Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Significant is clearly a subjective term. This isn't a probability distribution so I don't think there is an issue about some posters finding a difference significant.

If I understand Alan's posts correctly, the difference between animals and humans that seem most significant to Alan are the human capacity for abstract thought that allows discussion of the supernatural, planning many years in advance for an unknown future, communication that leads to discussion of moral choices and values and an organised belief system - which may or may not include a supernatural element.

I think he thinks it significant that human have the ability to influence complex value-based decisions (more complex than food decisions) using these abstract moral ideas that go against a person's initial preferred inclinations. I presume Alan is aware that certain parts of the brain can be seen to be activated using imaging while making these moral choices and holding these values, so I think his focus may possibly be on the source of the value system or the source of the ideas that leads to these thoughts that over-ride initial preferences and defers to the value system.

It seems to me, that Alan, and please if you read this Alan feel free to correct, sees' 'significant' as some form of objective thing. It's the difference between us and other animals that Alan is arguing is significant to his position. Now to me that seems circular and not significant. I understand that there is the more colloquial use of significant that places it as a synonym of substantial but that doesn't appear to me to be the sense in which Alan is using it.

[Alan Burns]

this might help to explain whats going on here,

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304160400.htm

Yet another man made attempt to explain our spiritual nature.

[Shaker]

Yet another man made attempt to explain our spiritual nature.

Yet another meaningless response.

[floo]

Yet another man made attempt to explain our spiritual nature.

But that is all we have as there is no evidence god exists.

[Alan Burns]

Significant is clearly a subjective term. This isn't a probability distribution so I don't think there is an issue about some posters finding a difference significant.

If I understand Alan's posts correctly, the difference between animals and humans that seem most significant to Alan are the human capacity for abstract thought that allows discussion of the supernatural, planning many years in advance for an unknown future, communication that leads to discussion of moral choices and values and an organised belief system - which may or may not include a supernatural element.

I think he thinks it significant that human have the ability to influence complex value-based decisions (more complex than food decisions) using these abstract moral ideas that go against a person's initial preferred inclinations. I presume Alan is aware that certain parts of the brain can be seen to be activated using imaging while making these moral choices and holding these values, so I think his focus may possibly be on the source of the value system or the source of the ideas that leads to these thoughts that over-ride initial preferences and defers to the value system.

I am just suggesting that all these profound human attributes have a divine purpose to help bring us closer to God.  Simply analysing the workings of these attributes will not reveal their intended purpose or meaning.

[floo]

I am just suggesting that all these profound human attributes have a divine purpose to help bring us closer to God.  Simply analysing the workings of these attributes will not reveal their intended purpose or meaning.

I know I have asked this question again and again, but never had a credible answer. IF god exists why does it hide away instead of being around in person so its presence is undeniable to all humans.

[Gordon]

I am just suggesting that all these profound human attributes have a divine purpose to help bring us closer to God.  Simply analysing the workings of these attributes will not reveal their intended purpose or meaning.

Yet again you are begging the question.

[Alan Burns]

Maybe science doesn't do meaning because meaning is a personal thing; there is no such thing as objective meaning, it is all in the mind.  A penguin finds meaning in the particular call of its offspring, whilst the cacophony of other calls around leaves him unmoved.  I might find meaning in the lilt and phrasing of a song, but the same song leaves others unmoved. You find meaning in your faith, Gabriella finds meaning in hers.  There is no such thing as objective, true for all meaning. Whatever floats your boat.

I was not talking about human's meaning or purpose, but God's.  In terms of evolutionary development it is hard to see why humans acquired such abilities as abstract thought processing, but from a spiritual perspective they are needed in order for us to know God.  And we need to look outside the scientific box to discover that there is (divine) meaning and purpose to our existence.

[Walter]

I am just suggesting that all these profound human attributes have a divine purpose to help bring us closer to God.  Simply analysing the workings of these attributes will not reveal their intended purpose or meaning.

AB if that's what you genuinely believe ,why don't you personally set out to prove it rather than simply asserting it ?

house points are available to win!!!

[Shaker]

I was not talking about human's meaning or purpose, but God's.

What's Dumbledore's purpose?

[Gordon]

I was not talking about human's meaning or purpose, but God's.  In terms of evolutionary development it is hard to see why humans acquired such abilities as abstract thought processing, but from a spiritual perspective they are needed in order for us to know God.  And we need to look outside the scientific box to discover that there is (divine) meaning and purpose to our existence.

Nice mix of fallacies: begging the question, reification, ignorance and, of course, personal incredulity.

[Alan Burns]

I know I have asked this question again and again, but never had a credible answer. IF god exists why does it hide away instead of being around in person so its presence is undeniable to all humans.

It is apparent that we have been separated from intimate knowledge of God and His love.  I do not know why, but this is the reality we live in, and we have to accept it.  But through Jesus, God has made Himself known, and by accepting Jesus as our Saviour we have a means to enter into the relationship which God wants for us all.

[torridon]

I was not talking about human's meaning or purpose, but God's.  In terms of evolutionary development it is hard to see why humans acquired such abilities as abstract thought processing, but from a spiritual perspective they are needed in order for us to know God.  And we need to look outside the scientific box to discover that there is (divine) meaning and purpose to our existence.

But without any evidence for gods, that is self referential, begging the question thinking, and how could we 'discover' anything outside the 'scientific box' anyway? Discovery implies empirical enquiry which implies the discipline of scientific methods without which there is no way to distinguish said 'discoveries' from self serving fantasies. 

I don't see why abstract thinking would only have developed to support a spiritual nature; the benefits of abstract conceptualisation are many and varied and its not hard to imagine how selection pressures would have favoured a species that was better able to plan ahead as a result.

[Walter]

It is apparent that we have been separated from intimate knowledge of God and His love.  I do not know why, but this is the reality we live in, and we have to accept it.  But through Jesus, God has made Himself known, and by accepting Jesus as our Saviour we have a means to enter into the relationship which God wants for us all.

GOD , SHOW YOURSELF OR BE FOREVER NON EXISTANT........ let's see what happens eh?

Oh! and that Jesus story, it  never happened !

[floo]

It is apparent that we have been separated from intimate knowledge of God and His love.  I do not know why, but this is the reality we live in, and we have to accept it.  But through Jesus, God has made Himself known, and by accepting Jesus as our Saviour we have a means to enter into the relationship which God wants for us all.

The question remains why does god not make its existence clear to all, if it exists it is playing a crazy game with humans, especially if non belief has bad consequences?

It wasn't even obvious to the family of Jesus he was any sort of god, or offspring thereof, or the vast majority of Jews of his time.

[Maeght]

It is apparent that we have been separated from intimate knowledge of God and His love.  I do not know why, but this is the reality we live in, and we have to accept it.  But through Jesus, God has made Himself known, and by accepting Jesus as our Saviour we have a means to enter into the relationship which God wants for us all.

It may be apparent to you but not to me.

[Alan Burns]

Nice mix of fallacies: begging the question, reification, ignorance and, of course, personal incredulity.

Your over active fallacy detector may be obscuring the truth.  Just because you can illustrate that the logic may not be watertight does not mean it is false.

[ippy]

It is apparent that we have been separated from intimate knowledge of God and His love.  I do not know why, but this is the reality we live in, and we have to accept it.  But through Jesus, God has made Himself known, and by accepting Jesus as our Saviour we have a means to enter into the relationship which God wants for us all.

Direct from the 'University of Assertionology', via Alan Burns with a Full O, BLX, & Bar.

ippy

[SusanDoris]

Your over active fallacy detector may be obscuring the truth.  Just because you can illustrate that the logic may not be watertight does not mean it is false.

Oh yes it does, very decisively.

[Sebastian Toe]

Your over active fallacy detector may be obscuring the truth.  Just because you can illustrate that the logic may not be watertight does not mean it is false.

The logic of Islam may not be watertight but it does not mean that it is false.
Would you agree with that Alan?

[Gordon]

Your over active fallacy detector may be obscuring the truth.  Just because you can illustrate that the logic may not be watertight does not mean it is false.

Only because you supply such copious amounts of fallacious reasoning, Alan, and of course 'the truth' is yet more fallacious reasoning on your part.

The key point is, given your fondness for fallacies (even if you don't realise you are committing them), is that there are no good reasons to think your claims are correct on the basis of how you argue in support of them, since your reasoning is demonstrably flawed.

[Shaker]

Your over active fallacy detector may be obscuring the truth.

If the detector is overactive it's only because the production of fallacies is.

[Outrider]

I am just suggesting that all these profound human attributes have a divine purpose to help bring us closer to God.

That's fine, but you aren't justifying or backing that suggestion with anything. I could, with absolutely equal validity, suggest that these profound human attributes are the work of time-travelling humans from the future, and we're just a recursive paradox doomed to have to complete an infinitely futile time-loop.

Simply analysing the workings of these attributes will not reveal their intended purpose or meaning.

Simply presuming that there's an intended purpose or meaning doesn't mean that there is, let alone whether or not rational enquiry could deduce it.

O.

[Outrider]

I was not talking about human's meaning or purpose, but God's.

You can't demonstrate that there is 'god', let alone make specific claims about its purpose... but if, say, God has a purpose, who imposed it upon him? If you can conceive that he did it himself, why can you not accede that we could do the same without gods?

In terms of evolutionary development it is hard to see why humans acquired such abilities as abstract thought processing

No, it's not - they are an inevitable emergent side-process to the complex visualisation and linguistic capacity we developed to be tool users and socially communicative.

...but from a spiritual perspective they are needed in order for us to know God.

There's no rational definition of 'spiritual', no evidence for spirits or gods - why fall back on this spiderweb of conjectural hypotheticals rather than look at what's actually demonstrably there: people.

And we need to look outside the scientific box to discover that there is (divine) meaning and purpose to our existence.

So we don't look with science, which brings us back to an old favourite; where do we look? What methodology other than 'I really, really, really want what my ancestors really wanted to be true to turn out to actually be true' do you propose? Faith is unrealiable, and for those of us with any sort of logic-dominated thought processes 'just want it to be true' isn't enough.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Only because you supply such copious amounts of fallacious reasoning, Alan, and of course 'the truth' is yet more fallacious reasoning on your part.

The key point is, given your fondness for fallacies (even if you don't realise you are committing them), is that there are no good reasons to think your claims are correct on the basis of how you argue in support of them, since your reasoning is demonstrably flawed.

But instead of just labelling "fallacy" and implying job done, it would be more constructive to offer alternative arguments and reasoning.