Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

"Miraculous" could be used to describe anything which is deliberately brought about by an act of free will, be it human or God's.  It is not hard to understand.

What on the other hand is hard to understand is why you can't seem to take on board the fact that you seem to think your favourite slogans - free will being the favouritest favourite - and a wave of the hand cuts it as a serious attempt at argument, when it simply doesn't.

Colossal hypocrite that he is, I don't suppose for one moment we'll be seeing Vlad having a go at you for "linguistic piracy" for labelling as "miraculous" anything that humans do.

[Alan Burns]

Free will is undefinable because it is an incoherent fictional concept of your imagination;  conscious awareness is not undefinable, rather understanding it is a work in progress and you would know this if you paid attention to this thread; the human DNA molecule is not the most complex item known to mankind, in fact the common water flea Daphnia pulex is way out of our league with over 30,000 genes, vastly more than in human DNA.

If free will is a fictional concept of the imagination, then we need to define what human imagination is in order to define how this "fictional concept" came into being, but science can't define imagination.  I still believe that conscious awareness will never have a material definition - you may recall I quoted a scientist who showed this to be a mathematical impossibility in another thread some time ago.  I did not say that human DNA was the biggest, just that it had more specifiable complexity than any other DNA.

[Shaker]

What's this specifiable complexity you're wittering on about now? What does it mean?

[torridon]

What's your methodology for differentiating between 'miraculous' and 'hard to understand'?

"Miraculous" could be used to describe anything which is deliberately brought about by an act of free will, be it human or God's.  It is not hard to understand.

That doesn't really answer the question, so let's try again using your latest phraseology :

What's the method for differentiating between 'deliberate' and merely 'hard to understand'?

[torridon]

If free will is a fictional concept of the imagination, then we need to define what human imagination is in order to define how this "fictional concept" came into being, but science can't define imagination.  I still believe that conscious awareness will never have a material definition - you may recall I quoted a scientist who showed this to be a mathematical impossibility in another thread some time ago.  I did not say that human DNA was the biggest, just that it had more specifiable complexity than any other DNA.

I'm not sure what is meant by 'specifiable complexity'.  I suspect it to be in practice another wall to keep real knowledge out, a bit like 'science can't define ...'. But to cut you some slack, and agree the human genome produces the human brain, arguably the most complex product so far known, this does implicitly recognise the notion of a spectrum of complexity at work and forms a truer basis for understanding the diversity of phenomena.  Humans aren't magic beings, we are just a little more complex in some ways than other creatures.  I don't see that 'more complex' equates to 'miraculous'; it just means 'more complex'. Take a human DNA and compare it with a chimpanzee DNA, we can scarcely tell the difference, they are near identical in coding regions; so at the level of genetics, humans are just slightly more 'complex'.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

The Polychaos dubium genome contains mostly junk which can't be classified as specific complexity.

Why did God include junk in the genome when he was designing it?

Doesn't sound like a very intelligent or efficient design to me.

[Stranger]

If free will is a fictional concept of the imagination, then we need to define what human imagination is in order to define how this "fictional concept" came into being, but science can't define imagination.

Exactly how imagination works is not yet understood either by science or by you; goddidit isn't an explanation.

I still believe that conscious awareness will never have a material definition...

I'm sure you do, but you have yet to provide any reasoning. As I said before, unless you understand how it works, you cannot possibly say whether or not it can be implemented in the 'material' (however you define that).

...you may recall I quoted a scientist who showed this to be a mathematical impossibility in another thread some time ago.

I don't, please could you provide a reference?

[torridon]

I still believe that conscious awareness will never have a material definition - you may recall I quoted a scientist who showed this to be a mathematical impossibility in another thread some time ago.

And if you recall we pointed out that the work of said scientist is now regarded as a curiosity in the history of science; not every scientist remains true, all are human, and this was an example of one trying to validate his religious beliefs rather than remaining true to evidence.

[Rhiannon]

But it was God chose to make Himself known to me

And you've also told us that we need to seek God before he will choose to do that for us. Which is it? Or did God make an exception in your case?

[Nearly Sane]

God doesn't seem to be coming through for poor Becky Laird.

Given that we know about that person because of posts on the Prayer board, I think that referring to them here is tasteless.

[Rhiannon]

Sometimes it's best not to say things out loud.

Although given the claims Alan makes for what his God does I can see why he gets picked up on this one. 

[floo]

Sometimes it's best not to say things out loud.

Although given the claims Alan makes for what his God does I can see why he gets picked up on this one. 

I feel extremely sorry for Alan's friend and her family and anyone else who are desperate for god to answer their prayers positively.

[Rhiannon]

I think I know far more about a stranger's private medical stuff than I feel comfortable with, but there we are.

[Shaker]

Given that we know about that person because of posts on the Prayer board, I think that referring to them here is tasteless.

As Rhiannon has so very rightly pointed out, you can't have it both ways - you can't claim things about God as Alan does and then expect to be immune from challenge, questioning and criticism as to the implications of those claims. It would be tasteless on the Prayer thread; here, not really.

[Shaker]

I think I know far more about a stranger's private medical stuff than I feel comfortable with, but there we are.

Quite 

[Shaker]

I think it would have been better if Alan had omitted her name and those of her family. I wonder if the woman's husband realises his e-mails are being published on an open forum?

I assume that Andrew gave his permission, but then again, who knows?

[Shaker]

Probably a bit late for that now

[Alan Burns]

I assume that Andrew gave his permission, but then again, who knows?

I published it on the prayer thread in response to Andrew's request for prayers, and he has expressed his gratitude for all those on this forum who have offered their prayers.  I am certain that Becky too is grateful for these prayers.

Andrew has access to this forum, so I would be grateful if members would refrain from negative comments concerning Becky.

[Shaker]

There haven't been any negative comments with regard to Becky personally, though. Everyone has the utmost sympathy for her plight and that of her family.

What's been and is being criticised are your beliefs, not a specific person.

[Sassy]

What would it take to convince you that the Hindu religion is the true belief system?

What standard or measure of evidence would you set as acceptable evidence for the Hindu deities?

The God, I know and believe in now to tell me.

Would that standard be of an equivalent to those you use for your invisible sky pixie?

Well so far, my God has done what he said he would. The Messiah, Jesus Christ came and he did things people still talk about 2,000 years later. All from a time when social media and world news media did not exist. He is probably the most famous man on the planet.

You see the way you see things is from the unrealistic point of someone who never has experienced God and the truth of Jesus Christ.  That is because truth to you is not important. Even scientist are seeking a form of truth in all they do.
My God is real to me it is important for me to know the truth. I can see the comfort people seek in believing when they die they cease to exist. But the truth is far more interesting and exciting because it makes the difference in our lives that changes our views for ever.

When you want to find God and Christ just seek the Kingdom of God. Seek and ye shall find, Knock and  the door will be opened unto... If you never sought then you never wanted to know.

[jeremyp]

But even if he gave his permission, his wife is not in a position to do so, and she might be mortified if she knew her medical condition was being discussed on line by strangers.

If she is ever again in a position to be mortified by the thread on the Prayer board, that would be a cause for celebration.

[Sassy]

Msg 12303 AB You keep shaking that tree but all you get is plastic fruit. Theres nothing real.

How did the notion of thought of plastic fruit come about?
Someone created it, right.
But who created the real fruit the thought came from?
GOD.

[Sassy]

So, Christians - who can't even agree amongst themselves are supposed to give the rest of us the message. This is your god's idea of a 'plan' is it?

As I said before: your god appears to have crippling communication problems...

I suppose you could say believers have a special hearing ability which allows them to hear what God is telling them.
But you are without that hearing ability as are some who think they know Gods plan.

What I want to ask you is this...

Why are you so interested in a God whom you claim not to believe in?

God gets his message to those who listen and obey.
But you, you never listened or believed in the message about his Son. So how would you recognise the truth God teaches?
I suggest instead of passing judgment on things you have no reasoning or understanding for.
That you actually study what God has written then come back discuss.

[Sassy]

Doubting Thomas got the real deal. Why should we put up with mere Christians? Why can't the big man pop down in person and show us a few miracles?

Jesus Christ, rose from the dead.
How big a miracle do you want? Truth is that no matter what miracle God gave you, you would find an excuse because the truth is you do not want to believe. You are not interested in the truth and you chose it for yourself.
You had your proof you just did not seek to know if true.

[Nearly Sane]

As Rhiannon has so very rightly pointed out, you can't have it both ways - you can't claim things about God as Alan does and then expect to be immune from challenge, questioning and criticism as to the implications of those claims. It would be tasteless on the Prayer thread; here, not really.

But that's not the issue. It's the fact that the plight if a person we only know about through the Prayer thread is being used as a debating point here that I find tasteless. Alan's views are easily challenged without that.