At what age did you come to realize that God/Devil/Heaven/Hell/Angels/Demons are all man-made fairy tales?

[scandal 951]

Logic and reason would conclude that there's nothing behind curtain number one? How so? How does logic and reason explain what made the universe? And then what made that? How do you explain a true beginning of all matter?

These are good questions Steve.

To answer them, it's best to examine the nature of General Relativity (GR) and the modern theories of Gravitation and Cosmology derived from it. In short, GR postulates that the very fabric of spacetime is itself a consequence of a massive universe (i.e. a universe containing mass and energy, the equivalence of the two a consequence of special relativity). In other words, it is the presence of matter/energy and the universal attractive force of gravity acting on all massive bodies which creates and structures our 4 dimensional universe. Space-time is bent in gravitational fields (first witnessed by noting the aberrations of the orbit of Mercury).

What this means is ... our concept of the dimension of time, and of three spatial dimensions, is a direct consequence of the Universe we happen to live in. It is meaningless to talk of "time" or "space" as we conceive these terms in a context "outside" of our Universe. This, in turn, implies that words like "outside" and "before" (i.e. 'outside' the universe, or 'before' the Big Bang) are meaningless in terms of our present scientific understanding, and beyond the scope of GR and cosmology to answer.

Does that mean we shouldn't use the words 'before' or 'outside' the observable Universe ... no, not necessarily. Only that we should recognize that Physics cannot answer such questions. For me, that is enough and I leave it there. I find it pointless to speculate on what a 'before' might mean in a context where our notion of 'time' is meaningless. So, sure, you could call me an agnostic since I'm not "sure" of the answer to that metaphysical question. I just find it futile to dwell on.

But when it comes to our conventional model of the Universe post-Big Bang, I don't have any such uncertainty. The physical record agrees so well with theory that I'm satisfied with that theory. Yes, it's true that the very origin of the Big Bang has troubling aspects: GR and quantum theory have not been reconciled at the dimensions of the initial singularity. But the entire evolution of the galaxies, and our local sun and solar system, agree superbly with theory. The Genesis creation myth, and similar myths of world religions, do not explain or agree with this empirical record. In that sense I am an atheist, with no room for doubt whatsoever: the creation myths of world religions simply do not correlate to the geological record, to cosmological background radiation, to the fossil record of our observable Universe.

In my view they are myths, not facts. I respect that others believe in them to be true, sure. But I find no way to logically reconcile what we know about our Universe with the Biblical creation story, for example. I also know that many treat the Biblical stories as allegorical and not literal. That's fine, but allegorical to what? Just what is the allegory in the Six Days of Creation supposed to tell me something? I long ago considered the question, found it irrelevant in my life, and simply moved on.

Peace.

Moses? Abraham? Isaac? Noah?

Mythical figures in a series of story books written by a series of authors 'J', 'E', 'P', 'D', and 'Redactor'.

Not much different than Arthur, Merlin, and the Knights of Camelot.

Or Alladin and the 40 Thieves, or Hiawatha and Manabozo.

Good stories, nice mythology.

Edited November 23, 2010 by scandal

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Well put scandal.

[Jenn! 918]

Just what is the allegory in the Six Days of Creation supposed to tell me something? I long ago considered the question, found it irrelevant in my life, and simply moved on.

Word.

I've recently discovered that I'm probably more of an apatheist than anything.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Moses? Abraham? Isaac? Noah?

ETA:

Matthew 3:16-17

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

You quote a book of faith as actual, material evidence?

[BishopM 114]

In my view they are myths, not facts. I respect that others believe in them to be true, sure. But I find no way to logically reconcile what we know about our Universe with the Biblical creation story, for example. I also know that many treat the Biblical stories as allegorical and not literal. That's fine, but allegorical to what? Just what is the allegory in the Six Days of Creation supposed to tell me something? I long ago considered the question, found it irrelevant in my life, and simply moved on.

Brother Scandal, your conclusion is correct +1. I remember taking a class on Genesis and the professor stated that if we cannot approach the Book of Genesis in a literal manner (meaning that the world was created in 6 days, period, end of discussion) then we will never really be able to understand the truth of the Bible. I had to call foul on that line of reasoning!

But, back to your point, I do take the Book of Genesis as allegory into the mystery of God. This is the allegorical point of the Book of Genesis: That the creation of 'everything' is too immense to understand and is cloaked in the mystery of God! The creation story of the Book of Genesis, including the creation of man/woman, is written to allegorically (and beautifully!) represent this basic truth. With that said, I have no personal objection with the advancement of all sciences which help us to unravel this beautiful mystery of God. In fact, such advancement should be cherished and eagerly anticipated because such scientific advancement is a purification in its own rite...a rite which continuously brings us closer to God. I doubt if scientist will ever get to the 'end of the story'...but the journey is utterly amazing.

In my opinion, trying to read these books from a purely scientific view and then attempting to reconcile these allegorical stories with science would be an entirely futile effort, which you've also concluded correctly. Quite simply put, its not worth the effort. And, also in my opinion, a real injustice has been created against the glory and mystery of God by recent 'Creationists' who do try to strip the mystery out of God by placing Jesus on a dinosaur! Its just plain silly.

As far as Noah, Jonah, others in the OT...I also take these stories more as allegorical. Did Jonah spend three days in the belly of a fish? I doubt it. One good thing about the Catholic Church is that we DO NOT take a stance on these books, out of the respect of the mystery of God. We realize that, contextually and textually, there is not enough definitive evidence to state that the entire world was flooded (Noah) or that Jonah stayed in the belly of a fish for three days before going back to Ninevah. In fact, again, it is a waste of time to really even try to delve into these unsolvable matters...but it is not a waste of time to try to grasp the theological meaning...which I believe is the point that God was trying to make through these inspired stories. Were Jonah/Noah/David/Soloman/Samuel real, historical persons? I believe yes is the answer...but I believe that God uses these historical personages through these inspired stories to lay quick waste to our short lived/ambitious lives...which kind of builds in a sense of humilty before the wonders of God.

Blessings,

BishopM

[Jenn! 918]

BishopM, as a Catholic, what is your view on transubstantiation?

[chri'stina 190]

What's not to be sure about? I mean that there is no a single shred of empirical evidence that God exists. From an empirical evidence point of view, God doesn't exist. Nobody has ever seen him, heard him, touched him, smelled him. Nobody. Ever. It's really just that simple.

It's not actually that simple. If someone today were to physically see or hear God and tell others about it or write it down, they would mostly be considered crazy by those who don't believe in God. They might believe it if they see it/hear it with their own eyes and ears. I feel that even if God were to appear to every human at once, His existence still won't be believed by everyone. It'd be a NASA stunt, maybe a terrorist stunt, maybe a prank. Sometimes evidence is still not enough for people to believe something. That is where faith comes in, faith that the evidence of God within your own life was real. I think about my faith often. Sometimes I think what if I am wrong. I like to analyze things in my mind. I still conclude for myself that there is a God. I do think about things like something couldn't come from nothing. There had to be some start of this infinite universe and I am not satisfied to just not think about it. I know someone had to be behind it all.

You can't put absolutely nothing in a box, seal out any chance of any smallest spec of anything to get inside and expect it to become a universe one day on it's own. Only if something got in there, something that had to come from something, not nothing. And then there is the whole idea of time itself. Those thoughts actually freak me out a bit to think of time going on forever. What are the thoughts about time itself by those who don't believe in God? Did time suddenly start, was there ever absolutely nothing at all? Or has there always been something, mysteriously, and time never started it's just our own minds making up a word to describe what hours and days passing are. I am not an accept whatever I hear kind of person. I like to think for myself.

[BishopM 114]

BishopM, as a Catholic, what is your view on transubstantiation?

SisterJenn, I regard it as one of the three greatest mysteries of the Church (along with the incarnation and resurrection) and that it is the true presence of the body and blood of Christ.

Blessings, M

[one...two...tree 2,762]

These are good questions Steve.

To answer them, it's best to examine the nature of General Relativity (GR) and the modern theories of Gravitation and Cosmology derived from it. In short, GR postulates that the very fabric of spacetime is itself a consequence of a massive universe (i.e. a universe containing mass and energy, the equivalence of the two a consequence of special relativity). In other words, it is the presence of matter/energy and the universal attractive force of gravity acting on all massive bodies which creates and structures our 4 dimensional universe. Space-time is bent in gravitational fields (first witnessed by noting the aberrations of the orbit of Mercury).

What this means is ... our concept of the dimension of time, and of three spatial dimensions, is a direct consequence of the Universe we happen to live in. It is meaningless to talk of "time" or "space" as we conceive these terms in a context "outside" of our Universe. This, in turn, implies that words like "outside" and "before" (i.e. 'outside' the universe, or 'before' the Big Bang) are meaningless in terms of our present scientific understanding, and beyond the scope of GR and cosmology to answer.

Does that mean we shouldn't use the words 'before' or 'outside' the observable Universe ... no, not necessarily. Only that we should recognize that Physics cannot answer such questions. For me, that is enough and I leave it there. I find it pointless to speculate on what a 'before' might mean in a context where our notion of 'time' is meaningless. So, sure, you could call me an agnostic since I'm not "sure" of the answer to that metaphysical question. I just find it futile to dwell on.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Ron.

What you've alluded to above is where some people arrive at believing in God, and if we can understand that the term 'God' itself is pretty ambiguous as well as all inclusive, it can simply refer to labeling the unexplainable as well as defining that unexplainable beyondness as a singular entity, even personal.

My counter argument to the OP is that he claims that evidence suggests there isn't a God and I think part of his problem is that he's got in his mind, a preconceived notion of just what the term 'God' means, and assuming such a definition is universal when it isn't. Like Mark, I am Catholic and our faith embraces the mystery of God. We don't claim to fully understand or know just what 'God' means beyond using human logic to attempt to explain the unexplainable. That attempt is imperfect, but that doesn't mean the concept of acknowledging the beyond is irrational.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You quote a book of faith as actual, material evidence?

It's testimony. Whether you choose to accept it as evidence is your choice. If you want to tell folks that the patriarchs of their religions are all liars, then feel free to do so.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What's not to be sure about? I mean that there is no a single shred of empirical evidence that God exists. From an empirical evidence point of view, God doesn't exist. Nobody has ever seen him, heard him, touched him, smelled him. Nobody. Ever. It's really just that simple.

Do you mean material evidence or are you actually saying that no one has experienced God personally? Because empirically speaking, there are countless witnesses or personal experiences of God. There isn't any material proof though. You seem to have indicated that there is evidence to the contrary that God exists and that's what I'm confused about. What evidence?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Brother Scandal, your conclusion is correct +1. I remember taking a class on Genesis and the professor stated that if we cannot approach the Book of Genesis in a literal manner (meaning that the world was created in 6 days, period, end of discussion) then we will never really be able to understand the truth of the Bible. I had to call foul on that line of reasoning!

But, back to your point, I do take the Book of Genesis as allegory into the mystery of God. This is the allegorical point of the Book of Genesis: That the creation of 'everything' is too immense to understand and is cloaked in the mystery of God! The creation story of the Book of Genesis, including the creation of man/woman, is written to allegorically (and beautifully!) represent this basic truth. With that said, I have no personal objection with the advancement of all sciences which help us to unravel this beautiful mystery of God. In fact, such advancement should be cherished and eagerly anticipated because such scientific advancement is a purification in its own rite...a rite which continuously brings us closer to God. I doubt if scientist will ever get to the 'end of the story'...but the journey is utterly amazing.

In my opinion, trying to read these books from a purely scientific view and then attempting to reconcile these allegorical stories with science would be an entirely futile effort, which you've also concluded correctly. Quite simply put, its not worth the effort. And, also in my opinion, a real injustice has been created against the glory and mystery of God by recent 'Creationists' who do try to strip the mystery out of God by placing Jesus on a dinosaur! Its just plain silly.

As far as Noah, Jonah, others in the OT...I also take these stories more as allegorical. Did Jonah spend three days in the belly of a fish? I doubt it. One good thing about the Catholic Church is that we DO NOT take a stance on these books, out of the respect of the mystery of God. We realize that, contextually and textually, there is not enough definitive evidence to state that the entire world was flooded (Noah) or that Jonah stayed in the belly of a fish for three days before going back to Ninevah. In fact, again, it is a waste of time to really even try to delve into these unsolvable matters...but it is not a waste of time to try to grasp the theological meaning...which I believe is the point that God was trying to make through these inspired stories. Were Jonah/Noah/David/Soloman/Samuel real, historical persons? I believe yes is the answer...but I believe that God uses these historical personages through these inspired stories to lay quick waste to our short lived/ambitious lives...which kind of builds in a sense of humilty before the wonders of God.

Blessings,

BishopM

And what happened at Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadalupe?

Photograph taken during the reputed "Dance of the Sun" at Fatima on 13 October 1917.

[BishopM 114]

And what happened at Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadalupe?

Photograph taken during the reputed "Dance of the Sun" at Fatima on 13 October 1917.

I've been blessed with the opportunity to live in Mexico City and Portugal, each country for about one year. I fully believe in the miracles of Fatima, Lourdes, and Guadalupe.

Blessings,

Bji

[Peikko 1,575]

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Ron.

What you've alluded to above is where some people arrive at believing in God, and if we can understand that the term 'God' itself is pretty ambiguous as well as all inclusive, it can simply refer to labeling the unexplainable as well as defining that unexplainable beyondness as a singular entity, even personal.

My counter argument to the OP is that he claims that evidence suggests there isn't a God and I think part of his problem is that he's got in his mind, a preconceived notion of just what the term 'God' means, and assuming such a definition is universal when it isn't. Like Mark, I am Catholic and our faith embraces the mystery of God. We don't claim to fully understand or know just what 'God' means beyond using human logic to attempt to explain the unexplainable. That attempt is imperfect, but that doesn't mean the concept of acknowledging the beyond is irrational.

Do you really not see that there is a huge difference between suggesting that there are things outside human experience and understanding and 'inventing' a god to explain them? Do you also not see that simply saying god could exist because no one has proved that it could not is meaningless? A god in this context cares nothing for the machinations of man and has no awareness that humans could/would recognize. That is not the biblical god, nor the god of any organized religion. The god described in organized religion is totally at odds with current theories of the nature of the universe and as such believing that there is an aware god that cares about each individual human being is not based on anything we have or can observe which as has been correctly stated, there is no empirical (measurable/replicable) data that supports the idea that such a god does or could exist . Testimony from people who claim to know god is irrelevant.

However, again, there is no good reason why people should not 'believe' in god if that is what it takes for them to feel comfortable with their existence.

[BishopM 114]

Do you really not see that there is a huge difference between suggesting that there are things outside human experience and understanding and 'inventing' a god to explain them? Do you also not see that simply saying god could exist because no one has proved that it could not is meaningless? A god in this context cares nothing for the machinations of man and has no awareness that humans could/would recognize. That is not the biblical god, nor the god of any organized religion. The god described in organized religion is totally at odds with current theories of the nature of the universe and as such believing that there is an aware god that cares about each individual human being is not based on anything we have or can observe which as has been correctly stated, there is no empirical (measurable/replicable) data that supports the idea that such a god does or could exist . Testimony from people who claim to know god is irrelevant.

However, again, there is no good reason why people should not 'believe' in god if that is what it takes for them to feel comfortable with their existence.

Hello SisterMC - from your point of view stated above, I would have to say 'yes', it would be easy to see how man would create a God to answer questions which they themselves cannot answer.

However, that begets a chicken and egg type of argument. I personally think the other way, that God existed before man and then man refers to God when he realizes that much is beyong his intellectual grasp. In other words, I don't believe God is a creation of man, but rather that man is a creation of God. With the thought that man is a creation of God, I would find it rather narcissistic for any man to demand that God tell us to our satisfaction all the details of our creation...in much the manner that my own Father won't tell me all the details of my creation

Blessings to you dear,

Bji