Where was 'god' before 'he' created the universe?

[Ned]

doc, I think that you and I are done on this topic.
Now I will wait to see if anyone else has anything interesting to contribute to this thread.
I thank you again for your open and honest answers, they were great help to me.

Maybe we talk again on other topics?

Let me know what threads or topics you are active on, but understand I don't have opinions on everything, just a few, and most of them are just a bit off the wall.

Right now I am active in the "Why I became a vegetarian... " thread in the Applied Ethics forum (predictably) and I also started posting poetry in the "Poetry Here" thread in the Aesthetics forum.

[Ned]

“if I walked outside at night and all the stars were organized to read: 'I am your God communicating with you – believe in Me' and every human being worldwide witnessed this in their native language, this would be suggestive (but far from conclusive as it’s a perception and could be delusion).”

A fascinating quote. Krauss is basically saying "If every person on the planet saw something that defied the laws of physics but was perfectly consistent with an omnipotent God... it still might not be rational to believe in God."

Krauss is referring, in an exaggerated fashion, to the phenomenon of mass delusion and mass hysteria, that has been documented in many cases. He is a perfectly rational scientist who wants to cover every possibility. Nothing irrational about that!

[ReliStuPhD]

Krauss is referring, in an exaggerated fashion, to the phenomenon of mass delusion and mass hysteria, that has been documented in many cases. He is a perfectly rational scientist who wants to cover every possibility. Nothing irrational about that!

Based on the debates I've watched him in, I think you're being overly charitable.

[thedoc]

Krauss and Tyson's main fault is to misrepresent christian teachings and then criticize those teachings. Tyson especially rails against the "God of the Gaps" and some Christians do not have that belief, as far as I know that is a creationist idea.

[Ned]

Krauss and Tyson's main fault is to misrepresent christian teachings and then criticize those teachings.

Christian teachings do not need to be misrepresented. They are as irrational as possible, exactly as they stand. You have already admitted that they are not logical and that says it all. Illogical does not need to be misrepresented, it is its own admission of failure.

[ReliStuPhD]

Illogical does not need to be misrepresented, it is its own admission of failure.

I'm inclined to agree. If Christian teaching is illogical, it would undermine itself. Of course, it's debatable whether it's illogical. In its strongest presentations (Aquinas, et al), I don't think that it is (though that doesn't necessarily mean all of the premises are true). "Folk" Christianity? Yes, I'd agree that often has illogical elements, but it's not certain to me that those aren't based on ignorance of orthodox teaching rather than a fault with the system, correctly understood.

[Ned]

That's a convenient attitude. Whatever I can't defend, I just say it's not part of it.

As long as the irrationality of the rotten foundation (the lack of definition and justification for believing in 'god') is in place, everything else can be tweaked and interpreted to suit our mood and the current dialogue.

However, the foundation of any religion (not just chiristian) is basically rotten and indefensible.

And it is not just a harmless delusion either.

Spreading religion is one of the greatest crimes one can commit against individuals and society. Not because the priests are evil (even though plenty of those among them) but because religion attacks the fundamental rules of rational thinking in people, especially the young and not quite mature minds, and thus can cause great harm.

If the priest is a nice and helpful person, wanting to help everyone, the harm is even greater because, being likeable, more people will listen to him and trust him.

The social insanity, all around us, such as crime, corruption, war, exploitation, etc., is possible only because the majority of citizens is unable to think clearly, logically, critically, and by analyzing the symptoms, see the causes and the solutions.

Religion is most harmful because the ‘faith’ they insist on is contrary to the basic rules of scientific and logical thought process. If the religion’s victim believes the childish, ridiculous, contradictory and illogical tenets of the church, this only proves that the victim gave up his right to independent and critical thinking and, consequently, will fall victim to the unscrupulous and corrupt politicians and business people, who are the main cause of the terrible problems facing their nation.

There is no alternative to logical and critical thought processes: either we know how to discover reality and truth, or we fall prey to our exploiters.

The main accomplishment of religions, not just now but throughout all history, has been exactly that.

[thedoc]

Krauss and Tyson's main fault is to misrepresent christian teachings and then criticize those teachings.

Christian teachings do not need to be misrepresented. They are as irrational as possible, exactly as they stand. You have already admitted that they are not logical and that says it all. Illogical does not need to be misrepresented, it is its own admission of failure.

It sounds like your book is going to be quite critical of religion, and Christianity in particular. I'm always wary of criticism by someone who is not in the faith, as there is much subtlety that is lost to the outsider. And that would include those who left the faith because they didn't understand what they were being taught, but took everything at face value.

[Ned]

It sounds like your book is going to be quite critical of religion, and Christianity in particular. I'm always wary of criticism by someone who is not in the faith, as there is much subtlety that is lost to the outsider. And that would include those who left the faith because they didn't understand what they were being taught, but took everything at face value.

The book is aimed at helping victims of religious faith to ask themselves some questions (such as I did on this thread), identify the reasons they have faith and question some of those reasons. If I help just one person to shed the mind-warping irrationality of religious teaching and start thinking clearly, logically, critically, then I will have made the world a better place.

[ReliStuPhD]

That's a convenient attitude. Whatever I can't defend, I just say it's not part of it.

And the cracks begin to show...

Come now, you're smarter than that. Would you defend someone who said evolutionary theories propose no such things as missing links? Or that the theory of gravity holds that objects will fall up on the summer solstice? You certainly wouldn't defend someone's assertion that vegetarians can eat meat during Lent. So let's at lest be consistent here. If I'm expected to defend presentations of Christianity that are unorthodox, you'll have to do the same with respect to your own beliefs. If that's the case, what I really want to know is why why you vegetarians think it's OK to eat deer meat, just not cow's meat. Because I met a vegetarian once who said that.

Come on now. Don't be obtuse. If you're never going to read Einstein, don't tell me you can disprove the General Theory of Relativity. BYou have to go to the source. And make no mistake, when it comes to Aquinas or Augustine, that's precisely the case Christianity. OK, them and the bible. (Have you even read the bible I wonder?) The vast majority of lay-Christians do not understand their own faith (just as the vast majority of lay-atheists do not understand science). They simply repeat back what they hear, and what they hear is often erroneous. In this respect, at least, I agree with you on the priest/pastor (though, to be fair, priests are trained rigorously in the faith. Pastors, not so much): if they're nice, the congregant is much more likely to accept their error as correct teaching.

As long as the irrationality of the rotten foundation (the lack of definition and justification for believing in 'god') is in place, everything else can be tweaked and interpreted to suit our mood and the current dialogue.

As I said, you would need to go to those who make the strongest argument concerning said "rotten foundations." Because, by definition, if you're not engaging those who laid the foundations, you're not engaging the foundations. It's easy to take what laypeople say and run with it. If you really want to show Christian foundations to be "rotten," you'll have to engage the great thinkers. Like I said, it's easy show the general Theory of Relativity not to hold if what I undermine is a college freshman's understanding of it. Pretty easy if I never bother to read Einstein.

Look, you're a scientist, right? Don't you hold to the importance of engaging the primary sources? Surely this isn't just something we in the Humanities hold to be important. If all your book amounts to is refuting Christian beliefs without ever reading the great thinkers (or the Bible), it's not even worth the paper it's printed on. (Maybe it's worth it as a Kindle book!) It wouldn't even pass as a Master's Thesis. now, if you were writing about how the average Christian doesn't know much about his faith, well, THAT'S a good book!

However, the foundation of any religion (not just chiristian) is basically rotten and indefensible.

Well, that's just question-begging, and logical fallacies are not rebuttals.



The rest of what you wrote? Well, that's just your delusion speaking. (Wow, you atheists may be on to something here! That was easy! )

The main accomplishment of religions, not just now but throughout all history, has been exactly that.

Someone has a pretty deficient view of history. If only refusing to defend erroneous conclusions wasn't "a convenient attitude."

[ReliStuPhD]

If I help just one person to shed the mind-warping irrationality of religious teaching and start thinking clearly, logically, critically, then I will have made the world a better place.

Unless you're wrong about "the mind-warping irrationality of religious teaching," in which case you've made the world a worse place. Yeah, you really do need to read Aquinas before writing this book.

Now, I need to get back to reading "Why General Relativity is Erroneous, or: How I Learned to Stop Reading Einstein and Dismiss the Bomb." This speed of light thing is so much illogical rubbish!

[Ned]

OK guys, looks like I have done here everything I can.

Unless someone else comes up with interesting comments, I will be gone from this thread.

We had fun with each other but now it is time to use time more productively.

No hard feelings though, wish you both the best!

[thedoc]

OK guys, looks like I have done here everything I can.
Unless someone else comes up with interesting comments, I will be gone from this thread.
We had fun with each other but now it is time to use time more productively.
No hard feelings though, wish you both the best!

Not a problem, but if you could, post the title of the book when it's finished, and I would suggest some free copies, so at least someone will look at it.

[Ned]

Rest assured, you will be extensively quoted in the book!

[ReliStuPhD]

OK guys, looks like I have done here everything I can.

Unless someone else comes up with interesting comments, I will be gone from this thread.

We had fun with each other but now it is time to use time more productively.

No hard feelings though, wish you both the best!

None at all. When the time comes that you've published your book, would you post back here with a link?

And, at the risk of spoiling any good feelings we all have towards each other, if you end up writing your book without ever reading the Bible or Aquinas (Summa Theologica), would you include that disclaimer in the Preface?

Seriously though, take care and the best of luck to you! You've been an enjoyable debate partner. And all my jabs at vegetarianism aside, I respect the choice (Have to, since my wife is one! ).