There could not be a God!

RATIONALISM argues that there could not possibly be a God when there is such disease in the world, coupled with the evils of the Nazi gas chambers, ethnic cleansing, the sexual abuse of children and everyday meanness of spirit.
BUT explore that argument a little deeper and you will discover that the great religious texts all speak of humankind having free will and there must be both good and evil in a world where we are always given the choice between either.
Science, with its laws that change every 50 years or so, cannot explain why the universe seems so ordered and complex.
Yet even science generally admits that random creation of this world is as likely as shooting an arrow at one end of the universe and hoping to hit a bullseye at the other end.

Advertisements

43 thoughts on “There could not be a God!

  1. Science cannot explain anything beyond a singularity — the opening into the universe — because there is only probability there. According to the sciences, I could wake up on Jupiter tomorrow morning — that isn’t a stretch of the truth — its a fact. So, what rational single mind can do better? There isn’t one in the universe. Yet, everyplace we look, we can easily se that if love and abundance were applied, there would be continually les suffering in the world. If this is the world of men, then this isn’t the world that God intended as the loving garden that we read about in Genesis. I think it easier on myself to practice some loving Christian thinking rather than try to outthink science and God. I’m not known to tell people that God is this or that — but I do believe that God loves us and God is Love even though we are fallen from His Truth.
    ~ Eric.

    Like

  2. “… all speak of humankind having free will and there must be both good and evil in a world where we are always given the choice between either.”

    Ah so it’s only natural disasters of “acts of God” which the rational should consider. Done.

    “Science, with its laws that change every 50 years or so”

    Such as Newton’s laws of motion ? The conservation laws ? Or the laws of thermodynamics? Can you tell me how those have changed ?

    “Yet even science generally admits that random creation of this world is as likely as shooting an arrow at one end of the universe and hoping to hit a bullseye at the other end.”

    It does ? Can you cite an authority for that? And shooting an arrow and hitting a bullseye is an act of skill is it not?

    I think I’m starting to understand why you’re such a strident opponent of rationalism.

    Like

    • Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Newton’s law of motion useless on the atomic / subatomic level? Yet until Einstein’s theory of relativity came along, everyone tried to explain atomic particles using newtonian physics.
      Shooting an arrow and hitting a bulls eye is an act of skill involving specific purpose. But Richard Dawkins and other rationalists continue to say that natural selection has no specific purpose, no specific aim, etc (The Blind Watchmaker). In the case of the bow it assumes that no matter where one shoots the bow, it will eventually reach the target by evolving a program to guide itself in the right direction.

      Like

      • It’s quantum mechanics that explains atomic / sub-atomic particles not relativity, although Einstein did contribute to the early work in the field. Newton’s laws still hold (and have for centuries) within their frame of reference. Of course natural selection has a purpose – the survival of the species.

        Your analogy of the bow is also inaccurate, the better analogy would be that if a high number of arrows were fired and each shot had the chance to improve a little on the previous one (or poor shots were winnowed out) then sooner or later the target would be hit.

        Like

      • My analogy of the bow is correct Bubba. Evolution and natural selection dictates that the first arrow would first need to evolve the mechanism to multiply, mechanism to create a bowman, mechanism to teach the bowman how to hit the target, etc. And by the way the analogy of the bow was not mine. But it does illustrate the fact that the more one studies science the harder it is to support the theory of evolution and unintelligent design. Even Dawkins has considered that maybe intelligent design is the outcome instead of evolution. And that after he claimed that he lost all vestiges of religion. The only thing that is holding dawkins and many other scientists from rejecting evolution is the fact that the alternative demands accountability in in respects to ethics, particularly how one conduts science (for example is is morally right for the Chinese to use Falong Gong prisonners as a source of organ harvesting). Or scientific experiments on prisoners?
        I notice that with newtonianphysics you use terms of reference. Not so long ago this was not an issue with subatomic particles. Everyone was using newtonian physics to explain subatomic particles. Until science came along with quantum mechanics and thus what was science yesterday became obsolete today (ie newtonian physics in exchange for quantum mechanics).

        Like

      • Your analogy was “matter where one shoots the bow, it will eventually reach the target by evolving a program to guide itself in the right direction.”

        This is not an accurate description of the evolutionary process. Simple as that.

        “Even Dawkins has considered that maybe intelligent design is the outcome instead of evolution. ”

        Can you cite a source ?

        “Not so long ago this was not an issue with subatomic particles”

        Define not so long ago? The basics of quantum mechanics have been around for at least a century or so. Some of the earliest observations of light indicated that it possessed the properties of both a wave and a particle.

        The very fact that we are talking about subatomic particles might be indicative of the limits of early scientific endeavour in the field.

        Evolutionary theory is scientific in nature, intelligent design is not. I can think of simple reasons as to why a scientist would prefer the former to the latter.

        Like

  3. A while back I remember thinking, I wish there were more Christian based movies. Well, ask and ye shall receive. There seems to be a bit of a resurgence going on as it seems moral movies are quite profitable.

    Here is one that looks interesting:

    “God is Not Dead”

    Like

    • Without a suitable definition for “dead” how would HE/SHE know.
      But that’s religion all over: anybody can be an expert without ever needing any qualifications, evidence, skill
      ……or even brains.

      Like

      • ???? “Aye-yay-yay. You tya mi, amigo.”

        …is that some kind of catholic bone-pointing thing, Kathleen?

        Like

      • There is no assuming, We have free will to chose how we react to given situation. Interestingly the intellect assumes authority over what is right and what’s not. I ask you what evidence you base your observations? I mean personal, the one you have experienced. Or are you just repeating what others said or have written down? My “assertions” were experienced in this particular body, this particular life. I am not expecting anyone to believe me. I am just posting a challenge to the assumptions of intellect. I still don’t know where your “truth” comes from.
        Life is to experience, to be something.
        But then again, I am just an old man, what would I know?
        Happy asserting guys.

        Like

      • “We have free will to chose how we react to given situation.”

        Any situation ?
        Of course we have. Who is going to tell you how to react to it? It is always you who must decide. Even if you choose not to decide you have made a choice. If someone puts gun to your head, to make a decision, and you agree with the gun wielding guy, you made a personal decision, nobody else did.
        Until we realize we are responsible for our actions, we can’t change the events happening in our lives. Thoughts create, and words are spells. Words have even greater creative power.
        Most of our thoughts are based on fear, negativity. Just read this blog, criticism, skepticism, sometimes outright rudeness. This is the base by which I say we create our own misery. We are directly responsible for everything that happens to us. Our fear draws it on us. Look at the state of the world today, there is war going on in so many places, the Americans involved in just about every one of them. Directly or otherwise. The religions of peace, which one are they? Unless I approve a certain doctrine, I am on the other side. Intolerance, distrust, hatred are the most attributes of religions.
        And intellectuals of this world, how are they contributing to betterment of man kind? By squabbling about assertions. Science has changed its coat many times. We believed not so terribly long ago that the earth is flat and if we go far enough we can fell off.
        We are living and evolving consciousness. That is who we are, the consciousness. We inhabit our physical body and we have a mind. And the mind is not located in our brain. The mind is as everlasting as the consciousness we are. Or should I call it God? I know, I am asserting again here. But what if guys I am asserting something we need to consider? Just what if.

        Like

      • So if somebody puts a gun to me head I can choose how to react. Well I guess in that situation I’d choose to react like a young Jackie Chan.

        Sure I don’t have the reflexes or the training, but if it’s just a matter of choice then that’s what I’d choose.

        Or alternative I guess choosing to be bullet proof would be handy too, or maybe choosing to teleport like one of those x-men might work. Wouldn’t that be a great reaction just “poof” and you’re on the other side of the room thumbing your nose at the gunman.

        All just a matter of choice huh ?

        Like

      • Quote…”So if somebody puts a gun to me head I can choose how to react. Well I guess in that situation I’d choose to react like a young Jackie Chan.

        Sure I don’t have the reflexes or the training, but if it’s just a matter of choice then that’s what I’d choose.

        Or alternative I guess choosing to be bullet proof would be handy too, or maybe choosing to teleport like one of those x-men might work. Wouldn’t that be a great reaction just “poof” and you’re on the other side of the room thumbing your nose at the gunman.

        All just a matter of choice huh ?…End of quote.

        You see, you made a choice, well done.

        Like

      • Hey Paul,

        So if a choice is made in a forest and nobody sees or hears that choice is it really made ?

        Like

      • “And intellectuals of this world, how are they contributing to betterment of man kind”

        Well they did come up with these nice computers and internets that allow us to chat with each other like this. That’s pretty useful.

        Not to mention the medical technology which has save my life a couple o times by now, I think that’s fairly neat too.

        The ability to, safely and easily, light my home at night so I can read a book that’s also cool.

        The microwave how handy is that.

        Nespresso coffee machine, gotta admire the genius behind that one.

        The list could go on a heck of a long while……

        Like

  4. I’ve yet to hear ‘Rationalism’, however that’s defined, “argue” anything at all.
    …..Least of all can ‘rationalism’ (as the application of reason) legitimately comment on the Irrational ( unreasonable).

    A ‘non-reasonable’ concept like ‘god’ cannot be contemplated reasonably.

    …..And OF COURSE the “great religious texts all speak of humankind having free will and there must be both good and evil in a world where we are always given the choice between either.”

    ….otherwise their Divine Invention would necessarily have to cop the rap for the all the misery and suffering in the world.

    This whole proposition, upon which the most absurd and devious of industries had been built, amounts to no more than the fine-print disclaimer on a cheap chinese product:- ‘Our ploduct is perfectly made: if it breaks or ceases to work it’s all your fault, and therefore any implied warranty is invalidated.’

    But in both cases the price of production is very cheap. 😉

    Like

  5. I wasn’t going to waste my time in stating the obvious. But…..
    Ps..fair dinkum!! “Science, with its laws that change every 50 years or so,” is a nonsense.

    Fifty years ago ‘science told me’ that if I hit a tree at 100 mph I’d smash the car and probably hurt myself. The Truth of that statement was simply demonstrated. Several times.

    ‘Science STILL confirms the 28+ ‘laws’ involved in that circumstance.
    ….and will in another fifty years.
    ….and in fifty years after that

    This is just plain wrong:- “…cannot explain why the universe seems so ordered and complex.”
    The universe (to the degree that we know it) is “ordered” precisely BECAUSE the ‘laws’ remain in force: since that’s the only way they CAN work ~ and are “complex” simply because that’s how we choose to perceive/describe them. (eg they wouldn’t be ‘complex to some uber-whizkid like, say ‘god’, would they?)

    A bush Blackfella would take exactly the same position the first time he got hold of a tv/video-recorder and (separate!!) remote control units for them.

    …or even a box of matches!

    Like

  6. The argument that there is no god because he wouldn’t let the misery happen in this world is assuming that we have no free will to create what ever experience we like. Consciously or otherwise. It would assume that we are the victims of something, of some conditions beyond our control. It would assume we carry no responsibility for the state of being and the state of planet. It appears that the intellectual view on these things does not like to take responsibility for one’s actions, thoughts and uttered words. It also insinuate that god would be some outside entity which has no presence in our worldly reality. Such view is far away from what is.

    Like

    • “It would assume that we are the victims of something, of some conditions beyond our control.”

      Such as a tsunami, earthquake etc. How would one take “personal responsibility” for such an event ?

      Like

      • Our collective consciousness is responsible for that. Our interference with nature, our global thoughts, our global feelings. All of these affect the natural responses. Our polluting and exploiting the natural world all contribute to that. We have no excuse.

        Like

      • “Our collective consciousness is responsible for that”

        Is there any way to show that empirically ?

        Like

      • There is no way to show empirical evidence of consciousness. That is the very reason people were never able to prove god. Consciousness must be experienced on personal level. Or god if you like.
        I am not trying to prove you wrong in your believes, or convert you to religion. I personally don’t belong to any religion. I view the physical world with perhaps different eyes than most since my Near Death Experience at which I realized there is more to us. On the other hand I am willing to point to you the more physical acts of unkindness humans have done to the planet to justify major changes in climate and caused indirectly natural disasters. I am sure a man of your intelligence would find enough of this yourself.
        I say from my experience after been pronounced death for prolonged period of time, we are beings of consciousness magnitude, that would defy any imagination of the intellect. What we use while in physical body is just a minute part of what we are. The prove of this, empirical or otherwise will only be given at the point of death of the physical body, or at full awakening to who we each are. There were many who did, but the humanity at large discredited what they were showing us. I am not just talking about so called religious figures, but many others who lived silently among us, contributing to human knowledge. There are people with us right now, who are awake spiritually.
        To comment on the word God; this word and “person” behind the word is so corrupted be religions of the world, that we need to look for other word to express the divine we all originate from. God is not an old cranky man, who can’t wait to punish us for been “wrong”, neither is he/she some abstract figure sitting on cloud nine. The consciousness we call by the name God is all present beingness encompassing not just humans, but all matter. This is the intelligence behind all evolution and progressing manifestation of intelligence in the physical Universe.

        Like

      • And how does a collective consciousness give rise to an issue of personal responsibility? That seems something of an oxymoron.

        Like

      • Ahhh. Assertions, assertions!:- “There is no way to show empirical evidence of consciousness.”

        My guess would be that you’ve never hit anyone in the head with a cricket bat, eh Paul? 😆

        …alternatively, you could try an EEG on a week-old corpse.

        Like

      • Hi Paul,

        “There is no way to show empirical evidence of consciousness”

        I had my wisdom teeth out not too long back, general anesthetic – before they put my under they stuck a little gizmo to my head to measure my consciousness during the procedure.

        But I was wondering more along the lines of how you could show that collective consciousness was affecting nature ?

        “physical acts of unkindness humans have done to the planet to justify major changes in climate and caused indirectly natural disasters”

        Some natural disasters sure, it’s easy enough to envisage a link between climate change and fire, floods, storms, cyclones, droughts etc.

        But earthquake and tsunami ? Can climate change affect teutonic plates ?

        Even then it’s the richer nations that are the drivers of climate change and the poorer nations that are often the sufferers. Doesn’t quite seem fair does it ?

        Like

      • Paul, I appreciate what you’re saying. But just imagine if you were talking to someone who had never seen water, perhaps an alien who could live on dry food. It would be I think be impossible to get him to realise what it is to go swimming.

        I’m probably not making sense. 😆

        I believe that whoever or whatever each of us calls God is guiding our beliefs, and any of us (self included) can experience, suddenly or slowly, an awakening.

        Like

      • I think we should leave Adam in peace. The understanding of Adam is heavily coloured by doctrines of the church and not what is actually written. Adam is the living soul and lets leave it by that. Jesus was the last Adam.
        We create our experience by thought, words and our actions. Make no mistake, our thoughts are powerful creators, especially if unconscious and supported by emotions. Mostly unconscious also. How many of you can honestly say they aware of all your thoughts and have the mind under control? There is the prime creator of your experience. That which we call god is calling into your experience what ever you most think of, speak of and manifest. If you want something, than you will get want. Which is the opposite of your desire. You actually like to get something, but because of choice of words, the want will be given to you because you are wanting.
        Maybe you think I am mad, but I say the spirit world is like the genie, delivering exactly what you say or think. It is our responsibility to tame our mind into conscious thinking and the tongue into restrained speech. Less words is always better.
        If you talk to a good medical doctor, he or she will agree with me that we are making ourselves sick. And it is our choices we make that are responsible for it. We choose to work in environment we dislike, but our excuse is we need that income. I do agree we need money to support our physical existence, but if I hate a job, I will suffer consequences. I would be better of to find another job. I understand that my view are perhaps quite strange to some of you and i do understand. I am not expecting that you blindly believe what I say. I am hoping that it makes you ask your inside voice, the part of you that knows to get the answers my words provoke. Once again it is the spirit that gives life. Not my words appearing on your monitor.
        I have no desire to convert any of you to anything. It is your personal and very individual journey you must travel. Journey to self discovery. One of the most difficult journeys we undertake. If I can help god bless you.

        Like

      • Wordsworth on birth.

        ‘ Not in entire forgetfulness,
        And not in utter nakedness,
        But trailing clouds of glory do we come 65
        From God, who is our home:’

        Like

    • ” is assuming that we have no free will to create what ever experience we like.”
      ……as opposed to assuming we DO have ‘free-will’, d’you mean?

      But, essentially, since we CERTAINLY have no ‘free will’ about life’s most fundamental events ~ being born and dying ~ the rest of the proposition amounts to trivia.

      ….and that assertion harks all the way back to Adam.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s