Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

God would never get a job as a designer.

Your concept of good design may not be the same as God's.  We do not see the big picture from our tiny planet.

[Nearly Sane]

God would never get a job as a designer.

Your concept of good design may not be the same as God's.  We do not see the big picture from our tiny planet.

Then you can't use the concept of design as evidence for precisely the same reason. You have just invalidated your own position.

[Andy]

God would never get a job as a designer.

Your concept of good design may not be the same as God's.  We do not see the big picture from our tiny planet.

I was actually comparing my concept as a professional designer with yours, but as NS has highlighted too, you've made it redundant.

[Alan Burns]

It's not the concept of the existence of god that I struggle with. It's the concept of a god designing a world where suffering is built in.

Have you read the nun's letter passed on by my friend Andrew which I posted on the "Prayers for Becky" thread?  It may help to answer some of your "why" questions.

[Alan Burns]

God would never get a job as a designer.

Your concept of good design may not be the same as God's.  We do not see the big picture from our tiny planet.

Then you can't use the concept of design as evidence for precisely the same reason. You have just invalidated your own position.

No, I was commenting on the human assesment of the quality of the design - not the design itself.

[Nearly Sane]

God would never get a job as a designer.

Your concept of good design may not be the same as God's.  We do not see the big picture from our tiny planet.

Then you can't use the concept of design as evidence for precisely the same reason. You have just invalidated your own position.

No, I was commenting on the human assesment of the quality of the design - not the design itself.

to comment on something being designed is a comment on quality. Your post makes your claim meaningless.

[Alan Burns]

God would never get a job as a designer.

Your concept of good design may not be the same as God's.  We do not see the big picture from our tiny planet.

Then you can't use the concept of design as evidence for precisely the same reason. You have just invalidated your own position.

No, I was commenting on the human assesment of the quality of the design - not the design itself.

to comment on something being designed is a comment on quality. Your post makes your claim meaningless.

Whether you consider it as a good design or a bad design, it has still been designed.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

It's not the concept of the existence of god that I struggle with. It's the concept of a god designing a world where suffering is built in. It's the concept of a god that singles out women for punishment. A god that can do anything. A god that could fix this, a god that chooses not to.

The something bigger? Sounds like pantheism to me.

And just a thought - unbelief/questioning/difference does not mean a lack of humility or an attitude of arrogance.

Suffering built in, well for me that is part of how it all works, But as Wigs has tried to explain it is a two headed coin, God/no God.

Call me a pantheist, just a label to me, I prefer Christian.

Humility is my argument against those who think they have all the answers, the atheist who thinks I would be a better person if I gave up my faith, the universe, our world, us humans, nature are far to weird and wonderful, to full of WHYS to think that there is not something bigger, call it God/Allah,Shiva, Thor, just names for something we do not understand.

Gonnagle.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Rhiannon,

It's not the concept of the existence of god that I struggle with. It's the concept of a god designing a world where suffering is built in. It's the concept of a god that singles out women for punishment. A god that can do anything. A god that could fix this, a god that chooses not to.

The something bigger? Sounds like pantheism to me.

And just a thought - unbelief/questioning/difference does not mean a lack of humility or an attitude of arrogance.

Suffering built in, well for me that is part of how it all works, But as Wigs has tried to explain it is a two headed coin, God/no God.

Call me a pantheist, just a label to me, I prefer Christian.

Humility is my argument against those who think they have all the answers, the atheist who thinks I would be a better person if I gave up my faith, the universe, our world, us humans, nature are far to weird and wonderful, to full of WHYS to think that there is not something bigger, call it God/Allah,Shiva, Thor, just names for something we do not understand.

Gonnagle.

just call it I don't Know - gods are explanations for questions we don't know even make sense unless we assume we are special

[Rhiannon]

I find it arrogant to be told by Christians that I'd be a better person if I had Jesus as my saviour. Or that I'd still be a shit one, but a saved shit one.

[floo]

I find it arrogant to be told by Christians that I'd be a better person if I had Jesus as my saviour. Or that I'd still be a shit one, but a saved shit one.

Being a 'saved' Christian doesn't make you a better person. Often it is the reverse if they start forcing their faith down the throats of others with threats if they don't convert!

[Enki]

It's not the concept of the existence of god that I struggle with. It's the concept of a god designing a world where suffering is built in.

Have you read the nun's letter passed on by my friend Andrew which I posted on the "Prayers for Becky" thread?  It may help to answer some of your "why" questions.

I can't speak for Rhiannon, of course, but I've read it, and as heartfelt and comforting as it is meant to be, no, it doesn't even begin to answer any of my questions.

[floo]

It's not the concept of the existence of god that I struggle with. It's the concept of a god designing a world where suffering is built in.

Have you read the nun's letter passed on by my friend Andrew which I posted on the "Prayers for Becky" thread?  It may help to answer some of your "why" questions.

I can't speak for Rhiannon, of course, but I've read it, and as heartfelt and comforting as it is meant to be, no, it doesn't even begin to answer any of my questions.

I agree.

[Alan Burns]

I find it arrogant to be told by Christians that I'd be a better person if I had Jesus as my saviour. Or that I'd still be a shit one, but a saved shit one.

Being a better person is not the main aim of Christianity - it is just an attribute you aquire when you accept Jesus as your saviour.

[Andy]

Whether you consider it as a good design or a bad design, it has still been designed.

So you still want to say it's designed, but just a crap design. Bit of a rubbish god you've got there.

[Rhiannon]

It's not the concept of the existence of god that I struggle with. It's the concept of a god designing a world where suffering is built in.

Have you read the nun's letter passed on by my friend Andrew which I posted on the "Prayers for Becky" thread?  It may help to answer some of your "why" questions.

I can't speak for Rhiannon, of course, but I've read it, and as heartfelt and comforting as it is meant to be, no, it doesn't even begin to answer any of my questions.

It clearly is heartfelt and probably comforting to a believer. It isn't going to answer the questions or provide comfort to those who don't.

[Nearly Sane]

God would never get a job as a designer.

Your concept of good design may not be the same as God's.  We do not see the big picture from our tiny planet.

Then you can't use the concept of design as evidence for precisely the same reason. You have just invalidated your own position.

No, I was commenting on the human assesment of the quality of the design - not the design itself.

to comment on something being designed is a comment on quality. Your post makes your claim meaningless.

Whether you consider it as a good design or a bad design, it has still been designed.

Cranked up the assertatron, there, didn't you. What's the method you use to tell between appearing so bad that it's a bad designer, and not designed?

As already raised if you ignore how we judge design, you ignore how we do say something is designed.

[jeremyp]

Dear Andy,

Complex to us, to God, simplicity.

Gonnagle.

Nope. Doesn't wash.

[SusanDoris]

Gonnagle

I do not recall reading a post where an atheist said you would be a 'better person' if you were an atheist.  It wouldn't work anyway. An atheist lacks belief in any gods, so knows that you are the person you are anyway, since there are no gods to make a difference to your personality and behaviours. All you have ever been or done has been done by you, never has any god had anything to do with it

[Alan Burns]

Whether you consider it as a good design or a bad design, it has still been designed.

So you still want to say it's designed, but just a crap design. Bit of a rubbish god you've got there.

I would never be so arrogant as to say God got it wrong.  I humbly accept that I do not have the mind of God.  There are bound to be some things beyond our understanding.

[Andy]

Whether you consider it as a good design or a bad design, it has still been designed.

So you still want to say it's designed, but just a crap design. Bit of a rubbish god you've got there.

I would never be so arrogant as to say God got it wrong.  I humbly accept that I do not have the mind of God.  There are bound to be some things beyond our understanding.

But arrogant enough to say god got it right...

[Alan Burns]

My certainty of God's interaction is based upon the improbability of these events being generated in the correct sequence and timing by unguided forces to produce the specific complexity in a living cell.

Which conveniently ignores the number of planets on which these precursors have existed, and therefore the number of chances for this to successfully happen. It also conveniently ignores the fact that we don't know if there's a specific timing required.

Most importantly, though, it completely glosses over the fact that it's orders of magnitude more improbable that a being capable of designing a universe should spontaneously emerge than a sequence of relatively likely incidents should happen, potentially amongst an infinite number of opportunities.

But there are not an infinite number of opportunities.  We live in a finite universe with an estimated 10⁸¹ atomic particles, and a finite age of approximately 4.32 X 10¹⁷ seconds.  These numbers pale into insignificance when compared to the figure of 10^40,000 which sir Fred Hoyle calculated is the probability of amino acids coming together in the right combination to form a living cell.

[torridon]

But there are not an infinite number of opportunities.  We live in a finite universe with an estimated 10⁸¹ atomic particles, and a finite age of approximately 4.32 X 10¹⁷ seconds.  These numbers pale into insignificance when compared to the figure of 10^40,000 which sir Fred Hoyle calculated is the probability of amino acids coming together in the right combination to form a living cell.

Oh, come on Mr Burns, are you really prepared to go back 50 years to find some figures to support your view.  Things have moved far along since then, look instead at the work being done in biogenesis now.  Hoyle might have been a brilliant man but he did get some things very very wrong, blinded to some extent by his own hubris and stubbornness.

[Rhiannon]

I find it arrogant to be told by Christians that I'd be a better person if I had Jesus as my saviour. Or that I'd still be a shit one, but a saved shit one.

Being a better person is not the main aim of Christianity - it is just an attribute you aquire when you accept Jesus as your saviour.

So Christians are better people than non-believers?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Dear Rhiannon and Andy,

Take a leaf out of our Leonards book, we just don't know.

We/us/humans look at the world and think, no this can't be right!!

We have discussions on this forum about what is right and wrong, we can't even decide on that.

I am asked, if there is a God, why is it not all sweetness and flower gardens, I just don't know!

I think the word I am searching for is Humility, you don't have to believe in God/gods to feel this, the universe is vast ( vast, that word does not do it justice ) our little planet, it all works, everything in its place a place for everything, WHY but that is only the start of WHY us/humans, why are we all different.

The list of WHY is endless.

For me, if you say, it just is, is no answer.

Why is there pain and suffering in this world, I just don't know.

Gonnagle, stop rambling and tell us what you do know, I know that Jesus Christ was/is my salvation, not for an after life, but here and now, and I think/feel that we are all part of something bigger, call that bigger God, what is God, next question.

Gonnagle.

It's not the concept of the existence of god that I struggle with. It's the concept of a god designing a world where suffering is built in. It's the concept of a god that singles out women for punishment. A god that can do anything. A god that could fix this, a god that chooses not to.

The something bigger? Sounds like pantheism to me.

And just a thought - unbelief/questioning/difference does not mean a lack of humility or an attitude of arrogance.

I agree that it does not mean a lack of humility. Also, probably not everyone on here thinks humility is a good quality to have in relation to a belief in a personified concept of something supernatural.

There is a common thread in some people's understanding of their belief that their religion requires gratitude for what you do have in the face of suffering for the things that you don't have and therefore to do good deeds at a personal cost to yourself to help those less fortunate  - that's the test of belief and faith. Not sure how this test can exist if suffering is eliminated.