Indigo

All I can is that you have a naively benign view of the state. Every system has its flaws and is open to abuse. Just think how tempting it would be for a government to use a database like this to dig up dirt about political opponents. And tracking devices? You've got to be kidding. The right to privacy is a key part of any liberal democracy, and it's one of the first things a dictatorship is quick to erase. It's quite sad that the liberties our ancestors fought for are all being cast aside for the sake of 'security', and all the public can do is say "well if you have nothing to hide...". It's a ridiculous argument. I suppose on the same grounds we may as well have cameras in our houses to make sure we don't break the law. As a wise man once said, "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither". The UK was more under threat from terrorism in the 1980s - we didn't fearfully give up our liberties then and we shouldn't now.

A lot of people are saying that there doesn't need to be a reason for the universe because it just is. If you subscribe to Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason, which intuitively we do, then a reason for the universe is necessary: “There can be found no fact that is true or existent, or any true proposition, without there being a sufficient reason for its being so and not otherwise”

Feels by Animal Collective is a great experimental summer record. It's vibrant, loose and bright. Pet Sounds by Beach Boys is a given. Any recent Flaming Lips record. And lastly Reveal by REM. You can't go wrong with a bit of cool jazz on a summer evening either. Miles Davis, Coltrane et al.

Last night I had quite an unusual dream. I was on a field alongside the main road near my house, with my family and a few friends. Then I saw a girl that I used to like in sixth-form. I didn't want to make my presence known to her because for some reason I was still in my bed clothes and I hadn't showered, so I thought I'd go and get ready. Next thing I know all my family and friends disappear and the scene changes. It seems in this new scene I'm dressed and ready, and I'm walking by a small bridge in a small and quiet town, with the memory that this girl wasn't by the field when I returned, so I am searching for her. I figure she'll be in a pub because that's where I commonly saw her in reality. I come to what looks like a pub, though it is not the one where I used to sometimes see her. Nevertheless I search inside. I come to a long narrow conservatory type section within the pub, lay out like an old church with tables at either side and a narrow space in the middle to walk down. The pub is quite full, and many of the people have their legs stretched out into my pathway. The first man I come to looks angry, and as I try to edge past him he refuses to move, and I end up agitating him further by trying to force my way through. He stands up as if to fight me. Next thing I know I'm outside, stood on a long straight gravel path with fields all around me, and the man is alongside me. I am wondering how to overpower him when suddenly two Arab men appear and start fighting my enemy. After they finish with him, they turn to me, and I realise I am next. And then I look to the distance and see a group of bullets in a tight circular formation coming toward us. Everything then seems to slow down, except for my thinking process, and so I manage to dodge the bullets. The other men are not so lucky, and are finished. I see the bullets heading past my face, they are red and green, and somehow they seem alive. The scene changes again, and I'm back in the pub. I see my friend, and the girl is with him. Then the scene changes once more to an unknown location, and I'm sat with just the girl. She doesn't express much visible surprise at seeing me - in fact I can't even remember us talking. We simply embrace and kiss each other passionately, and then as I'm beginning to wake up I think to myself 'I shouldn't be kissing this girl, should I?' Probably not such an exciting read, but I wanted to write it somewhere.

I agree, and I do hope that videogames can become more artistic as time progresses. There are some games that have shown potential for this - MGS2 comes to mind. The main problem is that the primary function of videogames is still seen as to amuse rather than to muse on. Rising budgets don't help either - publishers aren't going to want to finance risky artistic ventures unless such games would sell. So I suppose if consumers start buying and demanding more thoughtful and artistic games then maybe the publishers will follow. This would obviously require a big shift in the mainstream demographic from 12-18 year old males to say 22-30+ males and females. You could say that we are experiencing such a shift now, but it tends to be for the wrong reasons - i.e. new demographics buying a console just to occasionally have a bit of a laugh on Wii Sports or Guitar Hero. Ultimately I think it comes down to this: Novels had the pattern of plays to follow; film had the pattern of the novel etc. They are all storytelling mediums. Videogaming is not such a medium, therefore how or if it might possibly develop as an artistic form is very hard to say.

I often think similar things, but about our technological mediums as a group - ie. videogames, television, internet etc. I think without these things we'd actually be a much more contented or at least a more intellectually/politically aware society. I lament the fact we don't read as we should, due not only to our apathy but our lack of attention span - something I find as irritating about myself just as much as society generally. We can't kid ourselves that videogames are as intellectually stimulating as a say a good novel or whatever. Videogames have barely progressed as anything close to an art-form.

Perfect Dark is still a fine game. Co-op and counter-op may be quite unplayable, but barring a few intense single-player moments and the use of explosives in multiplayer the game has aged well. Over Easter me and my friend played a lot of two-player combat simulator - it was damn fun. It sure beats any shooters that Nintendo consoles have since had to offer.

This is a Roman Catholic tradition following the practice of Christ and the Jews in setting aside days where the church fasts and prays as one in a constant attitude of renewal and worship. Abstaining from meat is a form of fasting, and Good Friday is typically a day where this is practised because of it being a day to which special significance is attached in remembering Jesus' death. I don't practice this tradition - but I respect the idea. There's little value in doing it just for the sake of it though.

I remember once having a dream in which I was in a large school hall type of room with some other kids, and then a woman came in with a large bowl of sweets, and she offered them to everyone but me. I woke up crying "It's not fair" repeatedly.

No, I don't think we can pick and choose which of the spiritual teaching to believe and not. You might raise the question of some of the Old Testament Law and ask why don't we follow that? But if you take the Bible as a cohesive whole, and read Paul's letters in the New Testament, then it is explained how "by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." That's from Romans 7. And from earlier in Romans 6, "You are not under law, but under grace."

I'm primarily a guitarist, but I flirt a bit with piano and bass guitar now and again. Technically I'm not very skilled, but I think I have a good feel for my instrument. My songwriting tends to be based on intuition rather than anything consciously theoretical.

That's cool. Although correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume in that environment that the emphasis is more on "let's see how we can criticise these texts". While that has its place in critical thinking, it must be balanced by an acknowledgement of some of the strengths of the arguments being examined. That's why I don't see the point in having an Atheist Society, whose purpose is to put it bluntly, to come together and affirm each other's 'disbelief'. It's quite an unusual, negative concept. What would make much more sense to me, and would clearly involve a 'search for answers' would be a Critical Thinking Society in which a text could be discussed (theist or atheist) and then people of atheist, agnosticist and theist dispositions could come together and discuss the merits and the weaknesses. Right? Pointing out similarities in religions hardly amounts to refuting any individually. That's illogical. And if you're making a reference to the kind of arguments peddled by the Zeitgeist film, that Christianity is just another version of paganism - if you do a little research you can find that those arguments have been quite damaged. And this is a conclusion without any reasons. Your description would be fitting of an agnostic. But atheists don't claim not to understand, they claim actually that they do understand the universe - the atheist understands it as a universe without a God, created by chance and thus purposeless, valueless and determined. In the words of Russell, they believe that when we die, we will rot. And also the atheist believes that there are no objective moral values - life itself is thus absurd. In my mind, this hardly seems like something that we can pass off as mere 'disbelief'. You can't smuggle in an extensive worldview under the trojan horse of 'disbelief'.

It depends what level atheism you subscribe to really. Crude atheism doesnt amount to simply expressing scepticism - that's closer to agnosticism. I don't think there is evidence that completely refutes the claims of every human religion. Demonstrating differences in the two Creation accounts in Genesis, for example, doesn't refute all the claims of Christianity or Judaism. Most Christians subscribe to 'Biblical infallibility' which holds that the Bible is inerrant on issues of faith and practice but not history or science, as opposed to 'Biblical inerrancy' which asserts that the Bible is completely without error. Furthermore, even if all human religions were refuted, this would not affect the credibility of belief in the simple existence of God. I believe there is evidence for Christianity, but it is of a different nature than you are perhaps looking for. To quote William Lane Craig, If as Christianity asserts, God wants us to freely come to faith in Him, then God could never fully reveal himself, for it would coerce and compel us to believe, requiring no faith and violating our freedom in the matter. Read the full article if you want an expansion on the kind of evidence that is cited. Here's the link. Sure thing. I don't mind feeling challenged - we can't be complacent afterall. You should read some theist books too. I'd recommend starting with Richard Swinburne, 'The Existence of God' and if you want a useful exploration of the thinking behind Christianity then read C.S. Lewis 'Mere Christianity'.

I agree, Haden. Let's all chill out a bit. I feel like I've made some enemies in this thread, but I love you anyway.

Well if you were, why did you address your argument in reply to me, who wasn't even arguing with Christianity in mind? You made no point about the historicity of the gospels in the post you addressed to me. All part of the universe. Can't explain the universe with reference to things within it. See above. No, it was you who clearly made the initial mistake. I was arguing for the existence of God (or at least the deficiency of atheism) and you quoted my argument and then attempted to refute my points by loosely arguing against Christianity. Then you concluded that I was an 'idiot'. Trying to mimic my response doesn't somehow give you credibility. The fact is you've barely raised any valid objections to what I've said - instead you fail to understand my arguments and resort to criticising a caricature of Christianity. Then when I point out that what you're saying is obviously irrelevant to my argument, or is a misunderstanding of my argument, you then claim that actually it is me that is misunderstanding you. I suppose that's what you get for trying to argue philosophy on a Nintendo message board.

What are you talking about? Try reading my posts properly, rather than selectively skimming them for sentiment to feed your anti-theist prejudices. Theists accept the Big Bang theory. As I've said many times, the Big Bang is not a damn explanation for the existence of the universe, because it is part of the universe itself. Believing in Jesus as the Son of God has little to do with the origins of the universe. Undoubtedly it will influence your beliefs in the origins of the universe, but positing God as an explanation for the universe doesn't entail then accepting a religion. Personally I do accept Christianity. I find the historicity of the gospels to be truly reliable. This though has little bearing for this debate and on our question of whether God exists. I'd gladly have a debate with you about specific Christianity issues - but my post you replied to was plainly and simply about the existence of God. It seems all you're doing is changing the subject to try and undermine my argument. What evidence is there on this earth for an atheistic explanation of the universe? I'd surely like to see it. Again you're trying to distract us from the issue at hand. Questioning the Bible does not equate to question God's existence. Like I say, the Big Bang is part of the universe. Scientific reasoning is based on explaining something by pointing to a cause outside of the thing you are attempting to explain. God is clearly not part of the universe - therefore, unlike the Big Bang, God is a valid explanation. Now that doesn't mean that God is in fact true, but what I'm demonstrating is that God is a potential explanation whereas the Big Bang is not. I am serious. There's a reason agnosticism is the majority position amongst philosophers. What the hell? I was giving an example of a logically invalid argument, known as Argument from Ignorance. And then you go and borrow that invalid structure for trying to argue for an issue quite irrelevant to this debate. You really don't read my posts properly. I'm not sure how my post left such an impression considering you hardly seemed to read it. I think what your reply demonstrates is that you didn't make much attempt to understand my argument or to actually come to grips with the real issues of the debate. You saw I was arguing against atheism, you made a few irrelevant points against my argument, and then resorted to lazy and prejudiced ad hominem attacks. Brilliant.

You miss my point entirely. I'm not saying I don't believe in human rights. But what I'm saying is that is meaningless to even claim that something is 'humane' or the 'right thing' if there are no objective moral standards. It is logically inconsistent. How can we judge that natural rights are 'humane' or the standards for society? The only logical answer is that they are objective, universal truths. That is my point.

Okay, so there are no objective values, no right and wrong. And yet anyone who doesn't subscribe to your 'natural rights framework' should be criticised and disowned? That's inconsistent.

If morality is merely a social or cultural construct, then it has no objective value and therefore no authority. The claim that we have evolved with a semi-subconscious acceptance of our culture's morality, which ultimately is of benefit to our self-preservation, may at first seems reasonable. But the implications of such a view is that actions such as sacrificing your own life in order to save others must be considered absurd and stupid. Moral relativism also means that we have no basis for criticising the practices of other cultures. According to relativism, we in the West cannot object to the Hindu practice of suttee (burning widows alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands) or the ancient Chinese custom of crippling women for life by tightly binding their feet from childhood to resemble lotus-blossoms. We have no basis to object if there is no objective moral standard to appeal to. Without God, all we are confronted with is as Sartre says, the bare, valueless fact of existence. If morals are just expressions of culture or personal taste, or the by-products of socio-biological evolution, then who is to say which values are right and wrong? Who is to judge that the values of Adolf Hitler are inferior to Mother Teresa? Clearly we can and do make such judgements, but this judgement is meaningless without God, since we cannot infer a universal moral value without the notion of a value-giver, an authority. As Richard Taylor, the atheist ethicist points out, “to say that something is wrong because it is forbidden by God, is perfectly understandable to anyone who believes in a law-giving God. But to say that something is wrong even though no God exists to forbid it, is not understandable. The concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their meaning is gone.” In a universe without God there is only the valueless fact of existence - there are only our personally relative, subjective judgements. Therefore we cannot condemn war, or torture, or genocide - those evils are merely the product of other people's subjective judgements and should be accepted as such. But of course, something within us, what you might call your conscience, compels us to make such value judgements - to declare war and oppression as evil. And we treat this as objectively the case; yet without God it cannot be the case, it is merely deception, what L.D. Rue called a "noble lie". It is as Dostoyevsky says, "without God, all things are permitted."

The question of whether science can explain the beginning of the universe is not affected by the question of whether the existence of God can explain it. I believe that God can explain it, but even if you don't accept that opinion, that doesn't then mean that science must therefore have the explanation. You've created a false dilemma. Your problem is that you see 'science' and God as two mutually exclusive concepts, which is not the case. As we see again, you are creating a false dilemma, implying that a choice must be made between the two. This is fallacious. I also don't understand how you say science is the most realistic explanation. What do you mean by 'science'? Because scientists tell us that a millisecond after the Big Bang is as far back as we can empirically observe - all preceding events are purely speculation. It's as if you're putting your faith in the authority of some monolithic entity called 'science' which must surely possess the answers, rather than any substantial answers themselves. If you want the philosophical perspective of 'what made God?' - the answer is that God by definition is a necessary being. Unlike all material things, God therefore depends on nothing else for God's existence - he exists necessarily. God is therefore outside of the causal network of the universe and time itself. Metaphysically it's completely valid. I think we struggle to understand the idea because our concept of God is mistaken - we wrongly conceive of God as an anthropomorphic, physical being. Yes but how do you fundamentally explain the observations themselves and the causes of them? Ultimately you have to go back to the laws of physics. My whole point was showing the irrationality of atheism, and how it involves a leap of faith. I mean, I could just as easily turn your arguments around against atheism: Is there any evidence that God does not exist? No. Therefore God exists. It's an invalid argument, just like saying 'there is no evidence for God, therefore God does not exist' is an invalid argument. It's arguing from ignorance. So where does our morality come from?

Your explanation seems to suggest that elementary particles + energy and the laws that govern them exist infinitely and therefore don't require a beginning, but I don't think that can be considered a simpler explanation. Hence I say we can't infer a simpler explanation of equal explanatory power from Ockham's Razor.

But where do those laws come from? You're right. Most revered scientists are not religious, but then neither are they atheists. They are agnostics. But like I said, all this is irrelevant. Like most of the points we've discussed in this thread - it's beside the point.

I'm watching the stream on BBC Sport, trying to understand this game. If the BBC aired the games regularly I could imagine getting into it - it's definitely more appealing without the adverts, considering all the breaks in play.

All too often in these debates we let the prejudices of this matter steer us away from the real philosophical issues, instead focusing our attention on the manufactured 'clash' between science and God. In doing so we distract ourselves from our original questions and any logical pursuit of the reasons and arguments. This is what people such as Dawkins attempt to do - they mischaracterise the question of whether God exists as a battle between faith and science, as if they are mutually-exclusive, incompatible areas. It is then suggested that an affirmation of belief in God somehow constitutes a rejection of science. But this just isn't credible. The reality is that much of our questions about God concern a realm with which science lacks the capacity to explain and inform us. Science may be able to answer what Elliot Sober called 'local-why questions' - questions concerned with a point in the earth's history. However, it lacks the capacity to explain 'global-why questions' - questions concerned with the totality of the universe and its history, eg. why is there something rather than nothing. Materialism (the atheistic philosophy of Dawkins et al) operates on the basis that science has the capacity in principle to explain everything. We can observe the naivety of this simply be asking whether science can explain its own laws. Sure, it can explain the laws of geology with the laws of physics. But what about the fundamental laws? For the materialist the fundamental laws 'just are', they are the stopping place - but as Swinburne says "that sort of stopping place is just where no rational enquirer will stop." Science can't account for the universe. Based on the Materialist principle of causal closure, every physical event must have a complete, sufficient, physical cause. So what about the universe itself? You might point to the Big Bang - but that's part of the universe itself. The universe requires an explanation outside of itself, just like you can't explain why a novel exists just by pointing to the title page. Science does not have the capacity to provide that - and this is why metaphysical explanations are necessary, and it is why it is a mistake to be fooled into thinking the existence of God is an irrational proposition.

Boston Legal. It's one of the most under-appreciated (or at least under-exposed) shows out there. As the synopsis says, it "walks the line between drama and comedy", so it fits with what you're looking for. I highly recommend it - it's the kinda show you can watch whatever mood you're in.