities either.
Pentecostal evangelical churches are full of young black men and women, there are also plenty of young Hindus and Muslims and Jews too, all with higher birth rates in the UK than young atheist, left liberal whites
I think that's it: this is the moment the rest of the letters go in to the 1922. It's too reminiscent of the Capitol.
Ch 4 News full of it. Though I loathe Johnson more than most blaming him for a bunch of anti vaxers chanting 'Saville' at Starmer is a bit of a stretch. On the bright side at least these crazies knew who Starmer was.
There’s only one reason that mob was chanting about Savile and Starmer: one person who raised the smear into popular consciousness.
You could say there are always mobs, and it wasn’t Boris on the street shouting, but for a serving PM to give oxygen and confidence to people like that. Well, it should be a final straw.
Of course this event itself will further oxygenate the conspiracy theory. You can really see how this is turning into a bit of a QAnon.
On a related topic there’s a great Monday night series on R4 called something like the coming storm, charting the origins of the Hillary Clinton conspiracy theories that led via Pizzagate to QAnon. It’s fascinating stuff. On at around 9pm.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
Does the barber who shaves only the men who don't shave themselves shave himself?
Putting the creation of the Universe on the same level as the creation of God is a category error.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
What about Occam's Razor though? If you need God to explain how the universe was created, what/who created God?
I honestly have no idea.
All I am suggesting is that the explanations to suggest why the Universe was created without a God seem to get themselves tangled up in all sorts of mind-boggling theories that haven't been proven. My original question was a simple one - how can you create something from nothing? So far, there have been snippy comments but no one has actually attempted to explain what is backing up their confidence there is absolutely no God.
You are confusing quite a lot of different arguments, there. The physical state of the universe needs explaining, God or not. As to the actual existence of God, it is easier than you think. If you define God as omnipotent being who loves humanity like his own children, the answer is no such being can exist, because Auschwitz (shorthand for a lot of equally dreadful stuff which has always happened and continues to do so). If you think they can, you don't understand the words involved. It's like saying How can we know that somewhere among all those trillions of stars there isn't a planet with a 4 cornered triangle on it?
Actually we can be fairly confident that there is no planet with a four-cornered triangle, as the principle of mediocrity asserts that unless we can observe the contrary, we should assume that the physical laws we observe locally apply across the entire universe, and we have not observed anything (yet) to contradict that.
This is a Good Thing as you don't want to live in a universe where the laws of physics that enable you and I to exist as living beings aren't universal. What if they change where we are, and the very way our bodies work is no longer possible? Unfortunately, that could happen under the false vacuum hypothesis, that our universe that we observe is not in the most stable possible energy state (the "true vacuum") and so is in a false vacuum, and that an event anywhere in the universe could, or has happened, to tip the universe into the "true vacuum" (or a "less-false vacuum"). Such a change would propagate at the speed of light, so we have no way of knowing if it has happened, and if it has, how close the "wavefront" of the change is to us.
This leads us on to the interesting anthropomorphic multiverse hypothesis: that our universe is one of an infinity of universes in a wider multiverse, all with their own laws of physics distinct from all the others. We happen to live in the one universe where the local laws of physics happen to make life as are possible. Other forms of life might be possible in other universes under their local laws of physics, but they could never live here, nor could we live in their universes.
Triangles are not physical objects. That's how we know there is no planet with a four-cornered one on it. There is no planet with a three-cornered triangle on it either. A triangle is a mathematical object. That a triangle has three corners is not a physical law to which, as with any physical law, it is conceivable that an exception might one day be found.
Goes away for 3 hours, comes back and .... they're still stuck in C19th arguments for the existence of God. This time it's Immanuel Kant's Categorical Moral Imperative.
Meanwhile, back in the real world ... what happened today outside Parliament is absolutely disgraceful. This country is heading into a very dark place under the British Trump.
Come on Tory MPs. Is that what you want? IS IT?
Insofar as I can see most of them aren't acting out of any sort of moral conviction at all. They're simply trying to calculate which course of action is most likely to keep them in a job.
I think that's it: this is the moment the rest of the letters go in to the 1922. It's too reminiscent of the Capitol.
Ch 4 News full of it. Though I loathe Johnson more than most blaming him for a bunch of anti vaxers chanting 'Saville' at Starmer is a bit of a stretch. On the bright side at least these crazies knew who Starmer was.
Exactly, Piers Corbyn addressed the protestors too.
It was an anti vaxxer, anti Covid restrictions, pro Assange protest mainly
United Kingdom government official The behaviour directed at the Leader of the Opposition tonight is absolutely disgraceful. All forms of harassment of our elected representatives are completely unacceptable.
Why do those who want to privatise religion in the name of atheism (or whatever) spend their time on intellectual speculation about the existence (or not) of God?
Whilst religious people, who are supposed to be obsessed about life after death and the rest, so often form the core of the groups serving their local communities in the here and now?
Night, all. 8pm and time for supper.
"Why do those who want to privatise religion in the name of atheism"
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
Hm - but I'd guess(?) one of the reasons you find religion easy is that you grew up in an idiom in which believing in God was seen as a reasonable way of making sense of the world.
I didn't, really. I grew up in a going-through-the-motions idiom. We had nominally religious assemblies at primary school, but no-one really believed it. You sung a hymn and said a prayer because that's what you were told to. The teachers no more believed than the children. When a teacher who genuinely did believe turned up - and complained that by messing about we were begrudging God 20 minutes of our day - the blank incomprehension of both children and other teachers was palpable. The unspoken consensus - no, we aren't, because he doesn't exist, not really.
(I also went to Sunday school. But that was just a reason for mum and dad to have a bit of alone time. And actual church gave me the willies. Again, the sincerity gap.)
And so while I was never told there's no God, I never grew up around any sort of sincere belief that God was a thing. I'm not trying to be virtuously atheistic: my atheism is in many ways as circumstantial as others' belief. But it's just not a concept which makes any sort of sense to me personally. It's not easy to believe. It doesn't make any sort of sense. Less sense than the absolutely vast scale of the galaxy and the counter-intuitivity of quantum physics, anyway.
I find all this genuinely sad
To deny a child the wonderful gift of Faith is as bad, to me, as forcing on them some grotesque fundamentalist creed: Wahhabism or Wee Free Presbyterianism or whatever
Faith is an enormous solace, and we are hard wired for it. We are MEANT to believe. It helps you cope. There is a reason why NA and AA are the most proven and successful means of quitting major addictions, they both rely on a belief in a Higher Power. You surrender to the God that will save you. And it works. Better than fucking methadone. And I have tried both
And it works because it utilizes an algo-module already in our heads. The God module
My advice, if you are atheist but seek faith, is try ayahuasca. If it is anything like the wild shit I did in Ibiza in December you will emerge a believer
I don't think I was denied faith. My parents are, I think, atheists, though it's not a thing we've ever discussed - but they've certainly never tried to pass on their atheism. I dutifully encountered religion at school. But it was never terribly convincing, and the few people I met who were genuinely and outwardly convinced of God were all rather odd.
Even as far back as the 1970s, religion in mainstream urban Britain was - well, not exactly sidelined, but an anachronism we persisted with but weren't entirely sure why - like soup spoons or ties.
I agree we have a god module in our heads though. There's an evolutionary biologist whose name now escapes me who is quite interesting on that - his view is that tribes which 'did' religion thrived, because they reinforced group identity - and thus outcompeted those tribes which did not, and those without the god module.
I don't really seek faith - it strikes me as an inconvenience and a potential source of unwanted existential terror - but I am interested in it. I am an atheist, but that it is a statement of fact rather than an angry badge of identity, and I am genuinely curious about religious belief.
Could the experience of ayahuasca not equally well make you think 'I have taken a hallucinogenic drug which is having strange effects on my brain'?
That's very similar to my view. And I really think it's important to note that what I have is absence of belief, not belief of absence. I don't go around actively disbelieving in God - which is what so many religious people seem to think atheists do (and I guess in the case of Dawkins, it's true) - I simply don't have any active belief in him.
Do you believe in Truth? I.e. that there is a correct scientific explanation for things, even if our current level of understanding is not able to grasp every detail of it?
That's sounds like a really good description of my views. Even though I have never thought of it in those terms before.
Thankyou. Once again you have given me a new perspective. .
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
Does the barber who shaves only the men who don't shave themselves shave himself?
With all due respect, that's just word games.
Either positing that something (the universe/God) has always been in existence is a problem, or it is not.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
Man.
Quite
But we're still stuck in C19th German theology. This time Ludwig Feuerbach, though Nietzsche had a good crack at it too.
A suggestion to those who want to debate this ouroboros of a topic. How about doing a theology or philosophy degree? You can spend three or four years endlessly chewing over it. At the end of your degree you will find you have a better understanding of the topic but you won't be any nearer an objective answer. Clue: it's subjective.
I think that's it: this is the moment the rest of the letters go in to the 1922. It's too reminiscent of the Capitol.
Ch 4 News full of it. Though I loathe Johnson more than most blaming him for a bunch of anti vaxers chanting 'Saville' at Starmer is a bit of a stretch. On the bright side at least these crazies knew who Starmer was.
There’s only one reason that mob was chanting about Savile and Starmer: one person who raised the smear into popular consciousness.
You could say there are always mobs, and it wasn’t Boris on the street shouting, but for a serving PM to give oxygen and confidence to people like that. Well, it should be a final straw.
Of course this event itself will further oxygenate the conspiracy theory. You can really see how this is turning into a bit of a QAnon.
On a related topic there’s a great Monday night series on R4 called something like the coming storm, charting the origins of the Hillary Clinton conspiracy theories that led via Pizzagate to QAnon. It’s fascinating stuff. On at around 9pm.
Yes. Well worth a listen. Available to binge on bbc sounds app.
There’s a lady who made sexual assault claims against Bill Clinton, which in todays climate, seem rather credible. You can kindof see how the “establishment stitch up” narrative that fuelled trump - and at the extremes -qanon - isn’t entirely baseless.
I think that's it: this is the moment the rest of the letters go in to the 1922. It's too reminiscent of the Capitol.
Ch 4 News full of it. Though I loathe Johnson more than most blaming him for a bunch of anti vaxers chanting 'Saville' at Starmer is a bit of a stretch. On the bright side at least these crazies knew who Starmer was.
No I am sorry but that doesn't hold up for one minute. I would suggest that it is almost certain that if Johnson had not smeared Starmer last week, then not one reference to Savile would have passed the lips of those protestors. Yes they would still have been protesting and yes they may have targeted Starmer for his perceived and actual views on many matters but they certainly would not have been going on about Savile. And given how explosively many view Savile's crimes I think there is also no doubt it made the crowd more aggressive as it leant them what they perceive to be just cause.
United Kingdom government official The behaviour directed at the Leader of the Opposition tonight is absolutely disgraceful. All forms of harassment of our elected representatives are completely unacceptable.
I thank the police for responding swiftly.
Is he actually unaware of the irony of that tweet?
United Kingdom government official The behaviour directed at the Leader of the Opposition tonight is absolutely disgraceful. All forms of harassment of our elected representatives are completely unacceptable.
I thank the police for responding swiftly.
Is he actually unaware of the irony of that tweet?
Also, I'm assuming you all saw this excellent summary piece in yesterday's Sunday Times about the QAnon inspired Boris Johnson slur? It's well worth a read:
United Kingdom government official The behaviour directed at the Leader of the Opposition tonight is absolutely disgraceful. All forms of harassment of our elected representatives are completely unacceptable.
I thank the police for responding swiftly.
Is he actually unaware of the irony of that tweet?
What do you think?
I think he is not so much into iron as hoping he can steel a VONC.
I think that's it: this is the moment the rest of the letters go in to the 1922. It's too reminiscent of the Capitol.
Ch 4 News full of it. Though I loathe Johnson more than most blaming him for a bunch of anti vaxers chanting 'Saville' at Starmer is a bit of a stretch. On the bright side at least these crazies knew who Starmer was.
No I am sorry but that doesn't hold up for one minute. I would suggest that it is almost certain that if Johnson had not smeared Starmer last week, then not one reference to Savile would have passed the lips of those protestors. Yes they would still have been protesting and yes they may have targeted Starmer for his perceived and actual views on many matters but they certainly would not have been going on about Savile. And given how explosively many view Savile's crimes I think there is also no doubt it made the crowd more aggressive as it leant them what they perceive to be just cause.
I think that's it: this is the moment the rest of the letters go in to the 1922. It's too reminiscent of the Capitol.
Ch 4 News full of it. Though I loathe Johnson more than most blaming him for a bunch of anti vaxers chanting 'Saville' at Starmer is a bit of a stretch. On the bright side at least these crazies knew who Starmer was.
No I am sorry but that doesn't hold up for one minute. I would suggest that it is almost certain that if Johnson had not smeared Starmer last week, then not one reference to Savile would have passed the lips of those protestors. Yes they would still have been protesting and yes they may have targeted Starmer for his perceived and actual views on many matters but they certainly would not have been going on about Savile. And given how explosively many view Savile's crimes I think there is also no doubt it made the crowd more aggressive as it leant them what they perceive to be just cause.
Yep. The Savile and Starmer crap has been circulating on the wilder reaches of the social media cesspool for a while. But Johnson has brought it right to the forefront. It is pure Trump. Any tory MP not writing a letter may as well join the GOP and join the end of democracy party.
It's curious the anti-vaccine group picked on Starmer - after all, every MP I've seen and heard has recommended vaccination. More Conservative MPs supported restrictions than opposed them but for some reason the Labour leader gets the abuse and the intimidation.
I'm no fan of Boris Johnson but his equivocation on the "Savile" line of attack is nauseating. Of course it's a political ploy and as we see, with some any mud will stick as it did with Trump when seemingly rational beings believed every word Trump said without question.
Perhaps that's my problem - too many doubts.
I also like @HYUFD's tired old notion people with faith have higher birth rates than those without. I presume there's an inherent assumption the children of parents with faith will also have faith - I fear the world doesn't work that way. The evangelical meetings round my part of London are full of families - whole families but a small number of said families. The numbers eulogising the Lord in whatever faith aren't great even in Newham, the most God-fearing part of the country.
Perhaps faith is less about attending Church on Sunday, Saturday, Friday or whatever and more about a moral framework.
United Kingdom government official The behaviour directed at the Leader of the Opposition tonight is absolutely disgraceful. All forms of harassment of our elected representatives are completely unacceptable.
I thank the police for responding swiftly.
Is he actually unaware of the irony of that tweet?
What do you think?
I think he is not so much into iron as hoping he can steel a VONC.
United Kingdom government official The behaviour directed at the Leader of the Opposition tonight is absolutely disgraceful. All forms of harassment of our elected representatives are completely unacceptable.
I thank the police for responding swiftly.
Is he actually unaware of the irony of that tweet?
What do you think?
I think he is not so much into iron as hoping he can steel a VONC.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
.
s is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
No idea but you might argue that is trying to use human logic to answer a divine question.
I'm not. I'm just pointing out that all you do is move the question one up.
Who created the Universe?
God
Who created God?
Errr...
If nothing is required to create God, then why is an entity required to create the Universe?
@algarkirk has explained it far better than I ever can do so let me reprint his argument:
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
Sure: but then I fail to see what is wrong with the response:
The Universe exists. It has always existed. It will always exist. The Big Bang is the just the start of this particular iteration of the universe.
I don't see anything particularly troubling about this. It certainly seems no more troubling than the belief that God has always existed. I mean, did God create other Universes before this one?
Nothing at all is wrong with this response. It's fine. It may be true. It is BTW equally consistent with the existence or non existence of God. Creation ex nihilo is a Christian and Jewish doctrine, but that may be mistaken but God still exist.
My bigger problem is about intention, purpose and values. Suppose that this common sense view is correct: "Torturing children for fun is always wrong". As a theist I believe this will stay true even if everyone thought it was false. In other words it is objective. A fortiori that objective status can only come from somewhere outside the human. Occam's razor suggests a single divine intention is the simplest explanation of this extraordinary phenomenon. Other, more complex explanations and analyses are, of course, available
Goes away for 3 hours, comes back and .... they're still stuck in C19th arguments for the existence of God. This time it's Immanuel Kant's Categorical Moral Imperative.
Meanwhile, back in the real world ... what happened today outside Parliament is absolutely disgraceful. This country is heading into a very dark place under the British Trump.
Come on Tory MPs. Is that what you want? IS IT?
Trivial point but Kant belongs to the 18th century; only slightly less trivial, my point is entirely unrelated to the categorical imperative. Apart from that you are completely correct, especially about creeping Trumpianism.
Channel 4 News @Channel4News "It’s an attempt to incite a mob… it’s profoundly dangerous."
Labour MP Chris Bryant says Boris Johnson’s comment to Sir Keir Starmer about Jimmy Savile was "the same as Donald Trump’s playbook", after the Labour leader was rescued from a mob of protesters by police.
Presumably we are discussing the existence of God tonite because figuring whether Boris will resign before the next GE is too difficult?
A friend of mine once began the second paragraph of an undergraduate theology essay with the words, 'Having solved the problem of the existence of God I will now go on to...'
I'm not keeping up with the mad conspiracy, alt-right, anti-vax, QAnon view of the world so I don't understand why Julian Assange has got anything to do with it all?
Indeed. How about a fulsome apology from Johnson making it quite clear that he was utterly wrong to suggest that Starmer was in any way responsible for the failure to prosecute Savile?
No I am sorry but that doesn't hold up for one minute. I would suggest that it is almost certain that if Johnson had not smeared Starmer last week, then not one reference to Savile would have passed the lips of those protestors. Yes they would still have been protesting and yes they may have targeted Starmer for his perceived and actual views on many matters but they certainly would not have been going on about Savile. And given how explosively many view Savile's crimes I think there is also no doubt it made the crowd more aggressive as it leant them what they perceive to be just cause.
Yep. The Savile and Starmer crap has been circulating on the wilder reaches of the social media cesspool for a while. But Johnson has brought it right to the forefront. It is pure Trump. Any tory MP not writing a letter may as well join the GOP and join the end of democracy party.
Perhaps the better option is once they are voted out of power and hopefully by a clear and considerable majority, the Conservative Party will quietly wind up its affairs, dissolve and re-constitute under a new name and with new policies and ideas.
I think too that Leon's need for belief in God, if not the need to diss those who don't need him, rests more on what he has written about his own battles for wellbeing. And therefore I shall leave my input there.
If religion helps your mental health and wellbeing then that's fine. Just keep it to yourself and don't diss those who don't feel the need for it in the same way.
Dave Allen had the best response and one we should all coalesce around
May your God go with you
Perhaps sadly, Larkin surely nailed all the God stuff:
This is a special way of being afraid No trick dispels. Religion used to try, That old moth-eaten musical brocade Created to pretend we never die
My faith has absolutely zero to do with life-after-death
So Larkin, despite being a genius poet, is wrong here
He's right for many (inc me). People don't like to think dying spells the end of them. Because if so it's the end of everything as far as they are concerned. An infinite eternal black void awaits. Not even that in fact. An infinite eternal black void would be lovely by comparison. This is the bleakest of prospects, both terrible and certain. So it's worth mitigating mentally and a way to do this is to postulate a 'soul' which (like Celine Dion's heart) goes on. This brings a spiritual dimension and 'god' into play. It makes sense to me although I can't myself manage it. Not yet anyway. There's time. Your faith seems to be more of the spacey "there's more than we can ever know" type. That's different to what I'm talking about. But anyway ... my bag of nuts won't open itself.
Quick question for you @Kinablu. I'm assuming you are an agnostic / atheist (apologies if I have got that wrong). Given that, how would you justify the Big Bang theory for the creation of the Universe? I am not a scientist by any stretch but my (limited) understanding is that, if the theory states the Universe started from 2 hydrogen atoms coming together, the obvious question is where those 2 atoms came from given one of the basic laws of physics is you cannot create something from nothing. Genuinely curious how a non-believer gets round that contradiction.
Quantum theory says things come into existence out of nothing all the time.
Why is God exempt from your theory anyway?
As I said in the post, I'm not a scientist. However my limited (again) understanding is that Quantum Theory explaining the creation of the Universe is like winning the National Lottery a million times over in succession given how many "ifs" and "buts" you have to assume in order to make it work.
But you tell me differently.
But God kicking around out there is just a banality by comparison?
I tend to take the Sherlock Holmes approach to things: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
The Atheist argument seems to rest on the view that "God cannot exist, therefore there has to be some other reason why the Universe came into existence. Let's produce a theory to prove that". I think that is logically wrong because you have assumed something is impossible which you don't know one way or the other whether it is true or not. In that way, I'd say Atheists are more irrational than Believers - the latter say we don't know what happened but we believe in God whereas the former say we know there is no God - which is impossible to prove / disprove - therefore something else must be the answer, even though that something else has been nowhere near proven but is based on what would appear a scientific contradiction (i.e. creating something from nothing, a phenomenon which isn't really seen anywhere else).
Just as a matter of interest, who (or what) created God?
Man.
Quite
But we're still stuck in C19th German theology. This time Ludwig Feuerbach, though Nietzsche had a good crack at it too.
A suggestion to those who want to debate this ouroboros of a topic. How about doing a theology or philosophy degree? You can spend three or four years endlessly chewing over it. At the end of your degree you will find you have a better understanding of the topic but you won't be any nearer an objective answer. Clue: it's subjective.
Meanwhile ...
Myself when young did eagerly frequent doctor and saint, and heard great argument about it and about: but evermore came out by the same door as in I went.
It's curious the anti-vaccine group picked on Starmer - after all, every MP I've seen and heard has recommended vaccination. More Conservative MPs supported restrictions than opposed them but for some reason the Labour leader gets the abuse and the intimidation.
I'm no fan of Boris Johnson but his equivocation on the "Savile" line of attack is nauseating. Of course it's a political ploy and as we see, with some any mud will stick as it did with Trump when seemingly rational beings believed every word Trump said without question.
Perhaps that's my problem - too many doubts.
I also like @HYUFD's tired old notion people with faith have higher birth rates than those without. I presume there's an inherent assumption the children of parents with faith will also have faith - I fear the world doesn't work that way. The evangelical meetings round my part of London are full of families - whole families but a small number of said families. The numbers eulogising the Lord in whatever faith aren't great even in Newham, the most God-fearing part of the country.
Perhaps faith is less about attending Church on Sunday, Saturday, Friday or whatever and more about a moral framework.
Being a man in my forties it's still possible I might have a child (if I manage to have sex with someone whilst being a basketcase).
But logically I think it makes sense to not want to have a child in a world that humans still torture other humans.
Indeed. How about a fulsome apology from Johnson making it quite clear that he was utterly wrong to suggest that Starmer was in any way responsible for the failure to prosecute Savile?
Yeh, but then the focus might switch back to how the most lying cad in the history of Eton is now our PM.
No I am sorry but that doesn't hold up for one minute. I would suggest that it is almost certain that if Johnson had not smeared Starmer last week, then not one reference to Savile would have passed the lips of those protestors. Yes they would still have been protesting and yes they may have targeted Starmer for his perceived and actual views on many matters but they certainly would not have been going on about Savile. And given how explosively many view Savile's crimes I think there is also no doubt it made the crowd more aggressive as it leant them what they perceive to be just cause.
Yep. The Savile and Starmer crap has been circulating on the wilder reaches of the social media cesspool for a while. But Johnson has brought it right to the forefront. It is pure Trump. Any tory MP not writing a letter may as well join the GOP and join the end of democracy party.
Perhaps the better option is once they are voted out of power and hopefully by a clear and considerable majority, the Conservative Party will quietly wind up its affairs, dissolve and re-constitute under a new name and with new policies and ideas.
They've done it before (well, not the name bit).
They've done the 'name bit' before as well, it's just it was in 1834 which is a fair while ago now.
Comments
"In general in theistic thinking if God exists then God's existence is necessarily the case - it is one of God's many qualities - and is therefore uncreated and eternal. (This does not prove God's existence however though many mistakenly think so),
If God exists it is by far the simplest explanation of everything else in creation, including existence itself. Occam does not apply.
The empirical and non intentional explanations of how either the universe has the quality of infinite duration (has always existed and always will) or is somehow magicked out of nothing at all are much more complex, or much less explanatory than the 'good old god' theory. Perhaps this is why lots of scientists still prefer it."
The Universe exists. It has always existed. It will always exist. The Big Bang is the just the start of this particular iteration of the universe.
I don't see anything particularly troubling about this. It certainly seems no more troubling than the belief that God has always existed. I mean, did God create other Universes before this one?
If you're struggling with the question "who/how created X?", inventing a Y to solve your problem with "Y created X" simply invites the question "who/how created Y?".
Any answer you might give in respect of Y (such as "Y has always existed", or "Y exists above or beyond the concept of time") I can give in respect of X.
Can you define your understanding of "spirituality"?
I don't associate Desmond Tutu or Trevor Huddleston, or Lavinia Byrne, or Sheila Cassidy (wrote "Good Friday People"), or the members of the Corymeela Community, or for that matter your average Vicar, or the volunteer lay chaplains at my local hospital, or those at the various homelessness projects in London, as being on power trips.
I'd go some way with your definition of a contemporary understanding of spirituality as being 'personal', but I'd associate a lot of it with rich (by world standards, we all are) Westerners trying to get a benefit without facing the awkward challenges and answering the difficult questions that come with involvement in a religious community (the normal Anglican term would be 'worshipping community'.)
It's one thing to be aware of the Sermon on the Mount in an ancient book; it's quite another to have to work out how to follow it through in 2022.
I've think we've got enough on our hands trying to handle this one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde–Guth–Vilenkin_theorem
Certainly there are atheist organisation around that behave aggressively. On one occasion I noted the National Secular Society were encouraging their members to go into hospitals and abuse Chaplains as being a waste of NHS money. One of their members did (in a Lincoln Hospital), then they were acting proud in their newsletter.
Of course the silly oaf had gone in and abused a volunteer chaplain who cost the NHS nothing.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/07/boris-johnson-not-a-complete-clown-says-guto-harri-new-press-chief
(...an assertion which, frankly, very few people are going to buy.)
Vote Boris: not a complete clown.
I
The real worry is that the New Grown-Ups thought it was a good idea to share this moment with the oinks.
My bigger problem is about intention, purpose and values. Suppose that this common sense view is correct: "Torturing children for fun is always wrong". As a theist I believe this will stay true even if everyone thought it was false. In other words it is objective. A fortiori that objective status can only come from somewhere outside the human. Occam's razor suggests a single divine intention is the simplest explanation of this extraordinary phenomenon. Other, more complex explanations and analyses are, of course, available
1. No time and space.
2. Cognito Ergo Sum
3. Someone who did not exist had a thought (the bright spark)
4. The Universe began and that person who had a thought while no-one existed may reasonable be described as God.
Same shit…different day
Why do those who want to privatise religion in the name of atheism (or whatever) spend their time on intellectual speculation about the existence (or not) of God?
Whilst religious people, who are supposed to be obsessed about life after death and the rest, so often form the core of the groups serving their local communities in the here and now?
Night, all. 8pm and time for supper.
Munira Mirza has more backbone than the entire Tory backbench.
It was an anti vaxxer, anti Covid restrictions, pro Assange protest mainly
https://twitter.com/DavidTWilcock/status/1490741524891676685?s=20&t=ISJitPF7LALURz_a_GL4mQ
Any dopey Tory MPs reading this? It can and probably will get worse. Do your duty.
https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/status/1490761739759194117
Oh well, that's a shame.
Meanwhile, back in the real world ... what happened today outside Parliament is absolutely disgraceful. This country is heading into a very dark place under the British Trump.
Come on Tory MPs. Is that what you want? IS IT?
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1490778014820573191
The footage of Sir Keir Starmer being hounded tonight is disturbing, as is the way some of his pursuers picked up on the Jimmy Savile slur. This is surely a moment for the PM and all those who have defended those words to reflect and withdraw.
https://twitter.com/LordWalney/status/1490766647073849345
Pentecostal evangelical churches are full of young black men and women, there are also plenty of young Hindus and Muslims and Jews too, all with higher birth rates in the UK than young atheist, left liberal whites
You could say there are always mobs, and it wasn’t Boris on the street shouting, but for a serving PM to give oxygen and confidence to people like that. Well, it should be a final straw.
Of course this event itself will further oxygenate the conspiracy theory. You can really see how this is turning into a bit of a QAnon.
On a related topic there’s a great Monday night series on R4 called something like the coming storm, charting the origins of the Hillary Clinton conspiracy theories that led via Pizzagate to QAnon. It’s fascinating stuff. On at around 9pm.
Putting the creation of the Universe on the same level as the creation of God is a category error.
Triangles are not physical objects. That's how we know there is no planet with a four-cornered one on it. There is no planet with a three-cornered triangle on it either. A triangle is a mathematical object. That a triangle has three corners is not a physical law to which, as with any physical law, it is conceivable that an exception might one day be found.
Boris Johnson
@BorisJohnson
United Kingdom government official
The behaviour directed at the Leader of the Opposition tonight is absolutely disgraceful. All forms of harassment of our elected representatives are completely unacceptable.
I thank the police for responding swiftly.
Eh?
Thankyou. Once again you have given me a new perspective. .
Either positing that something (the universe/God) has always been in existence is a problem, or it is not.
But we're still stuck in C19th German theology. This time Ludwig Feuerbach, though Nietzsche had a good crack at it too.
A suggestion to those who want to debate this ouroboros of a topic. How about doing a theology or philosophy degree? You can spend three or four years endlessly chewing over it. At the end of your degree you will find you have a better understanding of the topic but you won't be any nearer an objective answer. Clue: it's subjective.
Meanwhile ...
There’s a lady who made sexual assault claims against Bill Clinton, which in todays climate, seem rather credible. You can kindof see how the “establishment stitch up” narrative that fuelled trump - and at the extremes -qanon - isn’t entirely baseless.
Rich and powerful people are rarely pure.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fake-news-infected-britain-boris-johnson-jimmy-savile-cfmbgmm85
Get those letters in guys!!!
It's curious the anti-vaccine group picked on Starmer - after all, every MP I've seen and heard has recommended vaccination. More Conservative MPs supported restrictions than opposed them but for some reason the Labour leader gets the abuse and the intimidation.
I'm no fan of Boris Johnson but his equivocation on the "Savile" line of attack is nauseating. Of course it's a political ploy and as we see, with some any mud will stick as it did with Trump when seemingly rational beings believed every word Trump said without question.
Perhaps that's my problem - too many doubts.
I also like @HYUFD's tired old notion people with faith have higher birth rates than those without. I presume there's an inherent assumption the children of parents with faith will also have faith - I fear the world doesn't work that way. The evangelical meetings round my part of London are full of families - whole families but a small number of said families. The numbers eulogising the Lord in whatever faith aren't great even in Newham, the most God-fearing part of the country.
Perhaps faith is less about attending Church on Sunday, Saturday, Friday or whatever and more about a moral framework.
@DPJHodges
·
30m
This is totally inadequate. How can't No.10 see this is totally inadequate.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1490774592302026754
@Channel4News
"It’s an attempt to incite a mob… it’s profoundly dangerous."
Labour MP Chris Bryant says Boris Johnson’s comment to Sir Keir Starmer about Jimmy Savile was "the same as Donald Trump’s playbook", after the Labour leader was rescued from a mob of protesters by police.
https://twitter.com/Channel4News/status/1490771413929766921
They've done it before (well, not the name bit).
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
doctor and saint, and heard great argument
about it and about: but evermore
came out by the same door as in I went.
But logically I think it makes sense to not want to have a child in a world that humans still torture other humans.