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

[CoxRox]

For life to exist in space and this universe then maybe no other laws could apply? ( I'm thinking of mathematics now, would pi be applicable under different ciurcumstances? Who knows). These 'laws' or constraints even, allow everything to be maintained (here at least). (These 'laws' by the way are another 'sign post' pointing towards intelligence (for me anyway)). I don't follow the rest of your reasoning. He is the Law Maker. He 'sets' the boundarys, ingredients of space, matter, time and hence these laws.

[Edwardo Piet]

For life to exist in space and this universe then maybe no other laws could apply? ( I'm thinking of mathematics now, would pi be applicable under different ciurcumstances? Who knows). These 'laws' or constraints even, allow everything to be maintained (here at least). (These 'laws' by the way are another 'sign post' pointing towards intelligence (for me anyway)). I don't follow the rest of your reasoning. He is the Law Maker. He 'sets' the boundarys, ingredients of space, matter, time and hence these laws.

What I mean is if God is a law maker, he would have had to make those laws without using them to make it. Because they weren't made yet. So he would have had to go against natural laws to make natural laws. So he must be supernatural not natural. He is the biggest and most improbable miracle of all miracles. Especially if he can create miracles and he's not just a deist God! Its more likely that the laws existed in the first place than a creator created them by going against them. He is much more complex and improbable than the laws themselves.

[CoxRox]

I agree that these laws must have existed, just as mathematics does and I must then deduce that He must be 'above' these laws , therefore 'outside' of nature, or the natural. Just because we don't know what that is, doesn't mean it is not. Yes, there's complexity to grapple with, but I don't have a problem with this? Where am I going wrong?

[Edwardo Piet]

I agree that these laws must have existed, just as mathematics does and I must then deduce that He must be 'above' these laws , therefore 'outside' of nature, or the natural. Just because we don't know what that is, doesn't mean it is not. Yes, there's complexity to grapple with, but I don't have a problem with this? Where am I going wrong?

Well, if God's outside nature then thats what I mean by him being supernatural. And the 2 main reasons why I think God is therefore highly improbable.
1. There is no evidence of his existence.
2. The fact he is highly complex makes him highly improbable to exist from the start or to jump into existence out of no where. You couldn't just say that an eye has existed since the beginning or before the beginning. You need an explanation and there is one, evolution through natural selection. Even without an explanation for the eye though, you'd still have to assume for now that its extremely improbable that the eye has just been there since the beginning or before the beginning, considering its complexity. And of course the same goes for the complexity and improbability of God. And God is of course a lot more complex and improbable to exist right from the beginning or before the beginning than just an eye!

[Darwinian]

If space or matter didn't have anyone create them, then why can't an intelligent designer have not had a creator?

Then who or what created the creator, and who created the creator of the creator? etc. etc.

I do understand yours and Evidence's reasonings about this. I just don't get bothered by the so called complexity of such a creator. It is mind boggling to think there might be an intelligence that started all this but I can't ignore the markers (molecules, space, us etc) pointing towards the real possiblitiy that such an Intelligence exists.

There is a rocky outcrop on Mars. When the light hits it in just the right way it is impossible to look at it without seeing a face. Of course, there is no face there, it's just a hill, but, the human brain is wired in such a way that it seeks out other human faces. This, I think, is also true when people are confronted with such beautifully intricate things such as eyes or the wings of a bird or the atomic structure of protein etc. They simply cannot get that nagging thought that it was 'designed' by someone or something. When you think about it, there is plenty of evidence that this is the way the mind works but no evidence that it is an accurate interpretation. Things only seem designed because that's the way our brains work.

Why must God 'be complicated beyond belief'? All creatures are limited to what they can understand. If there is a creator then it stands to reason we would not be able to 'understand' how great He is etc.

This is entirely possible. You cannot teach a Dog the scalar equation and so it may also be that our brains are simply not 'wired' to understand all that there is to understand. This, however is no reason to fall back on the notion that an all powerful creator is present. If we do not understand something then the best thing to do is to study and learn rather than create stories and characters than 'seem' to fit what we think are facts.

I am not concerning myself with just who this God is.

This seems to be a fundamental issue though. If you were to say that 'God' is in fact the Universe itself with all of it's laws of physics, quantum mechanics, time, mathematics etc. and that all that really exists is consciousness itself and everything else is simply imagined then that would be a very different 'God' from the monstrous character from the Old Testament.

I do however believe He would stand for all things good, hence why I try to do the 'right thing' e.g turn the other cheek when someone pisses me off, or help my neighbour when I know they'll try to take advantage. Stuff like that.

Are you good because you think God wants you to be good or are you good because you are good? If it were proved to you beyond all doubt that there was no God would you still be a good person? I suspect you would.

Therefore, could it not be that you are transferring your finest qualities onto this character in your mind?

I've never thought of God as just 'willing stuff into existence'. He's not a conjurer who makes stuff appear out of nothing. Physical stuff, or natural stuff must come from somewhere (I imagine from God Himself).

But where would he get the stuff from? He would have to create it first, and what would he create it from? If he does exist and he did, let's not say create but instead say, brought about the conditions necessary for our Universe to exist, then he would have had to have willed it.

This then of course poses more problems that it answers.

Which brings me to Evidence vs Faith's comments:'God is supernatural therefore he goes completely against the laws of the universe as there is no evidence of him (or anything supernatural)'. Just maybe we have got the wrong idea about supernatural. I believe it is natural only 'different'

If it's natural, no matter how different, then it must follow the laws of physics and be bound by their limitations. If this is the case then it cannot exist outside of space or time, cannot have existed before the Cosmos so therefore cannot have created it.

The only answer is to say that the Cosmos created itself. Then you have to ask yourself, is the Cosmos conscious and motivated or is it simply and blindly following it's own laws?

(I'm struggling for the right word- I'm enjoying a well earned glass of wine having been up since half five and spent all day cleaning etc and it's gone to my head). If He made the laws of the universe then He will hardly go against them. I'll quit now before I get tipsy.

I agree, it's very tricky so enjoy your wine while I enjoy my roast dinner

[CoxRox]

Fair enough, I think we have gone as far as we can go with this thread. I respect your 'conclusions' and can see to some extent where you are coming from. Out of the three choices: (hope I haven't missed any others):
1) Space and matter etc has always existed
2) Space and matter etc came into existence at the big bang (prior to this nothing existed).
3)'God' has always existed and everything else that exists comes from Him.)

I will continue to choose number 3. In view of this I hope you don't mind me continuing to contribute to the various threads.

[bozo]

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)?

WelL CR, as I said, it's not my theory. It was put forward by a youthful English poet, Shelley, in his notes to his epic poem " Queen Mab " dating from early 1800's. The poem is a scathing attack on many things, kings,war,clergy,religion etc. Shelley was of the opinion that probability suggests there is no god. In his notes he postulates that the human mind, faced with two improbable theories will prefer the " least improbable " in this case, what is has always been,rather than conceiving of a creator ( since that raises the question of where the creator came from ).

[Edwardo Piet]

Ok, so I assume you don't agree with my explanation as to why 3 is far far more improbable than 1 or 2?
Oh and yes, I enjoy discussing and debating with you. Have a good time on these forums. And may you find more truth.

[Darwinian]

I will continue to choose number 3. In view of this I hope you don't mind me continuing to contribute to the various threads.

I would have been amazed if you chose anything else

I hope you continue to contribute for a long time to come. It's been fun.

[CoxRox]

Darwinian, you say many interesting and maybe true things. I've been thinking and I've come to this conclusion: I cannot prove 'God' exists, and I sure as can't prove that He is the God of the Bible. I have to take the Bible, Jesus etc mainly on faith (which aint good). What you say seems possible (and you too Evidence) and maybe I am wrong. If I am wrong, well, I'll die just the same. I will no doubt continue to ponder these things until I die and I hope I am right, cos then we'll hopefully meet up in eternity and have a great time. The drinks are on me. (Well actually they'll probably be free).

---

Ok, so I assume you don't agree with my explanation as to why 3 is far far more improbable than 1 or 2?
Oh and yes, I enjoy discussing and debating with you. Have a good time on these forums. And may you find more truth.

Yes, I can see why you think it is far more improbable.

---

[/quote]
WelL CR, as I said, it's not my theory. It was put forward by a youthful English poet, Shelley, in his notes to his epic poem " Queen Mab " dating from early 1800's. The poem is a scathing attack on many things, kings,war,clergy,religion etc. Shelley was of the opinion that probability suggests there is no god. In his notes he postulates that the human mind, faced with two improbable theories will prefer the " least improbable " in this case, what is has always been,rather than conceiving of a creator ( since that raises the question of where the creator came from ).
[/quote]


Thanks for explaining. I wouldn't take too seriously what tickles 'poets'. They tend to romanticise. Only joking.

---

The last part of my last message was for Bozo, I cocked it up.