Dawkins and Tony Benn

[Edwardo Piet]

I can't understand folk who wouldn't be happy there's more to this material universe than meets the eye.

Depends what God you're talking about. If you define God as lovely and perfect and that evolution was his beautiful plan AND he existed then I'd be fine with it. But still I'd find it petty and pathetic.

Why do we need God? I don't think I'd wish for a God without evolution since I find the whole creation thing pathetic and unworthy of the universe in comparison to the beauty of evolution (minus all the suffering but then whether God exists or not, suffering still goes on).

I think the whole God thing is demeaning and unworthy of the universe. So I wouldn't wish it for that reason.

If you simply said that God is the universe itself, then that's fine if you're just being pantheistic and using God as a metaphor for the universe. For nature.

But I wouldn't want a super "mind" in the universe since I find it much more impressive, wonderful and beautiful that everything can work without some mind making it all happen.

And of course if this mind is so intelligent and brilliant - if he/she/it was really a good person (or whatever he/she/it is) then he/she/it wouldn't allow such horror that is present in the world.

And of course I'd never wish the genesis story or the OT God, the absurdly, grotesquely, horrifically evil (to say the least)Yahweh.

Nor would I wish some of the things in the NT. Although the OT is a lot worse.

And finally, if you're simply talking about more than material. Well how would you know? And if you knew, if there was somehow evidence - is immaterial necessarily God, or mind?

We have never had any evidence of any so we have no idea what it would be if it was ever (SOMEHOW, lol) found. Its simply a lack of imagination to assume immaterial=intelligence, mind, or God. It could be absolutely anything. Because we have no idea of such a thing anyway. Who knows what the hell it could be if it (whatever "it" is) exists.

Calling it God is misleading if its got nothing to do with a creator, an intelligence, a spirit, a mind, etc. If "it" exists and its none of those things - calling it God seems just pantheistic to me.

So do you just mean God, a supernatural creator, intelligence, spirit etc. Or ANYTHING immaterial meaning basically just that - ANYTHING immaterial. It could be absolutely anything, if "it" exists (although I don't believe it does since I don't believe in the immaterial) whatever "it" is.
Evf

[CoxRox]

Shall we assume there are two main ideas about 'God'? The main one is that 'it' is a person/s albeit 'supernatural' (the 'God' of the three main Abrahamic Religions). The other belief (which I believe Einstein favoured) is of an impersonal force that holds together all the laws of the universe etc. Either way, if Dawkins were to 'wake up' and find himself in a far superior state of existence, amoung long departed relatives, I don't think He's going to be too worried which of the above applies but if it turned out to be a 'person' afterall, and this person really did have our best interests at heart- then no one could fail to be relieved. It's a silly conjecture really, but it was refreshing to hear Dawkins say he'd be delighted.

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah its interesting. I would welcome a God - if it really exists of course - if, it (I'll just say it) was a supernatural mysterious bringer of this universe and it used evolution.

If it was a person, a he/she though, I'd certainly like to know how he/she justifies allowing all the horror to go on when he/she has the power to do so much better, stop so much suffering for instance.

If its just some really mysterious creator that basically created the universe and has a mind but isn't really capable of intervening (a deist God for instance) I think I'd perhaps be fine with that actually.

Whatever's true is interesting. But if morality comes into the picture - if God isn't just a creator but also an intervener - I'd certainly like to know why it allows so much suffering to go on and doesn't do a better job! Considering it is powerful enough to create, the design the (at least beginning) of the universe. And somehow have the power to just be right at the beginning without any explanation all whatsoever. Which is statistically just as improbable as if right at the very beginning God "just happened" and came out of nothing. Simply declaring God was there is a cop-out of course. Probability wise its just the same as it popping into existence right from the outset. And before that there was nothing or whatever.
Evf

P.S: I just noticed, rewatching the video. It seems that Dawkins said he'd be delighted if God turned out to be there when he died? Dawkins said he'd be pleasantly surprised and would love to have an intelligent conversation with him.

Of course its just as possible that if there is a God that there is no afterlife. I wonder if it would at all be any different if that was the case? I wonder if somehow finding evidence of a God but not being able to actually get to ask questions of him/her/it would be quite as thrilling as being able to actually talk to (and with) him/her/it after death.

[Darwinian]

If there is a God then I would prefer to go along with the Minbari belief system where they consider that the Cosmos itself is conscious in ways that we can't imagine and that we are a way for the Cosmos to experience itself.

To me, the concept of a god or heavenly father is simply an extension of the natural desire we have to be part of a biological family. In real life we have a father so we project this idea into the supernatural.