Searching for GOD...

[Alien]

When discussing whether God exists with a Christian, it means discussing whether God, as understood in the Christian sense, exists. It's that simple.

Simple only if the 'understood in the Christian sense' is in itself an understandable claim - and it isn't!

Not sure what to make of this claim. You are not thick, so that is not the problem. You also seem a very decent, honest chap, so that isn't the problem.

Must be self-delusion then. Perhaps you read a book or spoke to Shaker or NS or someone.

[Alien]

...

Not really Hope. There is a difference between theorising based on empirical evidence, such as Darwin did, and speculating on supernatural myth and ancient religious superstitions that are immune to both naturalistic investigation or meaningful definition.

Are you too saying you don't understand what the term "God" means?

Does a four sided triangle have meaning to you?

Nope, a triangle is a three-sided object, so defining it as something specifically different doesn't get us anywhere. What's that got to do with you not understanding what "God" means?

I can't speak for Shaker or Gordon but what I have laid out  before is that I don't find any individual concept I have been given of god logically coherent,

Hmm. Same problem as Gordon has, perhaps.

nor do I find it makes all real difference to me if you stick a capital in it or not.

That's a shame then as "God" is more tightly defined than "god".

The OED definition just seems to be filled with begged questions, sticking in 'moral arbiter' which does not seem to make sense in any concept of morality I understand, or 'supreme being' which again makes no sense in my concept of existence.

Wot I said to Gordon then. It doesn't seem to be an intellectual problem or a moral problem (in the Christian sense of morality), so perhaps it is self delusion.

[Shaker]

So how come the Oxford English Dictionary can come up with a useful definition, but you don't understand it?

Does the OED contain a useful and understandable definition of unicorn? My one (OED, not unicorn) is upstairs and I can't be bothered to go and check.

You're clearly getting rattled Al - you're getting snippy and are wandering away from questions at hand, which is a sure sign that the discussion is going badly for you.

[Alien]

So how come the Oxford English Dictionary can come up with a useful definition, but you don't understand it?

Does the OED contain a useful and understandable definition of unicorn? My one (OED, not unicorn) is upstairs and I can't be bothered to go and check.

It may be easier to check online. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/unicorn

You're clearly getting rattled Al - you're getting snippy and are wandering away from questions at hand, which is a sure sign that the discussion is going badly for you.

Actually, I've pointed out that you don't have to believe in the existence of something to be able to understand what is meant by the term, e.g. as with a unicorn.

So how have I wandered away from the questions at hand?

I honestly don't understand why you, Gordon and NS can't understand what the term "God" means. The rest of the world seems to, including the OED people.

[Nearly Sane]

...

Not really Hope. There is a difference between theorising based on empirical evidence, such as Darwin did, and speculating on supernatural myth and ancient religious superstitions that are immune to both naturalistic investigation or meaningful definition.

Are you too saying you don't understand what the term "God" means?

Does a four sided triangle have meaning to you?

Nope, a triangle is a three-sided object, so defining it as something specifically different doesn't get us anywhere. What's that got to do with you not understanding what "God" means?

I can't speak for Shaker or Gordon but what I have laid out  before is that I don't find any individual concept I have been given of god logically coherent,

Hmm. Same problem as Gordon has, perhaps.

nor do I find it makes all real difference to me if you stick a capital in it or not.

That's a shame then as "God" is more tightly defined than "god".

The OED definition just seems to be filled with begged questions, sticking in 'moral arbiter' which does not seem to make sense in any concept of morality I understand, or 'supreme being' which again makes no sense in my concept of existence.

Wot I said to Gordon then. It doesn't seem to be an intellectual problem or a moral problem (in the Christian sense of morality), so perhaps it is self delusion.

Perhaps it is, I can't rule that out. Btw what is 'self delusion' as opposed to delusion? I take it you admit that you too could be deluded here on this?

Can I suggest if you want to illustrate there is no problem you engage with someone who states the problem as begging the question rather than say others understand what you say as that is an argumentum ad populum and further begging the question. Is there a reason why you just use this approach rather than engage?

[Gordon]

When discussing whether God exists with a Christian, it means discussing whether God, as understood in the Christian sense, exists. It's that simple.

Simple only if the 'understood in the Christian sense' is in itself an understandable claim - and it isn't!

Not sure what to make of this claim. You are not thick, so that is not the problem. You also seem a very decent, honest chap, so that isn't the problem.

Must be self-delusion then. Perhaps you read a book or spoke to Shaker or NS or someone.

I see - so that you guys can't make a precise and verifiable claim about God that isn't wrapped up in meaningless theobabble is my fault?

[Shaker]

Actually, I've pointed out that you don't have to believe in the existence of something to be able to understand what is meant by the term, e.g. as with a unicorn.

Backwards, Al, backwards - I, at least, have to understand the term in order to stand any chance of believing it. (Hopalong Casserole has asserted that many scientists have believed in things which they couldn't define and I've asked for examples of this, but so far he has declined to furnish me with any). That doesn't always obtain, needless to say: I know more or less what Atlantis means and I know what a unicorn means and don't believe in the existence of either. But to believe in something - to hold that its existence is a true state of affairs about reality - I need to have some sort of even minimal, meaningful, coherent definition and as Gordon, NS and I have all independently said, this doesn't apply to gods where essentially the concept of "make it up as you go along" seems to be king.

So how have I wandered away from the questions at hand?

Because where I entered the thread was in asking Bashers what sort of methodology he may have in mind for determining the difference between a god that exists but says 'no' in response to some prayers and the non-existence of any gods and the operation of random events. How to ascertain the operation of the one or the other. You chose to attempt to answer on his behalf.

I honestly don't understand why you, Gordon and NS can't understand what the term "God" means. The rest of the world seems to, including the OED people.

You seem to think that everyone else who believes in a god believes the same as you, then. The OED people are clearly relying in an extremely limited, parochial, culturally-bound definition of a Judaeo-Christian monotheistic deity. Which, as it happens, appears to be the one you claim to believe in. Lots of people do - most monotheists in the world, actually. But as I said before, that doesn't make it true or right, just common.

[Nearly Sane]

So how come the Oxford English Dictionary can come up with a useful definition, but you don't understand it?

Does the OED contain a useful and understandable definition of unicorn? My one (OED, not unicorn) is upstairs and I can't be bothered to go and check.

It may be easier to check online. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/unicorn

You're clearly getting rattled Al - you're getting snippy and are wandering away from questions at hand, which is a sure sign that the discussion is going badly for you.

Actually, I've pointed out that you don't have to believe in the existence of something to be able to understand what is meant by the term, e.g. as with a unicorn.

So how have I wandered away from the questions at hand?

I honestly don't understand why you, Gordon and NS can't understand what the term "God" means. The rest of the world seems to, including the OED people.

I've tried to explain and you slipped any engagement and suggested I might be 'self deluded'. Further why are you using an argumentum ad populum? And why assume you are not deluded as you do here, you seem to like a lot of double standards and also lazy generalizations. Why is that?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker,

My one (OED, not unicorn) is upstairs and I can't be bothered to go and check.

Well obviously!! everyone knows Unicorns can't manage stairs.

Gonngle.

[Nearly Sane]

To try and help Alan, morality as I understand it is subjective, existence as I understand it does not have a hierarchy, ergo the OED definition does not make sense to me any more than a four sided triangle. It is precisely definitional to me and that was the point being made.

[Alien]

...

Not really Hope. There is a difference between theorising based on empirical evidence, such as Darwin did, and speculating on supernatural myth and ancient religious superstitions that are immune to both naturalistic investigation or meaningful definition.

Are you too saying you don't understand what the term "God" means?

Does a four sided triangle have meaning to you?

Nope, a triangle is a three-sided object, so defining it as something specifically different doesn't get us anywhere. What's that got to do with you not understanding what "God" means?

I can't speak for Shaker or Gordon but what I have laid out  before is that I don't find any individual concept I have been given of god logically coherent,

Hmm. Same problem as Gordon has, perhaps.

nor do I find it makes all real difference to me if you stick a capital in it or not.

That's a shame then as "God" is more tightly defined than "god".

The OED definition just seems to be filled with begged questions, sticking in 'moral arbiter' which does not seem to make sense in any concept of morality I understand, or 'supreme being' which again makes no sense in my concept of existence.

Wot I said to Gordon then. It doesn't seem to be an intellectual problem or a moral problem (in the Christian sense of morality), so perhaps it is self delusion.

Perhaps it is, I can't rule that out. Btw what is 'self delusion' as opposed to delusion?

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/self-delusion?q=self+delusion

I take it you admit that you too could be deluded here on this?

Yes.

Can I suggest if you want to illustrate there is no problem you engage with someone who states the problem as begging the question rather than say others understand what you say as that is an argumentum ad populum and further begging the question. Is there a reason why you just use this approach rather than engage?

It's because most people understand what "God" means, even if they don't think he exists. That most people understand the term suggests that, well, it is understandable. You seem to be in a different position in that you don't seem to be able to get inside the mind of those who do understand it. For example, you have a different understanding of morality. Surely you can understand what others, e.g. the OED people, mean by the term. It seems to me (and yes, I could be wrong) that you are insisting on defining things in your own terms before owning up as understanding what they mean. For myself, Young Earth Creationists use the term "creation" in a much more restricted sense than I do. For me creation is the act of, well, creating something and in itself says nothing about the method involved. In that sense the term has been hijacked, but does that give me the right to say I don't understand what Young Earth Creationists mean by the term? I would suggest not.

What do you think?

Added: I would argue that defining a word and appealing to most people's understanding of that word is not an "ad populum" fallacy. "Ad populum" is when a proposition is made and an appeal is made to the popularity of a viewt as a means of demonstrating it as being correct. However, when defining a word a word means what people mean by it. It's part of language, not a proposition.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope, if someone asks questions about a concept and a problem with it merely pointing at others saying they understand is an argumentum ad populum. Deal with the questions.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Shaker,

My one (OED, not unicorn) is upstairs and I can't be bothered to go and check.

Well obviously!! everyone knows Unicorns can't manage stairs.

Gonngle.

isn't that Daleks?h

[Shaker]

It's because most people understand what "God" means, even if they don't think he exists. That most people understand the term suggests that, well, it is understandable.

Only within a limited temporal and cultural range. I came across an article this morning, clearly pitched at the American market, defining various interesting and colourful British slang terms that the septics won't know - chinwag was one; git was another; goolies was another; I can't currently remember any more. Those terms make sense in a British context; they don't in an American context.

The same principle applies with your favoured one-out-of-thousands capital G Judaeo-Christian god. And this is to say nothing about the very seriously questionable (to put it mildly) assertion that people who believe in God understand precisely and exactly what is meant by the word - if there's no methodology at work by which you can check your definition, according to whom?

 

You seem to be in a different position in that you don't seem to be able to get inside the mind of those who do understand it.

Well, I for one definitely can't do that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Shaker,

My one (OED, not unicorn) is upstairs and I can't be bothered to go and check.

Well obviously!! everyone knows Unicorns can't manage stairs.

Gonngle.

isn't that Daleks?h

No their perfectly OK with stairs and they know the difference between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism

[Nearly Sane]

And again read the OED definition of self delusion and don't really see any difference between that and delusion. Lots of begging the question in it again.


The OED doesn't really work in philosophy unless you are a Platonist and assume the OED is linked to the ideals.

[Shaker]

Dear Shaker,

My one (OED, not unicorn) is upstairs and I can't be bothered to go and check.

Well obviously!! everyone knows Unicorns can't manage stairs.

Gonngle.

isn't that Daleks?h

No their perfectly OK with stairs and they know the difference between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism

Whoop whoop whoop, 1000 points!

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Shaker,

My one (OED, not unicorn) is upstairs and I can't be bothered to go and check.

Well obviously!! everyone knows Unicorns can't manage stairs.

Gonngle.

isn't that Daleks?h

No their perfectly OK with stairs and they know the difference between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism

So that is one way at least they are superior to you

[Hope]

Not really Shaker. Plenty of scientists down the centuries have believed in things that they have no definition of

Examples?

OK, to take something pretty recent - the Higgs-Boson.  This was first proposed in 1964, but nothing definitive, if something can be definitive when only experienced in a single location, till 2013.  That's nigh-on 50 years of believing in something without any demonstratable evidence.

At the other extreme, atom theory was originally proposed back in Ancient Greece and India, but it wasn't until the 19th century that scientists fine tuned it.  OK, you can argue that the idea was originally more philosophical than scientific but that doesn't mean that it wasn't a concept that took centuries to become proven.

often resulting, after lives of hard graft, in the discovery of that thing that was only an idea beforehand.

Well you've just pissed all over your own would-be pseudo-point here. If it was an idea beforehand it was an idea beforehand - there was some sort of prior concept in mind.

I haven't pissed all over my own would-be pseudo-point anywhere, Shaker.  I'd actually pointed out that people can hold a belief without definitive evidence for years, something that I've just done again above.  I'm sorry if it doesn't fit your view of the world.

[Shaker]

I haven't pissed all over my own would-be pseudo-point anywhere, Shaker.  I'd actually pointed out that people can hold a belief without definitive evidence for years, something that I've just done again above.  I'm sorry if it doesn't fit your view of the world.

Oh no no no, Hopeless, no no no: I wasn't arguing that people were holding a belief without evidence; I was arguing that it's impossible to hold a belief without at least some sort of definition of what's believed in, such that you know what it is if and when you find it.

You were the one who alleged Plenty of scientists down the centuries have believed in things that they have no definition of (implying that you understood the point I was making at that stage at least) and when I asked for examples, what you actually came back with was an example of something believed in, something which had a minimal definition, but (at that point) no evidence - which is something completely and utterly different. The Higgs boson had a more or less clear meaning amongst physicists and the physics community knew what it would take to find it, which in 1964 was impossible because of the technological limitations of that specific time.*

Keep up!

* I should also add that it hasn't been conclusively and definitively demonstrated that the LHC actually did find the Higgs boson at all, by the way. It seems highly likely, but the old cry of "Need more data!" applies as it does everywhere else.

[floo]

The Bible is open to many interpretations, some crazier than others!

So are Shakespeare's plays, Dickens' novels, Caesar's 'Commentarii de Bello Gallico'.  So what?  Does that make them any less valuable and - in the case of the latter - any less true?

If only the Bible was read like those of the authors you quote, and not the foundation of a religion it would be FANTASTIC!

[Dicky Underpants]

The problem with this analysis, torri, is that there are plenty of people who state that they were 'found' by God rather than 'finding' him.  In other words, there was no "response from within an individual's mind that addresses emotional needs within the individual".  At the same time, there are those who state that they spent years searching for God, without success, until they stopped specifying hgowthey felt that God ought to appear or realte to them.

Hope

Your response to torri reflects the contradictory messages one gets from the Bible itself. There are indeed texts which state such ideas as "No man can come to God except the Father draw him", whereas others indicate that one must continually reach out and search (the latter approach seems to be the one BA advocates when he is telling non-believers what they are doing wrong). However, one simply has to live one's life - if reaching out to God over a long period of time brings no response, and neither does he 'put in an appearance', all one can do is get on with living and stop wasting time worrying about whether such a being exists.
In short, torri's analysis remains correct - and so does Len's.

[Dicky Underpants]

The problem with this analysis, torri, is that there are plenty of people who state that they were 'found' by God rather than 'finding' him.  In other words, there was no "response from within an individual's mind that addresses emotional needs within the individual".

That is a faulty deduction. Anybody whom "God" found (by whatever means) must have had an emotional need.

 

At the same time, there are those who state that they spent years searching for God, without success, until they stopped specifying hgowthey felt that God ought to appear or realte to them.

Exactly! Since looking for him produced nothing, they gave up, and then their minds produced him from what they had gleaned from the Bible.

Len

I think your analysis and torri's really sum up the whole deal, with the addition "or from any other theistic religious text" to your phrase "from the Bible".

[ippy]

 Searching for GOD...

Why?

ippy

[Dicky Underpants]

As I understand the term God, it means, "the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being" (OED definition). That seems a good enough place to start. Christians claim to be able to fill in some more details, but do you have any problem with that OED definition?

I have a problem with this definition, with regard to the beliefs of BA and yourself. You yourself claim that "source of all moral authority" to be derived from the whole Bible, whereas BA claims that moral source to be found only in the New Testament - and indeed not in the whole of that.