Searching for GOD...

[Brownie]

It's a good word, Vlad.  Describes something that looks, or sounds, good on the surface but doesn't have much substance.  Gordon said it in response to this quotation:

2 Timothy 3 v 7:
..always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

In modern day language, it says something [of the ilk]:
"However, you just don't get it, do you?",
a throwaway remark which reflects the exasperation of the author, implying that the author does 'get it' and is fed up with those who don't. There is no more to it than that.

The quotation is a superficial judgement of the reader and shows little consideration and no solution, ergo it can reasonably be described as a "deepity", and discarded.
-------
(There are those who believe the knowledge comes before the learning, for example the knowledge of and relationship with the Lord is part of them before they have put any words together.  They will say that people over intellectualise something which can be intuitively understood.  Interesting concept.)

[floo]

I am glad that I know some very decent Christians who do a lot of good in this world, even if I don't see matters of faith their way. However, some, not all, of the Christians I encounter on forums like this one, give the faith a very bad name. Their unpleasant attitude is very off putting and as I have mentioned before has put three people off joining this forum, whom I had invited to become members. One did join but left after a few posts, they mentioned two Christian posters in particular (one who is still posting), whose unpleasant behaviour really got up their nose. If Jesus is around somewhere I am sure he is really very proud of them, NOT! They might get the bums rush if they arrive at heaven's portals, but are are told to depart to the other place with the rest of us heathen as Jesus doesn't know them!

[Brownie]

That's life, floo.  Different strokes for different folks.
From my observation, posters of all shades on here are fairly robust in their debating manner and it doesn't put you and I off; it's the 'nature' of forums unless you go somewhere where everyone agrees.  How boring would that be?  We'd probably find it off-putting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a good word, Vlad.  Describes something that looks, or sounds, good on the surface but doesn't have much substance.  Gordon said it in response to this quotation:

It is but another word often used by antitheists to charicature their opponents and is the last resort of the reductionist scoundrel.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's a good word, Vlad.  Describes something that looks, or sounds, good on the surface but doesn't have much substance.  Gordon said it in response to this quotation:

2 Timothy 3 v 7:
..always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

In modern day language, it says something [of the ilk]:
"However, you just don't get it, do you?",
a throwaway remark which reflects the exasperation of the author, implying that the author does 'get it' and is fed up with those who don't. There is no more to it than that.

The quotation is a superficial judgement of the reader and shows little consideration and no solution, ergo it can reasonably be described as a "deepity", and discarded.
-------
(There are those who believe the knowledge comes before the learning, for example the knowledge of and relationship with the Lord is part of them before they have put any words together.  They will say that people over intellectualise something which can be intuitively understood.  Interesting concept.)

But Brownie. We know the type. Those that see knowledge as merely a collection of facts and figures without seeing the patterns and implications thinking that it all ends in some cosmic or existential pub quiz.

[ekim]

But Brownie. We know the type. Those that see knowledge as merely a collection of facts and figures without seeing the patterns and implications thinking that it all ends in some cosmic or existential pub quiz.

That's the nature of intellectual enquiry which is about all you will get on a debating site apart from when it degenerates into the ad hominem approach.  'Patterns and implications' will form part of it and will probably vary according to the 'eyes of the beholder'.  We are near thirteen and a half thousand posts on 'Searching for God' and as far as I can recall, nobody has defined what one should search for nor how to conduct the search.  Brownie's quote "2 Timothy 3 v 7: ..always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." I would extend to .... always believing but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.  I would suggest that it is only the truth which will set you free from belief.  I wonder if 'Searching for Heaven' would fair any better?!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's the nature of intellectual enquiry which is about all you will get on a debating site apart from when it degenerates into the ad hominem approach.  'Patterns and implications' will form part of it and will probably vary according to the 'eyes of the beholder'.  We are near thirteen and a half thousand posts on 'Searching for God' and as far as I can recall, nobody has defined what one should search for nor how to conduct the search.  Brownie's quote "2 Timothy 3 v 7: ..always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." I would extend to .... always believing but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.  I would suggest that it is only the truth which will set you free from belief.  I wonder if 'Searching for Heaven' would fair any better?!

Your post seems to engender the equation of data with truth. But accumulation of data is just that, accumulation of data.

Such an approach cannot possible hope to capture the existential experience of the human being where belief is personal experience rather than a lack of facts or material data.

[floo]

That's life, floo.  Different strokes for different folks.
From my observation, posters of all shades on here are fairly robust in their debating manner and it doesn't put you and I off; it's the 'nature' of forums unless you go somewhere where everyone agrees.  How boring would that be?  We'd probably find it off-putting.

It would be off putting if you were trying to discover if Christianity was a faith, which would do it for you.

[wigginhall]

I notice that worldviews are popular now, so I guess the Christian College of Further Fallacies is including that in their courses.   "When debating with atheists, you need to reference their worldview, and ask them how they prove it.   If they argue that they don't have one, laugh sardonically.   They are just bluffing.   Just tell them that their worldview isn't falsifiable.   This is a win-win." 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I notice that worldviews are popular now, so I guess the Christian College of Further Fallacies is including that in their courses.   "When debating with atheists, you need to reference their worldview, and ask them how they prove it.   If they argue that they don't have one, laugh sardonically.   They are just bluffing.   Just tell them that their worldview isn't falsifiable.   This is a win-win."

Emergency services were called to a situation where atheists were in danger of being crushed in the rush to ditch any opinions on how the world is.

A spokesman said although we have no worldview and aren't interested in world views we reserve the right to tell others theirs is wrong in an obsessive fashion.

We sought comment from Wigginhall but he thought we said world views instead of views.

[wigginhall]

Further news: the Christian College of Further Fallacies also has a course in obfuscation.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Emergency services were called to a situation where atheists were in danger of being crushed in the rush to ditch any opinions on how the world is.

A spokesman said although we have no worldview and aren't interested in world views we reserve the right to tell others theirs is wrong in an obsessive fashion.

We sought comment from Wigginhall but he thought we said world views instead of views.

"World view" would imply universality, certainty, the absolute which is what enables you and Sword (are you one and the same by the way?) to invent a straw man version of atheism along these lines that you can then attack. I've never come across an atheist who does think that way but hey, no matter. "Those atheists eh? They think the universe is certainly naturalistic. How would they go about falsifying that then? Tell me that Mr Smartass atheist (PS the longer we can keep this going, the longer we have to hide the fact that we have no argument at all for our "God". Happy days indeed)" etc.

It's deeply dishonest and I wish you'd stop it, but your'e so invested in your personal re-defintions of "philosophical naturalism", "scientism" etc that I guess you never will.

Ah well.     

[ekim]

Your post seems to engender the equation of data with truth. But accumulation of data is just that, accumulation of data.

Such an approach cannot possible hope to capture the existential experience of the human being where belief is personal experience rather than a lack of facts or material data.

That would be your inference rather than my intention.  Data can arise from facts related to first hand experience or it can arise from second hand information.  The 'patterns and implications' are how the individual chooses to interpret them and I suggest that one needs to exercise caution as regards the validity of the experiences, the second hand information and their interpretations.  For example, just because one witnesses something unusual doesn't automatically mean it is a ghost, alien space craft, angel etc.  This applies even more so with historical second hand information and experiences.  The insidious part of indoctrination processes is that the constant repetition of a doctrine can eventually override the critical faculties to such an extent that the individual is ...'always believing but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth'.  There are often methods embedded within religions which are intended to free the initiated from belief so that he 'knows'.  Faith is persistence with a method not with a belief.  Hope is being open to the possibility that such a method or way is valid.  Love is the unifying 'knowing'. .... and the greatest of these is ....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

"World view" would imply universality, certainty, the absolute which is what enables you and Sword (are you one and the same by the way?) to invent a straw man version of atheism along these lines that you can then attack. I've never come across an atheist who does think that way but hey, no matter. "Those atheists eh? They think the universe is certainly naturalistic. How would they go about falsifying that then? Tell me that Mr Smartass atheist (PS the longer we can keep this going, the longer we have to hide the fact that we have no argument at all for our "God". Happy days indeed)" etc.

It's deeply dishonest and I wish you'd stop it, but your'e so invested in your personal re-defintions of "philosophical naturalism", "scientism" etc that I guess you never will.

Ah well.     

Not all atheists would argue that they have no worldview only some scallys around here who do not want to get caught being in possession of any idea which can be demonstrated to be unfalsifiable but rather want to catch others out.

You clearly have views on how the cosmos is or isn't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not all atheists would argue that they have no worldview only some scallys around here who do not want to get caught being in possession of any idea which can be demonstrated to be unfalsifiable but rather want to catch others out.

You clearly have views on how the cosmos is or isn't.

You're either missing or misrepresenting the argument again. I can have a "worldview" that, say, logic and evidence are probabilistically more likely than just guessing to lead to functional truths. What I can't have though is a worldview that entails certainty - about anything.

These things are all falsifiable - inventing something that no-one thinks and pinning it to atheists nonetheless is just something you do as a rhetorical device, albeit a dishonest one.   

[Enki]

Something for you to consider BashfulAnthony...

Their worldview is not falsifiable. That means there is no way for you (or any other Christian) to meet their requests. Any attempts to get them to apply the same standards to their worldview results in accusations of shifting the burden of proof. It wasn't religious believers that posited the idea that a hypothesis should be falsifiable, yet whereas the Christian faith is, their materialistic worldview isn't.

They cannot cite what would constitute evidence of a non-natural cause, or something supernatural. They cannot cite what would be considered as evidence for God. They cannot cite what would convince them of God's existence (apparently, it's God's responsibility, even though they cannot give a single example of what He is supposed to do!). So you are in a position where the assumption is that if there is evidence for something, it must be material. This is why they cannot progress and why the endless answers provided by Christians over the years will never be enough. As it says in 2 Timothy 3 v 7:

always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

I'm not sure what you think my worldview is? I'm not sure that I have a worldview, even. If, by my worldview, you are simply suggesting that I don't believe in any gods whatever, then I'm guilty as charged but I would have thought that a worldview would encompass so much more than this. And why don't I actually believe in any god whatever? All I can answer is that on an emotional, experiential and evidential level I see no reason to believe in a god. I quite accept that others are of a contrary opinion, of course, and that's okay, as long as this causes no harm, who am I to try to change their minds?

You ask what would convince me of your particular God's existence.

On an emotional level, I would have to feel, and have faith in the existence of your God. I don't, although I am quite aware that others might. As far as I can tell, throughout my whole life, I have never felt any presence of your God whatever, and have lived my life without the thought of your God being involved in any way. Of course this is not evidence that your particular God does not exist, but, emotionally, it isn't a particularly convincing reason for me to have faith.

On an experiential level, I would have to have overwhelming evidence that your God has shaped my life. However, I have never felt the input of your God on anything that I have done or experienced throughout my life. Of course there have been cultural influences, simply because I live in a country which has had a considerable Christian culture, but, these aside, I fail to see how the the presence of your claimed God has had any influence on the way my life has developed, or the decisions that I have made. So, for me, the process of my life to date, is not convincing evidence of the existence of your God.

On an evidential level I would have to have demonstrable examples of the only explanation being your God. Unfortunately,I see no reason to think that your God exists. Many things, increasingly, have been explained without needing reference to your God whatever, sometimes in the most minute detail. This, of course, does not mean, that your God does not exist. It simply means that I see no need to bring Him into any of these explanations. He seems, to me, surplus to requirements. Even when explanations are not known, to simply suggest that God is some sort of answer (and without going into the detail of how He supplies the necessary requisites to satisfy that answer) does not fulfill the requirements of an explanation which I find convincing.

So, you tell me, what would convince me of God's existence? I can only tell you, in general terms, why I find it most unconvincing. I am certainly open to the idea that the supernatural actually exists, if a methodology can be found to establish it, any methodology, as long as it is intersubjective. I have never found one. You seem to suggest that it is my failing that I have never found one. Have you found one? Please share it. I can only hazard a guess, a thought experiment, which isn't mine, but which I found some time ago on the internet, and copied down.

Let us suppose that the universe is, in fact, a supernaturalistic one. In fact, it contains a God that is directly concerned with human affairs, and is helpful and loving to the point that it will answer clearly, fully, and honestly, any question submitted to it in earnest prayer. In this universe, methodological naturalism would not be able to compete in the slightest degree with methodological supernaturalism. The best way to acquire new data and formulate correct explanations for them would be to use the method of praying earnestly to God, and accepting the explanations he offers as the real picture of the universe.

[wigginhall]

Damn, they didn't need to build the Large Hadron Collider, at so much cost; they could have prayed that God would reveal the Higgs boson, for free.   Well, their worldview would not allow them that, silly billies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

enki,

I'm not sure what you think my worldview is?

It's just vladdery* - a straw man you can pin to your interlocutor in order to attack his position.

*Vladdery

noun

The dishonest and persistent mis-characterisation of a position in order to falsify it.

See also diversionary tactic 

(Bluehillside Dictionary of Casuistry, 3rd Ed)

[Enki]

Damn, they didn't need to build the Large Hadron Collider, at so much cost; they could have prayed that God would reveal the Higgs boson, for free.   Well, their worldview would not allow them that, silly billies.

 

[wigginhall]

By the way, enki, I carried on reading Hart, and there are some bizarre sections where he sort of says, beauty is transcendent (because I say so), and can only come from God (because I say so). 

The obvious contradiction of this is to quote Joe Bloggs, who says beauty is not transcendent, and does not come from God.  What does Hart say now?  "You are just wrong, my good man, because I know the truth, because I say so."   Is this meant to be serious?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

By the way, enki, I carried on reading Hart, and there are some bizarre sections where he sort of says, beauty is transcendent (because I say so), and can only come from God (because I say so). 

The obvious contradiction of this is to quote Joe Bloggs, who says beauty is not transcendent, and does not come from God.  What does Hart say now?  You are just wrong, my good man, because I know the truth, because I say so.   Is this meant to be serious?

I haven't read him, but I saw a video of him once lecturing at a seminar. He seemed quite unpleasant, but more to the point his reasoning was awful. I just wanted one of the students to say, "hang on a minute though" but none of them did. I've been surprised a few times now at how poor the thinking can be of people who earn their livings as philosophers (WLC of course, Michael Ruse is another) - it'd be nice to think I was some kind of uber philosopher, but the truth I guess is just that they're not very good. How do they not get found out and re-trained as estate agents or something?

[wigginhall]

Wiggs,

I haven't read him, but I saw a video of him once lecturing at a seminar. He seemed quite unpleasant, but more to the point his reasoning was awful. I just wanted one of the students to say, "hang on a minute though" but none of them did. I've been surprised a few times now at how poor the thinking can be of people who earn their livings as philosophers (WLC of course, Michael Ruse is another) - it'd be nice to think I was some kind of uber philosopher, but the truth I guess is just that they're not very good. How do they not get found out and re-trained as estate agents or something though?

Hart's book got rave reviews in some media, e.g. 'the one book that everybody must read', so I was interested, but it's actually no better than stuff on the internet, just more flowery.   Wow, do they realize how much crap they produce?

[Brownie]

It would be off putting if you were trying to discover if Christianity was a faith, which would do it for you.

I think most people would just go somewhere else, floo.
This is a good forum with a bit of everything, at least that's my opinion & presumably yours, but obviously not to everyone's taste. 
We've all done that.  Some years ago I found a liberal Christian forum (advertised as such, no longer going), and thought that would really be my thing - but it wasn't.  So I moved on, or back to where I'd been.  Not a big deal.

[Enki]

Hart's book got rave reviews in some media, e.g. 'the one book that everybody must read', so I was interested, but it's actually no better than stuff on the internet, just more flowery.   Wow, do they realize how much crap they produce?

I agree, Wiggs. Oliver Burkeman from the Guardian suggested that atheists should read this book, and, indeed, 'badly need to up their game.' Really? my own view is that it is decidedly unimpressive in its rather often regurgitated arguments, couched, as Jerry Coyne suggests, in 'fancy and often arrogant language'.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Let us suppose that the universe is, in fact, a supernaturalistic one. In fact, it contains a God that is directly concerned with human affairs, and is helpful and loving to the point that it will answer clearly, fully, and honestly, any question submitted to it in earnest prayer. In this universe, methodological naturalism would not be able to compete in the slightest degree with methodological supernaturalism. The best way to acquire new data and formulate correct explanations for them would be to use the method of praying earnestly to God, and accepting the explanations he offers as the real picture of the universe.

Firstly, thank you enki for at least taking on the challenge I’ve being given out. I respect that, so I think it would be wrong of me to criticize in any way the outline of your journey. Therefore I’ll cover your points by using the quote at the end of your post, which I’ll break down:

Let us suppose that the universe is, in fact, a supernaturalistic one

My belief is that the cause was supernatural. Order from disorder can happen naturally (e.g. snowflake, sand dunes), but intelligence from non-intelligence? Laws from non-laws? Life from non-life?

In fact, it contains a God that is directly concerned with human affairs

Also my belief, based on what is written in the Bible. From the creation of the first human beings in Genesis right through to Revelation, one sees time and time again the Lord God interacting with human beings.

...and loving to the point that it will answer clearly, fully, and honestly, any question submitted to it in earnest prayer.

I believe that the way God demonstrated His love for us was by sending His Son Jesus Christ into the world to die on the cross for our sins.

The answering of questions bit is more tricky. I believe that some answers are to be found in the Bible and some answers I believe have been answered as a result of prayer. Not all of my questions though. Therefore, if I’m not getting an answer, does it mean that God doesn’t exist, or is there some other explanation. My thought is this: Does the lack of an answer affect the existence (or otherwise) of God as an objective truth? No.

In this universe, methodological naturalism would not be able to compete in the slightest degree with methodological supernaturalism

It can’t in my opinion! We know from observation that things that have a beginning require a cause. Methodological naturalism requires intelligent order to come from disorder and things to create themselves from nothing. For me, a top-down model for explaining life on earth is consistent with observation. The first animals / plants / human beings are created with all the necessary functionality to live and propagate, including reproductive ability  and genetic variation and / or loss results in the variety of life, DNA being the blueprint for all living organisms. Under this model there is no
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
Which came first? The seed or the plant?
I was born from my mother, who was born from her mother, who was born from her mother, ... (how is this regression terminated?)

In contrast, I would suggest that all of these examples should falsify a naturalistic model. I would also suggest sexual reproduction should, because under the evolutionary model where things happen over a long period of time, at what point did life that didn’t reproduce sexually start reproducing sexually? How did male and female undergo the relevant anatomical changes at what would have to be the same rate in order to then at some point be able to mate?

The best way to acquire new data and formulate correct explanations for them would be to use the method of praying earnestly to God, and accepting the explanations he offers as the real picture of the universe.

Which, in a way illustrates why I have stayed with Christianity. Bertrand’s Celestial Teapot (and all arguments based on it) assume that there is no evidence (or even reasons to believe) for the Christian faith, i.e. blind faith is used. However, you would be surprised at what actions we human beings do in other areas, which suddenly become a problem for some when it comes to belief in God.

Firstly, there is written information (the Bible). Secondly, there is creation. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, human beings design and make things. What are the qualities of the things we make? Are there similarities elsewhere? If so, then an argument can be made. We have creation and I would also throw in moral laws (again, human beings make laws, why should we assume that we are the only one capable of doing so?). Are there universal moral laws? I would suggest so, and often a good way to illustrate this is in the way we react to things. If there are no moral laws, then where does e.g. that sense of injustice come from? Why is there any basis for having right vs wrong behaviour?

Since I keep on mentioning falsifiability, it’s only right that I apply it to my own Christian faith (although I have already mentioned it elsewhere). If Jesus Christ didn’t rise from the dead, then no Christian faith.  Yes, I have to believe this by faith, but I’ve chosen to. I have no reason not to believe the Gospel accounts. For example: Why should I disbelieve the Gospel accounts from 2000 years ago, yet believe the claim of someone who says that “Life started in the sea 4 billion years ago” (Sir David Attenborough). I can’t even begin to verify that one!!

I would accept that personal experience can be unreliable, but personally I would find it hard to stay a Christian if e.g. I never felt that I had seen an answer to prayer.

Ok, that’s a summary. There’s much more I could add. It doesn’t mean that I don’t have lots of questions regarding my own faith, but that’s all part of the journey.