Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Norn irland? Bit better than Norn Crear. To attribute the extraordinary shilpit mingpit that is Northern Ireland as solely a religious, or even mainly a religious problem misses that the history of small differences can happen over eggs - thank you dear Dean Swift.

[Alan Burns]

The Bible is not about male domination.  It is not about female suppression.  It is not about installing power structures.  It is not about the endorsement of slavery.  It is about the eternal salvation of the human soul.

I might go along with that, broadly.

But the fact that there are elements of the above entwined into it, are pointers to the fact that the bible is a collection of works by diverse human minds; there may be an overarching theme of the trajectory of ancient jewish thinking regarding Man and his relationship with God, but the diversity in the texts attests to the diversity of its human authorship.

As the bible, though divinely inspired, was written by humans, it will be prone to some human ideas based on the traditions in place at the time, but we should not let this detract from the profound message of salvation which is just as valid now as it was two thousand years ago.

[Leonard James]

But if you believe that God was created in human imagination, surely the obvious logic you state above would have been incorporated into this imaginary god, making him somewhat less of the loving God depicted in the bible.

Don't be silly, Alan. The human mind is capable of inventing all kinds of things, from wicked and hateful to divine and loving. It has done so in the Bible. However, I would hardly describe the god depicted in the OT as loving.

I see you don't attempt to 'explain' the anomaly I pointed out.

Difficult, isn't it? 

[Alan Burns]

But if you believe that God was created in human imagination, surely the obvious logic you state above would have been incorporated into this imaginary god, making him somewhat less of the loving God depicted in the bible.

Don't be silly, Alan. The human mind is capable of inventing all kinds of things, from wicked and hateful to divine and loving. It has done so in the Bible. However, I would hardly describe the god depicted in the OT as loving.

I see you don't attempt to 'explain' the anomaly I pointed out.

Difficult, isn't it? 

I know there are many things difficult to explain with our limited human intelect, but I remain certain that it was God that brought everything into existence.
And your anomaly pales into insignificance compared to explaining how your self awareness and free will can eminate solely from the sub atomic particles which make up your brain.

[Leonard James]

But if you believe that God was created in human imagination, surely the obvious logic you state above would have been incorporated into this imaginary god, making him somewhat less of the loving God depicted in the bible.

Don't be silly, Alan. The human mind is capable of inventing all kinds of things, from wicked and hateful to divine and loving. It has done so in the Bible. However, I would hardly describe the god depicted in the OT as loving.

I see you don't attempt to 'explain' the anomaly I pointed out.

Difficult, isn't it? 

I know there are many things difficult to explain with our limited human intelect, but I remain certain that it was God that brought everthything into existence.
And your anomaly pales into insignificance compared to explaining how your self awareness and free will can eminate solely from the sub atomic particles which make up your brain.

Simple ... evolution! But I accept that you cannot see it.

[Alien]

Alien,

So what significant difference is there between what I said Christian faith is and what you termed the prosaic meaning?

All the difference in the world, which is why the tenets of your "faith" (religious sense) aren't taught as facts in most schools, whereas the "faith" of car mechanics (prosaic sense) are. The moment you ever find a method to test your claims that could change of course, but for now they're qualitatively different things.

I asked what significant difference there is between what I said Christian faith is and what you termed the prosaic meaning, not between what you think Christian faith is and what you termed the prosaic meaning. I'm not asking you to say that we are correct in our assessment of the evidence we claim to have for Christianity being correct, but I am pointing out that the way the word "faith" is used by people like your good self to describe what we mean by it is incorrect.

[Alien]

Wow, Dicky, thank you! You are yet another guy who seems to know a good deal more about Christianity than most others here.

Thanks, Leonard. I first came across Marcion in Prof. Hans Jonas' classic work on Gnosticism, decades ago. I thought him an interesting character, but even then thought he was just twisting things to make up a Jesus 'closer to his heart's desire'.
As a matter of interest, there is some debate that Marcion should be considered a Gnostic, as Rhiannon seems to suggest - and I think Alan (Alien) would agree with this (he's written a monograph on Gnosticism, apparently - perhaps he should put it online, so that we can all read it I totally disagree with Alan's evangelical Christianity, but I can't deny that he seems to be well-read). However, the Gnostics in general seemed to have agreed that their evil demiurge was effectively the same ignorant entity as the god of the OT.

It was an essay as part of my Reader/Lay Minister training a while back. I agree there is debate about whether Marcion was a Gnostic. He was Gnosticish

[ippy]

Wow, Dicky, thank you! You are yet another guy who seems to know a good deal more about Christianity than most others here.

Thanks, Leonard. I first came across Marcion in Prof. Hans Jonas' classic work on Gnosticism, decades ago. I thought him an interesting character, but even then thought he was just twisting things to make up a Jesus 'closer to his heart's desire'.
As a matter of interest, there is some debate that Marcion should be considered a Gnostic, as Rhiannon seems to suggest - and I think Alan (Alien) would agree with this (he's written a monograph on Gnosticism, apparently - perhaps he should put it online, so that we can all read it I totally disagree with Alan's evangelical Christianity, but I can't deny that he seems to be well-read). However, the Gnostics in general seemed to have agreed that their evil demiurge was effectively the same ignorant entity as the god of the OT.

It was an essay as part of my Reader/Lay Minister training a while back. I agree there is debate about whether Marcion was a Gnostic. He was Gnosticish

"It was an essay as part of my Reader/Lay Minister training a while back. I agree there is debate about whether Marcion was a Gnostic. He was Gnosticish".

Another waste of time irrelevance.

ippy

[torridon]

Don't be silly, Alan. The human mind is capable of inventing all kinds of things, from wicked and hateful to divine and loving. It has done so in the Bible. However, I would hardly describe the god depicted in the OT as loving.

I see you don't attempt to 'explain' the anomaly I pointed out.

Difficult, isn't it? 

I know there are many things difficult to explain with our limited human intelect, but I remain certain that it was God that brought everything into existence.
And your anomaly pales into insignificance compared to explaining how your self awareness and free will can eminate solely from the sub atomic particles which make up your brain.

And explaining how self awareness and free will can emanate solely from the particles which make up a brain pales into insignificance compared to explaining how God came to be.  All your explanations for everything ultimately boil down to 'god did it' with no attempt to explain god in the first place. 'God' is popular because it gets us out of trying to understand difficult things, it provides an easy get-out-of-bafflement card and using that card requires that we renounce asking persistently searching questions.

[Rhiannon]

Your post reminds me of a short text on a talk given by CS Lewis entitled "Fern Seed and Elephants".  He describes his experience as a writer having his work analysed by literary experts to discern the real hidden meanings in his books.  He discussed the matter with fellow authors and they found that the experts had used some very well thought out reasoning to discover the real meanings from their books, but in every case the experts were found to be 100% wrong in discerning any hidden meanings intended by the authors.  He goes on to say that if literary experts fail to do this with present day literature, what chance do they have of accurately discerning the real meanings behind texts which were written thousands of years ago?  He likens it to explorers who are so intent on discovering fern seeds in the undergrowth that the fail to see the elephant standing in front of them.

The Bible is not about male domination.  It is not about female suppression.  It is not about installing power structures.  It is not about the endorsement of slavery.  It is about the eternal salvation of the human soul.

My post was more about what I consider wrong about Marcion's approach. He seemed to think he knew who and what the 'real' Jesus was - ideas which when analysed seem more to do with selective quoting and his own personal preferences than anything else.
You seem to have homed in on my words about the approach of modern scholars to the 'historical Jesus' - at least I think that's what you're alluding to. Well, we certainly can't be sure, but there are a number of established criteria which can be used to sift through the swathes of often incomprehensible and sometimes contradictory texts.
No doubt you feel that the Gospels in particular, and perhaps the whole Bible have to be regarded as divinely inspired documents, whose meaning is only manifest to the totally believing Christian. Unfortunately, the supposed 'true meanings' of the texts in question often depend on which of the vast array of different Christian varieties and individual Christians that you ask.

Have you been looking at the Jesus Seminar stuff?

[BashfulAnthony]

Wow, Dicky, thank you! You are yet another guy who seems to know a good deal more about Christianity than most others here.

Thanks, Leonard. I first came across Marcion in Prof. Hans Jonas' classic work on Gnosticism, decades ago. I thought him an interesting character, but even then thought he was just twisting things to make up a Jesus 'closer to his heart's desire'.
As a matter of interest, there is some debate that Marcion should be considered a Gnostic, as Rhiannon seems to suggest - and I think Alan (Alien) would agree with this (he's written a monograph on Gnosticism, apparently - perhaps he should put it online, so that we can all read it I totally disagree with Alan's evangelical Christianity, but I can't deny that he seems to be well-read). However, the Gnostics in general seemed to have agreed that their evil demiurge was effectively the same ignorant entity as the god of the OT.

It was an essay as part of my Reader/Lay Minister training a while back. I agree there is debate about whether Marcion was a Gnostic. He was Gnosticish

"It was an essay as part of my Reader/Lay Minister training a while back. I agree there is debate about whether Marcion was a Gnostic. He was Gnosticish".

Another waste of time irrelevance.

ippy

That could quite easily be a description of your presence her, and to your "contribution" to debate.

[Alan Burns]

Don't be silly, Alan. The human mind is capable of inventing all kinds of things, from wicked and hateful to divine and loving. It has done so in the Bible. However, I would hardly describe the god depicted in the OT as loving.

I see you don't attempt to 'explain' the anomaly I pointed out.

Difficult, isn't it? 

I know there are many things difficult to explain with our limited human intelect, but I remain certain that it was God that brought everything into existence.
And your anomaly pales into insignificance compared to explaining how your self awareness and free will can eminate solely from the sub atomic particles which make up your brain.

And explaining how self awareness and free will can emanate solely from the particles which make up a brain pales into insignificance compared to explaining how God came to be.  All your explanations for everything ultimately boil down to 'god did it' with no attempt to explain god in the first place. 'God' is popular because it gets us out of trying to understand difficult things, it provides an easy get-out-of-bafflement card and using that card requires that we renounce asking persistently searching questions.

We can't possibly "explain" God because we have no knowledge or insight of whatever exists beyond our universe.  I am certain of God's existence because of the overwheming evidence of His creativity, and in particular my own awareness of my existence.  I do not need to explain God to be aware of His existence.

[ippy]

Wow, Dicky, thank you! You are yet another guy who seems to know a good deal more about Christianity than most others here.

Thanks, Leonard. I first came across Marcion in Prof. Hans Jonas' classic work on Gnosticism, decades ago. I thought him an interesting character, but even then thought he was just twisting things to make up a Jesus 'closer to his heart's desire'.
As a matter of interest, there is some debate that Marcion should be considered a Gnostic, as Rhiannon seems to suggest - and I think Alan (Alien) would agree with this (he's written a monograph on Gnosticism, apparently - perhaps he should put it online, so that we can all read it I totally disagree with Alan's evangelical Christianity, but I can't deny that he seems to be well-read). However, the Gnostics in general seemed to have agreed that their evil demiurge was effectively the same ignorant entity as the god of the OT.

It was an essay as part of my Reader/Lay Minister training a while back. I agree there is debate about whether Marcion was a Gnostic. He was Gnosticish

"It was an essay as part of my Reader/Lay Minister training a while back. I agree there is debate about whether Marcion was a Gnostic. He was Gnosticish".

Another waste of time irrelevance.

ippy

That could quite easily be a description of your presence her, and to your "contribution" to debate.

Hi there BA you've had some bad days lately, don't worry to much you'll get over it.

Not that it's worth that much space but that discussion was akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Since the idea of gods doing mythical and magical performances and belief in supernatural happenings is totally unable to establish any credibility it has become just another waste of time irrelevance, so unless there was a chance of saving the ship_________________? Ditto.   

I wouldn't have thought a diagram is necessary BA.

ippy

[torridon]

I know there are many things difficult to explain with our limited human intelect, but I remain certain that it was God that brought everything into existence.
And your anomaly pales into insignificance compared to explaining how your self awareness and free will can eminate solely from the sub atomic particles which make up your brain.

And explaining how self awareness and free will can emanate solely from the particles which make up a brain pales into insignificance compared to explaining how God came to be.  All your explanations for everything ultimately boil down to 'god did it' with no attempt to explain god in the first place. 'God' is popular because it gets us out of trying to understand difficult things, it provides an easy get-out-of-bafflement card and using that card requires that we renounce asking persistently searching questions.

We can't possibly "explain" God because we have no knowledge or insight of whatever exists beyond our universe.  I am certain of God's existence because of the overwheming evidence of His creativity, and in particular my own awareness of my existence.  I do not need to explain God to be aware of His existence.

The inexplicability of God thus renders redundant all the things that God purports to explain. A line of reasoning is only as strong as its weakest link.  'Acceptance' of God is simultaneously an admission of defeat in our effort to understand things.  It says, 'I give up, it must be magic', and that applies to all God-derived notions such as souls, afterlife, evil etc.  None of these concepts have any empirical validity, all being built merely on the ineffable paradox of God.

[Alan Burns]

The inexplicability of God thus renders redundant all the things that God purports to explain. A line of reasoning is only as strong as its weakest link.  'Acceptance' of God is simultaneously an admission of defeat in our effort to understand things.  It says, 'I give up, it must be magic', and that applies to all God-derived notions such as souls, afterlife, evil etc.  None of these concepts have any empirical validity, all being built merely on the ineffable paradox of God.

If you limit the scope of your efforts to understand everything to the portal of scientific investigation you will never fully succeed.  You need to recognise that there are limits to what scientific investigation can discover about reality.  Science may be good at defining the consequences of events, but it does not define the causes of all events.   And it does not define the essence of human thought, though it may define its consequences.

[Outrider]

If you limit the scope of your efforts to understand everything to the portal of scientific investigation you will never fully succeed.

Indeed, we have purely logical deduction, mathematics... you need reliable systems, however. What other reliable systems would you suggest?

You need to recognise that there are limits to what scientific investigation can discover about reality.  Science may be good at defining the consequences of events, but it does not define the causes of all events.

You have a better method? Yes science has limitations, but it can reliably inform on the cause of most events.

And it does not define the essence of human thought, though it may define its consequences.

And here's where you resort to assertion. You don't like the idea that science could completely define 'the essence of human thought' but you don't actually have a reason to decide that, just a motivation.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Indeed, we have purely logical deduction, mathematics... you need reliable systems, however. What other reliable systems would you suggest?

I would have to say divine revelation.  I know you will claim that this can't be defined as a reliable system for discerning truth because it is prone to being susceptible to human imagination and speculation.  But if our Creator does reveal truths to us through revelation to chosen people (or Himself made man), we need to be open to this method of communication and hope that we will be able to filter out the false revelations.

[Outrider]

I would have to say divine revelation.  I know you will claim that this can't be defined as a reliable system for discerning truth because it is prone to being susceptible to human imagination and speculation.  But if our Creator does reveal truths to us through revelation to chosen people (or Himself made man), we need to be open to this method of communication and hope that we will be able to filter out the false revelations.

As you rightly say, though, there's no capacity to verify that, which makes it an unreliable source for the populace at large. Equally, even for the individual, given that it's (to the best of my knowledge) indistinguishable from hallucinations or delusions - even the individual has no justification for being convinced, regardless of how ardently they hold to the belief that it's a genuine 'vision'. I'm not definitively saying that it isn't, just that it's not a reliable method of discerning anything about reality.

O.

[torridon]

The inexplicability of God thus renders redundant all the things that God purports to explain. A line of reasoning is only as strong as its weakest link.  'Acceptance' of God is simultaneously an admission of defeat in our effort to understand things.  It says, 'I give up, it must be magic', and that applies to all God-derived notions such as souls, afterlife, evil etc.  None of these concepts have any empirical validity, all being built merely on the ineffable paradox of God.

If you limit the scope of your efforts to understand everything to the portal of scientific investigation you will never fully succeed.  You need to recognise that there are limits to what scientific investigation can discover about reality.  Science may be good at defining the consequences of events, but it does not define the causes of all events.   And it does not define the essence of human thought, though it may define its consequences.

There may be limits to what we can discover, that is not a reflection on the limits of science, per se, but a general acknowlegement of epistemiology.  Whatever there is that we can discover, however, can be discovered by scientific enquiry, in the broadest sense.  If there is a god, which can be discovered, then it can be discovered by science, ultimately.  My view on that is that science will never discover god, the reason being that, like four sided triangles,  god is not part of the set of discoverable things - because that is how we define god; we define god as inexplicable, beyond all human comprehension. A god that was amenable to dissection and analysis wouldn't really be god at all, it would be a parody, an effigy, a mere representation.

A real god could not actually exist as it would always fall short of the properties of a conceptual god.  Just as mathematicians use a concept of infinity to help them solve numerical problems, humans use a concept of god to aid them with their moral compass and existential horizons; and likewise god could not actually exist in reality just as in reality you could not actually have a real piece of string of infinite length.  Like 'infinity', 'god' only works as a concept.

[Alan Burns]

The inexplicability of God thus renders redundant all the things that God purports to explain. A line of reasoning is only as strong as its weakest link.  'Acceptance' of God is simultaneously an admission of defeat in our effort to understand things.  It says, 'I give up, it must be magic', and that applies to all God-derived notions such as souls, afterlife, evil etc.  None of these concepts have any empirical validity, all being built merely on the ineffable paradox of God.

If you limit the scope of your efforts to understand everything to the portal of scientific investigation you will never fully succeed.  You need to recognise that there are limits to what scientific investigation can discover about reality.  Science may be good at defining the consequences of events, but it does not define the causes of all events.   And it does not define the essence of human thought, though it may define its consequences.

There may be limits to what we can discover, that is not a reflection on the limits of science, per se, but a general acknowlegement of epistemiology.  Whatever there is that we can discover, however, can be discovered by scientific enquiry, in the broadest sense.  If there is a god, which can be discovered, then it can be discovered by science, ultimately.  My view on that is that science will never discover god, the reason being that, like four sided triangles,  god is not part of the set of discoverable things - because that is how we define god; we define god as inexplicable, beyond all human comprehension. A god that was amenable to dissection and analysis wouldn't really be god at all, it would be a parody, an effigy, a mere representation.

A real god could not actually exist as it would always fall short of the properties of a conceptual god.  Just as mathematicians use a concept of infinity to help them solve numerical problems, humans use a concept of god to aid them with their moral compass and existential horizons; and likewise god could not actually exist in reality just as in reality you could not actually have a real piece of string of infinite length.  Like 'infinity', 'god' only works as a concept.

But there is no way you can say that infinity does not actually exist.  If there is something which is finite, there is always the question of what lies beyond the finite.  What lies beyond space?  What occured before time began?  Will time come to an end? Will the burnt out universe exist forever?  What is the ultimate source of all existence? These are not just concepts, but real questions which my limited brain capacity just can't comprehend, and the answers will lie somewhere in the reality of existence.

[Alan Burns]

But if you believe that God was created in human imagination, surely the obvious logic you state above would have been incorporated into this imaginary god, making him somewhat less of the loving God depicted in the bible.

Don't be silly, Alan. The human mind is capable of inventing all kinds of things, from wicked and hateful to divine and loving. It has done so in the Bible. However, I would hardly describe the god depicted in the OT as loving.

I see you don't attempt to 'explain' the anomaly I pointed out.

Difficult, isn't it? 

I know there are many things difficult to explain with our limited human intelect, but I remain certain that it was God that brought everthything into existence.
And your anomaly pales into insignificance compared to explaining how your self awareness and free will can eminate solely from the sub atomic particles which make up your brain.

Simple ... evolution! But I accept that you cannot see it.

Do you realise that the process of natural selection is actually a destructive process, not a creative process?  It could more aptly be named natural destruction, for species are not actually selected by the process, they are destroyed.  The process of natural selection in itself does not create a single beneficial mutation - it just eliminates the species not equiped to survive.

[BeRational]

But if you believe that God was created in human imagination, surely the obvious logic you state above would have been incorporated into this imaginary god, making him somewhat less of the loving God depicted in the bible.

Don't be silly, Alan. The human mind is capable of inventing all kinds of things, from wicked and hateful to divine and loving. It has done so in the Bible. However, I would hardly describe the god depicted in the OT as loving.

I see you don't attempt to 'explain' the anomaly I pointed out.

Difficult, isn't it? 

I know there are many things difficult to explain with our limited human intelect, but I remain certain that it was God that brought everthything into existence.
And your anomaly pales into insignificance compared to explaining how your self awareness and free will can eminate solely from the sub atomic particles which make up your brain.

Simple ... evolution! But I accept that you cannot see it.

Do you realise that the process of natural selection is actually a destructive process, not a creative process?  It could more aptly be named natural destruction, for species are not actually selected by the process, they are destroyed.  The process of natural selection in itself does not create a single beneficial mutation - it just eliminates the species not equiped to survive.

Clearly you do not understand evolution.

You are just wrong, and I suspect you know it, but feel the need to spout this nonsense to support your faith.

[Outrider]

Simple ... evolution! But I accept that you cannot see it.

Do you realise that the process of natural selection is actually a destructive process, not a creative process?  It could more aptly be named natural destruction, for species are not actually selected by the process, they are destroyed.

Uh... no. Evolution is not just natural selection, though, it is the natural selection of random variation. The 'creative' (a loaded term, perhaps, but I'll run with it for now) processes are those that lead to variation, and individuals are selected when OTHER individuals are destroyed.

We know that evolution happens, we have seen evolution happen.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Simple ... evolution! But I accept that you cannot see it.

Do you realise that the process of natural selection is actually a destructive process, not a creative process?  It could more aptly be named natural destruction, for species are not actually selected by the process, they are destroyed.

Uh... no. Evolution is not just natural selection, though, it is the natural selection of random variation. The 'creative' (a loaded term, perhaps, but I'll run with it for now) processes are those that lead to variation, and individuals are selected when OTHER individuals are destroyed.

We know that evolution happens, we have seen evolution happen.

O.

But we do not know the true source of the processes which generate the "random" variations.

[SusanDoris]

#4838 Outrider


May I just quibble very slightly with 'are destroyed'? I wonder if 'do not survive' might be more accurate?