Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You can't "remember" something that hasn't been shown to have happened. What you meant there was, "And we need to remember that I believe that Jesus suffered torture and death in order to redeem our souls.".

I must reiterate those famous words of Pilate - "What I have written, I have written" John 19:22

[BeRational]

I must reiterate those famous words of Pilate - "What I have written, I have written" John 19:22

So what?

Plus, the default position is that he never said that.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Of course there is such a thing. If you think there's a "God", that's your truth; if I think there are leprechauns, that's my truth. Sometimes these truths coalesce into common truths - generally when the evidence for them and the intersubjective experience of them cause sufficient traction to create a consensus.

"Truth" itself though is a nebulous term - you cannot claim such a thing as "the" truth in absolutist terms because it's probabilistic - the risk of unknown unknowns tells you that.

Personal beliefs are not universal truths.
Again to quote Pilate - "Truth, what is that?" John 18:38

[BeRational]

Personal beliefs are not universal truths.
Again to quote Pilate - "Truth, what is that?" John 18:38

Exactly correct, personal truths are just stuff that you accept, and you could be wrong, so they may not in fact be true.

Do you accept that some things you think are true, may actually be false?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I must reiterate those famous words of Pilate - "What I have written, I have written" John 19:22

Why?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Personal beliefs are not universal truths.
Again to quote Pilate - "Truth, what is that?" John 18:38

Um, sort of. Personal beliefs ("God", leprechauns etc) might by happenstance be universal truths just as a stuck clock is right twice a day, but there's no way to verify that. As guesses are by magnitudes more likely to be wrong than to be right though, it's reasonable to proceed on the basis that they are not true.
 
Consensual beliefs have the advantage of evidence and intersubjective experience, but ultimately they too cannot eliminate the possibility of unknown unknowns that would falsify them.

Still not sure what you think Pilate has to bring to the party though.

[floo]

Of course I can't explain this because I can't see the full picture.  But the reality is that we live in a world where suffering and pain exist, and there will be suffering and pain in everyone's life.  However if we were to be born straight into a world without pain, would we just take everything for granted and become self centred, because we have no need of anyone's help?  If a child was born completely self sufficient, would the loving parent-child relationship exist?  Would any love exist?  The question of suffering is a very big topic and has been well discussed over time, and it would be very naive to use suffering as a reason not to believe in God.  CS Lewis devotes a whole book on the subject in "The Problem of Pain".  And we need to remember that Jesus suffered torture and death in order to redeem our souls.

So you are saying suffering, however extreme, is good for us? YE GODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[wigginhall]

So you are saying suffering, however extreme, is good for us? YE GODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know, I read that with increasing incredulity.  Apparently, suffering is good for us, as it stops us being self-centred.  Eh?  How does that work? 

But Christians like AB can perform all kinds of gyrations like this, God loves you, so he wants you to suffer, etc.   It doesn't make sense, but I don't think it's meant to.

I thought that the old idea was that we suffer because we rebelled against God, and created a gap, or an alienation.   But now AB seems to be saying that this is all good.   Hang on .... no, I'd rather have me breakfast.

[Nearly Sane]

I must reiterate those famous words of Pilate - "What I have written, I have written" John 19:22

Surely in his own words it would be 'What I  have witten, I have witten'. At least that's how Biggus Dickus always reported he said it

[Nearly Sane]

I know, I read that with increasing incredulity.  Apparently, suffering is good for us, as it stops us being self-centred.  Eh?  How does that work? 

But Christians like AB can perform all kinds of gyrations like this, God loves you, so he wants you to suffer, etc.   It doesn't make sense, but I don't think it's meant to.

I thought that the old idea was that we suffer because we rebelled against God, and created a gap, or an alienation.   But now AB seems to be saying that this is all good.   Hang on .... no, I'd rather have me breakfast.

Presumably the suffering must be 'controlled' in some way? Otherwise there might not be enough of it, or there might be too much of it. After all, if we just need a little bit of suffering , God could get our guardian angel to give us a wedgie in between helping find our contact lenses and stopping us being done for illegal parking. Or did the death of my nephew at 2 months in extreme pain get him a sort of golden ticket?


Essentially both AB and CS solutions are a variation of BuggeredifIKnow. They follow a loop of there is suffering, God must have intended it, it must have a good intention since otherwise it's a cuntish god, so suffering is needed because stuff and other things, and if none of the stuff and other things make any sense , doesn't matter because god must have intended it etc etc.

You can see the appeal of Manichaeism after reading that sort of witter.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Why?

If you read the quote in context, Pilate was being "corrected" by the high priests to re write his inscription as "This man claimed he was the king of the Jews" instead of "The king of the Jews".

Just as you were trying to correct me in saying "I believe that Jesus suffered ..."

[BeRational]

If you read the quote in context, Pilate was being "corrected" by the high priests to re write his inscription as "This man claimed he was the king of the Jews" instead of "The king of the Jews".

Just as you were trying to correct me in saying "I believe that Jesus suffered ..."

We know you believe Jesus existed and suffered.

But the default position is that none of it is actually true.

You would have to demonstrate it first, not just assert it.

[Alan Burns]

We have already agreed that the default position is that souls do not exist. That is the null hypothesis.
To move from the default position you have to demonstrate a soul.

For example. The default position is that grass does not exist.
You then walk on your or someone elses lawn, and the null hypothesis is destroyed as you have demonstrated grass.

If you cannot demonstrate a soul, then by default you lose.

It would appear that your default position is to have your head in the sand!
The existence of my soul's free will is demonstrated by every letter I type on this keyboard.

[BeRational]

It would appear that your default position is to have your head in the sand!
The existence of my soul's free will is demonstrated by every letter I type on this keyboard.

No it isn't.

This demonstrates conscious activity produced by the brain. You know all the evidence we have demonstrates this.

Do you understand the default position?

You cannot assert something and say it is demonstrated, which is all you do.

You only say that you cannot understand how else it could be, and that is a logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance.

So, the default position of the soul NOT existing still stands.

[floo]

No it isn't.

This demonstrates conscious activity produced by the brain. You know all the evidence we have demonstrates this.

Do you understand the default position?

You cannot assert something and say it is demonstrated, which is all you do.

You only say that you cannot understand how else it could be, and that is a logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance.

So, the default position of the soul NOT existing still stands.

Hear! Hear!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

I know, I read that with increasing incredulity.  Apparently, suffering is good for us, as it stops us being self-centred.  Eh?  How does that work? 

But Christians like AB can perform all kinds of gyrations like this, God loves you, so he wants you to suffer, etc.   It doesn't make sense, but I don't think it's meant to.

I thought that the old idea was that we suffer because we rebelled against God, and created a gap, or an alienation.   But now AB seems to be saying that this is all good.   Hang on .... no, I'd rather have me breakfast.

The thing about AB’s casuistic scumbaggery is that it also works exactly the other way around. If, say, there was an evil god who subjected us to an unmitigated diet of horribleness with no nice bits to leaven it, how would we know that it is horrible without the comparison?

Why would some people get to win the lottery but not others though? Dunno mate, it’s a mystery innit.

So much less tiring I’d have thought to accept that the world functions pretty much as you’d expect it to with no gods involved – nice things and awful things happen with the same frequency and randomness you’d expect with no divine interventions at all.   

[Alan Burns]

So much less tiring I’d have thought to accept that the world functions pretty much as you’d expect it to with no gods involved –

But without God's involvement you would have no world functions to accept because you would not exist!

[Alan Burns]

No it isn't.

This demonstrates conscious activity produced by the brain. You know all the evidence we have demonstrates this.

Do you understand the default position?

You cannot assert something and say it is demonstrated, which is all you do.

You only say that you cannot understand how else it could be, and that is a logical fallacy, the argument from ignorance.

So, the default position of the soul NOT existing still stands.

But if you are totally basing your default position on human scientific discovery -

Science does reactions.
It does not do perception of reactions - only humans can do this.

[BeRational]

But without God's involvement you would have no world functions to accept because you would not exist!

This is another display of your illogical thinking.

By default, there are no gods.

You must not believe in a god, until a god has been demonstrated to exist.

Can you demonstrate a god, without assertion and using flawed logic?

[BeRational]

But if you are totally basing your default position on human scientific discovery -

Science does reactions.
It does not do perception of reactions - only humans can do this.

I do not know that it is the case that only humans can do this.

How do you know, or is this just another argument from ignorance.

You must stop just asserting things as fact, which you cannot demonstrate to be fact.

Do you understand that the default for souls, ghosts, loch Ness monsters, demons is that they do NOT exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But without God's involvement you would have no world functions to accept because you would not exist!

I fully accept that that is your personal belief on the matter, albeit one with neither logic nor evidence to support it. So long as you don't expect anyone else to take it more seriously than my claims and assertions about leprechauns though, it's no-one's business but your own.

[ippy]

But without God's involvement you would have no world functions to accept because you would not exist!

How can you possibly know this A B?

ippy

[ekim]

How can you possibly know this A B?

ippy

... because without AB's involvement his God would not exist?

[ippy]

... because without AB's involvement his God would not exist?

There has to be some shared D N A between B A and Sparky, it took ages to get Sparks to understand that the Bible doesn't prove that the Bible's right, I can see some similarities.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

... because without AB's involvement his God would not exist?

To be musical, a leprechaun must whisper the baby's ear in ear when no-one is looking.

I am musical.

Therefore leprechauns.