"Kidd Garrett of Bristol, kindly focus on the explanation of matter which consists in parts outside parts."

What do you mean by this? This is about as obtuse a request as can be made. Are you referring to a specific model of matter? Remember, clarity of thought is usually partnered by clarity of expression.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Ed Bradbury of Bournemouth, the religious way is much better for this life too - much, much better..

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

it all boils down to if or not we expect an afterlife

ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset

I share your concerns, Alan of Cologne yet with Faith all these things become more than bearable. One cannot lightly write this off as hallucination or something similar.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I have some more questions: I'm quite happy with all things bright and beautiful which (if I remember the hymn correctly) the lord god made. What worries me is all the nasty things. The volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, floods, famines and droughts are bad enough, but I suppose they can happen if god created the global pre-conditions for them. But what about the creepy-crawly beasts that pester us? I mean malaria-bearing mosquitos, tse-tse flies, tapeworms, tetanus bacteria, ebola viruses etc. - Even animals suffer - gadflies and foot-and-mouth viruses ... the list is unending. -- Did god create them? Were they all on board Noah's ark? Or are they the result of evolution since then, and, if so, why did god allow them to evolve? Somehow I'm beginning to have my doubts about the good intentions of god. -- Perhaps some qualified person (professional believer) could supply the answers.

alan, cologne,

I follow Jesus and that's enough for me. Nobody else makes as much sense.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

What's happened? No more contributions? Hope you are OK, Bryan. -- The following questions have occurred to me which I'd like to put to believers: Do you believe in Mormonism? Do you believe in scientology? Do you believe in Voodoo? If you don't, why not, and to what extent do you not believe in them? -- (I thought this might put some new life into the debate.)

alan, cologne,

hasn't anyone noticed that when writers use the word "rational" that they do so when outlining their point of view? In five hundred years time will all the ideas of today be thought of as "rational"..I doubt it . just as ideas of five hundred years ago (flat earth) were then perfectly "rational"

ed bradbury, bournemouth, dorset

I say again that morality is just skin deep without the God concept personally embrased to affect a deep change in personality. That is what we look for in others . That is what they look for in us. Pure materalism cannot do it. Jesus is right. We yearn for God in the bottom of the psyche and are usually prepared to say anything to put off the hard work of spiritual conversion. These debates are helpful and revealing.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

The ranters are those who profess "true faith", when their faith reflects psychological neediness or fear of permanent death. Don't blame the messenger who points out the limitations of this primitive reasoning.

harrison wilkes, east sheen,

Kidd Garrett of Bristol, kindly focus on the explanation of matter which consists in parts outside parts. No diversification please.The ultimate explanation has to be in what is indivisible as Professor Dawkins realises. That can only be in the immaterial. Have you heard of deliberate misunderstanding?. That is a fairly common tactic in debate. Thanks for reminding me of the good quotes, just the same.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

So I appear to be a joke, talking nonsense, a casuist, I haven't read Dawkins, don't understand, I'm ignorant, I pretend to know what I don't know, I make meaningless, strange statements, dodge the questions, I'm obsessed with particles. (I'm not God of course so I do not make eternal judgements although I may soon be told I'm doing that). I don't see any rush to read the scientific evidence of Aldous Huxley on spiritual experience in the world. Particles necessarily need spiritual explanation. I examine them more and more. Sorry to see many dancing around and ignoring them. I hope to be open to learn more with the help of this compelling spiritual territory._ Prayers and greetings.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan,

I feel compelled to poke my oar in again. To pick a quote:

"Matter requires non matter (spiritual) for its proper explanation."

Why?

For one, who says that there is a "proper explanation", for two, why should it be spiritual? YHWH didn't do a particularly good job on explaining cosmology, from what I remember of Genesis, why should he be any more capable when it comes to String Theory, or Branes, or Quantum Gravity, or whatever it may be? Are you now saying that YHWH and his works are effable after all?

I think you are a victim of your overestimation of your eloquence - "inebriated by the exuberance of your own verbosity", as Disraeli would have it. Clarity of thought is almost always matched by clarity of expression; that most of your respondents patently have problems understanding what you are trying to convey speaks volumes.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Alan, I say we can only begin to free ourselves of mixed motives for our behaviour with the idea of God in our minds. He judges us, not I. Matter requires non matter (spiritual) for its proper explanation. Bad behaviour such as you mention is everywhere. When we do wrong things, it's because we lose sight of God.The God deniers' published manifestos can do nothing to help the interior conversion we require. Evil is within religion too as you notice. Jesus confirms this and calls us to something better. It's a great way to follow Him.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan,

Can you really find a justification for your pronouncement?

"So you refute the Mission of Jesus who said outward morality is no morality at all because just superficial."

Surely the person whose acts are moral (ie they are outwardly moral) is a moral person, while those who proclaim their christianity (or... pick religion of choice) and profess an inward morality while perpetrating acts of venality, cowardice and greed are the superficial ones.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Bryan - strange that you admit I "refute" the mission of Jesus. I think you mean I reject it. -- (I'm all for clarity of speech and I hate incoherent ravings about non-particles.) -- Sorry if I sound arrogant or condescending, but what choice do I have when believers write such undiluted bilge.

alan , cologne,

Once again, Bryan, your "eloquence" appears to have run away with you. Are you saying (in plain words): Without god there is no morality? If so, why don't you say it quite clearly instead of wrapping it up in the usual Bryanist ramblings? -- I don't know about Ben, but this makes me an immoral character. But I'm sure - as a good Christian - you mean no offence.! Actually, though, I like to think I do have morals. Indeed, when I look around me and see the way so many of the devout conduct themselves, I go so far as to consider my actions far more moral than theirs. Priests abusing little boys is just one example. -- Anyway, Bryan, I look forward to your next comment. It's always amusing trying to fathom out what exactly it is that you find so difficult to formulate.

alan, cologne,

Mr Rees-Mogg, You may have slightly more than basic literacy skills but this does not entitle you to brandish such a patronising attitude. That you are not as convincing as Mr Dawkins in this debate may well be because of the respective merits of your cases - bestowing insults, however apparently politely you may express them, is no way to advance the argument. I am disappointed, I really am.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Alan of Cologne and Ben of York, picking up on your points, you coincide with the gathering of information by Professor Dawkins which leads to the conclusion that God isn't necessary for morality. So you refute the Mission of Jesus who said outward morality is no morality at all because just superficial. Morality to be the radical thing it has to be needs to be an interior conversion, a change around of the emotional forces. The only way this occurs, as Jesus says is by growth into the idea of God. There's nothing else with the magnetic power to convert to the kind of change we'd all like to see.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Father Bryan,

It seems that rather than admit your ignorance (as many are only too happy to do, those called scientists by and large, for example), you seek to claim a special knowledge.

Please, just admit that you haven't the foggiest idea what is going on and salvage something from your impending intellectual and moral shipwreck.

Please don't play fatuous casuist games is if they were clever or illuminated anything. That crack about particles, dear oh dear oh dear.

Kidd Garrett, Bristol, UK

Does anyone else see Dawkins as a inverted version of one of those American faith healers?,preaching with zeal to people who share his viewpoints and mocking anyone that doesnt as fools who need a "comfort blanket" .He speaks wih the same mocking ,arrogant tones about people who think they are going to heaven as the worst of the fundamentalists do about people they think are going to hell! Dawkins is a very clever man whose realised he can make a buck or two,much like his christian(and muslim etc.) counterparts from people with firmly held beliefs.I expect much more hardline fudamental atheism to come in his future books...of which im sure there will be plenty.We don't know if there is a God.Its unlikely but so were dinosaurs before fossils.We will,all of us find out someday.Let believers have the comfort blanket of heaven and let atheists have the comfort blanket of intellectual superiority.

Darragh, fleet, hampshire

It's a well known fact, Bryan, that a lot of people, when faced with some adversity, are unable to cope and flee into religion in order to find comfort. That, of course, is why priests and preachers turn up when people are grieving, desperate or dying. -- Of course I don't know what made you opt for religion, Bryan, and it's none of my business. But in the course of my long life I've experienced happiness and sorrow, joy and grief. Never, though, never have I once been weak enough to flee from reality and seek the deceptive "comfort" of a faith in some imaginary creator. I have been strong enough to retain my intellectual integrity. -- This is why I have told my loved ones that, if a priest or preacher should approach me as I lie on my deathbed, they should see him out of the room with a powerful kick up his backside - metaphorically at least.

alan, cologne,

Bill of Towoomba, I got some help from Buddhist insights at one time. Yet Jesus is unique. There's no resurrection without the crucifixion and all that this implies. Life is empty without this understanding.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Zen Buddhism implies all phenomena are impermanent and emptiness, that self is an illusion, that nothing is permanent, everlasting, and eternal. That there is no individual soul. So does Christian teaching consider Buddhism to be truly spiritually enlightening, if it denies the concept of a soul and self? Or misguided?

bill, towoomba,

Don't dilly dally, Frank of Sydney. Any particle.Crack it open and explain its existence.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

The most of it is by going over to the spiritual, Jim Rogers of Sydney.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Alan of Cologne. I'd not have your so called real world for all the tea in China, thanks. I was brought up on it. I keep on about explanation because of all you artful dodgers. What's this about getting real? Listen to it!

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

War is not really an issue as roughly ten times the number of people have been slaughtered as a result of non-religious conflict as have been because of religious war. So to say that religion causes war misses the point as clearly its people who cause wars. And sometimes those people who cause wars hold a religious belief. As for wanting proof...The only way to disprove the existence of a God would entail looking under every rock in the universe and looking under every rock in the universe at exactly the same time (just in case God decides to move or something.) So until scientists/religionists do this and prove either way, I will continue to hope that there is something more to life than pointless bickering and finger pointing.

Jordan, Manchester,

Which Alan are you referring to, Bryan? I ask because your remarks have nothing to do with what I posted. I asked why you are so obsessed with an "explanation". Surely, Bryan, you must see that there are things we humans don't understand, can't (yet) explain. Why do you have to invent an "explanation" (and then defend it although it's really just phantasy)? -- As the saying goes, Bryan, "Get real". Forget about all those miracles, saints and devils, hell and original sin, and water turning into wine. Come down to earth again and join me in the real world of common sense. You will feel very relieved and intellectually free from dogmatic shackles. Why don't you give it a try? I can recommend it. -- (On second thoughts, though, I think you'd better not. Anyone so conditioned to "faith" is likely to suffer depression if he comes to his senses and realises he's only been deluding himself - and others.)

alan, cologne,

There it is, Alan. You underline the point. You would not shunt off explanation in the material field . Why do you say we do not know when we have to know that matter can only be totally explained by non matter? You are not alone. Many just do not want to know. Yet despite the banging on about the admitted evils connected with the Crusades and other things, reflect on the unique wisdom of St. Bernard who said that only with God in mind can our deepest fears, worries and anxieties (central to our being) be converted into peace, joy and love.The late Malcolm Muggeridge put the camera on faces to illustrate it.Yet, I know that many do not want to know. Jesus left villages because nobody was interested.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

"Life on earth has been generated over billions of years in a single branching tree--The Tree of Life--by one algorithmic process or another" (Dennett).
Natural selection has produced us, but if the program was re-run, variables would be unlikely to produce a result that is the same. There was no certainty that evolution would produce US.
At a more individual level, every conception is an algorithmic process with so many variables that we are all here by happenstance. Two lovers may feel powerfully that "we were made for each other", but that is of course not a rational concept when referenced back to their random conceptions. It merely reflects stimulation of certain neurological areas involved in satisfaction and reward, in love and fulfillment, post-event.
None of us need be here, but for a happy combination of events. That we are here is cause for celebration. All we can do is make the most of it.

jim rogers, sydney,

Alan of Cologne, I ask you to look at the lives of Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, Mother Teresa,Padre Pio, Bernadette of Lourdes and many others. Stop selecting bad examples please. We all have bad things in our natures with which to cope, even Alan. For all its failures, the only proper medicine to improve us spiritually is God worship. I try to follow Jesus on war and peace matters. I'm pacifist but not absolutely so.Sorry I forgot to tell you before.
Frank of Sydney. You are in circles and keep blaming it on me. I didn't ask you from where matter comes or the journey it makes and the method of arrival, I ask you with Professor Dawkins to put the microscope on being itself . No energy or matter can adequately explain its existence or the existence of any other particle individually, collectively, finitely or infinitely . So the explanation has to be in non matter which intrinsically does not have as part of its makeup coming in and going out of existence, change and development .

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

People can be changed emotionally, psychologically and spiritually by having religious faith, for better or worse. There is no argument there. However, there is no evidence these processes are at any stage effected by any external supernatural being or magical grace acting on any part of anyone's brain, mind, essence, spirit or being. Religious beliefs, God and faith are generated within the brain and mind, and by feedback within that same brain and mind, initiate these changes. There is certainly no evidence to the contrary.

frank, sydney,

Bryan - what's all this nonsense about particles explaining particles? Why are you so totally obsessed with an "explanation" anyway? Can't you be humble enough to admit there are things humans cannot explain, and leave it at that? Why invent an explanation? But no, on second thoughts, don't reply - because your reply will be just another senseless repetition of the Necessary One being the Absolute Explanation (or some similar semantic acrobatics intended to hide your helplessness at countering atheistic logic). No offence meant.

alan, cologne,

So the Crusades, Inquisition, other religious wars, and Islamic suicide bombers, with God in mind, were/are due to God's marvellous help?

frank, sydney,

Bryan - do you really think that "with God in mind" moral behaviour "marvellously" improves. How come so many human beings have been slaughtered under the battlecry GOTT MIT UNS? And haven't priests been known to bless tanks and even atom bombs? --Let me repeat my question to you: Do you tell Catholic soldiers not to kill? (I believe that's one of the commandments, but correct me if I'm wrong.) You know my opinion of hypocrites.

alan, cologne,

If it looks like a particle, and tests confirm it's a particle, then yes, a particle is a particle.
If you mean, BS, where did matter come from, who knows? You're going in circles again.
If you mean, can physical non-intelligent matter lead to life, and to intelligent beings with subjective awareness and consciousness, then it obviously can, as blind evolution produced the animal kingdom and mankind.

frank, sydney,

So you too, Dr. Lewis of Tenterden, believe that particles can adequately, entirely and thoroughly explain particles?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Again you miss the point Alan. I asked you to see the evidence amassed in the Aldous Huxley study contained in the 'Perennial Philosophy'. A complex character's studies should not on that account be shunned. There is no indication that you have referred to this book. I was asked to read more of Richard Dawkins than the books and studies I had already made. I have done this and am continuing. Much more to come.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

With God in mind moral behavious always marvellously improves, Frank of Sydney.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

OK, FBS, which particles, where in the brain and body, and in what way are they physically changed? What evidence exists for this change, beyond your or someone else's unsubstantiated belief? ( I have great doubt, as do numerous experts in cognitive science).
(and don't just say "it's obvious" due to the way people change behaviour or thinking, for that proves nothing except that people can change).

frank, sydney,

I don't have to read thick volumes on astrology to know that it's balderdash. The same applies to books on theology. As to "perennial philosphy" - - it's fine for anyone who's hellbent on finding a proof for some divine existence. But for the critical observer, it's just another example of semantics and wishful thinking. -- LOOK:- You hear thunder, but you don't know what it is, so you're frightened. (Ignorance + Fear). So you think up an explanation (Thor?) and pray to him not to harm you. Superstition (and most religion) probably grew from a combination of fear and ignorance, both prevalent at the time the bible was written. Its authors knew more about cleaning a camel's hoof than the structure of the atom.Today we (or most of us at least) are a little more enlightened. Some of us have drawn the logical consequence and cast superstition and religion to where they belong - on the rubbish tip of history.

alan, cologne,

No, Bryan, I do not agree that my last comment was unfair. When you quote Aldous Huxley, that's to the point. When I quote his much more eminent and respected brother, the scientist Sir Julian Huxley, you say that's not to the point. Oh well, just another example of Bryan-logic. --- But what's this I see? Aldous Huxley is also quoted as saying "You never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion... Dogs do not ritually urinate in the hope of persuading heaven to do the same and send down rain. Asses do not bray a liturgy to cloudless skies. Nor do cats attempt, by abstinence from catmeat, to wheedle the feline spirits into benevolence. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly." Is this a quote from the book you refer to?

alan, cologne,

I strongly support Richard Dawkins views on religion. There is absolutely no detectable evidence for the existance of a soul. Moreover, there is also only one somewhat belatedly recorded
example of a resurrection. I would submit the the evidence is not statistically significant.

I was a little disappointed with Professor Dawkins latest foray on television. This was not his fault but there were really no pausible 'enimies of reason to demolsh, they just fell over.

However, please carry on the good work.

Dr WHP Lewis, Tenterden, UK

So, are you saying particles are the complete and satisfactory explanation of particles, Frank of Sydney?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Yet particles adequately explain particles through and through, Alan? Come off it.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

We understand little of what causes one person to develop cancers or other diseases while another doesn't, or why one responds to therapy and another doesn't. The many billions of chemical reactions involved in health and cure are not by any means understood, nor how our immune surveillance system breaks down, or seems to pick itself up and do the job again after seeming to falter or fail. Emotional and psychological difficulties may be addressed and reversed, and though this may be a slow and painful process, they may at times only need another major emotional input, or a "sea-change" decision to be set in motion, to be dramatically helped. This doesn't ever require any magical forces. Attributing mood and inspirational changes to supernatural forces is madness.
If a drug worked only less than 0.001% of the time, no-one would consider that it likely works at all, yet for unexplained events, that sort of hit rate is enough for superstitious, gullible, or already biased believers to claim divine intervention and miracles actually happen! And the evidence for this intervention? Non-existent!

frank, sydney,

There is no doubt, Frank of Sydney, that there's a rearrangement of particles through relationship with God. Aldous huxley shows this in his great study.The spirit when allowed in influences the whole being from head to foot -most marvellously, have no doubt.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

BS, you are back at the start of Groundhog Day, asking what was before the Big Bang, which has been discussed many times before. I seem to remember saying you don't like the answers, so you keep asking the same questions, and now here you are yet again......

frank, sydney,

With all due respect to the sensible people who reply to Bryan, the debate is not about big bangs and molecules, matter and energy etc.. This is just a typical red herring to divert attention away from the real question. Since the pro-god-people can find no evidence, nor any other logical reasons, to believe in the supernatural, they seize on every opportunity to begin a discussion on something entirely irrrelevant. The big bang, matter, energy etc. are the subject of scientific investigation resulting in theories which are modified or falsified according to new scientific evidence. Not only are they quite independent of any supernatural being, they are certainly cannot be used as evidence of any "god" either. We should leave them out of the debate and concentrate of showing how logically absurd religious faith is.

alan, cologne,

If you decide to lift your hand and arm then pick up a knife to butter your bread because you are hungry, does the decision begin in your brain, or in a separate non-physical mind/spirit? Does the feeling of hunger merely come from the limbic system responding to hormonal and neuronal activity? Does it then get transported to a "mind" which then sends signals magically back to the brain? If not all brain-based, how does the signal get from the separate mind to the frontal cortex planning the act, and to the motor cortex to initiate the movement, or to and from the visual cortex involved in vision, or to the cerebellum and other areas involved in co-ordinating the movement, if not purely by neuronal activity?

If you lift your hand and arm to stab someone you feel angry with, is there any different process involved other than different brain areas being activated, including the amygdala, memory centres and various frontal/prefrontal areas?

fran, sydney,

Alan, do keep to the point. None of that latest posting is news. I ask you to study what Aldous Huxley reveals in the Perennial Philosophy. Thats no a fair way to answr, you have to agree.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Frank, you dodge my question. You say I go round in circles, boringly saying the same thing. That's because I get no answer. I ask again, how on earth you avoid wriggling in bed at night when not confronting the question ' how can God deniers really expect others to believe in them when they posit the idea that matter and energy which are intrinsically contingent, be the adequate explanation of existence? Yet you say you're scientists and list all the books? No wonder you get so uptight with God worshippers.Professor Dawkins leads you in this dodgem business. My gold fish are in an interesting aquarium too. They never stop exploring in their confinement, keeping each other company. I suppose it's like that. Yet I rarely see horses with blinkers now these days.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Nothing explains how a supposed soul and brain interact. Our thoughts, emotions, feelings, memory, personality and identity come about by neuronal processes. The balance of brain areas active at any one time appear to cause what is going on in our minds at that time. Some things are in consciousness, but most activity is unconscious, at any one time. If a soul and divine grace have any role, they must be able to change neurone thresholds, activity and firing, neurotransmitter formation, release, uptake, etc, to change the balance of activity in various brain areas. If not, then one's "soul" would be separate and irrelevant to how we feel, think and behave. Grace would have no mechanism by which it could inspire a person to change in any way.
If the spiritual realm can't change the way atoms, molecules and cells move, interact and react, then the concepts of a soul and grace become meaningless. Then everything we are is purely a physical process. I believe this to be the case, and our spiritual side is just another neuronal process.

frank, sydney,

So Bryan, the net amount of matter and energy combined has somehow appeared to increase magically after the Big Bang? When? How?
You must write up your findings in a scientific journal.

frank, sydney,

Frank, are you trying to kid us that the Big Bang is the origin? I think your friends will be a bit cross with you.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan - you refer to Aldous Huxley, who experimented with the hallucinatory drug mescaline, dabbled in Bhuddism and took his own life on an overdose of LSD. I'd rather quote his scientist brother, the eminent biologist, Sir Julian Huxley, who said of religion: "The supernatural is being swept out of the universe in the flood of new knowledge of what is natural. It will soon be as impossible for an intelligent, educated man or woman to believe in a god as it is now to believe the earth is flat ... God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." - Huxley also said: "The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants ... So did religion." - Huxley also said: "God is a hypothesis constructed by man to help him understand what existence is all about. ...To say that God is ultimate reality is just semantic cheating, as well as being so vague as to become effectively meaningless." Which Huxley do you prefer, Bryan?

alan, cologne,

The problem with the reasoning of Willian Reese-Mogg is that he brings the term God into his argument as though the meanings and implications of that term are fully understood and agreed upon by all the speakers and hearers in the world in the same way that we all understand what is meant by the terms bricks- or - custard. In fact the term God is short-hand for a large group of metaphysical ideas.
Metaphysical ideas cannot or logically should not carry the predicate He, which is properly meant to describe an animal of the masculine gender who carries the male gametes within his sexual reproductive system. In fact a line of reasoning which purports to give the same value to "life" a well known condition of existence and the theory of evolution; an argument which seeks to explain the question of how the multifariousness of life obtained and the term "God" is in fact incoherent without a prior satisfactory explanation of what the term God is supposed to mean. God is, but only in the mind

Brian Harris, Brisbane, Queesnsland Australia

Frank of Sydney. Not possible.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan, you are back to saying how the Big Bang came about, as all matter and energy derives from that point. The Bog Bang has been discussed in these blogs many times. You spend your life arguing in circles.

frank, sydney,

Alan, FSM is an absurd materialistic, a false mocking god put up in place of the God who has to be spiritual. The imagination runs riot when God is pushed out. There's enormous evidence of what I say about God.Seen Aldous Huxley's evidence yet? Trouble is as Professor Dawkins says on page 117 of GD one must be 'steeped in it and swim about in natural selection'. No greater indicator of the intensely blinkered approach that does not home into the necessary spirituality of the ultimate explanation whose intelligence in bafflingly transcendent yet ever provoking us to further thought instead of the closed up minds that the Professor states is the consequence of the movement to penetrate the immaterial.( page 125). Even intelligence has to be necessarily complex. Well well.Yet all is not lost in the materialistic nose bag. Professor Dawkins claims causality when talking about possible simulators. Bravo! No wonder he's not so sure as to put himself in number 7(page 51).

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan - if you explain the existence of matter and energy by the existence of your god, I explain it by the existence of my Flying Spaghetti Monster. He exists in my head and He cries out from my conscience. He is invisible and He is all-powerful and full of love and needs worship. If you don't worship Him it leads to self-worship, the cause of many delusions. The anti-FSM-people are always trying to deny His existence, but they can't prove it. No, a-FSMism is a riduculous absurdity. Without Him there can be no basis for true morals. He is the Necessary One who explains the existence of matter and energy. And everything else as well, for that matter. --- (I'm only kidding, Bryan, but I'm using the same "arguments" as you. Perhaps you now understand how they appear to non-believers.)

alan, cologne,

Ben, what is this about science contradicting Scripture. Explain please.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

What? Who are you to declare this without evidence? And it is not enough to cite "because invisible" (!?) and say science is not enough as it either can, or given time will, explain all. And it all contradicts scripture, so that cannot be used as evidence.

I am not one of the psychiatrists you say cannot cure us, but I can diagnose you: delusional.

Ben, York,

Doctor Trudgill, you must have experience of the ego problem for which you cannot prescribe anything. The psychiatrists and counsellors may analyse, make evident and point the direction. The only deep cure, however comes from regular worship of the God in Conscience made clear by Jesus who caused much irritation in saying it all to the point of His being crucified..

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Ben, you should really be worried about Professor Dawkins who in the 'God delusion' (31-54) does not understand the senses of Scripture and fails umpteen times to distinguish being from facet of being and is thus led to make false deductions about God and polytheism. Most of all, he subscribes to the idea that something can come from nothing. ( page 31). In his summary of what is central to his thesis, page 157, he demonstrates he has not understood Aquinas by the falacious reasoning that led him to get muddled over polytheism. He focuses on design and intelligence to obscure the pivotal question of existence. Every being, individually or collectively,however connected, whether finite or infinite, needs sufficient explanation of its existence. This is necessarily unable to be scientifically detected because invisible ( from vital immateriality). The Professor with Ben and his blog friends are thus (page 50) enabled to move from milestone 6 to 1 and be in company with Carl Jung.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

How do you explain the existence of matter and energy, Frank of Sydney?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I have never seen a 100% proof of god. So, Bryan and the thiests, surprise me.

Ben, York,

Thank you Doctor Trudgill of Gloucester. I know we 'religious ones' are often irritating. Surely you agree that there are enormous problems through with not taking seriously the kernel of the religious message viz the importance of curbing the ego? I agree that there is sometimes more apparent effort among those who ignore or oppose the religious communities.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Dr. Trudgill, thank you for what you write. Your testimony is unusual and helpful and endorses my principle point more than may be immediately apparent. We find God through working through our egos. Progress on this front is sometimes more apparent in the world of those who oppose or ignore religous communities than among us who are part of them. I'm sure you've not got it right in thinking there's a tide of religiosity in our country, however. There are enormous problems everywhere through not knowing how to begin to curb the ego and great opposition to any idea that such is necessary or desirable.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Some things cry out to you, and seem obvious to you, that are don't and are not to me, nor to many others. You have no right to assume you are more correct than anyone else.
Jesus and so called saints may have suffered from their own delusions and illusions.

frank, sydney,

Frank of Sydney, the supernatural simply cries out from the natural. Non perception of it is due to other involvements as Jesus so rightly says.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Father Storey
I am not part of an anti God lobby (not yet anyway). I simply do not believe in God, because I am rational, and I do not feel the need to worship any being (including myself). I don't suffer from depression because of my lack of belief - indeed, I find it liberating, and my only sense of despair is for those people who find it necessary or appropriate to live a life that is not governed by reality. My married life is happy, and I am not ill.

Why is it that those with religious views continue to believe they have some kind of moral precedence over the views of other perfectly courteous, compassionate, and rational human beings like myself? My life is not empty because I do not worship another being. In fact it is quite the contrary.
The tide of religiosity in this country may slowly be changing, but for me it can't change quickly enough.

Dr Trudgill, Gloucester,

I have never had experience of and see no evidence for the supernatural anywhere.
What's with this self-worship idea? I don't worship myself, I just try to lead a normal decent life. Your harping on this idiotic point is very irritating, and not just to me, from what I read here and on the other blogs. You must have a very unusual way of perceiving your "ego".
I don't think an ego theory of self works. I prefer bundle theorists explanations.

frank, sydney,

Frank, I find it astonishing that you think Infinite or infinite is not supernatural. You have some experience of this after all? Explain yourself please. I agree that there are loads of conscious and unconscious illusions within us. I say the only way to reduce them is by getting away from constant self worship to the practice of worshipping God even if unhappy with the idea. Such will help and enlighten in a great way as demonstrated by Aldous Huxley.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Many people far cleverer than you and I see this, Alan. I know there are clever ones in the anti God lobby too. We have the choice but the search must continue. I am open to be convinced by the anti God ones who've been at me by various means all my life. I've even sought out and devoured their books since I was a youngster. They only confirm me in my convictions. I have no doubt that the anti God lobby comes from non worship, irrationality, leads to depression and despair and greatly contributes to the breakdown of married life and many illnesses. Its infiltration of religion is the cause of many things blamed onto religion.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

The concept of infinite does not imply supernatural existence.

Many, after realising their religious belief is a misguided sham, see reality more clearly, and appreciate life and the world around them more freely, without the clouds of spurious, pious dogma and rhetoric.

Religion offers the illusion and delusion.

frank, sydney,

Aha - infinite explains finite - you could have fooled me. Existence has to be explained - is that absolutely necessary? Our nature is fallen - speak for yourself Bryan. Vision blinded by illusions - speak for yourself again, Bryan. -- Oh, I think I'm suffering from a bout of non-acceptance of the infinite. That's got me somehow confused. I think I'd better go away and play conkers - it might help to bring some sense back into this debate - like mad..

alan, cologne,

Frank of Sydney, the proof is that finite does not exist without infinite to explain it. Existence has to be explained but you prefer to play conkers, put your head in the sand or look the other way. You are by no means alone. Even many 'clever ones' claim the same. Yet it's there. Some, after conversion admit they now see what they did not see before. It's more likely that because of the confusion within our fallen nature, the vision was blinded by illusions. We're hardly ever free from some. Non acceptance of the Infinite encourages this like mad.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I might suggest that the rational to attack the worst of the religious first is the same rational that one applies to removing the largest and most pernicious weeds from a garden first, that they provide the greatest threat, but if the last religious person standing were the current Archbishop of Canterbury I would still encourage him to consider how his religious belief reduces his capacity for rational thought due to its requirement for the concept of 'truth'.

Mark Wilson, Nottingham, England

As a maths teacher used to tell us, Bryan, if you can't prove what you're writing down as the answer, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
Now why does that make me think of you?

frank, sydney,

Ben, tell us about this enormous truth you alone seem to have got from the Professor. As a great professor used to say to us students ' don't come and tell me it's in the book or you know it, if you can't spell it out. If you can't spell it out for us, you haven't really grasped it. Come on, Ben, we're entitled to know what it is from you.'

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

The quote, Ben, is from the great St. Augustine who refers to making idols of people and things in a way that excludes God. That is disasterous during our lives and greatly undermines the natural quest for interior peace.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Having heard a preview of Richard Dawkings attack on Homeopathy ( due to be broadcast tonight) claiming that it's apparent success is solely the result of the 'placebo effect' , what about the British Association of Homeopathic Vetinary Surgeons ? The Soil Association on its web site advises of the efficacy of homeopathic treatment of mastitis in cows. Are the cows and other animals imagining themselves better ?

Kim Shah , weston super mare, somerset

What are your grounds for that Bryan? The heart rests when we die. We end. Live (and die) with it. And as for your NOMA thing, read the book and try to understand. As Dawkins says, you need a consciousness raiser.

Ben, York,

Perception does not exclude some imagination, Frank of Sydney. That's rather different from this sophistry of which you anti God ones speak so much. The human heart never rests until it rests in God is an enormous truth. As the man said to me 'try it'.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

The heart is an organ developed by evolution to pump blood. The poetic heart is part of the brain, and no more divine that any other body part. As usual, Christian sophistry appears to cloud reality.

frank, sydney,

Of course we know, Ray of Dundee. God is there and has to be. The fact cries out from every finite, limited being whose existence has to be properly explained by something we cannot help not seeing. The anti God ones keep wanting us to put Him in a test tube. That's just ridiculous. If we saw Him, it couldn't be God.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

These scientific answers are highly interesting but always avoid the heart of the matter. The human heart is made for God.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Come on, let's have your arguments, stop throwing your books lists around and say something.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

I prefer to sit back, and state quite simply "I don’t know" We are ALL only human beings, no different from animals in many respects, whether your a Priest, a President, or a homeless person. The truth is that NO ONE knows, or will ever know (in their life time) if God exists or not. We all have theories, and opinions, that’s all. Any one who says that they know as truth, the existence of God, or lack thereof, is either deluded, or sees some personal gain in stating such rhetoric as fact.

Ray Krachan, Dundee, UK

Not talking of time but explanation of the existences.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

When quantum effects are taken into account, that all-important intrinsic uncertainty can be applied to space-time, too. In this case, the uncertainty can, under special circumstances, affect the identities of space and time. For a very, very brief duration, it is possible for time and space to merge in identity, for time to become, so to speak, spacelike-just another dimension of space.
The essence of the Hartle-Hawking idea is that the big bang was not the abrupt switching on of time at some singular first moment, but the emergence of time from space in an ultrarapid but nevertheless continuous manner. On a human time scale, the big bang was very much a sudden, explosive origin of space, time, and matter. But look very, very closely at that first tiny fraction of a second and you find that there was no precise and sudden beginning at all. So here we have a theory of the origin of the universe that seems to say two contradictory things: First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics.
What happened before the big bang? The answer is: Nothing. (Paul Davies)

frank, sydney,

Read Stephen Hawking or Brian Green or any number of physicists/cosmologists who write books for the public, and you'll get an answer. Or google for the theories that are around. You won't get it sitting in your back garden.

frank, sydney,

Because, Frank of Sydney, the answers are no answers at all. What's beyond 'big bang'?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Too true Frank. Bryan, I urge you to read the book with an open mind and all your questions will hopefully be answered.

Ben, York,

There have been many postings on these sites giving explanations for a universe without God, and about conscience and consciousness, Bryan, as you well know, but you don't like them, which is your prerogative, but why keep asking the same things, unless you just want the same answers posted yet again?
How about you just accept not all people agree with you, and for what they feel are good and justified reasons?

frank, sydney,

To focus on intelligence has little meaning without focusing on explanation.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

What interesting distinctions you now make, Ben. Is it the same Ben writing? What do you wish to say of this? Why focus on intelligence rather than explanation? It's interesting how God opponents are focusing. Do say more. This is getting really interesting. You are now speaking of a created universe. Now that's fascinating too.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Surely you can see the difference between human action through conscious choice and the unintelligent (but marvellous) processes that created the universe? Unless you advocate the long-refuted intelligent design theory?

Ben, York,

I see no difference in principle.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

That is completely different and doesn't answer the question.

Ben, York,

If your house were burgled Ben and there were no trace of the burgler, would I be justified in saying nobody did it?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Ask a serious question that science does not answer. Except there are none. I ask you just one question - what evidence is there for God?

Ben, York,

The debate makes it clearer. The idea that God is a delusion obviously springs inevitably from the breeding ground of all illusions, irreligion. Worship of God is the only way to reduce our proneness to live in an illusory world. Current religious responses do not begin clearly to aknowledges this. A real religious revival is urgent.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Ben, I've mentioned before that religion is often used to promote irreligious things, especially tribalism dressed up as religion. You ought to know that elementary fact. Religion opposes murder. I expect you therefore now accept the first Commandment?. Play the game. I expect Professor Dawkins will be quite pleased to know you find him elegant. I've not heard that one before. How can you say there's no loophole in what he says when he doen't even start to face the acute problem of the explanation of existence beyond fascinating, proximate scientific events. ?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Documents or human life? Hard choice. Tell that to the millions who have died due to religion. Dawkin's argument is elegant, clear and has no loopholes - the exact opposite of the bible.

Ben, York,

Jim of Sydney, these arguments from silence are very weak especially when one takes motives for silence into consideration. What of the destruction of Christian documents during the days of the 10 persecutions? Strange you do not mention that. Your whole stance cries out 'I'm a biassed sort of unobjective bloke who really wants to do down this Christian business'. Professor Dawkins tries the same thing with some fascinating scientific knowledge along with some unreliable RE. What are you up to?

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

"It is also very striking that supposedly definitive sources blithely cite the Jewish historian Josephus as independent evidence of Jesus’ life. But all fail to tell us that the authenticity of the passage has been under suspicion for centuries and, in light of modern research, must be dismissed as a clumsy Christian forgery inserted into Josephus’s work. Christians themselves do not begin to quote the passage until several centuries later, although many of their predecessors knew Josephus’s work well and would have found the passage very useful".
"It is also significant that another Jewish historian of the same era, Justus of Tiberias, made no mention of Jesus whatever and yet he, like Josephus, came from Galilee.
Without the disputed passages neither does Josephus and this seems extremely strange if Jesus went about their own homeland of Galilee working prodigious miracles and attracting vast crowds". (from David H. Lewis)
The Jesus of the gospels is a late first century mythical creation, and in real life (whoever he was, whatever his true life) no more God than me, you, or anyone else.

jim, sydney,

Bill, towoomba - A challenge for you - try to get a response from Bryan that directly addresses reality, not some kind of wild acid trip.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Bill of Towoomba, the religious industry as you call it has many imperfections and evil within it. Yet, it helps in the promotion of human love in a way your outlook could not begin to do because if you deny the Invisible One or live as if He's not there, you actively undermine the Source of Love.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

I write on Bastille day 2007. Is Dawkins prepared to focus his scientific critique on other faith based fundamentalisms? I refer to the unthinking acceptance that liberty, fraternity, equality and even more rights are good for us or sustainable. The Old Testament at least acknowledges human folly. I fear we mostly prefer lies to uncertainty, prefer feel-good chemical surges to experimentally validated evidence of which policies (or invasions) are likely to work with the grain of our evolved brains and which will throw up unintended consequences. Swopping religion for Utopian dream-weaving is hardly progress. More scientific rigour, more experimental psychology please.

john sharp, Oxford, UK

Nothing increases man's many illusions more than worship of a deity. I'm not anti-God, because I don't see any evidence he exists, but am anti the religious industry that feeds on people's insecurities, hopes and fears with threats, carrots and guilt.

bill, towoomba,

Bill of Twowoomba, nothing increases our many illusions more than failure to worship God. These references to sophistry and platitudes are 'put downs' which are not worthy of anti God people.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

It seems platitudinous statements rule, so:
It is theists who practice any formalised religion who have lost insight. All believers perhaps should acknowledge that, and also need to acknowledge the wonders of "conversion" to reality based non-theism and rationality. Sifting through their inner selves will guide them to this truth......

bill, towoomba,

Dominic: But you do realise there's an ocean of conflicting emotions within us which need sifting partly through the inner guidance we have. The handful of friends I know and others who've written of their experience in conversion speak of seeing the same things differently. Dominic, it's not that difficult to see. You need to ackowledge this just as I acknowledge that people lose this insight and go your unenviable way.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Bryan : There is no religious world inside me and if there was I'd choose the Flying Spaghetti Monster as given the available alternatives he is the most credible.
Back to your "ex-atheist friends" - what were their reasons for no belief in mythical entities and what precise evidence (not vague mumbo-jumbo) persuaded them otherwise ? How many people are we talking about ? What do they consider a reasonable standard of evidence ? For once answers that deal with reality would be nice.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Dominic, we're all rather defend ourselves against intrusions yet the great challenge involved in the inner development is greatly liberating. There's a religious world within you, awaiting further development.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

They say it was always there in embryo. That to me is pretty obvious. No illusion to have a well founded belief in God. It brings out life's full meaning. The boot's on the other foot, Bill of Towoomba. Come. come!

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Or they prefer delusion to reality....

bill, towoomba,

Dominic: They now see what they failed to see before. You must know this psychological process. Scales fall from the eyes.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Bryan : I'm curious - these "ex atheists friends" of yours - what was their reasoning for moving from a position where they saw no evidence for believing in magic to removing the requirement for evidence?
I see a few possibilities; the main one being - They really weren't atheists, simply people who weren't much bothered either way who for whatever reason now go with the magic explanation. Good luck to them, its much easier than critical thinking I guess. Would they like to invest in my new perpetual motion machine ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Bryan : With the greatest of respect you are not me, and I think its time for me to stop messing about - frankly and honestly I struggle to come to terms with how little intelligence people apparently have if they think simple common decency requires anything from a mythical supernatural entity. I have not been influenced by anything religious other than to see from a very early age (about 6) what a ridiculous sham it is. I do find it very difficult when I discover that someone I think of as mature and intelligent actually has the religion virus in an active form. Having no religion goes back at least 3 generations of my family as far as I have been able to determine - maybe I have a genetic resistance.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Thanks for that response, Dominic. Your parents only sparked off something already within you.You may have been uninfluenced by religious bodies yet there is a Voice from within that links up with and needs the inspiration of the outside religious teaching when that is somehow more freed from the obvious warts.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Oh, Bryan, if only you could see what an amazing species humans are. We have no need to worship anything else.

This forum clarifies three things:
1) Nobody can prove god doesn't or does exist.
2) Current science suggests god doesn't exist.
3) Current science is not perfect, and exists to be proved wrong. Until then, we have to go by the best of science.

Well put Frank of Sydney. This is me blogging out. As you said, enjoy this amazing world however it was made.

Ben, York,

Priests and other religious professionals are in an unenviable position. Whatever their innermost beliefs, it is not in their interest to question religion.

Seb Carroll, London, London

Sophistry, William. Years of accumulated evidence and scientific theory cannot always be demonstrated in a lab test.

All the evidence available to us suggests that life exists, that Darwinism is generally correct, but not that God exists. I enjoy your writing but I am dismayed by this self-duping.

And I speak as a self-duping believer myself.

Seb Carroll, London, London

Frank of Sydney, my ex atheists friends thought like you they tell me until the vision improved and they saw the wonders of life with God, available to us all through turning to the Lord. Have a try. It never stops improving to the point that you wonder how you could have been so satisfied with so much less.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan : If I couldn't tell right from wrong without the aid of a book of fairy tales or invisible friends I would consider myself not a complete person. My code of behaviour and personal ethics came first from my parents then as I got older from observation and reflection totally unhindered by religion. I was born into a totally non-religious background before you ask.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Another puff cloud Dominic but not quite so posh. Let us start with your inner self. What do you learn about code of living from your inner self? Now don't tell me that's a contradiction, fairy tale or shove Professor Dawkins, the darling of the 'atheists', down my throat.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, uk

Bryan :The argument from anecdote - to be honest I find this the least compelling line of reasoning, lots of people think all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, but if they can't back this up with any evidence then in other than matters of personal taste then they are wrong as far as I'm concerned. "Better" or "worse" doesn't come into it - just wrong.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Brien : Nice dogma, where's a single piece of evidence ? Free clue : A book of fairy tales is not evidence. Care to enlighten me with one instance of magic ever being the solution to a problem ?
If you throw away the requirement for evidence then you have to believe everything that can be imagined.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Frank of Sydney, my former atheist friends who are now Christian tell me that's just how they thought before they converted. Not a few non botherers tell me they're better than we who pray. Could be but making God big and important opens up amazing vistas. This phenomenon open to all, cannot just be pushhed away by quoting all the books of science one has read. That indicates an attitude which says ' I only wish to eat at this trough' The Sower and the Seed tells all. Away with the posh puff clouds. Science is an important part of life but only a piece of the story.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

There has to be a primal cause and that is God, a Creator or an Eternal spirit. It is best to revere God and all his creation including the animal kingdom. Albert Schweitzer's creed of reverence for all life was compelling.

Brien Comerford, Glenview, Illinois, United States

Thanks Dominic, I'm blogged out here and on My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic, and other sites here for now. You, Ben, Alan, Jim and many others remain an inspiration. Enjoy. this great life..

frank, sydney,

Thanks Frank, you've said it all and Bryan if you think there are only a few people who don't believe in the supernatural then you are wrong, its just that most people are very uneasy about openly questioning religion, many think it just not polite to challenge religion because of the unjustified privileged position it has. I don't really care what people think but I will continue to comment on beliefs that are simply fantasy.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

No-one is asking anyone to change their lives, but merely to realise that a life lived without religious beliefs can be at least as moral, fulfilling, happy, loving and joyous as any other.
That some find religious belief worthwhile and compelling isn't disputed. The reasons people believe are complex and varied. Some like Bryan find it so compelling as to dismiss totally non-belief as anything other than a delusion. Many however simply don't feel any need or desire for religion, or evidence to show such belief is based on anything other than man-made ideas; they live comfortably at peace with life and themselves. For them, like me, to try to live or think any other way would be an abomination. As has been said, such is life....

frank, sydney,

Dominic, I only want to argue from the world and ourselves. I'm frankly completely baffled that a few of you are so closed to this idea of ultimate and adequate explanation while coming up with so much that's extraneous, diversionary and so on and saying I do not follow dawkins writings and science. I just cannot believe in such blinkered attitudes. Such is life. You have a choice. I wouldn't change mine for all the tea in China.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan : You can't retreat into metaphysics and from there pronounce on the real universe sorry. I don't have a problem with the god delusion if it accepts that it is not real and doesn't affect anyone else like a childhood invisible friend. However this is the big problem, most people won't leave it there and insist on it having some kind of special treatment which affects us all and causes tribalism and hatred and must be deferred to. This I won't accept - ever.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Who the hell told you that? I don't believe anything not proven by science. God isn't obvious as nobody alive has seen him, and probably nobody ever has. I have said that it has done harm and good but that doesn't make it true. Old boy was a nickname for the devil, as were many others. Ever read the Crucible? It shows what religion does and refers to the 'Old Boy', Satan. And I don't have to prove a negative as unless you believe every dream, myth and story, you have to rely on hard evidence. Do you have any?

Ben, York,

I thought the discussion was to do with what is beyond Science- metaphysics. I do not need to display my scientific knowledge for this.The problem is to do with illusions that have to come from no interest in proper explanation. 'tis sad. All right, goodbye.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

No, Bryan its not. Can you prove that Medusa, the Tooth Fairy and Vishnu don't exist? Of course not, yet you surely don't believe in them? The majority of mankind used to believe in witchcraft and that the world was flat. It is often those who stand up to this idiocy that are right, even if they are a minority of one. Copernicus is a prime example of a pioneer crushed by the traditional religious nutters.

Do you have proof or not Bryan? If not, shut up as you obviously have little to no knowledge of science.

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 care?

as if it matters, sydney,

Nonsense Dominic.That's not a question of logic but of fact. The onus of proof has to be on those who are crying against belief in what the majority of mankind by far, find in their very existence.

Father Bryan Storey, Tintagel, UK

Bryan : Another logical error, it is up to someone who says an entity exists to prove its existence. To demonstrate the near impossibility of the converse, please disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
This is elementary logic - and people are fooled by this kind of "proof" ? "Its obvious" - it couldn't be further from obvious.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Mark of Brisbane, I bet you believe in many other invisible causes. I admit, it means exertion to accept God but it's enormously worth while. You'll wonder why you ever had such a crazy attitude to Him.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

'Old Nick' is the name for the devil not 'old boy', Ben. It's up to you to give evidence for this 'atheist' thing. God is so obvious. You are always implicitly appealing to Him in your fight for Conscience and goodness which you say is absent in all except those who deny Him. You've shown you believe in other invisible things. But God? No, not Him, you say. He's there even with your so called denials. Who is really stifling debate?

Father Bryan Storey , Tintafgel, UK

Sorry Dominic, it is obvious you are a considered and enlightened atheist, it was a brain snap...one of those when one sees one thing while writing another. Just a small example of how the mind plays tricks on us at times. Not a fraction of the trick the mind played on those disciples who supposedly believed they saw a ghost...

mathew, broome,

Matthew - I think you have me sadly confused with someone who has religious beliefs, I emphatically do not.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Bryan, last time I looked God was invisible or non-existent, so that counts that out.

mark, brisbane,

That's OK Matthew,the shock at being thought to be religious has worn off now, I can go back to worshipping myself now :-)

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Bryan, I think I've said more than once that I don't accept anything for which no credible evidence can be provided. Furthermore when we deal with the currently unknown I am consistent in my approach that since no evidence has ever been provided for any supernatural entity then it is farcical and redolent of the Dark Ages to say "Oh it must be magic then"

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Bryan, we are all putting in thought except you. You stick to your belief and try to stifle debate. You never actually put forward and real arguments apart from that we are better with religion. Whislt this is true for some, the opposite is true for others and it doesn't make it true. Well, get some evidence and I will believe. Trouble is, there is none!

Ben, York,

Bryan, an old name for the devil was 'old boy'. I hope you aren't implying athiests are in league with evil? Have you ever read the Crucible? It shows what religion does and how it thrives. And about explanation, there is plenty of evidence for the big bang (red shift etc) and none for god. Dominic's Harry Potter analogy shows that the bible is not reliable. Can you produce any evidence for god that would stand up in a court of law?

Ben, York,

Reviewer, can the prior letter and this one if you have the chance!!


Sorry Dominic, it was Chris of Epsom that made that optimistic statement about the bible, I wrote the reply too quickly for my own good during making dinner, as the kids take over my computer much of the time! You make a lot of great comments, and seem very sensible and learned in your blogs.

mathew, broome,

Dominic, you said " there is evidence for God's acts - the Bible". As Dawkins so eloquently pointed out: The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all of fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

mathew, broome,

Dominic, of course not. Yet I ask you if you only accept explanations that are here and now visible.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Bryan, is that actually English ? Just so we are really clear, are you saying that any potential explanation that doesn't involve a supernatural entity is wrong by definition ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Chris your questions about "before" the Big Bang are perfectly valid, excellent ! The problem is that you aren't consistent and don't ask what about before your god existed - instead you seem to retreat into mumbo jumbo.
The fact that a book is widely read does not make it in the slightest bit true. as JK Rowling, author of some exceptionally widely read books would testify.

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

All the middle east and the rest of us really need is the best of the golden rule (a concept that is intrinsic to man's moral nature, and which developed in India, China, Greece, the old testament, and elsewhere, before it hit the new testament). Lets just stick with that, and drop the dogmas, and stop harping on about necessary anythings or ones, or worship of invisible idols.

frank, sydney,

That's not a logical error, Chris old boy. Yours is just that by denying the major without argumentation and more than a little gratuitous throwing of rubbish into the court. Come off it, let's get down to some thought in this matter. This is a debate, not a circus. It's too vital not to encourage self worship instead of the worship of the Necessary One.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

Before the Big Bang scientists say there was a load of energy in a tiny space. Where did that come from then? There has to be a beginningto the universe.

The 'book of fairy tales' is in fact the most read book ever. If the world saw the guidance it gives us for life (Going beyond the simple common sense morals) all the conflicts in the world at the moment - the Middle East etc. - we could make progress.

Chris, Epsom,

Bryan, I was disproving one argument, the ontological argument. I say, as do scientists (see Dominic's posts) that there is a perfectly rational, non-god reason for everything, eg big bang, evolution. As for saying religion is embedded in us, why do the faithful fear death? Surely that is saying "Oh no, I don't want to go to eternal bliss!" and hints that reason and instinct tells us religion is ridiculous?

Ben, York,

Chris and Bryan, read the comments about quantum theory and the possibilities that there was a spontaneous event, or alternatively no edge to space-time. There may have been a prior Big Crunch for all we know. We don't know, but we just don't necessarily need to implicate a supernatural being.
Then you can get back to discussing the irrationality of the rest of religious belief.

jim, sydney,

Chris : Strong feeling of deja vu
Bryan : You seem to be falling into the "argument from personal incredulity" logical error - there is nothing as half-baked as saying "It was magic". Quantum Mechanics is the strangest theory yet devised but that doesn't stop it making predictions as accurate as measuring the distance from New York to San Francisco to a precision less than the width of a human hair - care to enlighten me on predictions made from the book of fairy tales that stand up to any examination ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

Do you have any other ideas for what what there before the Big Bang then Dominic?

Chris, Epsom,

Ben, simple things also require proper, full and satisfactory explanation. It's not design on which we need to focus. That red herring should be put aside in favour of explanation. Who leads daily life saying 'nothing causes it you know' or giving half baked answers and explanations. Come on, Ben, let's get down to it, keeping on the ball. Enough of this escapism.

Father Bryan Storey , Tintagel, UK

The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. (Stephen Hawking)

jim, sydney,

Chris : Whatever the answer is it won't involve magic, trust me, read up on Quantum Cosmology, M-Theory and Superstring Theory, these may not be the ultimate answer but they aren't based on magic, they are based on theoretical physics which makes predictions that then get tested and if they are shown to be false they are thrown away, they don't become dogma.
This is how real progress is made, any sign of any progress made by reading fairy tales ?

Dominic Shields, Cardiff,

The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event. (Paul Davies)

jim, sydney,

Chris - those people thought the world was flat, Earth was centre of the universe and witchcraft was real. As was said of Richard Nixon, "Would you buy a used car off this man?" Would you believe them?

Paul, I was only stating how simple everything is, not requiring design.

Ben, York,

Do you have any ideas about what was there before the Big Bang then Dominic?

Chris, Epsom,