Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How is it self-defeating? Every experience changes us a little bit.

Gibberish. We have to make that decision somehow and if it isn't deterministically, based on who we are, our state of mind, and the experience itself, then there is nothing left and any further uncertainty can only be accounted for by randomness.

Go back to the thought experiment I mentioned before (#42519): imagine we could rewind time and face exactly the same situation, in exactly the same state of mind, with exactly the same nature, nurture, and experience. Now, do your think the outcome could have been different or not? If not, then we have determinism. If so, then, since everything is exactly the same, the difference cannot be due to any reason (they are all the same), so must be random.

Again you are assuming that there are elements that will have prepared you to make the decision.
I posit a situation where there is a situation where there is nothing to prepare you as the situation is entirely novel and unique. I am not though precluding a faculty for recognising that which one is experiencing just that nothing external determines a single response.

Practically, because of the uniqueness of a situation it is impossible to turn back time as you suggest doing .

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This might explain the sense of ''there must be something greater'' That said we don't properly know what it is we are looking for till we find it. And then that is when the choice for which nothing in the empirical universe can prepare us for confronts us. That choice is down to the self.

You seem to have skipped the step between “the sense of ''there must be something greater''” and there actually being “something greater”. The only “choice” here is the choice between whether or not the belief that there is “something greater” is justified – the part you always miss in favour of just begging that question.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You seem to have skipped the step between “the sense of ''there must be something greater''” and there actually being “something greater”. The only “choice” here is the choice between whether or not the belief that there is “something greater” is justified – the part you always miss in favour of just begging that question.

Do you not possess this sense of something greater are you suppressing it , exploring it or what?
I am talking in about response to an experience not merely an intellectual choice at the mere philosophical level.
I admit though that your philosophical analysis of the experience could colour your interpretation of it.

[Stranger]

Again you are assuming that there are elements that will have prepared you to make the decision.
I posit a situation where there is a situation where there is nothing to prepare you as the situation is entirely novel and unique.

I'm just assuming that there is a person, complete with a personality and state of mind, and how that person reacts to anything at all (even if it's entirely new) is determined by those things. It's totally irrelevant whether anything it that person's past has specifically prepared them for what they encounter or not.

I am not though precluding a faculty for recognising that which one is experiencing just that nothing external determines a single response.

The distinction between external and internal is also irrelevant because we are considering both. The internal (the mind of the person) either got to be the way it is deterministically, via all its nature, nurture, and experience, or, since there is nothing else that could affect it, with some random element.

Practically, because of the uniqueness of a situation it is impossible to turn back time as you suggest doing .

Of course it's impossible in practice, that's why it's a thought experiment. They are very useful at uncovering the logic of a situation and the fact that you won't engage with it (just like Alan) speaks volumes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Do you not possess this sense of something greater are you suppressing it , exploring it or what?

No particularly but, even if I did, so what? “Possessing a sense” of something would tell me nothing at all about whether that something was real.

I am talking in about response to an experience not merely an intellectual choice at the mere philosophical level.

But you have no argument to show that ‘the experience” had anything to do with the narrative you came up with to explain it – ie, “god”. That’s the problem you always avoid.

I admit though that your philosophical analysis of the experience could colour your interpretation of it.

It’s not a “philosophical analysis”, it’s just reason. Without it (and absent any other method to evaluate the “experience”) any narrative about any experience is as (in)valid as any other other. Again, this is a problem you perennially avoid.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No particularly but, even if I did, so what? “Possessing a sense” of something would tell me nothing at all about whether that something was real.

No but one could explore that sense because surely such a sense is at least as important as a sense that one might be gay or transsexual.

Ultimately, this isn’t about an argument but about why one has this sense of something greater.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No but one could explore that sense because surely such a sense is at least as important as a sense that one might be gay or transsexual.

Leaving aside your category error (gayness and transexuality demonstrably exist) exploring any belief conceptually is fine, but you have all your work to do still to offer a method to do it - which is where you always run out of road.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Leaving aside your category error (gayness and transexuality demonstrably exist) exploring any belief conceptually is fine, but you have all your work to do still to offer a method to do it - which is where you always run out of road.   

No need to leave it aside sexuality and gender identity are to do with feeling and attitudes as well as observable behaviour as are religion.

 Your view is a way to a man’s heart is intellectual. I suggest that in this respect you think you are presently dining at a greasy spoon rather than the Ritz..

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No need to leave it aside sexuality and gender identity are to do with feeling and attitudes as well as observable behaviour as are religion.

Nope. You can have all the feeling and attitude about your belief “god” as you like (or for that matter about your beliefs about anything else), but that tells you nothing at all about whether or not the belief is justified.   

Your view is a way to a man’s heart is intellectual.

No it isn’t. Hearts can’t decide anything. If you’re trying to say that the only way I know of to investigate and verify a belief in order to justify it is reason, then yes – if you can think of any other method to do the job though, then why not finally tell us what it is?     

I suggest that in this respect you think you are presently dining at a greasy spoon rather than the Ritz.

Gibberish.

At some time in the past you had an “experience”. You’ve settled for “god” as the explanatory narrative for that experience. Neither now nor at any time in the past have you managed even to propose a method to justify that belief. That continues to be your Grand Canyon-sized problem. Just assuming your belief is justified because it's your "faith" is called begging the question - a basic error in thinking.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nope. You can have all the feeling and attitude about your belief “god” as you like (or for that matter about your beliefs about anything else), but that tells you nothing at all about whether or not the belief is justified.   

Politics may be a better analogy.

No it isn’t. Hearts can’t decide anything. If you’re trying to say that the only way I know of to investigate and verify a belief in order to justify it is reason, then yes – if you can think of any other method to do the job though, then why not finally tell us what it is?     

Gibberish.

At some time in the past you had an “experience”. You’ve settled for “god” as the explanatory narrative for that experience. Neither now nor at any time in the past have you managed even to propose a method to justify that belief. That continues to be your Grand Canyon-sized problem. Just assuming your belief is justified because it's your "faith" is called begging the question - a basic error in thinking.     

I disagree that argument equates to existence. Existence though can be experienced. As far as I know there is no argument against that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Politics may be a better analogy.

It isn’t, but it’s irrelevant in any case.

I disagree that argument equates to existence.

Straw man – I didn’t say that. What I said was that “argument” (ie, reason) can justify the belief that something does exist. If not by reason, what other method to justify a belief would you propose?   

Existence though can be experienced. As far as I know there is no argument against that.

Oh dear. I believe the computer in front of me exists, and I can reason my way to justifying that belief. I may also believe that there’s an invisible dragon curled up at my feet, but I cannot reason my way to justifying that belief. Both beliefs may feel like “experiences” though, and that’s your problem.         

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The only “choice” here is the choice between whether or not the belief that there is “something greater” is justified 

Who, though would consider that there is something greater since that could include those who think we are star stuff(as opposed to those who think we are made up physically of star stuff) and pedal that as though we should be humbled by that knowledge all the way up to your believer who believes God exists with the certainty that they know they exist( I borrowed that from Julian Baggini)

If you can believe the former and it is no big deal then why, for some is the latter a big deal, for say people like yourself. Plainly there are further choices to be made. Not only that but you can enjoy a wonder of the universe and the latter without the Douglas Adam nonsense of someone sad having to believe in fairies to enjoy one's Garden(Horse laugh argument).

It is not clear from you whether you distinguish religious belief from belief in something greater. In any case I am talking about the sense of something greater rather than believing in it in the way you might believe in the multiverse for instance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Who, though would consider that there is something greater since that could include those who think we are star stuff(as opposed to those who think we are made up physically of star stuff) and pedal that as though we should be humbled by that knowledge all the way up to your believer who believes God exists with the certainty that they know they exist( I borrowed that from Julian Baggini)

Gibberish. What are you even trying to say here?

If you can believe the former and it is no big deal then why, for some is the latter a big deal, for say people like yourself. Plainly there are further choices to be made. Not only that but you can enjoy a wonder of the universe and the latter without the Douglas Adam nonsense of someone sad having to believe in fairies to enjoy one's Garden(Horse laugh argument).

Repetition of your (long-corrected) mistakes. I believe that we are made from chemicals forged in stars though because there’s reason and evidence to justify that belief; I cannot believe there to be “God” on the other g hand because there’s neither reason nor evidence to support that belief. That’s your problem when you assert a “true for you too” god to exist with no means to justify your claim.   

It is not clear from you whether you distinguish religious belief from belief in something greater. In any case I am talking about the sense of something greater rather than believing in it in the way you might believe in the multiverse for instance.

A “sense of something greater” remains entirely irrelevant to whether or not there is such a thing. As ever, this is your problem that you continue to ignore.

[Alan Burns]

Your claim of freedom would be beyond human understanding in the same way that a four sided triangle would be beyond human understanding.  All you have is a sense of freedom, sure, we all feel like that, but that is not going to cut it when you realise that the claim of freedom is inherently incoherent.

This young chappie explains it quite well :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwaXqep-bpk&app=desktop

Hi Torri,

Just came across this which gives Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) a two hour run for his money:   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC9tKeJCJtM

[Nearly Sane]

Hi Torri,

Just came across this which gives Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic) a two hour run for his money:   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC9tKeJCJtM

And here's Franny Craddock making rissoles. Doesn't help or validate an argument. Both you and torridon need to mske arguments rather than youtube videos.

[Alan Burns]

And here's Franny Craddock making rissoles. Doesn't help or validate an argument. Both you and torridon need to mske arguments rather than youtube videos.

Just going back to Sassy's opening post, she contended that many people on this forum apparently seek reasons not to believe in God rather than a genuine search for the truth.  What I am offering for those who wish to see both sides of the argument is a very in depth discussion between two highly intelligent people who offer far more detail on the subject than can be covered in a post on this forum.  So people can view it if they wish and make up their own minds as to what the truth might be.

What is at stake here is far more than making rissoles.
It is even more than a matter of life or death.
It concerns the eternal salvation of human souls.

[Gordon]

Just going back to Sassy's opening post, she contended that many people on this forum apparently seek reasons not to believe in God rather than a genuine search for the truth.  What I am offering for those who wish to see both sides of the argument is a very in depth discussion between two highly intelligent people who offer far more detail on the subject than can be covered in a post on this forum.  So people can view it if they wish and make up their own minds as to what the truth might be.

What is at stake here is far more than making rissoles.
It is even more than a matter of life or death.
It concerns the eternal salvation of human souls.

Sassy was, of course, simplistically wrong when she contended that. I'm not looking for reasons to "not believe in God": the opposite is the case, in that I see no good reasons to believe in 'God'.

[Stranger]

Just going back to Sassy's opening post, she contended that many people on this forum apparently seek reasons not to believe in God rather than a genuine search for the truth.

Which was and is an absurd misunderstanding. How many times do you need it pointed out that nobody needs a reason not to believe in something? The absence of reasons to believe is quite enough.

What I am offering for those who wish to see both sides of the argument is a very in depth discussion between two highly intelligent people who offer far more detail on the subject than can be covered in a post on this forum.  So people can view it if they wish and make up their own minds as to what the truth might be.

The thing is I have spent countless hours looking at supposed reasons why some god might exist and am yet to find anything remotely convincing. Most of it, in fact, has been pathetic, desperate, and obviously flawed (such as all the nonsense you've posted here about 'free will').

There has to be a point at which one thinks that there are better ways to spend one's time.

What is at stake here is far more than making rissoles.
It is even more than a matter of life or death.
It concerns the eternal salvation of human souls.

So you assert. If this is true, why does your god play such a childish game of hide-and-seek?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sassy was, of course, simplistically wrong when she contended that. I'm not looking for reasons to "not believe in God": the opposite is the case, in that I see no good reasons to believe in 'God'.

Try taking off the shades.

[Gordon]

Try taking off the shades.

Try offering some reasons or arguments for 'God' that don't reduce into a mush of fallacious tripe.

[torridon]

Just going back to Sassy's opening post, she contended that many people on this forum apparently seek reasons not to believe in God rather than a genuine search for the truth.  What I am offering for those who wish to see both sides of the argument is a very in depth discussion between two highly intelligent people who offer far more detail on the subject than can be covered in a post on this forum.  So people can view it if they wish and make up their own minds as to what the truth might be.

What is at stake here is far more than making rissoles.
It is even more than a matter of life or death.
It concerns the eternal salvation of human souls.

This is absurd on so many levels. Just suppose you are right and there is a God and there is such a thing as a soul and there is such a thing as eternal salvation then why would this God grant eternal salvation just to the souls that found the concept of free will plausible and not others ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is absurd on so many levels. Just suppose you are right and there is a God and there is such a thing as a soul and there is such a thing as eternal salvation then why would this God grant eternal salvation just to the souls that found the concept of free will plausible and not others ?

There is a forensic form of Christianity based on determinism called Calvinism. If you are going to entertain the idea of God then you would do well to study this Christianity. You will find God granting salvation just to those who believe in free will anathema to Deterministic Calvinism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which was and is an absurd misunderstanding. How many times do you need it pointed out that nobody needs a reason not to believe in something? The absence of reasons to believe is quite enough.

And yet as far as I can recollect you found the idea of an external creator of the universe not dependent on the universe a sound idea rendering your claim nonsensical.

[Enki]

I agree completely that, as far as I can see, no one on this forum is seeking reasons not to believe in God and I long ago dismissed Sassy's contention as irrelevant. However, loosely related to this, would be the the question: Can atheists be afraid of God?
My personal answer would be that I am not afraid of God because of  a) non belief in said God b) the lack of significance of said God to me(except in a cultural sense). I do think though that it is perfectly possible that atheists could be afraid of God. What do others think?

[Stranger]

And yet as far as I can recollect you found the idea of an external creator of the universe not dependent on the universe a sound idea rendering your claim nonsensical.

*sigh*

• I did no such thing.
  
  
• My 'claim' didn't mention anything in particular. It was a general statement about the burden of proof.
  
  
• Assuming you're referring to SU, you are once again emphasising that the word 'god' means anything you think you can get away with at the time, rendering all arguments (with you) about its existence totally meaningless.
  
  
• The idea that SU is about god is still hilariously stupid.