Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

It's the way he tells 'em.

[Leonard James]

But didn't God do a great job in manipulating these natural forces to bring us into existence, giving us awareness and free will in the process.   

It's rather puzzling that he should deprive of awareness such a faithful follower as you, Alan! 

[Shaker]

But didn't God do a great job in manipulating these natural forces to bring us into existence, giving us awareness and free will in the process.   

No.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Alan,

But didn't God do a great job in manipulating these natural forces to bring us into existence, giving us awareness and free will in the process.   

Ah! manipulating, natural forces, God just made good use of what was lying around, one theory, another is that he created these natural forces, yet another, take some sticky back plastic and a old washing up bottle ( remember to ask your mum if you can use it ) and that is my own personal theory, science complicates stuff when it is all really quite simple, well for God and we are not God, I think I pointed that out a few posts ago, in amongst my rambling, my chuntering, good here, ain't it

Gonnagle.

[Enki]

Dear ippy,

Evil lotion, another area where scientists have stuck their oar in, I was quite happy in my little Adam and Eve world, but no, that Darwin bloke comes along and starts a whole new ball game, we are descended from monkeys, no wait, apes, no, no haud the bus, ape like ( or is it monkey like ) then I am told, ( just when I am getting a handle on the whole situation ) seen the T shirt, wee monkey rising up to be human, no not exactly descended, more like cousins ( that bit is very plausible, some of my cousins are Orange Order, that lot have just dropped out of the tree ) then we are told about the missing link, what bloody missing link, do we have missing link or not ( I sometimes feel it is a conspiracy, the scientific community are out to get me ) and it goes on, Dinosaurs with feathers, or the one that really flips my lid, some aquatic mammals came out of the sea, grew legs, then said bugger this for a game of soldiers and returned to the sea

That Darwin bloke ( no , actually lets not stop at Darwin ) the whole scientific community are on drugs, just wish they would share them with us less educated

Gonnagle.

Bugger the scientific community, what are you on, Gonners? And can I have some?

I couldn't possibly disagree with you now....well at least for today. Your posts are little gems. Your good health, Sir

[SqueakyVoice]

But didn't God do a great job in manipulating these natural forces to bring us into existence, giving us awareness and free will in the process.   

Well, so far he's spent 10bn years waiting for a layer of scum to solidify on a ball of molten iron, then another few hundred million years getting some atoms to stick together in the right order, another billion years or so dossing around with single cell lifeforms, before finally getting them to start sticking together, then coming up with millions  and millions of failed lifeforms before finally getting one particularly violent species of monkey to start worshipping him (amongst thousands of other gods) and then having to kill his own son in a desperate bid to impress said monkeys ... and all that has resulted in a success rate of approximately one in three.

Personally if I was an (allegedly) all powerful, all knowing all good been and my aim was getting some beings to worship me, I'd chalk that up as a spectacular failure.

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

Evil lotion, another area where scientists have stuck their oar in, I was quite happy in my little Adam and Eve world, but no, that Darwin bloke comes along and starts a whole new ball game, we are descended from monkeys, no wait, apes, no, no haud the bus, ape like ( or is it monkey like ) then I am told, ( just when I am getting a handle on the whole situation ) seen the T shirt, wee monkey rising up to be human, no not exactly descended, more like cousins ( that bit is very plausible, some of my cousins are Orange Order, that lot have just dropped out of the tree ) then we are told about the missing link, what bloody missing link, do we have missing link or not ( I sometimes feel it is a conspiracy, the scientific community are out to get me ) and it goes on, Dinosaurs with feathers, or the one that really flips my lid, some aquatic mammals came out of the sea, grew legs, then said bugger this for a game of soldiers and returned to the sea

That Darwin bloke ( no , actually lets not stop at Darwin ) the whole scientific community are on drugs, just wish they would share them with us less educated

Gonnagle.

Your post isn't that clear but never mind that, evolution is an established theory that has not had any serious challenges and that makes it as near as is needed to be considered as fact.

ippy
I

[Gonnagle]

Dear Enki,

Just foolin around on the forum, it's allowed

Gonnagle.

[Leonard James]

Well, so far he's spent 10bn years waiting for a layer of scum to solidify on a ball of molten iron, then another few hundred million years getting some atoms to stick together in the right order, another billion years or so dossing around with single cell lifeforms, before finally getting them to start sticking together, then coming up with millions  and millions of failed lifeforms before finally getting one particularly violent species of monkey to start worshipping him (amongst thousands of other gods) and then having to kill his own son in a desperate bid to impress said monkeys ... and all that has resulted in a success rate of approximately one in three.

Personally if I was an (allegedly) all powerful, all knowing all good deity and my aim was getting some beings to worship me, I'd chalk that up as a spectacular failure.

Wow! Well done, mate! That told 'im! 

But Alan is programmed to reject any criticism of his "God", so he'll just come back with "God" knows best!

[Alan Burns]

Well, so far he's spent 10bn years ....

Didn't you know that time does not exist in heaven? 

[Alan Burns]

Your post isn't that clear but never mind that, evolution is an established theory that has not had any serious challenges and that makes it as near as is needed to be considered as fact.

So here is the big challenge ....
Start with nothing - no time, no space and no material
Then show how we "evolved"

[Gonnagle]

Dear Alan,

Time, just something to set your watch by.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-time-a-man-made-construct

Oh and your big challenge, you forgot vacuum, I think that is important, Gods Holy hoover, or maybe Missus God, does God have a Missus, and am I being sexist.

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

So here is the big challenge ....
Start with nothing - no time, no space and no material
Then show how we "evolved"

Not much of a challenge Alan and if you haven't allready read Darwin, well.

I'll go with the only rational answer to that, we don't know how or what caused the start of the big bang but not knowing doesn't give any of us cart blanch to make anything up, or have any good reason to adopt any other trumpt up reasoning, from any questionable source.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not much of a challenge Alan and if you haven't allready read Darwin, well.

I'll go with the only rational answer to that, we don't know how or what caused the start of the big bang but not knowing doesn't give any of us cart blanch to make anything up, or have any good reason to adopt any other trumpt up reasoning, from any questionable source.

ippy

Neither should it ''invite the don't go there attitude'' of Russell or Dawkins.
The trouble is for the naturalists is that either option, uncaused or caused brings difficulties for any naturalist philosophy.........Bad luck for those who had it cut and dried.

[BeRational]

So here is the big challenge ....
Start with nothing - no time, no space and no material
Then show how we "evolved"

Do the same and show where a God comes from!

[Alan Burns]

Do the same and show where a God comes from!

As I said before,
God is that which exists.

For anything to exist, there must be something which exists, and that is where you will find God.

[Alan Burns]

Not much of a challenge Alan and if you haven't allready read Darwin, well.

Just for information, I have read The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion.

[ippy]

Neither should it ''invite the don't go there attitude'' of Russell or Dawkins.
The trouble is for the naturalists is that either option, uncaused or caused brings difficulties for any naturalist philosophy.........Bad luck for those who had it cut and dried.

You're going through one of your bad spells again Vlad, I suppose it can be puzzling when English isn't your first language; did you notice B R was very clear as usual, even the pope, an icon of free thinking, can't find a way around evolution so even he has addopted it.

ippy

[ippy]

Just for information, I have read The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion.

If I had how would it alter anything you or I have exchanged.

ippy

[ippy]

As I said before,
God is that which exists.

For anything to exist, there must be something which exists, and that is where you will find God.

So you believe, don't know and can't possibly know nor can anyone else.

ippy

[Shaker]

Just for information, I have read The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker and The God Delusion.

But of the first two - books explaining evolution to a lay audience - why, to be frank, do you show so little sign of having understood them?

[Shaker]

For anything to exist, there must be something which exists, and that is where you will find God.

So we have (a) a stonking tautology, (b) existence of God merely by semantics and (c) something a hair's breadth away from pantheism.

And yet you still reckon you're bothered by the negative reaction your posts get. Well, that's why.

[Alan Burns]

But of the first two - books explaining evolution to a lay audience - why, to be frank, do you show so little sign of having understood them?

Of course I understood what he was writing about.  I understood his logic.  That does not mean that I have to agree that his logic is correct.  There are many questionable assumptions upon which his logic depends, some of which I have mentioned in previous posts and some which have been discussed in depth on other threads and in other forums.  Dawkin's logic is most certainly not watertight.

[Alan Burns]

So you believe, don't know and can't possibly know nor can anyone else.

ippy

I agree that nobody can define the source of existence, but surely any sane person can accept that there must be an ultimate source of all existence.

[Alan Burns]

... something a hair's breadth away from pantheism.

I believe "That which exists" is what brought this universe into being.  Our universe is not God, but God's creation.  This is not pantheism.