Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

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.

I'm really convinced that you believe every declaration you make Alan, the only thing you're having difficulty with is the gulf of a difference between something you believe and something you know.

Neither you or anyone else can possibly know whether god exists or not, the lack of evidence for the existence of a god might be giving you a clue, well it would for most.

ippy

[Gonnagle]

Dear Dearest ippy,

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

If only great men of wisdom like yer good self could broaden my horizon, sorry my narrow mirage anyway hows your book doing, something about atheism, sorry not about atheism, just another tired tirade against religion ( we don't have a yawn smiley ).

Gonnagle.

[jeremyp]

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.

How can you know God's purpose is wonderful if it is beyond your understanding.

You seem to be putting a lot of trust in a being that wants to see most of us dead.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

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

So not (or not necessarily) real then, but a story you find to be insightful?

The mythos/logos thing seems fairly binary to me - even if you think "god" is real but has also been mythologised, why would it matter to you whether he's real or not if the myth does the heavy lifting for you in any case?

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremyp,

How can you know God's purpose is wonderful if it is beyond your understanding.

You seem to be putting a lot of trust in a being that wants to see most of us dead.

Alan seems to be giving himself the same problem Vlad has given himself: each of them have decided that they "know" something to be true without troubling with a method of any kind to test that belief, and nor indeed to explain why the equally sincerely held "knowledge" of others about different supernatural "somethings" entirely should be discounted but their beliefs should not.

[ippy]

Dear Dearest ippy,

If only great men of wisdom like yer good self could broaden my horizon, sorry my narrow mirage anyway hows your book doing, something about atheism, sorry not about atheism, just another tired tirade against religion ( we don't have a yawn smiley ).

Gonnagle.

So pretending to yourself something exists where there is no supporting evidence is deeply intellectual? Of course it is Gonners, there's no need for you to lose any sleep.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

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?

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.

Materialist? .......will do you? I bet it will since it covers your faux pas suggesting 
There is only one interpretation of the word existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

jeremyp,

Alan seems to be giving himself the same problem Vlad has given himself: each of them have decided that they "know" something to be true without troubling with a method of any kind to test that belief, and nor indeed to explain why the equally sincerely held "knowledge" of others about different supernatural "somethings" entirely should be discounted but their beliefs should not.

Oh yes and what method establishes ontological materialism?


..............honestly........this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Shaker]

Vlad has a new word to misunderstand, I see.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Materialist? .......will do you? I bet it will since it covers your faux pas suggesting 
There is only one interpretation of the word existence.

Aw bless - our Vlad's been caught out trying to avoid the problems he has by demanding definitions for basic words as a diversionary tactic, and now he's coming back to it when he'd been caught out again.

Sweet.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Oh yes and what method establishes ontological materialism?

The same method that's been explained to you many times but that you either just ignore or misrepresent in response, then go quiet for a bit and finally return to as if you hadn't had your mistake handed to you in a sling.

..............honestly........this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Indeed. Looks like you're going to need some new fish then...

[wigginhall]

Vlad has a new word to misunderstand, I see.

His middle name should be tu quoque, since every time he is asked to explain what he means by 'God', he tries to reverse the discussion, and asks, what do you mean by materialism/naturalism/ontological/methodological/philosophical, and so on.  Does he really think that this avoidance is not obvious?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Punch-Tu_Quoque_1904.jpg

[Shaker]

His middle name should be tu quoque, since every time he is asked to explain what he means by 'God', he tries to reverse the discussion, and asks, what do you mean by materialism/naturalism/ontological/methodological/philosophical, and so on.  Does he really think that this avoidance is not obvious?

Not so much that, as that he doesn't seem to care.

[wigginhall]

Yes, trolls don't care.

[Shaker]

Yes, trolls don't care.

Although it's too easy an accusation to sling around in many cases, in this instance I'm fully in agreement with you - Vlad just seems to be trolling.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Real!! is God real, hell mate!! we go spiralling all the way back to the question, define God?

I read a wee story a couple of days ago, a Pope once asked Michaelangelo how he created his statue of David, the reply was, I took everything away that was not David.

The myth of Job in the Bible, is my God some kind of Greek god who uses humans as some kind of pawn in a game, no, God has no point to prove to me.

But I have a get out clause in any discussion regarding God and it relates to the above, God has already proved his point to me, through his son Our Lord Jesus, my Salvation, so when the subject of God is raised I point to the Gospels, that is the nearest definition I can make for God ( although ransacking a temple, not very God like ).

Is God real, yes! but..................................

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Aw bless - our Vlad's been caught out trying to avoid the problems he has by demanding definitions for basic words as a diversionary tactic, and now he's coming back to it when he'd been caught out again.

Sweet.

Asking for definitions is a methodology Hillside.......what!s not to like unless you are a flanneler?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Asking for definitions is a methodology Hillside.......what!s not to like unless you are a flanneler?

Still hungry then?

What's not to like is that asking for your definition of "god" is directly relevant to the discussion at hand; your response of ignoring the question and demanding instead definitions of the common words used in the exchange is just crude avoidance.

Oh, and I see myself as more of a flâneur than a "flanneler" by the way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gonners,

Real!! is God real, hell mate!! we go spiralling all the way back to the question, define God?

I read a wee story a couple of days ago, a Pope once asked Michaelangelo how he created his statue of David, the reply was, I took everything away that was not David.

The myth of Job in the Bible, is my God some kind of Greek god who uses humans as some kind of pawn in a game, no, God has no point to prove to me.

But I have a get out clause in any discussion regarding God and it relates to the above, God has already proved his point to me, through his son Our Lord Jesus, my Salvation, so when the subject of God is raised I point to the Gospels, that is the nearest definition I can make for God ( although ransacking a temple, not very God like ).

Is God real, yes! but..................................

Well, that's all a bit mystical for a feet of clay materialist like me but I guess the difference is that whether or not, say, Aristotle existed makes no difference to me - what he said (or reportedly said) stands or falls only on its merits. I sense though that the fact of the man/god Jesus and his miraculous doings matters - really matters - to you, in a way that the fact of other early moral philosophers does not and so his pronouncements come fettered with your belief in the divine and therefore (presumably) in their infallibility.

Is that fair summary? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Still hungry then?

What's not to like is that asking for your definition of "god" is directly relevant to the discussion at hand; your response of ignoring the question and demanding instead definitions of the common words used in the exchange is just crude avoidance.

Oh, and I see myself as more of a flâneur than a "flanneler" by the way.

The supreme reality sought by philosophers and seekers of truth and also what we seek to avoid for fear of being changed by that truth
The moral standard
Creator, sustainer,
The God shaped hole of Augustine.
That which we build a life long case against
The abyss of the French existentialists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

The supreme reality sought by philosophers and seekers of truth and also what we seek to avoid for fear of being changed by that truth
The moral standard
Creator, sustainer,
The God shaped hole of Augustine.
That which we build a life long case against
The abyss of the French existentialists.

Dr Finkelstein, come quick - he's been at the Random Word Generator 2000 again! I thought we locked the key away after that last incident with Vlad when he accidentally invented alphabet soup?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

I sense though that the fact of the man/god Jesus and his miraculous doings matters - really matters - to you,

No, Jesus the man is more important to me, when any Christian talks of the miracles I think, what! Jesus needs some kind of a justification for calling himself, Son of God, his simple acts, like washing his disciples feet, like staying the course knowing the horrors that awaited him, his teachings.

If Aristotle's teachings touch you as much as Our Lords teachings touch me then more power to Aristotle's elbow.

I point to Jesus and say, there's God or an earthly equivalent.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gonners,

No, Jesus the man is more important to me, when any Christian talks of the miracles I think, what! Jesus needs some kind of a justification for calling himself, Son of God, his simple acts, like washing his disciples feet, like staying the course knowing the horrors that awaited him, his teachings.

If Aristotle's teachings touch you as much as Our Lords teachings touch me then more power to Aristotle's elbow.

I point to Jesus and say, there's God or an earthly equivalent.

I think I may be just a wee bit in a bromance with you my friend - in a manly way of course though.

Is that ok?

[ippy]

Dear Blue,

No, Jesus the man is more important to me, when any Christian talks of the miracles I think, what! Jesus needs some kind of a justification for calling himself, Son of God, his simple acts, like washing his disciples feet, like staying the course knowing the horrors that awaited him, his teachings.

If Aristotle's teachings touch you as much as Our Lords teachings touch me then more power to Aristotle's elbow.

I point to Jesus and say, there's God or an earthly equivalent.

Gonnagle.



All very nice and cosy but without the slightest morsel of viable evidence has ever been found to support these mythical, magical, superstitious beliefs, but never mind that, it's so cosy and comfortable arrrrr.
ippy 

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

All very nice and cosy but without the slightest morsel of viable evidence has ever been found to support these mythical, magical, superstitious beliefs, but never mind that, it's so cosy and comfortable arrrrr.

As you know by now, I share your thoughts re the divine bit but you have to allow that Gonners is a lot more nuanced than the nursery rhyme theology of an AB or the disordered crassness of a Vlad. His position reminds me a bit of (his hero) Einstein's thought - something along the lines of, "I believe in god, but only if by "god" you mean "the universe"". He seems to be saying that what Jesus (supposedly) said and did matters more to him than the notion that he was also supernatural.

Seems fair enough to me - if only more theists were like Gonners I say.