Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

The Devil is no doubt well pleased when he can coax people into committing these dreadful atrocities and then get people to blame God for it.

Incorrect. We are not blaming God for it, we are blaming Christians. God didn't burn people to death, Christians did.

[torridon]

Physical harm is certainly more tangible, but spiritual harm is eternal.  God has the power to save us from evil, but we need the precious gift of faith to tap into this power.  To suggest that we should not need this faith to be saved is trivialising the suffering and death which Jesus endured to bring about our salvation.

What nonsense.  If God has the power to save us from evil then why doesn't he get cracking and eliminate the Devil.  Either he cannot, in which case he is feeble, and therefore not God after all; or he doesn't want to, in which case he is evil and therefore not God after all. Take your pick.

[jeremyp]

or he doesn't want to, in which case he is evil and therefore not God after all. Take your pick.

Sorry but why does it follow that God could not be evil? The evidence of the Universe he allegedly created suggests that, actually, God is evil, if he exists at all.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

There's no such things RD's logic, or indeed anyone else's. Logic is logic - it stands or not on its merits, but no-one owns it.

There are different types of logic.  I would agree that mathematical type logic stands on its own and is irrefutable.   But the logic used by Richard Dawkins in his books is more akin to a postulated theory, for which there can be alternative theories.  For example he will illustrate a sequence of testable mutations which could explain how the eye of a creature could develop from natural selection.  In doing this he ignores the possibility that intelligent interaction could be required to generate the specific mutations needed at the correct times.  The assumption that there will be a sufficient number of randomly produced beneficial mutations to feed the process of natural selection is not based on cast iron logic.

[Gordon]

There are different types of logic.  I would agree that mathematical type logic stands on its own and is irrefutable.   But the logic used by Richard Dawkins in his books is more akin to a postulated theory, for which there can be alternative theories.

Only if these alternatives are viable, such as being accompanied by a method that would stand scrutiny, such as by being fallacy free.

For example he will illustrate a sequence of testable mutations which could explain how the eye of a creature could develop from natural selection.

Is his theory and method flawed, bearing in mind he is a biologist?

In doing this he ignores the possibility that intelligent interaction could be required to generate the specific mutations needed at the correct times.

This is creationism, Alan, so without a method to demonstrate this this 'intelligent interaction' this is just unsupported conjecture that is dear to your heart.

The assumption that there will be a sufficient number of randomly produced beneficial mutations to feed the process of natural selection is not based on cast iron logic.

And your 'intelligent intervention' is?

[Alan Burns]

What nonsense.  If God has the power to save us from evil then why doesn't he get cracking and eliminate the Devil.  Either he cannot, in which case he is feeble, and therefore not God after all; or he doesn't want to, in which case he is evil and therefore not God after all. Take your pick.

We are not in a position to dictate what God should or should not do.  I just trust in God's love for us, the love which for me is so tangible and real, and which I hope you will discover.

[Alan Burns]

Sorry but why does it follow that God could not be evil? The evidence of the Universe he allegedly created suggests that, actually, God is evil, if he exists at all.

Evidence certainly shows that evil exists, but this will be a consequence of God's ability to give the gift of free will to the entities of conscious awareness he creates, without which we would just be nature's puppets.

[wigginhall]

The Devil is no doubt well pleased when he can coax people into committing these dreadful atrocities and then get people to blame God for it.

This is really threadbare.  Christians burned people for a 1000 years, but it was the devil wot done it.   Oh boy, what a cop-out.   I might as well believe in Zoroastrianism, at least they went for a full-blooded dualist system.

[Alan Burns]

This is creationism, Alan, so without a method to demonstrate this this 'intelligent interaction' this is just unsupported conjecture

Human beings can use their will to bring about human creations by intelligent interaction with nature.  This shows that intelligent design is possible and does occur in our universe.

[Gordon]

Human beings can use their will to bring about human creations by intelligent interaction with nature.  This shows that intelligent design is possible and does occur in our universe.

The first sentence makes no obvious sense, Alan: so you'll need to unpack it a little, such as what you mean by 'human creations' and 'intelligent interaction'. The second sentence makes even less sense, given the first. 

[torridon]

What nonsense.  If God has the power to save us from evil then why doesn't he get cracking and eliminate the Devil.  Either he cannot, in which case he is feeble, and therefore not God after all; or he doesn't want to, in which case he is evil and therefore not God after all. Take your pick.

We are not in a position to dictate what God should or should not do.  I just trust in God's love for us, the love which for me is so tangible and real, and which I hope you will discover.

Aw come on Burnside is that really the best you can do ? You've just dipped into your backcatalogue of ready made mantras to fend off reasoned argument. Noone is dictating to God, noone is even talking to God, it is you and your reasoning that is being challenged and it is up to you to defend your position, and your 'trust in God' response is merely an abdication of your responsibility to think about the issues and interact reasonably with other people.

[Alan Burns]

The first sentence makes no obvious sense, Alan: so you'll need to unpack it a little, such as what you mean by 'human creations' and 'intelligent interaction'. The second sentence makes even less sense, given the first.

Your disposition to question my statement would indicate that you think intelligent interaction with this universe does not occur and our conscious awareness merely spectates upon perceived deterministic events.  You are trying to make reality fit in with  scientific discoveries made through human perception, but my perception indicates that reality comprises much more that our limited senses have discovered.  The fact that I can perceive and interact with this universe will never be explained by the deterministic rules of science alone.

[Sebastian Toe]

The Devil is no doubt well pleased when he can coax people into committing these dreadful atrocities

All this coaxing that the Devil does, how exactly he do that?

[Sassy]

The Devil is no doubt well pleased when he can coax people into committing these dreadful atrocities and then get people to blame God for it.

Do they really need coaxing?
Christ warned that the Kingdom could not be taken by force.
The Kingdom of God is a peaceful Kingdom for those who love.

The believer realises that the kingdom of God is people born of Spirit and Truth.

Anyone not in Christ is capable of committing really awful things.

[Gordon]

Your disposition to question my statement would indicate that you think intelligent interaction with this universe does not occur and our conscious awareness merely spectates upon perceived deterministic events.

Not really: I simply couldn't make head nor tail of your post. For instance, what is 'intelligent interaction' and how is this interaction recognised and apprehended?

You are trying to make reality fit in with  scientific discoveries made through human perception, but my perception indicates that reality comprises much more that our limited senses have discovered.

Am I - where exactly? Are you saying here that your perception differs from that of others, or are you hijacking the term in order to express yet another of your fallacious arguments from person incredulity.

The fact that I can perceive and interact with this universe will never be explained by the deterministic rules of science alone.

Yet more personal incredulity and ignorance - this is so obviously fallacious (the 'never' is an obvious giveaway) that I'm surprised you posted as you did.

What alternatives to science do you apply yourself, since in order for you to imply there is this alternative you must know some details of it to be able to refer to it as you do: if not, then this all sounds like another round of your fallacious arguments.

 

[Alan Burns]

Yet more personal incredulity and ignorance - this is so obviously fallacious (the 'never' is an obvious giveaway) that I'm surprised you posted as you did.

This is not fallacy.  Within the deterministic rules of science there can be no possible interaction, only reaction.  The root source of any interaction must by definition come from outside the chains of cause and effect reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This is not fallacy.  Within the deterministic rules of science there can be no possible interaction, only reaction.  The root source of any interaction must by definition come from outside the chains of cause and effect reactions.

Spectacular nonsense. "Interaction" as you put it is just what consciousness feels like - but that says nothing to consciousness being anything other than an emergent property of our material selves, the outcome of unfathomably long and complex chains of cause and effect.

[jeremyp]

Evidence certainly shows that evil exists, but this will be a consequence of God's ability to give the gift of free will to the entities of conscious awareness he creates, without which we would just be nature's puppets.

How is that relevant to what I said? Torridon seemed to suggest that an evil being cannot be God. Whilst I accept that an evil being cannot be the Christian god, I do not see how his assertion could be true for all possible gods.

[Gordon]

This is not fallacy.  Within the deterministic rules of science there can be no possible interaction, only reaction.

I suspect it is fallacy, Alan, since you are so heavily dependent on them.

How are you defining 'interaction' here? Are we not interacting right now, and that we are involves us both having first acquired the relevant technology so as to use this particular Forum today, which we specifically made the effort to join previously - so there are undoubtedly various precursors to us having this particular interaction: unless of course you're using the term 'interaction' differently.

The root source of any interaction must by definition come from outside the chains of cause and effect reactions.

Must it? Whose definition is this, what authority to they have, and on what basis is 'interaction' being used here? Sounds like another of your arguments from personal incredulity.

[torridon]

Evidence certainly shows that evil exists, but this will be a consequence of God's ability to give the gift of free will to the entities of conscious awareness he creates, without which we would just be nature's puppets.

You are confusing free will with evil here.  I think neither evil nor free will exists in any proper sense - there is no evidenced ontological basis for evil as a thing, rather we characterise certain classes of behaviour as 'evil' therefore evil is more properly a descriptor, not a thing.  But even if we grant that they do exist, you'd still have to make a case for any connection between them.

[Sebastian Toe]

The entities of conscious awareness he creates,

.....these are what? Is there a list?

[Alan Burns]

Must it? Whose definition is this, what authority to they have, and on what basis is 'interaction' being used here? Sounds like another of your arguments from personal incredulity.

I am simply trying to highlight the difference between interaction and reaction.  In a purely scientific sense I can see no difference because everything is defined by events and consequences (reactions) to events.  The deterministic rules of science will dictate that all events are consequences to previous events, with possible exceptions in the quantum field of science which show that some events can occur spontaneously without any discernible cause.  What I am implying is that the intelligently controlled interaction between us is not driven by reactions which are entirely controlled by the laws of science.  Which leads to the possibility that our perceived interaction could be driven by quantum events which derive from something outside the deterministic rules of science.

[Gordon]

I am simply trying to highlight the difference between interaction and reaction.

Why do you hang so much on this, and I'm still not clear on what special meaning you derive from this. Throw cold water into hot fat and they will 'interact' but they will also, and very obviously, 'react' - so don't try it at home. The terms could be used interchangeably.

In a purely scientific sense I can see no difference because everything is defined by events and consequences (reactions) to events. The deterministic rules of science will dictate that all events are consequences to previous events, with possible exceptions in the quantum field of science which show that some events can occur spontaneously without any discernible cause.

So, we seem to live in a deterministic universe but there are some aspects, such as quantum stuff, that appear to behave differently but since work is on-going your assumptions may be presumptive.

What I am implying is that the intelligently controlled interaction between us is not driven by reactions which are entirely controlled by the laws of science.

You can imply until the cows come home, Alan, but this statement is fallacious in several ways: you are begging the question and arguing from ignorance and personal incredulity.

Which leads to the possibility that our perceived interaction could be driven by quantum events which derive from something outside the deterministic rules of science.

Aside from the word salad element this is a non sequitur. Your tendency to argue from personal incredulity has, I think, overwhelmed you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am simply trying to highlight the difference between interaction and reaction.  In a purely scientific sense I can see no difference because everything is defined by events and consequences (reactions) to events.  The deterministic rules of science will dictate that all events are consequences to previous events, with possible exceptions in the quantum field of science which show that some events can occur spontaneously without any discernible cause.

So far, so good...

What I am implying is that the intelligently controlled interaction between us is not driven by reactions which are entirely controlled by the laws of science.

But why imply that at all when the only probabilistically reliable method we know of tells us that such a conjecture isn't supported by any evidence, and in any case is unnecessary even as a hypothesis to plug a gap in our current model of reality?   

Which leads to the possibility that our perceived interaction could be driven by quantum events which derive from something outside the deterministic rules of science.

No, it doesn't lead anywhere for the reasons I've just given you. It's just a narrative you have to create to give you a model into which "God", "soul" etc can be inserted as explanations.   

[Alan Burns]

But why imply that at all when the only probabilistically reliable method we know of tells us that such a conjecture isn't supported by any evidence

The evidence lies in our basic perception of reality.  Do we have the will power to drive our own conscious decisions, or are we totally shackled by the deterministic laws of science over which we have no control?