Searching for GOD...

[Rhiannon]

That's about the most tortuous and torturous misapprehension of any passage I've seen in a very long time indeed.

This for me is the point at which I've realised we really aren't talking to someone capable of rationality. The led astray by Satan/God knows what we need stuff is fairly standard for a certain kind of Christian.

But that...wow.

[Gordon]

All I am implying is that God (ie That which exists ...)

Which is an assertion for which there is no meaningful evidence.

made Himself known to us by becoming one of us.

Another assertion unjustified by meaningful evidence.

As Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life"

Anecdote, and one that is indistinguishable from fiction.

- no ordinary being, but God made man.

Yet another assertion unjustified by any  meaningful evidence.

We can't substantiate this with scientifically controlled methodology

You can't substantiate any of it.

but we can look at the message - that Jesus came to save us from evil and enable us to return to our true home in Heaven. If we really want to be delivered from evil, we can start with an act of faith in Jesus and invite Him into our lives.

Hallelujah!

[Shaker]

This for me is the point at which I've realised we really aren't talking to someone capable of rationality. The led astray by Satan/God knows what we need stuff is fairly standard for a certain kind of Christian.

But that...wow.

I've got that one beaten, though, by a very long way - Sassy's recent declaration that there's no gravity on planets other than Earth. Now that really was a "Did I actually just read that?" moment.

[Rhiannon]

I've got that one beaten, though, by a very long way - Sassy's recent declaration that there's no gravity on planets other than Earth. Now that really was a "Did I actually just read that?" moment.

Sass' posts are in a unique category all of their own as far as I'm concerned.

[Khatru]

Not if "that which is outside this universe" has made itself known to us in the life of Jesus.

Then there is that which exists outside of Jesus' universe which is unknown to him.

[torridon]

OK, I should have said that the cause of a free will event can't come from within the cause and effect chain as defined by materialistic behaviour.  The cause of a free will event must come from the conscious will of a person, so until we can define conscious awareness, we can't define the cause of free will.

That's wrong on multiple levels.

Cause and effect is logic principle that transcends physical sciences. A choice made in a human brain might have more degrees of apparent freedom than a choice made in a rabbit brain, but neither choice can be truly totally free because that is not fundamentally what a choice is. The notion of a totally free choice is an incoherent one; a choice has to serve a purpose and is thus not ultimately free, it is constrained by its parent need.

The conscious will of a person is merely the conscious expression of the unconscious will of a person and whilst we cannot be aware of all the machinations going on in subconscious mind, there  is no particular reason to suppose that a desire or need that surfaces into conscious awareness has any origin other than the deeper workings of mind. That is why we have mind; complex bodies need complex steerage and so produce mind to achieve that. Will that came from some outside, external source, irrelevant, not intimately produced by the body, would have no warrant to manage the body.

[wigginhall]

So according to AB, the origin of free will is found in the soul, but this all happens non-materially, where the chain of cause/effects breaks down, but none the less, it's how we find meaning, somehow transferred from the soul to the brain, but nobody knows how this happens.  Yes, that's all perfectly clear!

I have this second-hand car for sale, ignore the knocking sound, and I know the brakes are a bit vague, but come on, you have my assurance that it's a real goer, (but not a stopper).

[Alan Burns]

No it's not alluded to, Alan. Really. It isn't.

I am aware that there are several different interpretations of what Jesus meant by the words "I am", one of the most popular being "I am even more important than. Abraham".  But to me this makes no sense when read in the context of the preceding verse.  But then I admit that I am not a biblical scholar.  I read the words of the bible as perhaps a child would, but Jesus says that unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

[Shaker]

What about putting away childish things when you become a man?

[Alan Burns]

The conscious will of a person is merely the conscious expression of the unconscious will of a person and whilst we cannot be aware of all the machinations going on in subconscious mind, there  is no particular reason to suppose that a desire or need that surfaces into conscious awareness has any origin other than the deeper workings of mind. That is why we have mind; complex bodies need complex steerage and so produce mind to achieve that.

So on one hand you are saying that all our decisions are made subconsciously and we only become aware of them after they are made, then you say we need complex steerage, which from my perceived logic can only be achieved through the interaction with our conscious awareness. 

[ippy]

All I am implying is that God (ie That which exists ...) made Himself known to us by becoming one of us.  As Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life" - no ordinary being, but God made man.  We can't substantiate this with scientifically controlled methodology, but we can look at the message - that Jesus came to save us from evil and enable us to return to our true home in Heaven. If we really want to be delivered from evil, we can start with an act of faith in Jesus and invite Him into our lives.

Well Alan it's not so much of a we can anything, the nearest you can get to verifying these continuing assertions of yours, is that most reasonable people will concede that there is a chance that there was a bloke called Jesus hanging around at those times even then it's only a possibility; well as to the rest of your assertions, Thomas Paine, a Quaker said in such a well written out way that I couldn't top, the following:

"If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; it raises the question in the mind very easily decided, which is: "Is it more probable that nature should out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie"?

He sums up in very few words how silly your way of expressing little more than a catalogue of unsupportable assertions actually is.

Just a line or two about your beliefs backed up with some kind of viable evidence, would easily supersede the load of nonsense you continue to spill out every day.

I wonder what kind of lies you will be telling yourself to get your head around this lot, it'll be interesting.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

What about putting away childish things when you become a man?

But I have just re discovered the joys of playing with Meccano and model railways. 

[Brownie]

Am I alone in feeling a bit sorry for Alan?  He is a Traditionalist, we're all different, and he seems a decent enough chap.

(Glad you have discovered Meccano and model railways Alan.  Model railways are not so childish.  I used to like the tiny ones,oo gauge I think they were.  My son had a lot of that but he doesn't play with it now.  Scalextric is fun too!)

[Alan Burns]

Just a line or two about your beliefs backed up with some kind of viable evidence, would easily supersede the load of nonsense you continue to spill out every day.

I wonder what kind of lies you will be telling yourself to get your head around this lot, it'll be interesting.

ippy

My beliefs are backed up by the millions of sincere devout Christians who have witnessed to their faith in words and deeds over the last two thousand years.

[Leonard James]

Am I alone in feeling a bit sorry for Alan?  He is a Traditionalist, we're all different, and he seems a decent enough chap.

No, Brownie, you are not. I have known Alan, on and off and forum-wise, for many years. He is a good bloke.

[wigginhall]

Am I alone in feeling a bit sorry for Alan?  He is a Traditionalist, we're all different, and he seems a decent enough chap.

(Glad you have discovered Meccano and model railways Alan.  Model railways are not so childish.  I used to like the tiny ones,oo gauge I think they were.  My son had a lot of that but he doesn't play with it now.  Scalextric is fun too!)

He may be decent, but it strikes me that he's dishonest in his arguments.   Does that matter?

[Leonard James]

My beliefs are backed up by the millions of sincere devout Christians who have witnessed to their faith in words and deeds over the last two thousand years.

Unfortunately, Alan, as I have told you umpteen times before, the fact that so many people have been brought up to believe in Christianity is NOT evidence for the truth of it.

[torridon]

So on one hand you are saying that all our decisions are made subconsciously and we only become aware of them after they are made, then you say we need complex steerage, which from my perceived logic can only be achieved through the interaction with our conscious awareness. 

I posted up some comments on this on the 'Aha' thread today.  Certain kinds of decision benefit from exposure in conscious mind, most do not; consciousness is a precious resource allocated on a strict need to know basis. What you would call free-will decisions are those that typically engage higher cognitive functions and conscious awareness, but the choices that result out of that more complex process are still made by the mind in the service of the needs of the body.  Your idea of some triangular arrangement with body and mind and soul interacting with each other in unspecified ways has no authentic basis in either observation or logic. 

[Sassy]

I have got to be honest. This thread is the epitome in circulus in probando.

There is nothing we can say that will make AB think differently. There is nothing he can say that will make us believe in a biblical apocalypse. Or a heaven. Or a hell. Or redemption for our "sin" through believing Jesus is a "Christ"/being baptised in water and/or spirit. Or any other important Christian thing I have missed out!

You still have to explain why (when there is nothing AB can say to convince you of anything) you are still freely without force or Coercion discussion biblical matters which you believe without foundation.

If you cannot find the way through the biblical truth yourself and won't listen to anyone else. Then exactly what are you expecting from this thread or any other for that matter?

We all know you love adoration and being held in the highest field of contempt more for others than yourself.
But come along dear tell us why you are really here...

[torridon]

My beliefs are backed up by the millions of sincere devout Christians who have witnessed to their faith in words and deeds over the last two thousand years.

and millions of devout Hindus for even longer.

Argumentum ad populum is no real argument at all, it is a fallacy pretending to be an argument.

[Sassy]

If you read my post I said that God's love could not be discerned through scientific methodology because it is beyond human understanding.

My earlier posts were meant to draw attention to the limitations of science and encourage people to look beyond the limits of our man made logic to discover the truth that lies beyond.

No more than the feelings of human beings and their attraction to one person and not another can be explained.
As for looking beyond man made logic and seeking the natural truth. Well they have to have something to hold onto.
Though they cannot really explain the gravity of either argument set before them.

[Leonard James]

He may be decent, but it strikes me that he's dishonest in his arguments.   Does that matter?

I can't agree with that, Wigs. I am sure that Alan firmly believes everything he posts, although at times, as with the rest of us, things come out sounding not what we mean.

[Nearly Sane]

I can't agree with that, Wigs. I am sure that Alan firmly believes everything he posts, although at times, as with the rest of us, things come out sounding not what we mean.

But he continually posts as if the points have not been covered, and continually use fallacies after they have been pointed out. The lack of real engagement feels dishonest to me too.

[Stranger]

My beliefs are backed up by the millions of sincere devout Christians who have witnessed to their faith in words and deeds over the last two thousand years.

Unfortunately, there are countless beliefs that can claim exactly the same sort of "evidence" and they can't all be true because they contradict each other.

[Leonard James]

But he continually posts as if the points have not been covered, and continually use fallacies after they have been pointed out. The lack of real engagement feels dishonest to me too.

But if he doesn't accept that they are fallacies, he is not being dishonest.