The real religion?

[PETE_ROSE]

Rob, let's set aside the monotheistic Christian God of the bible. As I wholeheartedly agree that all "religions" make absurd claims.
Many here ask for evidence or a claim.

I will claim that a god, that is personable, intelligent, and powerful by nature, is the best rational explanation for the existence of the observable universe.

The way the 4 fundamental laws of physics interact to sustain our planets, stars and the observable universe. That our observable universe appears to have a beginning and is not eternal. That life, DNA, the human genome, the mind, consciousness, the ability to reason and perform scientific evaluation, nature, and how as we humans differ from animals, I would claim that these are all very complex and intricate mechanisms that point to a designer or creator.

From a logical perspective it seems to me that a creator or by design is a more rational and acceptable hypothesis than the perspective that the universe just happened or made itself from a foamy sea of quarks vibration and gravity, that life just happened from a collection of amino acids, and that evolution just happened to produce DNA, our unique human consciousness, Beethoven, and the Manchester United FC.

[PETE_ROSE]

By the way Rob, it is Sunday and the Lords day of rest. If you can convert me quickly I can save that 10% tithe!

Hope all is well in beautiful England today.

[vorlon13]

And a problem for God with His 'One True Faith' would be getting anyone to do it, and to do it correctly.

Let's say, for example, the Congregation of Jehovah's Presbytery of Zion was the 'One True Faith'. Well, how did it go?? It turn's out the combination of Mormonism with Communism didn't go over very well with the pew warmers. And to the extent they were going to tar and feather (or worse) their leadiar, Josiah Thompson, I'd say their practice of that faith was disappointing.

So too virtually every other faith in the christer orbit. We've seen repeatedly how foreign and alien the concepts of biblical Literalism and Inerrancy is to (supposed) believers, even things Christ Himself ordained multiple times in Scripture, my favorite example of course being the sanctification of marriages subsequent to the first for divorced members. And that is the tip of the iceberg, Christ's followers are loathe to handle serpents, drink poison, and I've yet to see one demonstrate a universal healing gift via laying on of the hands. Clearly, they aren't believing hard enough. Dislocated and relocated mountains are also surprisingly scarce.

Poor God, I'd pose a salient feature of His 'One True Faith' would be it's success in inspiring a surprising (instead of disappointing) level of adherence to every jot and tittle of dogma, total fealty to edicts, relentless scrupulosity to promulgations, sincere eagerness to follow all the rules, a compulsive mindset in following His Commandments and absolute rigidity in enforcing them upon all members of their flocks, and total unthinking allegiance His every utterance.

We seeing any faith evincing piety at that level ??


Didn't think so.


Sorry God, that 'One True Faith' thing ain't gonna pan out on this planet . . . . .

[GrandizerII]

Rob, let's set aside the monotheistic Christian God of the bible.  As I wholeheartedly agree that all "religions" make absurd claims.
Many here ask for evidence or a claim.

 I will claim that a god, that is personable, intelligent, and powerful by nature, is the best rational explanation for the existence of the observable universe.  

The way the 4 fundamental laws of  physics interact to sustain our planets, stars and the observable universe.  That our observable universe appears to have a beginning and is not eternal.   That life, DNA, the human genome, the mind, consciousness, the ability to reason and perform scientific evaluation, nature, and how as we humans differ from animals, I would claim that these are all very complex and intricate mechanisms that point to a designer or creator.  

From a logical perspective it seems to me that a creator or by design is a more rational and acceptable hypothesis than the perspective that the universe just happened or made itself from a foamy sea of quarks vibration and gravity, that life just happened from a collection of amino acids, and that evolution just happened to produce DNA, our unique human consciousness, Beethoven, and the Manchester United FC.

God is even more complex with all its supposed omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, timelessness, spacelessness, etc. Why not also question how God could have just happened?

The existence of this observable universe with all its wonders and complexities is sufficiently explicable by the postulation of a multiverse, whereby each universe is preconditioned with random numbers, some of which inevitably leading to wonders such as what we have in this particular universe.

Also, you seem to be looking at life as some magical thingy, as if it was just switched on out of nowhere, rather than looking at life as a gradual process that became more and more clear over a long period of time as certain activities increased.

[RozKek]

What Hermit forgot here is that humans evolved around all of this, we've adapted to like this life, of course we're going to perceive it all as perfect.

If the universe was significantly different but still allowed for life and evolution then the species there would've also evolved and adapted around that and found that universe perfect while we consider ours perfect.

[robvalue]

Rob, let's set aside the monotheistic Christian God of the bible.  As I wholeheartedly agree that all "religions" make absurd claims.
Many here ask for evidence or a claim.

 I will claim that a god, that is personable, intelligent, and powerful by nature, is the best rational explanation for the existence of the observable universe.  

The way the 4 fundamental laws of  physics interact to sustain our planets, stars and the observable universe.  That our observable universe appears to have a beginning and is not eternal.   That life, DNA, the human genome, the mind, consciousness, the ability to reason and perform scientific evaluation, nature, and how as we humans differ from animals, I would claim that these are all very complex and intricate mechanisms that point to a designer or creator.

From a logical perspective it seems to me that a creator or by design is a more rational and acceptable hypothesis than the perspective that the universe just happened or made itself from a foamy sea of quarks vibration and gravity, that life just happened from a collection of amino acids, and that evolution just happened to produce DNA, our unique human consciousness, Beethoven, and the Manchester United FC.

It's no explanation at all, it's just a word. It gives us no new information, no mechanism, nothing to test and gives no practical applications. It invites as many questions as it attempts to answer. I see no reason why it's rational either. It simply requires further assumptions that aren't necessary. This appears to be an argument from incredulity: you can't imagine it happening any other way. I needn't even suggest an alternative to point out that this is an untestable hypothesis and therefor useless.

But none of this is relevant to my opening post; I'm not sure if it was supposed to be.

[robvalue]

By the way Rob,  it is Sunday and the Lords day of rest.  If you can convert me quickly I can save that 10% tithe!

Hope all is well in beautiful England today.

I can deconvert you pretty quickly from religion if that's what you'd like! You don't have to be an atheist to leave religion.

Today is a good day thanks, I got to meet a new friend and the weather has been very nice I hope you're having a good day too.

[PETE_ROSE]

Ug.  My computer is not cooperating.

[PETE_ROSE]

Rob, let's set aside the monotheistic Christian God of the bible.  As I wholeheartedly agree that all "religions" make absurd claims.
Many here ask for evidence or a claim.

 I will claim that a god, that is personable, intelligent, and powerful by nature, is the best rational explanation for the existence of the observable universe.  

The way the 4 fundamental laws of  physics interact to sustain our planets, stars and the observable universe.  That our observable universe appears to have a beginning and is not eternal.   That life, DNA, the human genome, the mind, consciousness, the ability to reason and perform scientific evaluation, nature, and how as we humans differ from animals, I would claim that these are all very complex and intricate mechanisms that point to a designer or creator.  

From a logical perspective it seems to me that a creator or by design is a more rational and acceptable hypothesis than the perspective that the universe just happened or made itself from a foamy sea of quarks vibration and gravity, that life just happened from a collection of amino acids, and that evolution just happened to produce DNA, our unique human consciousness, Beethoven, and the Manchester United FC.

God is even more complex with all its supposed omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, timelessness, spacelessness, etc. Why not also question how God could have just happened?

The existence of this observable universe with all its wonders and complexities is sufficiently explicable by the postulation of a multiverse, whereby each universe is preconditioned with random numbers, some of which inevitably leading to wonders such as what we have in this particular universe.

Also, you seem to be looking at life as some magical thingy, as if it was just switched on out of nowhere, rather than looking at life as a gradual process that became more and more clear over a long period of time as certain activities increased.

Please explain how postulation and random numbers will increase by bank account? The multiverse theory is completely unobservable and at best a mere theory. Rob, where are you when I need you to refute such claims when there is no evidence to support it and as you would say therefore not applicable?

Dismissing something as a magical thingy is an attempt to belittle my position. Anyone can merely say they reject reality and insert their own. I posted a claim that the complexity of the universe and life, for me and my application of logic, and reason, could best be attributed to a creation from design and with purpose. Not random, indifferent, or it just happened from a natural process.

Sick 'em Rob, I'm waiting!

[GrandizerII]

God is even more complex with all its supposed omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, timelessness, spacelessness, etc. Why not also question how God could have just happened?

The existence of this observable universe with all its wonders and complexities is sufficiently explicable by the postulation of a multiverse, whereby each universe is preconditioned with random numbers, some of which inevitably leading to wonders such as what we have in this particular universe.

Also, you seem to be looking at life as some magical thingy, as if it was just switched on out of nowhere, rather than looking at life as a gradual process that became more and more clear over a long period of time as certain activities increased.

Please explain how postulation and random numbers will increase by bank account?  The multiverse theory is completely unobservable and at best a mere theory.  Rob, where are you when I need you to refute such claims when there is no evidence to support it and as you would say therefore not applicable?

Dismissing something as a magical thingy is an attempt to belittle my position.  Anyone can merely say they reject reality and insert their own.  I posted a claim that the complexity of the universe and life, for me and my application of logic, and reason, could best be attributed to a creation from design and with purpose.  Not random, indifferent, or it just happened from a natural process.

Sick 'em Rob, I'm waiting!

I wouldn't say the multiverse is completely unobservable. There are scientific hints that point to its existence, such as dark matter. But even so, one can say the same thing about your God. Your God is completely unobservable and not even a mere theory. It's just a mere postulation. Theories, by the way, are a good thing; they're not the same as guesses or speculations, they're well-tested explanations. I'm not saying the multiverse is a theory at this point, but it is nevertheless a reasonable hypothesis that needs some testing.

Your design explanation is not a good one because it's just basically an argument from ignorance or incredulity or the likes, and like robvalue said, it doesn't really explain much. How did the designer do this and that? Why is it even needed in the first place when these phenomena are mostly explicable without it?

Earthly life gradually arose from a collection of stuff, but it's not like human beings with all their complexities came about just like that from such primordial collection. It was very simple basic life-forms, not that different from what's considered nonliving, and over a long period of time, through evolution, complexities of life arose. I'm not trying to belittle your position, but rather to give you a different perspective on these things because I believe it helps to do so. If that bothers you, whatever.