Searching for GOD...

[SusanDoris]

I agree with you, Susan.  Muslims are generally forbidden to even read the Christian Bible, so I would not have been given much freedom in that situation.  But having been able to compare the Christian religion to Islam have no doubts as to which is closer to the truth.

As I expected, you have answered an entirely different question from the one posed. I'll try once more: If you had been born into a Moslem community, of deeply religious Moslem parents, do you realise and accept that your own religion would have been the same as theirs?

[torridon]

And I have tried to illustrate that while there may be no definite proof, there is overwhelming evidence of God's existence.  When you are called to account for your life on this earth, will you be able to say with all honesty that you did not see the evidence?

What evidence ?  There is no evidence for god.  If some evidence were found then we would be sure to hear about it, it would be all over the newspapers, it would be the biggest news story of all time. If there were even a smidgen of evidence, then 'God' would be a plausible theory in cosmology; but in the absence of evidence, science have given up Searching for God, which was the original remit of scienitific enquiry in Britain, at least. That is why people are reduced to believing by faith; faith is what you do if there is no objective evidence to justify a belief.

[Leonard James]

What evidence ?  There is no evidence for god.  If some evidence were found then we would be sure to hear about it, it would be all over the newspapers, it would be the biggest news story of all time. If there were even a smidgen of evidence, then 'God' would be a plausible theory in cosmology; but in the absence of evidence, science have given up Searching for God, which was the original remit of scienitific enquiry in Britain, at least. That is why people are reduced to believing by faith; faith is what you do if there is no objective evidence to justify a belief.

Alan seems unable to accept that the only evidence for "God" is his own personal experience or that of other people. Since it is proved beyond doubt that the human brain is able to produce such personal experiences entirely unaided, such "evidence" is completely unreliable.

[Alan Burns]

As I expected, you have answered an entirely different question from the one posed. I'll try once more: If you had been born into a Moslem community, of deeply religious Moslem parents, do you realise and accept that your own religion would have been the same as theirs?

I would hope that I would be able to see the fundamental flaws in the Islamic faith when compared to Christianity, as some converts I know who had the courage to convert from Islam to Christianity.

[Nearly Sane]

And I have tried to illustrate that while there may be no definite proof, there is overwhelming evidence of God's existence.  When you are called to account for your life on this earth, will you be able to say with all honesty that you did not see the evidence?

For evidence I would need a methodology, as it is the method that defines what amounts to evidence. Your personal incredulity is not a method.

BTW why were you so upset about being asked a liar when by implication you have just done that to all non theists on here?

[Maeght]

And I have tried to illustrate that while there may be no definite proof, there is overwhelming evidence of God's existence.

You've failed there then Alan.

[Alan Burns]

Since it is proved beyond doubt that the human brain is able to produce such personal experiences entirely unaided.

There is no such evidence, Len.  Conscious awareness is still unexplained by material science.

[Maeght]

God did not create evil, He created beings with free will rather than puppets or robots, and I presume that evil was an unwanted consequence from this.

When people make these theological arguments I'm afraid I'm always reminded of the Just So Stories of Rudyard Kipling.

[Alan Burns]

BTW why were you so upset about being asked a liar when by implication you have just done that to all non theists on here?

I have never accused anyone of lies.  I am just trying to show they are mistaken in what they believe.

[Rhiannon]

There is no such evidence, Len.  Conscious awareness is still unexplained by material science.

So the sparkly party pixies make it.

Makes every bit as much sense as saying God does. And the party pixies would be a lot more fun.

[Rhiannon]

For evidence I would need a methodology, as it is the method that defines what amounts to evidence. Your personal incredulity is not a method.

BTW why were you so upset about being asked a liar when by implication you have just done that to all non theists on here?

We are not liars, we are just led by the Prince of Lies. <nods head wisely>

[Nearly Sane]

I have never accused anyone of lies.  I am just trying to show they are mistaken in what they believe.

No, you questioned their honesty.

And I notice you avoided the issue of not having a methodology.

[Alan Burns]

What evidence ?  There is no evidence for god.

Just because we have discovered a little about how some things work you are jumping to the conclusion that there is no God.

The truth is that we are so surrounded by God's creation that we take it all for granted.  God's miracle of life is just explained away as the result of lots of unguided random events which have generated the most complex entities in the known universe.

[Nearly Sane]

Just because we have discovered a little about how some things work you are jumping to the conclusion that there is no God.

The truth is that we are so surrounded by God's creation that we take it all for granted.  God's miracle of life is just explained away as the result of lots of unguided random events which have generated the most complex entities in the known universe.

Warp factor 11 on the Assertatron and a shifting of the burden of proof.

[Gordon]

Just because we have discovered a little about how some things work you are jumping to the conclusion that there is no God.

Just because we have discovered a little about don't know how some things work you are jumping to the conclusion that there is no must be a God.

FIFY

[Gordon]

I have never accused anyone of lies.  I am just trying to show they are mistaken in what they believe.

Then not only you have you failed miserably, in your efforts to enlighten the rest of us you have exposed your own approach to 'God' as being utterly fallacious.

[torridon]

Just because we have discovered a little about how some things work you are jumping to the conclusion that there is no God.

The truth is that we are so surrounded by God's creation that we take it all for granted....

That's not truth, that's just empty assertion.  That there is a God is a positive claim that carries a burden of proof.  If there is some evidence, beyond your assertions, then fine, bring it on.

[Leonard James]

There is no such evidence, Len.  Conscious awareness is still unexplained by material science.

Science can show how sight and touch are perceived. When we see our hand touching our body, the brain is aware that both perceptions coincide and deduces why. That is awareness, and as babies we learn it by trial and error. Many other animals are equally aware of themselves.

[Alan Burns]

Science can show how sight and touch are perceived. When we see our hand touching our body, the brain is aware that both perceptions coincide and deduces why. That is awareness, and as babies we learn it by trial and error. Many other animals are equally aware of themselves.

Science shows how our sense organs transfer signals to separate areas of the brain.  It does not show how all these signals all get perceived into a single entity of conscious awareness.  All science can point to is molecular activity generated by lots of individual brain cells.  Reaction does not imply perception.

[torridon]

Science shows how our sense organs transfer signals to separate areas of the brain.  It does not show how all these signals all get perceived into a single entity of conscious awareness.  All science can point to is molecular activity generated by lots of individual brain cells.  Reaction does not imply perception.

We have already covered this for you many times, Alan, the synthesising of disparate streams of sensory data into a unified stream of conscious experience is the work of the periaqueductal gray, a small component of the recticular activating system that evolved over 500 million years ago and is now ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom, thus all higher creatures now benefit from conscious awareness; the evolution of consciousness is one of the landmark events in the history of life on this planet

And whilst that's as maybe and admittedly there is still much to learn in this area, it is your whole logical and epistemic approach that is flawed in seeking gaps in knowledge and declaring God to be in there.  A gap is not evidence for God; a gap is just a gap. To justify a positive claim, you need positive evidence.

[Alan Burns]

And whilst that's as maybe and admittedly there is still much to learn in this area, it is your whole logical and epistemic approach that is flawed in seeking gaps in knowledge and declaring God to be in there.  A gap is not evidence for God; a gap is just a gap. To justify a positive claim, you need positive evidence.

But in this case, it is more than just a gap, it is what constitutes me and you.  My conscious awareness is what I am, and science can't explain it with mere labelling.

[torridon]

But in this case, it is more than just a gap, it is what constitutes me and you.  My conscious awareness is what I am, and science can't explain it with mere labelling.

So what ? There will always be gaps; I'll never fully understand what 'I' am, but we cannot go from that gap to 'God'; a gap is a gap is a gap; it is not positive evidence for anything.

[Shaker]

Just because we have discovered a little about how some things work you are jumping to the conclusion that there is no God.

The wrongitude, it burns.

Disbelief/scepticism is the default - the factory pre-set, as 'twere. In requiring (a) a coherent definition and (b) evidence of its existence a god is the positive claim that bears the burden of proof.

[Shaker]

So what ? There will always be gaps; I'll never fully understand what 'I' am, but we cannot go from that gap to 'God'; a gap is a gap is a gap; it is not positive evidence for anything.

Exactly what I would have said, only more economically in your case. Bravo.

[Shaker]

I have never accused anyone of lies.  I am just trying to show they are mistaken in what they believe.

It's not working.

You would need to have an actual argument for that, a case shored up by evidence, and we all know the tanks are dry in that regard.