On Philosophy

April 6, 2007

God Is Irrelevant

Filed under: General Philosophy — Peter @ 12:00 am

Nietzsche said that god is dead. I think for god the situation is much worse than that though. Not only is there reason to believe that god doesn’t exist, but that even if he did exist he wouldn’t matter. We simply don’t need god, and thus it is probably best to relegate him to the dustbin of history, much as we did with the ether and the vital force, other ideas we discarded, not because we could prove that they didn’t exist, but because they were simply no longer needed.

Almost everyone agrees that we can cut god out of our explanations for physical events. As best as we can tell the physical universe is causally closed, so there is no room for god to meddle with things. It is true that we don’t have complete explanations for every feature of the physical world, such as why the initial conditions of the universe were they way that they were, but god is simply not a satisfying answer to those problems. Arguing that god explains some feature of the world only postpones our desire for explanation, because we will then want to know why god made that feature the way it is. And if we appeal to god’s desires or will to answer that question then we can ask why god has the desires he has, ect. Eventually we will have an unanswered question about god, and so we are no better off than we were before, and might as well just accept that we don’t have any suitable explanation for that physical feature yet. And of course not positing god to explain things has historically been the better approach, because science continues to expand and explain more and more, with no end in sight, and so positing god as an explanation for some phenomena only serves to hinder a proper scientific investigation.

But really only the “unenlightened masses” see a need to posit god as an explanation for the physical world. More rational believers tend to give god responsibility for various non-physical aspects of the world, or as fulfilling some practical need of ours. In either case we are encouraged to accept the existence of god because he fulfills some philosophical need, rather than some explanatory need, and furthermore that we are better off if we believe in his existence. Let’s go through those one by one.

Some theorize that we need god to justify or explain ethics. I contend that we do not.

Some propose that belief in god is needed to overcome our fear of death. But I do not fear death.

Some say that without god our lives will be meaningless. Not really.

Or that without god we would simply be nihilists or hedonists and thus would not lead worthwhile lives. Again, I would claim otherwise.

Thus I see life’s more philosophical questions, about whether it has meaning, whether it is valuable without god, whether we should act ethically, ect, as being completely answerable without appeal to god. And that is why I conclude that god is simply irrelevant; even if he existed, or I believed that he existed, my life wouldn’t be any better. And not only is that a good reason to treat god as non-existent, it is a good reason to simply set god aside completely, and to waste no more time on the issue.

Advertisements

20 Comments

  1. If you’re quite certain that God is irrelevant to you, that’s fine.

    But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?

    And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

    Luke 5:30-32

    However, your understanding of what sort of question God is meant to answer seems to be flawed. Through science, we can learn about the Big Bang and if it turns out there’s something before the Big Bang, we can learn about that. And if it turns out that all of that falls out of some other equation, more research!

    In fact, there is an infinite regress of causal inadequacy. If science says, the world exists because X is true, we are entitled to ask why is X true, which leads to X1 and so on forever.

    However, to say God is “transcendent” means that God is not the sort of thing about which you can ask, “Why?” because it exists outside of the system in which reasons can be given. It’s supposed to be like asking for a real number to correspond to 1/x for x=0, just because you got real numbers when x=.00001 and -.00001. When the answer to the question is “God,” then no matter how irritating it is to us, then there is no more why to be asked after.

    Now, you may think that it’s silly to propose an object of a sort that stops inquiry. That’s fine. Attack the notion of transcendence. But if you treat God as the sort of thing that’s subject to inquiry, then you’re not talking about the usual transcendent Being that people have in mind when they use the word God, what you’re thinking about is more of “an incredibly powerful being/intelligence/alien that is somehow responsible for the universe.”

    Comment by Carl — April 6, 2007 @ 4:54 am

  2. Stamping your feet and insisting that there is a vital force doesn’t make it any more relevant, nor does insisting that it is transcendant. Being irrelevant doesn’t mean that we can’t somehow manage to slip it into the world, we can do that with the vital force too, it means that there is simply no need for it to explain anything. And thus if we are intellectually honest that we should discard it.

    Comment by Peter — April 6, 2007 @ 8:20 am

  3. Using God as a universal wildcard to explain things has been the original mistake of (probably) all religions.
    You make it very clear that God is irrelevant to philosophical matters, just as Mr Dawkins makes it clear that God is irrelevant to scientific matters, and I agree in both cases: we do not need God.
    But there are so many things I do not need and that I cherish nonetheless (a picture of my wife, a memory of my grandfather, a view to the valley, the taste of the first sip of beer…); maybe God is my superfluous luxury. I cannot prevent you from dumping yours, and unlike many bigots, it would not feel right to say even something like ‘you do not know what you lose’, because there is no way I could know about that; but if I may, if it hurts nobody and if I keep it quietly hidden with me, I’d like to keep mine — and still be friends.

    Comment by mandarine — April 6, 2007 @ 12:39 pm

  4. I agree that there is nothing stopping anyone from haning onto the idea of god, just as there is nothing stopping people from hanging onto the idea of a “vital force”. It’s just that no one would actually appeal to the vital force to explain anything, and thus by analogy we probably shouldn’t appeal to god to explain anything. And if we accept that god is unnecessary it seems likely that people will simply stop believing in him, without any compulsion to do so, simply because they don’t feel any need to believe, nor do they recieve any benefit from it. This is the disanalogy with a picture of someone’s relative. They still recieve comfort from that picture, because it reminds them of some good memories. However if non-religious philosophy can provide the same comfort, remove our need to be comforted on certain issues, and provide the anwers we need then there is no motivation to hang onto god, he becomes redundant. In contrast there is always a motivation to hang onto the picture, because the picture is not irrelevant, and cant be replaced by philosophy. One exception I should mention is that people might want to hang onto the belief in god if that belief brings with it good memories, like fun times had at church (?). But if that was their sole reason for hanging onto a blief in god I would expect the content of that belief to change radically over a few generations, until it was eventually replaced completely by the idea of belonging to a certain community (or something like that), the real source of the good memories.

    Comment by Peter — April 6, 2007 @ 1:47 pm

  5. Probably. The comfort I receive from the idea of God has little to do with good memories, but it undoubtedly has an important cultural background. As the dominant culture moves away from the necessity of a God, it is very probable that the cultural part of the comfort that goes with the idea of God fades away too. It will be interesting to look at what comforting beliefs (or certainties) people develop in the future (if they still do).

    Comment by mandarine — April 6, 2007 @ 9:04 pm

  6. Community is the primary source of what is being called “comfort.” True community (in the sense from psychology) is inclusive and non-judgemental — at least in the last two stages of community. The most outspoken religious organizations today are charactarized by the opposite of inclusivity and unconditional acceptance. Thus, religion is not really even providing ‘comfort’ any more. The solution to existential crisis has moved from god to therapy because therapy is vastly more effective.

    Comment by Bruce — April 9, 2007 @ 8:22 pm

  7. I think I know what you mean when you say we don’t “need” God, but in another way, I think we do. We humans are strange creatures. We are capable of thinking and acting logically, but we are not logical beings. Underneath it all, we are emotion- and belief-driven. I think this stuff resides in the nonconscious mind, but that’s another discussion.

    Think about *persuading* people, *convincing* them of something. Deeply-held beliefs will ‘over-ride’ a correct and conclusive logical argument in the minds of most people. It’s as if logic is the realm of conscious thought, but belief, emotion, and so forth, are the province of the nonconscious. And the power of veto lies with the latter.

    Whatever the reason, we humans are not logical in the sense that (Star Trek) Vulcans are; we will, at need, set aside logic if it conflicts with beliefs we hold strongly. This may not be logical, and it may not be ‘correct’, but it is how we humans work, at least some of the time.
    I firmly believe that a workable philosophy must incorporate this aspect of humanity. Not that an objective, logical, perspective is wrong, but it is a lot less useful to humans than it is to Vulcans! ;-)

    Pattern-chaser

    “Who cares, wins”

    Comment by Pattern-chaser — April 10, 2007 @ 5:58 am

  8. Peter,

    I have to admit that i’m a bit surprised at the non-chalant attitude of this post. I find this odd especially due to your interest in philosophy.

    It has been well documented that with Alvin Plantinga’s fine book “God and other Minds” published in the 70’s (i think), the revival of the “God hypothesis” in philosophy has been profound. I believe that it was well-known atheist Steven Jay Gould who said that with Plantinga’s book and its subsequent influence God had found a “home in academia” again, that being the philosophy department. If you like i can give you the citation for this quote; i don’t have the book on me right now.

    For some solid evidence of this, check out this site:

    http://theism.actualism.com/theistic.php3

    Peter please note that this catalogue includes philosophy departments from seminaries and secular schools (eg University of Purdue and Oklahoma).

    My point in all this Peter is that you are calling for relegating God to the dustbin of outdated ideas, you are not in step with the leaders in your field. Since i do not know you and cannot pass judgment, let me merely suggest you reconsider your stance on the irrelevance of God, because it seems your sentiments are that of a “maverick.”

    Comment by derek — April 10, 2007 @ 11:44 am

  9. Just because some philosophers beleive in god doesn’t mean that there is a god revolution in philosophy. Alvin Plantinga is notable because he is an exception. In reality most philsophers are atheists or agnostics, and certainly the vast majority of scientists are. But in any case why should I care about what the majority thinks, I care only about being right. And about this I am right, a fact I am confindent of since no one has yet provided me with an example of where god himself is relevant, but only with examples of where the belief in /idea of god is relevant, which hopefully everyone realizes is showing something different than that god himself is relevant. Of course eveyone admits that people’e belief in god is a relevant fact, but that belief has no bearing on whether we should give serious consideration to god or dump him in the intellectual waste-basket like we have with magic and ghosts.

    Comment by Peter — April 10, 2007 @ 12:20 pm

  10. Peter,

    Let me correct my earlier reference. It was noted atheist quentin smith, who said that theism is “alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.” I think that to say that merely “some” philosophers are theists is way understating the facts. Do you have any reason to doubt that they are in fact the minority? Also, Alvin Plantinga isn’t notable b/c he is the exception, but that he spearheaded theism’s return to prominence in philosophy. Until you can show me some reasons why this is incorrect, i remain unconvinced.

    “But in any case why should I care about what the majority thinks, I care only about being right.” This statement boggles my mind honestly. You have found the truth removed from dialogue with other great thinkers in your field. This only betrays a maverick attitude, and at eh risk of sounding rude, arrogance. You can dismiss all that is going on in contemporary philosophy with a wave of your hand b/c you have it figured out. I find this to be at the very least poor methodology.

    “And of course not positing god to explain things has historically been the better approach, because science continues to expand and explain more and more, with no end in sight, and so positing god as an explanation for some phenomena only serves to hinder a proper scientific investigation.”

    This is merely question begging. How do you “know” that science will eventually be able to explain everything? You actually don’t “know” do you? It sounds like you have faith in science. That is legitimate i think (at least to a degree). However, if you are building your view of reality on the hope that science will explain everything, then you are merely doing what you accuse the theist of doing; finding a “concept” to have explanatory relevance because you “believe in” it. Welcome to faith Peter!

    I have much more to say, but i must go for now. I am enjoying this dialogue. I hope you don’t mind my bluntness. Being upfront helps to bring the real issues into focus i think.

    take care,

    derek

    Comment by brainofdtrain — April 10, 2007 @ 5:28 pm

  11. Well in my department I would say, as a low estimate that atheists / agnostics make up at least 2/3 rds of the professors + grad students although I have never taken a formal survey. I have no reason to believe that my department is unusual in this regard. Although 1/3 is alive and well, it isn’t a majority either.

    I am not following contemporary philosophy? How many journals are you subscribed to? Have you heard of Daniel Dennet, one of the most influential philosophers of our time? He is an atheist, and writes about it (see breaking the spell), unlike most philosophers who are atheists, who treat arguing that god doesn’t exist as a waste of time. And it is a waste of time for the most part, because when you irrationally believe in something no amount of rational argument will change your mind. Which is why I don’t expect you or anyone else to change their mind based on what I say. I only mention that god is irrelevant to point out a certain kind of intellectual dishonesty.

    Also there is a big gap from faith to tentative extrapolation from past results, which you seem to be missing.

    Sadly you remind me how strongly cognitive dissonance distort people’s judgment. Welcome to fooling yourself into thinking that intelligent people agree that god exists!

    Comment by Peter — April 10, 2007 @ 6:03 pm

  12. Peter,

    Yes actually, i have heard of Dennett. He, along with Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris are the leaders of what many call the “new atheism,” one that reminds me of some angry militant forms of religious beliefs they criticize. That however, is a subject for another discourse.

    “unlike most philosophers who are atheists, who treat arguing that god doesn’t exist as a waste of time. And it is a waste of time for the most part, because when you irrationally believe in something no amount of rational argument will change your mind.”

    Again, Peter, this is merely begging the question. (One of ) the main points of debate between theists and atheists is whether or not one can rationally believe in a “god.” Many atheists have a faulty view of faith (at least faith as defined in the Judeo-Christian tradition) that leads them to dismiss theist’s claims as irrational before giving them honest consideration.

    I find that Dawkins is especially susceptible to this charge. Dawkin’s view of God and of faith is a very poor caricature, and then he beats up the strawman he has made. However, he is unwilling to engage theistic philosophers/theologians on their turf. I find this to be the case with a lot of arguments against God. It is easy to dismiss theism if you refuse to think outside of your materialistic framework. The irony here is that this is what we are dialoguing about! Intellectual dishonesty indeed.

    “Also there is a big gap from faith to tentative extrapolation from past results, which you seem to be missing.”

    As you can now see, i think that you, like so many other atheist/agnostic folk have a very inadequate view of faith. Whether your faith is based on an existential encounter to a well-reasoned out plausibility structure, everyone at some point has reasons for what they believe. No one believes anything in a vacuum. What many atheists, and it seems you are one of them, do is to assume that since they operate in a materialistic framwork, the only way anyone can believe in God is to refuse to listen to any (scientific) evidence. Faith is contrary to reason for the atheist. I believe this is misguided; rather faith is built on evidence.

    I would say that in your attempt to distance yourself from “having faith,” you affirmed that you do have faith! Your faith is in science. Now Peter we can argue this point further, but i am hopeful that you can step outside of your materialistic framework long enough to engage me on “my turf.” If not, we will continue to debate the strawmen you erect. I guess i want to know if you think that : a) faith can be built on evidence, and b) if so, what kind of evidence would be necessary for one to make a “tentative extrapolation from past results (eg faith)?”

    I look forward to hearing your response.

    derek

    Comment by brainofdtrain — April 10, 2007 @ 8:16 pm

  13. How did this debate go from one on relevance of god to one on existence of god? Derek, even if you show that there is a widely disputed premise or an invalid logical step in the ‘materialistic’ framework (which is unlikely), how does that show that god is relevent. For that you need to find a counter example to Peters papers above.

    Comment by Bruce — April 10, 2007 @ 9:31 pm

  14. If you think science is faith then there is really no point arguing with you. Of course you will interpret this as an admission that you are right, although I assure you that it is not. But if you stamp your foot and refuse to see the difference between faith, supposition, a qualified positing, ect, then there is really no point. There is a vast difference between believing in something revealed to you vs. believing in something because it is simply the best explanation at hand.

    Note: Dr. Dennett: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dennett is not the “leader” of some atheism movement, he writes about atheism as a side note to his more important work.

    Comment by Peter — April 10, 2007 @ 10:02 pm

  15. Hello Peter and Bruce,

    Let me address your thoughts here.

    Peter,

    I am saddened to see that you have again failed to ackowledge my thoughts outside your frame of reference. I will try to clarify what i’m saying a bit, and maybe that will enable you to jump in.

    Peter, i do not think that “science is faith,” but rather was pointing out that science and faith share common ground b/c they both value evidence/observation in the pursuit for understanding.

    I find it amazing that you, who claims to not have faith, want to instruct me, one who has faith, what faith is! Surely you see the irony here. It would seem fair that you would let me, the defender of faith, define it, right?

    “There is a vast difference between believing in something revealed to you vs. believing in something because it is simply the best explanation at hand.”

    Peter this is a false dichotomy. These two understandings can fit together and strengthen each other. “Revelation” can be the best explanation at hand, the truthfulness of which can be grounded/supplemented by evidence. At least they can if you don’t allow your materialistic suppositions prevent it. I agree that science and faith can’t be equated with each other, but i’m saying that they share some common ground.

    I think the real problem here Peter is what i alluded to earlier. If you only deal with a caricature of faith, and not the real “beast” as it were, you can remain indifferent to what i’m saying. If you will allow me to define faith, then all of the sudden it isn’t as easy for you to dismiss it (at least for the sake of methodological consistency).

    So Peter i’m ready for you to answer my 2 questions above. I think that if you would then we could start getting somewhere.

    Bruce,

    Hello! When Peter said this:

    “unlike most philosophers who are atheists, who treat arguing that god doesn’t exist as a waste of time. And it is a waste of time for the most part, because when you irrationally believe in something no amount of rational argument will change your mind.”

    He opened the door to discuss the existence of God. I was, and still primarily am, arguing that Peter has constructed a “strawman” definition of faith b/c he can’t make room for it in his materialistic framework. This is key, b/c he (and you?) have rendered God “irrelevant” based on caricature.

    It seems Peter is trying to win the debate by definition. If the both of you define faith out of how you view reality, then of course he is irrelevant. However, as i have been trying to point out, that doesn’t make it true: that is merely question begging.

    This is the problem i see. Peter and you maintain God is irrelevant. This comes from within your view of reality; materialism. Well of course God is irrelevant (at best!) if the universe is a closed system. Similarly, when faith is defined from a materialistic standpoint, it merely reflects materialism.

    But for the theist like myself, this is all question begging! If you only operate within your materialism, of course God is irrelevant, but i contend that your view (materialism) is false, hence God is very relevant to our lives. So Bruce, if i can show that materialism is an inadequate way to understand reality, then supernatural (eg God/Spirit) frameworks become very relevant. I can’t do this as long as you both refuse to give it due consideration by looking at concepts However, all i’m merely trying to accomplish right now is persuade Peter (and you) to allow people in a supernatural paradigm define their terms.

    I have asked Peter to attempt to step outside of his materialism long enough to consider that it might need revising. I would encourage you to do the same. Here are the 2 questions i asked Peter, and i pose them to you as well: a) faith can be built on evidence, and b) if so, what kind of evidence would be necessary for one to make a “tentative extrapolation from past results (eg faith)?”

    Finally, bruce, i would love to interact with Peter’s claims, but until we can quit speaking past each other, i think that is a waste of time.

    derek

    Comment by brainofdtrain — April 11, 2007 @ 1:07 pm

  16. Derek,
    First, I should clarify that I may not be considered a ‘strict materialist.’ I tend to think of things in terms of how information flows through a system or between systems. The reason that this may not be strict materialist is that if a “ghost” were to communicate with a brain, even by the silly method of ‘pre-arranged correspondence’, that would be considered a valid information stream to me. The question that arises from that is can one make a coherent description of a ‘ghost’ in terms of such things and the answer SEEMS to be no, though the math for that is pretty complex at this point.

    Now, if I interpret your questions correctly, you are asking what I would consider as evidence for the existence of ‘ghosts’ or other non-material entities. One answer is that if (but not only if) the change in content in the brain of one who claims to be receiving a message from god (or from some other ghost-type-entity) can be shown to be receiving coherent information that could only have come from an external source but no physical source can be located, that would constitute evidence.

    It may be true that this type of communication happens. But the problem is that it places the sender of information (god?) in the category of technologically-advanced-being and suggests that it owes US moral import, not the other way round. If you use that line of evidence, you may also have to translate Genesis 1:1 “When we began we prepared your atmosphere and your land-masses.” It reduces god (even a ghostly or hyper-dimensional god) to a co-creature rather than a morally superior provider of meaning.

    Bruce

    Comment by Bruce — April 11, 2007 @ 11:02 pm

  17. It is funny to see how the question of God’s relevence comes down to a question of God’s existance. The main thing we fail to realize is that with God’s existance there is relevence and without His existance God has no relevence except for back in the later times when we needed to explain events that we couldn’t with out science. The problem is we are arguing with theories and not facts. Peter can no sooner claim his evidence to be truth than us christians can claim that our faith is truth. The actual problem is, in order to believe that there is no God you have to have faith that you are correct because there is no background or science that can explian the begging of the earth and human race. Likewise Christians and other religious people cannot use science to prove that it was God’s existance that started this spiral of human life. After much thought on this I would sooner have faith in something that needs faith rather than something that does not need faith (aka science) because in the end of it all science can not give me eternal life after death even if it is correct to believe in. But if God truly exists then would you not be happy you chose to believe and have faith that He created us because then your reward would go beyond this thing we call life. These are just some thought to think about.

    Comment by Dave — April 13, 2007 @ 10:39 am

  18. also if I may add to the end of my last post… this conversation is irrelevent because it does not matter what you believe because in the end the truth will be shown and it cannot be truly discovered using so called “facts” you have gone on to using your 5 senses… If you study Descartes at all he has a point when he says you cannot trust your 5 senses but then the true question remains… where does our existance come from… You will not figure it out the way you are going about it saying that faith is irrelevent. Or that God is irrelevent using these so called “facts”

    Comment by Dave — April 13, 2007 @ 10:52 am

  19. I agree that science has the inclination to ignore the question of God simply because science is incapable of subjecting God to the petri dish and performing repeated experimentations to discover the attributes of God. In addition, to admit the existence of God in science, some might fear, would let some uninitiative people to put God as the reason for every unexplainable circumstance.

    The way I see it, science is simply about discovering what has been there all along. What has been created already. The fundamental mistake in your article about the irrelevance of God is simply to base it on the fear of certain human individuals who would regress to a Godly explanation for a scientific enquiry into the laws of nature.

    The irony of it is that God is the reason for the beauty and coherence of the laws of nature. That there is a logical pattern and consistency in the biological, physical and chemical systems around us is in itself a testament to the existence of a brilliant being. A Supreme Being.

    Unfortunately due to the irrational fear that people might use God as an easy scapegoat explanation for the unexplicable has led science into a less than desirable direction. That the opposite of God must be simply… randomness.

    The simple question is this. How can randomness ever hope to achieve such coherency and consistency in the laws of nature that we observe? A simple example to illustrate this is the Monkeys and Typewriters scenario that simply postulates given enough monkeys and typewriters and time, the work of Shakespeare can be reproduced. Of course this has been shown to be a complete and utter failure.

    In the field of artificial intelligence, evolutionary algorithms which follow the basis of randomness have also been not very successful unless they are imbued with heuristics from an intelligent being, that is, a human expert input.

    I reckon one day should we finally successfully design artificial beings with a certain amount of intelligence, it would be ironic to witness them postulate the idea that they originated from a sequence of random events and are not a product nor design of intelligent beings.

    It is with the existence of God that lends credence and beauty to the work of science, which is essentially discovering the design of a Supreme Being much more intelligent than us.

    God isn’t needed to explain ethics, overcome fear of death, or provide meaning to life. That again stems from the same approach that which one fears in other scientists taking the cop-out way of explaining the unexplicable. That God is a gap-filler, answering questions which cannot yet be explained by logic or lacking adequate/any empirical observations.

    The beauty of it is that in a series of random origins that led to our existence and our planet’s existence, we seem to have an innate desire to discover the meaning of our existence. God has created us with this desire to seek Him out. Of course just as it is with scientific enquiries, there will be people who will come to many different conclusions about the meaning of lives.

    Just as it is with the coherency of science, there is also coherence in the way we were designed to have an optimal life. That is by living according to a set of ethics or if you will, as you have detailed in your analysis of what would be a good society ie one that would thrive the longest and achieve maximum happiness… God is the designer of that logical set of ethical laws as well.

    And as for the fear of death, it is ironic and perhaps a little too high-headed to put forward that believers in God do not fear death. Everybody fears death. At least anyone with a touch of humility and a dabble of maturity would acknowledge that. So believing in God is not because primarily one wish to alleviate one’s fear in death but rather is a byproduct of one’s faith.

    The provision of meaning into one’s life by the belief in God may initially be the catalyst into an enquiry about God but at the end, it is not a sufficient reason to continue believing in God. It is quite simply a result of a life’s journey through religious faith that enables one to see the coherency of that very belief. That even non-believers admit to the goodness of ethics. But for believers, one simply obey the set of ethics first, and come to that realisation as well some point in time.

    An analogy would be a five-year-old who accepts what is being taught at school with faith. And finally upon graduating from university, he/she realises the logic, origin and meaning behind the mathematical and scientific concepts which has been taught earlier.

    So just as it is with secular education, I completely agree it is a waste of time for a five-year-old to ponder upon the validity of the scientific system prior to going to school. He/she can ask so many questions about physics at university level but at his level of inexperience and the amount of time and knowledge needed to be able to validify the logical coherency of the educational system, probably about eleven years or more, the individual is simply ill-equipped to be able to answer that question no matter how hard he/she tries prior to school.

    Just as it is a waste of time for some to ponder upon the existence of God without first going through some amount of years within the realms of spiritual education and living.

    Comment by Alex — April 16, 2007 @ 2:40 pm

  20. The God of the Bible is completely irrelevant. For arguments sake, let’s assume that the Christians are right and that all people who have ever lived will be before the judgement seat of god. A simple bit of logic shows how the judgement doled out there is completely irrelevant. God is perfect. God created all people with the abilities and situations to be who they are. If God is perfect, then perfect judgement would take into account every single detail of a person’s being, including the ability god gave that person to make all decisions. Thus, perfect judgement from a perfect creator would indicate that ALL people would have to receive the same judgement. All things being equal, all things are equal.

    Comment by Marcus — June 11, 2007 @ 11:34 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: