Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

[
There is evidence:  the testimony of the New Testament.  You may choose not to accept it; but then you are determined not a to accept any kind of evidence  -  you have a closed mind.

Maybe you have a closed mind when accepting the truth of the Qur'an.  At least I am consistent, whereas you are selective.

[BashfulAnthony]

[
There is evidence:  the testimony of the New Testament.  You may choose not to accept it; but then you are determined not a to accept any kind of evidence  -  you have a closed mind.

Maybe you have a closed mind when accepting the truth of the Qur'an.  At least I am consistent, whereas you are selective.

Having taken Divinity as my main course at Training College, I have background in all the Major religions.  I did not find Islam attracted me, nor any of the others, apart from Christianity.  I suggest, respectfully, I have a greater knowledge of the religions than you  -  unless, of course, you have studied them at Degree level also.    I had, and have an open mind:  my views on Christianity are constantly evolving;  you may call that being selective, I call it being realistic and open-minded about what I believe.  I find the teaching of Marcion attractive and persuasive, though not all of it:   not many would call that being closed-minded.

[BeRational]

[
There is evidence:  the testimony of the New Testament.  You may choose not to accept it; but then you are determined not a to accept any kind of evidence  -  you have a closed mind.

Maybe you have a closed mind when accepting the truth of the Qur'an.  At least I am consistent, whereas you are selective.

Having taken Divinity as my main course at Training College, I have background in all the Major religions.  I did not find Islam attracted me, nor any of the others, apart from Christianity.  I suggest, respectfully, I have a greater knowledge of the religions than you  -  unless, of course, you have studied them at Degree level also.    I had, and have an open mind:  my views on Christianity are constantly evolving;  you may call that being selective, I call it being realistic and open-minded about what I believe.  I find the teaching of Marcion attractive and persuasive, though not all of it:   not many would call that being closed-minded.

Could you be wrong?

Could it be that Islam is actually the correct religion?

This is a test of open mindedness.

Can you pass this test?

[torridon]

[
There is evidence:  the testimony of the New Testament.  You may choose not to accept it; but then you are determined not a to accept any kind of evidence  -  you have a closed mind.

Maybe you have a closed mind when accepting the truth of the Qur'an.  At least I am consistent, whereas you are selective.

Having taken Divinity as my main course at Training College, I have background in all the Major religions.  I did not find Islam attracted me, nor any of the others, apart from Christianity.  I suggest, respectfully, I have a greater knowledge of the religions than you  -  unless, of course, you have studied them at Degree level also.    I had, and have an open mind:  my views on Christianity are constantly evolving;  you may call that being selective, I call it being realistic and open-minded about what I believe.  I find the teaching of Marcion attractive and persuasive, though not all of it:   not many would call that being closed-minded.

Truth has no remit to be attractive to humans. Many people hold beliefs not because they are true, but because they appeal in some way, and so people suspend their disbelief in order to enjoy the belief.  That's humans for you

[Shaker]

Yes, I know.

So what did you mean by, "Where the hell did you get that from?"

Your statement that Clarke meant that anything is possible.

[BashfulAnthony]

[
There is evidence:  the testimony of the New Testament.  You may choose not to accept it; but then you are determined not a to accept any kind of evidence  -  you have a closed mind.

Maybe you have a closed mind when accepting the truth of the Qur'an.  At least I am consistent, whereas you are selective.

Having taken Divinity as my main course at Training College, I have background in all the Major religions.  I did not find Islam attracted me, nor any of the others, apart from Christianity.  I suggest, respectfully, I have a greater knowledge of the religions than you  -  unless, of course, you have studied them at Degree level also.    I had, and have an open mind:  my views on Christianity are constantly evolving;  you may call that being selective, I call it being realistic and open-minded about what I believe.  I find the teaching of Marcion attractive and persuasive, though not all of it:   not many would call that being closed-minded.

Could you be wrong?

Could it be that Islam is actually the correct religion?

This is a test of open mindedness.

Can you pass this test?

The God of Islam is the same as the Christian God  -  any differences are down to differing interpretations.  As to being wrong:  of course I can, just as you can, just as we all can, as fallible humans.  However,  we still take our positions.  I am not taking any test  -  why are you obsessed with testing me?  Have you a problem?  Are you able to admit that it is invasive? Can you pass that test, your Honour?

[BeRational]

BA

I am open minded and could be wrong. You could be completely correct about your God.

You also accept that you could be completely wrong about your God ,and it may not exist.

I issue the test as you accuse others of being closed minded, so I like to see how open-minded you are.

[Sassy]

[
There is evidence:  the testimony of the New Testament.  You may choose not to accept it; but then you are determined not a to accept any kind of evidence  -  you have a closed mind.

Maybe you have a closed mind when accepting the truth of the Qur'an.  At least I am consistent, whereas you are selective.

Having taken Divinity as my main course at Training College, I have background in all the Major religions.  I did not find Islam attracted me, nor any of the others, apart from Christianity.  I suggest, respectfully, I have a greater knowledge of the religions than you  -  unless, of course, you have studied them at Degree level also.    I had, and have an open mind:  my views on Christianity are constantly evolving;  you may call that being selective, I call it being realistic and open-minded about what I believe.  I find the teaching of Marcion attractive and persuasive, though not all of it:   not many would call that being closed-minded.

Truth has no remit to be attractive to humans. Many people hold beliefs not because they are true, but because they appeal in some way, and so people suspend their disbelief in order to enjoy the belief.  That's humans for you

With Christianity, the word has to do as it says it does...
How can you possibly match that to any other religion?

[floo]

[
There is evidence:  the testimony of the New Testament.  You may choose not to accept it; but then you are determined not a to accept any kind of evidence  -  you have a closed mind.

Maybe you have a closed mind when accepting the truth of the Qur'an.  At least I am consistent, whereas you are selective.

Having taken Divinity as my main course at Training College, I have background in all the Major religions.  I did not find Islam attracted me, nor any of the others, apart from Christianity.  I suggest, respectfully, I have a greater knowledge of the religions than you  -  unless, of course, you have studied them at Degree level also.    I had, and have an open mind:  my views on Christianity are constantly evolving;  you may call that being selective, I call it being realistic and open-minded about what I believe.  I find the teaching of Marcion attractive and persuasive, though not all of it:   not many would call that being closed-minded.

Truth has no remit to be attractive to humans. Many people hold beliefs not because they are true, but because they appeal in some way, and so people suspend their disbelief in order to enjoy the belief.  That's humans for you

With Christianity, the word has to do as it says it does...
How can you possibly match that to any other religion?

Christianity is a religion like any other, WITHOUT evidence to support it!

[Leonard James]

Christianity is a religion like any other, with evidence to support it!

All religions are sourced  in the human mind, that of their founder.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA

I am open minded and could be wrong. You could be completely correct about your God.

You also accept that you could be completely wrong about your God ,and it may not exist.

I issue the test as you accuse others of being closed minded, so I like to see how open-minded you are.

I have answered all this on at least one previous thread!  But you re-gurgitate it.  Why?  I am not on trial on here.

[Alien]

Christianity is a religion like any other, with evidence to support it!

All religions are sourced  in the human mind, that of their founder.

That's not what floo wrote. You don't seem to have read what she wrote.

[Leonard James]

Christianity is a religion like any other, with evidence to support it!

All religions are sourced  in the human mind, that of their founder.

That's not what floo wrote. You don't seem to have read what she wrote.

I did, but she clearly didn't mean that. If you think she did, then you have not read any of her posts.

[BeRational]

BA

I am open minded and could be wrong. You could be completely correct about your God.

You also accept that you could be completely wrong about your God ,and it may not exist.

I issue the test as you accuse others of being closed minded, so I like to see how open-minded you are.

I have answered all this on at least one previous thread!  But you re-gurgitate it.  Why?  I am not on trial on here.

But your statements are not consistent!

On the one hand you can simply choose what you believe, and on the other you need evidence.

Its one or the other, not both!

[Alan Burns]

Yes, that's how I would see it.  Anything we can detect, observe, measure, analyse, model, these are the constituents of what you would call 'natural'. I personally don't see any reason to suppose that there is other 'stuff' out there beyond what is amenable to investigation, but others maybe do and they call that stuff 'supernatural' but by its own definition it isn't amenable to reason or analysis.

But the very acts of detection, observation, measurement, analysis and modelling are all supernatural processes because they all involve conscious human awareness for which there is no natural definition.

If we insist on forcing our entire concept of reality into things which can only be defined by the natural observed forces of nature we are in effect defining ourselves out of existence, because our own conscious awareness of reality is not (and never will be) defined by these natural observed forces.

[torridon]

Yes, that's how I would see it.  Anything we can detect, observe, measure, analyse, model, these are the constituents of what you would call 'natural'. I personally don't see any reason to suppose that there is other 'stuff' out there beyond what is amenable to investigation, but others maybe do and they call that stuff 'supernatural' but by its own definition it isn't amenable to reason or analysis.

But the very acts of detection, observation, measurement, analysis and modelling are all supernatural processes because they all involve conscious human awareness for which there is no natural definition.

If we insist on forcing our entire concept of reality into things which can only be defined by the natural observed forces of nature we are in effect defining ourselves out of existence, because our own conscious awareness of reality is not (and never will be) defined by these natural observed forces.

In this line of reasoning everything becomes supernatural, in which case there is no need for different terms to distinguish between natural and supernatural.

[Alan Burns]

The non-existence of "God" is so glaringly obvious that I marvel at the gullibility of those who still swallow the story.

Len, can you not see the arrogance in this statement.

If the known universe was to be shrunk down to the size of the earth, our planet would be so small that even the most powerful electron microscope could not detect it.  Our entire solar system could be lost inside of a single grain of sand.  Yet some occupants on this tiny fragment of the universe are able to use the powers of their gift of perception to deduce that the creator of it all does not exist!

[wigginhall]

Very nice point, torridon.  Alan B collapses natural and supernatural together, so, as you say, in principle, anything might well be supernatural.   Thus, I can still run for the bus, despite my great age, but I know that this is a supernatural endowment.  And so on and so on.   Gravity has still not been fully explained, but I know that it's caused by angels pulling things down to earth.   Hey, I like this game.

[torridon]

That's because I see it as a matter of definition.  Evidence doesn't come into it. Supernatural is not amenable to reason by definition.

So naturalism is by definition reasonable.........without the need or possibility of explanation?

Yes, that's how I would see it.  Anything we can detect, observe, measure, analyse, model, these are the constituents of what you would call 'natural'. I personally don't see any reason to suppose that there is other 'stuff' out there beyond what is amenable to investigation, but others maybe do and they call that stuff 'supernatural' but by its own definition it isn't amenable to reason or analysis.

So you are saying you don't have to justify but merely assert.
Also I think you mistakenly and exhaustively equate science with logic.

I think your own assertions are not amenable to reason and analysis since you are specially pleading them. Under your own terms your own assertions are therefore unreasonable.

If you work to a different understanding of what we mean by 'supernatural' feel free to post it up.

[floo]

Christianity is a religion like any other, with evidence to support it!

All religions are sourced  in the human mind, that of their founder.

Oh WHOOPS! I should have checked my post more carefully, I am sorry about that. However I do have an excuse, whilst posting it I had a call from my bank's fraud department saying my cards had been stopped as they were suspecting fraudulent transactions! I PANICKED! Anyway to cut a long story short all is well, my cards have been reset and my dosh is intact! PHEW!

[torridon]

If the known universe was to be shrunk down to the size of the earth, our planet would be so small that even the most powerful electron microscope could not detect it.  Our entire solar system could be lost inside of a single grain of sand.  Yet some occupants on this tiny fragment of the universe are able to use the powers of their gift of perception to deduce that the creator of it all does not exist!

This insight tells us of the sheer insignificance of planet Human. And yet, somehow, one species of upright ape down there has decided that the entire cosmos was created for it. That's overkill in my book. That's narcissism on steroids.

[Alan Burns]

If the known universe was to be shrunk down to the size of the earth, our planet would be so small that even the most powerful electron microscope could not detect it.  Our entire solar system could be lost inside of a single grain of sand.  Yet some occupants on this tiny fragment of the universe are able to use the powers of their gift of perception to deduce that the creator of it all does not exist!

This insight tells us of the sheer insignificance of planet Human. And yet, somehow, one species of upright ape down there has decided that the entire cosmos was created for it. That's overkill in my book. That's narcissism on steroids.

I accept that I am part of God's creation, but I humbly admit that I have no concept of what else He might have brought into existence, or for what purpose.

[Shaker]

If the known universe was to be shrunk down to the size of the earth, our planet would be so small that even the most powerful electron microscope could not detect it.  Our entire solar system could be lost inside of a single grain of sand.  Yet some occupants on this tiny fragment of the universe are able to use the powers of their gift of perception to deduce that the creator of it all does not exist!

This insight tells us of the sheer insignificance of planet Human. And yet, somehow, one species of upright ape down there has decided that the entire cosmos was created for it. That's overkill in my book. That's narcissism on steroids.

I accept that I am part of God's creation, but I humbly admit that I have no concept of what else He might have brought into existence, or for what purpose.

It's a good job you do 'humbly admit' it, since there's arrogance and narcissism aplenty in the bit before you claim humility.

[Alan Burns]

Very nice point, torridon.  Alan B collapses natural and supernatural together, so, as you say, in principle, anything might well be supernatural.   Thus, I can still run for the bus, despite my great age, but I know that this is a supernatural endowment.  And so on and so on.   Gravity has still not been fully explained, but I know that it's caused by angels pulling things down to earth.   Hey, I like this game.

Here is a simple way to discriminate natural from supernatural:

A natural event has a cause directly related to the consequence of previous events.  For example the event of a cue hitting a billiard ball causes the ball to start moving.
A supernatural event has a cause outside the normal chain of "cause and effect" for example the freewill decision by the holder of the cue to strike the ball.

[Leonard James]

The non-existence of "God" is so glaringly obvious that I marvel at the gullibility of those who still swallow the story.

Len, can you not see the arrogance in this statement.

No, I can't. I am referring, of course to the Christian "God", and the description of him accepted by the majority of his followers. There are so many anomalies and contradictions in the Bible story of him, that only a very gullible person will swallow it, even though they have to subject their brains to the most contorted excuses for the contradictions.

If the known universe was to be shrunk down to the size of the earth, our planet would be so small that even the most powerful electron microscope could not detect it.  Our entire solar system could be lost inside of a single grain of sand.  Yet some occupants on this tiny fragment of the universe are able to use the powers of their gift of perception to deduce that the creator of it all does not exist!

No, no! I know there must be a cause that brought the universe into being, and although we have no evidence that supernatural powers exist, it is just remotely possible that one such could be the cause. It is also possible that the cause could be a physical one of which we are so far ignorant.

Since we know that the physical world exists, it is much more logical to assume it as the cause than to fly to the realms of the supernatural, about which we know nothing and for which there is no evidence.