Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

I know there are some Christians who believe that animals have souls, but for me I see no evidence of self awareness coupled with free will in animal behaviour.  As I have said before, animals react to their sensory inputs, and these reactions can be defined by built in instinct and learnt experience.  I see no convincing evidence for the conscious perception experienced in humans.

And as has been pointed out innumerable times already, there is no convincing evidence for free will in humans either and there is no evidence for souls of any stripe. You are back to assertion city. I am not interested in baseless beliefs, you need supporting evidence and reasoning in order to be taken seriously.

[SusanDoris]

Blue,

Excellent.

Definitely agree!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

Definitely agree!

Aw, you guys...

Group hug?

[Sebastian Toe]

I guess it is true...small things amuse small minds... in your case one brain cell.

Seems you think you have written something deserving contempt

Even your sarcasm and childish replies I suppose could be seen as contemptible.

Personally, I find nothing that is constructive just an attempt to belittle

hmmmm....

[ippy]

I can assure you, ippy, that my wife and I lead a very happy fulfilled life with lots to appreciate.  We had a great weekend in London last week visiting the art galleries and went to see Jim Broadbent playing a brilliant Scrooge in Christmas Carol.  But our lives would really have a big hollow feeling if we did not have God in our lives.  God's presence is absolutely central, but having found God we do not just sit back and wait for salvation to come to us - an essential part of our fulfillment is to answer Gods calling for us to share this wonderful good news of salvation.

Could be better if you didn't keep kidding, yourselves, I'm sure the social side of meeting your friends at your mournful but otherwise friendly meetings can be enjoyable, but the kidding bit?

I'm sure there is a possibility that your Jesus bloke did exist, but without going into the inns and outs of the rest of his possible doings Alan, come on the it's a tall order to swallow and so unlikely that stuff promoted by those bronze age primitives, with their must be magic if we don't understand it, all without an iota of anything close to anything evidential that might have supported their ideas

I've been to Africa several times there is a feeling it gives me I experience it every time I go there, I can't explain it but I don't go summoning up magic and mystical beings to explain what is probably a mix of the change of light there, beautiful differing animals from the usual here, smells, somewhere that's so different from Europe, anticipation, knowing a lot of the wildlife is dangerous.

Rock bottom of where I think you and your fellow believers go wrong is just because there are lot of things, feelings etc that we can't explain, is no good reason for summoning up imaginary magical, mystical, superstitional things as though they are anything more than imaginary.

You need to pull back on this religious further of yours and take a more realistic view of life, come back into what may be to you the more boring but at least a rational realistic version how things actually are.   

ippy           

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But if you experienced God's love, you too would see it as real.

And if you just believed you'd "experienced God's love" but were entirely mistaken about that, you'd see it as real too.

How does that help you?

[Enki]

You are quite right.
To an outsider who is happy with their own beliefs and position in life, Chritianity will have little to attract them.
They would be expected to give up some of the simple pleasures in life, and waste time in prayer and attending church.
They might have to start offering help and service to people they do not particularly like.
They might even have to believe in such things as the virgin birth and the resurrection, or the devil!
They will probably suffer rejection, ridicule or even persecution from their fellow human beings.
They will need to listen to the voice of their conscience.
Life will be turned upside down.
Life will no longer comprise of just existing and dying - it will have true purpose.
Superficial pleasures will be replaced by the true joy of knowing God's love.
You will not be alone, you will become part of Christ's presence on earth along with millions of others.
You will realise the truth that we are not shackled by the constraints of deterministic science, but have been given true free will - freedom to choose our own destiny.
We do not have freedom to choose the truth - it might not be what we like, but the truth will set you free.

What was that all about, Alan?

What was the point in making the above points at all?  Many of them are equally applicable to people of other faiths and no faith(e.g. one doesn't have to be a Christian to have a conscience or to suffer persecution or to help all sorts of people).

Even the theological points are obvious, depending of course on which type of Christian you become.

Plenty of people find purpose in their lives. One doesn't have to be a Christian to experience this. Simply labelling your kind of purpose as 'true purpose' is only of significance to you and others like you. It really doesn't mean all that much to people who have very different world views to your own.

All sorts of people find joy, inspiration and comfort in their own religious views(or lack of them) be they Buddhist, Pagan, Christian etc.

The last part simply states your idea(vague as it is) of some sort of overriding 'truth' which only people like you can see. I prefer not to be shackled by the constraints of believing your 'truth' without evidence and a valid methodology which arrives at that evidence. Indeed, I am very doubtful that your idea of what 'truth' is, is at all meaningful.

All you seem to have achieved here, Alan, is to make statements, often of a most arrogant and parochial nature, which, for me, completely turn me off your approach to your particular faith.

[Bubbles]

Isn't it time people gave Alan a bit of a break 

[Alan Burns]

There is no such thing as God, let alone his love, whatever you think that means.  There is the wonderful, awe-inspiring fact that we, the human species, have evolved throughout millions of years to become the conscious, living beings we are, the vast majority of whom love and care for family and friends, who do the best they can throughout their lives to try and leave the world a slightly better place than when they were born into it. All discoveries, achievements, breakthroughs and skills which make our lives safer, healthier and more interesting have been done by humans. No god has ever existed. At  last, the human race is beginning to emerge from the long digression it started  to  make into religious beliefs and gods almost as soon as it could speak, but maybe in a thousand years or so the majority of humans will be on the main road knowing the truth - that you avoid - of reality and thereby make even better use of their time alive.

Susan,
The scenario you describe is truly awe inspiring.  Can you not see that the progress the human race is making - discoveries, achievements, breakthroughs and skills - these are totally meaningless in the natural deterministic world view.  If a meteorite crashes into this earth, obliterating all life, everything we currently strive for will be rendered meaningless - just a blip in the natural deterministic path of this universe heading for total inevitable oblivion.  My perception of life on this earth is evidence of a creative force driven my unimaginable intelligence towards the goals you rightly perceive.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rose,

Isn't it time people gave Alan a bit of a break

Perhaps, but it's not Alan but his arguments such as they are that are getting savaged. What to do though when someone says "2=2=5", has his mistake explained to him and returns with "2+2=5", and then keeps doing it?

Clearly, "OK then, we agree 2+2=5" isn't on the cards, so all that leaves is to ignore him. As he seems to be entirely uneducable that's probably the best answer but hey, you can't blame folks at least for trying.

An irony that's lost on Alan by the way is that, in the vanishingly unlikely event that he's right, his efforts here to carry out his "mission" are so badly done that, if anything, I'd have thought that fewer rather than more people are likely to be converted.   

[ippy]

Isn't it time people gave Alan a bit of a break 

Can't see why we should, when you get the impression in spite of his delusional ways there is some kind of a brain in there somewhere and he's not entirely without hope of eventually understanding the irrational hole he is in.

Who knows Rose he might even end up with a shrine dedicated to "Our Lord of the Dawkins"and some of his disciples such as Sam Harris, Stephen Hawkins, Alice Roberts, Melvin Brag, Chris Hitchens, Dan Dennet, Brian Cox, David Attenborough, there's so many, usually brighter than average as well.     

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The scenario you describe is truly awe inspiring.  Can you not see that the progress the human race is making - discoveries, achievements, breakthroughs and skills - these are totally meaningless in the natural deterministic world view.

Why would anyone "see" that when there's no reason to think it in the first place? Of course these things have meaning and significance within the paradigm of the world we appear to experience, and there's no need to appeal to a supposed universal significance for that to be the case.

If a meteorite crashes into this earth, obliterating all life, everything we currently strive for will be rendered meaningless - just a blip in the natural deterministic path of this universe heading for total inevitable oblivion.

Yup. As it would be if that meteorite instead wiped out the three-toed Chuckle Monsters on Beetlegeuse.

So?

My perception of life on this earth is evidence of a creative force driven my unimaginable intelligence towards the goals you rightly perceive.

That's called wishful thinking Alan - yet another logical fallacy. However much you want there to be celestial importance attached to your doings, that says nothing whatever to whether or not there is celestial importance attached to your doings.

Anyone fancy a game of Alan Burns logical fallacy bingo? I think I may be close to a full house.   
 

[BeRational]

Blue

Anyone fancy a game of Alan Burns logical fallacy bingo? I think I may be close to a full house.   

I prefer harder games, or games that last a little longer.

This could all over with one post from AB.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

I prefer harder games, or games that last a little longer.

This could all over with one post from AB.

Fair enough. Best of three instead then?

The odd thing is that he tells us he's intelligent, then he relies on a string of logical fallacies, he has his mistakes explained to him, and then he just repeats he same fallacies and adds a few more just for fun.

I can only think that he's so in thrall to the supposed correctness of his beliefs that he really is indifferent to how bad the arguments are that he relies on to validate them. Certainly he just ignores the rebuttals and carries on regardless, so effectivley all we have left is, "it's true because I say it's true".

Odd.

[Alan Burns]

Anyone fancy a game of Alan Burns logical fallacy bingo? I think I may be close to a full house.

It would seem that anything I post which points to evidence of God's existence is dismissed and labelled as a logical fallacy.  I strongly suspect that this is just an easy way to refute any argument I make for the existence of God.  However there are some posters to seem to understand my logic and make valid comments on it, moving on to higher levels of discussion.  So can we please have more constructive comments and less labelling?

[BeRational]

It would seem that anything I post which points to evidence of God's existence is dismissed and labelled as a logical fallacy.  I strongly suspect that this is just an easy way to refute any argument I make for the existence of God.  However there are some posters to seem to understand my logic and make valid comments on it, moving on to higher levels of discussion.  So can we please have more constructive comments and less labelling?

You do not have 'your' logic.
You have faulty delusional wishful thinking.

Your posts lack logic, and that has been pointed out many many times.
This alone gives the lie to your claimed qualifications and IQ.

Your IQ from your posts is below average.

[Alan Burns]

What was that all about, Alan?

What was the point in making the above points at all?

I was just pointing out that it is not easy being a Christian.  We are called to take up our cross and follow Jesus.  But it is what life is all about.  It is the ultimate fulfilment of our life on this earth.

[Gordon]

It would seem that anything I post which points to evidence of God's existence is dismissed and labelled as a logical fallacy.

That is because you keep committing logical fallacies.

I strongly suspect that this is just an easy way to refute any argument I make for the existence of God.

It certainly is when they are so obviously fallacious.

However there are some posters to seem to understand my logic and make valid comments on it, moving on to higher levels of discussion.

Who exactly, and in what ways 'higher level'?

So can we please have more constructive comments and less labelling?

Nope - you keep committing logical fallacies and I'll keep pointing them out: you say you are here to save my soul, so it is quite reasonable that I should check you know what you are talking about!

[Outrider]

It would seem that anything I post which points to evidence of God's existence is dismissed and labelled as a logical fallacy.

Do people explain to you why what you have posted is a logical fallacy, or do they simply state that it is and dismiss it because you've posted it? I feel they point out to you what the logical flaw in your commentary is, that's debate. They don't dismiss what you say with the cry 'logical fallacy' because you've posted it, or because it's advocating God, but because they see logical fallacies in what you post.

If you don't want them to make that contention, try to avoid making those logical fallacies. Of course, in the course of history, no-one's managed to demonstrate that God is a demonstrable reality in that fashion, that's why it's a faith position and not a logical conclusion or a demonstrable reality.

I strongly suspect that this is just an easy way to refute any argument I make for the existence of God.

It is easy, but that's because most of the fallacies that you employ have been in circulation for a long time.

However there are some posters to seem to understand my logic and make valid comments on it, moving on to higher levels of discussion.

You don't get your own logic - something either progresses, of necessity, from the initial conditions, or it doesn't. Some people accept your conclusions, but that neither validates them nor obviates the logical gaps. As to the idea that agreement with your view is, inherently a 'higher level' of discussion...

So can we please have more constructive comments and less labelling?

How is pointing out that your argument contains fundmental logical errors not  constructive? Ignoring those comments and claiming to be operating at a 'higher level' of discussion, where your arbitrary assumptions can be just allowed to ride is not constructive. Failing to engage with the criticism because you don't like the conclusion is not constructive.

O.

[Outrider]

I was just pointing out that it is not easy being a Christian.

It's not easy being an atheist (although it's getting easier, certainly around here). But then, if it were easy it wouldn't have a name - there isn't really a name for people who can walk, it's just a given, but there are names for people who, for various reasons, can't.

We are called to take up our cross and follow Jesus.

Well, you choose to, certainly. We choose to stand on our own recognisance and decide what we consider moral or otherwise for ourselves.

But it is what life is all about.  It is the ultimate fulfilment of our life on this earth.

Good thing, given the dearth of any justification for presuming another life anywhere else.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It would seem that anything I post which points to evidence of God's existence is dismissed and labelled as a logical fallacy.  I strongly suspect that this is just an easy way to refute any argument I make for the existence of God.  However there are some posters to seem to understand my logic and make valid comments on it, moving on to higher levels of discussion.  So can we please have more constructive comments and less labelling?

Among the various question I've asked you and you've just ignored is whether or not you even understand the term "logical fallacy". Your latest post tells me that you don't, so let's start there shall we?

A logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that invalidates the attempted argument. There are various types of logical fallacy (we can come to that once the basics are in place) but for now it's enough to know that fallacious logic is always wrong.

I gave you an example earlier that you just ignored (twice I think) to illustrate the point, so here it is again: if I decided that not walking on the cracks in the pavement on my way home would cure Grannie's flu, I got home and found her flu had been cured and then I claimed that it was my pavement crack avoidance that had effected the cure, that would be a logical fallacy. Specifically, the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - ie, that B follows A it does not mean that A must have caused B.

Still with me? Good.

OK then. In your latest post you complain that people point out the fallacious reasoning on which you rely to argue for "God" as an easy way to refute those arguments. You're right to identify that it is easy, but not to suggest that it's a way of avoiding your arguments. Rather your arguments are necessarily void to start with because they rest on fallacies. A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy - whether the conclusion is "God", leprechauns or the man in the moon doesn't matter - the argument has failed a priori.     

To put it another way, your complaint here is a bit like my complaining that your objection to my pavement cure theory was just your easy way out of my argument and that I'd rather please that you "moved on to higher levels of discussion" about it.

The problem with that is that - both for your god argument and for my pavement argument - there is no higher level of discussion when the basic arguments are broken.

If you could at grasp this simple point you would at least have begun to dig your way out of the hole you've made for yourself.       

Really.

[SusanDoris]

Susan,
The scenario you describe is truly awe inspiring.  Can you not see that the progress the human race is making - discoveries, achievements, breakthroughs and skills - these are totally meaningless in the natural deterministic world view.  If a meteorite crashes into this earth, obliterating all life, everything we currently strive for will be rendered meaningless - just a blip in the natural deterministic path of this universe heading for total inevitable oblivion.  My perception of life on this earth is evidence of a creative force driven my unimaginable intelligence towards the goals you rightly perceive.

They will most certainly not be meaningless.  And it is  because of the knowledge gained by Science, that if a meteor is spotted in time, the means will be there to at least lessen the damage it would cause. As always, no God/god/s involved.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Among the various question I've asked you and you've just ignored is whether or not you even understand the term "logical fallacy". Your latest post tells me that you don't, so let's start there shall we?

A logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that invalidates the attempted argument. There are various types of logical fallacy (we can come on to that once the basics are in place) but for now it's enough to know that fallacious logic is always wrong.

I gave you an example earlier that you just ignored (twice I think) to illustrate the point, so here it is again: if I decided that not walking on the cracks in the pavement on my way home would cure Grannie's flu, I got home and found her flu had been cured and then I claimed that it was my pavement crack avoidance that had effected the cure, that would be a logical fallacy. Specifically, the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - ie, that B follows A it does not mean that A must have caused B.

Still with me? Good.

OK then. In your latest post you complain that people point out the fallacious reasoning on which you rely to argue for "God" as an easy way to refute those arguments. You're right to identify that it is easy, but not to suggest that it's a way of avoiding your arguments. Rather your arguments are necessarily void to start with because they rest on fallacies. A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy - whether the conclusion is "God", leprechauns or the man in the moon doesn't matter - the argument has failed a priori.     

To put it another way, you complaint here is a bit like my complaining that you objection to my pavement cure theory was just your easy way out of my argument and that I'd rather please that you "moved on to higher levels of discussion" about it.

The problem here is that - both for your god argument and for my pavement argument - there is no higher level of discussion when the basic arguments are broken.

If you could at least grasp this basic point you would at leat have begun to have dug your way out of the hole you've made for yourself.     

I know you have quoted the cracks in the pavement fallacy several times, but I do not see how this relates to any of the points I have made.  The logic I use may not be as watertight as mathematical statements, but it does relate to reality much more that the cracks in the pavement example you use.

[Outrider]

I know you have quoted the cracks in the pavement fallacy several times, but I do not see how this relates to any of the points I have made.  The logic I use may not be as watertight as mathematical statements, but it does relate to reality much more that the cracks in the pavement example you use.

Please, pick one of the times it's been suggested that you've used a logical fallacy, and we'll walk you through it.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I know you have quoted the cracks in the pavement fallacy several times, but I do not see how this relates to any of the points I have made.  The logic I use may not be as watertight as mathematical statements, but it does relate to reality much more that the cracks in the pavement example you use.

It's not the cracks in the pavement that matters, but rather that it's an example of a logical fallacy - one that you've used often in the past by the way.

Your problem isn't that the logic you use "isn't as watertight as mathematical statements" at all; it's that it's fundamentally broken. Hopeless. Categorically, flatly, unequivocally wrong.

That's the thing about them - rather like not being a little bit pregnant, your arguments can't be a little be fallacious. Wrong is wrong is wrong so your only option is to try instead to think of arguments that aren't wrong.

Then - but only then - would a "higher level of discussion" even be possible.   

Sorry, but there it is.