Searching for GOD...

[Rhiannon]

The thing I genuinely don't get is why it matters. Faith is well, faith - it isn't supposed to come with proof. There is never a need for proof where faith is concerned - it's a leap into the unknown in the belief there is something there to catch/support/judge you (delete according to preference). Why belittle that by making daft arguments?

[Alan Burns]

The thing I genuinely don't get is why it matters. Faith is well, faith - it isn't supposed to come with proof. There is never a need for proof where faith is concerned - it's a leap into the unknown in the belief there is something there to catch/support/judge you (delete according to preference). Why belittle that by making daft arguments?

I agree Rhi,
What I have tried to do is remove obstacles to faith - to allow people to at least realise the possibility for God to exist.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree Rhi,
What I have tried to do is remove obstacles to faith - to allow people to at least realise the possibility for God to exist.

so you agree you have been making daft arguments?

[Maeght]

I agree Rhi,
What I have tried to do is remove obstacles to faith - to allow people to at least realise the possibility for God to exist.

I really don't see how you have done that. What obstacles to faith exactly?

[BeRational]

I agree Rhi,
What I have tried to do is remove obstacles to faith - to allow people to at least realise the possibility for God to exist.

I have always understood the possibility that god could exist.

Do you accept the possibility that god might not exist, or a completely different god to the one you believe in could exist?

[Stranger]

What I have tried to do is remove obstacles to faith - to allow people to at least realise the possibility for God to exist.

Was the possibility ever in dispute (at least for those god concepts that don't contradict evidence and are logically self-consistent)?

Don't know how making a fool of yourself with baseless assertions and circular 'reasoning' has helped...

[Alan Burns]

I really don't see how you have done that. What obstacles to faith exactly?

The pillars that the likes of Richard Dawkins use to support their atheist views.

[Alan Burns]

I have always understood the possibility that god could exist.

Do you accept the possibility that god might not exist, or a completely different god to the one you believe in could exist?

No I do not, because I have found God, and He has found me.  It started by taking a step in faith.

[Maeght]

The pillars that the likes of Richard Dawkins uses to support his atheist views.

And which ones of those supposed pillars have you tried to remove exactly?

[Gordon]

I agree Rhi,
What I have tried to do is remove obstacles to faith - to allow people to at least realise the possibility for God to exist.

Ironically, Alan, I think you are probably creating specific obstacles relating to your particular take on 'souls': anyone considering 'faith' who thinks about the merit of your approach would, in my view, conclude that your arguments fail by dint of being fallacious. That said though, the other arguments we see for 'God' all fail on the same basis.

I agree with Rhi here, since it seems to me that the harder folk like yourself try to demonstrate faith by citing what they see as evidence by either attempting pseudoscience (as you do) or misrepresenting knowledge supported by science (as YEC's do) the more likely they are to discourage 'faith' of the type noted by Rhi a few posts back - a 'leap into the unknown in the belief there is something there to catch/support/judge you (delete according to preference).'

[Nearly Sane]

No I do not, because I have found God, and He has found me.  It started by taking a step in faith.

I haven't seen a logically coherent definition of god, so not only is it not a possibility, it's not even wrong. Added to that the amount of lying and misrepresentation  you have indulged in on this thread makes your views on anything suspect.

[Nearly Sane]

The pillars that the likes of Richard Dawkins use to support their atheist views.

mmm and another shifting the burden of proof

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The pillars that the likes of Richard Dawkins use to support their atheist views.

Given the forum we are on shouldn't that be ''The Pillocks that the likes of Richard Dawkins use who support his atheist views?

[ekim]

If determinism applies, there isn't influencing, since any influence is already determined. Alan is making a statement that is logically contradictory. If he thinks it"s just poetry then that's fine but I see no indication that he does think this.

If Alan is making a logically contradictory statement and it is predetermined and impervious to influence what is the point of your discussion with him?

[Nearly Sane]

If Alan is making a logically contradictory statement and it is predetermined and impervious to influence what is the point of your discussion with him?

Yes, indeed, but I am also bound to point it out to him, as you were bound to do that post. Effectively you are trying a sort of argument ad consequential here to deal with the issue that if determinism is true our actions seem to work as it it weren't.

To quote my favourite on free will  'Of course I believe in free will, I have no choice'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't seen a logically coherent definition of god, so not only is it not a possibility, it's not even wrong. Added to that the amount of lying and misrepresentation  you have indulged in on this thread makes your views on anything suspect.

That kind of underlines what I have suspected you of.......suggesting that defining ranks above actual being.

Alan has been quite fair in that he recognises all he can do is to raise the possibility of God...just like all you guys can do is raise the possibility that materialism could be a pragmatic model for reality.

I see many who flip flop between accepting the possibility and not wanting God to be possible in a forlorn hope of being both a hard atheist and a reasonable agnostic. This forum suggests one has to make a commitment to one line or another.
In other words hard atheism or agnosticism.

I find the shutting down of thinking around the possibility of a God strange since it suggest there is some kind of danger around thinking about the implications of a possible God....something that isn't seen over something equally as unfalsifiable say the multiverse.

This suggests special pleading and, dare I say it, evasion.......

[Nearly Sane]

That kind of underlines what I have suspected you of.......suggesting that defining ranks above actual being.

Alan has been quite fair in that he recognises all he can do is to raise the possibility of God...just like all you guys can do is raise the possibility that materialism could be a pragmatic model for reality.

I see many who flip flop between accepting the possibility and not wanting God to be possible in a forlorn hope of being a hard atheist and a reasonable agnostic. This forum suggests one has to make a commitment to one line or another.
In other words hard atheism or agnosticism.

I find the shutting down of thinking around the possibility of a God strange since it suggest there is some kind of danger around thinking about the implications of a possible God....an evasion that isn't seen over something equally as unfalsifiable say the multiverse.

This suggests special pleading and ,dare I say it evasion.......

I say nothing about materialism and reality but get it's you so you are as ever happy lying.

I am not shutting down the possibility of a logically coherent definition of anything but hey it's you so you are as ever happy lying.


I will happily have a discussion about this but I don't see the point in having it with someone who consistently lies as you do.

[ekim]

Yes, indeed, but I am also bound to point it out to him, as you were bound to do that post. Effectively you are trying a sort of argument ad consequential here to deal with the issue that if determinism is true our actions seem to work as it it weren't.

To quote my favourite on free will  'Of course I believe in free will, I have no choice'

No, I wasn't trying an argument, I was just asking a question.  My next question is what is it that binds you?  Don't feel that you are bound to answer that question though.

[BeRational]

No I do not, because I have found God, and He has found me.  It started by taking a step in faith.

So you are closed minded then?

You do not accept the possibility that you are mistaken about finding god, and it could all just be in your mind.

When you next chat to him, ask him to contact me, then I will also believe.

The truth is, that YOU are closed minded not me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I say nothing about materialism and reality but get it's you so you are as ever happy lying.

I am not shutting down the possibility of a logically coherent definition of anything but hey it's you so you are as ever happy lying.


I will happily have a discussion about this but I don't see the point in having it with someone who consistently lies as you do.

So are we to take it that you actually believe that defining something is secondary to it's existence?

As for the rest of my post I cannot see where it specifically mentions you.

[Nearly Sane]

No, I wasn't trying an argument, I was just asking a question.  My next question is what is it that binds you?  Don't feel that you are bound to answer that question though.

Asking a question and trying an argument are not mutually exclusive. As to your  follow up, I don't understand it. It's not a thing that 'binds: me but rather that if determinism is true there is only one set of things that will happen.

[Nearly Sane]

So are we to take it that you actually believe that defining something is secondary to it's existence?

As for the rest of my post I cannot see where it specifically mentions you.

It's in direct reply to my post, quoting my post,. So again stop lying on that.

As to your question, nope. But if you say I believe in bhortihut, and I say what's that and you cannot give me a logically coherent definition, I don't see how I can move beyond that in considering whether your belief in bhortihut has any value.

[Outrider]

I think you know more about Alan's God than Bhortihut so that seems a bit disingenuous for starters.....

I think nobody knows anything about any gods - some people believe things about them, of course, but knowledge?

O.

[Gordon]

Alan has been quite fair in that he recognises all he can do is to raise the possibility of God...just like all you guys can do is raise the possibility that materialism could be a pragmatic model for reality.

Alan doesn't just raise the possibility of God: he asserts it quite firmly via his take on 'souls' and has since told us he won't accept the possibility that God couldn't exist.

I see many who flip flop between accepting the possibility and not wanting God to be possible in a forlorn hope of being both a hard atheist and a reasonable agnostic. This forum suggests one has to make a commitment to one line or another.
In other words hard atheism or agnosticism.

Your 'not wanting' is a telling phrase since it suggests you think atheism is a matter of choice based on personal preference as opposed to being, as I've said before, a conclusion based on the rejection of all the arguments in favour of theism that have been made - so far.

I find the shutting down of thinking around the possibility of a God strange since it suggest there is some kind of danger around thinking about the implications of a possible God....something that isn't seen over something equally as unfalsifiable say the multiverse.

In the case of 'God' I don't see any 'danger', so I suspect you are indulging in hyperbole.

This suggests special pleading and, dare I say it, evasion.......

Nope - it suggests, as I said, that you are indulging in hyperbole.

[Rhiannon]

I think nobody knows anything about any gods - some people believe things about them, of course, but knowledge?

O.

Most of us know the myths about a few of them to be fair.