Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

I have used sub atomic physics and quantum theory to illustrate the limitations of current science and show that there is plenty of scope for God's (and man's) interaction with our world.

I totally agree that you will not discover Christian faith by studying sub atomic physics.  My intention was to remove the misconception that science explains everything in order to allow God's holy spirit to enter people's lives. 

Our faith in God should be like a parent / child relationship where we are able to put all our faith and trust in Him.  Trying to intellectualise our faith will not work because human intellect falls far short of God's infinite wisdom.

Pathetic Alan, espcially that last line; trying to intellectualise a delusion?

Ippy

[Alan Burns]

Pathetic Alan, espcially that last line; trying to intellectualise a delusion?

Ippy

Dear Ippy,
I hope and pray that one day you will discover God's love for you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

There's an odd argument here. Essentially it's "science doesn't know everything you know..." as if we're meant to join the ensuing dots to get to, "therefore "God"".

AB just did it flat out, Vlad does it by re-defining "scientism" and then attacking his straw man version of it and others have attempted it too. It's so obviously a fallacious argument that it's barely worth rebutting, but for what it's worth:

1. No-one does say that science knows everything, least of all those engaged in it. That's why they are engaged in it - to find out more.

2. If though the implication is supposed to be, "science can't deal with the supernatural" that's begging the question as you'd need to establish the phenomenon "supernatural" in the first place.

3. The methods of science not having the answer to something gives you only "don't knows". It says nothing whatever about the likelihood of anything you might want to claim to populate the gaps, "God" included.

It's pretty grim as piece of reasoning, yet we see it here quite often. Odd indeed.

[ekim]

My intention was to remove the misconception that science explains everything in order to allow God's holy spirit to enter people's lives. 

........ Trying to intellectualise our faith will not work because human intellect falls far short of God's infinite wisdom.

What you are doing, however, is trying to remove what you consider a misconception by introducing another concept (or as others might say 'misconception') which is not much different to intellectualising.

[ippy]

Dear Ippy,
I hope and pray that one day you will discover God's love for you.

I hope one day you'll discover how to remove your head from up your own arse and wake up to a life of reason and rationality.

ippy

[BashfulAnthony]

I consider myself a reasonably intelligent and realistic person. No part of my anatomy is in the wrong place!  I believe in the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and in His presence in my life now..  Lord Jesus bless you all.

[Alan Burns]

There's an odd argument here. Essentially it's "science doesn't know everything you know..." as if we're meant to join the ensuing dots to get to, "therefore "God"".

AB just did it flat out, Vlad does it by re-defining "scientism" and then attacking his straw man version of it and others have attempted it too. It's so obviously a fallacious argument that it's barely worth rebutting, but for what it's worth:

1. No-one does say that science knows everything, least of all those engaged in it. That's why they are engaged in it - to find out more.

2. If though the implication is supposed to be, "science can't deal with the supernatural" that's begging the question as you'd need to establish the phenomenon "supernatural" in the first place.

3. The methods of science not having the answer to something gives you only "don't knows". It says nothing whatever about the likelihood of anything you might want to claim to populate the gaps, "God" included.

It's pretty grim as piece of reasoning, yet we see it here quite often. Odd indeed.

But the underlying theme in your arguments is your assumption that there must be a "natural" explanation for everything because you do not personally believe in the supernatural.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the underlying theme in your arguments is your assumption that there must be a "natural" explanation for everything because you do not personally believe in the supernatural.

No it isn't. There's no "must" about it - just the conclusion that science provides functional models of reality. There might be anything, but pointing out that science doesn't know everything says nothing whatever about what else there might or might not be.

That's why you went wrong by pushing at an open door.   

[Nearly Sane]

But the underlying theme in your arguments is your assumption that there must be a "natural" explanation for everything because you do not personally believe in the supernatural.

you have been picked up on this misrepresentation previously. There is a methodological assumption  of naturalism in science, it is not a philosophical assumption. To make valid claims of the supernatural you would need a methodology for that. You have been asked for this previously but so far all I can recall seeing is your personal incredulity cited. Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

[wigginhall]

Wow, this is Straw Man City.  How many times do these misrepresentations have to be corrected?   The Christian college of Fallacy Faculties obviously teaches this as well - 'do not give an honest view of others' point of view'. 

[ippy]

Is it really worth trying to have a reasoned rational argument with anyone that gains so much enjoyment from living in a fantasy world and is determined to stay there whatever anyone says to him?

ippy

[wigginhall]

It's the blatant dishonesty which bugs me.   Again and again, on this forum, some (not all) Christians posters quite consciously set out to misrepresent another poster's ideas.   WTF?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No it isn't. There's no "must" about it - just the conclusion that science provides functional models of reality. There might be anything, but pointing out that science doesn't know everything says nothing whatever about what else there might or might not be.

That's why you went wrong by pushing at an open door.

So what motivates you to read and post on the Christian thread of a forum?
Could it be God's way of showing you the light?

[Nearly Sane]

So what motivates you to read and post on the Christian thread of a forum?
Could it be God's way of showing you the light?

I am motivated to correct your misrepresentations and use of fallacies.

[Alan Burns]

It's the blatant dishonesty which bugs me.   Again and again, on this forum, some (not all) Christians posters quite consciously set out to misrepresent another poster's ideas.   WTF?

It is not intentional.  Having never doubted God's existence I admit I find it difficult to fathom what goes on in the minds of non believers, and sometimes I do get it wrong, so I offer my apologies for this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So what motivates you to read and post on the Christian thread of a forum?

You attempted a bad argument for "God". I rebutted it. What has this to do with that rebuttal?

Anyway, the answer to this unrelated question is that I find Christianity as a cultural phenomenon interesting.

Could it be God's way of showing you the light?

It could be yes, but only in the trivial sense that it could also be three-headed soup dragons on Alpha Centauri controlling my thoughts telepathically. So what?

[Nearly Sane]

It is not intentional.  Having never doubted God's existence I admit I find it difficult to fathom what goes on in the minds of non believers, and sometimes I do get it wrong, so I offer my apologies for this.

why do you do it repeatedly though on positions that you have been previously corrected?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is not intentional.  Having never doubted God's existence I admit I find it difficult to fathom what goes on in the minds of non believers, and sometimes I do get it wrong, so I offer my apologies for this.

What goes on is the conclusion that no-one has been able to make an argument for the existence of this "God" that isn't hopeless. As a proponent of such arguments, it'd be nice if you could grasp this. 

[Brownie]

It's the blatant dishonesty which bugs me.   Again and again, on this forum, some (not all) Christians posters quite consciously set out to misrepresent another poster's ideas.   WTF?

Non Christian posters do it too, Wigginhall.  I haven't taken notes but next time it happens I will draw attention to it - maybe.  Sometimes that can be a bit like pouncing.  It's never occurred to me that it was done consciously though.  People just home in on a word or phrase.

Alan has said he hasn't done it intentionally.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

Alan has said he hasn't done it intentionally.

He has but, to pick up on Nearly's point, when someone says "2+2=5", is corrected on it, and then says again "2+2=5" at what stage does the mistake become intentional?

[Nearly Sane]

Non Christian posters do it too, Wigginhall.  I haven't taken notes but next time it happens I will draw attention to it - maybe.  Sometimes that can be a bit like pouncing.  It's never occurred to me that it was done consciously though.  People just home in on a word or phrase.

Alan has said he hasn't done it intentionally.

so why does he or say Vlad continue to misrepresent views after they have been corrected?

[Gordon]

But the underlying theme in your arguments is your assumption that there must be a "natural" explanation for everything because you do not personally believe in the supernatural.

Nope - as far as I can see none of your regular challengers here are philosophical naturalists: the mere possibility of 'unknown unknowns' makes philosophical naturalism untenable: you seem to have missed this point.

Some us though are quite happy to say 'don't know' and are alert to the use of logical fallacies, which when used negate whatever argument was being attempted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

Nope - as far as I can see none of your regular challengers here are philosophical naturalists: the mere possibility of 'unknown unknowns' makes philosophical naturalism untenable: you seem to have missed this point.

Some us though are quite happy to say 'don't know' and are alert to the use of logical fallacies, which when used negate whatever argument was being attempted.

And that's using Vlad's personal re-definition of the phrase to mean, "the material is necessarily all there is or can be" or some such, rather than its actual meaning of, "the material is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable". Either way, AB's "must" was as you say just another misrepresentation.   

[wigginhall]

Non Christian posters do it too, Wigginhall.  I haven't taken notes but next time it happens I will draw attention to it - maybe.  Sometimes that can be a bit like pouncing.  It's never occurred to me that it was done consciously though.  People just home in on a word or phrase.

Alan has said he hasn't done it intentionally.

Well, at first, I would take a charitable view, that it's done as a mistake, or it's a kind of internet casual thing about accuracy, but when it is so consistent, and so often corrected, but to no avail.   It must be conscious.

I'm curious where it comes from.   Possibly some Christians ministers give dishonest views of non-Christians or atheists,  or maybe some books.   It is quite systematic, but as I said some Christians don't do it.

I'm just reading a book by David Bentley Hart, and I think he does it systematically also about atheists, quite often distorting their views, and not citing them directly, along the lines of 'atheists are 100% naturalists'.    ('The Experience of God'). 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Well, at first, I would take a charitable view, that it's done as a mistake, or it's a kind of internet casual thing about accuracy, but when it is so consistent, and so often corrected, but to no avail.   It must be conscious.

I'm curious where it comes from.   Possibly some Christians ministers give dishonest views of non-Christians or atheists,  or maybe some books.   It is quite systematic, but as I said some Christians don't do it.

I'm just reading a book by David Bentley Hart, and I think he does it systematically also about atheists, quite often distorting their views, and not citing them directly, along the lines of 'atheists are 100% naturalists'.    ('The Experience of God').

There's also the "lying for Jesus" effect: "I know - really, really know beyond any possibility of being wrong - that my faith is correct so, by comparison, truthfulness and fairness when engaging with others are second order issues." That seems to me to be how it works to me anyway - with my trusty sword of faith by my side, nothing else matters.