What Is God Made From?

[Jack Knave]

Alien

Did you look at my 449?

[Alien]

Alien - your 445.

Why do you think it is "like falling in love and all that"? I find it very odd that someone seems to think a belief in God should not be "set out and founded in such an intellectual manner." There are frequent claims on these boards that Christian faith is "believing despite the evidence and the like". As far as I can remember, my fellow chemists at university who became Christians became Christians in a similar manner and there are plenty of other Christians who became Christians that way, e.g. my vicar (a former computer programmer). Some of the big brains of Christianity did so too, e.g. CS Lewis.

I've put your stuff in colour.

I think that it is like falling in love because isn't it suppose to be a relationship, not some cold contractual agreement or some academic positional understanding based on some data. The data or evidence should be a personal one from experience just as relationships are in real life. The fact that others have taken to the Christian faith as you mention based on the cold evidence of texts etc. is a sad indictment of the paucity of our era. Isn't this faith of yours suppose to be about life not some action of signing on the dotted line?

The term "relationship" gets used in different ways by Christians, not all of them sensibly. I have a relationship with a bloke called, "Alf" in that he is my father and I am his son. I will be going to see him again tomorrow, God willing. Other people are sons of their father's yet do not know their father, e.g. if the have been adopted or the father has naffed off. Yet they are still the son of their father.

Now that is what the bible speaks of, that we are in such a relationship with our father (in that we have been adopted as his sons rather than being biologically descended). This is the foremost meaning of relationship in the bible. I am in that relationship with my Father in heaven whether I feel it or not.

Stuff like an overwhelming sense of God's love sometimes. An overwhelming sense of gratitude last week when looking at the pictures of our congregation at church during our prayer week. A one-off, rather weird experience about 20 years ago when being prayed for. Knowing that I am God's son (big "G", little "s"). Stuff like that.

As I have said elsewhere, I tend not to bring this up too much as though knowing of a person's personal experience may be interesting and may be thought-provoking, I don't think it is evidence for someone else to hook onto and, as a result, become a Christian. For that they need to be clobbered by God directly as one of my friends was or to look at the good evidence there is and which we discuss endlessly here.

What you outline there people get anyway, in all walks of life. There's nothing unusual or unique to your faith in what you say.

Except that, as a Christian, my relationship with my Father in heaven actually exists, whereas a Muslim, say, would not claim such a relationship (I think). For a Muslim they are servants (and servants only) of Allah (in their understanding).

In fact the emotional content of these that you mention I have had, but without the God stuff.

How can you have a relationship with God without believing he exists, "without the God stuff"? I don't understand your point.

People tend to have these things when they are younger. I'm more interested in what makes people tick, not some academic position per se.

Then I may not be able to help you as much as you would like unless, say, you can accurately determine across the aether and reading between the lines what makes me tick.

I just found it odd, at the time, that when asked about how your faith came about you set out this academic list and not the personal relationship that Christians are suppose to have which, I assumed, starts things off, but as you have explained yours was on the evidence.

I don't mind going through the philosophy material you have presented, which I sense is teaching material for your churches use(?).

Actually, it is rarely used, which is a pity. My lot tend to be rather touchy-feely, but we do use it on rare occasions.

As I mentioned in my PM a while back, I'm confused by your numbering here.

"Apart from #5 which is about Jesus Christ? If he was raised from the dead then it points clearly to his claims about himself being true."

My 2 refers to this above which is your 2nd section reply in my 155. I think we may need to start again from my 155. What do you think?

Good idea, sir.

[Jack Knave]

Alan, I'm having trouble with this site so I've posted that to see if it will catch, which it did. I don't want to write a whole lot and then for it to fail.
The guy in the sun classes is number 8 but it seems if you put a ")" after it you get him.

So to carry on, and it seems there is not much left.

9) As a Jungian I understand that what gives us meaning are our emotional triggers that come from the Unconscious's archetypes and the like (see my signature below about the 'dryness' of science). And what bonds us in a group or tribe etc. are those archetypes, and so on, that we have in common. These archetypes work through culture and religion, and creates the loyalty and customs that a society has, or should have. This is what I'm looking for from you (some basis for your belief in your God - a relationship)but all you seems to have is this intellectual dryness that a robot could postulate.

I know naff all about Jung, but I try to go on the evidence. The arguments I gave for believing in the existence of God, apart from no. 6, are all arguments which can be looked at whatever tribe or society a person belongs to. I try to keep off the feelings and emotional stuff.

10) I did add/edit a comment about the numbers thing (fine turning of the universe), in my post above, after I posted it but you got there before I did this. Post 137.

In 137 you wrote, "I known about the fine tuning of the universe, you last bit about numbers. Two points on this. 1) We are here and know no other state so though it looks amazing and all that if it was possible then it could happen. It's like those "what if?" scenarios which are fairly meaningless in these circumstances. 2) It could be that these things are self righting and balances out so if one value changes then all the others change to create a stable state, but not one like our universe if the values are different. The fact is we just don't know(n)."

It could be? Is there any evidence for that?

Do you keep off the emotional stuff for personal reasons? or is it that you feel it's too difficult to manage as a witnessing tool?

I thought I had explained it clearly enough. I'll try to clarify.

I don't see any need to get onto "emotional stuff". How does "emotional stuff" demonstrate anything? Maybe it is just my make up (IN, very T, extremely J on the old Myers-Briggs thingy), but if I am trying to demonstrate something to be true, how would bringing emotional stuff into it help? Perhaps you mean stuff like:

Jesus is the most important person in my life. I get choked up hearing or singing songs like "Before the throne of God above" and "This is the air I breathe" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gs_qlCWrPk). I find it desperately sad when Christians, here and elsewhere, bicker in front of people who desperately need to hear the good news of Jesus Christ. Perhaps you mean stuff like me crying in joy as well as sadness when I saw my mum's dead body in the local hospital a few years ago when she died suddenly and went to be with her Lord. Similar for my mate Jon when he died of lung cancer. Perhaps you mean the joy of seeing my father-in-law come to an uncomplicated faith in Jesus (nearly as late as the penitent thief on the cross!).

Is that the sort of thing you mean?

Well, no, but I'll drop it for now. All this stemmed from you telling me, when I asked, about how you became a Christian and I found your account highly intellectual and cold i.e. the intellectual is in the third person, it's impersonal; a dry fact, but I was always led to believe that being a Christian was about a relationship with one's God like with a close friend of spouse etc. not like buying some cow from a cattle market because its analysis of it says it is healthy and a good producer of milk.

The reason why I have gone on about the emotional side of things is because it is related to communities and group cultures and a sense of belonging - the tribe thing. The way I see it all this feeling of being moved by the spirit and feeling loved really stems from the need to be in a tribe and culture where one feels at home.

OK, but I honestly don't think it is the case for me. Ask my wife if I am an emotional person. Even the stuff I wrote about above is the result of me thinking things through head-wise and letting it sink in deep into my being as a Christian.

I had kind of guessed that from what you have said on previous posts about your conversion and life, but you don't seem to think it is a problem or odd, especially in relation to your God, that you became a Christian from the third person, impersonal  intellectual angle(?).

[Alien]

...
I had kind of guessed that from what you have said on previous posts about your conversion and life, but you don't seem to think it is a problem or odd, especially in relation to your God, that you became a Christian from the third person, impersonal  intellectual angle(?).

No, I don't. Why should I? The intellectual questions that I then had got answered to my satisfaction in March 1978. The personal experience came later.

[Jack Knave]

Alien, your 454, and your material is in colour.

I've put your stuff in colour.

I think that it is like falling in love because isn't it suppose to be a relationship, not some cold contractual agreement or some academic positional understanding based on some data. The data or evidence should be a personal one from experience just as relationships are in real life. The fact that others have taken to the Christian faith as you mention based on the cold evidence of texts etc. is a sad indictment of the paucity of our era. Isn't this faith of yours suppose to be about life not some action of signing on the dotted line?

The term "relationship" gets used in different ways by Christians, not all of them sensibly. I have a relationship with a bloke called, "Alf" in that he is my father and I am his son. I will be going to see him again tomorrow, God willing. Other people are sons of their father's yet do not know their father, e.g. if the have been adopted or the father has naffed off. Yet they are still the son of their father.

Now that is what the bible speaks of, that we are in such a relationship with our father (in that we have been adopted as his sons rather than being biologically descended). This is the foremost meaning of relationship in the bible. I am in that relationship with my Father in heaven whether I feel it or not.

What you outline there people get anyway, in all walks of life. There's nothing unusual or unique to your faith in what you say.

Except that, as a Christian, my relationship with my Father in heaven actually exists, whereas a Muslim, say, would not claim such a relationship (I think). For a Muslim they are servants (and servants only) of Allah (in their understanding).

But people do not view their relationships with their loved one and relatives etc. in such stark, matter of fact manners. They are filled with some emotional context whether positive or negative which gives it a value-judgement. Yet again you are setting your relationship to your God in a cold contractual setting.

In fact the emotional content of these that you mention I have had, but without the God stuff.

How can you have a relationship with God without believing he exists, "without the God stuff"? I don't understand your point.

I'm going on about emotional responses; I said emotional content. We all have emotions. The fact that you relate this to your God is neither here nor there. Joy, sadness etc. comes to us all; well most of us there are some conditions like autism where it doesn't apply so much. That's what I meant.

People have an emotional response in the context of a "God" situation and assume it is due to God but it is really due to our need for fellowship or group/tribe where we feel they belong etc. Emotions are emotions, there are no special emotions that are activated by any God or whatever.

I just found it odd, at the time, that when asked about how your faith came about you set out this academic list and not the personal relationship that Christians are suppose to have which, I assumed, starts things off, but as you have explained yours was on the evidence.

I don't mind going through the philosophy material you have presented, which I sense is teaching material for your churches use(?).

Actually, it is rarely used, which is a pity. My lot tend to be rather touchy-feely, but we do use it on rare occasions.

Sounds like you are in the wrong church. All that touchy-feely stuff must put your teeth on edge...?

"Apart from #5 which is about Jesus Christ? If he was raised from the dead then it points clearly to his claims about himself being true."

My 2 refers to this above which is your 2nd section reply in my 155. I think we may need to start again from my 155. What do you think?

Good idea, sir.

I'll await your post.

[Alien]

Alien, your 454, and your material is in colour.

I've put your stuff in colour.
...]Except that, as a Christian, my relationship with my Father in heaven actually exists, whereas a Muslim, say, would not claim such a relationship (I think). For a Muslim they are servants (and servants only) of Allah (in their understanding).
[/color]
But people do not view their relationships with their loved one and relatives etc. in such stark, matter of fact manners. They are filled with some emotional context whether positive or negative which gives it a value-judgement. Yet again you are setting your relationship to your God in a cold contractual setting.

I was explaining (what I would claim is the) fact of my relationship with my Father in Heaven. The basis of that relationship is that he loves me, has forgiven my sins and adopted me as his son. That is the basis. What is my response? It is one of immense gratitude and love for him. A desire to please him. A thankfulness for what he has done and does for me. Sometimes that is overwhelming. There is also a desire that other people will come to know the same.

In fact the emotional content of these that you mention I have had, but without the God stuff.

How can you have a relationship with God without believing he exists, "without the God stuff"? I don't understand your point.

I'm going on about emotional responses; I said emotional content. We all have emotions. The fact that you relate this to your God is neither here nor there. Joy, sadness etc. comes to us all; well most of us there are some conditions like autism where it doesn't apply so much. That's what I meant.

People have an emotional response in the context of a "God" situation and assume it is due to God but it is really due to our need for fellowship or group/tribe where we feel they belong etc. Emotions are emotions, there are no special emotions that are activated by any God or whatever.

And sometimes they are right to assume it is due to God. Sometimes they are not. That's why I try to look at the evidence. I no more want to be mistaken about this than anyone else.

I just found it odd, at the time, that when asked about how your faith came about you set out this academic list and not the personal relationship that Christians are suppose to have which, I assumed, starts things off, but as you have explained yours was on the evidence.

I don't mind going through the philosophy material you have presented, which I sense is teaching material for your churches use(?).

Actually, it is rarely used, which is a pity. My lot tend to be rather touchy-feely, but we do use it on rare occasions.
Sounds like you are in the wrong church. All that touchy-feely stuff must put your teeth on edge...?

Sometimes, yes. However, people's response to God's love, as you seem to suggest, will surely naturally include warm emotion (to understate it somewhat).

"Apart from #5 which is about Jesus Christ? If he was raised from the dead then it points clearly to his claims about himself being true."

My 2 refers to this above which is your 2nd section reply in my 155. I think we may need to start again from my 155. What do you think?

Good idea, sir.

I'll await your post.

[Jack Knave]

...
I had kind of guessed that from what you have said on previous posts about your conversion and life, but you don't seem to think it is a problem or odd, especially in relation to your God, that you became a Christian from the third person, impersonal  intellectual angle(?).

No, I don't. Why should I? The intellectual questions that I then had got answered to my satisfaction in March 1978. The personal experience came later.

OK. I can't add to what I have already said.

[Jack Knave]

Alien, your 454, and your material is in colour.

I've put your stuff in colour.
...]Except that, as a Christian, my relationship with my Father in heaven actually exists, whereas a Muslim, say, would not claim such a relationship (I think). For a Muslim they are servants (and servants only) of Allah (in their understanding).
[/color]
But people do not view their relationships with their loved one and relatives etc. in such stark, matter of fact manners. They are filled with some emotional context whether positive or negative which gives it a value-judgement. Yet again you are setting your relationship to your God in a cold contractual setting.

I was explaining (what I would claim is the) fact of my relationship with my Father in Heaven. The basis of that relationship is that he loves me, has forgiven my sins and adopted me as his son. That is the basis. What is my response? It is one of immense gratitude and love for him. A desire to please him. A thankfulness for what he has done and does for me. Sometimes that is overwhelming. There is also a desire that other people will come to know the same.

In fact the emotional content of these that you mention I have had, but without the God stuff.

How can you have a relationship with God without believing he exists, "without the God stuff"? I don't understand your point.

I'm going on about emotional responses; I said emotional content. We all have emotions. The fact that you relate this to your God is neither here nor there. Joy, sadness etc. comes to us all; well most of us there are some conditions like autism where it doesn't apply so much. That's what I meant.

People have an emotional response in the context of a "God" situation and assume it is due to God but it is really due to our need for fellowship or group/tribe where we feel they belong etc. Emotions are emotions, there are no special emotions that are activated by any God or whatever.

And sometimes they are right to assume it is due to God. Sometimes they are not. That's why I try to look at the evidence. I no more want to be mistaken about this than anyone else.

I just found it odd, at the time, that when asked about how your faith came about you set out this academic list and not the personal relationship that Christians are suppose to have which, I assumed, starts things off, but as you have explained yours was on the evidence.

I don't mind going through the philosophy material you have presented, which I sense is teaching material for your churches use(?).

Actually, it is rarely used, which is a pity. My lot tend to be rather touchy-feely, but we do use it on rare occasions.
Sounds like you are in the wrong church. All that touchy-feely stuff must put your teeth on edge...?

Sometimes, yes. However, people's response to God's love, as you seem to suggest, will surely naturally include warm emotion (to understate it somewhat).

"Apart from #5 which is about Jesus Christ? If he was raised from the dead then it points clearly to his claims about himself being true."

My 2 refers to this above which is your 2nd section reply in my 155. I think we may need to start again from my 155. What do you think?

Good idea, sir.

I'll await your post.

And sometimes they are right to assume it is due to God. Sometimes they are not. That's why I try to look at the evidence. I no more want to be mistaken about this than anyone else.

But emotions look/feel the same for similar "objects" if they, emotions, are viewed as the things-in-themselves within us. We only have clarification of what they relate to, their content, when we have that "object" (whatever it is or who it is) before us, physically. As none of you lot have ever seen God then how can you relate any of your emotions to God? As I said emotions are emotions, they are earthly and have evolved for our existence here i.e. the social and community framework, and friendships etc.

[Jack Knave]

Alien, if you intend to look at my 155 and 158 again I could try to make it clearer and tidy it up a bit....yeah?

[Alien]

...

But emotions look/feel the same for similar "objects" if they, emotions, are viewed as the things-in-themselves within us. We only have clarification of what they relate to, their content, when we have that "object" (whatever it is or who it is) before us, physically. As none of you lot have ever seen God then how can you relate any of your emotions to God? As I said emotions are emotions, they are earthly and have evolved for our existence here i.e. the social and community framework, and friendships etc.

I don't think you are correct. I have emotions about my mum and she is not here before me physically (she died a few years ago). I can have certain emotions about Henry VII, Archbishop Cranmer and William the Conqueror and they too are not physically before me. I even get a bit soppy about potential grandchildren and they are not physically before me.

[Alien]

Alien, if you intend to look at my 155 and 158 again I could try to make it clearer and tidy it up a bit....yeah?

Another excellent idea!

[Jack Knave]

...

But emotions look/feel the same for similar "objects" if they, emotions, are viewed as the things-in-themselves within us. We only have clarification of what they relate to, their content, when we have that "object" (whatever it is or who it is) before us, physically. As none of you lot have ever seen God then how can you relate any of your emotions to God? As I said emotions are emotions, they are earthly and have evolved for our existence here i.e. the social and community framework, and friendships etc.

I don't think you are correct. I have emotions about my mum and she is not here before me physically (she died a few years ago). I can have certain emotions about Henry VII, Archbishop Cranmer and William the Conqueror and they too are not physically before me. I even get a bit soppy about potential grandchildren and they are not physically before me.

Your mum and grandchildren are based on experience, experience that have a physical basis - memory plays a part here.

As for the others these too are based on experience, indirectly applied, by relating to their circumstance in some manner from your life experiences - though I would need the details to see what exactly was welling you up to postulate a probable cause from possible life experiences of yours.

[Alien]

...

But emotions look/feel the same for similar "objects" if they, emotions, are viewed as the things-in-themselves within us. We only have clarification of what they relate to, their content, when we have that "object" (whatever it is or who it is) before us, physically. As none of you lot have ever seen God then how can you relate any of your emotions to God? As I said emotions are emotions, they are earthly and have evolved for our existence here i.e. the social and community framework, and friendships etc.

I don't think you are correct. I have emotions about my mum and she is not here before me physically (she died a few years ago). I can have certain emotions about Henry VII, Archbishop Cranmer and William the Conqueror and they too are not physically before me. I even get a bit soppy about potential grandchildren and they are not physically before me.

Your mum and grandchildren are based on experience, experience that have a physical basis - memory plays a part here.

With my mum, yes, but I don't have any grandchildren, so not so with them.

As for the others these too are based on experience, indirectly applied, by relating to their circumstance in some manner from your life experiences - though I would need the details to see what exactly was welling you up to postulate a probable cause from possible life experiences of yours.

But you said they had to be physically before us.

[Jack Knave]

Alien, if you intend to look at my 155 and 158 again I could try to make it clearer and tidy it up a bit....yeah?

Another excellent idea!

What I've done is to number your replies to link them to my numbered replies using ']' so the first is 1]. If you duplicate the forum page to a separate tab you can then easily see what relates to what instead of trying to see it all in the reply box with all those 'quote' and technical jargon. I hope this helps...?

[Jack Knave]

...

But emotions look/feel the same for similar "objects" if they, emotions, are viewed as the things-in-themselves within us. We only have clarification of what they relate to, their content, when we have that "object" (whatever it is or who it is) before us, physically. As none of you lot have ever seen God then how can you relate any of your emotions to God? As I said emotions are emotions, they are earthly and have evolved for our existence here i.e. the social and community framework, and friendships etc.

I don't think you are correct. I have emotions about my mum and she is not here before me physically (she died a few years ago). I can have certain emotions about Henry VII, Archbishop Cranmer and William the Conqueror and they too are not physically before me. I even get a bit soppy about potential grandchildren and they are not physically before me.

Your mum and grandchildren are based on experience, experience that have a physical basis - memory plays a part here.

With my mum, yes, but I don't have any grandchildren, so not so with them.

As for the others these too are based on experience, indirectly applied, by relating to their circumstance in some manner from your life experiences - though I would need the details to see what exactly was welling you up to postulate a probable cause from possible life experiences of yours.

But you said they had to be physically before us.

Children are children whether they are 'grand' or not. If one is emotional about children then our experience of them will be invoked even with the thought of future ones.

With regard to historical figures, I did mention memory of our experience as playing a part here, and I did say relating to other peoples' circumstances based on our own experiences. Memory is in affect having it physically before us as it recalls events and circumstances from the past that were before us once.

No one can say they have seen, physically, God or that such and such experience was God related unless God has been recognised for who It is. But as no one knows what this God is or looks like no one can identify It, and therefore no such link can be made with any emotion they may have that seems to come from some unknown source and/or seems inexplicable.

[Alien]

...

But emotions look/feel the same for similar "objects" if they, emotions, are viewed as the things-in-themselves within us. We only have clarification of what they relate to, their content, when we have that "object" (whatever it is or who it is) before us, physically. As none of you lot have ever seen God then how can you relate any of your emotions to God? As I said emotions are emotions, they are earthly and have evolved for our existence here i.e. the social and community framework, and friendships etc.

I don't think you are correct. I have emotions about my mum and she is not here before me physically (she died a few years ago). I can have certain emotions about Henry VII, Archbishop Cranmer and William the Conqueror and they too are not physically before me. I even get a bit soppy about potential grandchildren and they are not physically before me.

Your mum and grandchildren are based on experience, experience that have a physical basis - memory plays a part here.

With my mum, yes, but I don't have any grandchildren, so not so with them.

As for the others these too are based on experience, indirectly applied, by relating to their circumstance in some manner from your life experiences - though I would need the details to see what exactly was welling you up to postulate a probable cause from possible life experiences of yours.

But you said they had to be physically before us.

Children are children whether they are 'grand' or not. If one is emotional about children then our experience of them will be invoked even with the thought of future ones.

With regard to historical figures, I did mention memory of our experience as playing a part here, and I did say relating to other peoples' circumstances based on our own experiences. Memory is in affect having it physically before us as it recalls events and circumstances from the past that were before us once.

No one can say they have seen, physically, God or that such and such experience was God related unless God has been recognised for who It is. But as no one knows what this God is or looks like no one can identify It, and therefore no such link can be made with any emotion they may have that seems to come from some unknown source and/or seems inexplicable.

I don't need to know what God looks like to know what he is like and future grandchildren are not my children. They don't exist yet, yet I can think about them and experience emotion about them.

Anyway, thanks for the psychoanalysis (if that is the correct term). I think I'll be having an argument with some of your mates about whether history is naturalistic for a bit.

[floo]

I could never get emotionally involved with someone who only exists in a book as does the deity and Jesus. I could also never get emotionally involved with people who haven't been born yet, like possible future great-grandchildren!

[Sassy]

What Is God Made From?

Imagination of course 

What is imagination made from?

Your soul of course. 

What is your soul made from?
Your imagination of course!

Okay! that means you and your soul are our imagination...Hear that lads... you just ignore him in future. Sebtoe is our imagination so we do not have to answer him...
















You didn't think that one through, did you?

[floo]

Sass before you post you should think about what you are going to say, because most of it is complete nonsense!

[Jack Knave]

Children are children whether they are 'grand' or not. If one is emotional about children then our experience of them will be invoked even with the thought of future ones.

With regard to historical figures, I did mention memory of our experience as playing a part here, and I did say relating to other peoples' circumstances based on our own experiences. Memory is in affect having it physically before us as it recalls events and circumstances from the past that were before us once.

No one can say they have seen, physically, God or that such and such experience was God related unless God has been recognised for who It is. But as no one knows what this God is or looks like no one can identify It, and therefore no such link can be made with any emotion they may have that seems to come from some unknown source and/or seems inexplicable.

I don't need to know what God looks like to know what he is like

Why, how come? and how does that work?

and future grandchildren are not my children. They don't exist yet, yet I can think about them and experience emotion about them.

But I explained that you have had experience of children before and from that level of emotion that you have had of engaging with them you transfer that experience onto any possible future children or grandchildren.[/quote]

Anyway, thanks for the psychoanalysis (if that is the correct term).

It's just common sense and human nature and a smattering of logic.

[Jack Knave]

What Is God Made From?

Imagination of course 

What is imagination made from?

Your soul of course. 

What is your soul made from?
Your imagination of course!

Okay! that means you and your soul are our imagination...Hear that lads... you just ignore him in future. Sebtoe is our imagination so we do not have to answer him...
















You didn't think that one through, did you?

So, Sass, you're saying you have been talking to yourself then? We have names for that round here...

[Sebastian Toe]

What Is God Made From?

Imagination of course 

What is imagination made from?

Your soul of course. 

What is your soul made from?
Your imagination of course!

Okay! that means you and your soul are our imagination...Hear that lads... you just ignore him in future. Sebtoe is our imagination so we do not have to answer him...
















You didn't think that one through, did you?

Well as I was referring to Alan Burns as he believes that he has a soul, I on the other hand do  not!
Hence it could only exist in his imagination!









You didn't think that one through did you?

[Jack Knave]

475 posts isn't bad for one of my threads, but still no reply for my 155 and 158 from Alien.....?

[Alien]

...
1] You can ignore this as we have covered this else where.

OK.

2] For me that's a big if.

I appreciate that, but I was asked why I am a Christian. You are not convinced by the evidence, but I am.

The Jesus bit you have included in the list of your 6 and the witness of the HS are not philosophy and should not be grouped with the philosophical arguments.

I was asked why I am a Christian and this is part of it.

So my "Something" still applies as the philosophical arguments do not lead to anything remotely that could be called God, as these Gods relate to concepts/definitions set out by the various religions.

Except that they do. For example if the Kalam Cosmological Argument is correct, it leads to the conclusion that there is an entity which created the universe which was spaceless (he/it created space), timeless (he/it created time), non-material (he/it created matter),  immensely powerful (he/it created the universe) and, plausibly, personal (deciding to create the universe). It does not take us to the specifically Christian understanding of God or even to a theistic God, but if you can think of a better term than "God", please do say what it is.

3] That doesn't help. Any religion could say that about their God and outlook - "just go with our definition". You go from the general (in the philosophical arguments) to the specific (that is your Christian God definition). This is disingenuous and deceitful. It is moving the goal posts to suit your ends.

No, it is not disingenuous and deceitful. I have never claimed that, say, the Kalam argument takes us to the Christian definition of God on its own, but gets us as far as above. The argument from objective morality, if correct, shows us that this "God" is a source of morality, so now we have a spaceless, timeless, non-material, immensely powerful, plausibly personal, moral entity for whom the term "God" seems, to me at least, reasonable. With the bit about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, this would take us to the Christian God from that generic understanding of God.

4] Actually it is what you claim atheists say or put forward

Yes, that is what atheists tend to say. Atheists, not scientists. That was the point I was making. You wrote, "And just to point the flaw in it the claim that science says there's no explanation for the universe isn't true". I didn't make any claim about scientists.  - "This is logically equivalent to an argument often put forward by atheists that if (since) God does not exist, the universe has no explanation."

Who says this? It's rubbish as it makes no sense.[/quote]It does make sense. In #92 I wrote
"b)   If the universe has an explanation of its existence, God exists and is that explanation.
i.   This is logically equivalent to an argument often put forward by atheists that if (since) God does not exist, the universe has no explanation. "

If we can agree it does make sense, then I'll supply some names.

5] OK

6] I wasn't there to see it, is what I'm saying

You sound like a YECer arguing against evolution

and I have had nothing to indicate to me from experience to show anything of the Christian God and the actuality of Jesus even in what they call spiritual form.

Here I'm not arguing from experience, but that Jesus was buried in a known tomb, two days later the tomb was found to be empty and that over the course of the next 40 days individuals and groups were convinced they saw him, spoke with him and sometimes ate with him. My contention is that Jesus was raised from the dead by God is a better explanation than all the other attempted explanations put together.

7] I don't follow this. Looks more like sophistry and playing with words than anything else.

Then you have misunderstood it.

By the way my position on probability is that it doesn't exist. Something will happen or it will not i.e. probability of 1 or zero.

Then you have misunderstood probability too. Perhaps a knowledgeable non-Christian on here would explain about probability. Me doing it would run the risk of look like it being "sophistry and playing with words." If anyone does explain it, then perhaps the following will help.

For this to be a good argument (that God raised Jesus from the dead), the probability of it being true needs to be higher than the probability of it not being true, i.e. >50%. On occasions people here have said that there are infinite number of possible other explanations for what is recorded in the NT (the empty tomb, etc.). That may be the case, but it is irrelevant. If the probability of those individual other explanations total less than 50%, it means that the probability of God having raised Jesus from the dead is greater than 50%. The percentages I quoted as examples, i.e. 12.5%, 6.25%, 3.125% and so on were part of a sequence where, though infinitely long, only total 25%, thus showing that it is possible to have an infinite number of other possible explanations, yet still have a total of less than 50%.

It's perhaps better not to accuse people of sophistry, but rather to ask for a clearer explanation of what is meant.

8] Where or what I am is of no consequence for me as I did not choose to come into this existence. All I know is that I appear to myself to be of such and such constitution, and that is that.

What I'm saying is we can not know what caused the people to write the manuscripts or to perceive the events it claims to account for in the way they did. There are numerous unknown way in which this could have happened.

See 7 above about having numerous or even an infinite number of ways not necessarily being relevant.

9] and 10] are on 158. I hope this makes things a little clearer.

Would you mind restating your case on this as I am not completely sure what you are referring to.

[jjohnjil]

Here I'm not arguing from experience, but that Jesus was buried in a known tomb, two days later the tomb was found to be empty and that over the course of the next 40 days individuals and groups were convinced they saw him, spoke with him and sometimes ate with him. My contention is that Jesus was raised from the dead by God is a better explanation than all the other attempted explanations put together.

So presumably, if you read in another book that a guy was killed and that over the next 40 days un-named individuals and groups saw him, ate with him and spoke to him ....you'd have no option but to believe he had been resurrected?

No little nagging doubts that it could all be fiction?