Research on Belief in God

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Some further thoughts.

So on the other thread, I proved that Nazism is based on the hatred of all revealed religions (which is one thing that they have in common with many posters here), no let us have a look with who are the real racists of the 21st century.

A couple of posters here (beside what I just mentioned) - one of whom I had the weakness to support in the last few months, I must say I've been very naive because I should've seen where he was heading to (many posters did see it, congrats to them), I've really been fooled and feel embarrassed : mea culpa - have hinted at Europe being standardised, "our Europe", "European lasting fraternity", "we have a common culture", etc etc. which has to be protect from the rest of the world of course.

This is typical of the 40's. ... blabla

Besides, as a Belgian, why should I feel solidarity towards Portugal and not towards the Congo.

Yeah you have more in common with Congo. Why not? King Leopold did a great job there. Massacring original tribe people of the country... And you call others Nazi-like... Wow, you are just amazing! Really! Words can´t describe it...

Go on, go on...

 

[ray j willings]

Some further thoughts.

So on the other thread, I proved that Nazism is based on the hatred of all revealed religions (which is one thing that they have in common with many posters here), no let us have a look with who are the real racists of the 21st century.

A couple of posters here (beside what I just mentioned) - one of whom I had the weakness to support in the last few months, I must say I've been very naive because I should've seen where he was heading to (many posters did see it, congrats to them), I've really been fooled and feel embarrassed : mea culpa - have hinted at Europe being standardised, "our Europe", "European lasting fraternity", "we have a common culture", etc etc. which has to be protect from the rest of the world of course.

This is typical of the 40's. Europe was also on its way to unification by then. Now do we have a common culture? Definitely not. Not the same language, not the same political ideas, not the same interest, not the same literature, etc etc.

Besides, as a Belgian, why should I feel solidarity towards Portugal and not towards the Congo. We have a lot of cultural ties with the Congo. The French have more cultural ties with Algeria than with Poland. The Portugese have more affinities with Brazil than with Finland, etc etc. Not saying that the Estonians are celebrating the Waffen SS every year (official celebrations with the government and all), which certainly not my culture.

What however do we all have in common: Slovenians, Finns, Portugese, Brittons ?? I may even extend to the USA and Canada because the EU is not an end in itself, it's meant to be a Euro-Atlantic Union - the TAFTA is a powerful illustration of it. What these countries have in common is that they are all white-skinned people in their majority! Only thing in common. That means that a "European fraternity" is based on racism. A world-scale apartheid that cuts hus apart from the rest of the world and which leads to an aggressive foreign policy towards the rest of the world that we have been noticing these last few years.

These are the true racists of today. I insist and I accuse. It's just a confirmation of my previous analyses.

Seriously. You must be out of your Fraking mind.
You are always looking for negatives to impose your prejudicial views.
My post was an observation based on the scientific method that so far is proving that what we know i.e. the big bang theory [ not the tv show ]
is true and if you try and equate that science to the existence of a super natural "god" being that is based around our tiny and I mean fraking tiny existence then its just , for a better word "Bonkers"

Big Mac. I meant to say milky way.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Seriously. You must be out of your Fraking mind.
You are always looking for negatives to impose your prejudicial views.
My post was an observation based on the scientific method that so far is proving that what we know i.e. the big bang theory [ not the tv show ]
is true and if you try and equate that science to the existence of a super natural "god" being that is based around our tiny and I mean fraking tiny existence then its just , for a better word "Bonkers"

How is the size of the universe of the number of earth like planet (which you mentioned in a previous post) in any way even remotely relevant for the existence of God?

Do you know about the founder of the big bang theory by the way? You should look it up. You might be surprised to hear it's a Belgian catholic priest, named George Lemaître. You know, earlier, atheists believed in an eternal universe, which obviously doesn't need a creator and Christians would come up with all sorts of arguments to try and prove the universe had a beginning, to warrant to idea of a creator God. But nowadays, because of a catholic priest, everybody believes the universe had a beginning. Of course that's not some kind of proof for Christianity, but if it has any bearing on theistic belief, I'd say the big bang theory is mildly supportive of it.

Again I say; I'm not claiming this as some sort of proof, I just don't see at all how the big bang theory would discredit theistic belief in any way. Let's be fair: Lemaître himself wasn't happy with Christians using his theory for apologetic purposes. But certainly theistic belief works much better with the big bang, than with an eternal universe, which is what all the atheists believed in before Lemaître.

 

[BigMac]

Some further thoughts.

So on the other thread, I proved that Nazism is based on the hatred of all revealed religions (which is one thing that they have in common with many posters here), no let us have a look with who are the real racists of the 21st century.

A couple of posters here (beside what I just mentioned) - one of whom I had the weakness to support in the last few months, I must say I've been very naive because I should've seen where he was heading to (many posters did see it, congrats to them), I've really been fooled and feel embarrassed : mea culpa - have hinted at Europe being standardised, "our Europe", "European lasting fraternity", "we have a common culture", etc etc. which has to be protect from the rest of the world of course.

This is typical of the 40's. Europe was also on its way to unification by then. Now do we have a common culture? Definitely not. Not the same language, not the same political ideas, not the same interest, not the same literature, etc etc.

Besides, as a Belgian, why should I feel solidarity towards Portugal and not towards the Congo. We have a lot of cultural ties with the Congo. The French have more cultural ties with Algeria than with Poland. The Portugese have more affinities with Brazil than with Finland, etc etc. Not saying that the Estonians are celebrating the Waffen SS every year (official celebrations with the government and all), which certainly not my culture.

What however do we all have in common: Slovenians, Finns, Portugese, Brittons ?? I may even extend to the USA and Canada because the EU is not an end in itself, it's meant to be a Euro-Atlantic Union - the TAFTA is a powerful illustration of it. What these countries have in common is that they are all white-skinned people in their majority! Only thing in common. That means that a "European fraternity" is based on racism. A world-scale apartheid that cuts hus apart from the rest of the world and which leads to an aggressive foreign policy towards the rest of the world that we have been noticing these last few years.

These are the true racists of today. I insist and I accuse. It's just a confirmation of my previous analyses.

I had my doubts on wether you were referring to me or not when you used the expression little punk in another thread. I can see you were. I'm really sorry you've seen things in my post that were not there. I got angry when I was labeled anti-Semitic by some here, as well as a neo-Nazi, but never offended. I guess the words of the fools are worth what they are. But not sure about your post, as it kinda gets me by surprise. You clearly took everything out of context and way too literally, and adapted it to whatever historic and social context you could relate my words to, even if by some meaningless, almot non-existance connection, just to label me something. I mean, the assumptions in your two last paragraphs - not counting the one where you say I and others are racist - are completely unrelated whatsoever to the point I was making. I claimed non of that.

 

[The Hitch]

How is the size of the universe of the number of earth like planet (which you mentioned in a previous post) in any way even remotely relevant for the existence of God?

Do you know about the founder of the big bang theory by the way? You should look it up. You might be surprised to hear it's a Belgian catholic priest, named George Lemaître. You know, earlier, atheists believed in an eternal universe, which obviously doesn't need a creator and Christians would come up with all sorts of arguments to try and prove the universe had a beginning, to warrant to idea of a creator God. But nowadays, because of a catholic priest, everybody believes the universe had a beginning. Of course that's not some kind of proof for Christianity, but if it has any bearing on theistic belief, I'd say the big bang theory is mildly supportive of it.

Again I say; I'm not claiming this as some sort of proof, I just don't see at all how the big bang theory would discredit theistic belief in any way. Let's be fair: Lemaître himself wasn't happy with Christians using his theory for apologetic purposes. But certainly theistic belief works much better with the big bang, than with an eternal universe, which is what all the atheists believed in before Lemaître.

Any explanations on the who created the creator question btw? Did god just wish himself be? How did that happen if there was nothing? How can you wish yourself from nothing? How did he come across all the superpowers? And why him? Why was he specifically given superpowers and no one else?

 

[frenchfry]

I had my doubts on wether you were referring to me or not when you used the expression little punk in another thread. I can see you were. I'm really sorry you've seen things in my post that were not there. I got angry when I was labeled anti-Semitic by some here, as well as a neo-Nazi, but never offended. I guess the words of the fools are worth what they are. But not sure about your post, as it kinda gets me by surprise. You clearly took everything out of context and way too literally, and adapted it to whatever historic and social context you could relate my words to, even if by some meaningless, almot non-existance connection, just to label me something. I mean, the assumptions in your two last paragraphs - not counting the one where you say I and others are racist - are completely unrelated whatsoever to the point I was making. I claimed non of that.

At first Echoes' posts are disturbing, but after a while you just have to shake your head and wonder. He gives extremists a bad name. So much hate.

 

[Jspear]

Any explanations on the who created the creator question btw? Did god just wish himself be? How did that happen if there was nothing? How can you wish yourself from nothing? How did he come across all the superpowers? And why him? Why was he specifically given superpowers and no one else?

God is not in the category of those created. He simply is. We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. Since things exist we can know that there was never absolutely nothing. That thing/being that has always existed is what we call God.

 

[RetroActive]

Any explanations on the who created the creator question btw? Did god just wish himself be? How did that happen if there was nothing? How can you wish yourself from nothing? How did he come across all the superpowers? And why him? Why was he specifically given superpowers and no one else?

How can light be both a particle and a wave? Look into some Pythagorean number mysticism - 1 (All) in becoming conscious of itself became 2 (duality) which at the same time became 3 (relationship).

...or dip your toes into chaos theory, call chaos the All (God) and you're talking the same language.

The short answer is we don't know, didn't know the unknowable God then, don't know now.

 

[Christian]

God is not in the category of those created. He simply is. We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. Since things exist we can know that there was never absolutely nothing. That thing/being that has always existed is what we call God.

You should read Lawrence Krauss' book "A Universe From Nothing. Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing" (http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Noth...529242&sr=1-3&keywords=something+from+nothing)

Religion has evolved because humans are either terrified of, or cannot conceive "nothingness". For example, there is no death, there is an afterlife. And the universe could not have come from nothing, so there must be something - God. But nothingness is not what we think it is. For example physicists have found that nothingness actually has mass. The number zero - so nothingness - is the most important number in mathematics.

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/e6ik9l/lawrence-krauss

 

[BigMac]

You should read Lawrence Krauss' book "A Universe From Nothing. Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing" (http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Noth...529242&sr=1-3&keywords=something+from+nothing)

Religion has evolved because humans are either terrified of, or cannot conceive "nothingness". For example, there is no death, there is an afterlife. And the universe could not have come from nothing, so there must be something - God. But nothingness is not what we think it is. For example physicists have found that nothingness actually has mass. The number zero - so nothingness - is the most important number in mathematics.

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/e6ik9l/lawrence-krauss

The human can conceive nothingness, he just doesn't want to. The human can conceive it, because the human has experienced it. The nothingness before they were born.

 

[Jspear]

You should read Lawrence Krauss' book "A Universe From Nothing. Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing" (http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Noth...529242&sr=1-3&keywords=something+from+nothing)

Religion has evolved because humans are either terrified of, or cannot conceive "nothingness". For example, there is no death, there is an afterlife. And the universe could not have come from nothing, so there must be something - God. But nothingness is not what we think it is. For example physicists have found that nothingness actually has mass. The number zero - so nothingness - is the most important number in mathematics.

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/e6ik9l/lawrence-krauss

The first simple question would be who created the laws of physics? You believe that the laws of physics just "where there." I believe that God was just "there." I believe He created the laws of physics, gravity, ect.

 

[Jspear]

The human can conceive nothingness, he just doesn't want to. The human can conceive it, because the human has experienced it. The nothingness before they were born.

Curious as to what you mean by experiencing nothingness before birth...I know for me personally I have no recollection of anything before my birth hence I can't have experienced it in any way. When I didn't exist I didn't know there was a world already here, I didn't know I would be around in the future, I simply didn't exist.

 

[RetroActive]

You should read Lawrence Krauss' book "A Universe From Nothing. Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing" (http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Noth...529242&sr=1-3&keywords=something+from+nothing)

Religion has evolved because humans are either terrified of, or cannot conceive "nothingness". For example, there is no death, there is an afterlife. And the universe could not have come from nothing, so there must be something - God. But nothingness is not what we think it is. For example physicists have found that nothingness actually has mass. The number zero - so nothingness - is the most important number in mathematics.

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/e6ik9l/lawrence-krauss

People believe they are their personalities (ego) too. What is transitory, what is permanent?

Energy can not be created or destroyed only transformed.

 

[frenchfry]

Curious as to what you mean by experiencing nothingness before birth...I know for me personally I have no recollection of anything before my birth hence I can't have experienced it in any way. When I didn't exist I didn't know there was a world already here, I didn't know I would be around in the future, I simply didn't exist.

Just like after you die you simply won't exist either.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Any explanations on the who created the creator question btw? Did god just wish himself be? How did that happen if there was nothing? How can you wish yourself from nothing? How did he come across all the superpowers? And why him? Why was he specifically given superpowers and no one else?

Nope, I don't really have an explanation for the question. It baffles me why otherwise intelligent people continue to think that this somewhat silly question is a serious problem for theistic belief. Clearly Christians and almost all theists nowadays don't believe in a created god. So the answer is quite simple; none created God, God is eternal. Eternal things - unlike our universe, which we know for a fact to be finite rather than eternal - don't warrant the question "what is the cause of this thing?"

 

[Christian]

The first simple question would be who created the laws of physics? You believe that the laws of physics just "where there." I believe that God was just "there." I believe He created the laws of physics, gravity, ect.

This is a nice illustration of the effect that the discoveries of science can have on certain people. For example people used to think the world was a disc and the sky was a dome. Then they discovered stars, planets, etc. Now we get the amazing pictures from Hubble's telescope, and people say: "That only shows that god is even greater than we thought because he created all that too".

It's the same with the laws of physics. People used to believe that god arbitrarily ruled the universe, then the laws of phyiscs were (and still are being) discovered, and the this only makes god greater because he created all that too.

God is the one theory that explains everything - and a theory that explains everything, in reality explains nothing

 

[Jagartrott]

This is a nice illustration of the effect that the discoveries of science can have on certain people. For example people used to think the world was a disc and the sky was a dome. Then they discovered stars, planets, etc. Now we get the amazing pictures from Hubble's telescope, and people say: "That only shows that god is even greater than we thought because he created all that too".

It's the same with the laws of physics. People used to believe that god arbitrarily ruled the universe, then the laws of phyiscs were (and still are being) discovered, and the this only makes god greater because he created all that too.

God is the one theory that explains everything - and a theory that explains everything, in reality explains nothing

"Confirmation bias"
Even when previous conceptions are disproven, the new discovery in itself becomes some kind of proof of the prior belief. You cannot fight this (only feel some pity).

 

[ray j willings]

How is the size of the universe of the number of earth like planet (which you mentioned in a previous post) in any way even remotely relevant for the existence of God?

Do you know about the founder of the big bang theory by the way? You should look it up. You might be surprised to hear it's a Belgian catholic priest, named George Lemaître. You know, earlier, atheists believed in an eternal universe, which obviously doesn't need a creator and Christians would come up with all sorts of arguments to try and prove the universe had a beginning, to warrant to idea of a creator God. But nowadays, because of a catholic priest, everybody believes the universe had a beginning. Of course that's not some kind of proof for Christianity, but if it has any bearing on theistic belief, I'd say the big bang theory is mildly supportive of itevant.

Again I say; I'm not claiming this as some sort of proof, I just don't see at all how the big bang theory would discredit theistic belief in any way. Let's be fair: Lemaître himself wasn't happy with Christians using his theory for apologetic purposes. But certainly theistic belief works much better with the big bang, than with an eternal universe, which is what all the atheists believed in before Lemaître.

So if the size of the universe is not relevant then "god" is a pretty crap designer. Why the need for inflation?
"Do you know about the founder of the big bang theory by the way? You should look it up. You might be surprised to hear it's a Belgian catholic priest, named George Lemaitre" You should learn not to make presumptions.

How, our universe came into being is a just one of many a question, but scientists are looking beyond the big bang theory. Perhaps you should get up to date on a lot of recent and very plausible theory's.

if you look at how the religious texts have had to change their so called facts of this planet and our own existence. "Galileo" for a prime example of religion getting it wrong then changing their beliefs in order to keep the faith alive.

 

[ray j willings]

God is not in the category of those created. He simply is. We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. Since things exist we can know that there was never absolutely nothing. That thing/being that has always existed is what we call God.

What you call God.

All your beliefs comes from books written billions of years after the beginning of our universe in a place "earth" who's impact on a vast universe "in time and space" has no relevance.
Billions of planets out their. Our Sun will burn itself out in millions of years "white dwarf". Our existence will be nothing.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

So if the size of the universe is not relevant then "god" is a pretty crap designer. Why the need for inflation?

Don't know. Does it really matter to someone who is all-powerful and eternal how much time and space he uses to do what he wants?

How, our universe came into being is a just one of many a question, but scientists are looking beyond the big bang theory. Perhaps you should get up to date on a lot of recent and very plausible theory's.

Sure, there's things like the multiverse hypothesis. This is a bit controversial among scientists themselves though. But I don't know what other things you might be hinting at specifically. So if you have anything in mind specifically, maybe you can share it. I would certainly be interested. I'm really not that knowledgeable about this stuff, but I like to read about it.

if you look at how the religious texts have had to change their so called facts of this planet and our own existence. "Galileo" for a prime example of religion getting it wrong then changing their beliefs in order to keep the faith alive.

In fact, Galileo and his work were condemned because he got into a conflict with the pope, not because of the content of his beliefs. Now, I'm not necessarily defending what the church did here; but the simple fact of the matter is before Galileo we had Copernicus who also proposed a heliocentric model of the universe and Copernicus didn't get into a conflict with the church at all. More or less contemporaneous with Galileo we have Kepler who didn't get any troubles either. So it appears to be the case that it was the person of Galileo who the church had a problem with, not with the heliocentric model of the universe.

Besides, before Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler, people believed in the geocentric Ptolemaic system which would also be at odds with some of the things the Bible seems to suggest at face value. So the thing is, contrary to popular belief, nobody ever thought the Bible taught any cosmological ideas. Sure, in some passing remarks the Bible describes the earth as flat and the heaven as a dome because of the culture in which it was written, but nobody ever thought these remarks were normative in any way. Nobody had a problem with the Ptolemaic system which contradicted these things and there wasn't any problems with the heliocentric system either, when Copernicus first suggested it.

 

[hrotha]

I honestly don't understand all the "gotcha" posts (most of which are extremely superficial) by some atheists here. You have to debate from the point of view of the theists, i.e. you have to argue theology; otherwise it's just a shouting contest and, when you strip it down, little more than name-calling.

And I say that as an atheist myself.

 

[ray j willings]

Don't know. Does it really matter to someone who is all-powerful and eternal how much time and space he uses to do what he wants?




Sure, there's things like the multiverse hypothesis. This is a bit controversial among scientists themselves though. But I don't know what other things you might be hinting at specifically. So if you have anything in mind specifically, maybe you can share it. I would certainly be interested. I'm really not that knowledgeable about this stuff, but I like to read about it.



In fact, Galileo and his work were condemned because he got into a conflict with the pope, not because of the content of his beliefs. Now, I'm not necessarily defending what the church did here; but the simple fact of the matter is before Galileo we had Copernicus who also proposed a heliocentric model of the universe and Copernicus didn't get into a conflict with the church at all. More or less contemporaneous with Galileo we have Kepler who didn't get any troubles either. So it appears to be the case that it was the person of Galileo who the church had a problem with, not with the heliocentric model of the universe.

Besides, before Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler, people believed in the geocentric Ptolemaic system which would also be at odds with some of the things the Bible seems to suggest at face value. So the thing is, contrary to popular belief, nobody ever thought the Bible taught any cosmological ideas. Sure, in some passing remarks the Bible describes the earth as flat and the heaven as a dome because of the culture in which it was written, but nobody ever thought these remarks were normative in any way. Nobody had a problem with the Ptolemaic system which contradicted these things and there wasn't any problems with the heliocentric system either, when Copernicus first suggested it.

Nice response. Can you explain inflation and "gods" reason for it.

"in some passing remarks the Bible describes the earth as flat "
These contradictions just get thrown away. Yet if this was written in a published scientific paper it would be laughed at. Because it's a holy book excuses are made.
Holy books are supposed to be factual and as the world has moved on these so called facts turn into " what god really meant to say" by believers.

The Catholic Pope had Galileo imprisoned for his discovery that the earth goes around the sun. You can complicate with personal politics but that was the reason.

 

[King Boonen]

The Catholic Pope had Galileo imprisoned for his discovery that the earth goes around the sun. You can complicate with personal politics but that was the reason.

Galileo published Starry Messenger in 1610 in which he supported the Copernican Heliocentric model. The Roman inquisition of of 1615-1616 concluded that the Copernican Heliocentric model was false heresy but Galileo was not imprisoned. In fact, he was given assurances from Cardinal Bellarmine who delivered the judgement that he would be safe from persecution as long as the Pope (Paul V) shall live. Galileo even received a letter from Cardinal Bellarmine stating he was not allowed to hold those beliefs, so he could defend his position. Pope Urban VIII succeeded Pope Gregory XV in 1623 and showed greater favour towards Galileo.

It was Galileo's publication of Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems in 1632, that caused the problems. Pope Urban VIII insisted his views were put forward and Galileo voiced them through the character Simplicio (slang for simpleton in Italian). It was this insult to the Pope that caused Galileo to be summoned to Rome to stand trial for heresy and to be imprisonment under house arrest, not his views of a Heliocentric model, that was just used as the excuse.

Galileo was imprisoned under house arrest a full 17 years after his first publication supporting the Heliocentric model because he insulted the Pope, not because of his support for the Heliocentric model. If this were the case he would have been imprisoned in 1616.

 

[hrotha]

From that story what I gather is that it *was* heresy all along, as far as the Church was concerned, but that they were simply turning a blind eye until Galileo personally ****ed off the Pope. I'm not sure that's better.

 

[Christian]

I honestly don't understand all the "gotcha" posts (most of which are extremely superficial) by some atheists here. You have to debate from the point of view of the theists, i.e. you have to argue theology; otherwise it's just a shouting contest and, when you strip it down, little more than name-calling.

And I say that as an atheist myself.

This thread is what in French we would call a "dialogue de sourds", a discussion between deaf people. Atheists speak of physics and cosmology, religious people of metaphysics. Religious people think the two can be mixed, when atheists know that they can't. Religion claims for itself a knowledge, an absolute certainty for which it has no evidence; it is thereby the exact opposite of the scientific method. Of course this is where the snake bites it's tail when the religious come in and claim that the "faith" in the scientific method is the same as a faith in a monotheistic god.

I agree that when we discuss physics, we do it on a superficial level, since most of us only have a superficial understanding of physics. And again, it is pointless because, as illustrated just now, religious people are perfectly happy to discuss physics and cosmology, which they see as inventions of god, so of lesser value than theology.

But that doesn't mean the discussion can't be honest, open and friendly. Like when I suggested Lawrence Krauss' book to a poster recently, I was not trying to convey a "gotcha!" mentality, I was honestly suggesting a book which gives a scientific answer to one of the fundamental themes of religion - why is there something rather than nothing.

Discussing theology is tricky. A lot of religious people nowadays have a very foggy, undefined idea of what god is or may be, and thus they are impervuous to criticism. You cannot criticize specific aspects or details of something that has no specific aspects or details. It is at best a vague idea, and since it is so vague it is adaptable to any situation and any event. Impossible to argue with.

Then you have some posters in this thread who are sedevacantists and thus equally impervuous to criticism.

I have tried to discuss theology by asking questions like, Could god be a woman, did god create the dinosaurs, did god create extraterrestrial life, is the earth swallowing up the sun the apocolypse described in the bible or will the apocolypse occur before then, etc. This can be fun and interesting, but it is also pointless. There is room for discussion in theology, and then there are dogmas. The existence of god is the dogma without which there would be no theology. To try and poke holes into the theory of god by showing the contradictions or the limitations of theology is therefore interesting, but again, pointless.