Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

I think you're missing something.. This is nothing to do with mutual criticism.  It is all about having a pop at Christianity, no more, no less. Where is the mutual aspect?

You are criticising people, so surely that then makes it 'mutual'?

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Why come to a Christian topic to deride, criticise and vilify?  Discussion becomes obsession when it is daily and has been for years.  If I choose to say what I did, what is it to you, whether posted it here or elsewhere?

In sheer bloody exasperation I will occasionally do some of this, but for the most part I come here because I like discussing ideas.

Where you chose to post is of no interest to me - I merely suggest that you cannot complain when people want to discuss here your beliefs even though you apparently only want to "affirm" them.   

[BashfulAnthony]

you might get offended but it is not against the ethos of the Christian topic to have such a denunciation.

Most certainly it is not against the ethos of the Christian Topic.  True to say, it seems to me to be it's very raison d'etre.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

It is all about having a pop at Christianity, no more, no less.

No it isn't. It's about investigating and critiqueing the arguments people make for Christianity. When those arguments are false, then it's reasonable to explain why. If on the other hand someone came up with an argument for his faith belief that was logically cogent, then that would be fine too. The logic leads where the logic leads.   

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

No it isn't. It's about investigating and critiqueing the arguments people make for Christianity. When those arguments are false, then it's reasonable to explain why. If on the other hand someone came up with an argument for his faith belief that was logically cogent, then that would be fine too. The logic leads where the logic leads.   

I wasn't arguing, I was making a statement about what I believe.

  What you say above is true, or was, but your arguments, and that of others, has been made now, ad nauseam.  After all the years of going over the same ground, it has degenerated into a kind of, "get Christianity, and bash it."

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

I wasn't arguing, I was making a statement about what I believe.

Why, and why here specifically?

What you say above is true, or was, but your arguments, and that of others, has been made now, ad nauseam.  After all the years of going over the same ground, it has degenerated into a kind of, "get Christianity, and bash it."

Hey, so it's taking longer than I thought it would! Rome wasn't built in a day you know...

[Sebastian Toe]

  What you say above is true, or was, but your arguments, and that of others, has been made now, ad nauseam.

A bit like your ad nauseam arguments regarding the use or otherwise of some parts of the English language I suppose? 

[BashfulAnthony]

A bit like your ad nauseam arguments regarding the use or otherwise of some parts of the English language I suppose? 

You can easily stop me by cutting out the foul language.  I don't know how we stop you lot!

[Enki]

No.....

No?
Are you disagreeing with me or David Bentley Hart. if it's me, then I think you are completely wrong. What I have quoted are simply assertions, as I stated, in that they are confident and forceful statements of belief.

I think we all have to decide if there is really such a thing as moral truth. Whether there really is good or evil etc.

Well, not necessarily everyone. Plenty of people go about their daily lives without deciding whether there really is some absolute thing called 'moral truth' or not. That, of course, says nothing as to whether these people are generally 'moral' either according to me, or you. I don't think that it is fair to class all such people as having simply 'just made up' their moral positions and simply use the word 'moral' as a label pasted onto the 'term' behaviour'. I think that is denigrating to such people for no good reason, and, also, in my opinion, your reasoning is far too simplistic and badly thought out.

If not then your morality is just made up. Just a redundant label pasted onto the term 'behaviour'.

Personally, I don't come into this category, because, having thought about the matter, I don't think that there is any such thing as 'moral truth' in any absolute terms whatever.
I am not minded to give my arguments for the position I hold, because I very much doubt you have the slightest interest in anything but your own views. If, of course, I am wrong, you will find my views and arguments for my position in Mess. 133, which was very kindly put on the 'Forum Best Bits' Thread in the General Discussion Section by Nearly Sane.
 

[Sebastian Toe]

You can easily stop me by cutting out the foul language.  I don't know how we stop you lot!

I'm not saying that I want you to stop.
However by you continuing then;
....' your arguments, and that of others, has been made now, ad nauseam.'
 
Seems a tad contradictory, that's all.

[BashfulAnthony]

I'm not saying that I want you to stop. !
However by you continuing then;
....' your arguments, and that of others, has been made now, ad nauseam.'
 
Seems a tad contradictory, that's all.

When I'm on here I seem to spend my time defending my faith and belief against attack.  It is you lot who initiate the arguments;  I would not be defending myself otherwise.  And of course those "attacks" come ad nauseam,  and have FOR  YEARS

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

When I'm on here I seem to spend my time defending my faith and belief against attack.  It is you lot who initiate the arguments;  I would not be defending myself otherwise.  And of course those "attacks" come ad nauseam,  and have FOR  YEARS

You remind me of the little old lady who called the police to complain that a neighbour was flashing her. Plod arrived, looked out of the window and said, "I can't see anything."

"Ooh no" she says, "to see him you have to stand on a box, lean three feet over the balcony and look through a mirror at the end of a long stick."

You don't need to "defend yourself" at all. What you do need to do though if you want to post arguments on the discussion part of this mb is to defend those arguments when they're rebutted. You seem to think that people just show up here and say, "Isn't Christianity rubbish?", "Yeah, isn't it though" or something which isn't the case at all.

Make a bad argument and you'll be told why it's bad. "Affirm your faith" and you might be asked why you did it here, but otherwise you'll be ignored.   

[floo]

BA,

You remind me of the little old lady who called the police to complain that a neighbour was flashing her. Plod arrived, looked out of the window and said, "I can't see anything."

"Ooh no" she says, "to see him you have to stand on a box, lean three feet over the balcony and look through a mirror at the end of a long stick."

You don't need to "defend yourself" at all. What you do need to do though if you want to post arguments on the discussion part of this mb is to defend those arguments when they're rebutted. You seem to think that people just show up here and say, "Isn't Christianity rubbish?", "Yeah, isn't it though" or something which isn't the case at all.

Make a bad argument and you'll be told why it's bad. "Affirm your faith" and you might be asked why you did it here, but otherwise you'll be ignored.   

Nice one BHS!

[Brownie]

Where I live, the police would say, "I can't see nothing", which puts quite a different complexion on it.

[BashfulAnthony]

Where I live, the police would say, "I can't see nothing", which puts quite a different complexion on it.

You're lucky.  Here the police wouldn't bother to come.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

You remind me of the little old lady who called the police to complain that a neighbour was flashing her. Plod arrived, looked out of the window and said, "I can't see anything."

"Ooh no" she says, "to see him you have to stand on a box, lean three feet over the balcony and look through a mirror at the end of a long stick."

You don't need to "defend yourself" at all. What you do need to do though if you want to post arguments on the discussion part of this mb is to defend those arguments when they're rebutted. You seem to think that people just show up here and say, "Isn't Christianity rubbish?", "Yeah, isn't it though" or something which isn't the case at all.

Make a bad argument and you'll be told why it's bad. "Affirm your faith" and you might be asked why you did it here, but otherwise you'll be ignored.   

As always, you evade my point.  WHY do you keep up this relentless attack/examination, call it what you will, about Christianity, and for years?  Do you have a hang-up, like Floo, or is it because you haven't got a hobby?

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

As always, you evade my point.  WHY do you keep up this relentless attack/examination, call it what you will, about Christianity, and for years?  Do you have a hang-up, like Floo, or is it because you haven't got a hobby?

I didn't evade it, I rebutted it. You aren't asked to to defend your beliefs at all, but you are asked to defend the arguments you make for it when those arguments are shown to be false.

Why do I come here? Because I enjoy the exchange of ideas in general, and because I'm curious to know whether something as culturally significant as religion has a cogent underpinning. So far at least, there's no sign that it has. 

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

I didn't evade it, I rebutted it. You aren't asked to to defend your beliefs at all, but you are asked to defend the arguments you make for it when those arguments are shown to be false.

Why do I come here? Because I enjoy the exchange of ideas in general, and because I'm curious to know whether something as culturally significant as religion has a cogent underpinning. So far at least, there's no sign that it has.

I don't know how many years you've been banging on here, but if you haven't reached any conclusions yet, I suggest you would have been better taking a degree in Religion; at least it would have come to an end by now, and you might even have reached those elusive conclusions.  Sure as chips, you ain't going to get any here.  Do you fancy Come Dancing as an alternative; or maybe Bake-Off, or something else off?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

BA,

You remind me of the little old lady who called the police to complain that a neighbour was flashing her. Plod arrived, looked out of the window and said, "I can't see anything."

"Ooh no" she says, "to see him you have to stand on a box, lean three feet over the balcony and look through a mirror at the end of a long stick."

You don't need to "defend yourself" at all. What you do need to do though if you want to post arguments on the discussion part of this mb is to defend those arguments when they're rebutted. You seem to think that people just show up here and say, "Isn't Christianity rubbish?", "Yeah, isn't it though" or something which isn't the case at all.

Make a bad argument and you'll be told why it's bad. "Affirm your faith" and you might be asked why you did it here, but otherwise you'll be ignored.

As always, you evade my point.  WHY do you keep up this relentless attack/examination, call it what you will, about Christianity, and for years?  Do you have a hang-up, like Floo, or is it because you haven't got a hobby?
---------
I don't know how many years you've been banging on here, but if you haven't reached any conclusions yet, I suggest you would have been better taking a degree in Religion; at least it would have come to an end by now, and you might even have reached those elusive conclusions.  Sure as chips, you ain't going to get any here.

Something for you to consider BashfulAnthony...

Their worldview is not falsifiable. That means there is no way for you (or any other Christian) to meet their requests. Any attempts to get them to apply the same standards to their worldview results in accusations of shifting the burden of proof. It wasn't religious believers that posited the idea that a hypothesis should be falsifiable, yet whereas the Christian faith is, their materialistic worldview isn't.

They cannot cite what would constitute evidence of a non-natural cause, or something supernatural. They cannot cite what would be considered as evidence for God. They cannot cite what would convince them of God's existence (apparently, it's God's responsibility, even though they cannot give a single example of what He is supposed to do!). So you are in a position where the assumption is that if there is evidence for something, it must be material. This is why they cannot progress and why the endless answers provided by Christians over the years will never be enough. As it says in 2 Timothy 3 v 7:

always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

[BashfulAnthony]

Something for you to consider BashfulAnthony...

Their worldview is not falsifiable. That means there is no way for you (or any other Christian) to meet their requests. Any attempts to get them to apply the same standards to their worldview results in accusations of shifting the burden of proof. It wasn't religious believers that posited the idea that a hypothesis should be falsifiable, yet whereas the Christian faith is, their materialistic worldview isn't.

They cannot cite what would constitute evidence of a non-natural cause, or something supernatural. They cannot cite what would be considered as evidence for God. They cannot cite what would convince them of God's existence (apparently, it's God's responsibility, even though they cannot give a single example of what He is supposed to do!). So you are in a position where the assumption is that if there is evidence for something, it must be material. This is why they cannot progress and why the endless answers provided by Christians over the years will never be enough. As it says in 2 Timothy 3 v 7:

always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Or, put simply:  those who have ears to hear, let them hear.  Clearly, on here they have no ears.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Or, put simply:  those who have ears to hear, let them hear.  Clearly on here they have no ears.

Must admit that I do have some sympathy. When far more illustrious names such as Richard Dawkins make the same mistakes...

A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress from which he cannot help us to escape.

(The God Delusion, near the end of Chapter 3)

Clearly, organized complexity is not a problem for human beings though...

A designer human being cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any human being capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his or her own right. Human beings presents an infinite regress from which they cannot help us to escape.

So one could take the properties of things designed & created  by human beings and see if there are similar attributes in the world.
- Alphabet: basis for books
- Notes in music: basis for musical works of all genres
- Machine code: basis for all computer software
now...
- DNA: basis for all living organisms. So evidence of design? Apparently not!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Something for you to consider BashfulAnthony...

Their worldview is not falsifiable.

Who's "they", what "worldview" do you think "they" have, and why do you think it's not falsifiable?

I should advise you by the way that Vlad of this parish has bought forward the entire North American dried grass crop for the next seven years, so if you want to attempt another straw man version of "philosophical naturalism" you're going to have to come up with an better plan.

That means there is no way for you (or any other Christian) to meet their requests. Any attempts to get them to apply the same standards to their worldview results in accusations of shifting the burden of proof. It wasn't religious believers that posited the idea that a hypothesis should be falsifiable, yet whereas the Christian faith is, their materialistic worldview isn't.

Nope - see above. Tell us what you think this "worldview" to be and I'll tell you whether and how it's falsifiable.

They cannot cite what would constitute evidence of a non-natural cause, or something supernatural. They cannot cite what would be considered as evidence for God. They cannot cite what would convince them of God's existence (apparently, it's God's responsibility, even though they cannot give a single example of what He is supposed to do!). So you are in a position where the assumption is that if there is evidence for something, it must be material. This is why they cannot progress and why the endless answers provided by Christians over the years will never be enough. As it says in 2 Timothy 3 v 7:

Oh dear. This is very poor stuff. If you want to posit supernatural anythings then its for you to provide the method to distinguish your claim from just guessing, mistake etc. Complaining that others don't have a method to do it for you is what shifting the burden of proof means for Pete's sake.

Take a deep breath and try again. Start with this mysterious worldview you keep alluding to but never explain.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Clearly, organized complexity is not a problem for human beings though...

Why would it be?

A designer human being cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any human being capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his or her own right. Human beings presents an infinite regress from which they cannot help us to escape.

Say what now? There's a very powerful explanation for this called the theory of evolution. Start there, and come back once you've grasped the basics. 

So one could take the properties of things designed & created  by human beings and see if there are similar attributes in the world.
- Alphabet: basis for books
- Notes in music: basis for musical works of all genres
- Machine code: basis for all computer software
now...
- DNA: basis for all living organisms. So evidence of design? Apparently not!

Not apparently not, absolutely not because DNA isn't analogous with the other examples. Try some Evolutionary theory 101 to find out why not - I suggest you start with "Paley's watch". 

[Gordon]

Something for you to consider BashfulAnthony...

Their worldview is not falsifiable.

Which is what exactly - since you claim it can't be falsified then you presumably know the details: so let's see what these are. Over to you.

That means there is no way for you (or any other Christian) to meet their requests. Any attempts to get them to apply the same standards to their worldview results in accusations of shifting the burden of proof.

Aside from the unspecified 'worldview' you do indeed seem intent on shifting the burden of proof.

It wasn't religious believers that posited the idea that a hypothesis should be falsifiable, yet whereas the Christian faith is, their materialistic worldview isn't.

Which is you shifting the burden of proof to something you've attributed to others without telling us what it is. I'm not sure I have a 'worldview' that fits your use of the term since you haven't explained what it means.

They cannot cite what would constitute evidence of a non-natural cause, or something supernatural.

That would be your job.

They cannot cite what would be considered as evidence for God.

That would be your job too, and don't forget to supply the method used.

They cannot cite what would convince them of God's existence (apparently, it's God's responsibility, even though they cannot give a single example of what He is supposed to do!).

Since 'God ' in an incoherent claim I've no idea what it should be capable of in any meaningful sense that would be sufficient to show its actions as being mutually exclusive from anything else.

So you are in a position where the assumption is that if there is evidence for something, it must be material.

Wrong in one sense, since I doubt you'll find any of us are philosophical naturalists - but of course as things stand 'evidence' is methodologically naturalistic, so if you are to present evidence for divine intervention you'll need a relevant method for evidence that isn't material - and currently the notion of 'immaterial evidence' is an oxymoron in the absence of a method that give context to this notion. But that is your problem, burden of proof-wise.

This is why they cannot progress and why the endless answers provided by Christians over the years will never be enough.

That would be because their answers are invariably fallacious and can be rejected out of hand.

As it says in 2 Timothy 3 v 7:

always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Very nice, but no more than a deepity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Very nice, but no more than a deepity.

Deepity.............Another word chucked about shamanically. Gordon gets a warm feeling at the prospect of soothing the cockles of an antitheist's heart..........Pass the bucket.