Searching for GOD...

[floo]

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

ippy

Although I have never read the book, I wondered when computer games first came in if we could just be characters in a very sophisticated game.

[Shaker]

The great sadness

So many things seem to be "a great sadness" to you that it's a wonder you don't live in a constant state of misery and anguish, Alan. Typically involving people not buying into your bizarre belief system.

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.

As a matter of fact absolutely everybody living or who ever lived was or is a complete accident. Three factors - facts, actually, and easily demonstrable - explain why this is so.

Firstly at least some people are conceived by complete accident - via random strangers having a one night stand, or a contraceptive failure, in other words by people who never sought to reproduce. Many, many places see birthrates peak in September/October. Now there's a simple (indeed, obvious) explanation for that, if you stop and give it a moment's thought.

Secondly, even if a child is deliberately sought and actively wanted, you don't get to choose what it'll be like due to the random (i.e. accidental) nature of genetics. Obviously it varies from one individual man to another but on average there are around 200-250 million sperm in every ejaculation - any one of which may fertilise an egg, or then again, it may not. (Even in the absence of contraception there's far more sex than there are pregnancies). Accident again. Randomness, if you prefer. Stochastic, if you want the posh word.

Thirdly, even assuming that an egg is fertilised at all, there's no guarantee whatever that this will result in a pregnancy and a foetus carried to full term. This too is an entirely accidental matter. It's estimated that about two thirds of all fertilised eggs are spontaneously aborted through wholly random natural processes and end up flushed down the bog or some such - sheer accident, as I say. (This is why you hear people say, in response to anti-abortion cranks, that God for those who believe in such a thing is the greatest abortionist of them all).

So you see Alan, everybody is an accident somewhere down the causal chain of explanation. That doesn't bother me nor should it you - simply stop trying to find purpose and intentionality where there is none.

A purpose totally beyond our human understanding

Well, by definition it clearly can't be totally beyond human understanding or you wouldn't even know any such purpose exists, and we wouldn't have people like you claiming that there is such a thing.

Unless of course you're just pulling all this sort of stuff ex recto.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Who is the duty atheist with responsibility for this troll today?

What do you mean by "who"?

What do you mean by "is"?

What do you mean by....

See, that's the thing here. If you're daft enough to demand definitions of commonplace terms like "exist" in order to avoid the arguments that undo you then you exit the conversation entirely.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Crazy Mixed up World,

Our Gordon has given us the modern definition of Myth,

1 : a story often describing the adventures of superhuman beings that attempts to describe the origin of a people's customs or beliefs or to explain mysterious events (as the changing of the seasons)
2 : a person or thing that exists only in the imagination <the dragon is a myth>
3 : a popular belief that is false or unsupported

Now I might be changing my mind here, but I am finding it difficult to put the likes of a Unicorn or a Leprechaun in the category of Myth, why, because I am not using Gordons modern definitions but Karen Armstrong's explanations regarding Myth or Mythos.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/armstrong-battle.html

Myth could not be demonstrated by rational proof; its insights were more intuitive, similar to those of art, music, poetry, or sculpture. Myth only became a reality when it was embodied in cult, rituals, and ceremonies which worked aesthetically upon worshippers, evoking within them a sense of sacred significance and enabling them to apprehend the deeper currents of existence. Myth and cult were so inseparable that it is a matter of scholarly debate which came first: the mythical narrative or the rituals attached to it. Myth was also associated with mysticism, the descent into the psyche by means of structured disciplines of focus and concentration which have been evolved in all cultures as a means of acquiring intuitive insight. Without a cult or mystical practice, the myths of religion would make no sense. They would remain abstract and seem incredible, in rather the same way as a musical score remains opaque to most of us and needs to be interpreted instrumentally before we can appreciate its beauty.

In the premodern world, people had a different view of history. They were less interested than we are in what actually happened, but more concerned with the meaning of an event. Historical incidents were not seen as unique occurrences, set in a far-off time, but were thought to be external manifestations of constant, timeless realities. Hence history would tend to repeat itself, because there was nothing new under the sun. Historical narratives tried to bring out this eternal dimension. Thus, we do not know what really occurred when the ancient Israelites escaped from Egypt and passed through the Sea of Reeds. The story has been deliberately written as a myth, and linked with other stories about rites of passage, immersion in the deep, and gods splitting a sea in two to create a new reality. Jews experience this myth every year in the rituals of the Passover Seder, which brings this strange story into their own lives and helps them to make it their own. One could say that unless an historical event is mythologized in this way, and liberated from the past in an inspiring cult, it cannot be religious. To ask whether the Exodus from Egypt took place exactly as recounted in the Bible or to demand historical and scientific evidence to prove that it is factually true is to mistake the nature and purpose of this story. It is to confuse mythos with logos.

It could be that I don't know any stories regarding Unicorns or Leprechauns, pots of gold, rainbows, and a horse with a pointy horn, my extensive knowledge of Unicorns and Leprechauns, they tell me nothing about the human condition, which according to Armstrong is the purpose of Myth or Mythos.

But there are countless Myths from countless religions regarding God, or have God somewhere in the story, God is in the Myth but he is not the central character, of course I am giving a Christian perspective on this, I am well versed on Christian Myths, Adam and Eve, poor old Job, stories which we still can relate to in modern times, poor old Job, shit happens to the good and bad alike.

Is God a Myth, he is certainly mentioned in Myth, so God is Mythical, am I any further forward, nope, I can agree with Gordons first definition and if pushed agree with the second definition but not the third definition, like poor old Job we all know for a fact that shit happens and keeps happening.

Does the above chuntering help the argument ( back biting and handbags at dawn ) probably not, but it helps me in my slow pondering way

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

That's an interesting quote from Armstrong, there, Gonners.  But it illustrates something that has gone on in Christianity - literalization.  So, she talks about the Exodus as mythos not logos, but some Christians and Jews say that it did literally happen. 

But then you can say this about all religious stories, as soon as you take them literally, you are called upon to demonstrate this.  Then the problems begin.

[Alan Burns]

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

Through my Christian faith I know that God does have a wonderful purpose in bringing us into existence, but I concede that my human intellect is not capable of fully understanding it, which is why I need the gift of faith to put my trust in Him.

I have sufficient intellect to realise that God brought us into existence and that there is no other feasible explanation for our existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

What do you mean by "who"?

What do you mean by "is"?

What do you mean by....

See, that's the thing here. If you're daft enough to demand definitions of commonplace terms like "exist" in order to avoid the arguments that undo you then you exit the conversation entirely.

Come on Bluehillside........We know there are ontological materialists lurking around the corners of this forum.

They need to be exposed and probably deserve a dead leg, wedgie and nipple cripple as well.

[Shaker]

Through my Christian faith I know

Believe.

But God has given me sufficient intellect to realise that He brought us into existence and that there is no other feasible explanation for our existence.

Alas, insufficient intellect (a) to know the difference between knowing and believing, (b) to cope with rational argument and (c) to cope with demonstrable fact.

What you think of as your Christian faith in actual fact comes over as a hermetically sealed bubble, population 1, through which fact, evidence, reason and logic cannot permeate.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Yo Gonners,

From KA's quote:

One could say that unless an historical event is mythologized in this way, and liberated from the past in an inspiring cult, it cannot be religious. To ask whether the Exodus from Egypt took place exactly as recounted in the Bible or to demand historical and scientific evidence to prove that it is factually true is to mistake the nature and purpose of this story. It is to confuse mythos with logos.

Quite possibly, but the issue here is that it's the religious who are doing the "confusing": they think the resurrection actually happened, that a man/god made something more than tapas from five loaves and five fishes etc. If however instead they said something like, "here's a bunch of parables and stories that I find give me better insights into the human condition" or some such then few of us I suspect would take issue with them.   

Is God a Myth, he is certainly mentioned in Myth, so God is Mythical, am I any further forward, nope, I can agree with Gordons first definition and if pushed agree with the second definition but not the third definition, like poor old Job we all know for a fact that shit happens and keeps happening.

Does the above chuntering help the argument ( back biting and handbags at dawn ) probably not, but it helps me in my slow pondering way

But if you accept KA's line, why would it matter to you if "God" is a myth? If the story provides insights you find to be helpful, why bother overreaching for logos - any more than you'd want to know that the hare and the tortoise were real before accepting that slow and steady wins the race?

[Alan Burns]

Alas, insufficient intellect (a) to know the difference between knowing and believing, (b) to cope with rational argument and (c) to cope with demonstrable fact.

What you think of as your Christian faith in actual fact comes over as a hermetically sealed bubble, population 1, through which fact, evidence, reason and logic cannot permeate.

As we approach the great feast of the Epiphany I hope that you and others seeking the truth will have their personal epiphany and come to know God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Come on Bluehillside........We know there are ontological materialists lurking around the corners of this forum.

They need to be exposed and probably deserve a dead leg, Chinese burn, wedgie and nipple cripple as well.

How's that explanation for why anyone should think your "experience" and "intuition" about your god to be any more credible than anyone else's experiences and intuitions about their gods coming along?

[ippy]

Believe.
Alas, insufficient intellect (a) to know the difference between knowing and believing, (b) to cope with rational argument and (c) to cope with demonstrable fact.

What you think of as your Christian faith in actual fact comes over as a hermetically sealed bubble, population 1, through which fact, evidence, reason and logic cannot permeate.

Thanks very much Shakes and at the same time stop doing this mind reading.

ippy

[Shaker]

As we approach the great feast of the Epiphany I hope that you and others seeking the truth will have their personal epiphany and come to know God.

Haven't we done this countless times before, Alan?

It's usually very small children who need the reassurance of constant repetition.

P.S. The Bellman's Rule doesn't apply. It's still believe, not know, no matter how many times you repeat it and however hard you clench your fists and insist that it's so.

[ippy]

As we approach the great feast of the Epiphany I hope that you and others seeking the truth will have their personal epiphany and come to know God.

Let's hope you do find the truth about these delusional tendencies you keep demonstrating Alan.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

How's that explanation for why anyone should think your "experience" and "intuition" about your god to be any more credible than anyone else's experiences and intuitions about their gods coming along?

Er, ever so slightly non sequitur.

Would you classify yourself as an ontological materialist and can you now bring yourself to admit other ontologies are available?

[Shaker]

One does begin to wonder if Alan is actually having doubts about his faith. Surely the terrible plight of his friend Becky and her family must give him cause to reflect on his faith? If the deity does exist and is capable of answering prayers positively, it is playing psychopathic games with that poor family!

Indeed. Alan doesn't strike me as the sort to admit to serious and pervasive thoughts of the nonexistence of God to himself let alone anybody else.

What he does exemplify with beautiful if tragic clarity is that his belief in God is so vague and woolly and amorphous that it is made to be consistent with literally any and every possible state of affairs, brain tumour and other serious illnesses in a fairly young wife and mother included.

[Alan Burns]

One does begin to wonder if Alan is actually having doubts about his faith. Surely the terrible plight of his friend Becky and her family must give him cause to reflect on his faith? If the deity does exist and is capable of answering prayers positively, it is playing psychopathic games with that poor family!

I admit that there are many things I do not understand, Floo, but at the forefront of my mind is the knowledge that God exists and that God loves us.  Nothing can take away this fundamental truth.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

But if you accept KA's line, why would it matter to you if "God" is a myth?

I think the best I can say ( at this moment ) God is not a myth but God is in the myth.

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

I admit that there are many things I do not understand, Floo, but at the forefront of my mind is the knowledge

Belief.

that God exists and that God loves us.  Nothing can take away this fundamental truth.

Firstly, it's a belief of yours, not a truth.

Secondly, do you really think that nobody before in the history of the human race has ever said precisely the same only to find their belief simply evaporate, quickly or slowly as the case may be?

[ippy]

Dear Blue,

I think the best I can say ( at this moment ) God is not a myth but God is in the myth.

Gonnagle.

You're very welcome to your narrow mirage like view Gonners.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

Belief.Firstly, it's a belief of yours, not a truth.

Secondly, do you really think that nobody before in the history of the human race has ever said precisely the same only to find their belief simply evaporate, quickly or slowly as the case may be?

The people I can relate to most in history are the first disciples of Jesus whose faith could not be diminished in the face of extreme torture and persecution.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Er, ever so slightly non sequitur.

You think you have "experienced" and "intuited" a god that you think to be real. Lots of other people believe just as sincerely that they have "experienced" and "intuited" lots of other gods and similar that they think to be real, but you do not think to be real.

I merely ask why anyone should take your deeply-held sense of experience and intuition more seriously than you take the the deeply-held senses of experience and intuition of the other folks.

Where's the non sequitur in that?

Would you classify yourself as an ontological materialist and can you now bring yourself to admit other ontologies are available?

As you no more know what "ontological" means than you know what "secular", "humanism" or for that matter "non sequitur" means the questions is redundant. For what it's worth a plain old "materialist" will do me, though by that I do of course mean the actual meaning of the term rather than your misunderstanding of it.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wigs,

That's an interesting quote from Armstrong, there, Gonners.  But it illustrates something that has gone on in Christianity - literalization.  So, she talks about the Exodus as mythos not logos, but some Christians and Jews say that it did literally happen. 

But then you can say this about all religious stories, as soon as you take them literally, you are called upon to demonstrate this.  Then the problems begin.

Ah well!! I feel on much more firmer ground here in trying to appreciate what Armstrong explaining, why we walked away from Mythos, why we are more centred on logos, why we regard myth as Gordons dictionary definitions.

Religious men such as Knox, Newton and I think she also points the finger at Augustine, religious men trying to bring science into the equation, science to explain God, it doesn't work.

On less firmer ground, she also explains that this is one of the reasons we have fundamentalists, bringing science into the equation helped to start fundamentalism, men of science telling us our Holy books are wrong, they are not wrong but they are most definitely not science.

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

Belief.Firstly, it's a belief of yours, not a truth.

Secondly, do you really think that nobody before in the history of the human race has ever said precisely the same only to find their belief simply evaporate, quickly or slowly as the case may be?

That's not God's fault though. It's because they didn't believe properly in the first place/ weren't filled with the Spirit/ had unrepented sin/ were led astray by Satan.

[Shaker]

Ah yes. I forgot that.