Pointless

Here this deep man......

All we can reasonably do to 'comprehend' the universe is to look at the evidence we have, and make a decision as to what is the most probable explanation is on the basis of that evidence.

I don't find evidence of the existence of a deity convincing (or even existent in most cases) - most crucially, the predictive power of religion is almost zero. In the same way as the predictive power of astrology is almost zero - it's bound to be correct (purely by chance) occasionally.

What you seem to be describing is that God sort of implies his existence by resonating through people...I think that if people believe in god it is more due to sociocultural conditioning and indoctrination, and the reason I think this is the geographical clustering of religious beliefs.

It's human nature to assume an authority figure (again, a product of Darwinian upbringing), and religion provides an 'easy' way to explain phenomena (especially if you decapitate anyone who questions it).

If isolated groups of people believed in identical deities and identical stories, I might be forced to look at it again BUT THEY DON'T.

Also, if God resonates with wisdom in everyone, why are there so many stupid people in the world?

Don't confuse obscurantist theological babblings with deep They invariably exist to confuse, and I've always thought that if you don't understand what someone's saying, they probably don't understand it themselves.

A solid argument should be utterly clear and not need centuries of interpretation.

Mine is simple: there is no good evidence for the existence of a god, or any other superstitious nonsense.

Joe needs phrases like

to hide the fact that it doesn't actually mean anything useful at all, but still make it sound worthwhile

The catholics are great at this:

.

Utterly, totally pointless and meaningless.

you two must have totally baffled yaselves if thats the case then

Then how do you explain the laws that govern our universe.... why do actions force reactions?

As Einstein so poetically phrased "behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable"...

This demostrates your mindstate perfectly andy, one will often find the most intricate wisdom in those with poorest education....

Out of the infinite wisdom that resides within this universe; man knows but a microcosm - we haven't even scratched the surface. Yet you speak with such authority on nothing more than brief glimpses of an occassional thread-end of the awe-inspiring tapestry that is the universe.

could you imagine doing ket and buckets with me these days

You're so clever andy.....

got some fly agarics at home mate, that would be interestin lol

I have carefully read your quote and concluded that it is meaningless. It's a string of sentences which in isolation (mostly) appear reasonable, yet have no useful function.

You're saying 'I believe in something, I don't know why except I sort of feel I should. Moreover, even if there was a reason I believed in it, I wouldn't be able to understand it, and nor would anyone else, it's 'incomprehensible. Therefore, noone can say I'm wrong, because they couldn't possible understand what I believe in, because it's incomprehensible.'

Arrogant, moi?

I'm surprised to find how big a chasm there is between your beliefs and the Torah Joe....you would have been ridiculed and lambasted (if not executed) as an atheist for such beliefs in the not too distant past.

My beliefs are traditional Jewish beliefs andy.. I've not invented any of this myself - just as you haven't invented multiverse theory... We're recycling the theories of greater minds.

I wish you'd stop telling me what Judaism is and isn't... only a fool would continue to speak with such authority on something he's never experienced, contacted or read.

As for Einstein, I suggest you read some of his ideas on religion and a deity...

next time I'm in newcastle... I'll bring the humus

How amusing that a few days after you quoted Einstein saying he disliked people quoting him in religious arguments you're doing exactly that. Let's not forget...he was an intelligent man and didn't believe in the personal god of the absurd old testament.

Come on then Joe...if your "G-d" is the energy and the wisdom within us all - why do so few people believe in "G-d"?

I talk in authority only of the lack of evidence for the existence of the supernatural, of the inappropriateness of the old testament as a guide for moral behaviour (I saw a great passage in there about how if someone comes to your house you should let them rape your daughter ) and the presence of evidence for scientific theories. I am perfectly able to do this, don't confuse talking about evidence with talking about what you actually think is happeneing - this is what you're doing.

Andy there's only 1.1 billion athiests in the world, there are individual religions with more subscribers....

Throughout this argument you've confused your surroundings and learnings as fact and you seem unable to view things from alternative perspective...

There's a a cheesey saying which rings so true in this debate, "the more you know the less you show".... For someone that has a hard time grappling with fact v thoery - you don't have make a lot of noise.

there was an interesting programme on sunday about the gospels which never made it to the new testament. there were loads more than the ones that are presently in the bible. Including some which posited that since the wrathful god of the old testament was SO different to the forgiving god of Jesus there must be two gods (which wasn't such a strange idea in the roman world)
anyway the church authorities sat down and decided which ones were kosher (or not ) and burnt the ones they didn't like including the gospel according to Mary and the gospel according to Paul.
There are loads of people in the world who claim to believe the bible is the word of god but actually it's a construct of a bunch of 4th century blokes.

thats a great theory, but the dead sea scrolls predate the 4th century

no I meant the new testament

I can believe that... the first mention of christ was about 70 years after his death... at a time when prophetical figures were well documented by the greeks, romans and hebrews.

there are parallels with the Mormon church where Joseph Smith and the other founders gradually accrete a mystical dimension and their writings begin to be discussed and pored over by the present church leaders in an effort to tease out more meaning.
I'm sure this happens with most religions, over time historical figures become lost in a pile of 'interpretation' which enables the church authorities to use them as a method of social control.
I would imagine it happenned to Abraham and Moses as well but I wouldn't expect you to agree with that

Joseph Smith was recorded during his time... Jesus Christ wasn't (while the Torah prophets were).

Ha ha, we're back to "You're wrong to question my beliefs" are we?

Here's another quote:

Thomas Jefferson