Believe:

[g-mark]

There, to me, is no 'real' evidence. The evidence of a god/godless world is all around us. Everything can be cast as evidence, but it is how we interpret the evidence that we see the world. I cannot offer some evidence you have not already seen (not completely), only suggest we have made different assumptions and conclusions.

How can your post have relevance then?

What does it achieve?

I wouldn't call it 'safe' to assume his/her non-existence.

Why don't you use the word 'it'?

All of this is just my silly opinions and ideas, I am not trying to preach. I appreciate your questions, and wonder what your answers to them would be. Thank you for sharing.

What do you hope to accomplish?

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Pip: So how do you tell that God is everywhere rather than simply being no where and you mistaking positive feelings (or whatever) for her? (you seem to prefer 'her', I don't care about the difference between what I believe to be a non-existent God whether it is a he OR a she, personally. - I'll call it 'her' just for you though lol)

How is life itself evidence (or reason, or justification, if you prefer) for God when it is much more simply and probable that life is just...life, not having to postulate the whole God part - and what you mistake for feeling so great that it 'must be God' is simply just how wonderful life can be?

EvF

[Giff]

Isn't just believing a word, which is some of it's meaning, for not being sure? It seems more like yo wish that there is a God more then that you think there is. Because Pippy, it isn't like you have found evidence for a god or even theoritical come to an conclusion that there is a possibilty for such a thing.

As I said before it's the same chance for a god to exists as the Matrix would be real.

[Pippy]

Hey again guys,

To G-Mark, I address these answers. The relevance of my post to EvF is that I am not in the position to offer any evidence about god. I could go on and on and on about all of the evidence as I see it, but we would quickly realize that you would disagree with what I thought the evidence meant. I hope it achieves an attempt to answer the questions EvF graciously forwarded to me.

I did not reference god as 'it', and that is the most appropriate pronoun. I make god a young girl in my mind, but she is far from human. It is personification.

Ummmm... I hope to accomplish... Clear communication? Mutually beneficial learning/ growth? Doing the right thing? Tough question. Thank you, G-Mark, for your time.

Then to EvF. It just makes a lot more sense to me personally. I think god is everywhere rather than nowhere because the latter literally makes no sense to me. It does not add up, it creates a lot more questions than answers. If god were nowhere, than why the infatuation? If there were no god, what made me? I think the fantastic miracle that all of this (the history leading up to now) just so happened, and organized itself just such as to allow for me is very, very hard to swallow. My mother made me, on a genetic and physical level, and I can see evidence of it, and learn from it if I allow myself. What, then, is the mother of humanity? What is the thing, physically and genetically that created the (seemingly) one-of-a-kind sentient skinny monkey? If the reasoning is that the system just created us out of chance or blind luck (good or bad), then that, too me, is as circular as quoting the bible on it's own validity. The system (evolution) created us, but did the system just create itself too? Was is just always there? That, too me, is crazy talk. See none of this is evidence, just other ways of looking at things.

I am quite pleased to hear you say 'just how wonderful life can be'. That is a healthy state-of-mind, and I fully agree. Life is reason for god, only because life is all there is in this realm. If we could discuss death, it would also be reason for god. But we know not of death in here, we will all get our surprise one day. It isn't that my moments of clarity and feeling good mean there must be god, but that there could. The feelings help, but I try to make the deciding points more in reason.

I really do quite appreciate this talk, you are asking relative questions with a clear attempt to understand what I think, regardless of your judgement of it. It is another lovely spring day, and I have some wandering to do. Until next time.
"Do you believe in magic?",
-Pip

---

And to Giff,

I wouldn't agree with you that it is as likely as the matrix, the existence of god. But it is an apt comparison in that you can't actually tell either way, can you? I have found evidence, and I have a relationship with my god. I do not come here and say 'there must be god', only because that would be foolish. Yes I do not know for sure. Is this the part where you tell me that you know for sure, and I ought to listen up? I can only go on assumptions, and I am going to have to assume that I gather and process information better than yourself, and I will go with my conclusions and not your own, thank you very much. It seems cold, but I am sure that is the decision any of you have made, and well should have.

I can't say it enough, I don't want to prove god to you all. I don't care if you find god or not. I just want to chat.

Thanks,
"thump",
-Pip

[g-mark]

Clear communication? Mutually beneficial learning/ growth? Doing the right thing?

What would you like to communicate to me?

What is your question for us if you would like to learn?

What is right & wrong?

[Edwardo Piet]

@ Pip. Thanks for your polite and engaging response.

What I am wondering is...if you do not call it evidence...simply then :WHY is life itself a reason to believe God exists? Isn't life itself simply evidence for life itself? And can't it be wonderful without postulating the complexity of God?

And finally - why a young girl? How do you narrow it down that much?

EvF

[Giff]

I have found evidence, and I have a relationship with my god

Then show me the evidence

[Kyuuketsuki]

Pip,

On your apparent view that the bible is the best thing since sliced bread I have to say that others (of different religions) would claim the same about their tomes and that there are some fairly horrendous tings in your bible (the utter destruction of all life except 1 boatload being one of them,

On being different ... you're entitled to believe what you want about yourself but to me you're just one of a groups of theists who advances the kind of arguments you do. None of you are specifically bad but you're all a bit flaky to me and in some ways I find the style of argument s they & you advance far more frustrating than others ... it isn't because you're right, more because you hide behind claims that themselves are as unsupportable as your base arguments.

On Dawkins yes, he goes for the "underbelly" and I have no problem at all with that, there are many who do and I have no problem with them either ... I have a huge problem with those (like Gould) who offer an olive branch to religions. It comes down to this simple point ... astrology/reflexology/Feng Shui/acupuncture/homeopathy/naturopathy are all for flakes, they are not science, they offer no real value ... religion is different only in the claims it makes and should be treated exactly the same.

On musical scales yes I accept the sounds were there but the definition of the notes (the scales themselves) are human inventions.

Species is quite simply a biological classification concept, a categorisation system based on taxonomy that allows us to observe and determine the relationships between various life forms.

Some things are in the realm of HYPOTHESIS not theory (theories represent the highest form of scientific explanation, they are full explanation complete with huge amounts of evidence and detailed mechanisms and in no way equate to the common idea that they represent a guess or a wizard wheeze) ... yes the formation of the universe (inasmuch as how the universe came to start) is highly speculative but everything from 10-43 (Planck Time where everything that is was compressed into a sphere 100th of a millimetre across) has been at least partially explained. Granted those explanations may be wrong but that's science.

The umlaut is got by using Word ... I note you didn't actually answer the question.

Kyu

[Pippy]

Hey,

To EvF I can only explain that I just assume there must be god, because it is the only thing that personally makes sense. I suppose there could not be, but to me that makes no sense. I need there to be a why. Not 'why did fido have to die?' kind of why, but 'why does fido die?' way. Why is the system the way it is and not another? It just does not add up, after all I have learned that all of this (life) just so happened. Way to complex and interdependent. God is a little girl because it keeps me honest. You can't stay mad at or hate a little girl, so I think is much better (and more appropriate) that she be that.

To Kyu, welcome back. I am baffled as to where you got the impression that I thought the bible was the best thing since anything. I can repeat that I am very fond of theology and mythology, that I quite like doaism, chan buddhism irish paganism and gnosticism. None of those have much of anything to do with the official bible. I am more drawn to the similar books that were not made canonical. Please refrain from calling it 'my' bible, it is no such thing.

I like to think that I am not hiding behind claims that are insupportable. You are the one adamantly telling me the way things happened 14 billion years ago. I think I am being the one mature enough to admit both of our positions are insupportable to one another. I am trying not to waste my time trying to support what I believe for someone to which it can't be validated. I am just politley and humbly saying what I know. You gonna have to take my word on it.

You list of the sciences is shallow and strange. You seem to be very fond of modern science, modern allopathic medicine. Modern Newtonian physics. These are all schools of thought that have come under great strain recently. Where we stand in our understanding of the world today is not the epitome of reality. To hear you say that those things, especially homeopathy and naturopathy are 'all for flakes' makes me cringe and laugh. All I can ask is that are we allowed to make up our own minds? If I choose homeopathy and naturopathy, my I live like that? Or would you call me a flake. Or would you kill or convert me? We need to become more natural as humans, if we have nay chance of surviving. What is old is not necessarily stupid, and what is new not necessarily right. Just silliness.

that allows us to observe and determine the relationships between various life forms.

The relationships as they already existed before us, and exist solely outside of us. We can name and study the fantastic world of animals, but we did not make it. not at all. Something did though.

Off to work, it hurts. What is called production is really just the conversion of the living to the dead.
"My ailing back",
-Pip

[Kyuuketsuki]

To Kyu, welcome back. I am baffled as to where you got the impression that I thought the bible was the best thing since anything. I can repeat that I am very fond of theology and mythology, that I quite like doaism, chan buddhism irish paganism and gnosticism. None of those have much of anything to do with the official bible. I am more drawn to the similar books that were not made canonical. Please refrain from calling it 'my' bible, it is no such thing.

Fair enough, my apologies for that, I jumped the gun ... however it still leaves the open question of how you can decide which scriptures, which beliefs can be better? I know you said you use your mind but that's not really an answer is it? After all that just means you believe it is better, it's just your opinion.

I like to think that I am not hiding behind claims that are insupportable. You are the one adamantly telling me the way things happened 14 billion years ago. I think I am being the one mature enough to admit both of our positions are insupportable to one another. I am trying not to waste my time trying to support what I believe for someone to which it can't be validated. I am just politley and humbly saying what I know. You gonna have to take my word on it.

I never mentioned 14 billion years did I? No matter ... basic (very basic) big bang "theory" is simple enough. The universe is observed to be expanding and is doing so at what is understood to be a fairly constant speed. If that is true then at some point in the past the universe and all the objects within it were closer together. If we extrapolate back far enough we arrive at a point where everything in the universe exists at a single point and from there expanded to what we see today (it's worth noting that "the big bang" is actually a very poor name for what was actually an extremely rapid expansion). That's the basic model but based on that model thousands upon thousand of observations have been carried out, experiments have been made and it is now accepted by just about the entire scientific community that the universe is about 14 billion years old and started in a phase of rapid expansion referred to as "the big bang" ... the evidence is undeniable and although some aspects of interpretation of the evidence vary, it is validatable and only a fool would claim otherwise. OTOH, in support of your ideas, you have no validatable evidence whatsoever so, with respect, it doesn't matter a flying fig whether you regard the theory of the big bang as being unsupportable as it appears it happened and more to the point it appears that what you believe happened (whatever that might be and assuming it isn't something approaching mainstream science) ... well ... didn't!

You list of the sciences is shallow and strange. You seem to be very fond of modern science, modern allopathic medicine. Modern Newtonian physics. These are all schools of thought that have come under great strain recently.

Modern science ihas come "under strain recently"? Really? Well bugger me with a broomstick ... I wasn't aware of that and nor, apparently, are any scientific journals!!!! Care to offer a little evidential support?

FYI Newtonian physics is, strictly speaking, no longer applicable having been replaced by Einsteinien physics (there were a number of anomalies Newtonian physics couldn't account for that Einsteinien physics could) ... does that mean Newtonian physics is not taught in school? No it doesn't because for most normal concepts Newtonian physics continues to be as applicable to life as it always has been. So, again, I reject your assertion until such point as you offer some evidence to support it.

I was also not aware that conventional medicine was in any way under stress so again I ask you to supply some evidence to support your assertion.

Where we stand in our understanding of the world today is not the epitome of reality.

That sounds like vague rubbish but I'll ask anyway ... what is then?

To hear you say that those things, especially homeopathy and naturopathy are 'all for flakes' makes me cringe and laugh. All I can ask is that are we allowed to make up our own minds? If I choose homeopathy and naturopathy, my I live like that? Or would you call me a flake. Or would you kill or convert me? We need to become more natural as humans, if we have nay chance of surviving. What is old is not necessarily stupid, and what is new not necessarily right. Just silliness.

OK, to answer in sequence:

1. Does it? Why? The idea behind homeopathy is the very essence of stupidity and naturopathy isn't much better.
   
2. You are entitle to be as foolish as you wish.
   
3. See 2 above
   
4. Yes
   
5. No and if I could.
   
6. Based on what?
   
7. Agreed on both but the things mentioned are still for flakes because they are all, without exception, pseudosciences.
   
8. Yes what you have just said pretty much was.

.

that allows us to observe and determine the relationships between various life forms.

The relationships as they already existed before us, and exist solely outside of us. We can name and study the fantastic world of animals, but we did not make it. not at all.

Agreed the basic hierarchies and relationships existed but species are a purely human invention which aids our understanding of the bio-landscape.

Something did though.

Yes, evolution.

Kyu