to think it is rude to persistently refer to God/Allah/etc. as an "imaginary friend"

[AtheneNoctua]

even after asked not to by several posters who have stated they found it offensive.

All of these different myth systems are expressions of the same belief that there is some intelligence underpinning the universe, and the religions that they incorporate are attempts to guide behaviour in accordance with that belief. Each expression is specific to its culture (how could it possibly be otherwise) and evolves - often uneasily - over time in accordance with human experience.

Whether these beliefs represent nothing more than a projection of human desire in a godless universe, or an attempt to connect with a God who is real, we cannot possibly say. Agnosticism is the only tenable position in my view.

I would argue that it hardly matters in any case. If humans created God, God exists as an idea of ultimate good in the hearts and minds of people. If God created humans the same applies. The pertinent question is not where "goodness" comes from, but how we might go about achieving it.

"If humans created God, God exists as an idea of ultimate good in the hearts and minds of people. If God created humans the same applies."

I agree with the first sentence; but I'm not sure the second holds up. If God created humans, why need he be 'good'?

don't think it does almostblue. As i said, Hawking has presented a mathematical model for a designer of the universe. So far science has not been able to prove this model. Does not mean it might in future. As i said, I am a Christian agnostic, so i am not ignoring contradictory evidence at all [i don't really know what contradictory evidence there is for God anyway, lack of evidence yes]
I do find it a little worrying that with only a mathematical model for Hawking's radiation we are going to start colliding particles at high speeds and create black holes though.

Does not mean it might not I mean.

Ruty, the point about scientific theories is that they arise as a way to explain something and appear to make sense, and there is usually evidence for the theory. Now unlike religious leaders, scientists don't say, 'ah, this is what we believe but it is unknowable' - they then get cracking trying their absolute best to set up experiments not to 'prove' their theory, but to TEST the theory and gather evidence. Which is exactly what the Hadron collider is doing. This idea that you test the theory with the idea of throwing out the entire thing if the evidence is against it is anathema to religion.
Re Stephen Hawking - (you said which he proposes will 'zap' microscopic black holes when they are created in the Hadron particle collider as they emit radiation) but if you had heard his thrilling interview on Radio 4 this morning you would realise he does not propose any such thing. He said that he thought it had less than a 1per cent chance of making mini black holes, and that he was very excited at the thought that something completely unexpected will happen in the collider, taking science to a new level, and making everyone rethink everything. That to me is the massive gulf between religion and science.
Are you lot saying, 'nope, it does not exist, not until i get proof'. No, I'm not, I'm saying, 'wow that's so interesting (if intellectually baffling tbh) I wonder what will happen when this theory is tested and if more solid evidence will arise." The thing about gods is that not only is ther no proof, there's no evidence for a creator theory, and not only are there no realistic theories about how a creator might work or operate. religious people don't actually seem very interested in looking for any. Unlike scientists who are very interested in finding out more about the nature of the universe, hence the Hadron Collider.

contradictory evidence against God. [groans with effort of thinking]

Ruty, you seem a bit scared of science! I suggest you log onto the BBC website and hear Hawkings interview on the Today programme. The same collisions as are being created in the controlled conditions of the Collider happen every single day in the earth's atmosphere, according to Hawking, and we haven't vanished yet.

glad to hear that, though 1% still quite a big chance isn't it?

I think alot of this is misunderstanding about theology and the range of philosophical thought within it.

I suspect there may be aspects of the universe which we will only ever be able to glimpse through mathematical models. Our understanding of space and time is quite probably severely limited by our physical and temporal existence. There may well be questions that it just doesn't occur to us to pose, any more than my dog would ponder gravity even though he's subject to it.

Which does not mean I think there's anything supernatural, just that even somewhat evolved ape brains have limitations.

1% is the chance of creating mini-black holes that will simply evaporate, as happens all the time. There has never been the remotest possibility of creating black holes into which we will all disappear! It's just not going to happen, was never going to happen. Listen to Hawkings on radio 4. Very accessible science and wonderful.
Theology is nothing like science. The fact that people keep demanding 'proof' that something they claim is invisible and totally intangible 'doesn't exist' is ample proof of that! Science doesn't talk like that. It is all about evidence and probability, and the total willingness to throw out every scrap of your theory if the evidence is against it.

er, no, I'm not scared of science. But you know, as a rabid, evangelical, creationist, as I am, I must be.

I was merely trying to illustrate that there are unproven theories in science. I actually think religion and science should be [they are largely not at present] inextricably intertwined and the whole of our self discovery relies on science, including god.

Have to go, children neglected.

"This idea that you test the theory with the idea of throwing out the entire thing if the evidence is against it is anathema to religion. "

With the notable exception of Buddhism, which may be part of the reason why its not always classified as a religion (apart from its being non-theistic).

Which supposedly unanswerable question were you posing though? None of those questions seem particularly deep or unanswerable to me.
Esp the one about the 'caeseless assaults of rationalism"! Those with religious power have a long, bloody and continuing history of ensuring its survival by any means possible. It is not really that long since people were burned alive in this very country for not believing in a particular God, or even for differing in the detail of how that God should be worshipped. Blasphemy is still illegal, and people were imprisoned for it in our lifetime. Many of the greatest minds in history had to keep their atheism/agnoisticism a terrible secret. In many Muslim countries apostasy (leaving the Muslim religion, even for another religion) is punishable by death. In America, no would-be leader dares to say they are an atheist. Every school in England has to force its pupils to worship by law. The 'assaults' have been pretty ceaseless, I agree, but I would say the assaults come from a different direction to the one you suggest.

Ruty, you definitely seemed scared of the Hadron Collider, and said so. Yet there is nothing to be scared of. I never said anything about your being a creationist. I don't think you are one.
Of course there are unproven theories in science. To a huge extent that is what science is. The difference is that scientists actually tried to gather evidence and are willing to chuck out a theory is there isn't any. God really isn't a scientific theory in any possible sense, and religious people don't want to construct any kind of theory as to how a 'God' might work, as far as I can see.

So what is God's love in action then? Is it the child dying of a parasitic infection? Or the torture chambers of Dachau?

I think quite a lot of religious philosophers do just this--construct theories. It's a shame that we don't get to hear much of what they have to say. A lot of Catholic worship, for instance, does seem to be aimed at the lowest common denominator of intelligence. I suppose it has to be this way for reasons of time.

Almostblue, re your post of 10:55, when people use the word "God" it almost always signifies a "good" creator. You are right - it could be that the universe was created by an entirely amoral power, or one certainly that does not have any interest in a positive outcome for mankind. But this would in effect be the same as the atheist position, ie that a benevolent God is just a human creation.

"Almostblue, re your post of 10:55, when people use the word "God" it almost always signifies a "good" creator. You are right - it could be that the universe was created by an entirely amoral power, or one certainly that does not have any interest in a positive outcome for mankind. But this would in effect be the same as the atheist position, ie that a benevolent God is just a human creation."

Exactly! So perhaps if we are asking the believers for proof, it should not be proof 'that god exists'; but rather, proof that 'god is good'. Which is a very interesting path to go down...

How do believers get from
#1 "hmmm I have a funny feeling... it might be caused by a god"
to
#2 "you lot had better stop having abortions and working on a sunday because my god doesn't like it"

And that's the answer (again) to why atheists care what you think. Because religions are never satisfied with thinking it, but want to impose their god's instructions on others.

And (again) most believers do not believe in the millions of other things which also have no evidence.

Come on admit it! how many christians believe that there is a Thor on the other side of the rainbow bridge? At best you will say indulgently that "people who believe in such things are feeling the existence of god but percieve it differently" In other words "they have it wrong, but are doing their best to get to jesus"

Is 'CATing' anything like 'dogging'...?

I agree, almostblue, that we would be better off asking believers what they understand God's nature to be rather than flogging the dead horse of arguing God's existence or otherwise. But I'm not sure that asking for proof would be a particularly fruitful way to go.

Onager, if you are seriously interested in answering this question:

How do believers get from
#1 "hmmm I have a funny feeling... it might be caused by a god"
to
#2 "you lot had better stop having abortions and working on a sunday because my god doesn't like it"

There is a vast body of works that you can refer to concerning the history of religion. Why don't you start with Wikipedia and work your way up from there.

Sorry - realise the reference to working your way up from wikipedia might look excessively patronising, but the entries do often have good bibliographies and links.