Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

How do you know?

What if there are other beings perhaps that have existed for a billion years more than us, and their evolution also favoured big brains. Would they conclude that our brains are so puny as to not have intelligence?

It seems to me that whenever some characteristic from the natural world and other creatures is presented, you just use the fallacy that you cannot believe such a thing is possible.
It does not matter what you believe is possible, its what you can demonstrate

You whole argument is flawed due to the argument from incredulity fallacy.

When I listened to Richard Dawkins on the Jeremy Vine program talking about "What Makes Us Human", he stated quite simply that it was bigger brains that accounted for human qualities.  So  perhaps he was wrong too!

[BeRational]

How do you know?

What if there are other beings perhaps that have existed for a billion years more than us, and their evolution also favoured big brains. Would they conclude that our brains are so puny as to not have intelligence?

It seems to me that whenever some characteristic from the natural world and other creatures is presented, you just use the fallacy that you cannot believe such a thing is possible.
It does not matter what you believe is possible, its what you can demonstrate

You whole argument is flawed due to the argument from incredulity fallacy.

When I listened to Richard Dawkins on the Jeremy Vine program talking about "What Makes Us Human", he stated quite simply that it was bigger brains that accounted for human qualities.  So  perhaps he was wrong too!

Why.

Bigger brains makes us human, but other brains have some of the features we have. We are just talking about the extent to which they have them.

Bats have better hearing that we do, and can 'probably see' with sound. Our hearing is very poor in comparison. So what?

[Alien]

Even if there were strong scientific evidence for something, we should still stop short of being 'certain'; certainty is an enemy of learning.

"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of the truth than lies." - Nietzsche.

Just reminded me.

Would it be your "firmly held belief or opinion" that Nietzsche was correct there, Shaker.

[Alien]

No idea which dictionary you're using but the OED has as its primary definition:

"The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces"

which is entirely apposite in a theistic context. That's just what gods are thought by god-believers to do, isn't it - influence events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. Therefore, magic.

No, theists believe that God actually influences events, not just "apparently". It doesn't make a lot of sense from the atheist side either as you lot don't think there is a God to have the power of apparently influencing events by any means.

[Shaker]

No, theists believe that God actually influences events, not just "apparently".

You said it yourself - it's just a belief rather than a demonstrable fact, so apparent is the correct word. Nice footbullet, by the way.

It doesn't make a lot of sense from the atheist side either as you lot don't think there is a God to have the power of apparently influencing events by any means.

Correct.

[Alien]

No, theists believe that God actually influences events, not just "apparently".

You said it yourself - it's just a belief rather than a demonstrable fact, so apparent is the correct word. Nice footbullet, by the way.

It doesn't make a lot of sense from the atheist side either as you lot don't think there is a God to have the power of apparently influencing events by any means.

Correct.

You are making a positive claim here that it is "just a belief" rather than a (demonstrable) fact. Such an assertion made requires backing up since the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

You have misunderstood my own claim. If God exists, then it he does more than "apparently influence" events. If there is no God then to speak of God doing magic would be stupid. If God does not exist, he cannot do magic.

Thus you are quite at liberty to speak of Christians being wrong in attributing things to God, but to speak of magic is plain silly.

[Alien]

Even if there were strong scientific evidence for something, we should still stop short of being 'certain'; certainty is an enemy of learning.

"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of the truth than lies." - Nietzsche.

Just reminded me.

Would it be your "firmly held belief or opinion" that Nietzsche was correct there, Shaker.

Nudge for Shaker.

PS You may have twigged that "A firmly held belief or opinion" is the definition of "conviction" in the OED. I am therefore asking whether you have the conviction that convictions are more dangerous enemies of the truth than lies. I do hope you will reply since it is a very interesting stance you seem to be taking here, i.e. that your own position is a more dangerous enemy of the truth than lies. Either that or you are quoting Nietzsche on something you don't believe he was right on and that would be a bit weird.

[Sassy]

Alan Burns seems to be digging himself into an even deeper hole with each post!

Where as you have already buried and covered yourself up in yours....
We are not about commentating... we are about discussing. Instead of making one sentence comments... Why not reply to the posts and give the reasons for your what would make you think as you do...It would be good to hear actual arguments from you...

[torridon]

When I listened to Richard Dawkins on the Jeremy Vine program talking about "What Makes Us Human", he stated quite simply that it was bigger brains that accounted for human qualities.  So  perhaps he was wrong too!

That would be broadly correct, perhaps good enough in the context of a popular daytime radio programme.  But absolute brain size is a crude correlator to intelligence.  Elephants and whales have larger brains than humans but I don't see them solving quadratic equations or sending probes to Pluto.

[Alan Burns]

When I listened to Richard Dawkins on the Jeremy Vine program talking about "What Makes Us Human", he stated quite simply that it was bigger brains that accounted for human qualities.  So  perhaps he was wrong too!

That would be broadly correct, perhaps good enough in the context of a popular daytime radio programme.  But absolute brain size is a crude correlator to intelligence.  Elephants and whales have larger brains than humans but I don't see them solving quadratic equations or sending probes to Pluto.

The bigger brains of elephants and whales may well account for the complex behaviour which appears to indicate some human like qualities, but these creatures are still a million miles away from having the conscious free will of human beings.  Their behaviour can still be accounted for by instinct and learnt experience.

[Nearly Sane]

When I listened to Richard Dawkins on the Jeremy Vine program talking about "What Makes Us Human", he stated quite simply that it was bigger brains that accounted for human qualities.  So  perhaps he was wrong too!

That would be broadly correct, perhaps good enough in the context of a popular daytime radio programme.  But absolute brain size is a crude correlator to intelligence.  Elephants and whales have larger brains than humans but I don't see them solving quadratic equations or sending probes to Pluto.

The bigger brains of elephants and whales may well account for the complex behaviour which appears to indicate some human like qualities, but these creatures are still a million miles away from having the conscious free will of human beings.  Their behaviour can still be accounted for by instinct and learnt experience.

I'll take assertion for 300, Alex.

[Alan Burns]

When I listened to Richard Dawkins on the Jeremy Vine program talking about "What Makes Us Human", he stated quite simply that it was bigger brains that accounted for human qualities.  So  perhaps he was wrong too!

That would be broadly correct, perhaps good enough in the context of a popular daytime radio programme.  But absolute brain size is a crude correlator to intelligence.  Elephants and whales have larger brains than humans but I don't see them solving quadratic equations or sending probes to Pluto.

The bigger brains of elephants and whales may well account for the complex behaviour which appears to indicate some human like qualities, but these creatures are still a million miles away from having the conscious free will of human beings.  Their behaviour can still be accounted for by instinct and learnt experience.

I'll take assertion for 300, Alex.

Who is Alex?

[Nearly Sane]

I'll take assertion for 300, Alex.

Who is Alex?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_trebek

[Alan Burns]

I have questioned to myself why so many non believers persist in contributing to this Christian topic.  At first I presumed it might be in order to get the satisfaction of being able to ridicule Christian beliefs.  But now I believe there is something deeper - it may be their way of searching for God, or perhaps even being led to search for Him without realising it themselves.  God really does work in mysterious ways, so I just hope and pray that they continue the search until they find Him.

[Leonard James]

I have questioned to myself why so many non believers persist in contributing to this Christian topic.  At first I presumed it might be in order to get the satisfaction of being able to ridicule Christian beliefs.  But now I believe there is something deeper - it may be their way of searching for God, or perhaps even being led to search for Him without realising it themselves.  God really does work in mysterious ways, so I just hope and pray that they continue the search until they find Him.

No matter what the reason is, Alan, beliefs are things that should be challenged by dissenters, because it gives both sides a deeper insight into them, which can only be a good thing.

[torridon]

I have questioned to myself why so many non believers persist in contributing to this Christian topic.  At first I presumed it might be in order to get the satisfaction of being able to ridicule Christian beliefs.  But now I believe there is something deeper - it may be their way of searching for God, or perhaps even being led to search for Him without realising it themselves.  God really does work in mysterious ways, so I just hope and pray that they continue the search until they find Him.

More likely, some of us just like a good argument !

But on a more serious note, I find it a form of mental discipline, in that it forces me to examine why I believe what I believe and improve the way I express it.

Also there's something irresistable about trying to reason with the unreasonable 

[BashfulAnthony]

When I listened to Richard Dawkins on the Jeremy Vine program talking about "What Makes Us Human", he stated quite simply that it was bigger brains that accounted for human qualities.  So  perhaps he was wrong too!

That would be broadly correct, perhaps good enough in the context of a popular daytime radio programme.  But absolute brain size is a crude correlator to intelligence.  Elephants and whales have larger brains than humans but I don't see them solving quadratic equations or sending probes to Pluto.

The bigger brains of elephants and whales may well account for the complex behaviour which appears to indicate some human like qualities, but these creatures are still a million miles away from having the conscious free will of human beings.  Their behaviour can still be accounted for by instinct and learnt experience.

In your opinion!

Why do you keep saying that?  This forum is about giving your opinion. 

[SusanDoris]

I have questioned to myself why so many non believers persist in contributing to this Christian topic.  At first I presumed it might be in order to get the satisfaction of being able to ridicule Christian beliefs.  But now I believe there is something deeper - it may be their way of searching for God, or perhaps even being led to search for Him without realising it themselves.  God really does work in mysterious ways, so I just hope and pray that they continue the search until they find Him.

As far as this atheist is concerned, you are entirely wrong in your suggested reasons!!

[BashfulAnthony]

I wonder what Rose's reasons are, then?

[Alan Burns]

No matter what the reason is, Alan, beliefs are things that should be challenged by dissenters, because it gives both sides a deeper insight into them, which can only be a good thing.

I agree to some extent Len.  My own Christian faith is considerably strengthened by these discussions, but I do feel frustrated at the shallow thinking behind the materialist arguments.  My Christian faith goes way beyond the wishful thinking that most atheists suggest is the root cause.  Christianity is the only thing that makes any sense of our existence, but we do not yet know the whole story.

[cyberman]

I have questioned to myself why so many non believers persist in contributing to this Christian topic.  At first I presumed it might be in order to get the satisfaction of being able to ridicule Christian beliefs.  But now I believe there is something deeper - it may be their way of searching for God, or perhaps even being led to search for Him without realising it themselves.  God really does work in mysterious ways, so I just hope and pray that they continue the search until they find Him.

Alan we have a perfect right to challenge those beliefs, especially when some Christians state them as factual, without the evidence to support the claim!

Do you ever state things as factual without evidence, floo?
(I don't see anyone suggesting that you don't have a right the challenge any beliefs, floo; do you?)

[floo]

I have questioned to myself why so many non believers persist in contributing to this Christian topic.  At first I presumed it might be in order to get the satisfaction of being able to ridicule Christian beliefs.  But now I believe there is something deeper - it may be their way of searching for God, or perhaps even being led to search for Him without realising it themselves.  God really does work in mysterious ways, so I just hope and pray that they continue the search until they find Him.

Alan we have a perfect right to challenge those beliefs, especially when some Christians state them as factual, without the evidence to support the claim!

Do you ever state things as factual without evidence, floo?
(I don't see anyone suggesting that you don't have a right the challenge any beliefs, floo; do you?)

I don't think I do. Where the Bible is concerned there is no verifiable evidence to support any of the fantastical claims. Of course they could be true but the probability is very low, imo.

[ekim]

No matter what the reason is, Alan, beliefs are things that should be challenged by dissenters, because it gives both sides a deeper insight into them, which can only be a good thing.

  Christianity is the only thing that makes any sense of our existence, but we do not yet know the whole story.

Christianity as a doctrine supported by its Creed makes little sense to me.  Many of the teachings attributed Jesus as a way to the resolving the title of this thread makes more sense.  Much of the rest seems to be related to creating a personality cult around a Jewish Rabbi.  As regards making sense of existence, there are other religions which could make an equal claim.

[cyberman]

I have questioned to myself why so many non believers persist in contributing to this Christian topic.  At first I presumed it might be in order to get the satisfaction of being able to ridicule Christian beliefs.  But now I believe there is something deeper - it may be their way of searching for God, or perhaps even being led to search for Him without realising it themselves.  God really does work in mysterious ways, so I just hope and pray that they continue the search until they find Him.

Alan we have a perfect right to challenge those beliefs, especially when some Christians state them as factual, without the evidence to support the claim!

Do you ever state things as factual without evidence, floo?
(I don't see anyone suggesting that you don't have a right the challenge any beliefs, floo; do you?)

I don't think I do. Where the Bible is concerned there is no verifiable evidence to support any of the fantastical claims. Of course they could be true but the probability is very low, imo.

And has anyone suggested you don't have the right to challenge beliefs?

[floo]

I have questioned to myself why so many non believers persist in contributing to this Christian topic.  At first I presumed it might be in order to get the satisfaction of being able to ridicule Christian beliefs.  But now I believe there is something deeper - it may be their way of searching for God, or perhaps even being led to search for Him without realising it themselves.  God really does work in mysterious ways, so I just hope and pray that they continue the search until they find Him.

Alan we have a perfect right to challenge those beliefs, especially when some Christians state them as factual, without the evidence to support the claim!

Do you ever state things as factual without evidence, floo?
(I don't see anyone suggesting that you don't have a right the challenge any beliefs, floo; do you?)

I don't think I do. Where the Bible is concerned there is no verifiable evidence to support any of the fantastical claims. Of course they could be true but the probability is very low, imo.

And has anyone suggested you don't have the right to challenge beliefs?

When I was a kid I was told one should never question what was in the Bible as it was all true. I am making up for that now!