[Geezer]

There should probably be another category called "scientist".

A scientist might say it's impossible to prove that no gods exist, but so far, no evidence has been presented that any do.

He might even go further and suggest that, even if evidence for one god is presented, it does not exclude the possibility that there are other gods.

[Gordian Knot]

Geezer, I do not believe such a category would be relevant. Various scientists can be found who believe in all three of the major groups. There are theist scientists, atheist scientists, and agnostic scientists.

[CliffordK]

The first question should be:

What is God?
or What is A God?

The answer should be that God is the being that did the stuff that the Bible says he did.

Did God create the Earth and all the animals on Earth in 7 days?  NO!
Did God create Eve from Adam's rib? NO!
Did God create Man in his image? NO!  On the contrary, one would probably conclude that Man created God in his own image.

So...  That brings one back to the question:
What is God?

Clearly there was not an entity that was what we should expect God to have been.  Perhaps that should be proof enough that God doesn't exist.  One could envision the possibility of super-intelligent aliens visiting Earth in the past.  But, the argument on whether or not that was truly God would be very complex.  And, one certainly has to consider that both humans and animals have evolved over time as well as experiencing catastrophes, independent of God, or our alien brethren.

[syhprum]

I share Geezers love of church music especially gospel but certainly do not believe in supernatural beings or any other religious beliefs.
ClffordK
Actualy he only spent 6 days on the job.

[Geezer]

I share Geezers love of church music

It's the Christmas Cantata this weekend. You could nip over and observe the choir, including Geezer, belting out a few numbers.

Come to think of it, Bing Crosby had a place just up the road from here. Must be something to do with the air!

[Titanscape (OP)]

God is to Christians three persons who self exist, have infinite knowledge and strength. And some do not interpret the six days of creation as being literally earth rotations. There are Christian evolutionists.

God also is not material and in finite space. God is more broadly present. Above time...

Can God make a rock bigger than for Himself to lift it? I'd say he could, but that would be foolish. It is like He made an large egg and has to lift it slowly. But it will be lifted.

Ancient humans would all have spoken the same language and believed in the same god. Genesis' Elohim and India's Purusha both lost one third of their angels. They must have the same root. Neither were known to be invented.

When did primitive men devise philosophy and construct god? Or is it innate? Are we to think man before controlled fire had no faith?

[Nizzle]

The first question should be:

What is God?
or What is A God?

God did not create Mankind.
Mankind created God.

God is the overarching concept to group all things we don't understand yet
As Science is growing, God is shrinking.

[CliffordK]

ClffordK
Actualy he only spent 6 days on the job.

Oh, I forgot
Did he manage to make a PUB or SPA in those first 6 days too?

There is always the question whether God-Days are like Dog-Years.

[Don_1]

God is to Christians three persons .......

It took Christians quite a long time to arrive at the 'Holy Trinity' concept. About 300 years.

It was conceived to circumvent a major problem that Jesus (if such a person ever existed) had posed. By all definitions, of the time, the Son of God would be divine, a God. This conflicted with the One God theory, which was very basis of Judaism and Christianity.

It was just another 'divine' problem that theologians had to invent an explanation for, to maintain some credibility to the whole 'God' theory. Needless to say, Jews totally reject the concept of both Jesus and the Holy Trinity.

As Nizzle has said, ‘God’, and therefore religion, was invented by man to answer questions he could not answer at the time, but gods and religion presented their own problems, for which man had to invent answers.

The 'One God' of the Jews, Christians and Muslims was not the first god to be invented, nor the last.

[grizelda]

Using mythologies to explain the nature of consciousness to mankind - the mythologies are incorrectly interpreted by religions as being about, well, religion. The trinity modification shows the progression of consciousness throughout our life. The womb as the initial archetype (god), the breast as the first cliche (Jesus), and our bonded mate as the last kick at the can, sort of a refresher course to last us until we are finished (holy ghost).

[Soul Surfer]

Hi mates I don't often come over here for a chat because I am too busy with other things like the virtual U3A but I've just picked up on this one.  You don't have a category for me!  I am an out and out atheist.  I do not believe in any sort of God or afterlife or that there is anything outside of the basic and observable laws of physics chemistry etc i.e. there is no such things a paranormal events everything that happens without exception is normal. 

However, I do believe it is important to have a religion.  Your religion defines your basic ethical system that defines how you limit your own actions in relation to others and the planet where we live.  I also believe that it is vital that one interacts with other people in relation to this this and regularly spend some time in contemplation of one's activities in relation to this ethical system.  The performance of communal rituals is also a helpful community strengthener and discipline of thought.  As a result of this I am a practicing member of the Church of England and go to church most Sundays usually at 8am out of convenience.  The reason I chose C of E was firstly because it is the main local brand and secondly because they confirmed me as a member after I had explained my position clearly!

When it comes to forms of words and creeds etc it is important to remember that almost all religious writings make a great use of metaphorical statements and once you understand the underlying aims of the metaphor the wording is quite acceptable.

[Titanscape (OP)]

I like Soul Surfer's reply, about valuable things in the Church of England.

I say about theology. It is a man made construct an "ology" made from direct line tradition and scriptures. So ideas from the fringes of the early church were rejected and the successors of the apostles who were not Jewish, explained the faith with logic, in face of disputes. So they only revealed that Christians always believed in three persons in God. For example, not in one place, there is a word about the Spirit having feelings, elsewhere, a will, and again somewhere else, a mind. Logically, he is a person.

And the early church tested the Apostle's writing by the Old Testament and the Spirit. Names like Elohim, rendered "God" in English is plural, and it is used in Genesis together with, "Let us make man" arguably, not referring to angels. And it is written in the OT, "Listen Israel, the Lord your God the Lord is united."

The Jews are people descended from those who did not hear much about Jesus first hand, or from the many who did not believe in Jesus. Many of us would be descended from the thousands of Hebrews who became believers and went to Europe.

Although logic is western thought, the Jews also have theology.

[Madidus_Scientia]

However, I do believe it is important to have a religion.  Your religion defines your basic ethical system that defines how you limit your own actions in relation to others and the planet where we live.

Then you are surrendering your own thoughts about how we should treat each other to the teachings of your religion. You say it defines your ethical system, why is this important? Is it more important to have a defined ethical system than a good ethical system? You say you don't believe in god, and so must know that religion is man made. Why would you think that bronze age men knew best how run a society?

[daveman]

CliffordK makes a good point, "What would A God be?"

Everyone's evaluation of what they believe is based on their interpretation of this.

We all know, that the rules of science, are NOT nature's rules, but our own, written versions of what we observe. And being of complex construct, we have found over time, that "the laws" have to be modified from time to time, and NO, the world is NOT flat.

It's been very much the same with religion.

We see even here, that our interpretations can be pretty flat. God manifests in concepts with physical characteristics, angels, devils, heaven and hell (as simple examples), because these are the best we can do with the the limited conceptual tools we have.

Are we atheists because we believe God is a purely emotional need (that wouldn't do), or because extremely limited definitions fall short (neither would this)?

Why do we believe or not in God? Such would have to be accompanied by WHAT it is that we do or do not believe in.

The simple definition "God as a superior being" is a flat one. Surely not good enough to stand as a basis for belief.

[Titanscape (OP)]

However, I do believe it is important to have a religion.  Your religion defines your basic ethical system that defines how you limit your own actions in relation to others and the planet where we live.

Then you are surrendering your own thoughts about how we should treat each other to the teachings of your religion. You say it defines your ethical system, why is this important? Is it more important to have a defined ethical system than a good ethical system? You say you don't believe in god, and so must know that religion is man made. Why would you think that bronze age men knew best how run a society?

Bronze age men, in a sense were clean, less sophisticated machinations and guile, even a kind of innocence. The culture of evil thought was then in idolatry.

Modern science has root in ancient natural philosophy, logic also. So why not justice and ethics. They developed sometimes in the same schools and universities. It's root is bronze age, a good thing, well tested! But our ancestors either knew of or developed it, perhaps by trial and error.

Justice and ethics, developed by England for England. Since this is an English forum.

We sit on the shoulders of giants and walk a well worn path.

[imatfaal]

/snipped

Bronze age men, in a sense were clean, less sophisticated machinations and guile, even a kind of innocence. The culture of evil thought was then in idolatry.

I don't think there is much evidence for that view.  Some of the stories (and they are not much more than that) which we have received from bronze age civilisations show them to be very similar to us in guile, intrigue and perfidiousness. 

Modern science has root in ancient natural philosophy, logic also. So why not justice and ethics. They developed sometimes in the same schools and universities. It's root is bronze age, a good thing, well tested! But our ancestors either knew of or developed it, perhaps by trial and error.

  the scientific method is very in opposition to the ancient method of acquisition of knowledge - it it based upon repeatable observations not a priori innate knowledge

Justice and ethics, developed by England for England. Since this is an English forum.

  Whilst our justice might have more of a claim to be English our ethics spring from various roots all around Europe both ancient and modern

We sit on the shoulders of giants and walk a well worn path.

  I presume we don´t both sit and walk at the same time.

[Geezer]

Justice and ethics, developed by England for England. Since this is an English forum.

 

Whilst our justice might have more of a claim to be English our ethics spring from various roots all around Europe both ancient and modern

Indeed. In Scotland it happens to be Roman, and the Romans were polytheists.

[Titanscape (OP)]

Scientists don't always use science to determine a resolve in matters of faith. Like Catholic Doctors. They sometimes join a guild or association. And there are some who replied in faith to Dawkins.

The Bible is a good basis to look for a definition of god. It mentions God and gods, and the god of this world.

Collins Cobuild dictionary says,God, the name given to the spirit or being who is worshipped as the creator and ruler of the world, especially by Jews, Christians and Muslims. Webster's mentions the universe and omniscience and supernatural powers.

I would describe God as the first existence, making order out of not only disorder but of nothing except himself. Creating space, time and matter. Self existent. A grand planner, ordering justice and love. A relational being. Omnipresent, mighty.

[Don_1]

Collins Cobuild dictionary says,God, the name given to the spirit or being who is worshipped as the creator and ruler of the world,

Wow! That pretty much settles it then.

I am converted...... Praise be to Collins God.



Apologies to the religious, I would not normally poke fun at your beliefs (everyone is entitled to their beliefs), but this apparent assertion by Titanscape that Collins/Websters dictionary is evidence of the existence of God, is astonishing.

[CliffordK]

If there was a creator of the universe.
And, the 9 × 10²¹ stars.

Do you think the "creator" would care whether people go to church every Sunday to worship him?  Would he even be bothered by the Earthlings any more than a kid might be bothered by the ants in an ant farm?  Does one even care if the ants in one's ant farm worships the owner?