Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)

[n9newunsixx5150]

religon simply wants to write them off as "god did it"

No. It doesn't. God is always the ultimate answer behind everything, but that is not to say how exactly a thing works when analyzing the material components. If one person says that God created the earth and another person starts attempting to explain how the earth formed in natural sequence, these two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It can be said that God creates the earth according to this natural sequence. And of course, if you believe in God, then the concept of nature raises the question of, whose nature? Who owns that nature?

 

[Cmoke]

No. It doesn't. God is always the ultimate answer behind everything, but that is not to say how exactly a thing works when analyzing the material components.

everything doesnt involve material compenents?

 

[Cmoke]

god is only the ultimate answer to everything in your opinion

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

everything doesnt involve material compenents?

^^^I never said that.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

god is only the ultimate answer to everything in your opinion

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about your statement pertaining to religion having all answers as "God did it". My point is that saying that God did something doesn't necessarily negate the natural explanation.

 

[Cmoke]

No. It doesn't. God is always the ultimate answer behind everything, but that is not to say how exactly a thing works when analyzing the material components.

Critical reading.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

God being the ultimate answer behind everything does not mean that everything lacks material components. What don't you understand about what I said?

 

[Cmoke]

how does the answer of "God" provide any real answer or provoke any further research into our history or the future?

 

[ThaG]

No. It doesn't. God is always the ultimate answer behind everything, but that is not to say how exactly a thing works when analyzing the material components. If one person says that God created the earth and another person starts attempting to explain how the earth formed in natural sequence, these two positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It can be said that God creates the earth according to this natural sequence. And of course, if you believe in God, then the concept of nature raises the question of, whose nature? Who owns that nature?

I can only laugh at this kind of thinking...

"Yeah, it happened thorugh a natural sequence of events, but do you see, that was the way God chose to do it..."

don't you realize that once you admit things happened the way they did, there is no need for God anymore, because everything is pefectly explainable in natural terms

then add the fact that for some unknown reason God "has decided" not to give us any signs of his existence

and you will see how ridiculous your words sound

Because your God was not invented to explain how the universe started, it was invented to explain how the Earth and man were created. Nobody knew shit about the universe 5000 years ago, but because now we have biology, geology and astrophysics, christians just moved their God where he can't be reached by science and said "God set everything in motion in the beginning, you have to prove he didn't"

I will not comment how ridiculous it is to pray to such a God even if he exists, I will only say that what this shift of beliefs is intelectually dishonest and disgraceful

Some people will do everything to keep their delusions....

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I can only laugh at this kind of thinking...

"Yeah, it happened thorugh a natural sequence of events, but do you see, that was the way God chose to do it..."

don't you realize that once you admit things happened the way they did, there is no need for God anymore, because everything is pefectly explainable in natural terms

This begs the question as to whether or not everything is perfectly explainable in natural terms. If I explain to you how some machine works, that knowledge does not negate the person who pushed the button to get the machine to work. Your presupposition is that the machine is either eternally working or that it starts working by itself.

then add the fact that for some unknown reason God "has decided" not to give us any signs of his existence

and you will see how ridiculous your words sound

I could give you a reason, but you would probably not accept it. Your core issue deals with the existence of God, which is another conversation than the one I incited by responding to Cmoke.

Because your God was not invented to explain how the universe started, it was invented to explain how the Earth and man were created. Nobody knew shit about the universe 5000 years ago, but because now we have biology, geology and astrophysics, christians just moved their God where he can't be reached by science and said "God set everything in motion in the beginning, you have to prove he didn't"

This isn't true. Even if I go along with the idea that my God was invented, it isn't true that He was invented to explain only the existence of the earth and humanity. Now, you should know by now that I do not particularly follow the Christian tradition of theistic faith. In any case, can you explain to me why you believe that God was originally meant to explain only the earth and humanity, as per the Judeo-Christian teachings?

I will not comment how ridiculous it is to pray to such a God even if he exists, I will only say that what this shift of beliefs is intelectually dishonest and disgraceful

I will not comment on how this is yet another topic of discussion.

Some people will do everything to keep their delusions....

Some people will do lots of things, though I don't know what this has to do with what we're talking about... which brings me to my point - how about talking about things rather than coming up with closed-minded assertions?

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

how does the answer of "God" provide any real answer or provoke any further research into our history or the future?

What the answer of God does is provide a deeper, instrinsic purpose for living entities. The mistake is when theists try to use "God did it" to replace the known sequence of natural cause and effect. It is not meant to replace what can be known through empirical study. And the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

For example, I can provide you with ancient religious texts that roughly explain the growth of the child in the womb. They also go a step further and explain how the individual spiritual spark enters into the particle of semen near the time of conception and even how the child, at a later stage of fetal development, appeals to God because of it's being in such an abominable condition as the womb. So here we are dealing with both things that can be empirically known as well as spiritual elements. My point is that religious/spiritual understanding need not turn a blind eye to natural processes. It just provides a deeper explanation beyond the limits of those objects that interact with the bodily senses.

 

[ThaG]

For example, I can provide you with ancient religious texts that roughly explain the growth of the child in the womb. They also go a step further and explain how the individual spiritual spark enters into the particle of semen near the time of conception and even how the child, at a later stage of fetal development, appeals to God because of it's being in such an abominable condition as the womb. So here we are dealing with both things that can be empirically known as well as spiritual elements. My point is that religious/spiritual understanding need not turn a blind eye to natural processes. It just provides a deeper explanation beyond the limits of those objects that interact with the bodily senses.

Again, I can only laugh at you

How is this understanding "deeper" and what if the ancient knew how an embryo looks? So what? They had zero idea of what a cell is so they had no way to know how fertilization happens... Perhaps if they knew, they would not have invented such a silly beief system, I don't know

But I am amazed by the statement "Religion provides deeper explanation beyond the limits of those objects that interact with the bodily senses"

So you want to say that "God did it" and that's it, right? And that's a "deeper explanation"?.....

The biggest problem of this world is that there are too many brainwahsed people...

 

[Legman]

^^^You Talk About Being Open Minded, Yet Look At Your Own Feelings And Belief About Religion

The Biggest Problem In This World Is Hypocrites, And Your Juss A Contributor

 

[Cmoke]

This begs the question as to whether or not everything is perfectly explainable in natural terms. If I explain to you how some machine works, that knowledge does not negate the person who pushed the button to get the machine to work. Your presupposition is that the machine is either eternally working or that it starts working by itself.

This analogy doesn't work. Nothing about the creation of earth is perfectly explainable, and this is the only arguement religons really have. The only problem with that is that, just because you can't perfectly explain something, doesn't mean that somone/ something supernatural created it. Also this machine theory you are using is useless because once you build something it cannot evolve itself to make itself better. Ie; microevolution which we have witnessed to have existance even in our age of time. You designed machine analogy doesnt apply to how the earth works.

 

[HERESY]

This analogy doesn't work. Nothing about the creation of earth is perfectly explainable, and this is the only arguement religons really have. The only problem with that is that, just because you can't perfectly explain something, doesn't mean that somone/ something supernatural created it. Also this machine theory you are using is useless because once you build something it cannot evolve itself to make itself better. Ie; microevolution which we have witnessed to have existance even in our age of time. You designed machine analogy doesnt apply to how the earth works.

You don't get what he is saying. Look at what you quoted and pay attention to this:

Your presupposition is that the machine is either eternally working or that it starts working by itself.

 

[Cmoke]

religon simply wants to write them off as "god did it"

No. It doesn't. God is always the ultimate answer behind everything

thats the point im trying to make. You say no it doesnt then contradict yourself immediatly after.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Again, I can only laugh at you

How is this understanding "deeper" and what if the ancient knew how an embryo looks? So what? They had zero idea of what a cell is so they had no way to know how fertilization happens... Perhaps if they knew, they would not have invented such a silly beief system, I don't know

Apparently you don't understand why I mentioned that part about embryos. I didn't do it to try and show how that particular religion was valid, I did it to show an example of religion speaking about empirically known things. Religion is not against natural process. It simply explains that behind that natural process is ultimately a supreme being. Such a thing is not meant to discourage empirical study.

But I am amazed by the statement "Religion provides deeper explanation beyond the limits of those objects that interact with the bodily senses"

So you want to say that "God did it" and that's it, right? And that's a "deeper explanation"?.....

The biggest problem of this world is that there are too many brainwahsed people...

No. It's not, "God did it" and that's it. As soon as we have some conception of God, we open up whole new fields of study. Questions are raised regarding the nature of this universe in relation to God and God's will, the nature of the individual self and how it relates to God as well as the universe, the different levels of understanding God ~ from sheer impersonalism to knowledge of the Personality of Godhead ~ and the implications each level of understanding has in theoretical philosophy & practical living, the study of devotion to God ~ neutral worship, awe and veneration, devotion in the flavor of friendship, devotion in the flavor of parenthood and devotion in the flavor of conjugal lover ~ the study of divine and demoniac qualities, the study of God's pastimes with His devotees, etc. And each of these can be broken down to further subsections and gone into deeper and deeper detail. Even the subsections I listed can be broken down into more subsections.

Your outlook on religion is biased to the fact that you reject the premise. Since you reject the premise, you think that "God did it" is as deep as it goes.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

This analogy doesn't work. Nothing about the creation of earth is perfectly explainable, and this is the only arguement religons really have. The only problem with that is that, just because you can't perfectly explain something, doesn't mean that somone/ something supernatural created it. Also this machine theory you are using is useless because once you build something it cannot evolve itself to make itself better. Ie; microevolution which we have witnessed to have existance even in our age of time. You designed machine analogy doesnt apply to how the earth works.

That is, unless part of the machine's function is to "evolve itself to make itself better". I'd also like to point out that "better" is most likely your subjective opinion. You can't say that a machine can't do something. You may not be able to build a machine that works as the universe, but that isn't saying much. We are talking about the universe as a machine made by a supreme being. Also, if you are referring to evolution of living organisms then not only do we have God in the equation, we have the individual living entity. In other words, although God is the supreme and overall operator of the "machine", we each have our smaller machines (bodies). So even if we run with your logic that a machine can't evolve itself, with the presence of a living entity, it can. And actually, that a living entity is required for action and change to occur in otherwise dead, unmoving matter is the very basis of what religion is saying. We do not accept that there is this giant machine that simply functions on it's own accord and then at some point produces cognizant beings. Our logic is simple yet profound - something pushed has a pusher. Even if it is argued that the universe always exists, it takes a living entity to keep it animated. And anyway, we know scientifically that the universe is winding down, which is further evidence that all machines require an operator.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

thats the point im trying to make. You say no it doesnt then contradict yourself immediatly after.

I'm sorry you don't understand what I am saying.

God being the ultimate answer behind everything does not limit our study of phenomenon to saying "God did it". That is my point. God may be the supreme operator of this universal machine, but that does not negate the natural process that ensues; the natural process that we study with the bodily tools we have.