Hello,
POINT 1
At my last hearing, there was in 2005, 5billion people believing in God, and 1 billion not (out of the 6 billion people worldwide at the time).
Now we might allow allowances for some people merely ticking a box because that is what they have always done. But even if we take 1 billion people out of the equation (which seems to be high to me) then we still have 4 billion, which at 2005, was two thirds of mankind believing!
Dawkins argument that they are deluded seems to be stretched beyond belief. Surely it makes more sense if the smaller amount, the non-believers, are deluded (which is what scripture says) After all, anyone who does not fit in with the norm, is said to be abnormal or paranoid or mad etc. Neither is it not sufficient to say that most western scientists don't believe when there are some that do (according to Dawkins on Washington rally, it was 10% if I recall correctly) However, this does not take into account scientists from the East, which he cleverly leaves out. There is nearly half of the scientific world believing when they are taken into account. So intelligence has nothing to do with it. After all, one white crow proves that not all crows are black.
POINT 2
Another argument, again by Dawkins, is that belief in God is the reason why many people fight wars, claiming no atheist would fight a war because they were atheist. But when one considers this, it is a false argument. The analogy is this: if someone threatens me, and I say if they do that again, I will tell my big brother, this is obviously a benefit to me. But what benefit would it be to say I will tell my little sister? The point is, we invoke things which are a strength to us, in whatever way. No one therefore, is going to stand at the top of a hill with their army, sword in hand, and shout, ''I am an atheist, charge''!
No one is going to get any strength by knowing that the person in charge is atheist. But to say that God is on your side is a plus. So it is little to do with belief, and more to do with bringing all arms to the table. Yet wars or battles are not fought over what god someone believes in, it is more to do with being threatened by that group, or them invading their land, or oppressing their people, or territory or power/wealth. Yes, religion might well give the title, but without religion, another title would be given. In England, we have gangs in London who call themselves by the postcode (zip) of that area. I think it unlikely that any of them believe, except in themselves. We have north south divides in England, rich poor, fat thin, tall short, believers non-believers, Muslims Christians etc. In short, it is human nature which does these things.
POINT 3
It seems to me, to say that the Origin of everything is a 'Creative Conscious Energy' (God) is certainly a fat better explanation that saying everything comes from ''nothing''. Surely if it was the other way round, and the believers said everything came from 'nothing', they would be laughed out of the building! Yet science allows them to say purly ridiculous things. Even Hawking and Kaku do not think that there was nothing before the big-bang. Of course the argument is that it is not anything that we know of in our universe, so in 'that' sense, ''nothing''. But Dawkins said recently, that some scientist think it might be ''literally'' nothing! This is madness. But does stop one thinking further back and opening the door wide to God.
Dawkins who has used the multiverse as a get out clause in arguments, it appears (though it is always hard to tell with him) does not believe in the multiverse. We must assume for now, that the reason is because of the lack of evidence. I can only say that that is one deluded mind to be able to think that everything comes from nothing. And it appears to be the fact that he is a scientist, that they don't take him and others, away in a white padded van.
POINT 4
Evidence means to 'bring one to a conclusion or judgement about something'. Clearly then, these mentioned points, and the people and their experiences and the written Text itself, which is testified to, and the ridiculous odds of life and the big-bang, is all evidence. Why? Because they can lead one to a conclusion about something! Could one imagine going into a court room with the kind of evidence that Dawkins would like to see? That would be either the presence of God or some 'divine strings attached' in some way. This is not going to happen. But the point that must be noted, because this is what he is looking for, (actual presence), is that that would not be evidence but PROOF. Now I know that it can also be called evidence as proof, but I make a point which I hope you see. If there is sufficient evidence that there is proof to make Dawkins say, There is a God, then you don't then need evidence and you don't need faith, and scripture is wrong which says 'God is Invisible'.
As a materialist, he is bound by his own thinking, and limits himself, and humanity in his own prejudices, for which I might add, he has no evidence. After all, if he is saying that Sentient Conscious Energy is wrong, what does he put in place of it? He must have some idea, and that appears at the moment to be ''Nothing''. But where is the evidence that something can come from nothing? Surely the evidence of cause and effect forbid that!
POINT 5
Also he is completely omitting the evidence of QM which (and I can't speak for all of them) says that the universe is more like: Mind, Thoughts, Idea, Information. They use words like: The mind of god, the field, the matrix. Retired Indian physicist Amit Goswami claims that everything is ''consciousness''. And there is a lot of evidence to back this up. As the Text shows that the nature of the Origin is fractal, and therefore follows a print, this should then reflect in this corporeal universe, which it does. It is exactly as you would expect to find it. Science says there is no such thing (literally) as matter. Everything is made up of atoms, and they are made up of energy, and remarkably, this energy 'appears' to be made up of ''information''. This is exactly what I would expect to see. It is a reflective print of God. Therefore one might say, that everything we see and know, is The Mind of God.
'That which is seen is made up of things not seen'.
If you stop to consider that, and look at everything you see, the sky, mountains, water, roads, cars, building, even YOU, it is all energy, brought into a state of existence by invisible atoms, invisible energy. That is the definition of the Origin of all things. The definition of the one we call God.
I ask myself what is so hard with that understanding? But I suppose those who wish to see something material (which they call evidence) will not accept it. But if that is the case, how do we know anything? We are, after all, a product of our own minds, and reality sits within it. Even the word 'evidence' comes from 'evident' meaning ''to know'' as in 'know in the mind'. Thus reality is mind-stuff. That is in agreement with science and scripture.
Reply With Quote
Quote by: Robert
That's a silly distinction. It still amounts to religious certainty = fighting.
Bookmarks