2

Nathan Jordan

I find it surprising that Mrs. Murphy can draw a comparison between the authenticity of Henry VIII’s existence and that of Jesus of Nazareth. I have heard similar arguments on the basis that the historical case has not been fully made for the existence of Socrates.

Firstly we must look at the claims of historians with regard to Henry VIII and Socrates as opposed to the claims of the religious in terms of plausibility. Henry VIII was a King who had nine wives. This is by no means implausible given the continued existence of the monarchy and the legal documentation in favour of divorce introduced at the time. However, what if a scholar were to proclaim with no corroborating archaeological evidence that Henry VIII or Socrates had been able to walk on water or raise themselves and others from the dead? This theory would be demonstrably impossible so it is possible to begin with a healthy scepticism when comparing the claims regarding Biblical characters to other historical figures.

The argument naturally supposes that the Bible is an accurate historical record, no less valid than a history textbook. Sequencing of DNA and a careful study of evolution has debunked the idea of a first man and woman as described in Genesis. Satellite imaging has shown that even in the event of a global polar meltdown, there would still not be enough water to flood all dry land as described in the same book. The Israeli Archaeological Society found no corroborating archaeological evidence for the wanderings of the Jewish people as described in Exodus. Augustus Caesar did not hold the census as described in the New Testament which allegedly obliged Joseph and his heavily pregnant wife to travel to Bethlehem. If errors of this kind were listed in a history textbook, the publisher would be notified and they would be corrected, has anyone ever asked the same of the Bible? There are Christians of course who say that the truth does not matter in this sense however I wonder how much of the Bible must be proven untrue before Christians recognise it for the work of fiction it truly is?

My father who is a Christian rightly points out that a belief in Jesus’ teachings does not necessitate belief that he was a half-God and that therefore there is truth to be found in at least the Gospel. This is true in the sense that one could philosophise according to Socratic principles while accepting the possibility that Socrates as a person did not exist. This is simply because the method of Socratic thinking, whosoever advanced it, is true in a moral rather than literal sense.

Ironically Jesus and Pilate allegedly wrestled over this very issue, as Jesus himself claimed to seek truth. The key difference between the Christian saviour’s philosophy and that of Socrates for instance is that belief in Socrates’ himself is not essential to being a follower of his teachings. Whoever used the name Socrates to advance a school of thought did not claim that in so doing we would be absolved of prior misdeeds. Socrates also declines to make the extravagant claim that belief in his theories leads to immortality.

This issue of truth is also fundamental in debating the existence of a God. Mrs. Murphy requires proof of the non-existence of God, rightly pointing out that as humanity is not omniscient we cannot be certain of this.

Omniscience of course would not be necessary for belief in a God, who could after all clinch the issue by revealing himself as I write this response. Either God exists in the Juedo-Christian sense of a benevolent all powerful being who forgives sin or he doesn’t. However the argument that the case for existence of a God in this sense being equal with non existence is fundamentally flawed.

Whenever I am asked to disprove the existence of God in this sense I always as my interlocutor to demonstrate the non existence of Zeus, Apollo and Odin. This has the unintentional bonus on allowing the faithful to reflect on what it is to be an Atheist, at least in respect to these gods in question. The difference between mythology and religion would seem to be a few hundred years in some cases!

The idea that proof of a negative is necessary for scepticism also would oblige us to accept the 50% probability of unicorns, pixies and vampires, despite no objective evidence of the same.

Mrs. Murphy is naturally right that we are each entitled to our individual beliefs, however were I to state that I had a pet unicorn I rather think she would be in her rights to ask to view it herself and if no evidence were forthcoming, I could hardly blame her for rubbishing my claims forthwith, as I do those of Theists.

Ultimately while we may never be all knowing we all have the ability to adjust our reasoning to appreciate the value of debate and evidence as opposed to faith based reasoning, which is the antithesis of logic and in my view, diminishes us as a people.

NJ.

Report abuse

4

Dharma

Leah, Buddhism does not include the idea of worshipping a creator god.

It is not a religion, rather, it can be described as a tradition or philosophy.

Report abuse

6

Reg Le Sueur

Bridget Murphy
The earliest gospel was wrtten about40 years after the death of Jesus; a lot can change in oral reporting over that time, especially in the chaos of the Roman-Jewish war of 66-70 AD.
You say the non-existence of God has to be proved;–but this is the logical fallacy of “shifting the burden of proof”. It is impossible to empirically prove anything does not exist–try it! You would have to minutely explore the infinite Universe for infinite time, upturning every rock to show that there was not a god hiding under it. You would need micrroscope, telescope, spectroscope, particle accelerator, and chemical testing in order to show tht a god was not hiding there somewhere.
So instead, logic says that the burden of proof is upon you,–to positively prove the positive existence of God; surely this should be easy if he exists and is everywhere and listens to all your prayers. Just ask him to tea.

Report abuse

8

Reg Le Sueur

6.Leah Holmes
Leah, I think most Christians think that God is loving, as part of his Omnimax definition,-and therefore acts in the world, and sustains it. If, as you imply, God is indifferent to human suffering, then what is the point of intercessory prayer?

Report abuse

10

Leah Holmes

But if you don’t believe in a God you must have another reason as to why these things happen? And it’s not ‘convenient’, if you believe in a Christian God then you believe he gave free will. Can you imagine the uproar in society today against a God that didn’t give free will? You can’t have it both ways.

Some believe that natural disasters are a way of nature (some believe it’s the earth’s evolution) controlling the world’s population, personally I am inclined towards that thinking with a little bit of man’s effect on the climate thrown in. You must be aware that with climate change some natural disasters are in part caused my man?

The question is NOT why these natural disasters occer, it is why people die due to them? Maybe you have to ask yourself why people die in droughts. I’m pretty sure it is because of Governments withholding aid! With floods, well haven’t we insisted on building on high risk areas? We had the knowledge, we chose to ignore it. Volcanoes we know about also but we build near them, in some cases earthquakes also. And weather phenomena like hurricanes are believed to be affected by man.

These things could happen and in most cases not kill anyone, were it not for man ignoring the information he already has and stupidly thinking he can beat them. Fact is that there is no issue at all with these natural disasters happening were it not for humans thinking they can control them! Without human losses these would simply be amazing, probably awesome phenomena we would all be privileged to witness. They are part of the earth’s evolution.

To suggest that they are in no way caused by humans would be a little naive.

The Christians I know believe that man already has what he needs to fix the world’s problems or to not cause them in the first place, but man was also given free will. There is certainly enough food and money around, it is man that keeps it from other man. I can’t understand why anyone would expect a God to step in to fix their problems when they continually go against his guidelines? Are we not responsible for ourselves also? Do we honestly want a world where man does whatever the hell he wants and God steps in and fixes it? Why should he?

Report abuse

12

Leah Holmes

‘religion’ is defined in the dictionary, and most ‘religious’ people won’t class themselves as religious cause the word itself means nothing to them, they are Christians, Muslims, Hindus…

Report abuse

14

God Botherer

Leah, while I enjoy your usually intelligent and insightful comments on these forums, I am afraid that on this subject we must depart.

Earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricans, drought, and floods all occurred before man or his influences. Since the industrial revolution man may have a hand in the changing weather systems but that cannot be said of it entirely or at all in relation to tectonic activity.

The Boxing Day tsunami was not caused by man. It was caused by an two tectonic plates stiking and slipping miles below the earth.

In a drought, people die of hunger and thirst. Governments fail to save them from the hunger and thirst. There is a difference.

If an asteroid hit earth today, man could not be blamed for the destruction wrought. They are called acts of god because there is no one else to blame – if you believe in god.

It is also disingenuous to suggest that it is mans fault for living in the way. I would like to know where on earth people can live without fear of being hit by a natural disaster AND which will have the resources to cater for the entire world’s population. Most of the world’s population do not have a choice where they live.

It is christians who cannot have it both ways. They claim credit on their god’s behalf for the earth (including the tectonic plates), the elements, all creatures great and small, indeed everything in the entire universe. By the same token they cannot walk away from the gore and destruction with arms aloft saying “nothing to do with god”.

If god is responsible for creation then god is equally responsible for creating ‘natural’ disasters which maim and kill millions of innocent people.

Is God willing to prevent an earthquake which will kill thousands, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
—- (with apologies to) Epicurus c 300 BCE

Report abuse

16

Leah Holmes

God botherer, I’ve enjoyed your posts also. We will have to agree to disagree. Personally I don’t have any issue with natural disasters happening. They wouldn’t be ‘disasters’ if there weren’t people in the vicinity at the time, they would simply be natural and awesome sights.

As with the tsunami you mention, there were tribes who had not become totally materialised by society who were more in touch with the earth itself and who survived because they saw the signs that nature gave them and they fled to safety! One bus load survived because a ‘modernised’ person saw the signs also, maybe the issue is that we have become so modernised that we don’t just ignore these signs we have lost touch with nature to the extent that they can hit us in the face and we’ll miss them.

I wonder if we weren’t so apt at postponing death now if the population would be anything like the size it is. I doubt it. Which doesn’t mean we shouldn’t postpone death but that doing this does cause other problems (ageing society etc). We also have a much higher rate of successful pregnancies/births than we would have had before, due to science. Maybe it wasn’t meant to be this way.

We consider death a disaster. I don’t like it when anyone dies but I think our reaction to death is far removed from that of our ancestors and I think possibly that their attitude was preferable. As a society we are so concerned with prolonging life that death is becoming more and more traumatic for people. I’m not sure that this is actually a good thing for society, this inability to ‘move on’ is hindering not helping. It’s a situation we are in now though and I doubt we can turn it back to simply accepting that death is part of life, it happens and how you deal with it is the important thing.

If people believed in a God then they wouldn’t know if he prevented earthquakes, he could be doing this all the time. We can only know that it happened because we saw it, felt it or saw the reports about it. We can’t know that it didn’t happen I guess.

Thankfully the Christians I know are sensible individuals, possibly the ones you know of are not. They don’t believe that God created one fixed thing that will never change (that would be a bit dull anyway) they believe that God created a Universe that cosntantly moves and changes and that this Earth will have an end. Personally I don’t have a problem with that because at the end of the day this earth does exist and all anyone is doing is finding their own answer as to why. It’s not an answer we’ll ever have I don’t think but at least it gives us some interesting debate.

Maybe I’m in the unfortunate position that the people I know who claim to not believe in a God are the first to blame God when natural disasters happen. It makes you wonder how many people are truly sure of what they believe. I won’t be making a ‘deathbed conversion’ but a heck of a lot of ‘non-religious’ people do.

Report abuse

18

Leah Holmes

Reg, totally agree. I see no desperate need to try and understand why bad things happen. Does anyone ever spend the same amount of time wondering why good things happen?

Report abuse

20

Adrian

Michael Neal.
The world is as it is because this is how it is allowed to be by all of us and everything. Everyone/thing has the ability to do good or bad. It is how mass conciousness express itself that dictates whether we have a good life on earth or a bad one.

I believe people have an incorrect interpretation of what God is. He is not a Father Time figure best potrayed by the weather cock on Lords Pavillion! This is a misconception used by many religions to give him a human appearance. We are but playing parts in a play here on earth and we are here to learn and evolve to bigger and better things.

If everyone is here to learn then what is the point of someone stepping in everytime we do something wrong? How do we learn if we are chastised? We do not learn from this at all. We need to learn by our own actions and the consequences of these actions.

I believe Bhuddism is the nearest correct phylosophy to follow, of all the religions, as it treats that compassion and understanding for all of creation, is the most important thing. What most don’t realise is everything is part of the whole therefore to attack, hurt or destroy any part of it is to cause consequences for yourself. This is how karma works.

The universe is part of a group conciousness and it will do as it wants. Everything has its part to play in this. This is how I view things.

Reg unfortunately has fallen into the scientific trap of not believing in life after death because he only measuring things in the visible spectrum. What about the invisible spectrum that is still there? Because of this he is in error as is science. I have spoken to him about major errors in scientific fact before but he won’t engage in this area for some reason. Egyptology is one laughable branch of science but still people believe in it because it is “scientific” allegedly!

What is evident is that most haven’t got a clue about most things on this planet and go around in a daze like trance throughout their lives. Is it any surprise when there is so much rubbish pushed forward as “fact” by the authorities down through the ages?

These are my own humble observations on things others have freewell to believe whatever they like. However remember once we pass on we will all know the truth of things won’t we?

I believe the universe is too ordered not to have a conciousness acting on it. Reg and others like him believe in good old fashioned luck getting us to this stage. This is the difference between us. It is up to others to work out what they think the answer could be.

Report abuse

22

mad foetus

“Human beings are neither omnipotent nor omniscient”?

Is Stuart Syvret included in this generalisation?

Report abuse

24

Get Real

Whether there is a god or not the story of Jesus is a good story for our children. Basically he was a nice bloke, who put others first and sacrificed himself in the name of good.
Jesus was’nt a money grabbing, fast talking, now now now, look at my Porsche, look at my house, Oh Im from jersey dont you know. It doesnt really matter whether Jesus was real or not, its the story that counts and the passing on of the story – lessons for us all to learn.

Report abuse

26

lula

To quote my younger brother age 4 “If god made us in his image does that mean god is a monkey on a cloud?”

what do you say to that! lol the logic of that kid is outstanding!

Report abuse

28

Gary

A question for you believers…

If we believe the bible and Adam and Eve we don’t believe we evolved from apes etc is that righ? if so we should not be teaching our children about evolution, also was Adam or Eve black, if not someones got some explaining to do cos if there were only 2 who started the human race off we are quite diverse just now!

Report abuse

30

CC

I think if we ALL spent more time loving our families and living our lives to the full, and less time arguing about the possibility of the existance or non-existance of any type of ‘God’ there would be less fighting, wars and bad feeling in the world!! Why can’t anyone see this?
So you’re going to live your life believing in something that you will never know is real or not! What a pure waste of time and life.
In my opinion, when you pray, you aren’t asking anyone for help or guidance but YOURSELF. Why can’t you be your own ‘God’?
Why does ‘it’ always have to be perceived as a being higher than us mere mortals??! Are we not good enough to guide ourselves?
And evidentially there IS no higher being!
D’OH!!
This argument will still be going on for many years to come. Smile, Be happy and get on with enjoying your life and your family and friends, because I doubt God will be the one you want to spend your last day on Earth with!

Report abuse

32

Reg Le Sueur

20 Adrian
Now please don’t start again Adrian! Though I am curious to know why you label Egyptology as “laughable”. I know I shall regret asking.

Report abuse

34

Reg Le Sueur

21 God-botherer
Neither will I; though I think this will disapoint some people. In fact, like Richard Dawkins, I will have a tape-recorder hidden upon my person, and an anti-clerical man-trap to catch any evangelistic converters who stray too close.

Report abuse

36

Mark's perspective

Faith is Faith. Your perception of the world is you personal perception and nothing more. Throughout history people have believed in deities; religion.

Bridget Murphy is entitled to her views, which she may share with others. However as a man of science, I believe that Richard Dawkins is probably nearer the mark than Mrs Murphy. A problem? No. Mrs Murphy is to be commended in achnowledging that we are all are entitled to our own views.

Nathen Jordan (2) is worth the read. I have long speculated that the teaching of the elders which Jesus enjoyed at the temple in Jerusalem may well have had its roots in Greek philosophy. Ironically Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have common roots. Speculation to ponder Bridget?

Report abuse

38

Adrian

God Botherer our bodies are mostly composed of star dust! Will this be too much for Reg to accept?

Whatever people do or don’t believe in I think it is logical to adopt a “treat others as you would like to be treated yourself” policy. Maybe if a few more adopted this policy we wouldn’t have wars and indiscrimnant killings? However big business might suffer a bit. Who would buy all those cluster bombs which left lieing around maim children, and where would all the depleted uranium go if we didn’t have wars?

Mankind is supposed to be civilised. I have to ask, are you having a laugh?

26.lula what image are we talking about here? The 3D illusionary one we have in this dimension, or the true one we have elsewhere?

19.Rozel Aubin. Time is an illusion that will pass with one’s passage from this life. It may be hard to grasp but it does not exist, it is but a perception of our present reality. It is nice to know that Reg also believes in something that doesn’t exist. I do however give you credit for trying to be christian in your attitude to life well done!

Report abuse

40

Kpax

Karen Clare 33

Wonderful book The Teachings of the Mamndarin, with Mary Absolum.

I had the incredible privelage of meeting the Mandarin.
Your doing a great job with your children letting them think for themselves.

Don’t forget to let them read Charles Darwin theory of evolution

Report abuse

42

God Botherer

I like the idea of being star dust but I doubt people would take me Sirius.

Report abuse

44

Gary

Stardust what planet are you from ……………lol

Report abuse

46

God Botherer

Karen Clare

Of course you realise that the christians would have executed you for those practises in the past!

Report abuse

48

lula

Adrian: what image are we talking about here? The 3D illusionary one we have in this dimension, or the true one we have elsewhere?

Well who flew out of the cukoos nest? I doubt they mentioned that in your holy book. As far as I’m concerned our true image is what we believe is our own image and that is the the flesh and brain that we roam about everyday in.

My baby brother had a class at school where they were talking about the bible and they quoted him a passage – you know the infamous “god created us in his image” yada yada yada (i have no intention of reading the bible again and I sorely object to schools teaching christiantiy as a compulsory subject!)
anyway – he got home and asked my stepfather about it. Then again when he was watching in the nightgarden he said to me “why are they brushing their teeth – they have no mouths”

this kid is gonna save the world i tell you!

Adrian, Bridget and Leah – I suggest listening to voltaire – god thinks

it may even make you laugh with lyrics such as “God is liberal, God is democrat, God wants you to vote republican”

Report abuse

50

Nathan Jordan

Yes, Lula I remember President Bush stating that he believed he had been appointed by God rather than, for instance, the American people – not very reassuring considering God is notoriously undemocratic… N.

Report abuse

52

Reg Le Sueur

49 “This would call into question whether the thoughts of one person can affect the material world, once again, we’d need to see some material evidence of this before we let our imaginations run away with us. N”
Yes indeed; and when Christians invoke the Mind/Matter debate, they neglect to explain how God’s Mind can effect us material beings, or any other part of the material world. How exactly does God produce a physical effect or answer prayer? (Of course this is a counterfactual proposition, seeing as how God does not actually exist)

Report abuse

54

Leah Holmes

Lula, I don’t believe in God.

“but I believe it’s more of a collective consciousness or a deep belief in what you are ‘praying’ for”. certainly a better words for what I’m trying to get at. Although we stray in our reasoning behind it.

I stated that I believed a ‘unified subconcious’ could have made the difference not ‘medical miracles’. I was witness to the things that simply could not have happened. That’s fact. Why can’t ‘prayer’ be included in a unified subconcious, it is a human thought pattern after all. The study wasn’t for ‘proving prayer’ it was set up in the best interests of patients’ recovery. If it was my patient I’d certainly encourage others to ‘pray’ for them.

Reg, Christians can sometimes pray out of habit, other times they pray and know they will see answers. That is where the subconcious comes into it. Regardless of what your prayer is, if your subconcious doesn’t expect an answer there simply won’t be any ‘unified subconcious’.

Why only fix things when they are far gone? Why not? Some people would make no effort to do what they could themselves, others would make every effort and use ‘prayer’ as their last hope. I can’t argue with that, there’s nothing worse than someone who sits and waits for someone else to fix everything for them, even if they do believe it to be a ‘God’

Twin/Triplet studies do clearly show physical effects between what may be joined subconciouses so I see no reason that it doesn’t happen on a worldwide scale and have greater effects. It would sit with more than one universe, so I’m happy to wait and see what the Math says.

I don’t pretend to have answers, and I like that we all have different beliefs, it poses lots of questions. My belief lies with the ‘theory of everything’ as that, for me, is what would currently tie up so many of our unknowns.

I’m unsure why you think I don’t like Mr Dawkins because of his atheism? Hypocrisy does also include pretense of having a certain attitude (say open-mindedness for instance) and by my reckoning Mr Dawkins has entered that pit. He does great scienticic work and should stick to that, most of what I’ve seen of him recently is just courting the media, trying to build a public profile, I’m just not interested in that type of person. Thankfully other, equally good, scientists are just getting on with science!

Report abuse

56

Leah Holmes

49, for me that evidence is already in twin/triplet studies. It’s semantics over what we call it really, for some it is ESP, other unified subconcious, others… something else entirely.

But a physically evoked response in one twin does give a mind response in another. That’s, in part, why I believe in the unified subconcious. It is a belief though, we’ll probably not know in our lifetime, if any!

Report abuse

58

Karen Clare

Mr Sausage 49. Yes, there are plenty in Waterstones and Wizards and Woozles, i would suggest ‘The Idiot’s Guide to Wicca’. It lays it all out in simple terms (for me) without getting as complicated as some of the books.

‘Beyond 2012′ is also another useful book to read. It’s written by a shaman and incorporates meditation, thoughts of healing and how to commune with ‘Spirit’ and save the planet before we have all destroyed it.

Nobody needs to belong to a church or religion. ‘Spirit’ (whatever it is or whatever name we all call it) is first and foremost inside of ourselves. We are the ones who know our truths and must find it within ourselves and not be looking to others and churches to tell us what it is. We all know right from wrong and how to treat others. Doesn’t it make you feel better when you have been kind to someone or helped them or even given a compliment to someone rather than if you feel agression or hostility towards someone. Bad feelings within yourself sap your strength, cause illness to yourself and surrounds you with negative energy.

I’m probably rambling now, but I do like discussing this subject as i want to learn and gain knowledge on it.

Report abuse

60

Leah Holmes

Reg, just get involved in medicine to see cures that have no answer. Those were just my experiences, friends have others. Thankfully most doctors are open to admitting there is a lot of medical happenings that we simply can’t explain.

Report abuse

62

Reg Le Sueur

58 Karen Clare
Trying to be rational as always, and influenced by my medico-scientific training, I would like to suggest that “Spirit” is an illusion, and so much New Age waffle, unless of course you can produce something so stupendous that I will have to accept it. Things are not so just because we like the idea of them; in order to understand the world we have to find out what actually is, not just what makes us feel good. Of course we should all try and be nice to each other, but let’s not get carried away by touchy-feely over-sentimentalism.
59. Leah
Glad to be of service in my small way. I believe we have to reign in our thoughts and be rational; that does not mean cold and unfeeling,-just not getting carried away by extravagant ideas without any empirical or logical basis. I think the basis of religious claims is,- wishful thinking, ignorance of how the natural world works (and lack of scientific understanding), and the will to power; eg of evangelists and “healers” who want to hoodwink you, often for power or profit; liars for Jesus.
I once went to an American evangelistic service at Le Rocquier school called “Heaven’s Gates and Hell’s flames”. A little old lady from the audience staggered up to the stage, apparently riddled with rheumatism; whereupon, on reaching the stage she skipped about in a most undignified manner trilling “I’m cured, Jesus has saved me!” Should I have fallen to my knees in adoration of the power of God?–no,-instead I thought “what a farce, and how about a bit of gravitas instead of such ridiculous caperings”;–but I might have been wrong.

Report abuse

64

Boris

The existence of god or otherwise is the subject of most peculiar debate in as much as it is very seldom anyone ever changes another’s point of view. Given that an atheist must destroy the faith of a believer in order to convert their position; how can reasoned argument destroy faith?
The atheist and the believer never actually meet in debate as the arguments run parallel to each other. If we accept for the moment the position that the believer argues the existence of god as he or she ‘believes’ in the proposition; then their argument is not rational in the strictest sense of the word, on the other hand the atheist is arguing in the negative and from what is really a rational point of view.
We could drill down further and argue that the believer ‘needs’ god and the atheist does not. This being the case arguably no one has ever really believed in god against their better judgement even if they on the surface pretend to do so; hence a believer argues backwards to justify their position whereas the atheist may attacks the argument by a more ‘scientific’ approach seeing no evidence for the existence of god so therefore finding no need to form a belief system.
The believer is asking the atheist to accept the existence of an invisible being which is a force for good. This in a world where by and large evil regularly triumphs to one degree or another and millions suffer and die through the vicissitudes of short and brutal lives, for no real purpose other than to act as consumers and enrichers for a global industrial society.
Both sides of the divide look at the same world; the atheist sees it for what it is and the believer finds evidence of god in his inactivity and the savagery of our existence.
For a believer to ask for proof that god does not exist, or proof of anything for that matter is hypocrisy in the extreme and a fallacious argument. Equally for the atheist to point out the lack of historical evidence for the existence of Christ outside of a highly politicised bible is really a proposition to be put to another atheist and not the believer. This point has already been discounted as irrelevant in their acceptance of god.
What is interesting is that this argument has echoed down through the ages for as long as man has existed; the only people who have suffered are those that deny the existence of god in one form or another. To my knowledge it is always the non-believer who is put up against the wall and shot, broken on the rack or burned at the stake.
Finally, before it is pointed out that I have forgotten the ravages of Communism I haven’t; Communism and Fascism are belief systems and not the manifestations of rational argument, therefore should be categorised along with Christianity, Islam and all the rest.

Report abuse

66

Nathan Jordan

I thought Reg was a Doctor? In any case it’s a long shot from acknowledging an unexpected recover from an illness to acknowledging the power of prayer. N.

Report abuse

68

Nathan Jordan

I must say Adrian that I doubt very much anything you’ve said on here has gone over anyone’s head.

The debate as to Buddhism’s status as a religion is a macrocosm of the division among Buddhists themselves, for example Tara Buddhism as practised in Thailand includes a large number of minor and even regional Gods whereas that practised by the Shaolin for example makes no mention of the divine in the way you or I might understand it.

However the only sense in which this is relevant to the debate at hand is whether it is a faith in the conventional sense or a school of philosophical thought in the vein of Socrates for instance (please see Post No. 2 for a more in-depth dissection of these).

Your argument related to three dimensions is limited and I think facetiously so as you must be aware that science has discovered forces, waveforms and types of matter invisible to the naked eye, gravity, gamma waves and dark matter to name but a few.

While the above may indeed not be viewable by conventional means, experimental data to verify their existence certainly is!

The case against a creator is not made solely on the basis that its existence is not evident to the naked eye but due to the complex relationship between matter and energy, whereby simpler forms combine gradually over time to form more complex structures, I am speaking in a quantum sense in this case, though the process is roughly comparable to evolution.

Steven Hawking’s “Brief History of Time” comes nearest in my view to explaining conditions prior to the Big Bang in layman’s terms. There was no doubt that the Universe would have had to be condensed to an infinitely small, infinitely energetic point prior to the Big Bang.

Naturally a factor must have changed in order for this point to explode outwards and begin forming matter and scientists are not afraid to admit that we do not fully understand this process. I’m sure if a scientist were reading this now he or she would be very unhappy with the rather facile description I’ve given here.

That said we can use rationality to discount the theory of a Universe creator through our understanding of the evolution of life in that complex structures only form over time from the more basic, a classic example being the human genome which evolved gradually increasing our brain power (allegedly!), shedding our fur and enabling us to walk upright.

The Ontological argument as it is called, posits the existence of a Universe creator, prior to the creation of said Universe. It stands to reason that such a being would have to be infinitely more complex than its own creation, therefore such a theory is regressive and a logical impossibility.

I’d like to say too I’m so pleased to see so many people talking about these issues, it’s really livened up my holiday, many thanks! N.

Report abuse

70

Reg Le Sueur

65. Adrian
Your point about whether there is something beyond physicality? This question belongs to the branch of philosophy called “Metaphysics”–which means “beyond” (meta)-physics. This is a subject for much dispute. Some people say it is real and that it is the frontier at the edge of Physics where it supposedly becomes “spiritual”, and a part of religious and philosophical thought. Others like myself deny “spiritual” in its strong sense, and think that the only thing beyond Physics is more and better Physics; just as Newton’s Physics, although correct in a limited sense, became expanded into Einstein’s theories of Relativity, (we discussed this earlier). And then came also Quantum Theory,now String Theory, and Loop Quantum Gravity; each building upon its predecessors,-or as Newton put it-”If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants”.

Report abuse

72

Adrian

I read and learn all the time Reg this is why I have noticed the anomaylies in the system.

Do you like Quarks and leptons? What about Gravity Waves?

As per 3D I’ll make it as simple as I can.

Let us suppose 3D is 2D for ease of understanding.

In 2D we had little flat creatures that only have length and breadth. They have no heighth as they are 2 dimensional.

They can move forwards, backwards and side to side but not up and down. They have no understanding of up or down as they only exist in 2D. Hopefully you can follow this so far.

Right and these little flat landers as I refer to 2D things, and people who can’t think outside the box, are all happy in their happy little world doing what they are doing.

Now along comes me who is a 3D creature and I am looking down on these 2D creatures. I have observed their lives for a while. Now as I am naughty and don’t obey the prime directive I decide to pass a pencil through their little world.

How will these 2D creatures reason what has happened? As I touch the surface of their world with my pencil they observe a dot appearing from nowhere. It gets bigger and then stays the same size for a while before hey presto! as if by magic the bigger circle vanishes.

One little creature says to the other that it was magic what done it. The other being a bit more scientific tries to work it out and comes up with a theory. Others who haven’t witnessed this event say both their friends were drunk and imagined it. So no one really believes the event took place.

It is rubbished as a none event because the rules of 2D can’t explain this event as it has been caused by 3D which is outside their own understanding and world. The scientific one is repremanded and told in no uncertain terms that his scientific career is over as he has played a part in an elaborate hoax.

He swears blind he is telling the truth even showing them a video of the event he took in 2D this is analysed by the learned establishment. After consultant no one can explain the video so they decide it was a hoax as well, as there is no other evidence to substanciate these perposterous claims as the scientific community is now branding them.

Anyway to cut a long story short this poor flatlander ends up in a special hospital as he is proclaimed mad by his doctor, because his doctor is convinced there must be something wrong with his mind. We can’t have people imagining things can we?

The other one who saw what happeed decides to agree with the rest that the two of them made it up and is spared the special treatment.

There my friend is a simple explanation of how misunderstanding and misinterpretation of data can led to incorrect assumptions when one assumes 3D is what its all about!!

Now what happens if there are things in 4D doing the same to us? How would you explain it away in your scientific way if you have no understanding or idea of the existance of 4D or even other dimensions beyond this??

Maybe this is why science cannot give the TOE formula or explain what preceeded the big bang!!

Report abuse

74

Cameron

67. Leah:

You seem to be over-stating mathematics… and always capitalising it like it’s some kind of God

Mathematics doesn’t have a definitive, a priori link to the physical world and might even be thought of as a language for symbolic manipulation. Only a subset of maths is directly applicable to the physical world in a sense that isn’t just messing around with information and numbers. Maths might not even be ‘correct’ to the physical world, but we’ve not found any places where it contradicts reality yet as far as I’m aware.

Maths is used as a tool to find patterns and analyse the physical world in a process called the scientific method. To claim that maths on it’s own can return any useful physical meaning by itself is nonsense. Statistical and applied maths can be used to analyse data from the physical world and build models, but the process itself is still dependent on biology, physics, causality, etc. and you still need to use the scientific method. Science by definition is building knowledge through research and the scientific method.

Proving maths in terms of maths is factual and tautologous, it’s just not useful on it’s own to the real world. The only way to make it useful is to introduce science, and then how useful it is depends on the level to which you’ve applied the scientific method. To believe anything else is to go against all evidence to the contrary, which is very unwise, because all the technology we’re using to communicate is based on more than a thousand years of scientific method.

Maths is a great and fundamentally important tool, and I in no way want to devalue it, but not even any mathematicians I know would agree with your viewpoint. I also do understand mathematics as it’s an important part of my career (infact my career is a subset of maths).

“as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”
— Albert Einstein

Not that quoting ‘random’ people proves anything, but he has a lot of credibility in my eyes, given the whole relativity thing he worked out .

Report abuse

76

Reg Le Sueur

74. Cameron
Very good decription of the place of maths in our world. Thanks.

Report abuse

78

Jersey Bull

Judging from some of the above comments that have been posted on this particular forum, it is easy to see how passion so often clouds reason. Therefore with that said, it might be safe for one to assume that in order for anyone to know whether or not their principles, values and creeds may be perceived and held as true, rational and consistent, most people, like it or not, will either need a lucid philosophy or some kind of fundamental religious belief that is based upon one’s faith in a Divine Authority – even if that happens to be a half eaten can of tuna that has been sitting in the back the fridge for the last three weeks.

The only choice one has in this matter, is to insure that the understanding of one’s philosophy, faith or creed is something that has been clearly and lucidly defined by way of a conscious disciplined process of sound examination and careful deliberation. Or whether one’s general overall understanding in such matters is simply something that has been totally left to chance, by way of subconsciously accumulating a pile of second hand conclusions, unsupportable generalisations, whimsical half-truths and hollow slogans – despite being popular, all of which would appear to have been randomly and emotionally bundled together into a burdensome bag of crippling self doubt for those holding them and thereby, leaving one to ramble about in an emotive desert of dead dialogue. Rather than leading one toward some validity through the clear objective purpose of a well reasoned discussion.

While everyone should be free (for how much longer we know not) to express themselves and their opinions and be free to worship or not; the can of tuna or whatever authority they choose, it is probably safe to say that when it comes to quoting or referencing the Torah/Tenakh (the Bible) and its Scriptures, few, if any, judging from the above contributors would appear to have ever read such from beginning to end – let alone possess any form of knowledge or understanding regarding the root meaning within the ancient languages of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, before offering up their unsupported conclusion – for, according to old Pete, who respected Judah (Rabbinical Authority) as God’s Law giver, ‘No scripture is of private interpretation’ – it is subject to three witnesses and thereby interprets itself.

Psalms 78:1 – “Give ear, O My people, to My Law: incline your ears to The Words of My Mouth. 2 – I will open My Mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old: 3 – Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.”

So for those of you who may prefer to go the the three week old can of tuna, you might consider the following:

In 1882, a young Harvard graduate, an immigrant from Russia named Ivan Panin who was aware of the numeric values of the written Hebrew and Greek language, made the astute observation that the verses of Scripture throughout the Bible bore the unmistakable evidence of an elaborate mathematical pattern. Something, he noted that appeared to be far beyond random chance or human ability to construct.

From then on, Panin, who died in 1942, devoted his life to the study of the numeric properties of the Bible. Panin found deliberate patterns of prime numbers throughout the Scriptures, in particular, the number 7. For example, he found that whatever numeric values were contained within proper names, both male and female, would be divisible by seven.

The same applied for the number of words that began with a consonant or with a vowel; they too would be divisible by seven. Genesis 1:1 alone is made up of seven Words in Hebrew containing 28 letters (4 x 7). The numeric value of the first and last letters of all the seven words in the verse is 1393 (199 x 7). The numeric value of the first and last letters of the first and last words of the verse is 497 (71 x 7). In all, there are some thirty features of 7 contained within Genesis 1:1!

Each paragraph, passage and Book in the Bible, despite having being recorded at different times by different scribes, will be seen to have been put together in this same miraculous way – and done so without a computer! Yes, there are those, though very few, who would try to dispute Panin’s forty thousand pages of evidence, but any student of the Bible worth his or her salt will see that when numbers are written down and used in the Scriptures, they may be applied both literally and symbolically.

In the mean time, to keep it light, try to fold a piece of paper in half more than “seven times” – you can’t! Go on, try it – we can wait.

Report abuse

80

Reg Le Sueur

77. Adrian
Apart from the fact that nuclear tests would probably have a neglible effect on plate tectonics, there is the little matter of the movement of continental plates over the last 250 million years at least, (before nuclear testing).

There is the appearance of order in the cosmos, caused by the increase in entropy as the effect of the second law of thermodynamics, which builds local pockets of organised behaviour. Think of a chaotic mountain stream driving a water-wheel which can then be used to do ordered work,-like grinding corn. Likewise the 2nd LoTherm drives the processes of life. Chemicals are not inert like a pile of ping-pong balls, they are chemically active,-some more than others. Their atomic constituents contain the strong force, which features in atomic explosions;–hardly inert.
No-one asserts there is nothing beyond this life, or denies the possibility of aliens. As for the paranormal, the burden of proof is on you, if you are asserting it. As you appear to despise science, can you say what other sources of information you, or anyone else might have concerning the apparent scientific claims you are making about plate tectonics, origin of Life, existence of aliens etc?

Report abuse

82

Nathan Jordan

Jersey Bull, may I say what an apt name!

I was wondering how long it would be before someone tried to trot out the Bible code. For the record I have read the Bible, Koran and Talmud in their entirety, however I am usually treated to healthy doses of the same in my Youtube Channel where I advocate rationalism, mainly Psalm 14:1, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.”

As refreshing as it always is to see the faithful declining from judging others, I am surprised that any intelligent person would make the case for any kind of meaningful cipher in the Bible or indeed Talmud.

Those who wish for a dissection of the fundamentally flawed mathematics of this theory should refer themselves to the MMBK paper published in Statistical Science (March 1999) edition, which includes the fact that Hebrew mathematics did not allow for the number zero in the conventional sense, and how repeated tests with the Talmud as a whole have yielded no meaningful results.

Naturally if there were an overall cipher contained in early Talmudic texts this would no doubt give comfort to those of the faithful who have suspected the truth that their scripture is a disjointed and contradictory mass of bigotry, vague supposition and borrowing from earlier Zoroastrian myths – I find this ironic given how you accuse the more rationally minded contributors here of allowing their passion to cloud their reason!

Being a linguist I’m always intrigued by those who put forth this theory as to the language in which the code is written, as it would seem that various claimants say that this supposed code applies in English, Ancient Greek and both Ancient and Modern Hebrew.

Indeed the fact that occasionally valid words can be deciphered from the same texts using different alphabets, should give you some pause for thought.

As such, I have decided to take an extract from the seventh letter of the opening scene of “The Merchant of Venice” and see what proverbial fruit it yields:

ITSWMYIUAFOYSSWINESNDKTVDWYNSHTEASRLGDRTOEAOD

From this we can infer the phrase “It’s my swine”. Today Coptic Christian farmers in Egypt clashed with authorities who wanted to execute all pigs in the country according to BBC News.

Despite the fact that the phrase is mixed in with meaningless jargon and that is has only the most tenuous connection with the story, the parallel is identical with those who can form meaningful phrases from scripts in Ancient Hebrew.

The fact that seven letter names of certain Rabbis were found within said texts is no more significant that the fact that the characters Jessica, Nerissa, Antonio, Solanio and Shylock are also seven letter Proper Nouns.

Incidentally if a God wished to reveal itself to its followers, couldn’t you conceive a more direct method than the one we’ve just discussed?

N.

Report abuse

84

Dec

78 Jersey Bull “In the mean time, to keep it light, try to fold a piece of paper in half more than “seven times” – you can’t! Go on, try it – we can wait.”

Took me about 20 seconds to fold a man size piece of Kleenex tissue paper in half 8 times. So I assume that’s Panin proved wrong.

Report abuse

86

Reg Le Sueur

Adrian, you will enjoy this; we are back to pyramids again. I expect you know that the Great Pyramid is lined up with amazing accuracy with the points of the compass?-and that I believe one of the ventilation shafts points directly towards the constellation of Syrius. This is conclusive proof that the pyramid was built by aliens from Sirius.
In fact there is a book on the subject concerning someone who subscribed to this theory called “The Great Pyramidiot”–which I think says it all.

Report abuse

88

Jersey Bull

82 Nathan – without having to return your personal comment, please note that Panin’s work and general observations refer mainly to the way in which he found the Biblical text to be structured and as such could offer no more than some motivating food for thought. In no way did I suggest that his work contained any possible overall cipher in early Talmudic texts. Neither did I present the idea that Panin’s recorded observations had anything to do with being able to decipher the so called ‘Bible Codes’, Numerology, Hidden Ciphers or any discovery of special meanings that might lead to some hopefully imagined affirmation within the text. – thank you.

Report abuse

90

Reg Le Sueur

87. Adrian
I don’t know it for a fact, but I should think the nuclear test shock would be far too small to affect tectonic plate movement; it would need a global effect, not just a local one; and if the crust was particularly thin then an atomic blast would more likely penetrate it and release magma, resulting in a hugh volcanic eruption;–which did not occur following such detonations.
Re science; do you know anything which does not vary with time, and/or personal input?
I agree about the possibility of aliens in other dimensions. What do you mean by “more correct than other belief systems”? There are blind irrational beliefs (faith); and there is rational belief supported by logic and empiricism,-only in that sense is science “a belief system”. We believe (provisionally), supporting data, because that is the best epistemic system we have; there is nothing else.
This reply will be too long if I comment on all your questions,-but, I think “just the right quantities to form a living membrane” can reasonably be answered by a form of natural selection acting at the molecular level-eg trial and error; this could also explain the existing constants of our Universe, and our successful Universe compared with other possible “failed” Universes. This idea is “Ultra-Darwinism”. So I think there is no purpose, we are here because we “won” in the lottery of all possible outcomes of selection,-and therefore we think we must be the very best there is. Remeber, we did not pop into existence fully formed and conscious,-we went through a long process of evolution in order to reach our present state.

Report abuse

92

Nathan Jordan

Thank you Reg, as for Jersey Bull, can I take it then that when you said that numbers in scripture can be interpreted literally and symbolically that you did not mean that this was in support of Panin’s so-called findings? N.

Report abuse

94

Adrian

Reg there is more than enough circumstancial for something beyond the normal. Nick Pope is not some odd ball is he? Even Winston Churchill wanted to know more about UFO’s. What about fighter pilots, civil airline pilots, civilians, army, police, Sheriffs etc? Are all these witnesses to paranormal events drunk, delusional all making it up?

According to you it appears they are. You are entitled to believe these type of events are balony as you say. However I think there is too much information for their existance to take this stance. I presume as a scientist you would poo poo these type of happenings?

As per the Universe or the bit we call the universe. Are you serious in your belief that we are the only inhabitants in the entire known universe?

Science is a belief system like any other you care to mention as far as I am concerned. It has as it remit logic and experimentation as its core, just like other beliefs have other things at their core. I ask you this, what happens if logic is the wrong measuring tool and empiricism is actually quackery, what then?

You have based your entire understanding on a possibly faulty system so your deductions will therefore not add up. Is this not what we get when we compare Newtonian physics with Einstein’s theories? Cracks in the picture? Where is the Theory Of Everything? Why does conventional science break down as the moment prior to the big bang?

So you are basing everything on something that may be incorrect. How very scientific if I may use that phrase.

As per natural selection this is only applicable to living entitles as far as I was aware. You are now supposing inert objects in the biological sense, as they aren’t alive, somehow by accident, decided (which they couldn’t do either) to suddenly combine together and replicate and make a cell membrane. Maybe it was the lighning what did it do you think?

How does one go from inert to biological? What is the process that suddenly changes a few dead chemicals into a living entity? Science has not answered this fundamental question as far as I am concerned.

There is no purpose? I think this is where you are wrong. There could be a purpose to everything and maybe it is just that we haven’t realised this yet? Do you really think we are the very best looking around at the state of the planet?

As per the conciousness bit I believe this starts well before most realise it. It is just we are unable to measure or recognise it.

What happens if conciouness comes into being before our 3D life here starts? What then? Maybe it is our conciousness that coalesces into this dimension as a life form? Maybe it is this conciousness which triggers life from death or nothingness? As we are in 3D we wouldn’t have a clue about this would we, if we were limited to 3D understanding?

Report abuse

96

Leah Holmes

Nathan, interesting post. I find this whole Bible Code thing rather odd because it gets put forward as if Christians would want it to exist. Now apart from the fact that it’s the Torah, the Christians I know would accept it if it did exist but don’t want it to exist because as far as they are concerned it would go against Christian belief to have such a code in the Bible.

I didn’t realise there were Christians that wanted it to exist!

Reg… I have no issue with UFOs either. I laugh when people make the subject all spooky with weird music because they are simply things yet to be identified not necessarily alien lifeforms Anyway, I’m rubbish at ornithology so most things in the Jersey sky are UFOs to me.

Report abuse

98

Jersey Bull

92 NJ
Correct. Perhaps I should have set it out more clearly – with luck next time

Report abuse

100

Reg Le Sueur

96. Leah
Maths is epistemically empty and is mainly concerned with relationships between quantities and manipulating symbols and describing the structural relationships of the space/time continuum. Maths needs Physics to give it content so it can make statements about the world. Physics is the basis for chemistry, which is the basis for biochemistry, which is the basis for biology and abiogensis and genetics and evolution. They form a continuous spectrum with the relatively simple merging into the more complex. The whole system is a unity and should be understood both reductively as well as holistically.

Report abuse

102

Reg Le Sueur

101. Adrian
What if?–what if? Such counterfactual questions are easy to ask but why bother? Science does its best to provide answers to real questions which can actually be investigated. So far you have provided no answers to anything but merely carpet-bombed us with questions and ridiculed the most reasonable and informed answers we have tried to give you. Persistent obsessional childish questions like “why is the sky blue” have a certain charm up to a point,especially if they can be answered,- but become tedious and obsessional after a while. You have to find your own answers; I do not care whether it is from science, from God, from aliens, or a crystal ball. You do not have to have a fight to the death with anyone who prefers reasonably established knowledge to odd-ball subjective opinions,-even if occasionally correct. Peace!

Report abuse

104

Adrian

Sorry guys I believe in questioning things and not taking at face value anything. It appears others are happy to go with the flow.

Anyone who values their creed/theories would be prepared to answer others valid questions on things.

Nathan Why is it 5% of actual signing that the USAF investigated could not be explained naturally?

As per satelite technology your are supposing it is superior to any other technology that may be in use at present.

I will ask you a question do you believe we are the only life in the known universe?

As I have stated before there are many areas in which science has no logical answers. This does concern me. There are others in which the answers are plainly incorrect. In a logic based system does this not concern or worry you that certain theories on which others are based are incorrect?

All I was trying to do is to spark debate. However all I seem to get from certain people is ridicule for some reason. I have only asked valid questions if people have to result to this level it is ashame as I had thought the sciences were better than that.

Report abuse

106

Michael Neal

#101 Adrian

Churchill was interested in aliens (the so-called ‘foo fighers’) during the WWII.

#103 Nathan

While I am nervous to disagree with someone with your learning, science is a faith because there is no a priori reason why logic and empiricism should be used to describe and understand the world. For all we know, Churchill may have got it right when he was examining entrails!

Having said that, I don’t understand why human beings who use empiricism all the time when crossing the road, accidentally touching a hot stove, etc choose to abandon it when dealing with some select subjects. Alternative medicine springs immediately to mind.

Report abuse

108

Adrian

Michael Neal Churchill may have been but it was after WW2 that he ordered active investigations into it.

It is ashame that Reg has departed I would have liked to know some of his theories hence my selective questions for him etc, but there you go.

To reject rational answers one has to have them first! Nevermind as it appears we are at an impass it is probably better to stop.

As per re-inventing the wheel this is exactly what science does everytime that one of its theories is altered. This was exactly the point I was trying to get across however it obviously went over someone’s head.

Finally, knowledge, reason and logic are great if they are correct, and applied correctly, if not they are pointless because they deflect from the truth of things.

Cheers Reg. See you on the other side!

Report abuse

110

Reg Le Sueur

re Adrians responses above (101 and 108):

Reg’s kindly advice:
“-but maybe these are too scientific for your taste and you would prefer to consult the entrails of a goat, (or mutilated cattle)?”

Adrians misquoting of it:
“Why would Churchill bother with looking at animal entrails as you say?”

Reg’s wise comment:
“There is a limit to such extreme scepticism and cynicism, and if you think this is the way to go then you are condemned to perpetually re-invent the wheel.”

Adrian;s misintepretation of it:

“As per re-inventing the wheel this is exactly what science does everytime that one of its theories is altered. ”

There is no point talking to this man, he is impossible.

Report abuse

112

Reg Le Sueur

111. Adrian
Here’s one I missed, thanks for reminding me.
Reg’s comment (99) “Obviously Churchill and the military would have taken an interest in them in war-time.”

Adrian (101) “By the way his interest in UFO’s was after WW2 during the cold war so you’re inaccurate there.”

I said “war-time” (see above); I did not mention WW2– yet another misquoting by you.
Now I really am going,-this is all getting very silly indeed.

Report abuse