Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Nobody has claimed it in the way you are saying they have claimed it.

I have said frequently and I am sure others have that there is no knock down intellectual argument.

"...no knock down intellectual argument" for what? Your claim that you "intuit" objective truths?

That's not your problem. Rather your problem is that there is no argument of any sort, "knock down" or otherwise. Just asserting a personal belief is not an argument.

Does this mean that they should remain ever silent about what we all assume looks like a belief? Of course not.

No-one has suggested that anyone "should remain ever silent" at all. You're conflating the right to speak with the right to be listened to - claim anything you like, but don't expect those claims to be taken seriously until and unless you can finally make a coherent argument for them.

Something else...

"Something else"? What was the first thing?

...you seem to have wilfully ignored is there is an aspect of personal involvement in religion.

I haven't ignored it at all. Anyone can be "personally involved" in any religious beliefs they happen to like. What though does that have to do with establishing that those subjective truths are also objective truths for the rest of us?

Yours and others continual retreat into mother science is an escape from reaching a position in thinking about religion where personal commitment is involved.

Did that mean something in your head when you wrote it? See above.

So I think a) nobody is making a claim in the sense you mean it

Yes you did. Read your post that led to it.

b) you are not backward in making claims anyway, I can remember at least 3 occasions when you said you had disproved and buried moral realism exhorting everybody to ''move on''.

Wrong again. What I said (and say) is that the arguments for it are fallacious. That doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist, but it does mean that there's no coherent reason to think that it does.

c) I think people on the religious side are more likely to be on here out of a serious concern about spreading the benefits than those wanting to ''high strut'' the boards of an internet debating society.

Maybe, but what does that have to do with whether whether the claims of fact they make are true?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are absolutely off the mark when you say religions have no internal common beliefs. Particularly worrying when I provided a list of beliefs from three religions which have remained common to each of those religions.

Where did you do that, and how does similarities between some religious traditions (usually the contiguous ones) have anything to say to whether any of their claims are true?

The non cogency of agreed religious belief is a bit of an antitheists myth which I've yet to see the substance of.

Do you mean "cogency" or "commonality" there? None of them have cogent arguments to verify their claims of factual truths, and there's very little commonality. What commonalities for example do you think there to be between your faith and the religious beliefs of the Australian aborigines? Come to think of it, what commonality of beliefs to you think there to be between your version of christianity and that of, say, a Fred Phelps?

This is I move a point of envy for the scientism fraternity whose beliefs are relatively recent and unfortunately probably held by a tiny elite who have mistaken what they do for a living with the way the world is, and a mass of people who remain stubbornly ignorant of science but absolutely believe it will answer all their needs....What could be more traditionally '' organised religious '' than a priestly knowing elite mediating knowledge to an uninformed mass?

You appear to have fallen into the deep end of lake bonkers here. What are you even trying to say?

In terms of Darwinism we have universal Darwinists such as Dawkins who advocates the Darwinian cosmology of Smolin.

They only "advocate" it in the sense that it's a model that would fit with other parts of the Universe as it appears to be - life consisting of matter and forces that adapts to changed environments. There are no claims beyond that, however diligently you keep stuffing your straw man.

[Rhiannon]

I can't bring myself to imagine something which I know does not exist. 

Can you imagine Sherlock Holmes?

Do not try telling me that my Sherlock isn't real.

[Alan Burns]

You make a choice about something at anyone moment. If you could re-enact that moment exactly - go back in time to the exact same moment with the exact same prior experiences, knowledge etc would you make exactly the same decision as before?

The answer has to be a big No.

Because my choices are driven by thought processes which occur real time and are not pre determined.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nobody has claimed it in the way you are saying they have claimed it.

I have said frequently and I am sure others have that there is no knock down intellectual argument.

"...no knock down intellectual argument" for what? Your claim that you "intuit" objective truths?

That's not your problem. Rather your problem is that there is no argument of any sort, "knock down" or otherwise. Just asserting a personal belief is not an argument.

Since God or the idea of God appears in philosophy, art, history and yes speculative cosmology as well (Greene and Tegmark's simulated multiverse) your statement is to be seen for what it is.................... mouth foaming angry rhetoric.

Arguments for God pop up everywhere. Even philosophical naturalism appeals to divine attributes with it's ''give us a miracle........the universe as an uncaused cause or an eternal universe..........and we'll explain the rest''.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You are absolutely off the mark when you say religions have no internal common beliefs. Particularly worrying when I provided a list of beliefs from three religions which have remained common to each of those religions.

Where did you do that, and how does similarities between some religious traditions (usually the contiguous ones) have anything to say to whether any of their claims are true?

The non cogency of agreed religious belief is a bit of an antitheists myth which I've yet to see the substance of.

Do you mean "cogency" or "commonality" there? None of them have cogent arguments to verify their claims of factual truths, and there's very little commonality. What commonalities for example do you think there to be between your faith and the religious beliefs of the Australian aborigines? Come to think of it, what commonality of beliefs to you think there to be between your version of christianity and that of, say, a Fred Phelps?

This is I move a point of envy for the scientism fraternity whose beliefs are relatively recent and unfortunately probably held by a tiny elite who have mistaken what they do for a living with the way the world is, and a mass of people who remain stubbornly ignorant of science but absolutely believe it will answer all their needs....What could be more traditionally '' organised religious '' than a priestly knowing elite mediating knowledge to an uninformed mass?

You appear to have fallen into the deep end of lake bonkers here. What are you even trying to say?

In terms of Darwinism we have universal Darwinists such as Dawkins who advocates the Darwinian cosmology of Smolin.

They only "advocate" it in the sense that it's a model that would fit with other parts of the Universe as it appears to be - life consisting of matter and forces that adapts to changed environments. There are no claims beyond that, however diligently you keep stuffing your straw man.

I think the closest to Fred Phelps beliefs between you and me is you with your exclusive attitude to who should get public forum (i.e. not religious people).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They only "advocate" it in the sense that it's a model that would fit with other parts of the Universe as it appears to be - life consisting of matter and forces that adapts to changed environments. There are no claims beyond that, however diligently you keep stuffing your straw man.

No I think it's clear from ''The God Delusion'' that Dawkins advocates Smolin's theory and indeed Smolin because it supports universal darwinianism. He ignores lots of multiverse theory in order to advance the Smolin theory.

Dawkins has form for advocacy in science as spotted by Dr Elsdon Baker in her work ''The Selfish Genius''.

[Alan Burns]

You are wedded to the idea of freewill for theological reasons and it fits with your perception. No matter what argument or evidence is presented you will stick with this belief.

You rightly point out that I believe free will and self awareness to be evidence for my Christian faith because they fit in with the concept of a human soul.

But these do not form the core of my Christian faith.
Other aspects of my faith include:
* The love shown by other fellow Christians
* The life changing witness stories from those who discover Christian faith.
* My own life changing experience
* My personal relationship with Jesus through prayer
* The profound message of the Gospels
* The life stories of the Christian saints
* Miracles
* The awareness of the power of evil

It all adds up to the truth that I am brought into existence as a unique living entity by a loving Creator to share in His divine plan.

The alternative explanation that I am just an accidental blip in the ever increasing chaos of this apparently hostile universe is an impossible fantasy in my mind.

[Rhiannon]

Is the love of Christians superior to the love of others then?

[Shaker]

Is the love of Christians superior to the love of others then?

Oh definitely. They've cornered the market in it, you know. For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son Robert Powell and all that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is the love of Christians superior to the love of others then?

Oh definitely. They've cornered the market in it, you know. For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son Robert Powell and all that.

You cannot put your total faith in science Shaker and have love rather than an evolved ploy that ultimately leads to the survival of self, a few selfish genes or at most a ploy to get one's leg over.

[Shaker]

Why not?

[Maeght]

You rightly point out that I believe free will and self awareness to be evidence for my Christian faith because they fit in with the concept of a human soul.

But these do not form the core of my Christian faith.

Other aspects of my faith include:
* The love shown by other fellow Christians
* The life changing witness stories from those who discover Christian faith.
* My own life changing experience
* My personal relationship with Jesus through prayer
* The profound message of the Gospels
* The life stories of the Christian saints
* Miracles
* The awareness of the power of evil

It all adds up to the truth that I am brought into existence as a unique living entity by a loving Creator to share in His divine plan.

All of which can be disputed of course. But since you have faith you believe in them, as you do free will, not the other way around in my view.

The alternative explanation that I am just an accidental blip in the ever increasing chaos of this apparently hostile universe is an impossible fantasy in my mind.

Because of your beliefs this may not seem acceptable but to describe it as a fantasy is nonsense really. it doesn't fit with your beliefs - fine - but that doesn't mean its not the case.

[Alan Burns]

Is the love of Christians superior to the love of others then?

Love is a God given gift to us all.
I see this gift of love in all people.

However, I would like to recall the witness story of a young Muslim man who converted to Christianity.

He was walking through London when he came across a group of Christians who were going to a meeting, and he was invited to join them for a coffee.  He did not like the idea of attending a Christian meeting, but he did like the idea of a free coffee, so he joined them, intending to make a quick escape after his coffee.  He then encounted a genuine welcome from strangers which surpassed anything he had previously experienced.  He discovered the love which God intends us to share, and genuine Christian faith will help us to share it.

[Maeght]

Is the love of Christians superior to the love of others then?

Love is a God given gift to us all.
I see this gift of love in all people.

However, I would like to recall the witness story of a young Muslim man who converted to Christianity.

He was walking through London when he came across a group of Christians who were going to a meeting, and he was invited to join them for a coffee.  He did not like the idea of attending a Christian meeting, but he did like the idea of a free coffee, so he joined them, intending to make a quick escape after his coffee.  He then encounted a genuine welcome from strangers which surpassed anything he had previously experienced.  He discovered the love which God intends us to share, and genuine Christian faith will help us to share it.

And I'd like to recount the story of when I was at University and was invited along to a 'get to know you' meal by a young woman on my course who was very smiley, friendly and a bit flirty. I went along to find out it was a Christian group and when I didn't 'sign up' was ignored by all at the event and by the young women for the rest of my time at Uni.

Some people are friendly and welcoming, some have alterior motives, some people are unfriendly - and this applies across the board. This Muslim man may or may not just have been lucky but to give one example doesn't mean a great deal.

[Nearly Sane]

When I was 4, I ran off to join the Elim Pentecostal church as they offered singing and cake.

[floo]

When I was 4, I ran off to join the Elim Pentecostal church as they offered singing and cake.

Blimey ours never offered cake!

[ippy]

Is the love of Christians superior to the love of others then?

Love is a God given gift to us all.
I see this gift of love in all people.

However, I would like to recall the witness story of a young Muslim man who converted to Christianity.

He was walking through London when he came across a group of Christians who were going to ia meeting, and he was invited to join them for a coffee.  He did not like the idea of attending a Christian meeting, but he did like the idea of a free coffee, so he joined them, intending to make a quick escape after his coffee.  He then encounted a genuine welcome from strangers which surpassed anything he had previously experienced.  He discovered the love which God intends us to share, and genuine Christian faith will help us to share it.

Love is good , of course, it is one of lifes most rewarding experiences without a doubt but reason tells the more realistic and evidential explaination is the genetics and evlutionary route and of course the goddy goddy bit has had it's part within our social history and it certainly seems to have out lived is place.

The gradual decline of the religions here, is showing the signs allready in the more developed countrys where higher educational standards are leading the way,  I'm sure the religions will manage to hang on for some time but gradually and largley fizzling out in the end.

There'll always be a few hangers on, like your good self Alan, so the future generations will at least know something about how the religions were in the old days and have some idea of what it was like; something like the way we now view the aincent Greek and Roman gods.

Really thinking all things are delivered to us via this god thing of yours Alan, really only amounts to a bit of a flowery romancing idea, but there you are Alan, if it floats your boat.

ippy

[OH MY WORLD!]

Chopperman,
You're another godless atheist with that arrogant and bigoted, the people in the developing world are stupid and unschooled. Once we get a hold of them, they will want to dump God.
Well Europe's influence is in decline, so have fun trying to get a hold of all those uneducated people around the world.

[Shaker]

You're another godless atheist

Do you call people who are not men 'female women' too, by any chance?

[Sassy]

Is the love of Christians superior to the love of others then?

Oh definitely. They've cornered the market in it, you know. For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son Robert Powell and all that.

It is agape love not Eros Love. Look up the difference.

You believe and do everything from what you personally want to believe.
But agape love is very different as it is a selfless love not a selfish love as Eros.

[Shaker]

It is agape love not Eros Love. Look up the difference.

Nobody ever mentioned agape or eros until you, for some utterly bizarre known-only-to-yourself reason, did so. Therefore this is utterly irrelevant.

You believe and do everything from what you personally want to believe.

No I don't. I'm not able to choose what I believe.

But agape love is very different as it is a selfless love not a selfish love as Eros.

Back to the irrelevance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Me:

That's not your problem. Rather your problem is that there is no argument of any sort, "knock down" or otherwise. Just asserting a personal belief is not an argument.

You:

Since God or the idea of God appears in philosophy, art, history and yes speculative cosmology as well (Greene and Tegmark's simulated multiverse) your statement is to be seen for what it is.................... mouth foaming angry rhetoric.

Nurse! He’s out again!

First, the “idea’ of any manner of gods, ghosts, spooks and ghoulies has appeared in myth, folklore, art etc. That though says nothing to whether or not any of the stories are actually true.

Second, so far as I’m aware Greene and Tegmark posit hypotheses rather than theories, and I’m not aware that either of them argues for your or any other god as part of that. If you think otherwise, provide a citation.

Third, the only “argument” you’ve ever attempted so far as I’m aware is just to assert that whatever has popped into your head (or as you prefer to gussy it up, “intuit”) is by some unknown process necessarily an objective fact for the rest of us too. That’s the problem you’ve just avoided again with irrelevance and mistake.

Arguments for God pop up everywhere. Even philosophical naturalism appeals to divine attributes with it's ''give us a miracle........the universe as an uncaused cause or an eternal universe..........and we'll explain the rest''.

Is there a coherent thought in there somewhere? Philosophical naturalism does no such thing of course, despite your just making up a straw man version of it to dismiss.

I think the closest to Fred Phelps beliefs between you and me is you with your exclusive attitude to who should get public forum (i.e. not religious people).

Further evasions noted. As for your latest dishonesty, so far as I’m aware I’ve never once suggested that anyone should be denied the right to speak – just the opposite in fact.

What I do say though is that those like you who spout undefined, unargued and unevidenced claims and expect the rest of us to take them seriously are not even in the game. You’re “not even wrong”, and there’s your problem right there.

[Shaker]

... and that's another example of how to do it 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Me:

That's not your problem. Rather your problem is that there is no argument of any sort, "knock down" or otherwise. Just asserting a personal belief is not an argument.

You:

Since God or the idea of God appears in philosophy, art, history and yes speculative cosmology as well (Greene and Tegmark's simulated multiverse) your statement is to be seen for what it is.................... mouth foaming angry rhetoric.

Nurse! He’s out again!

First, the “idea’ of any manner of gods, ghosts, spooks and ghoulies has appeared in myth, folklore, art etc. That though says nothing to whether or not any of the stories are actually true.

Second, so far as I’m aware Greene and Tegmark posit hypotheses rather than theories, and I’m not aware that either of them argues for your or any other god as part of that. If you think otherwise, provide a citation.

Third, the only “argument” you’ve ever attempted so far as I’m aware is just to assert that whatever has popped into your head (or as you prefer to gussy it up, “intuit”) is by some unknown process necessarily an objective fact for the rest of us too. That’s the problem you’ve just avoided again with irrelevance and mistake.

Arguments for God pop up everywhere. Even philosophical naturalism appeals to divine attributes with it's ''give us a miracle........the universe as an uncaused cause or an eternal universe..........and we'll explain the rest''.

Is there a coherent thought in there somewhere? Philosophical naturalism does no such thing of course, despite your just making up a straw man version of it to dismiss.

I think the closest to Fred Phelps beliefs between you and me is you with your exclusive attitude to who should get public forum (i.e. not religious people).

Further evasions noted. As for your latest dishonesty, so far as I’m aware I’ve never once suggested that anyone should be denied the right to speak – just the opposite in fact.

What I do say though is that those like you who spout undefined, unargued and unevidenced claims and expect the rest of us to take them seriously are not even in the game. You’re “not even wrong”, and there’s your problem right there.

Blue, once eminent and respected scientists start talking about simulated universes the game is more or less up for the necessity of a universe which a)is eternal b)comes about through unconscious ''nature''.

Philosophical materialism is the ultimate circular argument gambit, it's followers state it is true because only material things can be and only material things can be because philosophical materialism is.

You constantly confuse the methodology with the philosophy.

Lastly you frequently argue that a subjective morality is intuited and you think that's OK as an argument.