Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

You (Reply 14082):QED

Do you seriously think that your alternative arguments from the world of neuroscience  (ie deterministic chemical activity in the brain which correlates with, but does not define our thoughts) are sufficient to dismiss my knowledge of God to be false?
My reasons for knowing God's existence may not be absolute proofs in your eyes, but your faith in what can be achieved solely by deterministic neurological activity in our physical brain cells is certainly not a "QED" in my eyes.

Do you seriously think that people have been saying that neuroscience proves your ideas to be false?   I don't recollect anyone doing that, and in fact, this is a central issue, that your ideas are unfalsifiable.   You seem to be quite proud of this, possibly you haven't realized that this is a weakness in any argument. 

So neuroscience does not offer a QED at all, certainly in relation to ideas about the soul.   Another straw man you have constructed here.   But it does offer an empirical means of investigating various aspects of cognition and other mental activity.   Of course, you will be able to produce equivalent detailed studies about the soul, won't you?

You assert, while neuroscientists investigate.   Still, I realize that this will have zero impact on you - water off a duck's back.

[Spud]

God's humour:
"Dear God, I've lost my pen"
"I know".
"Do you know where it is? Oh of course you do."

[Rhiannon]

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2010/10/why-people-dont-change-their-minds-even-when-faced-facts

Interesting article about those shouting loudest often having the greatest doubts.

[Shaker]

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2010/10/why-people-dont-change-their-minds-even-when-faced-facts

Interesting article about those shouting loudest often having the greatest doubts.

I thought this comment was perceptive enough to merit repeating:

There's another way of looking at this: Ego. When people tie their beliefs and decisions to their egos their thinking gets fuzzy. One difference between a well trained intellect and a poor intellect is the ability to make evidence based decisions and evaluations. That requires an ability to compensate for one's ego. It can be done. We do a real poor job of training intellects in the country. Our culture and educational system all focus on ego or self esteem instead of rational decision making. The focus on consumerism likewise emphasizes personal choice over consequences. We end up teaching people that all that matters is how one feels, and feels about oneself rather than whether or not one makes good decisions. Conversely, it also encourages mediocrity by generating anxiety about making mistakes. Rather than viewing mistakes as part of a learning process, they are viewed as bad outcomes that make people feel bad. Mistakes make people losers, and everyone wants to be a winner. So you have the double whammy of really poor decision making coupled with risk aversion.

[Gordon]

This quote of Bertrand Russell seems to cover the likes of Alan's sense of unshakeable conviction.

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.

[Shaker]

... which I would say is itself a sophisticated retooling of David Hume's much older point about reason being the slave of the passions.

[Anchorman]

Surely that's a prime example of what Rhiannon mentioned, making Jesus in your own image based on what you value. Of course a Jesus with a sense of humour is an attractive picture, because people (well, most people - I have my doubts about one or two ...) value humour as a positive and agreeable trait that makes life better. It's going far outside of such evidence as we have, though.

If Christ Jesus was fully Human - and we believe He was, then to have humoour would be normal. Yes, we can infer that He had a sense of fun - and why not? If Christians accept the Gospel - and I accept you don't Shaker, and equally respect your position - we see in Him a person whom many found attractive - including kids in a crowd. Now, I don't think kids were any different then to now - you can't get them to cluster round someone who rants and raves like Ian Paisley on ecstasy - they'd run a mile (if they had any sense). However, the Gospel clearly records that they clustered round Him - to the extent that some of His po-faced followers tried to stop them. That's the kind of God I serve!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

You're not wrong.

The person who says "I think ..." or "It's my opinion that ..." can, at least in principle, be reasoned with. You can offer alternative scenarios, suggest other possibilities. Humans are fallible creatures, subject to bias unless they're extremely and scrupulously careful and always working with partial, limited information. "I think" operates on that basis. However, when "I think" becomes "Not my will, not my doing, but the will of the Creator of the Universe Himself", all bets are off. This is someone pretending to superhuman knowledge.

When "I think" becomes "God says", trouble is never far away.

Yes, and it then becomes a matter of dumb luck whether the person who thinks that way wants to hand out cucumber sandwiches or blow up people because of it. Both will say things like, “but I’ve seen my prayers answered”, “people have had their lives changed by it” etc but the former – AB in this case – will be entirely unaware that (or worse, indifferent to) his defence is identical to that of the suicide bomber. 

And that in short is why I look askance at those who would have us privilege his faith beliefs over just guessing about stuff.

[Spud]

Shakes,

Yes, and it then becomes a matter of dumb luck whether the person who thinks that way wants to hand out cucumber sandwiches or blow up people because of it. Both will say things like, “but I’ve seen my prayers answered”, “people have had their lives changed by it” etc but the former – AB in this case – will be entirely unaware this his defence is identical to that of the suicide bomber. 

And that in short is why I look askance at those who would have us privilege their faith beliefs over just guessing about stuff.

I understand what you are saying here. How is God telling the Israelites to put a city to the sword any different from a jihadist thinking God had told him to kill people, for example? But there is a difference; in the conquest of Canaan, some cities were burned up, such as Jericho (Joshua 6). This only applied to the cities in what was intended to be a 'holy land', who wouldn't make a treaty with Israel. The idea was that there would be a land where God's law was perfectly followed (a bit like the Islamic vision of a Caliphate) that would eventually be spread throughout the world. Everything in these cities was said to be 'devoted to the Lord' (v.17). By totally destroying something or someone, that thing was irrevocably God's, going up to heaven in smoke. The burnt offering described in Leviticus carried the same idea. However since that time, God has sent Jesus to be a perfect, once-for-all offering, so that there is no need for sacrifices any more. Because jihadists reject this they still live in the days when sacrificial practices were carried out to gain God's forgiveness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I understand what you are saying here. How is God telling the Israelites to put a city to the sword any different from a jihadist thinking God had told him to kill people, for example? But there is a difference; in the conquest of Canaan, some cities were burned up, such as Jericho (Joshua 6). This only applied to the cities in what was intended to be a 'holy land', who wouldn't make a treaty with Israel. The idea was that there would be a land where God's law was perfectly followed (a bit like the Islamic vision of a Caliphate) that would eventually be spread throughout the world. Everything in these cities was said to be 'devoted to the Lord' (v.17). By totally destroying something or someone, that thing was irrevocably God's, going up to heaven in smoke. The burnt offering described in Leviticus carried the same idea. However since that time, God has sent Jesus to be a perfect, once-for-all offering, so that there is no need for sacrifices any more. Because jihadists reject this they still live in the days when sacrificial practices were carried out to gain God's forgiveness.

Leaving aside how morally despicable that is, all you’ve just done (rather neatly) is to re-state the problem. You think all that to be true because that’s your faith. Someone else will think something else entirely to be true because that’s his faith. Both of you though rely on the notion that faith is a reliable guide to truth and thus to proper behaviour. 

When people want to act on their faith beliefs, why and how should some be taken seriously and others dismissed?

Coda: Your question "How is God telling the Israelites to put a city to the sword any different from a jihadist thinking God had told him to kill people, for example?" is wrongly stated. It should be, "How is my thinking God telling the Israelites to put a city to the sword any different from a jihadist thinking God had told him to kill people, for example?" That's the point - you can't just assume your belief to be true and someone else's faith belief not to be when both rest on the same thing: faith. 

[floo]

I understand what you are saying here. How is God telling the Israelites to put a city to the sword any different from a jihadist thinking God had told him to kill people, for example? But there is a difference; in the conquest of Canaan, some cities were burned up, such as Jericho (Joshua 6). This only applied to the cities in what was intended to be a 'holy land', who wouldn't make a treaty with Israel. The idea was that there would be a land where God's law was perfectly followed (a bit like the Islamic vision of a Caliphate) that would eventually be spread throughout the world. Everything in these cities was said to be 'devoted to the Lord' (v.17). By totally destroying something or someone, that thing was irrevocably God's, going up to heaven in smoke. The burnt offering described in Leviticus carried the same idea. However since that time, God has sent Jesus to be a perfect, once-for-all offering, so that there is no need for sacrifices any more. Because jihadists reject this they still live in the days when sacrificial practices were carried out to gain God's forgiveness.

If god exists it should be asking forgiveness of us humans for screwing up so badly throughout history!

[Maeght]

These are classic examples of how we can use our free will to misuse God's gifts for purely selfish indulgence.

A nice 'Just So Stories' explanation.

[Alan Burns]

    After God made Himself known, I get asked to do things which are not my will, but God's ... Taking a step in faith by doing God's will, rather than my own

One of the most chilling and dangerous phrases I know of - the ultimate excuse, the ultimate cop-out, the ultimate shirking of personal responsibility.

I too would think it chilling and dangerous for someone to obey apparent messages in their head if they were not able to discriminate between the good (God) and evil (Devil) messages.  The simple way to do this is to know that God would never ask anything which went against the teachings of the Christian bible or His church.  We need to be wary of the Devil's temptation to make us think we can allow our human intellect to rise above such teachings.

[torridon]

One of the most chilling and dangerous phrases I know of - the ultimate excuse, the ultimate cop-out, the ultimate shirking of personal responsibility.

I too would think it chilling and dangerous for someone to obey apparent messages in their head if they were not able to discriminate between the good (God) and evil (Devil) messages.  The simple way to do this is to know that God would never ask anything which went against the teachings of the Christian bible or His church.  We need to be wary of the Devil's temptation to make us think we can allow our human intellect to rise above such teachings.

You mean, like Bible teaching is all clear cut without any wriggle room for interpretation ?  You really ought to tell the Anglican Communion

[torridon]

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2010/10/why-people-dont-change-their-minds-even-when-faced-facts

Interesting article about those shouting loudest often having the greatest doubts.

Glad to see you here again Rhiannon.  Don't go away again now

[wigginhall]

One of the most chilling and dangerous phrases I know of - the ultimate excuse, the ultimate cop-out, the ultimate shirking of personal responsibility.

I too would think it chilling and dangerous for someone to obey apparent messages in their head if they were not able to discriminate between the good (God) and evil (Devil) messages.  The simple way to do this is to know that God would never ask anything which went against the teachings of the Christian bible or His church.  We need to be wary of the Devil's temptation to make us think we can allow our human intellect to rise above such teachings.

So all the people who were burned by Christians - was that at God's commands or Satan's? 

[Shaker]

One of the most chilling and dangerous phrases I know of - the ultimate excuse, the ultimate cop-out, the ultimate shirking of personal responsibility.

I too would think it chilling and dangerous for someone to obey apparent messages in their head if they were not able to discriminate between the good (God) and evil (Devil) messages.  The simple way to do this is to know that God would never ask anything which went against the teachings of the Christian bible or His church.

The Bible is stuffed full of edicts which are comprehensively ignored. We don't execute witches, gay people or those who work on the Sabbath (whichever day that is). We have women priests and even bishops. What happened there? Did God get it wrong the first time and change his mind? Or is it the work of Satan?

We need to be wary of the Devil's temptation to make us think we can allow our human intellect to rise above such teachings.

No. I'm wary of anybody who thinks that there's actually a Devil on which can be shouldered off all manner of things, including it would seem the human capacity for rational thought.

[Rhiannon]

Glad to see you here again Rhiannon.  Don't go away again now

Thank you. I'm glad to be back. 🙂

[wigginhall]

Thank you. I'm glad to be back. 🙂

Hello sweetiepie.  Keep warm. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I too would think it chilling and dangerous for someone to obey apparent messages in their head if they were not able to discriminate between the good (God) and evil (Devil) messages.

But the question you keep avoiding concerns how you discriminate – not between “good and evil messages”, but rather between the belief that there are messages of any kind and the possibility that there are no messages at all.

Again, how do you know that you’re not flat out mistaken, especially given the poverty of argument you attempt for thinking there to be a “God” at all?

The simple way to do this…

You’re getting ahead of yourself. There is no “this” unless you can first demonstrate that there are “messages” of any kind.

…is to know that God would never ask anything which went against the teachings of the Christian bible or His church.

So you assert. Would there even be any point in asking you why you think you’re privy to this remarkable insight given your inability to provide a cogent reason for thinking there to be a “God” at all?

We need to be wary of the Devil's temptation to make us think we can allow our human intellect to rise above such teachings.

I suppose once you create a menagerie of the mind and populate it with “God” you may as well populate it with as many other entities as happen to pop into your head.

Have you any sense at all of how utterly lost you are to reason here?

Anything?

[jeremyp]

A B ,
Have you any idea how the term 'I'm in a deep relationship with god which no amount of scientific theory can ever take away' sounds to an atheist.?

This ,to me, amounts to a homoerotic love affair that you display with pride,

Nothing wrong with that...

except one of the participants is imaginary.

Yeah, that is weird.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

Yeah, that is weird.

Imaginophobe!

[jeremyp]

jeremy,

Imaginophobe!

These bloody imaginary people, coming here, taking our jobs.

[Rhiannon]

Hello sweetiepie.  Keep warm.

Hello, Wiggs, mate. You too. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One of the most chilling and dangerous phrases I know of - the ultimate excuse, the ultimate cop-out, the ultimate shirking of personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility?....for what? since morality is relative.......it would be interesting to see what justice an atheist moral relativist would administer to themselves when they think have personal responsibility although I can't see what they could suggest without a counter claim that it wasn't what we experience in life.

I think most people like to settle for the comforting words of humanism, the sweet lullaby of the ego that at bottom we're good guys really and it's the other chap.