Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

This is tedious.

To accept ideas and behaviours of those around you, especially parents when very young.

No more.

It is, indeed, tedious. this happens when you make vague incorrect statements as you did to start with and you are questioned on it.

Now that you have clarified, it might be useful to address Gonzo's position which is looking at whether the overall inclination to some form of belief (of a god or gods) is in some way significant in that it is beneficial as admitted by your own position.

[Alan Burns]

Does demonic possession still exist, Alan?

Not sure, but temptation certainly exists.

[wigginhall]

???Sorry but I missed this bit of the New Testament.  I can only recall Jesus and His disciples helping those possessed.

That's dishonest quote mining.   Why do Christians lie like this?

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure, but temptation certainly exists.

How would you know if it did, or ever had?

[Alan Burns]

How do you measure faith?

In my prayers and daily experiences I see increasingly more evidence of how God works in our lives and His wisdom

You appreciate, of course, that those of us who don't believe in gods don't believe in all the gods, 'the devil' included?

You do not need to believe in the devil to succumb to temptation.

How is the logic 'shallow'? What does 'shallow' logic even mean? Something is either a logical deduction or it is not, there is no 'depth' to logic.

The logical arguments used to deny God's existence have no real foundation, because they are rooted in human logic which can only come from the conscious free will of the human soul.  Hence any logical argument stems from the God given ability for humans to excercise conscious free thinking.  If our brain activity was driven entirely by deterministic chemical reactions we would have no free thought and human logic would not exist.

[wigginhall]

Well, we have some abusive trolls, now we have a polite one.

[Rhiannon]

Not sure, but temptation certainly exists.

Isn't that a part of normal human behaviour?

[Shaker]

Isn't that a part of normal human behaviour?

Moreover Alan hasn't even defined temptation to what? His worldview is guaranteed to inform his attitude towards temptation to things which he will see as bad that others will not. Temptation to what? A second Mr Kipling's Cherry Bakewell?

[Rhiannon]

Moreover Alan hasn't even defined temptation to what? His worldview is guaranteed to inform his attitude towards temptation to things which he will see as bad that others will not.

I have a horrible feeling Alan won't answer with by what, but by whom.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So is it my turn to feed the troll again?

OK dammit…

In my prayers and daily experiences I see increasingly more evidence of how God works in our lives and His wisdom

You see no such thing. What you actually do is just to back-fit a narrative you call “god” to the everyday events you observe: someone is cured of a serious illness? That’ll be god’s mercy then; someone dies of an illness? That’ll be god’s judgment then etc.

Trouble is, when you take “God” out of the picture these things happen just as you’d expect them to in any case.   

You do not need to believe in the devil to succumb to temptation.

No, but the problem here is that I suspect you do don’t you?

The logical arguments used to deny God's existence…

Just to be clear, the arguments you use to argue for this god are logically false. Because the proposition “God” is set up with no means of falsification (or even for that matter a coherent definition to start with) no-one can prove his non-existence.   

…have no real foundation…

The “foundation” of the arguments that undermine your position are perfectly real. Logic either stand on its merits or it does not. 

…because they are rooted in human logic…

As opposed to what other kind of logic exactly? The only logic we have is “human”.
 

…which can only come from the conscious free will…

No, because as has been explained to you many times, your  “little man at the controls” version of free will is wrong.

…of the human soul.

Whose meaning you cannot define and whose existence you cannot demonstrate. That leaves you with only guessing or wishful thinking, which is methodologically useless if you want to argue for its existence rather than just assert it as you do now. 

Hence…

The “hence” fails because the premises on which it rests are false.

…any logical argument stems from the God given ability for humans to excercise conscious free thinking.

Rubbish in, rubbish out. You’ve yet to move one nanometre toward showing us that this “God” exists in the first place. 

If our brain activity was driven entirely by deterministic chemical reactions we would have no free thought and human logic would not exist.

That’s called a non sequitur. The deterministic model would still appear to us to provide a version of free will, but that’s not to say that that free will is in some unexplained way separate from our ordinary mental processes.

Apart from all that though…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Born to pattern seek and believe those patterns.

Not born to believe in god, that is the wrong pattern some assume when the real pattern is not known.

What an incredibly stupid statement If we don't know the pattern....How can we say anything is wrong?!!?

There is a lot of this foolishness about. Shaker agrees that he doesn't know how the universe got here but whatever way it wasn't God......without obviously realising how foolish that makes him look.

[Shaker]

There is a lot of this foolishness about. Shaker agrees that he doesn't know how the universe got here but whatever way it wasn't God......without obviously realising how foolish that makes him look.

It doesn't actually, and there's an extremely good reason why this is the case. I'll let you blunder and (as bluey would put it) vlunder about for a bit trying to work it out for yourself, failing and making yourself look like a monumental tit before I come back and explain the bleeding obvious to you. Have fun. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It doesn't actually, and there's an extremely good reason why this is the case.

The good case is nothing but philosophical naturalism so you end up looking a prat to everybody except a dyed in the wool philosophical naturalist.

Now come up with a reason why not knowing yet simultaneously knowing isn't contradictory bollocks.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

What an incredibly stupid statement If we don't know the pattern....How can we say anything is wrong?!!?

Because we can test our conclusions: if the pattern "waving grass" turns out to be a tiger, we get eaten; if the pattern, "I won the lottery so I'm special" turns out to be contradicted by a better understanding of probability, we revise our position.

There is a lot of this foolishness about. Shaker agrees that he doesn't know how the universe got here but whatever way it wasn't God......without obviously realising how foolish that makes him look.

Is your thinking here that if you keep lying relentlessly about that eventually people here will be fooled into thinking that anyone actually has said that?

I should warn you, so far as I can tell it's not working. Maybe if you tried responding to the argument some of us really have made (several times now in response to your straw men versions of it) you'd at least be part of the conversation?

Just a thought.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

The good case is nothing but philosophical naturalism so you end up looking a prat to everybody except a dyed in the wool philosophical naturalist.

Now come up with a reason why not knowing yet simultaneously knowing isn't contradictory bollocks.

Hello? Hello? Is that the emergency services? It is? Good - I want to report a major accident please. I was out walking the dog just now when I saw the 18.38 Vlunderer Express from St Pancras career off the rails. Looks like a bad one - we'll need fire engines, ambulances, the lot...

...what's that you say? It always crashes off the rails about this time so you don't bother any more?

Really?

OK, I'll be on my way then. Sorry to have troubled you...

[Alan Burns]

Moreover Alan hasn't even defined temptation to what? His worldview is guaranteed to inform his attitude towards temptation to things which he will see as bad that others will not. Temptation to what? A second Mr Kipling's Cherry Bakewell?

The devil will tempt us to do whatever is not God's will.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The devil will tempt us to do whatever is not God's will.

Of course Alan, of course. So would I be right in thinking that in this rather unpleasant little fantasy world you’ve created for yourself you not only think you know that there is a “God”, but you also think you know what “He” wants and so you can sit in judgment on others by deciding that those who behave otherwise have been led astray by this “devil” of yours?

[Shaker]

The devil will tempt us to do whatever is not God's will.

If a Mr Kipling's Cherry Bakewell isn't God's will, bollocks to God's will I say 

[Nearly Sane]

If a Mr Kipling's Cherry Bakewell isn't God's will, bollocks to God's will I say 

Baked comestibles are on the 5th gas level of hell.

[Outrider]

In my prayers and daily experiences I see increasingly more evidence of how God works in our lives and His wisdom.

Not a particularly reliable measurement tool.

You do not need to believe in the devil to succumb to temptation.

No, but you need the devil to be real for there to be a devil to tempt you, and as I don't believe in your gods, why would I accept that explanation?

The logical arguments used to deny God's existence have no real foundation, because they are rooted in human logic which can only come from the conscious free will of the human soul.

Wow, listen to the turbos kick in as you wind up that Assertotron! There is no need to deny the existence of God until and unless there is some sort of evidence to suggest the existence of a god. I don't need an argument to dismiss assertions, I just don't accept the assertions. Similarly I don't accept the consistent assertions of souls or free will, though I note that there's still not been an explanation of how you resolve the oxymoronic nature of the claim of free will in the first place.

Hence any logical argument stems from the God given ability for humans to excercise conscious free thinking.

You cannot go 'hence' after a blatant assertion and just presume that people will follow along for the ride.

If our brain activity was driven entirely by deterministic chemical reactions we would have no free thought and human logic would not exist.

No free though - yes, exactly. No human logic? Why not?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Hello? Hello? Is that the emergency services? It is? Good - I want to report a major accident please. I was out walking the dog just now when I saw the 18.38 Vlunderer Express from St Pancras career off the rails. Looks like a bad one - we'll need fire engines, ambulances, the lot...

...what's that you say? It always crashes off the rails about this time so you don't bother any more?

Really?

OK, I'll be on my way then. Sorry to have troubled you...

Another strange call to the Emergency services.
A crack squad of counsellors are on their way Hillside make sur you turn the gas off and make sure you have a towel and a set of outdoor clothes in case they decide to admit.

[Alan Burns]

Well, we have some abusive trolls, now we have a polite one.

I can assure you that I take no pleasure in winding people up.
I just try to share what I sincerely believe to be the truth, because that is what God is calling me to do.

[Alan Burns]

No human logic? Why not?

O.

For human logic to work, the brain's awareness would need the freedom to judge what is feasible and what is not.  I can't conceive how such conscious judgement could take place if our brains merely reacted to events in a deterministic manner without conscious control.  If logic was just derived from uncontrolled deterministic reactions, it would not be truly objective because it would be entirely dependent on the fixed reactions of brain cells whether they are "working properly" or not.

[Shaker]

If logic was just an uncontrolled deterministic reaction

Do you want to try that one again?

[Rhiannon]

I can assure you that I take no pleasure in winding people up.
I just try to share what I sincerely believe to be the truth, because that is what God is calling me to do.

It's called ego stroking, Alan.