Ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere?

[Ruprect]

he finished creating on day 6, rested on day 7
then came the fall of man and the resulting disasters, suffering and pain
man is to blame

You are chico and I claim my 5 hail marys.

[jimjamuk]

Oh dear

So are you saying that "God" created everything then dropped man on this little planet and f00ked off and left everyone to it - blaming man on everything that has gone wrong since.

That sounds like the creation of the blame culture to me - I created man but I've got nothing to do with the actions of what he does.....

[sasguru]

I don't think that's true at all. You just have to look at how often the phrase "tooth fairy" appears in any religious discussion to know that many follow Dawkins. .

I don't think that's intellectually honest of you.
The fact that you use someone's valid argument doesn't mean that you "follow" them.
The argument being that by Occam's Razor you take the simplest possible theory and don't posit anything extraneous.
I think that Dawkins just gives a voice to an alternative, rational point of view that provides a useful counterbalance to all the fundamenatlism around.

[ThomasSoerensen]

he finished creating on day 6, rested on day 7
then came the fall of man and the resulting disasters, suffering and pain
man is to blame

lost for words, stunned

[sasguru]

So are you saying that "God" created everything then dropped man on this little planet and f00ked off and left everyone to it - blaming man on everything that has gone wrong since.

That sounds like the creation of the blame culture to me - I created man but I've got nothing to do with the actions of what he does.....

I don't think you mean to quote me

[NotAllThere]

Explaining the existence of why God came to be there is much harder than explaining why the world came to be there.

I don't buy that one. It's as difficult as explaining what was before the Big Bang. And the argument is that same (going back to Augustine - the "who made God" question has been discussed for quite a few centuries ).

Simply: the Big Bang/God created time. Therefore it makes no sense to talk of "events" before time began. The fact that the question can be posed is a peculiarity of language - but the questions have no meaning. Similar to "If God can do anything, can he make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it". cf Gödel.

[The Lone Gunman]

God is uncreated, has always been, has not come from anywhere is without beginning or end

If you believe in any form of "matter" why can the universe not be uncreated, without beginning or end?

Is your god all powerful? Can he make an object so big he can not lift it?

[jimjamuk]

yeah - wrong button

probably be struck down now...

better get my invoice in quick just in case

[sasguru]

I don't buy that one. It's as difficult as explaining what was before the Big Bang. And the argument is that same (going back to Augustine - the "who made God" question has been discussed for quite a few centuries ).

Simply: the Big Bang/God created time. Therefore it makes no sense to talk of "events" before time began. The fact that the question can be posed is a peculiarity of language - but the questions have no meaning. Similar to "If God can do anything, can he make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it". cf Gödel.

Ok fair enough I get that. The fact that you say "Big Bang/God" is revealing I think - I can relate to that. It suggests what what you call "God" is what we would call the regularity/order of the universe as it exists now. So maths is God's language.
Apologies if that is simplistic/vague - I'm feeling my way here.
But I don't buy organised religion.

[NotAllThere]

I don't think that's intellectually honest of you.
The fact that you use someone's valid argument doesn't mean that you "follow" them..

True. But there are many who use the arguments without really understanding them, because it panders to prejudices they already hold. I've encountered quite a few tiresome individuals who are Dawkins "true believers".

The argument being that by Occam's Razor you take the simplest possible theory and don't posit anything extraneous.
I think that Dawkins just gives a voice to an alternative, rational point of view that provides a useful counterbalance to all the fundamenatlism around.

But Dawkins doesn't just attack fundamentalism. He attacks all forms of religion, believing them to be ...er... fundamentally evil. Despite the fact that scientific studies have shown that on balance, religion does more good than evil in society (I'll get the reference for that this evening). And that atheistic societies have not exactly been havens of peace and happiness. ( Admittedly that may be to do with communism rather than atheism per se ).

Occams razor is an interesting point. It's a way of choosing between alternatives. But it doesn't mean that the simplest is in fact true. Newtons theory of gravitation is much simpler than Einsteins. ( I've also thought that "God made it so" is a very simple theory, even though it's a bad one!)

( I hate fundamentalism - I keep wanting to spell it fundementalism ).