Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Perhaps you have not yet recognised God's answer to your prayers, which often come through other people.

Can you suggest a methodology by which you can tell the difference between:

(1) The existence of God and that God working through other people

and

(2) No God and people just doing people stuff.

Because without that, it's worthless, Al. Sorry and all that, but as a hypothesis it's junk.

There is no methodolgy I can quote, but I can look back on my life and see amazing answers to prayer which have come through other people.  You just know when it happens.  Of course it will be much more difficult to discern how God works in your life if you have lost faith.  I am certain God brought me into contact with this web forum to give witness to Him, and I am sorry if I have not done this very well as yet, but I am still trying.   

[torridon]

There is no methodolgy I can quote, but I can look back on my life and see amazing answers to prayer which have come through other people.  You just know when it happens.  Of course it will be much more difficult to discern how God works in your life if you have lost faith.  I am certain God brought me into contact with this web forum to give witness to Him, and I am sorry if I have not done this very well as yet, but I am still trying.   

All of that could be merely the operation of selection bias and confirmation bias.  You sit up and take notice of reports of christian 'miracles', but the miracles in other faith contexts don't register on your radar.  If you make a habit of interpreting serendipity as God moving in your life, then after some time, you start believing it.  This is basic human psychology.

[wigginhall]

Nobody can predict who is saved.  A devout Muslim who sincerely believes they have found God may well be saved, but it would be through the power of Jesus who opened up the door to heaven for mankind.  So accepting Jesus as your saviour is still the best option.

A good god would save everybody though.  Your thinking is confused and contradictory.

Yes, reading some of the literature on salvation and grace is like reading a complicated conveyancing document, there are so many ifs and buts, and riders.   You can't earn it, but according to Alan, you can keep trying, God loves a tryer, except our own efforts are supposed to count for nothing. And so on and so on.   It reminds me of the old rules in a boarding house, no visitors allowed, no smoking in rooms, no noise, no thinking, etc.   And God might reply to you, but if he doesn't, never mind.

[Leonard James]

There is no methodolgy I can quote, but I can look back on my life and see amazing answers to prayer which have come through other people.  You just know when it happens.  Of course it will be much more difficult to discern how God works in your life if you have lost faith.  I am certain God brought me into contact with this web forum to give witness to Him, and I am sorry if I have not done this very well as yet, but I am still trying.   

And round and round in circles we go! 

[Shaker]

I haven't lost faith - I've never had any to lose.

As you say, you've no method to be able to distinguish between two entirely different scenarios. "Just knowing" may be as Kant called it subjectively sufficient for you, but it's not enough to compel belief from anyone else.

What torridon has just said is absolutely right - selection bias is the more parsimonious explanation.

[torridon]

I think people plenty of people see a change in the conduct and attitude of people who convert or whose lives are ''close'' to God.

That might be true.  Many people benefit from having a religion, and having 'found God' means they have reached a way of thinking and living that works for them.  That doesn't mean that finding God is universally a good thing, humans differ and there is no one size fits all panacea to satisfy the needs of the human mind. What might work for you might not work for me. There is a similar popular misconception about meditation, that, like religion, it is universally a 'good thing' that people would benefit from; but research shows this not to be the case, a recent study found that mindfulness practice has deleterious effects in around 17% of people for instance. We are all different.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody can predict who is saved.  A devout Muslim who sincerely believes they have found God may well be saved, but it would be through the power of Jesus who opened up the door to heaven for mankind.  So accepting Jesus as your saviour is still the best option.

A good god would save everybody though.  Your thinking is confused and contradictory.

Yes, reading some of the literature on salvation and grace is like reading a complicated conveyancing document, there are so many ifs and buts, and riders.   You can't earn it, but according to Alan, you can keep trying, God loves a tryer, except our own efforts are supposed to count for nothing. And so on and so on.

Surely though that depends on what we are trying to do.........and surely, biblically it's more that God loves a seeker.

[Alan Burns]

I like my beliefs about the world to align with reality and to have some sort of evidential grounding.

The alternative is ... well, we can see what the alternative is.

But science can only define a small part of reality.  Science defines consequences to events, but reality can't be fully defined by consequences (for example human self awareness and free will), and not all events are caused by consequences (at quantum level for example).  There is much of reality which scientific investigation has not defined.  You will no doubt wish to add the word "yet" to the end of the last sentence, but that will effectively be an act of faith.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think people plenty of people see a change in the conduct and attitude of people who convert or whose lives are ''close'' to God.

That might be true.  Many people benefit from having a religion, and having 'found God' means they have reached a way of thinking and living that works for them.  That doesn't mean that finding God is universally a good thing, humans differ and there is no one size fits all panacea to satisfy the needs of the human mind. What might work for you might not work for me. There is a similar popular misconception about meditation, that, like religion, it is universally a 'good thing' that people would benefit from; but research shows this not to be the case, a recent study found that mindfulness practice has deleterious effects in around 17% of people for instance. We are all different.

I think you are trying to equate something all encompassing like religion with a mere technique like Mindfulness.

I think that may be a bit fallacious.

[Shaker]

But science can only define a small part of reality.  Science defines consequences to events, but reality can't be fully defined by consequences (for example human self awareness and free will), and not all events are caused by consequences (at quantum level for example).  There is much of reality which scientific investigation has not defined.  You will no doubt wish to add the word "yet" to the end of the last sentence, but that will effectively be an act of faith.

1. There's no definitive evidence that humans even have free will;

2. Not faith but a reasonable, well-placed confidence based on the past experiences of the successes of science. It's no act of faith to state that there are things still to be discovered and understood and that the scientific method has consistently shown itself to be the best means of doing that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But science can only define a small part of reality.  Science defines consequences to events, but reality can't be fully defined by consequences (for example human self awareness and free will), and not all events are caused by consequences (at quantum level for example).  There is much of reality which scientific investigation has not defined.  You will no doubt wish to add the word "yet" to the end of the last sentence, but that will effectively be an act of faith.

1. There's no definitive evidence that humans even have free will;

2. Not faith but a reasonable, well-placed confidence based on the past experiences of the successes of science. It's no act of faith to state that there are things still to be discovered and understood and that the scientific method has consistently shown itself to be the best means of doing that.

I can have the same confidence in science.

You would say I am therefore bolting on an invented extra to my stock.

I would say you don't recognise the limitations of science and are missing or suppressing whole areas of your possible experience.

[Alan Burns]

Nobody can predict who is saved.  A devout Muslim who sincerely believes they have found God may well be saved, but it would be through the power of Jesus who opened up the door to heaven for mankind.  So accepting Jesus as your saviour is still the best option.

A good god would save everybody though.  Your thinking is confused and contradictory.

I am sure God wants to save everybody.  That is why He became one of us to show us the way.

[Shaker]

You would say I am therefore bolting on an invented extra to my stock.

Yes, exactly that.

I would say you don't recognise the limitations of science and are missing or suppressing whole areas of your possible experience.

Easy to say, but without some means of showing such things to be actual it's all a bit castles in the air to say the least, isn't it?

[Alan Burns]

1. There's no definitive evidence that humans even have free will;

There may be no scientific evidence for free will, but there is plenty of evidence for it in human perception (which is also undefined by science).

[Shaker]

1. There's no definitive evidence that humans even have free will;

There may be no scientific evidence for free will, but there is plenty of evidence for it in human perception (which is also undefined by science).

I assume by this you mean something like "some people feel that they have free will, therefore there really is such a thing as free will." If that's the case you're going to be exceedingly unhappy with what's been coming out of neuroscience these past few years.

[torridon]

Nobody can predict who is saved.  A devout Muslim who sincerely believes they have found God may well be saved, but it would be through the power of Jesus who opened up the door to heaven for mankind.  So accepting Jesus as your saviour is still the best option.

A good god would save everybody though.  Your thinking is confused and contradictory.

I am sure God wants to save everybody.  That is why He became one of us to show us the way.

The idea of a god having 'wants' is a bit strange.  That casts him more like a human, just some big guy, with special powers perhaps, but ultimately someone with frustrated desires, unable to overcome the superior power of the Devil it seems.  Gonnagle's god is better than yours I think.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You would say I am therefore bolting on an invented extra to my stock.

Yes, exactly that.

Then that should be easy to prove.....go ahead.

[ekim]

I think people plenty of people see a change in the conduct and attitude of people who convert or whose lives are ''close'' to God.

That might be true.  Many people benefit from having a religion, and having 'found God' means they have reached a way of thinking and living that works for them.  That doesn't mean that finding God is universally a good thing, humans differ and there is no one size fits all panacea to satisfy the needs of the human mind. What might work for you might not work for me. There is a similar popular misconception about meditation, that, like religion, it is universally a 'good thing' that people would benefit from; but research shows this not to be the case, a recent study found that mindfulness practice has deleterious effects in around 17% of people for instance. We are all different.

I think you are trying to equate something all encompassing like religion with a mere technique like Mindfulness.

I think that may be a bit fallacious.

Most religions have techniques as well as doctrine.  Prayer, for example, is a method for communicating with their God.  As a result of this, some believed they have had messages back telling them to kill an individual e.g. possessed of the devil.  The religious practice could be said to have had a deleterious effect upon the killer.  We are all different.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Easy to say, but without some means of showing such things to be actual it's all a bit castles in the air to say the least, isn't it?

No, because you have already said you are only prepared to accept an arbitrary category of evidence. You have proved me correct yourself. Sorry you have pissed on your own bonfire.

Now....Prove I have invented God.

[Shaker]

You would say I am therefore bolting on an invented extra to my stock.

Yes, exactly that.

Then that should be easy to prove.....go ahead.

If you're the one bolting on the superfluous extras, you're the one who has to do the proving, old bean - to demonstrate that there's any reality to these extras and that these extras do any useful explanatory work. (And when I say 'explanatory work' I do mean actual explanatory work, not the pseudo-explanation involved every time the supernatural is posited). In terms used by Daniel Harbour in The Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism, it's the difference between the spartan meritocracy (minimalist; parsimonious; ideas are adopted on consistency, rigour and merit) and the baroque monarchy (extravagant  claims made willy-nilly with little or no thought given to the aforementioned).

[Leonard James]

I like my beliefs about the world to align with reality and to have some sort of evidential grounding.

The alternative is ... well, we can see what the alternative is.

But science can only define a small part of reality.  Science defines consequences to events, but reality can't be fully defined by consequences (for example human self awareness and free will), and not all events are caused by consequences (at quantum level for example).  There is much of reality which scientific investigation has not defined.  You will no doubt wish to add the word "yet" to the end of the last sentence, but that will effectively be an act of faith.

Inventing  "God" to 'explain' the things that science as yet has no answer for is not an intelligent way to go.

[Shaker]

Inventing  "God" to 'explain' the things that science as yet has no answer for is not an intelligent way to go.

Exactly. It's a fifth wheel - where it exists it adds nothing and does nothing, and may actually get in the way. Unneeded, unnecessary baggage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You would say I am therefore bolting on an invented extra to my stock.

Yes, exactly that.

Then that should be easy to prove.....go ahead.

If you're the one bolting on the superfluous extras, you're the one who has to do the proving, old bean - to demonstrate that there's any reality to these extras and that these extras do any useful explanatory work. (And when I say 'explanatory work' I do mean actual explanatory work, not the pseudo-explanation involved every time the supernatural is posited). In terms used by Daniel Harbour in The Intelligent Person's Guide to Atheism, it's the difference between the spartan meritocracy (minimalist; parsimonious; ideas are adopted on consistency, rigour and merit) and the baroque monarchy (extravagant  claims made willy-nilly with little or no thought given to the aforementioned).

1: Deny your scientism
2: Demonstrate I am bolting something on
3: Deny you are not including personal experience even though you have personal experience
4: Demonstrate I have invented God

Since you have positively asserted all the above you have the burden of proof on these.

For my part, I have never denied I cannot supply evidence which satisfies methodological materialism.

[Alan Burns]

1. There's no definitive evidence that humans even have free will;

There may be no scientific evidence for free will, but there is plenty of evidence for it in human perception (which is also undefined by science).

I assume by this you mean something like "some people feel that they have free will, therefore there really is such a thing as free will." If that's the case you're going to be exceedingly unhappy with what's been coming out of neuroscience these past few years.

No amount of neuroscience can take away the reality of my ability to choose what I want to do.   It is what makes me human.

[Shaker]

That doesn't even rebut let alone refute what I've already said. Given the sort of timescales that we're talking about, the sincere belief that you possess free will in no way demonstrates that you actually do.

P.S. Your particular arrangement of genetic material is what makes you human.