Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Far better than the pie in the sky nonsense for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

There is no evidence for ontological naturalism except a rather bad circular argument. In fact the handwaving that goes with obscuring the leap of faith that goes with trying to dress methodological naturalism up as an ontology is an intellectual travesty.

How can you make sense of insisting that everything which is true should be establishable by methodological materialism when that cannot prove that what you're insisting is true? That is a dodge or mental aberration.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have no faith(such an annoying word) but I tell people  i have a shed load of hope. I do hope for so many things for this planet and the population. Why wouldnt I. But "coming together" for all of us must be a much more shared view of all the things that have been mentioned in the past IE(in no particular order) logic, science, common sense, evidence, rationality etc. . . . .glass of wine. Its not a bad wish is it?

If it is by degrees wrong, unscientific, homespun cobblers, unevidenced (as ontological naturalism is) and confuses atheism with rationality then that ain't good.

[floo]

There is no evidence for ontological naturalism except a rather bad circular argument. In fact the handwaving that goes with obscuring the leap of faith that goes with trying to dress methodological naturalism up as an ontology is an intellectual travesty.

How can you make sense of insisting that everything which is true should be establishable by methodological materialism when that cannot prove that what you're insisting is true? That is a dodge or mental aberration.

Is your, 'god wot dun it', position a dodge or mental aberration?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

You don't reason Stephen,

You sit on the fence thinking it exists but it really doesn't.
You are not a doubting Thomas. Thomas was HONEST and believed in Jesus being the Son of God.
But it was his resurrection he had trouble believing. He said if he could see him and put his hand in his side.
But when Jesus came to him he knew Jesus was risen. You have no point of faith. Had you really sought the truth then you would have told God you really want to believe but you need to know who God is. Who is the real God.

A young man a reported having witnessed many things told God he wanted to believe but how would he know which is the truth. God sent someone to him and this person told them what God wanted him to know. What he wanted to know.

Sometimes like Thomas, God acts on the knowledge and faith of our hearts. In these cases he responded to the faith of these men and the fact they had asked God to reveal himself. So you know the way Stephen. But do you really want to know for the right reasons.

I am not going to get in discussion about honesty with you. You still haven't apologised for the libellous statement you made against.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

There is no evidence for ontological naturalism except a rather bad circular argument. In fact the handwaving that goes with obscuring the leap of faith that goes with trying to dress methodological naturalism up as an ontology is an intellectual travesty.

How can you make sense of insisting that everything which is true should be establishable by methodological materialism when that cannot prove that what you're insisting is true? That is a dodge or mental aberration.

As I am not aware of anybody making that argument you can relax and let your blood pressure drop a little.

Chill out it's the weekend

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As I am not aware of anybody making that argument you can relax and let your blood pressure drop a little.

Chill out it's the weekend

OK Coogan.....time to call the 'bluff'...... What arguments are people trying to make then?

To just go on about no evidence for God is special pleading is it not since an atheist could perfectly reasonably come on and ask for evidence for ontological naturalism could they not.

But the fact that none do but argue from an axiomatically naturalist view is a bit suspicious is it not?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

OK Coogan.....time to call the 'bluff'...... What arguments are people trying to make then?

A lot of the time I don't think they are making an argument. Not accepting your claims as objectively true is not making in itself an argument.

To just go on about no evidence for God is special pleading is it not since an atheist could perfectly reasonably come on and ask for evidence for ontological naturalism could they not.

They could, assuming that you are using the terms in there usual sense. However, as no one is making that claim who is there to challenge?

But the fact that none do but argue from an axiomatically naturalist view is a bit suspicious is it not?

No, people seem to start from a naturalistic point of view because there appears to be a natural world around us that can be understood, to some level, though a naturalistic framework.

Your error, that you make continuously, is to change peoples view from, the natural world exists to, the natural world is all that can exist.

I can't speak for everyone, but that is how I read the views people on hear. If there is someone who says that the natural/material world is all that can exist then I would be delighted to challenge them in the same way that I challenge you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is your, 'god wot dun it', position a dodge or mental aberration?

Floo. Everything should have material evidence for it to be true
Me. That statement has no material evidence for it.
Floo. You are an evil/mad theist.

[Stranger]

There is no evidence for ontological naturalism except a rather bad circular argument.

FFS, not again! Give it a rest - you're a broken record!

Nobody (as far as I can see) is making an argument for ontological naturalism, outside of your imagination.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

FFS, not again! Give it a rest - you're a broken record!

Nobody (as far as I can see) is making an argument for ontological naturalism, outside of your imagination.

A sunbeam, a sunbeam.....material wants me for a sunbeam.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

A sunbeam, a sunbeam.....material wants me for a sunbeam.

I take the lack of response to 12488 to mean that you have correcedt your misunderstandings?

[Stranger]

I take the lack of response to 12488 to mean that you have correcedt your misunderstandings?

I'm absolutely certain he will have done... Oh look, a graceful flock of pigs has just flown past!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I take the lack of response to 12488 to mean that you have corrected your misunderstandings?

12488 is classic naturalism whether you like it or not.

It's certainly not Dawkins line where an immediate conclusion to the question....''what's it all about'' is it was designed.

Now Dawkins would go on to say that that might be good enough for the simple but the sophisticated and trained must settle for the Blind watchmaker.

I would move that the sophisticated question the assumptions of materialism. Not much evidence of that though.

Nature and methodological naturalism are not ontological naturalism I'm afraid.

[Sebastian Toe]

12488 is classic naturalism whether you like it or not.

It's certainly not Dawkins line where an immediate conclusion to the question....''what's it all about'' is it was designed.

Now Dawkins would go on to say that that might be good enough for the simple but the sophisticated and trained must settle for the Blind watchmaker.

I would move that the sophisticated question the assumptions of materialism. Not much evidence of that though.

Nature and methodological naturalism are not ontological naturalism I'm afraid.

I see that you have ism'd yourself into a stupor and vomited your '-cals' all over this forum again!
Now pick up a cloth and go clear up  please.

[Stranger]

Nature and methodological naturalism are not ontological naturalism I'm afraid.

Nobody is saying it is, out side of your imagination.

I guess it's easier for you to spout this meaningless mantra than it is to actually think about what is really being said. Makes you look very dim, though...

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

12488 is classic naturalism whether you like it or not.

It isn't naturalism though.

You have to keep saying it though because you need to give other people a false position so you can say, I can't demonstrate my views are objectively correct but then nor can you.

[Alan Burns]

Quoting apparent first hand witness statements does not confirm the existence of God.

See I can play that game also.

Next........

Many on this forum are quick to dismiss the personal evidence of witnesses to God's work, which implies that the witnesses are either lying or deluded.

But when the evidence is corroborated by several independent witnesses it is harder to dismiss in this way.  For example there were several independent sightings of the risen Christ.  More recently there have been many recorded witnesses to miracles.  One example is the "multiplication of food" in El Paso:
http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Amazing-Story-among-Paso-Juarez/dp/0892831502

But such miracles pale into insignificance when compared to the miracle of our own existence.

To assume that we are entirely the product of natural lifeless events is to relegate such things as "Love" to a mere consequence of the natural laws discovered by human perception.

In today's Gospel reading, Peter is asked by Jesus, "Do you love me?".
Following Peter's positive response, Jesus then warns Peter that he will be led in ways he would rather not go, forewarning of his impending execution in Rome.

To Love Jesus requires an act of will which is beyond the capabilities of the deterministic rules of science, coming from the desire of our soul.  The consequences of this act of love may not give us the materialistic pleasures of this world, but will bring Christ's love into your life, helping you to endure whatever comes in our earthly lives, and bringing you to the eternal joy of Heaven.

[Rhiannon]

I don't have to will myself to love someone - that doesn't sound very genuine to me. And I prefer to love those that I have real relationships with rather than made-up, wishful thinking ones.

[Maeght]

Many on this forum are quick to dismiss the personal evidence of witnesses to God's work, which implies that the witnesses are either lying or deluded.

But when the evidence is corroborated by several independent witnesses it is harder to dismiss in this way.  For example there were several independent sightings of the risen Christ.  More recently there have been many recorded witnesses to miracles.  One example is the "multiplication of food" in El Paso:
http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Amazing-Story-among-Paso-Juarez/dp/0892831502

I think you need to do some research into human psychology Alan.

[Shaker]

Many on this forum are quick to dismiss the personal evidence of witnesses to God's work, which implies that the witnesses are either lying or deluded.

Surely the point here is that there should be a methodology, some means or other, of being able to tell if either of those options is the case.

But when the evidence is corroborated by several independent witnesses it is harder to dismiss in this way.  For example there were several independent sightings of the risen Christ.

 
According to your book; but where's the corroboration of this?

But such miracles pale into insignificance when compared to the miracle of our own existence.

Here we go with the hand waving

To assume that we are entirely the product of natural lifeless events is to relegate such things as "Love" to a mere consequence of the natural laws discovered by human perception.

And?

Rest snipped as meaningless theobabble.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Many on this forum are quick to dismiss the personal evidence of witnesses to God's work, which implies that the witnesses are either lying or deluded.

But when the evidence is corroborated by several independent witnesses it is harder to dismiss in this way. (Alan Burns)

Excellent point.
What we have often is experience vs no experience, or experience vs personal incredulity or experience vs philosophical position.

Theism and Christianity in particular can argue from experience and philosophy and historical evidence.

[floo]

Many on this forum are quick to dismiss the personal evidence of witnesses to God's work, which implies that the witnesses are either lying or deluded.

But when the evidence is corroborated by several independent witnesses it is harder to dismiss in this way. (Alan Burns)

Excellent point.
What we have often is experience vs no experience, or experience vs personal incredulity or experience vs philosophical position.

Theism and Christianity in particular can argue from experience and philosophy and historical evidence.

There is no corroboration which is verifiable.

[Stranger]

Theism and Christianity in particular can argue from experience and philosophy and historical evidence.

Except:

• Experience is reported just as much for other gods, other manifestations of the 'supernatural' (ghosts, for example), and other phenomena for which no other evidence can be found (alien abductions, for example).
• You have yet to put forward a convincing philosophical argument.
• The historical evidence for any god, is non-existent.

[ippy]

Many on this forum are quick to dismiss the personal evidence of witnesses to God's work, which implies that the witnesses are either lying or deluded.

But when the evidence is corroborated by several independent witnesses it is harder to dismiss in this way.  For example there were several independent sightings of the risen Christ.  More recently there have been many recorded witnesses to miracles.  One example is the "multiplication of food" in El Paso:
http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Amazing-Story-among-Paso-Juarez/dp/0892831502

But such miracles pale into insignificance when compared to the miracle of our own existence.

To assume that we are entirely the product of natural lifeless events is to relegate such things as "Love" to a mere consequence of the natural laws discovered by human perception.

In today's Gospel reading, Peter is asked by Jesus, "Do you love me?".
Following Peter's positive response, Jesus then warns Peter that he will be led in ways he would rather not go, forewarning of his impending execution in Rome.

To Love Jesus requires an act of will which is beyond the capabilities of the deterministic rules of science, coming from the desire of our soul.  The consequences of this act of love may not give us the materialistic pleasures of this world, but will bring Christ's love into your life, helping you to endure whatever comes in our earthly lives, and bringing you to the eternal joy of Heaven.

Have you looked at the exact meaning of delusional as in the O E D Alan?

When anyone is deluded they have no idea that they are in fact deluded, it's like being addicted to one form of drug or another, until the person involved admits to themselves that they're addicted, there's very little chance of a cure.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

Rest snipped as meaningless theobabble.

This meaningless theobabble is the reason and purpose behind our existence.  Removing this results in our very existence being totally meaningless.