Lest we forget

[TomOfSweden]

That sounds good to me. Although I am not sure where it takes us, since ruling out the option of saying there is not a supernatural element to our world merely because it would be make our world too complex to understand, if clearly not sound.

My point is that it's impossible to work out the nature of god even if it did exist. Maybe my line of reasoning was a bit hard to follow. It has a tendancy to get a bit fuzzy when I'm discussing purely abstract issues.

As someone who has embraced a particular faith I do have the canon of sacred texts and a body of experience, published and unpublished to help make sense of the world. And I know I am stepping into the circular argument territory there, so will back off. Smiles.

So you believe in god because you want god to exist? If true, at least it's honest. But not really a case for gods existance, is it? I might as well say that I'm am atheist because I don't want god to exist. A bit silly isn't it? Hardly anything to base a religion on.

And given the same evidence I have decided to join the other camp.

But you'd hardly bet on it being right, would you? Since you admit that the proof is full of holes?

Actually the story of creation was a mile stone in my accepting the Bible as a God inspired text. I know you quote dates for the when the Bible was written, but I believe that those are for when it was assembled. The first 5 books of the bible in particular are significantly older than the dates you quote. As a child I was taught the story of creation, never really challenged it, but never really accepted it either. It struck me one day, just how amazing it was that someone with little scientific knowledge beyond how to use the stars as a compass and sighs of nature to find water could so accurately predict the process of evolution as science has now shown us. Unlike some people, I cannot accept that creation took 7 days, but I understand that the term used in the original Hebrew not only means day, but also a period of time. That makes the first few chapters of the bible not only plausible, but also in line with scientific discoveries. (With apologies to all creationists.)

I'm really fascinated about how the bible came to be, but I think it's a bit of a side-track. We have no idea if it's the word of god or not. It's just an assumption christians make. If we don't even manage to come up with a likely model for how supernaturality works then the Bible isn't very relevant is it? If the supernatural didn't control the hands of the people writing it, then it isn't the word of god, right? If we have different interpretations of it, then well....we can't really draw any conclusions and....I think it's best to create a new thread about just that.

The core of Christianity is about having a relationship with God, everything else leads to or flows from that. Is this relationship delusional - perhaps - although to me, there is much more pointing in the direction that it is real, than pointing in the other direction. Why do I attribute certain attributes to God; a combination of what the Bible says, the experience of other trusted, level headed Christians, and my own critical experience.

That's fine, but you have no idea if it is in fact god you're adressing or just thin air, do you? Considering the nature of human perception, even if you personally have seen god, doesn't prove a thing.

I have addressed the delusional aspect of it above, and as for erroneous conclusions, I can only say that mine seem logical to me.

Again, this is just down to you believing in god because you want god to exist. It's not really a case for god.

Having read what CC wrote, I think the point he was making is that, from a Christian perspective, we do not make claims as to what God wants, e.g. the commandments, we let Him do that Himself.

ok, but how do you know what is the "voice" of god and what just is wishfull thinking/hallucination/delusion?

I have asked myself these questions, and can only say that non-supernatural theories leave too many gaping holes which do not appear to be in the pattern of science to be able to fill. That leaves me with finding a supernatural answer, and of the systems I have looked at, the one which seems to best stand up to any test I choose to throw at it is Christianity.

That's a contradiction. Just saying "god thought of it" is just avoiding the issue. A supernatural model of the universe is a lot more complex than a non-supernatural, because you have so much more variables. The plain fact is that the supernatural model has more holes in it than the non-supernatural. Just because on a very superficial level it looks simpler doesn't mean the maths of it are any simpler.

Again, just because you or I don't understand the maths of a theory, doesn't mean nobody does.

Perhaps I am tired, but you have lost me in this paragraph, and I can't grasp the point you are making. After carefully consideration I have decided to have faith in one particular set of explanations. I could have avoided, on principle, going for any given set and played lucky dip taking bits from all faiths. That would certainly have been a fascinating study, but would not necessarily have lead me any closer to finding out the truths. Instead I choose to learn more about God by devoting such time to exploring the faith which I have decided to embrace.

But you're only talking about your personal journey. It's as if it's an emotional standpoint. A bit like going with what ever feels the best for you. The supernatural elements of religion is a scientific theory. A model. As with all scientific theories we can have leanings toward one or the other model. But if the theory is too flimsy, like all the supernatural theories of the world. Then having a firm faith in it is stupid. There's a number of serious scientific theories on the mechanics of the universe works, (no, christianity isn't one of them) and no scientist would say, this is what I believe the rest of you are all wrong. They might sound like that's what they're saying, but it's not what they mean.

Believing in a scientific theory as a scientist is diametrically different than believing in a scientific theory as a religious follower. It has to do with comparing theories and doing the maths. If you don't have a degree in quantum mechanics it's a bit arrogant to pick your own version and just go for it, just like all religious people have to do. I think popular science is fun. I do my best in following the research but I don't have the proper education in the subject to formulate my own complete theory on the mechanics of the universe works or even evaluate what christianity says about it. That would be arrogance to the extreme. If religious people on top of this have the bad taste to vote for laws based on religious ethics, then I feel like grabbing for my gun. Hobby philosophers pissing those who have done their homeworkd and actually know better, (most often scientists) in the face. Yes, I think we should leave the big decision to the proper scientists, of the simple reason that they understand things that we don't.

The religious comunity disregard serious science and treat all these big questions like a big joke. If they didn't they'd learn the maths. They might look all sinceare when they're pondering the bible, but it requires that you selectivly ignore critical problems of the model and only vote with your heart.

That's what I mean with it not being a personal journey. Growing as a person, and developing your morals and finding yourself is a personal journey, but has very little to do with basic religious theories on the universe and the supernatural.

I have briefly looked at that site, and superficially, to me, there are many unanswered questions, but that is only on the basis of about 10 minutes, but I am not tempted to explore further.

It's one of the ancient Greek religions. linky

Pantheism is simply put the idea that everything is god. Our natural universe is god. So they believe in god, but they don't belive in the supernatural. They believe that it's up to humans to figure out what god wants all by themselves. Because we define what god is and should be. They use the study of ethics to build moral codes for the religion. Their religious masses are based on providing a service for the good of the comunity, and let the comunity decide on what they want.

I really don't get what the point of it is, but good luck to them.

I don't think religions are good for humanity, I believe that we all have a need to find out answers for ourselves regarding the existence or otherwise of the supernatural, and if it does exist, the nature of it. From what I have seen however, religions cause conflict, because it is only a matter of time before the people involved in the organisation of religions become ambitious and work to find arguments from within their faith to justify extension to their power.

I think religions are good for humanity simply based on the fact that they exist. They aparently fill a need. Practices that humanity doesn't need has a tendancy to disapear. That's the beauty of evolution. It may very well be that with the good bits we get some bad bits, but over the whole, it's aparent that it does a lot of good. Again, simply based on the fact that religions exist. Why? I have no idea. If anything in this thread, it should be aparent that I'm the wrong person to ask.