Why is it so easy to dismiss the existence of gods?

2 types of believer man, two types of believer. Those who believe in reason over religion, and those who believe in religion over reason. The ontological facts are less at issue seeing as nobody really knows what is going on anyway, but rather what really matters here and now is where you stand on the ethics of religion. Some religious ethics are good, they are justified and logical, some are bad, they are senseless, written by someone with an agenda. This is important: I don't know if there is a god who gives divine words of wisdom, all the logic and science cannot tell me for certain either way. Maybe there is a god. But even if there is, this does not change the fact that god, did not write these texts, these texts where written by human beings whether god is real or not, and human beings are by definition imperfect, and so these texts are imperfect, they have flaws. And that is why you have to think about what your reading, and that is why no matter what the facts are, reason is more important than religion, even if god exists! You do not need to abandon your religion, I would not like to see religion disappear, religion is not necessary but it is useful, and it is most definately wanted, it is here to stay. But what you do need to do is differentiate between the religious ethics that make sense, and thus might be the word of god, because god is not an idiot, he is a god of logical necessity, and the religious ethics that do not make sense and thus cannot be the word of god, and thus must be written by men with an agenda. You must think. These religious texts do not do the work for you, the real challenge is on you. Texts like the bible, and tora and kuran are as much a lesson in what not to do, as they are a lesson in what to do. The test on you is to use your reason, and decipher which is which.

So when your preist, your bishop, your pope, your rabbi, your imam or whoever is teaching you, you must must question his/her teachings, because all he is doing is quoting, and not all of it makes sense, the focus is on your to decide which is a lesson in what to do, and which is a lesson in what not to do.

Lets take two examples...Take the story of the good samariten. A man lay bleeding on the road and many people did not stop to help the poor guy, either because they had other things to do, they figured someone else would sort it, they where in a hurry or they just didn't care. But, then this samariten comes along and helps him. This is a lesson in what to do ethically.

Next example, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham should have said no! He should have taught god the good that was in his heart, he should have listened to his conscience, he should have truly loved his son and thus realised that this was unthinkable. He should have stood up to god, he should have seriously questioned god's motives, and flatly refused. He should have thought that either it was a wind up (which it was) or that god was not as good as he had believed. Trust is a virtue, but too much of any one virtue without consideration for other virtues becomes vice. To trust against reason is to be a sycophant, and to not care about virtues like compassion, justice, courage, honesty, and love! This is a lesson in what not to do.

Just as the slaughter of the amalokites, the slaying of the egyptian sons, the flooding of the earth, all these things are senseless irrational, illogical and downright cruel actions..."The amalokites attacked us, therefore we have the right to completely eradicate their entire race???" That is not justice that is outragious! That is cold hearted hatred! Bloody revenge and not something that god would demand, therefore god can't have demanded it, hence, whoever wrote that he did is lying, and had an agenda, whoever it was wanted people to commit genocide for what he believed in, and he wrote that to get people to do it because of their trust for god, but of course, those who are reasonable men are not so easily seduced by the devil that is evil men!

2 types of believer man, two types of believer. Those who believe in reason over religion, and those who believe in religion over reason.

Both of whom you, as a Master of Ethics, have the Compassion of Love for and so first love yourself as!

COMPASSION! .. a fundamental in ethics...

SS: The ontological facts are less at issue seeing as nobody really knows what is going on anyway, but rather what really matters here and now is where you stand on the ethics of religion.
APE: Exactly! Story done!:)
SS: Some religious ethics are good, they are justified and logical, some are bad, they are senseless, written by someone with an agenda.
APE: But because you LOVE both the good and the bad, you mean that the ONLY BAD, SENSELESS, UNJUSTIFIED, ILLOGICAL, UNETHICAL ethic, religious or otherwise, is to the Ethic of Hate for any ethic!
SS: This is important: I don't know if there is a god who gives divine words of wisdom, all the logic and science cannot tell me for certain either way. Maybe there is a god.
APE: Good! As long as you love both ideas, you are ethical!
SS: But even if there is, this does not change the fact that god, did not write these texts, these texts where written by human beings whether god is real or not, and human beings are by definition imperfect, and so these texts are imperfect, they have flaws.
APE: Right! But since you already have Flawless Perfect Compassion for the perfect and imperfect, for the flawed and the flawless, you already KNOW that perfection comes out of imperfection, and vice versa!
So we have: 2 Peter 1: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private [tho imperfect] interpretation. 21For the [perfect] prophecy came not in old time by the will of [imperfect] man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost [of Love]. PLEASE READ THE FLAWED POT.
"Imperfection is in some sort essential to all that we know of life. It is the sign of life in a mortal body, that is to say, of a state of progress and change. Nothing that lives is or can be rigidly perfect; part of it is decaying, part nascent. The foxglove blossom--a third part bud, a third part past, a third part in full bloom--is a type of the life of this world." John Ruskin
SS: And that is why you have to think about what your reading, and that is why no matter what the facts are, reason is more important than religion, even if god exists!
APE: Exactly! The very reason for the Compassion of Love for all opposites by which we think is that we obtain it from the very scripture and God! That the God of God, GOD'S GOD is Love!qed.
SS: You do not need to abandon your religion, I would not like to see religion disappear, religion is not necessary but it is useful, and it is most definately wanted, it is here to stay.
APE: Awesome!
SS: But what you do need to do is differentiate between the religious ethics that make sense, and thus might be the word of god, because god is not an idiot, he is a god of logical necessity, and the religious ethics that do not make sense and thus cannot be the word of god, and thus must be written by men with an agenda.
APE: By which you MUST mean to differentiate between the Ethic of Love for all opposites which makes perfect sense and the Ethic of Hate for any word which makes NO sense!
SS: You must think.
APE: Yes! And the first thought is to love all thoughts by 1st lovng all words and their opposites!
2 Corinthians 10: 5Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of [Love and so of] Christ;
SS: These religious texts do not do the work for you, the real challenge is on you. Texts like the bible, and tora and kuran are as much a lesson in what not to do, as they are a lesson in what to do. The test on you is to use your reason, and decipher which is which.[color by ape]
APE: Simply aweful!:)
SS:So when your preist, your bishop, your pope, your rabbi, your imam or whoever is teaching you, you must must question his/her teachings, because all he is doing is quoting, and not all of it makes sense, the focus is on your to decide which is a lesson in what to do, and which is a lesson in what not to do.
APE: Preach On, Simon!:)1 John 2: 27But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try/test/prove the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
SS: Lets take two examples...Take the story of the good samariten. A man lay bleeding on the road and many people did not stop to help the poor guy, either because they had other things to do, they figured someone else would sort it, they where in a hurry or they just didn't care. But, then this samariten comes along and helps him. This is a lesson in what to do ethically.
APE: May I humbly add this in? The Sam. loved the victim first, THEN helped him with Love. Luke 10: 33But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had [the] compassion [of Love] on him, 34And [THEN IN LOVE] went to him, and [THEN IN LOVE] bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine [WITH LOVE], and [THEN IN LOVE] set him on his own beast, and [THEN IN LOVE] brought him to an inn, and [THEN IN LOVE] took care of him. THE SAMAR WD HAVE JUST AS ETHICAL TO HAVE LOVED HIM AND then not HELPED HIM! See? See that very chapter LUKE 10:38-42.
SS: Next example, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son. Abraham should have said no [IN LOVE SINCE SS, THAT IS WHAT you WD HAVE DONE in love TOO, or AS HE DID, AGREED IN LOVE ! see?! Genesis 22: 1And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt[TEST IN LOVE OF THE OBDEIENT & THE DISOBEDIENT] Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 2And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou love, and [IN LOVE] get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there [IN LOVE] for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee [IN LOVE] of.
SS: He should have taught god the good [LOVE] that was in his heart, he should have listened [IN LOVE] to his conscience [OF LOVE], he should have truly loved his son [AS HE WAS ALREADY LOVING ISAAC] and thus realised that this was unthinkable [ONLY BECAUSE he DID NOT WANT TO DO IT!]. He should have stood up [IN LOVE OF STANDING DOWN] to god, he should have seriously [IN LOVE] questioned god's motives [WHEN HE WD HAVE FOUND OUT THE GOD DID NOT WANT HIM TO DO SO IN THE FIRST PLACE SINCE GOD WAS ONLY TESTING THE UNCONDITIONALITY OF HIS LOVE!], and flatly [IN LOVE OF AGREEING ALSO] refused. He should have thought that either it was a wind up (IN LOVE), which it was[YES!!!]) or that [IN LOVE OF GOD AS GOOD AND EVIL THAT] god was not as good as he had believed.
SS: Trust is a virtue, but too much of any one virtue without consideration for other virtues becomes vice.[INSERTIONS BY APE]
APE; And too much of any ONE can only result from HATE of the opposite other!
SS: To trust against [THE] reason [OF LOVE FOR THE REASONABLE AND THE UNREASONABLE, FOR VICE & VIRTUE] is to be a sycophant, and to not care about virtues like compassion, justice, courage, honesty, and love! This is a lesson in [HOW IN WHAT ATTITUDE TO DO] what not to do [AND HOW TO DO WHAT TO DO] [INSERTIONS & COLOR BY APE].
SS: Just as the slaughter of the amalokites, the slaying of the egyptian sons, the flooding of the earth, all these things are senseless irrational, illogical and downright cruel actions...
APE: UNTIL the Reason and Sense of Love for the senseless and for nonsense and for sense, for the reasonable and the irrational, for the illogical and the logical, for the cruel and the kind IS APPLIED, as in APPLIED MATH, TO ALL OPPOSITES and we see the rational and the logical and the reason and the sense and the kindness in their opposites!
SS: the "The amalokites attacked us, therefore we have the right to completely eradicate their entire race???"
APE: WITH 100% EQUAL LOVE FOR ALL AND FOR ATTACKS AND ATTACKERS AND FOR THE ATTACKED and etc, ANY OPTION is and all options are JUSTIFIED: NOT TO HIT BACK, TO HIT BACK LESS, TO HIT BACK EQUALLY HARD, TO HIT BAck HARDER, TO HIT BACK DOUBLY HARDER. JUST AS FOR GOOD OTHERS DO, they get back BAD or less good or as good or better or far better or doubly better! See JOB 42 and Psalms 27 & 73.
SS: That is not justice that is outragious!
APE: Only when judged OR READ WITHOUT THE COMPASSION OF LOVE FOR self as outraged AND AS unjust and judgmental and etc!
SS: That is cold hearted hatred!
APE: ONLY WHEN JUDGED OR READ WITHOUT THE COMPASSION OF LOVE FOR THE COLD-HEARTED: ie only WHEN JUDGED WITH THE COLD-HEARTED HATRED FOR THE COLD-HEARTED! XLNT you identify Hatred as the key problem-attitude.
SS: Bloody revenge [REVENGE BEING ANY AVENGING DONE IN HATE AND SO IS ANY HATE BEFORE THE REVENGING] and not something that god would demand [IN HATE BUT IN LOVE], therefore god can't have demanded it [IN HATE BUT IN LOVE], hence, whoever wrote [OR READS IT AS IF IT IS IN HATE OR] that he did [IN HATE] is lying, and had an agenda [OF HATE OR CD HAVE HAD AN AGENDA OF LOVE], whoever it was wanted [IF HE HATED OTHERS] people to commit genocide for what he believed in [IF THEY KILLED IN HATE], and [IN HATE] he wrote that to get people to do it because of [MUCH HATE OF SELVES AS DISTRUSTED IN COMBO WITH LITTLE LOVE FOR] their trust for god, but of course, those who are reasonable men BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE REASON OF LOVE FOR BOTH THE RATIONAL AND IRRATIONAL] are not so easily seduced [TO HATE ANY WORD OR ANY TYPE OF MAN AS OURSELVES] by the devil that is evil men [WHICH DEVIL GETS OR EVIL MEN GET US TO HATE THE DEVIL AND SO TO DISOBEY GOD WHO LOVES HIS ENEMIES OR OPPOSITES]![insertions by ape]
APE: There is 90% MORE right than THE 10% wrong in all of that!:)
Grade?: B+ or A- with A+ for effort!
Congrats!:)
Please write more!

.

So you are saying that God is merely a human concept that changes as humans do? That there really isn't a God except in the minds of humans? So next year if humans decide that God should have a big red nose and squeaky shoes, then that is what God is?

ATavern, God is indeed a human concept. What else could he be? Unfortunately for the name 'God' it already denotes something pretty silly--an old man who looks like the one painted by Leonardo Da Vinci sitting on a cloud; a burning bush: a human voice in the temple: a creator of species that cannot evolve into separate species: a sort of Santa Claus who rewards good children. All, all, pretty silly.

I am sorry because we do need a name for our concept of ultimate values, and the name 'God' has been so demeaned by silly or outmoded or dogmatic images, that it is doubtful if it can be reinstated.

Please remember that the people the author is writing about experienced God first-hand. They had powerful, authentic first hand experience of the all-powerful God. You have no idea.

Indeed they did experience Jahweh at first hand. That was a perception that was common at the time . It was common for humans to encounter gods at rivers, trees,dedicated temples, and hills all over the Middle East, Asia Minor and Greece. It must have been very exciting when it happened.

Around 800-200BCE there was a change about the idea of Jahweh, and other gods. This change happened independently in what is now Israel/Palestine,(See Jeremiah and Ezekiel) in China (Confucius), in India(Samkya perhaps most notably),and Greece (Socrates and Plato). Jahweh became internalised as inner self control, forgiveness and harmony instead of external control from a deity of rewards , punishments and tribal support among other warring tribes.Similar metamorphoses happened in the other places I mention.

But you can find out all this for yourself if you want to.

You see no contradiction in an all-knowing, all-powerful, infinitely loving Creator of the universe deciding that perhaps during His "tribal deity" days he was just young and impetuous and has learned that perhaps there is a better way? So exactly what would make an all-knowing God "smarten up?"
What you fail to understand are the qualities
of "all-powerful" and "all-knowing."

This anthropocentric description can be revised so that it describes God as a human concept.As such, I agree although I would not use as a model the maturing human being.

I do understand the qualities " all-powerful" and "all-knowing". I understand your conceptualisation too, but I prefer mine.

Your "normal" person subscribes to the belief that humans know it all and that the knowledge humans have dictates all reality, including the God that created reality – as if humans have that kind of knowledge.

Few normal humans are so arrogant as to believe that they know it all. This would describe someone who is mentally ill. However perception does bring a world into being, this world changes as perceptions change. This is a good thing, otherwise you and I would be uncivilised.

ATavern, God is indeed a human concept. What else could he be?

That is the point, He is NOT a human concept he is Reality to be discovered and understood. It is not up to humans to "create" or "design" a god that suits us. Our task is to discover the God that really is, really exists. He is Be-ing, not idea or concept.

I will give you another paradigm that is similar.

Take someone you really know very well - or at least think you do. Now consider, do you really "know" the internal person, the being or identity of that person or is what you know simply your "idea" of that person?

For most of us, unless we have really profoundly encountered "others" as they are in themselves, we would have to admit that it is merely our idea of that person that we "know." Given, it may be a very sophisticated "idea," but it is still not the actual person in themselves that we know.

Now think of love. When you love someone, do you love "them" or do you love your idea of them? I am saying that it is possible to know and love others and God as they are in themselves at the point of "being" where we are one with them and God

I think that within each of us, at the point "below" our consciousness, the point of our "existence" as beings we contact a realm of "being" where we touch God and God touches us. It is not a concept of God, it really is God.

At this point God plays a game with us called "know thyself" and know "Me." At this point he "hides" and our being "seeks," and when we hide from Him or "walk away" from Him, He seeks. Another name for this game might be "Truth" or "Reality."

Why does He play this game? So that we come to know ourselves, come to be who we really are. When we don't take it seriously enough, He vanishes. When we think too much of ourselves, He vanishes. When we are truthful, sincere and seek to "know" ourselves as we are or Him as He is, he shows Himself in small glimpses.

This is not conceptualization, it is on a far deeper level, at a level of being, not thinking.

You may not understand this, but this is the way to "know" God - not by thinking, but by being.

Now think of love. When you love someone, do you love "them" or do you love your idea of them?

Hi OTavern!
I wd say both 'him' and who we think he is since God wants us to love Him as all words and their opposites which automatically covers who we think he is and who he is.

I am saying that it is possible to know and love others and God as they are in themselves at the point of "being" where we are one with them and God

Excellent! John 17:17-26.
But based in 1 John 4:7-8, do we love others and God as unknown and as known before we know them and him and to know them and Him, or do we have to know them & him before and to love them and him?

By the way, thanks for all your xlnt responsive contributions and contributionary responses with Simon!:)

I find it ingratiating when one wishes to establish authenticity of reason from a self designed perspective.

Without God I am perfect. I am the master of myself by virtue of my own reason and sense of being.

What is perfection but that which performs as designed and if I am a product of my own design owing my reason to none other than myself how is it then that I am not perfect when I can reason what I was and will be and determine for myself that I am exactly what I should be? And, if I am exactly as I should be then I am perfect.

Is not the universe perfect? The universe is not perfect just as an idea but in its ability to function as it is designed to function out of which its design produced me. And, as such makes me perfect too.

If perfection is fashioned by inspiration then I say that I am that inspiration and all should foster that which is the presentation of perfection on me even on to death since in my birth, my life and my death are part of the perfection of being in a universe that fashions perfection for itself.

But, if God exists and I am a creation of God and consider myself imperfect then I can only be imperfect by design. That imperfection is derived from my inability to understand or define all that is even myself. If death is imperfect by its antithesis to birth then which of these represents or fashions perfection if not by life?

Can the philosophic materialist deny his own perfection in light of the perfection he defines for himself? If all that is, is as it should be without creation, formulation and inspiration then perfection cannot be in doubt and altruism is achieved.

Without God man is perfect. A part of what is "natural".

Oh O'Tavern, you really have no idea do you! I really don't think I am capable of making you see sense because you have made for yourself a prison. Nevertheless, I will try the last...

Stop patronizing. Who died and made you chief philosopher and conceptual engineer?

You believe in Christianity. I assume you are far right in that, you believe all of the proposed facts by the bible actually happened for real. This includes, 7 days creation, virgin birth, reserrection etc etc... First off, if you believe all that, all of which is pure speculation, why don't you believe... [yada yada]

I don't want to go down this road because you have silly notions of what all these things mean. If you understood the meaning and reality behind each then the dialogue might be profitable. You can only understand the meaning of these in some literal childish way and can't seem to comprehend that there is "more to it" than what you think. Yet whatever I say will simply be filtered by you to fit your understanding, so I expect any discussion on those topics will be a waste of time.

Secondly, if as I assume your going with Plato and Aristotle of the necessity of a prime mover, a prime mover does not mean a god. Energy could easily be called a prime mover because it cannot be created or destroyed and is the force which makes things happen, yet energy des not have a mind, or awareness or love. The god of the philosophers, in other words that which is actually necessary is not really a god as such, more an idea, that time has to start somewhere...that does not necessitate a sentient being, that, is jumping to conclusions and taking an unnecesarry stab in the dark, wild speculation.

Again, you are sadly mistaken here, but accepting the need for a "prime mover" is at least a beginning. That the prime mover cannot be energy might be seen in another way.

Think of any event that you are certain was planned or "premeditated," intended by a conscious being to have turned out how it did? What is the earmark of that event that defines it as brought about by intentional intelligent purpose?

Let me suggest that when an event has evidence of "thinking ahead" to the possible future effects built into one or more of the causal links in the chain of events, we can safely conclude that it was designed or brought about by an intelligent being. Only conscious, intelligent beings can transcend the material causal chain, abstract from it, make predictions about possible outcomes and intervene in the causal sequence accordingly to bring about a predictable result. Surely you have to admit that?

For example, if you saw the words, HELP ME made by twigs and branches interlayed on a path in some remote area, you would likely conclude that some intelligent being put those twigs there. Why? Because the person in need "foresaw" that someone walking on the path would see the branches there and if the creature was an intelligent being, would interpret the letters in a way that would bring about a desired result. This "foreseeing" or predicting of future effects in a causal chain, then setting up the situation to bring about a desired outcome is a trademark of intention. We would conclude that if some of the events in a causal chain show evidence that anticipate future events and intervention in a purposeful, directed way, is evident, the events would have to have been planned and brought about by some intelligent "controller," especially when the critical antecedent events themselves are highly unlikely to have merely occurred on their own. In fact, the more unlikely the sequence, the more certain we could conclude intention and intelligence. Take the twigs on a path example. If there were just two twigs forming an arrow, well that could simply be accidental and really provide little certainty. If the twigs formed the letters HE, well we could safely conclude probable intent, but the infinitesimal likelihood of all the letters in HELP ME I AM BEING HELD CAPTIVE IN AN OLD MINE SHAFT being formed of twigs and the fact that these letters have conspicuous meaning and function specifically to bring about a predictable outcome, i.e., getting another person to help, would make this sequence of events virtually certain of being designed by an intelligent being.

It seems to me that if within the workings of causal chains in nature or the cosmos itself, if we were to find improbable outcomes that have built into them a strong component of "looking ahead" or foreseeing intended outcomes, of transcending the causal chain, looking ahead towards a predictable outcome and of purposeful manipulation to bring about the outcome, then we could safely conclude intelligence in the design itself. Do we have examples like the twigs on the path in nature or the universe itself?

We do in fact have many. For example, the "writing" found in the genetic DNA of plants and animals is a far more complex and intelligently ordered "code" than the words HELP ME made of sticks. Surely, you would agree that HELP ME with sticks could only have been placed on a path by some intelligent being?

The genetic code case is very similar to the twigs. It is using material to transfer "abstract" information. The information does not exist in the material itself, neither in the twigs nor in the DNA. These only serve as "media" for transfer. The information can only be "decoded" in the future under the right circumstances. Further, there is also the manipulation of the circumstances such that decoding will occur. The twigs are placed "on the path" where traffic will happen upon them. The genetic code is written into cells where it will be transferred to new cells through reproduction, then decoded. The circumstances are manipulated to bring about the decoding. There is a "conspiracy" going on here. But Energy by itself could not have accomplished this ordering. It would require a looking into the future to see how cells could make use of the DNA, then ordering the development of life through cell division to make use of it. That would be much less probable than some energy force such as wind or water writing "HELP ME I'M BEING HELD CAPTIVE... with sticks in a conspicuous place by mere chance. In both cases there is complex information being "abstractly" written into other material then "abstractly" being taken out of the material to bring about an intended outcome. The cases are similar.

We are compelled to say, "An intelligent being did this!" in the case of the twigs and being much less probable, must conclude it is also the case with genetic engineering.

For what other purpose has it happened except for the deliberate "future" outcome – one only comprehendible to an agent capable of abstracting from the causal series, "comprehending" the function of biochemical entities, coding key information into DNA molecules – except to sustain and replicate those life forms and to preserve these past one generation?

How could energy, a non-conscious entity, "transcend" the material causal sequence, look ahead to the need for "preserving" and improving forms of life if these are to survive, then begin to "order" the genetic material, the "sticks" in meaningful causal, highly complex ways, that would result in reproduction and survival? That is a tall order for energy on its own. To believe it just came about that way is equally preposterous. The genetic coding is extremely complex and "intelligent" human beings have, only recently, been able to "decode" the genetic material with the aid of powerful algorithms on supercomputers. All this the work of blind energy pushing forward? How would energy manipulate such an extensive number of variables to bring about such a complex outcome?

You claim I am unreasonable for believing in a supernatural, infinitely intelligent mind behind this. I would have to conclude, that such a mind is absolutely necessary in order to explain the phenomenon of reproduction through complex genetic coding.

Why would "energy" itself have any inclination to preserve certain forms above others? Energy would have no tendency in this regard. You yourself claimed energy is not intelligent, not purposeful. Yet why would energy arrange highly complex information in cells in order to promote and extend those life forms forward into the future? There is certainly some "future" gazing going on here. A prediction of what could happen and a complex ordering of events to make it happen by passing complex information into the future by coding it in a neutral material in order to cause a deliberate outcome. Yet how could energy "anticipate," plan and order in this way? It couldn't.

Further, that the arrangement of genetic material in highly complex ways, ways that are highly effective in preserving forms of life and in fact developing stronger, more capable forms of life, is, I would claim, even more of a demonstration of intelligent purpose and intent, than even the many ordered sticks on a path. Those are much more likely to have occurred on their own seeing as there are less than 100 components that needed to come together in a "meaningful" way. Genetic coding on the other hand has millions of elements that must fit together properly in order to bring about a much more complicated, far-reaching, improbable and critically important result - sustaining millions of forms of life on Earth. Why would energy want to sustain and replicate life in various and constantly improving forms if it had no intent and no forward-looking intelligence?

Please don't ignore my reasoning and conclusions by rehashing your old claims. Respond to this, especially the bold-faced parts.

Thirdly the supernatural in general, necessarily cannot exist in this universe. Let me explain. The answer to life the universe and everything is in probability. Reality has two options, to be, or not to be that is the question, to not be is to allow for no possiblities, which of course allows for no possiblity of itself and so nothing is impossible. Even the statement "nothing exists" is a contradiction in terms if you really think about it. If you elminate the impossible whatever remains however improbable must be the truth, hence reality exists however by that same logic everything that can happen not only does happen but must happen, yet some things negate other things such as a coin landing on heads negates that it has landed on tails and so there are an infinate number of universes each with a different set of rules and/or different probibilistic outcomes. We are one of these universes, we exist because we can, and thus must exist. However, universes cannot effect each other. The supernatural must exist, but not here, and, to the universes that they do, we are supernatural to them. A thing cannot exist in a universe that has rules which says that it can't, it would be like replacing all of your blood with orange juice, the whole thing would cease to be. A supernatural entity is incompatible with the rules of our universe and so cannot exist in it. In terms of our universe, which has rules, the supernatural defines itself out of existence.

Well we've heard all this before. I suspect String Theory likely applies only to conceptual worlds, not to real ones. Think about it. You admitted that the only knowledge we have of the real physical world is mediated through our senses to our consciousness. Therefore, the only knowledge of the universe we have is of the "universe" designed by our intelligence, our consciousness. Thus, the only certainty we have about the universe is only true about the replica we have created in our consciousness.

So if String Theory holds that "if anything is possible, it must exist," this can only be true about conscious universes, i.e., those that exist in the conscious worlds of intelligent beings. So what String Theory really shows is that if something is possible it must exist in some consciously created universe as an idea. So it exists as an idea as soon as it is considered possible - it exists (in someone's mental universe.) That does not mean it must exist in reality, because we can never be certain of what exists outside of our own conscious interpretation of reality. Mathematics as the basis for String Theory would apply within the "intelligible" universe created within our consciousness and may form a "representation" of the real universe outside of our consciousness, but could not necessarily be used as proof of any particulars or the certainty of some conclusion.

Basically what that means is, "If you think something is possible, it is." or rephrased: "If you think something is possible it exists in the realm of possibilities." Meaningless, really.

Second subject, ethics.

We've been over and over this. I guess I am just thick, then. Enough said.

Do you even understand that word? COMPASSION! It seems to escape you doesn't it...when it is a fundamental in ethics...

Let's throw in two other words: love and mercy. Now you explain the idea of mercy-killing to me and I'll explain the meaning of compassion to you.

Excellent! John 17:17-26.
But based in 1 John 4:7-8, do we love others and God as unknown and as known before we know them and him and to know them and Him, or do we have to know them & him before and to love them and him?

If God is Creator, then our real self is the one "known" by Him. So the more we "are known" by Him, the more we become. If we allow ourselves to be known, by experiencing God's act of knowing us, AKA become REAL, become TRUE, become one with God, then we allow God, Reality, to BE in us. This is to be "pure of heart," pure authenticity, We know the truth and the truth knows us to the depth of our being. This is LOVE - to fully BE, to become who I am.

St Paul described it this way:

These are the very things that God has revealed to us through the Spirit for the Spirit reaches the depths of everything, even the depths of God. After all, the depths of man can only be known by his own spirit, not by any other man, and in the same way, the depths of God can only be known by the Spirit of God. Now instead of the spirit of the world, we have received the Spirit that comes from God, to teach us to understand the gifts that He has given us. Therefore, we teach, not in the way philosophy is taught, but in the way that the Spirit teaches us: we teach spiritual things spiritually. An unspiritual person is one who does not accept anything of the Spirit of God; he sees it all as nonsense; it is beyond his understanding because it can only be understood by means of the Spirit. A spiritual man, on the other hand, is able to judge the value of everything and his own value is not to be judged by other men. As Scripture says, 'Who can know the mind of the Lord, so who can teach Him? But we are those who have the mind of Christ." (1 Cor 2:10-16)

I think it is more important to be than to think.

The idea that God can be expressed or proved through human words or concepts is missing the point. We can't even adequately portray or describe an image or great painting using words, so how can we consider it a possibility that the "Ultimate Reality" of Being can be expressed with words? If we lose the distinction between Being and idea, we have succeeded in making an idol of God because an idea has become our god.

That is why we have to rely on Being, not ideas or reasons, whether in ethics, politics or life in general. Ideas are like representations of reality, symbols on a map, but they aren't the reality. God is not a concept He IS WHO IS.

By the way, thanks for all your xlnt responsive contributions and contributionary responses with Simon!:)

Thanks. I have to admit that what you write is quite beyond me. There are deep insights that I get in flickers of light, but a lot just boggles me no matter how many times I read it. This is not meant as a criticism because I suspect you know what you mean and it is full of meaning, but it is beyond my reach.

But, if God exists and I am a creation of God and consider myself imperfect then I can only be imperfect by design.

Perhaps not, perhaps we can be imperfect by choice. If having an "I-dentity" and an "I" is only possible if we are autonomous, "self-directing" and agents distinct and "free" of everything else, then we could be imperfect by choice - choosing to be less than what we are. Be-little-ing ourselves. Living illusions instead of Being real. Losing our "I" dentity by becoming something less - giving ourselves up to or becoming enslaved to something less than Being - money, lust, power, etc.

Can the philosophic materialist deny his own perfection in light of the perfection he defines for himself? If all that is, is as it should be without creation, formulation and inspiration then perfection cannot be in doubt and altruism is achieved.

This is insightful. If your concept of self is "part of a series of strictly material causation," then does that define what you actually become?

Peter Kreeft has a short talk about identity at this link:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/30_lotr_identity.htm
It may shed some light.

Without God man is perfect. A part of what is "natural".

Man, then, couldn't be anything other than an inevitable part of the natural. Perfect in the sense of what had to be. Fulfilled the function perfectly because there was no other possibility. No autonomy - just an effect. But would there be "I-dentifiable" remains?

simon says(ss) admitted that he is not perfect.

A one and only work, concept, idea or creation could be considered perfect since there can be no comparable representation.

Where Man is concerned and considering that Man has a multitude of comparable representations of the idea and formulation of man then a basis for comparison exists. So does ss compare himself to other men and find himself accordingly imperfect?

By the same token one can find himself accordingly perfect on the basis of that comparison.

If the idea of perfection is based on a supernatural concept of perfection then from where does ss and anyone who possesses such an idea as ss formulate such an idea?

If an undersatanding of perfection is based on God with the consideration that God is the manifest creator of all things and as such God in his perfection has created all things perfect then Man is also perfect. But, if Man considers himself imperfect then one must still consider how Man is imperfect and from where did that imperfection arise.

With a concept of perfection or a comparable basis for perfection in a natural world any and all manifestations within that concept can be considered perfect. Man is perfect in a material natural world. There is no basis for him not to be.

If the natural material universe is imperfect then on what does one base or compare that idea of imperfection? What would a perfect universe look like? One without Man?

Even in such an imperfect universe where Man exists the existence of Man would still allow for a perfect unity with that imperfection. The two concepts of perfection and imperfection in order to exist simultaneously must be created so.

How does one create imperfection without first considering what is perfect?

If your concept of self is "part of a series of strictly material causation," then does that define what you actually become? O Tavern

In a strictly natural material reality the outcome of any causal event must be considered to be without reason. Once it occurs it must be considered perfect since the outcome allows for further outcomes without consideration of imperfection. Once the concept of imperfection is allowed then that must have been caused if the imperfection does not result in destruction.

The same applies to conscious imperfection since what sustains such imperfection?

Imperfection in perfection when allowed to exist with perfection even if such is just an idea or concept is a contradiction unless such manifest imperfection is sustained.

O Tavern-From my view there are two significant works which explore the ideas and nature of humanity which can be comparable to a modern perspective and consideration to a God directed inspiration and those are Tolkien's works on Middle Earth and Frank Hebert's "Dune" saga.

From my view there is within those works an insight into the mind of God and his relation to man if one is willing to not only explore the relationship but also accept such a relationship.

I do not find these works merely allegorical but also foundational in spirit.

O Tavern-From my view there are two significant works which explore the ideas and nature of humanity which can be comparable to a modern perspective and consideration to a God directed inspiration and those are Tolkien's works on Middle Earth and Frank Hebert's "Dune" saga.

From my view there is within those works an insight into the mind of God and his relation to man if one is willing to not only explore the relationship but also accept such a relationship.

I do not find these works merely allegorical but also foundational in spirit.

I agree about Tolkein. There is also a CS Lewis work called, "Till We Have Faces" that is very interesting in this respect. Peter Kreeft has several commentaries on Tolkein's works in the audio talks on his website. These have some good insights. I haven't read Hebert.

O Tavern-It is worth noting that it was through conversations with Tolkien that Lewis abandoned his atheism.

I'm just gonna go bash my head against a wall, I'll be right back... ... ... ... Ok I'm back...

This is your argument: Something that appears to be a message for us, must be a message for us. (False btw)
Only a sentient being can transcend material existence. (False, on what are you basing this ridiculous claim?)
A complex system can only be designed by a complex designer. (False, this is not necessarily true, because we have two things, probability, and evolution).
We cannot be certain of other universes therefore they don't exist. (False, being known is not a criteria for existence, stuff existed before sentience came to be).

My response: Ok first one, that indicates a somewhat inflated opinion of your own importance in the universe. Just because something looks like it was meant for you, doesn't mean it was. Given how many clouds there are it is almost certain some will appear meaningful in some way (shaped like a puppy etc) and think of the face of mars, there are thousands of mountains on that planet all with random spacial shapes, why then are we suprised that one of them happens to look like a face?

Second one, where on earth do you get the idea that only sentient beings can trancend material existence? Based on what are you making that claim? That is a totally unjustified conclusion.

Third one...(face palm)...do I really need to explain evolution to you? I guess so! A designer is not necessary for a complex system. All that is required a laws of initial state which are indetermined, well, determined by the fact that this is one universe with one set of rules and there are an infinate number of others with different rules of initial state. In this universe, in the beginning there where four fundamental forces melded in super symmetry into one super force, but, gravity unlike the others was 11 dimentional and so could not support the symmetry, and so, this singularity exploded, this being the first instance of transition between states of being that is where time begins, and as the universe changes it must adapt to change, and the way it does that is through the indeterministic resonence of energy strings, whereby the strings that cannot form sustainable matter and physical sub constants regress and the ones that can faciliate change and the forulation of complexity, in other words complexity evolves out of intial simplicity through trial and error. A designer doesn't solve the problem because a designer would himself need to be designed and so on and so forth, it doesn't solve anything, it actually makes the problem even harder to solve!

Fourth one, just because you are not certain of it existence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Many things might be so, but only one reality is so! By your logic you really shouldn't believe in god because your not certain of his existence, as, god is neither necessarily true (as I showed you) or empirically observable and so is inherently unknowable!

Lastly, you did not answer my question as to why you don't believe in Islam! WHY don't you? I don't either because I think it is too speculative, but I use that same argument for why I don't believe in monotheism in general! So what logic do you use? Why christianity and not Islam? Don't just cop out by saying "your too silly to understand!" Bollux! Try me!

OTavern wrote

That is the point, He is NOT a human concept he is Reality to be discovered and understood. It is not up to humans to "create" or "design" a god that suits us. Our task is to discover the God that really is, really exists. He is Be-ing, not idea or concept.

I respect this point of view although the Real God is vulnerable to being hi-jacked by power-mongers, some of who are unscrupulous, who claim to those not sufficiently sceptical that they know what God wants to happen, have discovered the God that really is.
Unlike the Qur'an, the Bible is not a book of prescriptions about what God wants, the Bible is open to interpretation which is its strength and its weakness.

Similarly, although there is much good in the idea of Jesus Christ as incarnation of God, Jesus Christ is himself interpreted according to various theories.

As I wrote elsewhere, it is a matter of faith whether one believes that God is real, or a human concept.It is beneficial to think of God as real, from time to time at least, because the traditional attribute, probably the most important one, is that God is love.As you write, and I agree

This is not conceptualization, it is on a far deeper level, at a level of being, not thinking.

You may not understand this, but this is the way to "know" God - not by thinking, but by being.

But here, we are doing philosophy, not ritual or theatre, suspending disbelief.The major portion of time is perhaps better spent believing as you do, because that belief in a Real God in conducive to good actions and good life in the normal run of things.

Rather similarly, scientists at work doing science probably benefit from the belief pro tem that they are discovering, not inventing, reality.

However, what is wrong is the lack of humility in the claim that one bloody-well knows that one is right in all conceivable circumstances, and I think you will admit that many God-believers are impossibly dogmatic--creationists and the like.

Therefore, I applaud all that you write in your post as religion, but not as epistemology.