There have to be areas of not knowing and darkness for the God accepters. Such is natural for a finite one. In these areas of not knowing and lack of clarity, we go on to find more of the benefits of the Infinite One.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Zac of Perth. Believers find God amidst doubts. That's part of the finite condition.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

That's not valid, Zac of Perth. There's a mountain of ignorance among believers while there's also a great load of helpful insights and knowledge denied to those who will not allow themselves to be informed by the Lord. God worship is vital for humanity. It goes to pieces without it. Why throw out the wisdom of the ages with the idea that we now see so much more. Knowledge is very limited if the supernatural is from the beginning denied by God denial.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Dawkins stresses the doubts that exist still within scientific knowledge. Believers stress how sure thy are, and disavow doubt in their deity. So who is the more reasonable? The non-theists, by a country mile.

zac, perth,

Yet with God in the heart, it's a hundred times better. No delusion this in peace, joy and love.QED not in test-tube but in heart and mind.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Enjoy, strive, explore, share, thrive, live and let live, while you can.

jim rogers, sydney,

Jim Rogers. And then?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Cormac MacGowan of Galway, Ireland, I read you but nowhere near as much as I read the Dawkins you say I do not read. Come, come! There's no simple explanation as long as are are in the realm of matter, energy and their particles. Whatever complexity and evolution ( excuse any previous lack of clarity on my part ) final and total explanation is only in non materiality. Inadequate explanation is no explanation at all. My fish in their aquarium are having a great time investigating their surroundings yet they cannot see beyond. We humans have to pierce through that tough, hard materialistic shell. to find life and its real meaning. Your Irish forebears knew it for all their many shortcomings. May ours also be translated into something better.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Thanks for that Frank of Sydney. Yet the phenomenon exists that the powerful magnetic force of the God concept uniquely realigns the emotional particles quite magnificently in the direction of renewed hope, strength, peace, joy and love. This is the daily experience of hundreds of thousands throughout the world.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

It may be galling, and too hard or unpalatable for some to accept, but humans evolved by a natural physical process of evolution, and by that process developed a mind with intelligence and consciousness, and the ability to contemplate the meaning of self and life.

jim rogers, sydney,

Bryan Storey. If you read Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion", you'll realise that you have the wrong end of the stick. In point of fact, Dawkins looks for a SIMPLE explanation for the COMPLEXITY in nature. This simplicity is found in the Theory of Evolution. The fact that you've tried to argue otherwise suggest that you have either not read the book, have read it, but are deliberately misunderstanding it, or just didn't grasp the simple concepts therein.

Hundreds of thousands have testified to arrant nonsense in the past, notably that the sun rotated about the earth. Only the most dedicated of anachronists would insist that this holds true today. Yet, here you are suggesting that because hundreds of thousands down through history believed in god, that we should accept this as a mark of validity? What a lot of rot!

And, as for anthropomorphism, it is quite plain that you suffer from that failing a great deal more than does the Prof.
Blind barriers indeed!

Cormac MacGowan, Galway, Ireland

Bill of Towoomba, the effect of invisible, intangible grace well received, is always positive. It permeates the whole being.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Professor Dawkins' anthropomorphism pushes him time and again to demand a complex explanation for the complex nature of human intelligence. But that would be no explanation at all.( see especially pages 125 and 149 of The God delusion). Particles however much evolved, cannot possibly be completely explained by particles but only in the immaterial (spiritual). The astonishing thing is that as hundreds of thousands tesify throughout the ages, the more one breaks through the hard core tough blind barrier of materialism towards the proper spiritual (non material) adequate explanation, the more the material comes to life and is seen in a hugely better perspective through the improved insight.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

The God concept is so magnetic that it can transcend and transform the lot o Frank of Sydney.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Yet what is undeniable, Jim of Sidney, is that we are emotionally changed by ideas. The God idea is the most powerful concept of all.If things are as you say, you are more open to it than you realise.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

God's spirit penetrates the whole being if allowed to be present. Its an invisible permeation, Bill of Towoomba, with good influence. What you detect are material particles. So no microscope is necessary. In the searching process you will find many imaginary illusions! A good read of Aldous Huxley's book on the influence of prayer and meditation worldwide is really helpful. Anything by the Catholic physicist, Slawomir Biela is also excellent. Many are calling aspects of material being by the name 'spiritual'. That's of no help. Jim of Sydney, I am pleased by what you say. You are in the minority. There must be more God influence in your life than you imagine. Many of us who claim we are God centred are less so. The measuring rod as Jesus brilliantly said is in the degree that we have become less selfish. That's how we find God. By Worship, especially in truthful humility and sexual purity we fly in the direction of tremendously helpful renewal of the quality of life.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

There is an area in the prefrontal cortex that seems to be activated when a decision is made to act, so is in effect an area involved in self-will or determination. Emotions are generated in the limbic system, along with most of our appetites and urges. One component of the limbic system is the amygdala, which is the brain's alarm system, involved in responding to threat, with fear, panic, rage/anger or appeasement. Controlling emotions involves not always responding straight away to the amygdala's dominant initial response, and thus involves a fractionally delayed loop of feedback to the frontal and prefrontal cortex, where a threat is placed into context, and a rational plan developed for appropriate action. How does a soul, grace, and the spiritual realm fit in with this, and influence behaviour, if our spiritual side isn't just in reality due to activation of brain area(s) of the frontal/prefrontal, temporal and cortical areas more specifically wired for spiritual feelings and moral thinking? Many psychopaths have been shown to have malfunction of the amygdala-prefrontal/frontal cortex areas. Is their problem physical or spiritual or both? How are these two things related or reconciled?

frank, sydney,

Yet you assume there is a mechanism! Athiesm does none of the things you say it does, and it is no coincidence that most devastating wars and disease epidemics were when religion was strong. Science=progress.

Do you have any proper evidence? And if so, tell us.

Ben, York,

BS, There is no good evidence for any of the negative claims you make about non-theism. "Anti-God" is needlessly pejorative. Non-theists are not against God, but merely don't believe in one, which is a very different thing.
I have hope, optimism, interior peace, a happy family and marriage (with my atheist wife, and kids who'll make up their own minds), enjoy my job, and am healthy. That you would find atheism depressing doesn't mean all others will or do!

jim, sydney,

I ask again, if grace exists, HOW does it effect brain processes, WHERE in the brain does it act?

bill, towoomba,

You're jumping and assuming a bit , Bill ! Who said there's no mechanism? Grace, that invisible real imput, uses and influences what you are pointing to.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

So Bryan, you say "outlook" miraculously changes behaviour without a mechanism?
I think you are getting yourself tied up in knots.
I can only ask again, how does "grace" change behaviour if there is no mechanism?

bill, towoomba,

But Bill, anti God ones need to explain why they promote a lobby which leads to more depression, less hope and interior peace, more family breakdown and human physical illness.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

There's no mechanism in the spiritual. Yet you would not deny outlook changes behaviour. That's what the medical world seems also to be saying so often. Over to you Bill ot Towoomba I'm open to more light from this insight of yours..

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Theists who believe in a soul still have to explain, on a material level, the mechanism by which a soul changes and effects neuronal processes. None can. "Its magic".

bill, towoomba,

Not desire, Ben but evidence; nothing to do with Theocracy. I've said how you can have the sort of evidence you'd often accept in your researches into the wide Universe.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Not in my desire Bryan, and we don't live in a theocracy whatever you may wish. And if the soul is undetectable how do you know it exists?

Ben, York,

Bill of Towoomba. The soul is not separate. It is the distinct spiritual element penetrating our whole being as its first principle of life. Difficult to get into this if you only have a materialistic outlook. That seems to be the problem of many in these debates. I find it quite baffling how one can switch off from explanation of the material existences. A good test would be to go into prayer and meditation with guidance.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I've been meaning to mention that in those first 27 pages of the God Delusion, Professor Dawkins is most concerned by the privileges accorded to the religious outlook. I find that indicative of the latent natural human desire for God. I'v e met this all my life and that is my understanding of it, not a something political which we need to try to get rid of.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

The soul is supposed to be that which survives death, no? Yet there is not a jot of evidence for this, a pillar of religious faith (Heaven/Hell). And Bryan, read the whole book. If I read 2 pages of the bible I could probably glean that god is unpleasant and Jesus a nice, caring man.

Ben, York,

I don't believe in a soul separate to our neuronal processes. I don't believe we have a separate self-aware essence, or an inner essence separate to though linked mysteriously to our brains, with immortality as part of its essence, or as a magical unification of various components that make up one's identity.

bill, towoomba,

Bill of Towoomba, it would help if you told us what you understand by soul. Not sure if you are one of those who keep waving Professor Dawkins book on the God delusion. I picked up some more points today, pages 77-78 and after seeing how much his supporters crack him up, I really rub my eyes in disbelief to see that he skates right round the central argument of Aquinas, calls them proofs, when Aquinas calls them '5 ways to God', mixes up logic with truth, confuses omniscience and omnipotence. If we could get some admission of mistakes and apology, it would help and we could start debating more earnestly.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to whether anyone in the world has any worthwhile explanation or theory as to how a soul interacts with neurones to change neuronal firing and influence cerebral function. Descartes soul in the pineal gland was garbage, and no other "soul" theory has come along since that is any good either.
It is almost universal amongst those that work in the field and write on cognitive science and consciousness that dualism of Descartes' type is unsustainable.
All sensory perceptions, feelings, emotions and thoughts are accompanied by evidence of neuronal activity. Stimulating various brain areas directly can cause sensations relating to all the different senses, or to emotions and thoughts. There doesn't appear to be any mechanism for a soul to be in any way involved, and no evidence that there is anything involved in sensations, perceptions, emotions and consciousness other than neuronal activity.

bill, towoomba,

So, Bill of Towoomba, what do you call evidence? I do not tire of you.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Yawn...........
The is no evidence any infinite being exists. No evidence such a being interacts with our world.
There is no evidence for a soul. No explanation of how a soul could interact with neuronal processes to produce variations in neuronal activity, or as a consequence effect thought and behaviour.

bill, towoomba,

Ben, I have told you how much I've read Dawkins, I have told you I'm regularly in touch with scientific development and thinking, I've told you of my love of things scientific and yet you still want to put me down. This does not argue too well for what you are saying. If you had followed what I write with care you would see I'm not arguing from gaps or about such gaps or in touch with fairies. I start from the here and now and everything around us and do not hesitate to shout from the rooftops that nothing exists unless there's Infinite Existence to explain it all which Itself has no need to look for explanation because necessariy fully self explanatory. Professor Dawkins has not addressed this in the God Delusion.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan, as the quote at the very start of the GD book says, surely it is enough to see the garden is beautiful without tinking there are fairies at the bottom of it. We inhabit a wonderful universe far beyond even your tiny god, but does not have to remain undiscovered. That is why I respect scientists who have devoted their lives to widening the scope of our knowledge. Yet you want it hidden as god could inhabit the darkness. God of the gaps logic... except that you haven't read the book so probably have no idea what I'm on aboout. You should read it with an open mind and broaden your horizons.

Ben, York,

Bill and Dave, your views would change considerably in the understanding that finite can only be explained in the infinite, necessarily invisible and incomprehensible per se yet just has to be there if we are to be scientific.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Sorry Bill, didn't realise you would post here what you sent to me ...I couldn't agree more. I agree with Einstien, that the idea that God intervenes to change events is impossible.

Dualism is also implausible, and I don't believe in a soul. We are still left with the hard problem of consciousness (How physical processes in the brain lead to subjective experience).

dave, melbourne,

If God is supposedly all perfect, then he is perfectly happy, and content, I presume? Then he cannot be made less content, so can't be affected by human foibles. How can he then care what people do, if his equanimity is immutable?
It seems to me that to attribute anthropomorphic properties to God, and expect that he acts to change events in the world by sending aliquots or quanta of grace, or by other means of divine intervention, is a bizarre, flawed and impossible concept.

bill, towoomba,

All our human needs are transformed into something much better through relating to God, Bill of Towoomba.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

If God is supposedly all perfect, then he is perfectly happy, and content, I presume? Then he cannot be made less content, so can't be affected by human foibles. How can he then care what people do, if his equanimity is immutable?
It seems to me that to attribute anthropomorphic properties to God, and expect that he acts to change events in the world by sending aliquots or quanta of grace, or by other means of divine intervention, is a bizarre, flawed and impossible concept.

dave, melbourne,

I heard a definition of why God made us which is helpful, Ben. It is that He made us to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world and to be happy with Him for ever in the next. Relating your life to Him is richly rewarding although many mysteries remain. Of course, I accept much of science, maybe more than you do. Yet there is a mountain beyond as there is behind every horizon. I'm astonished to think you think it all ends there. I believe you worship the scientists more than a little, Ben. Not healthy.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I never said ignore mysteries, Richard of Dublin. I'm for searching. That's quite normal and can be done as we have a bit to eat. Of course we need to eat but we very much need increasing interior peace which we only find in God consciousness.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Can God have absolute empathy? Empathy is the imaginative projection into another's feelings, a state of total identification with another's situation, condition, and thoughts; the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present.
If so, the God would experience displeasure, pain, distaste, hatred, fear, envy, lust, and other negative emotions. If he can't, then he is not truly empathetic, but merely detachedly recognising and analysing human situations, which is pseudo-empathy. True empathy requires that the being/person feeling empathy has had experience of the emotions concerned at some time. If he can, then he has experienced imperfection, and is not a being imbued with absolute goodness and perfection.

bill, towoomba,

"Are you saying that unsolved mysteries must be ignored?"
Er, I think it's you who was suggesting that unsolved mysteries should be ignored, Father Bryan.
Or, at least, that we don't need to search for answers because we already have them in some spiritual form.
I don't have time to ponder theological subtleties; like other life forms, my main concern is making sure that I have something to eat.

Richard, Dublin,

No, science can solve mysteries if you allow it too, and has done so. Why do you still ignore the answers science gives? The things I asked were (if your god were true):
Are we god's playthings?
Were we made because he was bored?
Why would your god want to make us?
Was he lonely?

If you look for answers and feel god creating us answers it all, try to answer them. You won't be able to.

Ben, York,

Sorry, I though I'd answered you, Ben. Are you saying that unsolved mysteries must be ignored?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Yes actually, I would. Knowing the gruesome detail would not bring them back, whatever you think of Jesus and Lazarus. Nothing returns from the dead. And what are these 'ultimate questions'? Why don't you answer mine?

Ben, York,

I agree 'how' and 'why' are closely related Ben but you still switch off, shunting the big question into categories and pigeon holes, ignoring the ultimate and essential question concerning existence. Like you I find many unanswered questions yet there has to be adequate and ultimate explanation much deeper than all interesting scientific discoveries. Would you give up searching for the mysterious death of a loved one by saying 'I've no idea who or what did it I'll just get on with my pursuits' ?.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

There is no 'why' Bryan. That is not to say there is no purpose to our lives, just that there was no motivation for creation. We can have a 'why' through philosophy, philanthropy, charity and appreciating the beauty and scale of the universe and spiritual fulfilment (not the worship of god/s kind, the meditation, at peace type). But even by asking your 'why', you have no answer. Are we god's playthings? Made because he was bored? Why would your god want to make us? Was he lonely?

Ben, York,

GrozZ of Ponypridd, Wales, your answer reveals you have given up the quest for the ultimate reason why. You've switched off. That will deliver you to unreal, fairy land, believe me. Of course 'how' is important but the ultimate reason 'why' adds dynamic wisdom, strength, peace and joy where there would be loss of Hope. Deeper waters are required as we all realise in the saner moments. Worship of God tranforms us all if we persevere.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

RE: father Bryan- **Why' is much more important than 'how'.**
The reason you say this is fear. Fear of losing your god, for if people keep asking HOW rather than WHY, they will eventually get answers... on how things work, how evolution happens, how our bodies develop, HOW diseases utilise our bodies and kill us... rather than "why did god put these diseases here to kill us"
By forcing people to ask "why am i here" you keep in their heads that they have purpose, that there is a higher power. But its quite clear that there is no creator or god or magical fairy of any kind.
The reason i come to this conclussion is the vast amount of religions and gods throughout history, "I believe in one less god than you, when you realise why you dismiss all others, you will realise why I dismiss yours"

GrosZ, Pontypridd, Wales

Ben:I'd be pretty silly involved in these exchanges, not knowing what Darwin says. It's about what is proximate. The deeper waters are better than the shallow. 'Why' is much more important than 'how'.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Have you read the Origin of Species yet? Picture the universe, the complexity of it all and the natural processes within it and then tell me you need God to appreciate it. If you do, I am truly sorry for you.

Ben, York,

I could recommend hundreds of books. I know what you're saying. Ben you're inspired by Jim's love of nature. To go beyond and much more into the meaning is to find something one hundred times better. 'Before I allowed God to be a reality in my life' a friend told me 'I had a contentment which was inferior'. Find God and really live. Why ignore the wisdom of the centuries? Have you read the famous Aldous Huxley's 'Perennial Philosophy yet? God is right there waiting for you to find life's real meaning instead of limping around saying 'I'm fine, it's you religious lot who've got it wrong with your fables.'

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan, why must you devalue life by ignoring Jim's inspiring words? You never tell anyone any evidence and basically just say 'it is'.Read the book and evaluate the arguments.

Ben, York,

Jim of Sydney, you've got me thinking of one of those Agatha Christie mysteries where evrybody was looking around the evidence which was on their doorstep.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Got to take my hat off to you with this impressive list, Jim of Sydney and your kind of response this time round. You just have to see what you're missing.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

The 60 or so religion books included other religions (eg 6 on Islam), and the history of religion, comparative religion, and biblical scholarship, so about 20 were specifically pro-Christian (including several by Chesterton, Lewis, McGrath, L.T.Johnson, Merton etc), some neutral, others controversial or radical, several negative. Another 50 or so other books diverged into philosophy, anthropology, evolution, cosmology, other science, sociology, morality, cognitive science and the mind, consciousness etc.
I have great admiration for many believers, including some family members, friends, acquaintances or former teachers. I disagree with the basis for their belief. I can't follow their preference to keep faith in events I don't believe happened, either in the OT or the NT, purely to achieve some spiritual benefit that I don't find at all necessary.
I live with a sense of awe for the wonders around me, and optimism for the future. Life may be transitory, but it's a fantastic gift.

jim, sydney,

Jim, how many of those books were pro Christian?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Bryan, I find much of what you write irrational. The 60 books I've read in the last 2 years only highlight the irrationality of theistic practice.

jim, sydney,

That's it, Jim of Sydney. I see where you switch off, become quite irrational, calling those who go on seeking, magic seekers. That's not the way for a man like you.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

We have a conscience, no argument there, but it is part of our human cognitive processes and psyche, not anything else, nor attatched by magic to anything else (not a soul, or spirits, or divine graces, or anything you care to throw in to confuse).
It is believers who refuse to delve deeper into real understanding, prefering simplistic, primitive, animistic, magical and mysterious explanations.
All religious dogma and scriptural interpretation IS sophistry.

jim, sydney,

Jim of Sydney, Conscience it is the inner strident Voice helping me to judge between right and wrong.It's necessary explanation which I always need. This never leaves me. I have to delve further than you seem to want to do. Moreover the real assent to God gives a completion and vitality which cannot be reduced to sophism.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Conscience as a faculty, or however one defines it, is a human neuronal process, as are emotions, thought and all reasoning.

Bryan, you seem incapable of seeing that your spiritual faith could be based on puerly neuronal, mind-based processes, so there really is a lack of common ground for sensible argument. The brain can work without a divine santa claus running inside or alongside it. You have as yetstill offered no arument to prove a soul exists or is even vaguely likely to.

That humans have asked the big questions for many millenia doesn't prove anything except the enquiring nature within us. I don't expect you will ever see that, but, c'est la vie..................

jim , sydney,

brian, what is your definition of the voice of conscience, or your definition of conscience (is it just moral consciousness) If it is more to you, what evidence exists for it????

jim, sydney,

Are you really going Jim of Sydney? We haven't started yet. The world inside you is an enormous ocean that needs exploring unless you want to say ' leave me alone'. You're against research? I was suspicious but hope I'm wrong.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, u

It is pointless discussing the other issues if you do not address the main issue of God's existence. Basics are required. A Priest from Tanzania staying with me, bears out what is commonsensical except for the group of Dawkins and books of Science worshippers, viz that before the locals took up Christianity they were worshipping a series of things, the basis of which is God. It's a natural desire. Why don't you see it? What is it with this group? I feel justified in saying you're running away from it, puffing out posh clouds, shouting about all the books you've read and calling others ignorant.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

You say it's obvious God exists, I say the evidence is completely lacking...
You say yes, I say no, you say stop, I say go........
Oh, this is futile! It's reminiscent of a Monty Python argument sketch:
Bryan: You haven't proof God doesn't exist
Atheists: That's right, we say that can't be proven, nor can His existence
B: So I win
A: But you can't prove He exists! There is no convincing evidence for that.
B: I don't have to prove it, it's obvious He does!
A: No it's not
B: Yes it is!
A: An argument isn't just contradiction.
B: It can be.
and on it goes. It's been fun, but life is for living not futile argument...

jim, sydney,

I did not mention conscience. I spoke of Conscience- not an argument or reasoning process but a faculty.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

And Bryan, if you read the article above (and the others in these sites, and in his book) Dawkins talks about these other issues, so it is you alone who has decided to narrow the focus of debate.
You are presumably a Christian for a number of reasons, not just for ontological or contingent arguments. If those reasons are based on events that didn't happen, and are myth, as many of us believe, then why be a Christian rather than a Baha'i or follower of Confucius, or humanist?

jim, sydney,

There is no proof God exists. Everything in our universe follows laws of nature. That this is true is, so far, evident by extrapolation from the body of scientific knowledge to date.
[the explanations for many things still lie in the future, but that doesn't change the premise. The more we know, the more aware we become of the complexities and wondrous scope of life and the universe. ]
This includes all human functions, from walking to talking, thinking, emotions, memory and conscience.
There is no evidence for a soul, and it is a rare expert on consciousness who believes in one.
As Ben keeps asking, where is your proof, beyond statements from your own fallible mind?
Why do you run from us when we ask for definitive evidence of your God acting to change events in the world?

jim, sydney,

Jim of Sydney, I will gladly debate all the diversions you regularly introduce on other debating platforms but in this debate, I stay on the subject posed. You wish to shift the ground all the time. I am waiting for the proof that God does not exist. It's up to this little group contibuting here to produce the evidence. God's existence is obvious from the effects all around us and the Voice of Conscience to which you've all one by one admitted. You just tell me to shut up, repeating myself or I'm ignorant of Science or supersitious and all the other usual replies. Kindly address the question on the board.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Ben, how's it you have a moral code and how does it arise that you think like that? Conscience is a good beginning for all our quests. Sorry you take things so personally at times. Yet you come up for more! If you find 4 Commandments tell us more. No need to keep coming up with bits and pieces of scientific knowledge with which we who know more than a bit, are pretty familiar. I've been an avid follower of scientific developments all my life, fascinated to read Dawkins just in case I missed a point. Conscience is on the debating table here, not twisting and turning to score more..

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I personally don't discuss religious matters with no one any more. I can't really waste my time with people who strongly believe on the existence of God, Zeus, Ra, Superman, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Father Christmas. Life's too short to engage on inane arguments with ignoramuses. I shed the subject when I was eleven or twelve years old. Although I grew in Spain and was educated in a Catholic school for twelve years, I never bought the Bible story. No matter what the priests said to me, I couldn't see the difference between The Quixote, Sherlock Holmes or God. All I knew is that none of them were there to be seen. THIS IS WHAT NORMALLY HAPPENS WITH FICTIONAL CHARACTERS. The reason why adult people keep these beliefs escapes my understanding. I know the idea of dying and disappearing is hard, specially when loved ones leave us, but there's not much we can do. You'd better learn to get on with it. Well, there's something you can do. Live THIS life to the full (and fully aware).

Alex, London,

Bryan, It seems our differences can be summarised in a few points.
1. You believe that God exists as a necessity, and is an absolute truth. I find this to be a theory only, and unprovable; it is not needed to explain the workings of our universe.
2. You believe God intervenes regularly to change events in the world. I believe there is no definitive evidence to support this, and find it an unlikely concept, and in many ways unacceptable, for such intervention would appear to be haphazard. Unexplained and unusual events have a scientific explanation, though we are as yet a long way from having all the explanations or facts to prove this.
3. You believe the bible is a document of divine revelation. I believe it is a man-made and man-inspired book searching for answers to life's big questions, and often finding the wrong answer; religion is a natural worldly part of man's moral and psychological development.
4. You believe Jesus was God made man. I believe he existed, but that the gospels are an incredibly embellished account of his life, and that he was merely human.
5. You may believe the spread of Christianity proves the former points. I believe its growth can be explained in purely human terms.
Unfortunately, you only want to discuss point 1. All of us on the non-belief side have written tens of thousands of words on this already, so repeating what we have said yet again seems pointless.
As you know, if you've read all of Dawkins' The God Delusion (I'm assuming you haven't read any of his other numerous works), that much of the book is about applying scientific principles of reason and logic in explaining man, the world and our universe, about morality in general being separate to religion, about the immorality of much religious practice over the ages, and the lack of evidence for divine intervention. You choose to ignore these valid parts of the debate. I can only presume you can't adequately rebut Dawkins in those areas.

jim rogers, sydney,

My my Bryan, it appears the 'universal consensus' is turning against you and religion. I don't need nor want the commandments as I have my own moral codes. By the way I've not been flooded, thanks for asking. It appears god missed me as these floods are caused my immoral apostates such as me, aren't they? As to proof, I see you compare us athiests to Zola. J'accuse...

Ben, York,

Wow, this is like baby crying objecting to bedtime. Of course I've read the blogs and books sufficiently to know what you're saying. The ploy of throwing books at people is an old one. I want debate with what you are producing from your own heads. Why do you assume you're saying something different from what we've heard before?. There's nothing original in Dawkins on the essential question. Jim of Sydney, look at the subject of this debate and stick to it. You want to shift ground. You'd be just as shaky there but we need to stay on the subject before us instead of keep on changing it to where we assume we'll be able to score more. God is so obvious that it's up to you who are crying off it to show your evidence. That's quite usual in debate. Come now.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Actually Bryan, I won't as I don't see it as important. I have my own moral code. So, any evidence yet?

Ben, York,

Bryan, the default position is that god doesn't exist otherwise you have to accept every other relgion, legend and myth ever devised. I assume you don't believe in the tooth fairy, medusa or vishnu. Therefore the ball is in your court, not ours. So it all boils down to this: do you have any proof that would stand up to scrutiny or not? I know where my bets are.

Ben, York,

What is the problem with accepting that a young, unmarried teenage girl called Mary had sex, fell pregnant, and had a baby called Jesus? The father is unknown, and could have been the love of her life whom she couldn't marry, or a one-night stand or casual friend, or she may have been raped, or she may have conceived Joseph's child out of wedlock. We will likely never know, and 2,000 years on, why should anyone mind?

frank, sydney,

I've only just realised, Bryan, you likely haven't read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", or Christopher Hitchens' "God is not Great", have you! That would help explain your blogs better.
(No doubt you haven't read Sam Harris' "The End of Faith", Daniel Dennett's "Breaking The Spell", nor Michael Onfray's "The Atheist Manifesto", nor any other book of this genre, either).

mark, brisbane,

Bryan, may I ask you directly what evidence you have for:
1. Mary's virginity at the birth of Jesus?
2. Jesus' divinity
3. The resurrection
4. Jesus being without sin
and...
5. Was Mary without sin?
6. Did she remain so after the birth (eg: did she have other children?)

jim rogers, sydney,

Bryan!!! Re-read all the blogs on these sites by Ben of York, Alan of Cologne, Dominic of Cardiff, Rob and Chris of Birmingham, Frank and Jim of Sydney, and numerous others, and pleas stop asking and saying the same thing over and over. We've read them ad nauseam and don't agree with your "proofs" as proof.
No-one can conclusively prove or disprove God's existence. Libraries are full of philosophical discourses on this. All I and most atheists and all agnostics say is, we don't believe that evidence exists to prove He does. How many times should we bore everyone else writing the same things? Discuss other issues and points.

JR, sydney,

I see why you are less happy with Natural Theology, Jim of .Sydney. You feel more scope to argue from the particular to the general that way. It's not on because, apart from the confusing content, Professor Dawkins introduced debating concerning God's existence. This debater is staying with that focus. Mark of Brisbane, Jesus didn't reduce the Commandments, He synopsised them- very different. Yet my question is to Ben of York. Hope he's not lost in the floods up there. Tell me which 4 you found and which 6 you didn't find. It's to the Dawkins' point Ben old fellow.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Jim Rogers of Sydney, there's plenty to show you've got it wrong on those issues, point by point. You won't keep to the one point of the debate, the existence of God, instead escaping to introduce more and more issues. Where is your proof that God is non existent?. You have not produced it because you cannot. There is nothing to put against the universal consensus of mankind.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintafgel, UK

Bryan, why not answer every query from my questions about the old and new testament, the virgin birth, the resurrection etc, point by point. You won't, and nor will anyone else, because they are unable to be supported, validated, or substantiated by any reasonable arguments....

jim rogers, sydney,

As you know well Bryan, JC effectively superseded the 10 for 2, with his 2nd (love your neighbour as yourself) basically the golden rule of many cultures, and a terrific moral tenet, and likely the best one around. Some of the 10, like keeping the sabbath holy, seem to have had their day. Honouring God is 1st in both the 10 and JC's 2, but a waste of time if he doesn't exist.

mark, brisbane,

Jesus birth to a supposed virgin mother is a nice enough myth from the gospel writers. It wasn't a new idea. Virgin birth stories from antiquity include Horus (mother Isis, ancient Egypt), Montezumza, Zoroaster, Deganawidah, Dionysius (to Semele), Krishna (to Devaka), Minverva, Perseus (to Danae), Romulus, and in some accounts Cuchulainn, Mithras, Alexander the Great, and others.
If the virgin Mary story had stayed purely a myth that would have been fine, but it has been unfortunately turned into a definitive part of Christian dogma. How could anyone truly believe such unsubstantiated nonsense?

jim rogers, sydney,

I see you're fighting for all your might out there. You say plenty among those misty clouds. Don't think I do not believe you have some interesting things to say among the non sequiturs and assumed 'insults'. I don't get the impression of weighing up the possibility that there's another side to the story. Have you found those 6 Commandments you lost, Ben? Which 4 have you found?

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

The descriptions of the post-resurrection appearance makes great sci-fi reading, and vary across the 4 gospels. Different numbers of angels, variable locations, unreliable witness reports. The risen body goes through walls, but can be touched? Why didn't a "touch" go through the body part touched? Why did ingested food not fall to the floor? It's fanciful stuff. Did the body consist of matter or not? Did it have metabolism or blood flow, did the marrow spring back to life, along with billions of other chemical reactions needed for life? If no metabolism, why eat? Was the food metabolised, or mysteriously vaporised? If it ate, did it defaecate too? Why need it have any resemblance to pre-death Jesus. Why would it have wounds at all, if other processes were magically fixed? If there were wounds and injuries, they didn't stop him walking, or ruin his hand function, presumably. So some things repaired, but not others. If he'd been beheaded, would the neck wound have still been there? Could he have let his head slide off like the Blackadder King, and kept on talking? The gospel accounts of the resurrection are fantastic flights of imagination, written with the passion to create a written legend. It is a lovely myth, but to believe it is as fact is extraordinarily blinkered and childish.

jim rogers, sydney,

God not possible - bingo. Bryan, you are resorting to cheap insults and are not attempting to prove your point. You must accept the creation story as metaphorical as otherwise you deny all science, eg the big bang, evolution etc. Since you cannot pick and choose what is literal and what is metaphorical, so it must all be metaphorical if some is. You must belive the bible is inerrant, which it clearly isn't, or wrong.

Ben, York,

What you reveal Bryan is an inability to believe in the natural world and science, and incomprehension when faced with those who do.
Maybe you've drowned yourself in the alcoholic reverie of religious fantasy.

jim, sydney,

Unusual remissions and cures sometimes occur with numerous diseases, including malignancies, that are not understood by science of today. Our knowledge is increasing exponentially, but we don't understand yet all of the millions of reactions that go on at a cellular level during health, including our immunological surveillance system, or how these are modified by disease, and the way in which these are effected by our genes or environment.
If an unexpected good outcome occurs we say it is amazing and a great result, and would be a good case for further study, to add a piece to the puzzle of medical science. If the person happens to have prayed to saint Nicholas or Bryan or whoever, it get called a miracle of God, though the mechanism of remission may be the same, and ignorance takes hold, and learning ceases.

frank, sydney,

If that's how you view it Jim of Sydney, no wonder you don't get deeper into the origins. You appear just to the froth on the beer. I don't think we can do business just now. You switch off when I invite you to put your toes in the deep end. That's your choice. Thanks for echanges- revealing.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Gargam's story sounds like initial trauma followed by hysterical paralysis and psychiatric issues which he only decided to resolve after visiting Lourdes. It's good he did, as he picked up, but no supernatural event likely occurred. It is typical of pseudo-miracles. If that's the best miracle you know of, the cupboard is pretty bare.

jim, sydney,

Jim of Sydney, your advocacy embellishes to the point of making you not too objectively credible. Frank of Sydney, look up Gabriel Gargam - an interesting modern miracle. Ben of York, you still make 'god' non Transcendent- not possible.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

The inspiration of the bible depends on the ignorance of the person who reads it........Take from the church the miraculous,
the supernatural, the incomprehensible, the unreasonable,
the impossible, the unknowable, the absurd, and nothing but a vacuum remains..... If a man would follow today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly, the teachings of the new, he would be insane.
[Robert Ingersoll]

The Bible has fingerprints all over it. And none of them are God-sized.

jim, sydney,

All the apparent concerns you have get clear once you begin to understand the various Senses of Scripture, Jim of Sydney. He's really there. Worship of Him drastically improves all aspects of the personality if persevering and deep. We have to find our way. It's true we all get a bit repetitive.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

It would help belief in miracles if there ever had been one previously, anywhere, anytime, that was verifiable as one. Absurd improbable or impossible stories written by unknown authors two thousand or more years ago cannot be believed without an unwarranted leap of faith. Supposed modern miracles don't stand up when put under the microscope, and are invariably at least as well explained by science or random chance, and rely on gullible subjects and biased reviewers.
It is hard to convince believers of the non-miraculous nature of unusual or unexpected events if their belief doesn't ask for verifiable evidence, but thrives on a deep-seated need to believe.

frank, sydney,

Bryan, worship of the greatness of the universe is fine but it is perfectly clear that most of the bible is metaphorical and therefore not reliable evidence for the existance of god. You are half right in that people all too often worship false idols, but I would (unless it is proved otherwise) include god in that. This is how religion can help but is not always necessary.

Ben, York,

Bryan, no wonder you stick to the one point again and again. No sensible (or moral?) person could believe a God spoke so manipulatively to an Adam and an Eve, or ordered an Abraham to murder his own son, or spoke from a burning bush to a Moses, or parted the Red Sea (and deliberately closed it again to engulf an army), saved a Noah and members of all the animal kingdom from the flood (while happily drowning everyone else) in an ark (which must have made the Queen Mary 2 look tiny!) , turned Lot's wife to salt for a minor indiscretion, caused the walls of Jericho to fall (and therefore helped in "righteous" mass murder), or could give credence to any other fantastic story depicted. Why would God favour one blood-thirsty murdering army or conquering horde over another?

jim, Sydney,

Jim of Sydney and Ben of York. Thanks for stretching the mind yet you still try to divert us from the main point. You obviously go along with Zola who said he'd not believe a miracle if he saw one. You may change. Many have - both ways! You'd be amazed how differently you'd see things if you saw the value of that truth inside you which encourages worship of God to take priority over all the other things we daily try to worship instead. I agree there's a lot of religious rubbish talk. Same goes for those who are against, of course. The worship of God is a jewell. Try it. Don't be deceived. It's highly rational. Non God worship is the greatest encourager of irrationality.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

The NT claims like the virgin pregnancy (whose DNA was it? Did Mary's double-up? Where did the Y chromosome come from?) begin the doubts about Jesus' paternity and birth story, followed by doubtful history for Bethlehem, the wise men, the star, the census, the murder of the innocents, and the obvious myths attached to these accounts. These are only the start of problems for the gospels. The numerous supposed miracles are absurd. The variability of the versions of numerous stories, including and especially the resurrection and subsequent sightings, announced like other major events by angels (variably one or two, as they are hard to count, being non-existent!), present vast inconsistencies and flights of fantasy. The bible comprises legends and mythical stories with a few facts thrown in.

jim, Sydney,

Bryan, no wonder you stick to the one point again and again. No sensible (or moral?) person could believe a God spoke directly to an Adam and an Eve, or asked an Abraham to murder his own son, or spoke from a burning bush to a Moses, or parted the Red Sea (or closed it again to murder an army), saved a Noah and members of all the animal kingdom from the flood in an ark (which must have made the Queen Mary 2 look tiny!), turned Lot's wife to salt for an indiscretion, caused the walls of Jericho to fall (and therefore help in "righteous" mass murder), or any other fantastic story depicted. Why would God favour one murdering army or people over another?
The NT claims like the virgin pregnancy (whose DNA was it? Did Mary's double-up?) begin the doubts about Jesus' paternity and birth story, followed by doubtful history for Bethlehem, the wise men, the star, the census, the murder of the innocents, and the obvious myths attached to these accounts. These are only the start of problems for the gospels. The numerous supposed miracles are absurd. The variability of the versions of numerous stories, including and especially the resurrection, announced like other major events by angels (variably one or two, as they are hard to count, being non-existent!), present vast inconsistencies and flights of fantasy. The gospels are mythical stories, full stop.

jim rogers, sydney,

Religion and rational don't mix. Stop and think about it. Great big invisible 'guy in the sky' who cares about us and brings people back to life? That is absurd and equates with another ancient belief, witchcraft. We know that one is false, why pick and choose? And Bryan, the Big Bang theory may not be perfect but you have to accept it is true. The first cause argument therefore misses the point - you have to assume parts of the bible are metaphorical, so why not say god is a metaphor for good? Not vastly different words. Lost in translation? You cannot pick and choose what to believe, as that is dangerously close to bin Laden's reasoning.

Ben, York,

Jim of Sydney, I think of the saying 'man convinced against his will, of his own opinion still'. I'm not ignoring what you're saying. I say what I say in deep consideration of what you're saying. I'm drumming on because you yet again reveal that you've not applied your searching mind to the contingency question. You keep throwing in the towel with proximate half explanations.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

I meant to say... an intellectual statement that God isn't by necessity contingent (according to Aquinas) therefore he says he must exist. It's clever wordplay, interesting, but unprovable.
The rest is as stated.

jim, sydney,

For all we know, the Big Bang was preceded by the Big Crunch of a prior universe. M Theory and branes may turn out to be reality. There may be parallel universes. Just because someone makes an intellectual statement that God is necessarily contingent, therefore he necessarily exists, is a pretty thin reason to believe in one.
Bryan, you ignore 98% of the things people write about in these blogs, and keep going back to this one point.
All theism beyond this is FIDEISM, with a few rational points buried within a host of illogical leaps of blind faith in an anthropomorphic God (theists created this, not atheists), and in revelation by self proclaimed prophets (often unknown), and in an improbable saviour (90-96% of JC's life is totally unknown, and his public life embellished by the gospel writers, and filled with ridiculous miracles and impossible events).
Man is moral by nature.

jim, sydney,

Jim Rogers of Sydney, you can't possibly finish the explanation with the big bang. I sense you're a searcher. How can you suddenly throw in the towel like that? Don't think of first cause, think of satisfactory explanation. Then the real relationship with God who breathes in the depth of your being anyhow, can begin to develop and bring astonishing light.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Religion is the most rational thing possible. The first Commandment breathes in the depth of our being. Aquinas did not speak of first causality in his Third Way but of the dependence which can only be answered in the Necessary One. Contingency is only answered for in the Necessary which because not contingent doe not itself require an answer for its existence. Illusions abound by ignoring the God concept in our personality. No wonder Professor Dawkins has gone over the top with his denials, switching it round about.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Jim of Sydney, God becomes an enormous reality (read interesting Aldous Huxley book ) once we relate rather than just notionally acknowledge. As somebody once said to me, inspiring me along the road, 'give it a try'. I'm sorry you did not understand Aquinas's Third Way. It's pivotal and strangely the one most ignored and misunderstood. You can only speak of God as self cause if you've missed the rub of his argument that contingency can only be accounted for by a Necessary Being who, if personally requiring causality, would still be contingent. The imagination confuses! It's tip top rationality. Prayers many. Bryan.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Logical reasoning goes out the window when religion moves beyond arguments for a first cause. When is comes down to faith in a personal God who intervenes as an interested personality, here but not there, for this person but not that, all theism becomes fideism in which reason is essentially irrelevant to religious faith. Either faith becomes the antithesis of reason, or faith becomes beyond reason, and therefore is unable to be proven or disproven by it. Integral to this is the acceptance of revelation via men calling themselves prophets, or via texts written by known or unknown authors. Illogical, miraculous, improbable happenings become accepted as "fact" despite lack of sound evidence or reasoning. Faith then becomes a choice of comfort, preference and convenience, offering the carrot of an immortal soul, the chance to be with loved ones again, and psychological, emotional and spiritual benefits throughout life for those who can't see the way forward without it.
If people find solace and succour in such a faith, and live worthwhile, happy and moral lives as a result of or despite such a faith, then I see no problem, provided they admit their faith is a choice made for pragmatic reasons.

jim rogers, sydney,

One argument is that it is logically impossible for a being to simultaneously instantiate omniscience and omnipotence; omnipotence entails the power to create free beings, but omniscience rules out the possibility that such beings exist. Moral perfection is thought to entail being both perfectly merciful and perfectly just. But these two properties seem to contradict each other. To be perfectly just is always to give every person exactly what she deserves. But to be perfectly merciful is to give at least some persons less punishment than they deserve. If so, then a being cannot be perfectly just and perfectly merciful. Thus, if moral perfection entails, as seems reasonable, being perfectly just and merciful, then the concept of moral perfection is inconsistent.

mark, brisbane,

Bryan, I've read Aquinas, and numerous other philosophers and theologians as well, and don't find his arguments compelling. If God is somehow self caused, then why can't the universe be self-caused? If there was no time before the Big Bang, then the concept of a being existing before then may be meaningless. Even if there was a being "greater than which nothing could be conceived", it is a long bow to stretch from that to a being with perfect anthropomorphic properties such as perfect love, mercy and justice, but which acts haphazardly to change random events in our world and lives. There is a wide gulf between God as "an abstract principle of order and harmony" and God as "an interested personality".

jim, sydney,

Bryan, you must have been a wild youth if you needed to overcome you "egoism", quote "e.g. always bragging, undercurrents of self praise, self centredness, sexual greed and infidelity, dishonesty and ruthless behaviour towards others to name just a few". Religion may have been good for you if you couldn't grow emotionally and spiritually without it! Either that or you were racked by ill-deserved guilt by an upbringing and religion that tortured you unfairly! Your statements that "reduction of the ego .. is only achieved through worship of God" and that "one becomes convinced of the absurdity of living as though He's not there", are opinions that cannot be validated beyond conjecture. Unlike scientific theories, religious faith disavows doubt. Even the most robust and reliable scientific theory is tentative, carrying the proviso "as far as we know on available evidence". This includes the idea that the is no God, for atheists and science merely deny that there is good evidence in favour of one. Nothing you have said, or others thus far in the course of human existence, is more than wishful thinking.
Millions have and do live good, moral lives, every bit as rich and worthwhile as that of believers, without belief in a deity. Faith in your God, therefore, is not a requirement for morality, but merely a useful tool that many use along their path.....

jim, sydney,

Ben, God's existence is deeply in human Conscience.Emotional forces and illusions lead us to deny it. There is no good that is not illuminated by this latent force. God and goodness are synonymous

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Rob of Birmingham, you aren't getting it right. The third way is not about first cause but about contingency. This applies to everything. You cannot cop out by putting on a scientific gown. Contingent whether finite or infinite being can only be explained by the Necessary One.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Bryan, I notice you are back on the first cause arguments again. The third way is exactly the same as the first 2, and is as easily debunked, which I did much earlier in one of these 3 forums so I won't go into it again.

I also note that you earlier said that Einstein showed no knowledge of the spirit and therefore his opinions on god were essentially irrelevant. Well Aquinas, and you and religious texts, show no knowledge of physics so perhaps you would refrain from commenting on the start of the universe.

Rob, Birmingham, UK

You do not mention the 3rd. Way of St. Thomas Aquinas, Jim of Sydney. That should show you that the 'atheist' arguments, however put, amount to illusory, misleading emotions.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

When has god ever proved, 100% conclusively that he exists, to athiests as well as current believers? Answer - because he can't. And a semi-god is worthless to worship. Oh, and Bryan, you ignore our points about Buddhism etc. They (mainly) don't believe in god and teach morality.

Ben, York,

God is not contingent, as that means he logically has to exist. He doesn't. There is no evidence, and a definition of 'exist' is that something can have it's properties checked and none contradict each other.

Thus a table exists as you can count the legs, see the colour or identify the type of material etc, and it does not have both 2 and 4 legs. God therefore does not, and cannot, exist as his properties cannot be checked and they would contradict each other as, for example good and evil are unlikely to fit and coexist and different religions believe different, contradictory things.

Ben, York,

I'm not a philosopher, but have read Hume, Kant, Russell, Dennett, and other authors who have written well on this, and defer to them. The ontological argument is a linguistic trick, and a good one, but obviously not a creed to follow as a way of life. There have been a lot of arguments put up against it. I believe those. It will always be there. There are arguments either way. Regardless, arguments for a first cause are a long way from the concept that there is a God acting to change events within our world.

jim, sydney,

So, Jim of Sydney, how do you ultimately explain contingency?.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Bryan, black holes are thought to exist because certain cosmological measurable effects are only explained by postulating their existence. Everything in our universe, from the time of the Big Bang to the evolution of intelligent human life, is explained, or likely to be in the future, by science, without the need to postulate the existence of a God. This includes moral, psychological and spiritual evolution. (I discussed this in detail in a long posting on 3 May 12:06 on the blog attached to Articles of Faith, "We'd be better off without religion" (published Mar 28), which I began by discussing the book The Jesus Inquest, and the implausibility of the resurrection).
Man cannot prove there isn't a God, but the concept is not required to explain our lives, despite the feelings people may have that one exists. The theory that there is a God can be used to explain many things, but raises lots of other questions.

jim rogers, sydney,

Jim of Sydney, we connect with realities through the ideas we have. Black holes exist, although not seen.They are known by their effects. God is much more known through His effects. Through relating with Him, one becomes convinced of the absurdity of living as though He's not there.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Well summarised, Jim of Sydney. Yet morality can only flourish when the God concept, latent in our nature, is breathing well. That's where the clarity of monotheism, supremely Christianity, scores hand over fist.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

You summarise it well, Jim of Sydney. My point is that morality can only develop with this openness to the possibility of God.Yet the clearer the concept of God, the more effective the outcome. That's where monotheism, supremely Christianity scores hand over fist.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

In sport, one has constantly to come back to the importance of keeping the eye on the ball. It's just that. What you dismiss as narrow dogmatism, Jim of Sydney, is the pathway to explanation after explanation freeing us from living in fairy land. Yet we are free to chose. I thought I was answering the rubbish that says God is a delusion . This stifles research. Who is being the narrow minded dogmatist? I see the same views each day here but there's always something more to see. How many times are we having it stuffed down us that God is a delusion? That is pernicious obscurantism of the worst kind. Save us from these writers you mention who want to lull us into indifferentism in these matters. They are blocking the pathway to life. The first Commandment, written in our hearts, must be allowed to breathe to help in our real liberation.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

If a person states that, given his experience of life and the world, and knowledge he has acquired up to this time, that the existence of God is so unlikely that, to all intents and purposes, he believes God does not exist, then this is atheism. The debate is being muddied by semantics. A religious Faith means a belief in a relationship with a deity, which is different to using the word to mean a belief in an idea or concept.
Atheism ( or non-theism, which has fewer negative connotations for some) is at least as valid as any form of theism, as no-one can prove or disprove the existence of a God. In one sense, everyone should be agnostic, if that means merely to believe or admit that it is impossible to know if God exists or not. Maybe "believers" should consider themselves agnostic theists (who would bet on there being a God), and the rest would be agnostic non-theists (like me who would bet there isn't)! This is too much of a mouthful, and the word atheist is simpler.
Many believers, like you likely would Bryan, say there is no doubt that God exists, that this is THE truth of the universe, and are sure that they communicate with God daily. Why not say you think it is likely, though not unequivocal or provable, that God exists, and you feel as if I can communicate with a God, although this may be a fallacy, but you find it useful to act this way, and will live your life accordingly.

jim, sydney,

Buddhism is usually regarded as a religion without an absolute God who created the universe ex nihilo (from nothing) and to whom devotion and worship are due (although veneration and worship do play a major role in Mahayana Buddhism). Buddhism is a way of life which does not hinge upon the concept of a Creator God. Many Buddhists state that Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy. Similarly, Confucians maintain that Confucianism is not a religion, but rather a moral code or philosophic world view. Taoism is not a monotheist religion.

jim, sydney,

Bryan, I agree with Ben. Your constant harping on this one point is narrow-minded dogmatism of the worst kind, with no evidence at all to back it up, except your own (and like-minded) opinion. You have stated the same thing probably a dozen times. It is without substantiation, and remains, as always, in the realms of sophistry.
Your whole life may run on the premise you have outlined, but it is not the only way to moral growth. There are Christian writers and theologians who can understand this. Why can't you?

jim, sydney,

Those philosophies and religions ytou mention are not 'atheist', Ben.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Not really. Athiests can do good as well, and athiest religions such as Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism all teach not to do the things you describe.

Ben, York,

Of course you're free to chose, Ben. Yet you know how egoism can undermine us as persons- e.g. always bragging, undercurrents of self praise, self centredness, sexual greed and infidelity, dishonesty and ruthless behaviour towards others to name just a few. Only an altruism inspired by the worship of God can bring about these conversions.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

So no athiest has ever achieved anything worth achieving, or it is somehow tainted by the simple fact they choose not to believe in a fantasy world, regardless of the deed? If you don't mind, I won't stick to what you tell me to, and disagree with what you say.

Ben, York,

You have the wrong end of the stick, Ben. Einstein shows no knowledge of the world of the spirit is what I said. I bow before his great knowledge of the Universe. Let us stick to the point that moral efforts are undermined without the reduction of the ego which is only achieved through worship of God.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

I find this debate fascinating. As an Atheist I do not believe in Fairies, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or God. My partner is a committed Christian and regular church goer. We reconcile our differences in two ways 1: whilst the nature of faith or lack there-off is an important issue it is exactly this; one issue which we do not allow to dominate. 2: I do not have the aim of changing my partners beliefs nor does she try to convert me. We know where we stand, we discuss the topic fairly regularly and if I decide to change my mind (which I doubt) it will be my choice, likewise my partners belief is her own and I respect her choice. This is the point I would like to make. As I see it the problems surrounding religion and for that matter political ideologies only seem to arise when a group decides to impose their will over and above wider society irrespective of levels of support. In my view this applies to atheists and theists alike. Government should be secular and rational.

Mark Spence, Belfast ,

Jim and Chris, all the fine aspirations you have for now and the future are wonderfully and uniquely enhanced by the great throwing out of illusions that comes when we switch our inveterate and constant worship of self and other things to God. That's what I do not hesitate to say. It's the perennial philosophy with well established credentials. There is no compromise or middle way on this.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Richard Dawkins brings great hope of the world continuing its painful but overwhelming journey towards ever greater truth. Time and time again people have believed the journey to be at an end with the fixing of truth for all time in written form. Such fixed beliefs are of great solace to many in an incredibly complicated and often very painful world - and this gives them great power. But there is an even greater power in logic, because it is shared by every person on the planet, and can be used to uncover truths way beyond what our ancestors and their present-day followers have fixed for us. Love, beauty and inspiration may have eternal qualities, but our appreciation of them can only grow as we free our thoughts and open our minds. Whatever his presentation, at least the work of Dawkins is a pointer in the right direction. Faith in reason can give us great hope, and surely even death will be a better prospect the more our atoms are returned to an earth of shared wonder, joy and truth?

Chris, Birmingham, UK

Bryan, not at all. But religion isn't a prerequisite for spiritual growth or morality. It can and has been a vehicle for it, for you and countless others. You are the one who denies any other path has just as much validity. Einstein had as much right to an opinion as you or anyone else, and had a genius intellect, and understood and explained well the point I'm trying (vainly it seems) to get across to you....

jim, sydney,

Bryan, you seem to think yourself 'better' than Einstien, one of the most intelligent people ever! Plus Jim said that religion has done some good, every athiest acknowledges that but it doesn't make it true. There is no reliable evidence, by which I mean evidence that can be cross referenced, contains no contradiction and is not simply the figment of the imagination. I would sooner trust tens of thousands of scientists than thousands of saints.

Ben, York,

I have lived with Buddhists in a Buddhist country, studied the Philosophy yet I do not have the problems some of you are making. There's a fair amount of special pleading going on. The Dalai Llama's sayings need analysing.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Jim of Sydney, why quote Einstein who obviously was no expert on the inner world of the spirit? The innate idea of God needs nourishing. Thousand of saints testify to outstanding spirituality through growth into the God concept within us. Is this to be thrown out in the face of a list of what you personally reject?

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it......I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.----Albert Einstein

jim, sydney,

Jesus didn't rise from the dead, or walk on water, nor was he born of a virgin, and again the magical list in the New Testament is huge. Angels don't exist. Muhammad didn't converse with an Angel Gabriel, nor was he transported through the sky to meet with other prophets. No "prophet"actually talked to a God or any angel, and no God talked back. The prophets decided on various moral stances after undertaking purely human thought processes. The Hindu gods are make believe. All religions are based on myths.

Religion is merely an at times very successful psychological and emotional "vehicle" used for for moral growth. Man has developed as an intrinsically moral animal, by his nature, over the course of human and social evolution, and that moral sense developed independently of religion, though religion was then later conjured up as a way of explaining things now easily explained by science, and as a way of adding social order, developing moral ethics further, and formalising laws to control behaviour. Religion is a man-made system of beliefs and codes. Our morality stems from our nature, influenced by our culture (including our religions), and developed over our history, and is not dependent on any supernatural being. Spirituality and spiritual happiness can be nurtured outside of religion. If people want to concentrate on living morally, in a more loving and connected society, why do it based on an absurd belief? Why not just strive, love and live?

jim, sydney,

"Religious belief is not a precondition either of ethical conduct or of happiness." -- Dalai Lama

mark, brisbane,

Ben, let us not get confused. Focus on the main point that there is a natural desire for God in all humans. Words can confuse.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Buddhism regards the existence of God as unimportant. It still teaches living a moral life. This is different and tolerant. Would you accept the possibility that:
a) Thor, Set, Vishnu and Zeus exist or
b) your god does not exist?

And how many other religious people would?

Ben, York,

Mark, the Dalai Lama is not closed to the idea of God. If he were, he would not be a Buddhist. There is a central core to religions and the philosophy of being as is well known.As I sometimes mention, Aldous Huxley's 'Perennial Philosophy' demonstrates this well.
Ben, it's through the vision of our ego that we can turn to God who effects the necessary change. See the life of the Cure d'Ars for example

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

That makes no sense! You must trust god, yet you claim to have a big ego. Go figure.

Ben, York,

Bryan, I think you confuse spirituality with religiosity. The Dalai Lama is humble, but doesn't believe in your god. My words aren't meant to be "tough", just matter of fact.

mark, brisbane,

Our egos only make way for moral goodness when we allow God to act within us through out trust in Him. We have to decrease do that He can increase in our lives.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Tough talking Mark of Brisbane. It's true. You'll find much ego dressed up as humility. When God takes over, ego does a bolt.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

And yet you devote your life to worship. That should show you something.

Ben, York,

"Our ego can only possibly be reduced through God worship". Bryan, this is unadulterated drivel and psychobabble. Humility doesn't require supernatural beings! Get over it!

Mark, brisbane,

I see my ego as very big.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

But I see my ego as very big, always in need of conversion.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

But since you worship god and I don't, your ego is smaller, right? That in itself is egotistical. It is a vicous circle.

Ben, York,

It's not as simple as that. I'm not making personal judgments, just stating the objective situation. I've got a feeling you really know this.Our ego can only possibly be reduced through God worship.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Because by saying god is all that is pure and worship makes you a better person, you imply that I am not. That is very egotistical.

Ben, York,

How do you arrive at that gratuitous one, Ben?

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

But the point still stands ;-)

Ben, York,

Sorry Ben. I made a typing error and wrote now instead of not.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

"Now to worship God increases egoism". Damn right!

Ben, York,

Not to worship God increases egoism. That's a psychological fact.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

The blind masses do not make something right - I would believe one philosopher over a million idiots. Pascal simply said that since the reward for belief is bliss, even the tiniest chance is worth taking. This is purely an observation, not a belief, and is not exactly 'true faith'. We can respect nature and the enormity of the universe without religion. The lives of atheists are not nonsense. Imagine if I said the lives of gays and blacks were nonsense. Except, you probably agree with the former.

Ben, York,

No, Pascal thought that the best bet was believing, because of the tiny chance of eternal bliss outweighing other chances. That is not really true faith, is it?

Ben, York,

We are all obviously finite and fallible, that goes with being human. Life can be lived positively, with just as much love, morality and goodness, and with optimism, without recourse to praying to a supernatural being of doubtful existence and credentials.
You, Bryan, and many others, do find prayer and the idea of a God useful. That's fine, but an increasing number of people are realising that they can live a life full of richness, hope, and love, without it. I think some believers find that hard to accept, and think atheists/agnostics/humanists are missing something, and are merely unaware of what that is, or are in self-denial, or pretending. I don't feel or believe that to be the case personally, nor do many others. No doubt there are people on both sides of the fence with excess baggage and self-delusions, and unfulfilled spirituality or potential, but that is a separate issue.
All this is separate to the implausibility of JC being anything other than human. I think I'll have to beg to differ with you, and leave it at that, as we see it all too differently. Cheers.

frank, sydney,

God's influence in our lives can be tremendous if we are open enough to acknowledge our finite nature and bow before the Necessary Almighty. Voltaire's ideas amount to nothing by comparison with this that hundreds of thousands regularly experience. Pascal is more revealing.If we cannot believe it and act as if it is true, we can also get enormous benefit to outweigh the nonsense of leading our lives as if he's not there.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

It was Voltaire who said "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer" ("If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him"). He also criticised The Bible and the Catholic Church, and was fond of Hindu philosophy and Brahaminical teachings. He opposed Christian beliefs strongly, felt the Gospels were a fabrication, and believed Jesus was a man-made myth. He was a deist, full stop.
Bryan, the idea of a first cause, or deism, is miles from a personal intervening God. Christians and other monotheist religious believers surely should understand the gulf between the two positions. Why do they so often improperly use arguments for one to imply the other?
The Nicene Creed is unsubstantiated sophistry. The idea of a personal god is puerile.

Frank, sydney,

It was Voltaire who said "If God did not exist, it would be