Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

O.

And that's how to give a reasonable response rather than a bilious and hyperbolic one.
Thank you.

[Stranger]

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?

Assuming determinism, Alan has arrived at his illogical position due to past events. However, to say that it is "impervious to influence" is incorrect. Part of what will determine his future position will be what is said on this forum. It might not change his mind (probably won't) but it will form an input to his future state.

Determinism is not fatalism.

[Gordon]

And that's how to give a reasonable response rather than a bilious and hyperbolic one.
Thank you.

That is an irony-meter buster, Vlad.

May I refer the honourable gentleman to numerous examples of his previous posts, regarding which 'bilious' and 'hyperbolic' would be appropriate epithets.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

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.

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

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

If one accepts the possibility of a God then if one does not go forward in thought about that then one has reasons I would have thought not to.
If, when pressed a person has either to commit to the agnosticism that comes with accepting the possibility of God or to flip back and commit to a hard atheism and again there must be reasons for either course of action.

You say you have no sense of danger about the possibility of God. I would have thought that this would inspire either empathy or a curiosity about indulging an acceptance of the possibility of God.

I can entertain thoughts of the multiverse even though I can never prove it.
God however brings about a negative reaction.

And finally you have declared God thinking dangerous in your wish that some people should not be exposed to it at nativity plays etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is an irony-meter buster, Vlad.

May I refer the honourable gentleman to numerous examples of his previous posts, regarding which 'bilious' and 'hyperbolic' would be appropriate epithets.

Are you calling me the biggest f****** hypocrite under the sun?

[Gordon]

If one accepts the possibility of a God then if one does not go forward in thought about that then one has reasons I would have thought not to.

Not really - if the arguments for 'God' are incoherent or fallacious then there is nothing of substance to think about beyond the credulity of those offering these arguments.   

If, when pressed a person has either to commit to the agnosticism that comes with accepting the possibility of God or to flip back and commit to a hard atheism and again there must be reasons for either course of action.

You'd have to ask someone who actually does this - can't say I've noticed anyone here doing this flip-flopping, as you suggest.

You say you have no sense of danger about the possibility of God. I would have thought that this would inspire either empathy or a curiosity about indulging an acceptance of the possibility of God.

I am equally sanguine and lacking in curiosity as regards the possibility of goblins. 

I can entertain thoughts of the multiverse even though I can never prove it.

I think scientists in this field adopt a similar position.

God however brings about a negative reaction.

You're conflating the dismissal of things that aren't serious propositions with negative reactions. 

And finally you have declared God thinking dangerous in your wish that some people should not be exposed to it at nativity plays etc.

I don't think that the role of the state education system should include religious participation, especially when it involves very young children: what happens within the context of the family, however, is none of my business.

[Gordon]

Are you calling me the biggest f****** hypocrite under the sun?

Don't know about 'under the sun', Vlad - I expect there will be competition out there!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really - if the arguments for 'God' are incoherent or fallacious then there is nothing of substance to think about beyong the credulity of those offering these arguments.   

I suspect this is non sequitur...but if it isn't why does someone remain in the position of accepting the possibility of God if there are no coherent or sound arguments for God.

I think though that we shouldn't rely on others to do our thinking anyway.

Still you have positively asserted that arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent so go ahead and justify that.

[Gordon]

I suspect this is non sequitur...but if it isn't why does someone remain in the position of accepting the possibility of God if there are no coherent or sound arguments for God.

For crying out loud, Vlad, this isn't rocket science - a new and different argument might be offered: 'unknown unknowns', remember!

I think though that we shouldn't rely on others to do our thinking anyway.

We don't - but we might think on what others say or do.

Still you have positively asserted that arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent so go ahead and justify that.

I have critiqued the arguments of others proposing 'God' as being fallacious or incoherent, and have said so many times, so all you need do is read back. 

[Stranger]

...why does someone remain in the position of accepting the possibility of God if there are no coherent or sound arguments for God.

Yet again, for the hard-of-thinking: if something is not impossible then one has to accept that it is a possibility - not impossible means possible (what is it with theists and not getting binary choices?).

Of course many god concepts are impossible (due to logical contradictions or conflict with evidence). However, one has to concede that something may exist in all of reality that somebody may call 'god'...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yet again, for the hard-of-thinking: if something is not impossible then one has to accept that it is a possibility - not impossible means possible (what is it with theists and not getting binary choices?).

Of course many god concepts are impossible (due to logical contradictions or conflict with evidence). However, one has to concede that something may exist in all of reality that somebody may call 'god'...

God concepts are non sequitur to the possibility of God debate.

If you admit that God is possible then what are the reasons for not pursuing with further thought?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For crying out loud, Vlad, this isn't rocket science - a new and different argument might be offered: 'unknown unknowns', remember!

We don't - but we might think on what others say or do.

I have critiqued the arguments of others proposing 'God' as being fallacious or incoherent, and have said so many times, so all you need do is read back.

How is the ''is there a god argument?'' about unknown unknowns?
It's surely a known unknown if anything.

Secondly, having positively asserted that arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent it is encumbent on you to exemplify or at least if you are asserting that arguments for God are fallacious to demonstrate why or give the citation of where your proof can be found although i'm sure you can restate this here.

[Stranger]

God concepts are non sequitur to the possibility of God debate.

I don't speak gibberish.

If you admit that God is possible then what are the reasons for not pursuing with further thought?

How many more times?

Because there are no valid, supporting arguments and no evidence. The god stories (of which there are many) have no more to recommend them than the Great Green Arkleseizure or the stars of your favourite Irish mythology.

[SusanDoris]

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?

Would you then advocate that children should be told that the faith beliefs that people have are based on established fact?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because there are no valid, supporting arguments and no evidence.

Then what are you doing announcing that there may be a God
and why are you appealing to the dated light entertainment of Mr D.Adams?

[Rhiannon]

Would you then advocate that children should be told that the faith beliefs that people have are based on established fact?

No. How have you got that from what I said?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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.

Interestingly enough, if their position was falsifiable (by their own scientific standards!), you wouldn't have had to do this!

Instead we get the somewhat confused approach of on the one hand claiming that the natural is all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable as if there is a limit to its application, but in practice (its implementation) turns out to be applied to everything, which means that its approach is circular

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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?

lol

Is this the same Dawkins who thinks it's ok to have designer humans to explain organised complexity, but not a designer God?

Is this the same Dawkins who says effectively that a blind watchmaker is more likely to design and make a watch than someone who can see what they are doing?

[wigginhall]

lol

Is this the same Dawkins who thinks it's ok to have designer humans to explain organised complexity, but not a designer God?

Is this the same Dawkins who says effectively that a blind watchmaker is more likely to design and make a watch than someone who can see what they are doing?

Can you give a citation for the second paragraph, as that doesn't seem accurate to me, as a summary of 'The Blind Watchmaker'?  I mean an actual quote.

[Stranger]

Then what are you doing announcing that there may be a God
and why are you appealing to the dated light entertainment of Mr D.Adams?

What part of not impossible means possible are you finding difficult? Or is the the connection between possible and may be that has you flummoxed?

[Stranger]

Is this the same Dawkins who says effectively that a blind watchmaker is more likely to design and make a watch than someone who can see what they are doing?

This is either a very, very stupid misunderstanding or a blatant lie.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Then what are you doing announcing that there may be a God

I think this is where you are going of the rails.

It is not that people are "announcing" that there may be a God but rather that "whilst the arguments for God are unconvincing that doesn't demonstrate that God does not exist."

All it demonstrates is that there is no good reason to believe there is one.

It is not that people are moving along a path from "there is no God" to "there is a God" and have stopped off at "there might be a God" on the way. The quality of the arguments in support of God existing are simply not sufficient to move from possible to probable.

[Gordon]

How is the ''is there a god argument?'' about unknown unknowns?
It's surely a known unknown if anything.

God could decide to make its presence known in some way that we simply can't currently envisage and that is in some way fundamentally different from all the arguments for God made to date.

Secondly, having positively asserted that arguments for God are fallacious and incoherent it is encumbent on you to exemplify or at least if you are asserting that arguments for God are fallacious to demonstrate why or give the citation of where your proof can be found although i'm sure you can restate this here.

Not playing - have pointed out fallacies many times: but you know that already. Tell you what though: next time one occurs (which I'm sure will be soon) I'll be sure to flag it up for you.

[SusanDoris]

Can you give a citation for the second paragraph, as that doesn't seem accurate to me, as a summary of 'The Blind Watchmaker'?  I mean an actual quote.

It will be interesting to see what SotS replies.

[wigginhall]

Yes, the argument that X is possible is used widely in relation to all manner of bizarre occurrences.  For example, last Thursdayism is a common one - it's possible that the universe was created last Thursday, but few people devote much attention to the idea.

Here is B. Russell's formulation:

There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no logically necessary connection between events at different times; therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago.

I suppose today it has been replaced by the Matrix.