Is 'faith' really a 'great cop-out'?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Arguably, but isn't it interesting that when archaeology, astronomy, biology, chemistry, genetics, geology, paleontology, physics and technology are called what they are and Evolution has to be - almost constantly reaffirmed as Science!

Not arguably no, the only people that doubt its validity as science are people like you.

So what you are saying is that even though the Bible said that the world was spherical 1000 years before science did, and that the Bible - Jehovah God's word - was far more ahead of science on many scientific issues we are without reason until science does catch up with it because you have just dismissed it because you can't explain what God is?

The bible said the "circle of the earth" it didn't say the Earth was a sphere (and of course the truth is it is an oblate spheroid). No, the bible is an attempt to explain the universe a bunch of people lived in in their, technically ignorant, terms.

Kyu

[CoxRox]

Chatpilot, you think that believing in God is an easy answer for things we don't understand and hence faith? Speaking for myself, you couldn't be further from the truth. The belief in 'God' is difficult because of course He isn't exactly on 'speaking terms' with most of us and then of course there's the matter of trying to live a more unselfish life. In some of my earlier posts on faith I was trying to convey that 'faith' shouldn't be the main part of a belief ie blind faith. So no, it's not 'easy' at all.

Bozo- you said:
'Let me offer a theory, it isn't mine, I'm not so clever, nor do I claim it the answer.
What if what there is, has always been?
No creator, no big bang.
To my mind, that is equal to either option'.

This is very interesting. Could you expand on this? It sounds very much like the 'I Am' who is and has always been? If space, energy etc could have always been, why not this super intelligent being (from whom these things eminate)?

[Darwinian]

This is very interesting. Could you expand on this? It sounds very much like the 'I Am' who is and has always been? If space, energy etc could have always been, why not this super intelligent being (from whom these things eminate)?

This over complicates things..

As Carl Sagan said.

Why not just save yourself a step and say that the Universe has always existed?

[allan175]

Chatpilot, you think that believing in God is an easy answer for things we don't understand and hence faith? Speaking for myself, you couldn't be further from the truth. The belief in 'God' is difficult because of course He isn't exactly on 'speaking terms' with most of us and then of course there's the matter of trying to live a more unselfish life. In some of my earlier posts on faith I was trying to convey that 'faith' shouldn't be the main part of a belief ie blind faith. So no, it's not 'easy' at all.

Well, you are overcomplicating things. by trying to include belief into your life.

I am firmly in the "atheist camp" and I try to live an unselfish life and be nice to people but I have no need of religion to make me want to do that!

[chatpilot]

Daystar read my tag line.I see that you like to argue from the most baseless sources ever,the bible.According to scripture God created everything ex-nihilo (out of nothing) simply with his spoken word.Thanks for enlightening us all that explains everything.

[Edwardo Piet]

Daystar are you interpreting the bible metaphorically or are you interpreting it literally? And if you are doing both how do you know when to interpret it literally and when metaphorically?

[CoxRox]

Darwinian and Allan175, it sounds like you are not allowing this possibility because it is unappealing to you. Why is it anymore complicated than 'matter' and space always existing? Maybe your view of 'god' is not correct anyway, or of most people come to that. There are different levels of existence it would seem (in the quantum world) so anything is possible. I just think that it is a possibility and shouldn't be dismissed as lightly as Sagan would have you do. (how convenient) And just maybe some of us are attributing purpose and design correctly because it's so glaringly obvious that the simplest piece of matter is so beautifully complex that it would be silly to think it came about out of nothing.
Allan175- I didn't mean to imply that atheists wouldn't want to be good people. I chose the word 'selfish' rather than 'sinful' as I assume most people here don't believe in 'sin'. I do know that when I don't consider 'God' in my life I tend to be a more vain, egotistical, selfish person. I'm sure all those things have their place in someone's makeup but too much of something can be bad. You're right, it does complicate matters and most of the time I don't bother with God because I just want to do my own thing- but then I see something like a sunset or robin and am blown away by the beauty and 'design' (sorry I can't help that word) and it's as clear to me as if God had stamped 'made by God' on it.

[Darwinian]

it sounds like you are not allowing this possibility because it is unappealing to you.

It's not that it's unappealing, it's just that it makes no sense. It comes back to that old argument that asks if God created the universe then who created God. Answer: He's always existed. So, why can't you just say that the universe has always existed?

Why is it anymore complicated than 'matter' and space always existing?

Because an omniscient and omnipotent entity that created 'matter' must be complicated beyond belief. Everything we know about the Cosmos indicated that systems start off with a certain level of simplicity and then get more complex with time. This argument goes against the very nature of, well, nature.

Maybe your view of 'god' is not correct anyway, or of most people come to that.

Well, which God are we talking about? When I hear the name I think of the God(s) of the bible. Both from the OT and the new.

There are different levels of existence it would seem (in the quantum world) so anything is possible.

Even if anything were possible then what would be dealing with is probability. And from what we know about the nature of reality the notion that it was all created by an infinitely complex and all powerful entity that just willed it into existence is mind bogglingly improbable.

I just think that it is a possibility and shouldn't be dismissed as lightly as Sagan would have you do.

Believe me when I tell you that Carl Sagan did not dismiss the idea just like that. It is just that to him, and well over a billion of us on the Earth we simply cannot believe for the sake of it, how ever much we may want to. The Universe is the way it is no matter what we want to believe and it does not have to conform to our expectations of it.

And just maybe some of us are attributing purpose and design correctly because it's so glaringly obvious that the simplest piece of matter is so beautifully complex that it would be silly to think it came about out of nothing.

You could equally argue that attributing purpose and design to something beautifully complex is just as silly. Just because you see something as beautiful does not mean that it has been designed. All it means is that you see it as beautiful because that's the way that your mind works. This doesn't mean that it isn't beautiful or awe inspiring but to attribute it to a god shows a rather anthropic attitude towards the Universe.

I'll let Allen handle his bit

[Edwardo Piet]

Coxrox, everything we know about the universe is natural. And it all comes about through natural laws. God is supernatural therefore he goes completely against the laws of the universe as there is no evidence of him (or anything supernatural). If he is within the universe and he has no superpowers and he is also very simple indeed, thats no problem. But thats not God, what you're talking about there is probably the big-bang singularity or something similar, which isn't God at all.
Its like Steven Weinberg says, and I paraphrase 'if you say God is energy then you can find God in a lump of Coal. But then what would that mean? God then loses all his meaning. So you might as well say that its a lump of coal.'
And the theist or deist God is more complex than what he tries to explain. Creating the universe like the deist God does and setting up the laws, he would have to be far far more complex than the universe and the laws themselves. Therefore the deist God is very improbable. And of course the theist God does a lot more than that, whether he is Yahweh or Allah, so then he's even more improbable.

[Jason Jarred]

Daystar, the faithful *have* abandoned reason. Reason is the ability to make judgements based on facts, and facts are ascertained by way of proof. There is insufficient proof for the exisistence of a God, therefore it is *not* a fact, and not reasonable to believe.

To believe in a God necessitates that you abandon reason.

So what you are saying is that even though the Bible said that the world was spherical 1000 years before science did, and that the Bible - Jehovah God's word - was far more ahead of science on many scientific issues we are without reason until science does catch up with it because you have just dismissed it because you can't explain what God is?

What? How in the name of the Spaghedeity did you write an entire paragraph with only one full stop? (srsly I don't understand what your point is)