Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

The great sadness is that so many people seem unable to even accept the possibility that they were brought into existence, not by accident, but for a purpose.

There is also the possibility that neither we nor the universe are here at all. and that it is all an illusion.

If you are going to introduce "possibilities" into your arguments, then anything goes.

A purpose totally beyond our human understanding, but which will be fully understood when we reach our true spiritual home.

You contradict yourself! If it is beyond human understanding, then we are totally unable to grasp any of it, so all your descriptions of it are nothing more than imagined.

[Rhiannon]

'Beyond human understanding' is just another description.  It is the story, or one of them. It sounds as though it has some extra significance because there's some smoke and mirrors going on; by saying God is beyond our understanding the seed of thought is sown that humans had nothing to do with inventing him. In fact it's no different from saying that Thor carries a hammer or Brigid has flaming hair.

[Gordon]

Demonstrate falsehood and unsupported ness then Gordon.

No credible evidence, and also no method specific to the assessment of 'supernatural evidence'.

Remember saying it is false and unsupported because that is your preference will not actually do.

It's not a matter of preference: it's a matter of evidence, or rather the absence of it, along with details of a method whereby claimed supernatural evidence could be assessed.

It may conceivably fit definition 1. Although a resurrection having a natural explanation is a bit of a stretch.

A stretch too far, I'd say.

That other divine figures seem to resurrect doesn't! Necessarily mean that this is myth. Bob Holness is credited as sax phone player on Gerry Rafferty,s Baker Street. That is an Urban Myth which does not detract that somebody played Sax.

Yep, it was the late Raphael Ravenscroft, so thanks for demonstrating the risks of mistakes being a factor even in claims made by real people and about real people and events with nary a whiff of miraculous supernatural shenanigans: so not a good example to choose, Vlad. 

In any case you seem to have a perfectly working definition of God which belies your claim that there isn't one.

I don't - 'God' is a claim made by other people, be they Christians today or followers of, say, the Egyptian 'Gods' back in antiquity.

Similarly both you and Hillside have defined God as imaginary. That is also a definition which is also a positive assertion. You will be able to evidence that of course.

Don't be silly, Vlad, again, the claim is yours and all this hand-waving does mask your inability to define your 'God' in a way that differs from the definition of myth: it does seem like a level playing field: we have your 'God', Thor, Jupiter, Mercury, Ra, Wodin etc etc all fitting the myth definition I gave earlier, and which you have referred to - so you need to raise your guy up and clear of these others, which is you problem and not mine.

It seems to me that you are prepared to offer meaningful definitions for God when you think you can knock them down but reject God having any meaning when definitions come along that you can't.

But I've yet to see a definition of 'God' that doesn't fit the definition of myth - so I've asked you for an alternative definition: remember!

[torridon]

The great sadness is that so many people seem unable to even accept the possibility that they were brought into existence, not by accident, but for a purpose.  A purpose totally beyond our human understanding, but which will be fully understood when we reach our true spiritual home.

Ah good, it will all become clear in the end then.

We'll also find out for what purpose God brought the Devil into existence.

And bone cancer and Ebola and the Black Death.

And let's not forget estate agents and injury claim lawyers.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No credible evidence, and also no method specific to the assessment of 'supernatural evidence'.

It's not a matter of preference: it's a matter of evidence, or rather the absence of it, along with details of a method whereby claimed supernatural evidence could be assessed.

A stretch too far, I'd say.

Yep, it was the late Raphael Ravenscroft, so thanks for demonstrating the risks of mistakes being a factor even in claims made by real people and about real people and events with nary a whiff of miraculous supernatural shenanigans: so not a good example to choose, Vlad. 

I don't - 'God' is a claim made by other people, be they Christians today or followers of, say, the Egyptian 'Gods' back in antiquity.

Don't be silly, Vlad, again, the claim is yours and all this hand-waving does mask your inability to define your 'God' in a way that differs from the definition of myth: it does seem like a level playing field: we have your 'God', Thor, Jupiter, Mercury, Ra, Wodin etc etc all fitting the myth definition I gave earlier, and which you have referred to - so you need to raise your guy up and clear of these others, which is you problem and not mine.

But I've yet to see a definition of 'God' that doesn't fit the definition of myth - so I've asked you for an alternative definition: remember!

The available evidence was that there was multiple witness amongst whom empirical observations were made. That covers methodology.

In terms of super nature there is no warrant to relegate super nature to mythological status except within philosophical naturalism which itself has no methodology to establish itself.

To say therefore that the resurrection needs evidence above and beyond other one of events is a type of special pleading.

[floo]

The available evidence was that there was multiple witness amongst whom empirical observations were made. That covers methodology.

In terms of super nature there is no warrant to relegate super nature to mythological status except within philosophical naturalism which itself has no methodology to establish itself.

To say therefore that the resurrection needs evidence above and beyond other one of events is a type of special pleading.

There is no more evidence for multiple witnesses, than there is for Harry Potter and his friends flying around on broomsticks!

[SusanDoris]

You know, what I find particularly interesting is that, thank goodness, those of us who are atheists and sceptics can express our strongly held, scientifically backed up opinions on the internet, radio etc, rather than as, when I was a child, to express such views would have been the height of bad manners.
The ideas like 'God is beyond understanding' etc etc no longer sound deeply and meaningfully profound but can be robustly challenged and shown  not to be worthy of credulous respect or acceptance.


(I have re-read that last bit and it doesn't sound quite right, but I'll leave it as is for now!)

[Bubbles]

You know, what I find particularly interesting is that, thank goodness, those of us who are atheists and sceptics can express our strongly held, scientifically backed up opinions on the internet, radio etc, rather than as, when I was a child, to express such views would have been the height of bad manners.
The ideas like 'God is beyond understanding' etc etc no longer sound deeply and meaningfully profound but can be robustly challenged and shown  not to be worthy of credulous respect or acceptance.


(I have re-read that last bit and it doesn't sound quite right, but I'll leave it as is for now!)

I'm with you on that one.

Years ago, sometimes it could be impossible to express another POV.

I was lucky in that I was allowed to discuss any religion or none at home, but I remember it didn't go down well at school as I was often in trouble.

I get teased even now by my elderly mother who was at the receiving end of shocked comments from the teachers when my essay on " the church" featured every religious establishment/ society / building except the "Christian" one.

They were shocked in those days that a child even knew about other religions, but I've always been interested.


I was also a bit of a devil, and handing in an essay that didn't even feature Christianity was typically me, especially when I was expected to assume they meant the Christian church only 

I wouldn't turn back the clock even if we don't see things the same way, it doesn't matter now, like it did then.

As it was then, it  wasn't just a pain to Athiests, but anyone who didn't fit the mould. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You know, what I find particularly interesting is that, thank goodness, those of us who are atheists and sceptics can express our strongly held, scientifically backed up opinions on the internet, radio etc, rather than as, when I was a child, to express such views would have been the height of bad manners.
The ideas like 'God is beyond understanding' etc etc no longer sound deeply and meaningfully profound but can be robustly challenged and shown  not to be worthy of credulous respect or acceptance.


(I have re-read that last bit and it doesn't sound quite right, but I'll leave it as is for now!)

I am a strong supporter of science Doris. But you are mistaking science for a folksy common sense.

The resurrection is never portrayed as more than a one of event and I!m afraid science does not cover those very well..look how vague it is over abiogenesis

[Bubbles]

I am a strong supporter of science Doris. But you are mistaking science for a folksy common sense.

The resurrection is never portrayed as more as a one of event and I!m afraid science does not cover those...........look how vague it is over abiogenesis

I think she means more where science supports the theory of evolution and some Christians dismiss everything out of hand because it isn't what they think the bible says.

[Gordon]

The available evidence was that there was multiple witness amongst whom empirical observations were made. That covers methodology.

You are being silly again, Vlad: you've just demonstrated that even reports about who played a saxophone can be flawed so that reports made by people can be problematic with regard to even routine events, so that when it comes to the supernatural this potential for error is a risk. In addition, it what way are these anecdotes 'empirical', since to claim this you'll have had exclude the risks of mistakes or lies - so perhaps you'd tell us how you did this.

In terms of super nature there is no warrant to relegate super nature to mythological status except within philosophical naturalism which itself has no methodology to establish itself.

Ah - the old bodyswerve and hope nobody notices tactic again: you are so predictable, Vlad. If you want your 'God' to been seen as more than myth then you need to provide a definition that, on verification, demonstrates this. 

To say therefore that the resurrection needs evidence above and beyond other one of events is a type of special pleading.

No it isn't - it is special pleading to say that the claimed resurrection doesn't need evidence that is specific to supernatural claims and that the anecdotal accounts made by people are sufficient as 'empirical observations' of miracles while, at the same time, you then cite the fact that people are known to make mistakes or peddle misinformation, such as about who played the saxophone on a well-kent recording.

When you get right down to it, Vlad, all you are really doing here is credulously exclaiming 'Hallelujah' while trying to pretend that you aren't. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is no more evidence for multiple witnesses, than there is for Harry Potter and his friends flying around on broomsticks!

We know Harry Potter to be fiction. CS Lewis......no mean expert on fiction and myth states that the epistles and Gospels are more reportage.......and I think he was of that opinion as an atheist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are being silly again, Vlad: you've just demonstrated that even reports about who played a saxophone can be flawed so that reports made by people can be problematic with regard to even routine events, so that when it comes to the supernatural this potential for error is a risk. In addition, it what way are these anecdotes 'empirical', since to claim this you'll have had exclude the risks of mistakes or lies - so perhaps you'd tell us how you did this.

Ah - the old bodyswerve and hope nobody notices tactic again: you are so predictable, Vlad. If you want your 'God' to been seen as more than myth then you need to provide a definition that, on verification, demonstrates this. 

No it isn't - it is special pleading to say that the claimed resurrection doesn't need evidence that is specific to supernatural claims and that the anecdotal accounts made by people are sufficient as 'empirical observations' of miracles while, at the same time, you then cite the fact that people are known to make mistakes or peddle misinformation, such as about who played the saxophone on a well-kent recording.

When you get right down to it, Vlad, all you are really doing here is credulously exclaiming 'Hallelujah' while trying to pretend that you aren't.

Are you saying that there were 500 first hand witnesses who saw Bob Holness playing Sax.
How did they all get in the studio.?

Have you been on the old sauce?

Yet again you are stretching the psychological incompetence too far.

Of course the empirical testimony of 500 people can be sound experiments involving less go on all the time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The great sadness is that so many people seem unable to even accept the possibility that they were brought into existence, not by accident, but for a purpose.  A purpose totally beyond our human understanding, but which will be fully understood when we reach our true spiritual home.

No-one denies the possibility - anything is possible. What some of us do though is to identify the utter paucity of evidence to suggest that that possibility is a probability, and we respond accordingly.

[Gordon]

Are you saying that there were 500 first hand witnesses who saw Bob Holness playing Sax.
How did they all get in the studio.?

Have you been on the old sauce?

Do keep up Vlad - I told you earlier that the saxophone was played by Raphael Ravenscroft - so your example of Bob Holness and Baker Street is fictitious misinformation that actually undermines the very point you were trying to make.

You must be running out of feet to shoot yourself in.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do keep up Vlad - I told you earlier that the saxophone was played by Raphael Ravenscroft - so your example of Bob Holness and Baker Street is fictitious misinformation that actually undermines the very point you were trying to make.

You must be running out of feet to shoot yourself in.

Yes were there 500 witnesses that saw Bob play....if so how did they all get in the studio?

[SusanDoris]

Rose #7098

Very interesting post - thank you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

What you are doing is claiming validity for arguments against God and meaninglessness for arguments which support it.

Wrong again. All that's happening is that some of us identify that the arguments some attempt for "god" are hopeless. You no more need an argument "against God" than you need an argument against unicorns - it's enough just to demolish the arguments for.

Note meaningless, the word you use not invalidity because you know that would be challenged.

Happy to use either. If you seriously think you can make a coherent challenge, go for it.

It seems you are trying to gussy up the fingers in the Ear and la la la argument.

Only in your head Vlad, only in your head.

Please demonstrate Your idea that God is imaginary.

Have you genuinely not grasped a single thing I've said when I've explained it to you over the last few posts? Seriously?

Wow!

Once again then: the term "god" is just so much white noise until anyone manages to define it. That is, terms like "exist", "imaginary" or anything else cannot apply as there's nothing to apply them to.

Nonetheless, if you insist on skipping that stage entirely and claiming the associated stories about this "god" to be true then we have no choice but to treat them as we would the stories about any other un-evidenced supernatural "something" - ie, imaginary pending any reasoning or evidence to the contrary.

If you seriously think otherwise, on what basis would you dismiss the claims of someone who believes just as strongly as you do that he has "experienced" or "intuited" Thor or Jack Frost?
 

I think Zeus and King Arthur may themselves be myths and therefore that would impute mythical status on their acts.

I think that your god may well be a myth too, probably for exactly the same reasons that you have reached the same conclusion about Zeus and King Arthur.

I should qualify that by saying that Zeus may be a model albeit rudimentary for God.

Or your "god" may be a model albeit rudimentary for the real god. Who's to say that someone 1,000 years hence won't think of your model of a god just as you look at Zeus?

Or all these narratives may be rudimentary explanations for the otherwise inexplicable but there's no real god at the end of the search after all...

Also I have no experience of Zeus or Arthur.

But other people think they have - just as seriously and deeply and truthfully as you think you have experienced "god". What makes them wrong and you right exactly?

I think that your claim therefore that I think about Zeus and Arthur in the same way that you think about all religions is merely another of your fancies.

Your "therefore" fails for the reasons I've set out (and that you will now ignore or misrepresent). You think about Zeus and King Arthur in exactly the same way that I think about them and about your god, and I do so because the arguments made for all of them - "experience", "intuition" etc - are identical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry Bluehillside but you have said previously tha God means nothing more to you than a random alphanumeric string does.

I on the other hand have said that gods are incomplete models of the one God.

There is no way my thinking on religions is  like your view of religion.

[jeremyp]

Such a bonfire of smugness needs pissing on so here goes
................Jeremy, how are you defining existence ?

It's certainly desperation when your only come back is to try to argue about the meaning of a common English word. If you don't understand the meaning of "exist", Vlad, you should really not be taking part in these conversations, because you too stupid.

[floo]

We know Harry Potter to be fiction. CS Lewis......no mean expert on fiction and myth states that the epistles and Gospels are more reportage.......and I think he was of that opinion as an atheist.

There is NO verifiable evidence that the gospels or epistles have any credence. Surely if they had, other people would have reported the events too, not just the followers of Jesus! Besides which, nothing was written down at the time but many years after the death of Jesus, so the accuracy of the accounts has to be in grave doubt. People often see what they want to see as I can attest.

[Gordon]

Yes were there 500 witnesses that saw Bob play....if so how did they all get in the studio?

What is that noise I hear? I know: it is the sound of Vlad throwing in the towel!

[jeremyp]

they were brought into existence, not by accident, but for a purpose.  A purpose totally beyond our human understanding, but which will be fully understood when we reach our true spiritual home.

If our purpose is beyond human understanding, how come you seem to know so much about it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Sorry Bluehillside but you have said previously tha God means nothing more to you than a random alphanumeric string does.

Actually I've said that the term "God" means that because neither you nor anyone else seems able or willing to provide a definition of it.

I on the other hand have said that gods are incomplete models of the one God.

Actually you've gone further than that - you seem to think that these "incomplete models" have now culminated in the finished article, namely the "one God" that by a remarkable co-incidence happens to be the one to which you're most enculturated.

Either way, you can say it all you like just as I can say that all weather-related spooks are incomplete models of the one true Jack Frost. Rather than just saying it though, if you expect others to take your claims seriously then you have to do more than just say it - you actually need to make an argument that's coherent and robust.

Good luck with that!

There is no way my thinking on religions is  like your view of religion.

Oh dear. Your "way of thinking" is just the same as mine in respect of all the religions with which you happen not to agree. Obviously its not the same in respect of the religion that does appeal to you, but you remain sublimely indifferent to the problem you have here, namely that your reasons for finding it persuasive - "experience", "intuition" etc - are exactly those used by proponents of the religions you think to be wrong.

Why then should anyone else think you to be right and them to be wrong?

You can keep running away from the question if you like, but it undermines your efforts here entirely when you continue to do so.   

[ippy]

There is also the possibility that neither we nor the universe are here at all. and that it is all an illusion.

If you are going to introduce "possibilities" into your arguments, then anything goes.

You contradict yourself! If it is beyond human understanding, then we are totally unable to grasp any of it, so all your descriptions of it are nothing more than imagined.

Now who was it wrote an enormously successful best selling book about this phenomena?

ippy