Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

In a material earthly life we have to be self centered;

Why?

 The airline stewardess always says put on your own oxygen mask first before attempting to help others.

That's not self-centredness, that's common sense. If someone is relying on your help, you'll be a fat lot of good if you pass out trying to get them sorted first, won't you? Most people can figure that out for themselves, of course, but they point it out just in case in the panic you forget.

This snippet was in the context of why self-centred people would not be in heaven.  All biological organisms look after their own needs in order to survive; if we neglect to eat we die; selfishness operates at all levels from genes upwards and this is an indispensible facet of the nature of biological life.  It would not be like this in 'heaven' where survival is not an issue and cooperation and competition meaningless concepts.  We would not need to be self centered in heaven just as we would not have legs having no need to get around.  This is merely a reflection on the shallowness of the thinking that imagines 'heaven' as a projection of the best of earthly qualities but without the bad bits.

[Leonard James]

"Heaven", being a human illusory concept, can be anything the believer wants it to be. 

[Alan Burns]

Back on the subject of God's intervention, my wife and I were saying prayers for our friend Becky (see prayer topic), and the words from a Bob Dylan song came to mind:

Believe in His power, that's about all you've got to do

from his song: "When you gonna wake up?"

I thought this was appropriate to this thread and worth a mention.

[ekim]

And what's that "ample evidence" of, Alan?

The human soul, and its ability to perceive

You seem to be overlooking the unfortunate fact that there isn't any evidence for souls though, human or otherwise. Real evidence, I mean.

From Alan's statements .....'you are aware of your own existence' which is evidence of 'The human soul, and its ability to perceive', it seems that he is just saying ' the soul is that which is aware of existence'.  I'm not sure of his definition of 'spirit'.  Presumably Alan is posting as a soul which is aware of his ineffable God.

[Shaker]

Back on the subject of God's intervention, my wife and I were saying prayers for our friend Becky (see prayer topic), and the words from a Bob Dylan song came to mind:

Believe in His power, that's about all you've got to do

from his song: "When you gonna wake up?"

I thought this was appropriate to this thread and worth a mention.

I suppose "Trust in the proven track record of modern medical science and technology as the best, indeed only hope" doesn't scan so well.

Especially with a voice like his.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

Sorry I don't see the comparison, I am also bemused by your appeal to numbers, I could use that argument but only to show that Christianity is and always has appealed to the masses.

Christianity is a very inclusive religion, open to rich and poor, in fact one of its great appeals is that your status in life counts for nothing.

So even if this Constantine bloke did not have a vision it would still have become one of the greatest religions this world has ever seen, so luck or Divine intervention.

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

I agree whole heartedly that all view should receive a reasoned and reasonable challenge.........ever been tempted to make one on Christianity, Len?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suppose "Trust in the proven track record of modern medical science and technology as the best, indeed only hope" doesn't scan so well.

First of all there is no conflict between Christianity and trusting medical science and technology. As for the rest of the point you are trying to make, I can only give  this advice... ''Never try to emulate fine 17th century dutch crochet work using rabbit droppings''.

[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.

I agree whole heartedly that all view should receive a reasoned and reasonable challenge.........ever been tempted to make one on Christianity, Len?

Too often, I'm afraid! My time could more profitably spent elsewhere. There's no fool like an old fool!

[Shaker]

First of all there is no conflict between Christianity and trusting medical science and technology.

There is to someone who believes in petitionary prayer to alleged supernatural entities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

First of all there is no conflict between Christianity and trusting medical science and technology.

There is to someone who believes in petitionary prayer to alleged supernatural entities.

Nope. A person can make petitionary prayer and have the same trust in modern medical science and technology as an atheist short, of course, of a childish scientism held by an atheist...but of course not all......but I admit the rest of what you were trying to say did smack of a certain scientism.

[Shaker]

Nope.

Yep.

A person can make petitionary prayer and have the same trust in modern medical science and technology as an atheist short, of course, of a childish scientism held by an atheist...but of course not all......

Yes, it's called hedging your bets. Or wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

The main principle here is that such a person is exhibiting classic Orwellian doublethink - simultaneously holding two entirely contradictory and incompatible views of the world, one of which is real and the other of which is illusory.

but I admit the rest of what you were trying to say did smack of a certain scientism.

As someone once said, it's always scientism when it's your ox that's being gored

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope.

Yep.

A person can make petitionary prayer and have the same trust in modern medical science and technology as an atheist short, of course, of a childish scientism held by an atheist...but of course not all......

Yes, it's called hedging your bets. Or wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

The main principle here is that such a person is exhibiting classic Orwellian doublethink - simultaneously holding two entirely contradictory and incompatible views of the world, one of which is real and the other of which is illusory.

but I admit the rest of what you were trying to say did smack of a certain scientism.

As someone once said, it's always scientism when it's your ox that's being gored

Absolute cobblers as usual. You once again confuse philosophical materialism for methodological materialism.
I have knowledge that certain medical methods are very likely to work. You have the same knowledge. I do not share your faith though in the scientism you propound which suggests we can have faith in them working because some strange how philosophical materialism is better than faith in God.

There is no conflict between methodological materialism and faith in God. There is only conflict between faith and God and faith in science alone(scientism).

[Shaker]

Absolute cobblers as usual. You once again confuse philosophical materialism for methodological materialism.
I have knowledge that certain medical methods are very likely to work. You have the same knowledge. I do not share your faith though in the scientism you propound which suggests we can have faith in them working because some strange how philosophical materialism is better than faith in God.

I wasn't referring to any distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism/materialism - that's simply your usual pet obsession and hobbyhorse at work again, from which we've had a welcome, much-needed but alas all too short break.

There is no conflict between methodological materialism and faith in God. There is only conflict between faith and God and faith in science (scientism).

One of the many great things about science which differentiates it from any of the gods, goblets and godlings believed in by the terminally credulous is that it works whether you believe in it or not, old fruit

I call it Bohr's horseshoe principle

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Absolute cobblers as usual. You once again confuse philosophical materialism for methodological materialism.
I have knowledge that certain medical methods are very likely to work. You have the same knowledge. I do not share your faith though in the scientism you propound which suggests we can have faith in them working because some strange how philosophical materialism is better than faith in God.

I wasn't referring to any distinction between methodological and philosophical naturalism/materialism - that's simply your usual pet obsession and hobbyhorse at work again, from which we've had a welcome, much-needed but alas all too short break.

There is no conflict between methodological materialism and faith in God. There is only conflict between faith and God and faith in science (scientism).

One of the many great things about science which differentiates it from any of the gods, goblets and godlings believed in by the terminally credulous is that it works whether you believe in it or not, old fruit

Yes, it works relatively unfailingly because it follows laws, Shaker.
That suggests a lawmaker

[Shaker]

No it doesn't. You need to learn a bit more - in fact a lot more - about the quantum world and see how lawful that is

Of course, if you want to run with your idea of a conscious and intelligent creator of laws, we can then have an interesting discussion on why it operates laws in such a way as to cause such incredible misery, mayhem and havoc to sentient beings.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it doesn't. You need to learn a bit more - in fact a lot more - about the quantum world and see how lawful that is

Of course, if you want to run with your idea of a conscious and intelligent creator of laws, we can then have an interesting discussion on why it operates laws in such a way as to cause such incredible misery, mayhem and havoc to sentient beings.

Shaker...There is no way to get from ''science works'' to ''there is no God''... end of.

If the universe is ultimately lawless as you now seem to be saying......in what way then can science work? I think you are making too much of the ''quantum thing''.

[Shaker]

Shaker...There is no way to get from ''science works'' to ''there is no God''... end of.

But there's a pretty nifty shortcut from "science works" to "... and that's how we know that your beliefs are poorly or even undefined, and have no basis in evidence whatsoever. Moreover, the better evidence comes in explaining why you hold these beliefs."

If the universe is ultimately lawless as you now seem to be saying......in what way then can science work? I think you are making too much of the ''quantum thing''.

Wasn't aware that I'd said any such thing, but have fun playing with your straw.

[Jack Knave]

How can you search for something that doesn't exist?

Well, you can, but you'll never find it.

Where has all our information and claims of God come from?

From the mouth of men, and that is Its root - no one can show this to be otherwise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How can you search for something that doesn't exist?

Well, you can, but you'll never find it.

Where has all our information and claims of God come from?

From the mouth of men, and that is Its root - no one can show this to be otherwise.

Jack, You start from an assumption that something doesn't exist.
I would have thought it best to start from what is the nature of the claim that something may exist...or even, why is the question of this things existence bothering me.

[Leonard James]

How can you search for something that doesn't exist?

Well, you can, but you'll never find it.

Where has all our information and claims of God come from?

From the mouth of men, and that is Its root - no one can show this to be otherwise.

Cue that get-out clause!

They were inspired by "God" to say it. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Shaker...There is no way to get from ''science works'' to ''there is no God''... end of.

But there's a pretty nifty shortcut from "science works" to "...

I don't suppose you care to demonstrate?.......Thought not.

[Shaker]

I don't suppose you care to demonstrate?.......Thought not.

Wouldn't have thought I'd have had to, old bean

[Leonard James]

I don't suppose you care to demonstrate?.......Thought not.

Wouldn't have thought I'd have had to, old bean

You should never underestimate the thickness of some brains.

[Jack Knave]

How can you search for something that doesn't exist?

Well, you can, but you'll never find it.

Where has all our information and claims of God come from?

From the mouth of men, and that is Its root - no one can show this to be otherwise.

Jack, You start from an assumption that something doesn't exist.
I would have thought it best to start from what is the nature of the claim that something may exist...or even, why is the question of this things existence bothering me.

I explain why it doesn't exist in the second bit - it has come from the mouth of men alone.

The nature of this claim is psychological, specifically archetypal in nature.

It bothers you because your level of consciousness is conflicting with your instinct and animal/human nature.