Searching for GOD...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

even slightly right about the some of us wwould not want those who lurk and read to think that the believers might be even remotely right about the imagined entities they believe exist.

Which just goes to show that you are not concerned about the truth or accuracy of your conclusions. Why then should any lurkers who want to be objective and think for themselves consider anything you (or those who reason like you) have to say?

[Gordon]

One has to wonder why so many non believers are attracted to post on this "Searching for God" thread?  Could God be helping them to come to know Him through the witness of others, even though they appear to be in denial of searching for Him?

Don't be silly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, the old 'divine hiddenness' argument, much discussed.   There are tons of replies to it, ranging from blaming the seeker, (you aren't trying hard enough), to the mystical (God disappears so that creation can be), and of course, the free will argument, (God isn't going to make it easy for you).   It's connected with the argument from non-belief, i.e. that non-belief is reasonable, given the evidence, (lack of).

And yet The divine explanation is recognised as the first port of call for a person by Dawkins himself and it is the fundamental truth of materialism which is hidden from uninquiring minds.

You seem to have missed out the moral argument...........of course morality is a hard problem for physicalism etc.

[Rhiannon]

It's a basic flaw in AB's approach, since he treats his own experience with reverence.   But other people's experiences are dismissed.

Or they are to blame for their experiences not matching his.

[Rhiannon]

Given the amount of lying you have done on this thread Alan, I find being called a liar by you as you do in the above post laughable.

I don't think he thinks we are lying exactly, more in denial.

[SusanDoris]

Which just goes to show that you are not concerned about the truth or accuracy of your conclusions. Why then should any lurkers who want to be objective and think for themselves consider anything you (or those who reason like you) have to say?

Well, right back at you. Why then should any lurkers who want to be objective and think for themselves consider anything you (or those who reason like you) have to say?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Or they are to blame for their experiences not matching his.

I don't get that from Alan at all.

What methodology did you use to conclude that there is no Christ and that Alan can be blamed/ or has a deficiency as his experience does not match yours.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think he thinks we are lying exactly, more in denial.

to be in denial, you have to be lying as far as I can see

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wasn't Moses found in Denial?

[Aruntraveller]

Wasn't Moses found in Denial?

Quick get on stage before it wears off.

[Maeght]

to be in denial, you have to be lying as far as I can see

Denial is to state something is not true. For it to be a lie then the person has to know it is true. I don't see how being in denial means you are lying.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Dishonesty noted.

Still, if you cut and paste the rebuttal for easy reference you'll be able to find it again the next time you feel like essaying the philosophical/methodological naturalism stupidity in which you were so invested.

You're welcome.

It's the hard problem of materialism, physicalism and naturalism Hillside.............how do you get from the methodological to the philosophical?

And yet that leap of faith is taken every time science is touted as part of an argument for atheism.

[Gordon]

And yet that leap of faith is taken every time science is touted as part of an argument for atheism.

How many here cite science as being an argument for atheism?

I'd have thought it more the case that atheism has more to do with the rejection of the arguments made in support of 'God'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How many here cite science as being an argument for atheism?

I'd have thought it more the case that atheism has more to do with the rejection of the arguments made in support of 'God'.

Rejection...........on what grounds though?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Which just goes to show that you are not concerned about the truth or accuracy of your conclusions. Why then should any lurkers who want to be objective and think for themselves consider anything you (or those who reason like you) have to say?

Well, right back at you. Why then should any lurkers who want to be objective and think for themselves consider anything you (or those who reason like you) have to say?

To which I can reply by quoting your own post as an answer:

Well, right back at you. Why then should any lurkers who want to be objective and think for themselves consider anything you (or those who reason like you) have to say?

[Gordon]

Rejection...........on what grounds though?

Because they are either fallacious or incoherent in one way or another: AB has provided no end of examples in this very thread. 

[Stranger]

I'd have thought it more the case that atheism has more to do with the rejection of the arguments made in support of 'God'.

Rejection...........on what grounds though?

Err... because they're all absurd (well all the ones I've heard to date).

[Alan Burns]

to be in denial, you have to be lying as far as I can see

Or honestly mistaken

[Nearly Sane]

Denial is to state something is not true. For it to be a lie then the person has to know it is true. I don't see how being in denial means you are lying.

I think to be in denial you have to know it's true. Otherwise you are just making a mistake.

[Nearly Sane]

Or honestly mistaken

But being mistaken then you would just use the word mistaken. To be in denial you have to be denying something, it's an active statement.

[Alan Burns]

How many here cite science as being an argument for atheism?

I'd have thought it more the case that atheism has more to do with the rejection of the arguments made in support of 'God'.

So what argument would you use to reject the idea that you were brought into being by an intelligent Creator?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because they are either fallacious or incoherent in one way or another: AB has provided no end of examples in this very thread.

Unfortunately no counter arguments have been forwarded by your side which do not end with "we don't know" or "science will one day show".

Antitheists seem to be given to inventing fallacies and straw men vis Courtiers reply, Going nuclear etc. Which just cover ignorance and show special pleading.

[Nearly Sane]

So what argument would you use to reject the idea that you were brought into being by an intelligent Creator?

shifting the burden of proof. Your claim, you make the arguments.

[Nearly Sane]

Unfortunately no counter arguments have been forwarded by your side which do not end with "we don't know" or "science will one day show".

Antitheists seem to be given to inventing fallacies and straw men vis Courtiers reply, Going nuclear etc. Which just cover ignorance and show special pleading.

said Vlad, lying, and shifting the burden of proof.

[SusanDoris]

To which I can reply by quoting your own post as an answer:

Well, at least I suppose you are consistent - you never answer a question, but always - I presume you think, cleverly - respond in the way you do.