Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

No, Christianity runs the whole gamut here. Some Christians follow the sinner route, others declaim their sanctification, many just think they are like the rest of us neither saints nor sinners, just people.

I'd be very interested to hear of any Christian who doesn't consider themself (and indeed all human beings) to be a sinner.

[floo]

Isn't it the case too that Christians need to see themselves as inherently sinful in order to play out the narrative that they have created for themselves: mankind sinned (fruit and talking snakes etc) and 'fell' so that we are all sinners that have become estranged from God, so we now need to be saved and, hey presto, up pops a miraculous saviour sent by God to save us.

Since the creation/Adam and Eve/'fall' stuff is clearly ancient myth I'd have thought the rest of this narrative simply falls apart.

Talking of Adam and Eve, I have just seen this on the NET, featured on a church notice board

"Adam and Eve, the first people not to have read the Apple terms and conditions." Well it made me giggle.

[Shaker]

Pointing out that Genesis merely says 'fruit' rather than specifying 'apple' just seems churlish and pedantic

[floo]

Pointing out that Genesis merely says 'fruit' rather than specifying 'apple' just seems churlish and pedantic

Yeh I know, but the unmentioned fruit is always considered to be an apple!

[Nearly Sane]

I'd be very interested to hear of any Christian who doesn't consider themself (and indeed all human beings) to be a sinner.

Rare but sometimes shown in extreme Calvinism, if god determines everything and I believe in him, and am saved I cannot sin. See Confessions of a Justified Sinner.

[Alan Burns]

I'd be very interested to hear of any Christian who doesn't consider themself (and indeed all human beings) to be a sinner.

Knowledge of right and wrong, temptation, free will, conscience, forgiveness, sorrow, guilt.

These are all part of being human, and none of these would have any meaning or relevance if we were all driven solely by the deterministic laws of science.

[wigginhall]

Isn't it the case too that Christians need to see themselves as inherently sinful in order to play out the narrative that they have created for themselves: mankind sinned (fruit and talking snakes etc) and 'fell' so that we are all sinners that have become estranged from God, so we now need to be saved and, hey presto, up pops a miraculous saviour sent by God to save us.

Since the creation/Adam and Eve/'fall' stuff is clearly ancient myth I'd have thought the rest of this narrative simply falls apart.

I think this is 95% correct.  Salvation not only requires a saviour, but also something to be saved from, that is, you. 

There used to be a 5% in Christianity which was much more mystical, however, it was drowned out by evangelical Protestantism. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gonners,

A path, my path.

Jesus walks that path with me, you can analyse that to death, take everything that has happened in my life, put me on a couch, ask me lots of questions, but I would still have to ask, why does it work.

My confirmation bias, yes I am a confirmation Christian bias son of a......................

Well, the question rather is whether "it" - ie, a factual Jesus - works rather than why it does. Given that there are plenty of very similar stories about any number of supernatural belief objects the obvious beginning of an answer at least must be that there seems to be something about the combination of a profound episode and the attribution to it of a casual belief that's powerful.

In your shoes I think I'd want to consider both that it seems to work for other religious beliefs entirely, and moreover that it'd be one heck of a co-incidence if the real cause just happened to be the one most available to you in the place and at the time at which you just happened to live. Why for example would you not think that someone a thousand years hence would not look back at your belief in Jesus pretty much as you look at the Norse belief in Thor? It takes some confidence/arrogance to think that those before you had it wrong, but that you have it right both now and forever. 

I must admit to feeling a bit gittish about this. If you think it works for you and you don't force it on anyone else then it's no-one's business but your own. You do though seem to be willing to talk about it, and I still tend to accept the thin end of the wedge argument - if your position is "but that's my faith", how then should we respond to the suicide bomber with the same rationale? 



   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Knowledge of right and wrong, temptation, free will, conscience, forgiveness, sorrow, guilt.

These are all part of being human, and none of these would have any meaning or relevance if we were all driven solely by the deterministic laws of science.

Wrong.

[Shaker]

Knowledge of right and wrong, temptation, free will, conscience, forgiveness, sorrow, guilt.

These are all part of being human, and none of these would have any meaning or relevance if we were all driven solely by the deterministic laws of science.

Oh no, we're not back to the free will shite again, are we?

[Outrider]

Knowledge of right and wrong, temptation, free will, conscience, forgiveness, sorrow, guilt.

These are all part of being human, and none of these would have any meaning or relevance if we were all driven solely by the deterministic laws of science.

Why not? They'd have no purpose, true, but then no-one advocating the naturalistic universe is suggesting that they do, so far as I'm aware.

Why would a conscience have no meaning? We give it meaning, we're still here.

O.

[wigginhall]

Knowledge of right and wrong, temptation, free will, conscience, forgiveness, sorrow, guilt.

These are all part of being human, and none of these would have any meaning or relevance if we were all driven solely by the deterministic laws of science.

But you are ignoring the intermediate levels, e.g. of psychology.  Interesting quote from Freud, 'mental events have mental causes'.    So you don't just say, ah, your sadness is caused by neurons.

[Alan Burns]

As you seem to have ignored it, should I take it that the term "logical fallacy" just didn't compute or that you'd rather not talk about it at all?

You seem to apply the term "logical fallacy" to any point I make which can't be backed up with watertight evidence.   When discussing spriitual matters concerning God and human souls I concede that there are inevitable limitations in the way of physical evidence.  But my concept is that there is much more to reality than our physical senses can perceive.  Contrary to what many suggest, I am not making up comfortable explanations to fill the gaps of human knowledge.  I draw on the combined logic derived from my own intelligence, my prayer life, my experiences with other human beings, the readings of divinely inspired scripture and my own personal experiences - particularly with regard to answers to prayer.  No doubt you will dismiss most of these with your own alternative explanations, but I am unable to dismiss them.

[Outrider]

You seem to apply the term "logical fallacy" to any point I make which can't be backed up with watertight evidence.   When discussing spriitual matters concerning God and human souls I concede that there are inevitable limitations in the way of physical evidence.

And that's fine, there are conclusions we come to that aren't derived from physical evidence. However, in attempting to derive 'gods' from other means, inevitably there are logical fallacies: there is no way to demonstrate gods are a necessary feature of reality. They are feasible - they can't be disproven - but they aren't demonstrable. In the absence of both any necessity and any evidence we're left with no reason to accept the claim.

But my concept is that there is much more to reality than our physical senses can perceive.

I think everyone accepts that - electromagnetism, gravity, galaxies at the far reaches/beginning of the universe, leptons at the apparent foundation of matter and energy. These are ideas derived from the apparent by painstaking research, review, measurement, quantification and review of the claims. Religion has none of that justification, it's just claims that - in some, but not all, cases - are old.

Contrary to what many suggest, I am not making up comfortable explanations to fill the gaps of human knowledge.  I draw on the combined logic derived from my own intelligence, my prayer life, my experiences with other human beings, the readings of divinely inspired scripture and my own personal experiences - particularly with regard to answers to prayer.

We don't doubt your sincerity, nor your personal experience - I'd question the integrity of your logic that can move from personal experience in the absence of any sort of validation to knowledge. We know that our subjective understandings are limited and fallible - your own post is founded on that concept - yet you're prepared to suggest that in this particular area your personal experience is somehow unquestionable?

No doubt you will dismiss most of these with your own alternative explanations, but I am unable to dismiss them.

Why? Not wishing to be confrontational here, but please follow the chain of ideas here:

People are fallible;
You, as one of those people, are fallible;
Your genuine sense of God is, therefore, fallible;
In the absence of any means to validate your experience, it remains only your subjective understanding.

Please note, that's not saying (in itself) that you're wrong, or that God doesn't exist. It just says that your belief a) doesn't equate to knowledge and b) isn't sufficient for everyone else to accept the claim.

O.

[Shaker]

You seem to apply the term "logical fallacy" to any point I make which can't be backed up with watertight evidence.

Nope. The term logical fallacy is applied when you commit a logical fallacy - simple as that. A logical fallacy is a failure in clear, efficient thinking. If a good (that is, logically sound) argument is like a chain made up of interconnecting links, a fallacy is a chain with some links missing - such as saying that a large number of people believe a particular thing (which may well be true), therefore what they believe is true for that reason. It's the therefore that's the problem - that's the broken chain - the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, so you can't get there from here.

When discussing spriitual matters concerning God and human souls I concede that there are inevitable limitations in the way of physical evidence.  But my concept is that there is much more to reality than our physical senses can perceive.

Hope's big on asserting this one too, but every single time he's asked to provide a method for others to ascertain these claims, he blobs it. Are you going to fare any better?

Contrary to what many suggest, I am not making up comfortable explanations to fill the gaps of human knowledge.  I draw on the combined logic derived from my own intelligence, my prayer life, my experiences with other human beings, the readings of divinely inspired scripture and my own personal experiences - particularly with regard to answers to prayer.  No doubt you will dismiss most of these with your own alternative explanations

Yup.

but I am unable to dismiss them.

That's because you show no real sign of understanding or even wanting to understand a rational point of view coupled with a stunningly successful methodology/tool for investigating reality. And you certainly don't bother to offer a methodology for your worldview.

[Rhiannon]

I'd be very interested to hear of any Christian who doesn't consider themself (and indeed all human beings) to be a sinner.

I've never come across it. The degree to which people worry about it varies, that's all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem to apply the term "logical fallacy" to any point I make which can't be backed up with watertight evidence.

Completely wrong. A logical fallacy is a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy - it has nothing to do with not being "backed up wth watertight evidence" at all. You remember the example of the cracks in the pavement and Granny's cough I gave you and you ignored? Good, well that's a logical fallacy - it's a basic mistake in reasoning, not in the quality of the evidence you think you bring to the table.

When discussing spriitual matters concerning God and human souls I concede that there are inevitable limitations in the way of physical evidence.

That's the least of your problems. First you have to make some arguments that aren't logically hopeless for the existence of this "God" and of these "human souls" to begin with.

And there's your real problem. However strongly you feel something to be true, that says nothing to anyone else about whether it is in fact true. Just asserting it to be so does not make it so. 

But my concept is that there is much more to reality than our physical senses can perceive.

That's not "your" concept at all - there are many phenomena that we need special instruments to perceive for example. If though you want to offer conjectures about the supernatural, then you have all your work ahead of you finally to propose a method of any kind to verify these claims. And no, "It makes sense in my head" does not do that.

Contrary to what many suggest, I am not making up comfortable explanations to fill the gaps of human knowledge.

That's exactly what you are doing.

I draw on the combined logic derived from my own intelligence,...

But your "own intelligence" lets you down badly when it leads you to stumble into fallacy after fallacy. The logic is the logic - your intelligence has nothing to do with that, except for its limitations when it impairs your understanding of the logic.

...my prayer life,...

Which is epistemically worthless until and unless you can build a logical bridge from your personal prayer experiences to objective facts.

... my experiences with other human beings,...

Which we know leads you to a problem of mistaken causal attribution because you don't understand how probability and randomness work.

... the readings of divinely inspired scripture...

Except that you've yet to demonstrate that it's divinely inspired at all.

...and my own personal experiences - particularly with regard to answers to prayer.

Which brings us back to your misattribution problem.

No doubt you will dismiss most of these with your own alternative explanations, but I am unable to dismiss them.

The logic that undoes you isn't mine at all - it's just the logic that undoes you. Clearly and sadly you are unable to dismiss them, presumably because you find them to be comforting. I merely suggest though that, if you want the rest of us to do other than point and laugh, it would serve you well finally to understand what logical fallacies are, to avoid them in future and to try at least to construct an argument for your position that doesn't rely on them.   

Good luck!

[Enki]

Dear enki,

Its a two way street.

I walked into a Church a piece of shit, I walked out knowing I was a piece of shit, my late teens, no early influences, just a need to change and why, all the rest came later.

 If you want me to expand on this I will, Easterhouse, drugs, gangs, shoplifting, the list is endless

Gonnagle.

Thanks for your response above, Gonners. I came from a particularly poor working class background(probably much like Easterhouse) but I never had a feeling of lack of self worth.

Maybe that's one of the differences between us. Maybe I didn't have the need to change as such, but I was always ready to weigh up new ideas as they impinged upon me. Perhaps you needed your God much more than I needed any god, and, for that, I wish you all the luck in the world.

[ekim]

A path, my path.

Jesus walks that path with me, you can analyse that to death, take everything that has happened in my life, put me on a couch, ask me lots of questions, but I would still have to ask, why does it work.

It might work because Jesus/God represents something more powerful than you and by attributing any transformations you experience to him/it rather than claiming them for yourself, you don't inflate the ego.  Self abnegation starts to take precedence over self aggrandisement.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

(Cue Vlad repeating his epic mistake re methodological materialism or some such...)
     

It's only a mistake in the sense of casting one's pearls before swine...............have a nice day.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

but the nub of the Christian worldview is that you're factory-damaged straight off the production line, sent out into the world inherently and innately flawed by the factory boss.

No That is just a projection of your mechanistic view. Christianity never treats a human like an automaton.

if you choose to use the metaphor then I'm afraid you think you are still on factory setting.

I know Hillside likened Christians as people who blame inanimate objects for being bad or harming. That precisely describes 'The good bloke hypothesis/religion makes good people do bad things.

It is the antitheist who blames wrong on the inanimate eg................................ society, bad situations, religion etc. etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think it's in the Foreword to Brave New World that Aldous Huxley said that chronic remorse and guilt and unworthiness are a sure ticket to a miserable life - constantly rolling in the muck is no way to get clean.

But of course Vlad would just say that this is the good bloke hypothesis playing put yet again ...

To say that Christians are chronically remorseful and guilt ridden and arseclenchingly unworthy is caricature worthy of a bad ITV sitcom.

As anybody with experience of Bad ITV sitcoms will tell you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And that's fine, there are conclusions we come to that aren't derived from physical evidence. However, in attempting to derive 'gods' from other means, inevitably there are logical fallacies: there is no way to demonstrate gods are a necessary feature of reality. They are feasible - they can't be disproven - but they aren't demonstrable. In the absence of both any necessity and any evidence we're left with no reason to accept the claim.

We don't know that a god is necessary or unnecessary in your line of thinking and yet you talk about an absence of necessity. That absence is not established.

That's the little spin bit, the little leap of faith that crops up in your otherwise wonderful posts.

[Outrider]

We don't know that a god is necessary or unnecessary in your line of thinking and yet you talk about an absence of necessity.

Yes. A model that doesn't need god and still works has an absence of necessity. It's not necessarily the correct model, but currently it's the only one with a reliable methodology and any supporting evidence.

That absence is not established.

Which absence? The absence of god - never suggested that it was. Absence of a need for god, your own post concedes that.

That's the little spin bit, the little leap of faith that crops up in your otherwise wonderful posts.

No faith required. Trust in an established methodology and no trust put in claims with no methodology by which they can be verified.

O.

[Leonard James]

Yes. A model that doesn't need god and still works has an absence of necessity. It's not necessarily the correct model, but currently it's the only one with a reliable methodology and any supporting evidence.

Which absence? The absence of god - never suggested that it was. Absence of a need for god, your own post concedes that.

No faith required. Trust in an established methodology and no trust put in claims with no methodology by which they can be verified.

O.

Splendid, on the nail post.