Preamble"It has often been said that the most important questions anyone could ever ask are: "Who am I?". "Why am I here?" and "Where am I going?" Dealing as they do with issues of a persons identity, meaning and destiny. they are obviously of great significance, but even these are secondary when put alongside one which is both fundemental and inescapable: 'Does God exist?'
This is
the question and every debate about human life and death and about the universe in which humanity lives and dies, ultimately revolves around it. Several years ago 'Encylopedia Brittanica' published a set of fifty-four volumes which marshalled the writings of many eminent thinkers in the Western world on the most important ideas that have ever been studied and investigated over the centuries. The subjects covered included law, science, philosophy, history and theology; the longest essay of all was on the subject of God. Addressing the question as to why this should be the case, co-editor Mortimer Adler wrote, "More consequences for thought and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from answering any other question". The outstanding Latvian philosopher Isaiah Berlin, who died in 1997, elaborated the point from his book 'Concepts and Categories: 'The world of a man who believes that God created him for a specific purpose, that he has an immortal soul, that there is an afterlife in which his sins will be visited upon him, is radically different from the world of a man who believes in none of these things; and the reasons for action, the moral codes, the political belief, the tastes, the personal relationships of the former will deeply and systematically differ from those of the latter. Mens views of one another will differ profoundly as a very consequence of their general description of the world: the notions of cause and purpose, good and evil, freedom and slavery, things and persons, rights, duties, laws, justice, truth, falsehood, to take some central ideas completely at random, depend entirely upon the general framework within they form, as it were, nodal points (and also goes someway to explaining a little of the contestual nature of this site - iano).
If Adler and Berlin were right, looking into the subject addressed in this book is hardly a trivial pursuit. Those who disagree over the question of God's existance are not merely crossing paper swords over some interesting but ultimately irrelevant point of science, philosophy or theology, they are disagreeing over the greatest issue of all. The contemporary British philosopher C.Stephan Evans hits the nail on the head when he says that believing in God is not like believing in the Loch Ness monster: "The Loch Ness monster is merely 'one more thing'...God, however, is not merely 'one more thing'. The person who believes in God and the person who does not believe in God do not merely disagree about God. They disagree about the very character of the universe".
SourceThe above is quoted from the forward of a rather enjoyable, informative and by no means perfect book: 'Does God believe in Athiests" by John Blanchard.
Questions for discussion1) Does everybody agree that God/No God is the greatest question to which anybody could get an answer?
2) If the answer to the above is 'NO' then could a brief outline of a more important question be posed for consideration?
3) If the answer to 1) is 'Yes' then what rational reason is there for not doing ones utmost to find out the answer to it? And if a person feels they are doing their utmost, then how is what they are doing designed to achieve that goal?
4) If people say they have found out the answer and the answer is 'No God' - on what basis do they say that?
ThesisBefore answering question 3) or 4), I would request that people first consider the following argument as to why I suppose many of their 'proofs' may be shown to be inadequate to achieve the goal/answer in question. It may help direct the discussion and keep things focused.
If God exists then he is big. Very big. If God exists it means there exists a being who created everything. He was the one who 'flung stars into space', he created the laws of nature with which we achieve/destroy so much, he invented all the atoms and molecules on which these laws operate both on the micro and macro scale. He would be the one who designed mechanisms which have produced pleasure,pain,happiness,sadness,joy,peace,depression - the working of which, if we apply a bit of humility, we know very little about the total there is to know about them.
There are relatively few folk who have lived who can begin to even comprehend but very small pieces of the the very greatest knowledge that man has generated over his history, But all this knowledge bundled together is but a speck when it comes to understanding the ways and working of a God who would have made it all in the first place.
If God exists, then it should be apparent that he is so...big...that the only possible way that a mere man could come to any knowledge and understanding of him, would be if God was the one to reveal that knowledge of himself, to man. In other words, whilst man can examine the world around him, he can only tentively decide, from analysis of what God created, whether or not God exists. Such analysis is as much use to him as analysis of a motor car is in providing him with insight into the personality of the designer who designed it.
Man has not the ability, from within, to know if God exists. God has to be the one to show he exists. Any argument as to the non-existance of God, based on science or experience or gut feeling etc is, on this basis of the above, I would respectfully suggest, inadequate.
But the answer to the question Does God exist remains the most important one to get - for everybody.
Guidelines for discussionAny of the above questions can be addressed as well as the argument above. The quoted text at the start is not within the subject matter for debate of itself- although the issues arising from it obviously can be.
Because this topic would involve personal rather than abstract discussion, it behoves us all to put special effort into being respectful of others views. Rigous debate is not personal attack but it can slip so easily into it. I too will be doing my very best - if you think I'm not, just say so.
There are a lot of questions here so I would request that only one question is dealt with at a time per post and that you list the number of the question you are addressing. I may be on my own here so will reserve the right not to answer at all to posts which deal with more than one issue, are off topic or veering too much in that direction, abusive, repetitive etc..
I know that this post is long but I request too that any subsequent posts are kept as short as possible so that, if the discussion gets broad, all views can be adequately dealt with. If single questions are dealt with and the subsequent points that arise from them are too dealt with in small amounts then short posts should be attainable (he said, pointing three fingers at himself!)
Thanks
Ian
™ Version 4.2