Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

We can all understand what it is you are suggesting. What we cannot understand is how any choice can be neither random or predetermined. How would this conscious will power make any choice without reference to previous events? I know you will say that it is influenced a bit but free to over ride - but on what basis does it make that choice to over ride? Do you not understand what it is you are being asked?

I fully understand what I am being asked, and I fully realise that my answer can't be accepted by non believers.

[Nearly Sane]

I fully understand what I am being asked, and I fully realise that my answer can't be accepted by non believers.

This is saying that you are not getting accepted because you think other people are lying again. You really cannot help yourself

[SusanDoris]

Who are we to question why God does things the way He does?  I humbly submit that my human brain is no match for God's wisdom.

I think that is one of your more unctuous posts - and yes, I have just checked the definition of unctuous!

[SusanDoris]

Totally missing the point here ...

You are not asking the question to elicit information, to try and learn. If you were, it may even dawn on you that you could ask God yourself if you're so interested in the answer.

This post is one of yours where you appear to try to put yourself  in the position of impartial judge or arbitrator.
I have also read all subsequent posts.

[torridon]

I fully understand what I am being asked, and I fully realise that my answer can't be accepted by non believers.

Evasion yet again noted.  You still haven't faced up to answering this, merely insisting that invoking some immaterial being into the mix gives you a free pass out of the logic of the problem.  It doesn't, you are wrong.

[torridon]

Totally missing the point here ...

You are not asking the question to elicit information, to try and learn. If you were, it may even dawn on you that you could ask God yourself if you're so interested in the answer.

OK,

Dear God, please tell us why people give up on the indigenous reasoning ability that You have graciously bestowed upon us and settle instead for making grandiose claims of secret knowledge delivered by You.  Please make your answers plain and understandable equally to all so that we can all be on a level playing field.

Now, let's wait and see if God signs up for an account and starts posting, out in the open, so to speak.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

OK,

Dear God, please tell us why people give up on the indigenous reasoning ability that You have graciously bestowed upon us and settle instead for making grandiose claims of secret knowledge delivered by You.  Please make your answers plain and understandable equally to all so that we can all be on a level playing field.

Now, let's wait and see if God signs up for an account and starts posting, out in the open, so to speak.

Aside from myself and a few others can you give any examples from this forum of this indigenous reasoning ability in the context of God?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I fully understand what I am being asked, and I fully realise that my answer can't be accepted by non believers.

This is saying that you are not getting accepted because you think other people are lying again.

No, it isn't. Stop lying.

Just in case you missed it. Alan said

I fully understand what I am being asked, and I fully realise that my answer can't be accepted by non believers.

Feel free to ask him what he means by that, but putting your own spin on it and then accusing him of lying is best reserved for the person who is clearly lying.

[Stranger]

No, the avoidance is on your part. If you want to hold to the claim

the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable.

fine if it is applied to things it is appropriate for. However, if it is going to be applied to everything (including any non-natural claims), then by your own scientific standards, it should be falsifiable.

What you do however is get round stating how your position is falsifiable by shifting the responsibility on to others to come up with it, which then allows you to just sit back and state why you think they are wrong without ever having to justify your own position.

What the is a "non-natural" claim? Surely if there actually is a god - or gods, or devils, or ghosts, or leprechauns, or whatever else - then they are perfectly natural?

As for the statement, which I assume refers to the "objective external world" (that which is intersubjectively verifiable), then all you have to do is point at something else that is reliably accessible and investigable and the statement has been falsified.

It's very simple really: if you are making a claim, and you think there is no way to establish it via the intersubjective world, then it's up to you to come up with a way to distinguish it from fiction.

[Nearly Sane]

No, it isn't. Stop lying.

Just in case you missed it. Alan saidFeel free to ask him what he means by that, but putting your own spin on it and then accusing him of lying is best reserved for the person who is clearly lying.

So was I clearly lying then? Where?

Alan clearly states that non believers are not accepting the answers because of their own position rather than honestly disagreeing. So h e is in that accusing others of lying.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

This post is one of yours where you appear to try to put yourself  in the position of impartial judge or arbitrator.
I have also read all subsequent posts.

The appearance is an illusion for you SusanDoris.

I appreciate that this may be a problem for you because

At my age, I'm far too old to be concerned about whether I have made a mistake or not!

[Stranger]

I fully understand what I am being asked, and I fully realise that my answer can't be accepted by non believers.

The evidence from your recent posts strongly suggests that you don't understand at all. In particular, the repetition of your stock phrase "a free will event is invoked by a spiritual source which is free from the pre determined cause and effect chains of physical events which ultimately began with the Big Bang".

If you understood, then you would realize that even if we fully accept that (for the sake of argument), it goes no way towards solving the problem of how this "free will" choice gets generated within this "spiritual source".

Again, if you really understood, you would see that if you maintain your "not deterministic" and "not random" stance, with regard to the choices this "spiritual source" makes, then you are turning it into a logical contradiction (as meaningless as a square circle). This would undermine any attempt to make a reasoned argument for it (a good proportion of your recent posts).

What would be the point of trying to use rational arguments for something that then demands a complete abandonment of rationality in order to accept something that is fundamentally self-contradictory?

[Alan Burns]

This is saying that you are not getting accepted because you think other people are lying again. You really cannot help yourself

I realise that I and my ideas are being rejected, but I still feel called to witness to what I believe to be the truth.

[Alan Burns]

OK,

Dear God, please tell us why people give up on the indigenous reasoning ability that You have graciously bestowed upon us and settle instead for making grandiose claims of secret knowledge delivered by You.  Please make your answers plain and understandable equally to all so that we can all be on a level playing field.

Now, let's wait and see if God signs up for an account and starts posting, out in the open, so to speak.

But, as the bible says, God works through other people Torri.

[ekim]

So dead then, as in Dead!!!

If you have no emotions you have no desires. And if you have no desires you are effectively a robot i.e. consciously dead.

You'll have to bear in mind that I can't speak for Christians but have to base what I say on my interpretation of the alleged words of Jesus. Heaven, I see as a blissful or joyful state of being which is within everybody (The Kingdom of Heaven is within).  It is 'life' itself and when attuned to it 'out of your depths shall flow rivers of life' and from that source, joy is expressed into the world rather than pleasure extracted from the world.  So life, as in Life.  To be aware of that source ' a transformed heart and mind is necessary' which means turning away from worldly physical and emotional attachments which tend to drive self will and discolour inner vision, ("Don’t attach yourself to transient earthly pleasures but unite with the eternal delights of the Divine. What you treasure is where your heart is.").

[Nearly Sane]

I realise that I and my ideas are being rejected, but I still feel called to witness to what I believe to be the truth.

But they aren't being rejected simply out of people not wanting to hear them  implying that they are is effectively calling others liars.

[Stranger]

But, as the bible says, God works through other people Torri.

And what do you think god is trying to say through you posting self-contradictory logical absurdities?

[torridon]

But, as the bible says, God works through other people Torri.

Well what a foolish policy that would be.  Has he never heard of Chinese Whispers ?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

But, as the bible says, God works through other people Torri.

Well why not take up the challenge I presented in #15191?

Here it is again in case you missed it.

"Well let's put it to the test then. I have just generated a 6 digit random number. Presumably God knows what it is.

Being as you are so close to him why don't you ask him to reveal it to you.

I would take a correct answer as a clear a sign as there can be that there is indeed something to reach out to. Far far more effective then any of the "arguments" you have so far put forwards.

I await the call!"

[Alan Burns]

So was I clearly lying then? Where?

Alan clearly states that non believers are not accepting the answers because of their own position rather than honestly disagreeing. So h e is in that accusing others of lying.

No, I am in no way suggesting that others are lying, but I do believe they are genuinely deluded by the nature of our increasingly secular society.  I am trying to help people see through the veils of deception which separate us from the love of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well why not take up the challenge I presented in #15191?


I would take a correct answer as a clear a sign as there can be that there is indeed something to reach out to. Far far more effective then any of the "arguments" you have so far put forwards.

Would you though. What about telepathy, what about the akashic record, what about Derren Brown?

[Nearly Sane]

No, I am in no way suggesting that others are lying, but I do believe they are genuinely deluded by the nature of our increasingly secular society.  I am trying to help people see through the veils of deception which separate us from the love of God.

Then you need to be more careful about your use of language. You gave a habit of getting confused about choice of belief as if it is both caused by external factors, such as your assertion above about an increasingly secular society, and an internal choice made deliberately.


BTW are you suggesting that you would rather gave a theocracy than a secular society?

[torridon]

No, I am in no way suggesting that others are lying, but I do believe they are genuinely deluded by the nature of our increasingly secular society.  I am trying to help people see through the veils of deception which separate us from the love of God.

What deceptions ?  give an example

[Stranger]

No, I am in no way suggesting that others are lying, but I do believe they are genuinely deluded by the nature of our increasingly secular society.  I am trying to help people see through the veils of deception which separate us from the love of God.

These "veils of deception" being inconvenient stuff like logic, rationality, evidence and the like...?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

No, the avoidance is on your part.

Well that's weird. I asked you something about circular reasoning, you ignored the question entirely and replied with a different and unrelated question of your own. I pointed out that you'd avoided the question you were asked, and you replied, "No, the avoidance is on your part."

Odd behaviour.

If you want to hold to the claim

the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable.

fine if it is applied to things it is appropriate for. However, if it is going to be applied to everything (including any non-natural claims), then by your own scientific standards, it should be falsifiable.

First, you fail to grasp the problems with the term "non-natural" here: it's just white noise unless there's some way of investigating the claim. Just now though, all "we" know of that can be reliably accessed and investigated is the natural. The "falsification" of that statement would be finding something other than the natural that could be reliably accessed and investigated.

QED
   

What you do however is get round stating how your position is falsifiable by shifting the responsibility on to others to come up with it, which then allows you to just sit back and state why you think they are wrong without ever having to justify your own position.

Not sure if you're just wrong or flat out lying here as it's been explained to you several times now. Assuming for now you ever could come up with a meaningful definition of "non-natural" (it's your claim remember), then the falsification of my position would be finding an example of it that you could reliably access and investigate. That's the falsification test.

Why is this difficult for you?