I'm not sure one should dismiss God anymore

[MOBIUS]

I do believe in a divine being.

I don't believe that any of us, from myself to Caligastia (to Mobius) understands all of God or spirituality. Thus, while I think that I have some things right (obviously), I understand that others can think differently then me.

Just like how there are many different ideas/models/theories/etc in economics, physics and so on. Theology is a much more difficult subject then those (in theory, in practice it is often just a bunch of BS).

I also understand that I have some things which I don't understand yet.

I obviously don't think that dinosaur bones exist to test our faith. Most likely they exist because millions of years ago dinosaurs walked the earth.

JM

I thought you were just saying that you believe it is true that the Earth is only 7,000 years old, or did I misread that...?

Checking...

[David Floyd]

Yeah, I thought that's what he said, too.

[MOBIUS]

It is certainly what he seems to imply: Only 7,000 years old, disguised to look 4.6 billion years old for reasons only known to our elusive divine entity...

[Jon Miller]

The Christian framework is similar but different from the Muslim and Judaic frameworks. There are still similarities, but Hinduism and Buddhism are more different still.

Rationally, I think the best is to look at what stories call to you the best. What problem and solution framework seems best. What rings true.

From a rational perspective, I would have strong doubts that the 'new religions' are where the solution is, if it was one would think they would have more impact. I would have even stronger doubts about the 'old religions'.

I have tried to be unbiased in the above. Obviously I think Christianity is best, although I recognize that due to some situations (Caused by evil Christians, often), some people might not fit within Christianity (although I encourage looking at unorganized Christianity as well).

JM

[Jon Miller]

Err, I was saying that it is reasonable to hold that the earth is only ~10k years old.

It is unreasonable to hold that the science we have now about evolution and geophysics and astrophysics and so on is completely and utterly wrong. Especially in all the ways I have seen creationists argue it.

Personally, I think the question is spiritually unimportant. And I happily spend my time helping the study of looking for particles that travelled millions (billions?) of years.

JM

[David Floyd]

Religion has very little to do with rationality, though, as it requires faith and is inherently unprovable. If you want to talk about rationality, then it seems to me that the rational solution is to admit that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence, and have no way of objectively knowing which religion, if any, is correct.

Your solution of looking at which "rings true" and "call(s) to you the best" seems to be a pretty poor way of making a decision which flies in the face of rationality.

In other words, rationality dictates that regardless of what ANY religion tells us about the origins of the universe and life, those stories are by necessity not equal to what we actually can observe and prove, and furthermore, we shouldn't try to "interpret" one to fit the other. Let's call a spade a spade - if by all indications the universe appears to be 14 billion years old, then it probably IS 14 billion years old.

[MOBIUS]

Huh? What am I picking and choosing? I never claimed to follow the Christian religion. My worldview is tremendously influenced by the Urantia Book, but I don't belong to any formal organizations.

And I actually think it's good for people to pick and choose. It takes more thought to consider each issue and decide for oneself rather than blindly accept a collection of positions - no?

Sorry, I forgot about the Urantia thing - just as worthy of belief as Christianity, in my 'book' - though its foundations do seem strongly Christian...

But what you're saying about choice etc, just exposes the central lie about organised religion in that nobody seems to have the faintest clue about who or what God is, or actually looks like: which essentially exposes the next major lie - every organised religion is completely made up by some charismatic historical figure (or crap Sci-Fi writer!) and is preying on the gullibility of its followers to believe in it...

None of you have a clue what to believe in, save your own arrogant notions about what 'God(s)' should be in whatever concept of divinity you've constructed for yourselves...

[Jon Miller]

JM, did humans live alongside with dinosaurs?

Huh? Why would I ever think that?

No.

I think that evolution is correct, I think that physics and geology is correct.

JM
(mostly)

[MOBIUS]

Err, I was saying that it is reasonable to hold that the earth is only ~10k years old.

It is unreasonable to hold that the science we have now about evolution and geophysics and astrophysics and so on is completely and utterly wrong. Especially in all the ways I have seen creationists argue it.

Both of those statements are a complete contradiction of each other! The latter one has been conclusively proved beyond any doubt, as you yourself admit. However admitting that also means that one of the central tenets of the Bible has also been conclusively proved to be wrong...

Personally, I think the question is spiritually unimportant. And I happily spend my time helping the study of looking for particles that travelled millions (billions?) of years.

JM

From a spiritual POV, I think questions like that are the absolute core of belief: There is NO WAY that I would willingly believe in something I know to be false - so why is it that you continue to insist in doing so yourself?

[David Floyd]

The "appearance of age" argument is simply a way to try to twist science and religion into agreeing with each other. It is a convoluted solution to a simple problem.

[MOBIUS]

What's that saying? Once you've got rid of all the complex arguments and improbable proposals, you're usually left with the simplest of explanations: God doesn't exist.

[DaShi]

I'm not racist, at least not in its commn use (a belief in the superiority of one's own people or hatered towards other races). I do accept the label racialist (one who believes in racial differences).

But you are racist by the definition of the term: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

[Jon Miller]

Both of those statements are a complete contradiction of each other! The latter one has been conclusively proved beyond any doubt, as you yourself admit. However admitting that also means that one of the central tenets of the Bible has also been conclusively proved to be wrong...

From a spiritual POV, I think questions like that are the absolute core of belief: There is NO WAY that I would willingly believe in something I know to be false - so why is it that you continue to insist in doing so yourself?

Not at all. It has nothing to do with Christianity or belief in God? And how am I believing something I know to be false? I don't think you understand Christianity at all if you feel that this is core to belief. This has never been core, from the age of Iraneus to now.

I really don't understand where you are coming from?

And I already showed that they are not at contradictory, as long as an powerful and reasonable God is assumed. It would be unreasonable for a powerful God to do things any differently (from a modern agnostics perspective), assuming God created the world ~10k years ago.

JM

[Jon Miller]

BTW, all of you who keep thinking that I am claiming that the earth is only 7000 years old should really reread everything I have wrote because you seem to have misunderstood it.

JM

[Caligastia]

Sorry, I forgot about the Urantia thing - just as worthy of belief as Christianity, in my 'book' - though its foundations do seem strongly Christian...

But what you're saying about choice etc, just exposes the central lie about organised religion in that nobody seems to have the faintest clue about who or what God is, or actually looks like: which essentially exposes the next major lie - every organised religion is completely made up by some charismatic historical figure (or crap Sci-Fi writer!) and is preying on the gullibility of its followers to believe in it...

None of you have a clue what to believe in, save your own arrogant notions about what 'God(s)' should be in whatever concept of divinity you've constructed for yourselves...

I wouldn't say that I don't have the faintest clue about who or what God is, but as a finite, mortal being there is only so much that we have the capacity to know. Without going into too much detail I believe that our best concept of God is that of a loving Father.

As for every religion being "completely made up" - I can certainly agree that much of organized religion has man's fingerprints on it, but there are also elements of truth in each.

With regard to science and rationality, here is a little of what the UB has to say:

P907:7, 81:6.10 Science teaches man to speak the new language of mathematics and trains his thoughts along lines of exacting precision. And science also stabilizes philosophy through the elimination of error, while it purifies religion by the destruction of superstition.

P2078:5, 195:7.2 Science should do for man materially what religion does for him spiritually: extend the horizon of life and enlarge his personality. True science can have no lasting quarrel with true religion. The "scientific method" is merely an intellectual yardstick wherewith to measure material adventures and physical achievements. But being material and wholly intellectual, it is utterly useless in the evaluation of spiritual realities and religious experiences.

P1088:9, 99:3.8 There is always the great danger that religion will become distorted and perverted into the pursuit of false goals, as when in times of war each contending nation prostitutes its religion into military propaganda. Loveless zeal is always harmful to religion, while persecution diverts the activities of religion into the achievement of some sociologic or theologic drive.

P1089:1, 99:3.9 Religion can be kept free from unholy secular alliances only by:
1.A critically corrective philosophy.
2.Freedom from all social, economic, and political alliances.
3.Creative, comforting, and love-expanding fellowships.
4.Progressive enhancement of spiritual insight and the appreciation of cosmic values.
5.Prevention of fanaticism by the compensations of the scientific mental attitude.