A really big question

[Astyanax]

I have never said God was not devine, just organized religion stoped after writing their idea down and used religion for power rather than understanding. 

I think I get it. God is okay; organised religion is the problem.

This is a common view among people who dislike the moral and ceremonial aspects of religion or resist its obvious self-contradictions, yet can’t quite bring themselves to give up believing in God.

I don’t think anyone who considers the question from all angles could hold such an opinion for long, though. It pretends that the social and psychological benefits of religion are meaningless.

Let’s remind ourselves of those benefits.

• Religion comforts us and gives us hope. It subdues the fear of death and of what comes after. It reduces the fear of living, too; we can beg the gods for protection against ill luck, failure and the malice of others.
  
• It assures us that our beloved dead are not lost to us forever; we shall be reunited with the departed in the future.
  
• We can also pray for favours and things we want, such as health or love or money or triumph over our enemies. This conviction of God’s support is sometimes all we need to restore our own confidence in ourselves.
  
• Religion is social cement in families, tribes, nations and even pan-national groupings like ‘Christendom’ or the Dar-ul-Islam. Sharing the same faith makes us more willing to help one another, trust one another, fight on one another’s behalf.
  
• Religion protects us by sanctioning violence or involuntary restraint upon those who threaten the community. Thus it helps hold large societies together, and gives adults an incentive to be socially cooperative and productive. It also unites us in war against our enemies.
  
• It helps children grow up to be sociable, law-abiding adults.
  

Every one of these benefits famously has its drawbacks. In contemporary Western society, ordinary folk take the benefits for granted; often we don’t even notice them. We focus on the drawbacks. We use rude words to describe them: brainwashing, conformity, hypocrisy, oppression, exploitation, extortion, warmongering and so on.

However, the benefits of organised religion so decisively outweigh the drawbacks that there is scarcely a community on Earth that does not have religion at the heart of it. And no, religion isn’t imposed upon the people by elites; elites may exploit it for their own selfish purposes, but having religious ideas and making up religious beliefs is something all humans do; even the mentally ill, who cannot participate in normal society, make up beliefs and rituals of their own to comfort themselves. Religion seems to be nothing less than a human instinct. Why?

Perhaps it won’t always be like this – some very advanced nations in Europe and the Far East seem to be moving beyond the need for mass religion – but most of the world, and certainly America, have a long way to go, I think, before they can abandon religion without undergoing a civilizational decline and fall. Organised religion exists because it sustains our world; perhaps surprisingly, this continues to be true whether or not the gods exist.

[Randyvine]

I think I get it. God is okay; organised religion is the problem.

This is a common view among people who dislike the moral and ceremonial aspects of religion or resist its obvious self-contradictions, yet can’t quite bring themselves to give up believing in God.

I don’t think anyone who considers the question from all angles could hold such an opinion for long, though. It pretends that the social and psychological benefits of religion are meaningless.

Let’s remind ourselves of those benefits.

• Religion comforts us and gives us hope. It subdues the fear of death and of what comes after. It reduces the fear of living, too; we can beg the gods for protection against ill luck, failure and the malice of others.
  
• It assures us that our beloved dead are not lost to us forever; we shall be reunited with the departed in the future.
  
• We can also pray for favours and things we want, such as health or love or money or triumph over our enemies. This conviction of God’s support is sometimes all we need to restore our own confidence in ourselves.
  
• Religion is social cement in families, tribes, nations and even pan-national groupings like ‘Christendom’ or the Dar-ul-Islam. Sharing the same faith makes us more willing to help one another, trust one another, fight on one another’s behalf.
  
• Religion protects us by sanctioning violence or involuntary restraint upon those who threaten the community. Thus it helps hold large societies together, and gives adults an incentive to be socially cooperative and productive. It also unites us in war against our enemies.
  
• It helps children grow up to be sociable, law-abiding adults.
  

Every one of these benefits famously has its drawbacks. In contemporary Western society, ordinary folk take the benefits for granted; often we don’t even notice them. We focus on the drawbacks. We use rude words to describe them: brainwashing, conformity, hypocrisy, oppression, exploitation, extortion, warmongering and so on.

However, the benefits of organised religion so decisively outweigh the drawbacks that there is scarcely a community on Earth that does not have religion at the heart of it. And no, religion isn’t imposed upon the people by elites; elites may exploit it for their own selfish purposes, but having religious ideas and making up religious beliefs is something all humans do; even the mentally ill, who cannot participate in normal society, make up beliefs and rituals of their own to comfort themselves. Religion seems to be nothing less than a human instinct. Why?

Perhaps it won’t always be like this – some very advanced nations in Europe and the Far East seem to be moving beyond the need for mass religion – but most of the world, and certainly America, have a long way to go, I think, before they can abandon religion without undergoing a civilizational decline and fall. Organised religion exists because it sustains our world; perhaps surprisingly, this continues to be true whether or not the gods exist.

I keep in mind that even Jesus hated religion and that the religious leaders of that
time sent him to the cross. No need to even ask why when their fear is obvious.

I believe the Bible is scripture from the tested prophets. I believe it is close enough
to what a Creator God our Father would want us to know of him, that is being forced
to step away for a time at the request of men. Men who wanted a world without God.

But that alotted time is going to end someday. I just hope it's before men blow are
asses all to hell. But I have nothing to do with religion that recruits people saying it's
for their own good, when it's really for cult like prophet. That's not all I have to say
about that but I'll end like this.

I can't imagine the Creator of anything being a capture of his creation. So what
or who ever created this universe ( and the evidence does show it is a creation not
just some random anomaly) is likely as big or bigger than the universe. That would
account for his omnipresence. it's likely impossible that he isn't everywhere all at once.
But I don't know because God doen't talk to me (well maybe in some ways). So I just
think as I digress.:)

[andy06shake]

I believe the Bible is scripture from the tested prophets. I believe it is close enough
to what a Creator God our Father would want us to know of him, that is being forced
to step away for a time at the request of men. Men who wanted a world without God.

Your main concern there is that about 75% of the world's population still identifies with some sort of organised religious practice.

And thats in this day and age.

It was a lot higher percentage in the past, even though there were fewer people.

Which begs the question, who are these Men who wanted a world without God?

Additionally, how would you force an omnipotent omnipresent entity to do anything?

Personally, I believe the Bible, just like any other religious text, is a work of man with all his fears and fallibility laid bare.

But I don't discount the notion of a creator or creator force in our universe.

[Astyanax]

I keep in mind that even Jesus hated religion...

He did? 
 

And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

— The Gospel According to St Luke, Ch. 2:42ff

When was the last time you spent three days in church, eh? 

It’s true that he wasn’t fond of the religious establishment. Nor they of him, of course, but it wasn’t so much Jesus himself they were afraid of, as what the Romans would do to the Jews if there was a public disturbance during Passover Week, while Jerusalem was choc-a-bloc.

Besides, a man who hates religion doesn’t invent religious rituals of his own for his disciples to follow. The Last Supper was very specifically intended as such; Jesus said so himself as he passed out the bread and wine.
 

I believe the Bible is scripture from the tested prophets. I believe it is close enough to what a Creator God our Father would want us to know of him, that is being forced to step away for a time at the request of men. 

As you probably realise already, I do not share your beliefs. But your religious faith is no business of mine, and I shan’t contradict you. I am, however, curious about this:
 

The evidence does show it is a creation not just some random anomaly

I know a bit about physical cosmology and am not totally unfamiliar with the philosophical arguments for God – Aristotle, St Anselm, etc – but I must say I’ve never seen anything I could think of as compelling evidence that the Universe was created by a sentient being. Some arguments of this kind were put forward in the nineteenth century (the most successful ones are found in Natural Theology by Rev. William Paley), but they did not survive the rise of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Paley’s arguments are, of course, still persuasive to those who ‘do not believe’ in evolution. Personally, I think disbelieving in evolution is like disbelieving in the Moon, but I’m not going to argue about that, either.
 

I can't imagine the Creator of anything being a capture of his creation. So what or who ever created this universe is likely as big or bigger than the universe.

But still invisible to the human eye and all the fancy instruments we have at our disposal?

If we cannot detect God by physical means, then God cannot be a physical being (unless He chooses to become physical temporarily, as He is said to have done when he incarnated himself in Jesus). And if God is not a physical being, then He cannot possess the attribute of physical extension, i.e. size. I believe Jesus himself was quite clear about this.

No-one has yet addressed the question I asked in my first post here, which was (to sum it up) how long it would take for signals (sense-impressions and instructions to the limbs) to travel through the body of a being as big as the Universe. It we are speaking of any physical being, then those signals cannot exceed the speed of light, and it would take billions of years before any signal from the entity’s extremities could reach its brain, or vice versa. By the way, the maximum speed of sensory impulses through human nerves is a paltry 120m/sec, or 275mph in American units.

Finally – and just to be argumentative – human experience strongly suggests that every creator becomes a captive of their creation. Show me an artist who doesn’t feel obliged to protect and defend his own work, and I’ll show you a liar.

[Astyanax]

Which begs the question, who are these men who wanted a world without God?

Good question. Atheists and agnostics have always been a tiny and usually powerless minority of humankind. It wasn’t until the Enlightenment that one see the first influential atheists arise. We should probably give Voltaire credit for being the first.

[chr0naut]

He did? 
 
When was the last time you spent three days in church, eh? 

It’s true that he wasn’t fond of the religious establishment. Nor they of him, of course, but it wasn’t so much Jesus himself they were afraid of, as what the Romans would do to the Jews if there was a public disturbance during Passover Week, while Jerusalem was choc-a-bloc.

Besides, a man who hates religion doesn’t invent religious rituals of his own for his disciples to follow. The Last Supper was very specifically intended as such; Jesus said so himself as he passed out the bread and wine.
 
As you probably realise already, I do not share your beliefs. But your religious faith is no business of mine, and I shan’t contradict you. I am, however, curious about this:
 
I know a bit about physical cosmology and am not totally unfamiliar with the philosophical arguments for God – Aristotle, St Anselm, etc – but I must say I’ve never seen anything I could think of as compelling evidence that the Universe was created by a sentient being. Some arguments of this kind were put forward in the nineteenth century (the most successful ones are found in Natural Theology by Rev. William Paley), but they did not survive the rise of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Paley’s arguments are, of course, still persuasive to those who ‘do not believe’ in evolution. Personally, I think disbelieving in evolution is like disbelieving in the Moon, but I’m not going to argue about that, either.
 
But still invisible to the human eye and all the fancy instruments we have at our disposal?

If we cannot detect God by physical means, then God cannot be a physical being (unless He chooses to become physical temporarily, as He is said to have done when he incarnated himself in Jesus). And if God is not a physical being, then He cannot possess the attribute of physical extension, i.e. size. I believe Jesus himself was quite clear about this.

No-one has yet addressed the question I asked in my first post here, which was (to sum it up) how long it would take for signals (sense-impressions and instructions to the limbs) to travel through the body of a being as big as the Universe. It we are speaking of any physical being, then those signals cannot exceed the speed of light, and it would take billions of years before any signal from the entity’s extremities could reach its brain, or vice versa. By the way, the maximum speed of sensory impulses through human nerves is a paltry 120m/sec, or 275mph in American units.

Finally – and just to be argumentative – human experience strongly suggests that every creator becomes a captive of their creation. Show me an artist who doesn’t feel obliged to protect and defend his own work, and I’ll show you a liar.

To be quite specific, evolutionary theories and creationist theories are not mutually exclusive of each other. Evolution can (and does) still operate alongside in a creationist world, and vice-versa. They also describe events vastly separate in time and in subject. Evolution describes the adaptation of life over time and creation describes a hard origin. Neither discounts the other.

[Randyvine]

Hey gang I just found this and it relates so well to the Size matters part
of the OP. I had to post it. More fascinating stuff with some great visual
effects.

[Astyanax]

Evolution describes the adaptation of life over time and creation describes a hard origin. Neither discounts the other.

Not adaptation, just alteration. Adaptation is inferred. But yes, you are quite right.

But could we please not drag the discussion down to yet another discussion of basics? I want to talk about the big question the OP is asking.

[Astyanax]

Evolution describes the adaptation of life over time and creation describes a hard origin. Neither discounts the other.

Not adaptation, just alteration. Adaptation is inferred. But yes, you are quite right.

And now could we please not drag the discussion down to yet another tedious debate over fundamentas? I want to talk about the big question the OP is asking. Do you have any views on that?

[Randyvine]

He did? 
 

When was the last time you spent three days in church, eh? 

It’s true that he wasn’t fond of the religious establishment. Nor they of him, of course, but it wasn’t so much Jesus himself they were afraid of, as what the Romans would do to the Jews if there was a public disturbance during Passover Week, while Jerusalem was choc-a-bloc.

He did? 

As you probably realise already, I do not share your beliefs. But your religious faith is no business of mine, and I shan’t contradict you. I am, however, curious about this:
 

I know a bit about physical cosmology and am not totally unfamiliar with the philosophical arguments for God – Aristotle, St Anselm, etc – but I must say I’ve never seen anything I could think of as compelling evidence that the Universe was created by a sentient being. Some arguments of this kind were put forward in the nineteenth century (the most successful ones are found in Natural Theology by Rev. William Paley), but they did not survive the rise of the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Paley’s arguments are, of course, still persuasive to those who ‘do not believe’ in evolution. Personally, I think disbelieving in evolution is like disbelieving in the Moon, but I’m not going to argue about that, either.
 

He did? 
No-one has yet addressed the question I asked in my first post here, which was (to sum it up) how long it would take for signals (sense-impressions and instructions to the limbs) to travel through the body of a being as big as the Universe. It we are speaking of any physical being, then those signals cannot exceed the speed of light, and it would take billions of years before any signal from the entity’s extremities could reach its brain, or vice versa. By the way, the maximum speed of sensory impulses through human nerves is a paltry 120m/sec, or 275mph in American units.

Finally – and just to be argumentative – human experience strongly suggests that every creator becomes a captive of their creation. Show me an artist who doesn’t feel obliged to protect and defend his own work, and I’ll show you a liar.

He did? 

There is every indication to believe so. The Sanhedrin, Pharisees and Saducees
he refered to as "the Synagogue of Satan". He told them straight up they were
fathered by the devil. So literally, that verse points to a lineage of our species
that lacks a few important faculties that imo make us human beings. A clear
example would be empathy. Only someone with a complete lack of empathy
could bomb school children and not lose any sleep over it. That isn't a human
being by my call. Do you think God has a religion? 

Also

One thing I refuse to do anywhere is try to tell people what to believe.
No way is that gonna happen. I will try to rebuke any remark that suggests
a fallacy in my belief. Like you saying you have a problem with faith in something
you can't see. I paraphrase but then I will say the whole world is according to science
made up of stuff we can't see with the human eye. So it sounds maybe a little particular
IDK?

And

I think what you refer to as rituals were just commandments to the people in that time that
they commemorate what he did for them on certain days in certain times. Feast and 
celebrate lest they forget, as they often did anyway. I believe because the whole story fits
better than anything man has come up with.
 
But 

I would say burning your first born in the belly of a metal calf to some pagan God?
That's a ritual with chanting and dancing and human sacrifice in a fearful atmosphere.
I know... God demanded Abraham and all that. I can say one thing about that, God
must have had his own reasons for putting Abe to the test. It may have been as
simple as showing him the difference between himself and paganism. Anyway lets
steer away from theology if we can Asty without being rude of course. You can have
the last word if you like.