The Return Of The God Hypothesis.

[Theland]

If science puts up barriers and refuses to follow truth wherever it leads, then it is left floundering for answers to the big questions, on the creation of the universe, the creation of life from inert chemicals, and the impossibility of Darwin's theory of a sing!e cell ancestor.
Do you consider yourself open minded about such matters and not constricted by a naturalistic worldview?
https://youtu.be/y02a28FrMKs

[Theland]

Andy, for somebody who has no interest and nothing to say, you say an awful lot.

[Old_Geezer]

You could look them up yourself. We all have an Internet. But you seem to be dismissing them in your OP, so is there any point ?

[Theland]

O/G I do indeed look them up.
I listed some earlier, bit found their accounts wanting with too many assumptions.

[andy-hughes]

Mozz - // Andy, I was rephrasing my reply to Theland which you quoted, not re-addressing the quote to you personally.

You're welcome. //

My apologies for the confusion - an occupational hazard of communicating in writing only.

[Atheist]

Theland; I have put some philosophical/metaphysical points to you but you seem more interested in science and logic. I'm surprised. I have to retire now; sleep well.

[andy-hughes]

Theland - // Andy, for somebody who has no interest and nothing to say, you say an awful lot. //

I never said I had no interest, I said I didn't care in looking for 'answers' which is not the same thing.

Nothing to say? Are you serious???????

[Theland]

Well earned :-)

[Mozz71]

//My apologies for the confusion - an occupational hazard of communicating in writing only.//

Apology understood and accepted.

[Theland]

Atheist - Of course I always sought certainty, and found it with God.
I also want to further my understanding of the worlds most simple and difficult book, the Bible.
Take any of the numerous difficult passages. None of them detract from the amazing message of Jesus Christ, but are difficult to explain to an unbeliever.
For example, Adam and Eve. History or myth?
Actually biblical learning never ends and this story is easy to attack and difficult but not impossible to defend.
But it requires a lengthy explanation.

[andy-hughes]

Theland - // Well earned :-) //

Thank you - much appreciated.

Re your explanation of Adam and Eve, any chance of a shortened version of the defence - I am interested, and I am sure I'm not the only one.

[Theland]

Adam and Eve, a narrative that best describes our human situation.
Whether history or myth, it accurately describes how God created a perfect world and gave us the free will to choose obedience to Him, or choose to follow our own will which resulted in disobedience, which is sin, and a fall from grace.
It is in effect a parable that contains within it the incontravertable truth that we sacrificed our close relationship with God, in favour of rebellion against Him.
Unbelievers quote this story as being ridiculous when seen in its correct context it is not, but gives a shorthand account of our problem.

[mibn2cweus]

Here's my 'God hypothesis'. Belief in God is the presumption of those whose have ceased looking for answers under the assumption that they already possess them. Such a stance contributes nothing to furthering our understanding of anything. Presuming the incomprehensible assures incomprehensibility. Belief in a 'god' is the paragon of all the ignorance that inevitably leads to and invariably follows from it, the hallmark of one who has ceased to question and (as do we all) still has much to learn.

Knowledge is not a creation. Such is the delusion of those who lack an essential understanding of reality. Knowledge is acquired, not by believing but by observing and experience and assimilated and comprehended through reason, the process of non-contradictory identification, a process necessary and essential only to the survival and well-being of those whose existence depends on it, living thinking rational humankind. It is important to know why gods do not exist. Because we do. Our survival and well-being depends on the quality of our knowledge and of what to do with it. Gods, on the other hand exist only by virtue of the ignorance of the believer and vanish like ghosts in the illumination of knowledge and subsequent understanding of why we should never have believed in them at all.

I could go on but in my experience there is probably little point in sharing what I already have.

[Theland]

Please do go on.
Perhaps if you go on for long enough you might begin to ma!e sense.
Your reason is no reason at all.
Before you cite God or gods, consider how we acquire knowledge if not by experimentation and investigation then how?
By simply thinking about it?
What then is there to reason with?
None of us can be expert in all fields, therefore we rely on the cumulative knowledge of many people who are expert in their own particular narrow field whether it be science or philosophy or anything for that matter.
It is a fool who simply relies on blind faith to formulate a worldview, that is why I reject it.
An assertion based on feelings is equally worthless, but if reason has a place, and it does, it is to consider the limitations of expert knowledge, and reason about what we know, what is postulated, and what makes reasonably the most sense.
Take the first question on the creation of the universe.
We know it began 13.8 bn years ago.
By reason we know there was nothing before.
By reason we know it came from nothing.
By reason of cause and effect we know there was a cause.
By reason we know that this cause was itself uncaused.
But please go on.
Please address the points I have made and snare with me the names of the experts who share your views, so I can study them for myself.

[10ClarionSt]

I saw a prog yesterday that said the sun will expand and swallow up the solar system and that it has already started, so who cares? Here today, gone tomorrow. Hey ho.

[Theland]

I must remember to cancel the milk.

[mibn2cweus]

First explain where your alleged 'God' acquired its knowledge of how to 'create' a universe from one that did not exist //by simply thinking about it// then perhaps we can go from there.

[naomi24]

Theland, //By reason we know there was nothing before.
By reason we know it came from nothing.//

We ‘know’ none of that. What is your reason to support those claims?

[mibn2cweus]

By reason we know there is no such thing as 'nothing'. Nothing is a term we use to denote that which does not exist. Nothing is nothing, does nothing and becomes nothing. If we were to discuss nothing for an eternity we would have become none the wiser. Kind of like discussing 'gods' then don't you think?

[Theland]

Naomi, I reason these things not from my own expertise, which is negligable, but from theoretical physicists amongst whom are atheists, such as Hawking and Krausse, to name but two.
It is they who assert that the universe came from nothing.
Who am I to argue with such eminent atheist scientists?

[Theland]

Mibs, respectfully, I totally disagree with you for the reasons stated above.