Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

Can you not see that you are the evidence?  I know you label it a personal incredulity, but I can't for a moment believe that I am just an uncontrollable emergent property of material reactions. (And how could deterministic material reactions experience the concept of belief?)

But the fact you cannot believe it, does not make it not true though.
As you point out, this is a fallacy in your reasoning.

You have said 2 + 2 = 5.

[Shaker]

Can you not see that you are the evidence?

No.

I know you label it a personal incredulity, but I can't for a moment believe that I am just an uncontrollable emergent property of material reactions.

You're absolutely right - that's pretty much a textbook definition of personal incredulity.

[Enki]

Can you not see that you are the evidence?  I know you label it a personal incredulity, but I can't for a moment believe that I am just an uncontrollable emergent property of material reactions. (And how could deterministic material reactions experience the concept of belief?)

Why do you keep saying this, Alan? I am well aware of the fact that you cannot believe that you are simply the result of a material world. You have said it enough times. I accept fully that you can't accept this to be so, and that, in some way, the fact that you are a thinking, aware individual is evidence that there is something more which you call a 'soul'. Why do you keep asking why others cannot see this 'evidence' when it must be very clear that they don't. leaving aside the important arguments about logic and logical fallacies, cannot you see that others disagree with your opinions, for opinions they are, Alan, even though you label them as 'truths' sometimes? Can't you accept with good grace that the opinions of others are clearly set out, even though you do not agree with them, instead of questioning why others cannot see what you see? Why not move on, Alan, accepting that there are clear differences and disagreements. You come across at the moment as a one trick pony whereas you could take on some of the many other subjects which people raise on this board, and show us all a much greater breadth and depth to your thinking. It would do you no harm, and it might be valuable for the rest of us.

[floo]

The title of this thread is, 'Searching for god', why do we have to search for it if there is one?   

[torridon]

An interesting post, Torri
If you could replace "personhood" with "soul" you are almost there! 

Except that my view of personhood is 100% biologically derived, we cannot say that for 'souls' which are just parachuted in out of thin air to occupy the same sort of explanatory space. And since there is no substantial definition for souls in the first place,  people end up adding in more spurious unevidenced properties, like immortality. Better always, to start with the evidence and try to understand it rather than plugging the gap with made up stuff

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The title of this thread is, 'Searching for god', why do we have to search for it if there is one?

Well one answer is that it is aspects of ourselves which obscure God and anybody who has not found God yet claims to be completely open is at least mistaken.

[floo]

Well one answer is that it is aspects of ourselves which obscure God and anybody who has not found God yet claims to be completely open is at least mistaken.

If god exists it shouldn't hide away but be seen in reality by all.

[BeRational]

Well one answer is that it is aspects of ourselves which obscure God and anybody who has not found God yet claims to be completely open is at least mistaken.

And you have not found Leprechauns for exactly the same reason.

[wigginhall]

One of the classic modern arguments against theism, so-called divine hiddenness.  It tends to disappear into the long grass, as theists put up all kinds of reasons why God should be hidden.   Vlad has given one of the traditional ones, that you are the barrier to God.   This is cute enough, but the main question remains unanswered.   Why does God hide behind you?

[Nearly Sane]

Well one answer is that it is aspects of ourselves which obscure God and anybody who has not found God yet claims to be completely open is at least mistaken.

In what way mistaken?

[Shaker]

Well one answer is that it is aspects of ourselves which obscure God and anybody who has not found God yet claims to be completely open is at least mistaken.

Begging the question fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you have not found Leprechauns for exactly the same reason.

As far as I know no Leprechaun has died for anyone's sins. There is I think you'll find that if you kept going your logic would have Leprechauns and God the same thing and your appeal inevitably would and is just to ridicule.

[Shaker]

As far as I know no Leprechaun has died for anyone's sins.

As far as I know, no human being has.

There is I think you'll find that if you kept going your logic would have Leprechauns and God the same thing and your appeal inevitably would and is just to ridicule.

But not logically incorrect 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Begging the question fallacy.

Not really Floo posed a question Why do we have to search for God and an answer to that was given. Floo is free to ask the question whether it is begging the question I know not but given the premise an answer can be provided.

You are just jumping on the ''fallacy claiming bandwagon'' which has effectively shut down ANY debate on religionethics....but hey....... what is intellectual totalitarianism for if not that?

[Shaker]

Not really Floo posed a question Why do we have to search for God and an answer to that was given.

And the answer to that given was an example of the begging the question fallacy. Would you like me to explain it to you?

You are just jumping on the ''fallacy claiming bandwagon'' which has effectively shut down ANY debate on religionethics....but hey....... what is intellectual totalitarianism for if not that?

No, it's called the correct identification of logical fallacies, i.e. showing why you're wrong.

[Alan Burns]

To a degree I might be prepared to overlook some sloppiness of expression in order to get to the gist of what you are trying to say.  But I think you'll find that I often dispute your ideas on the grounds that they are inherently incoherent rather than lacking evidence.

I feel I must refute the idea that these are incoherent:

To recap on a few off the top of my head  :

- a God that is good but who creates a Devil to bring about suffering and evil : incoherent

He created beings with their own free will - to follow Him or to reject Him.
The Devil is a consequence of this God given freedom.
He did not create us as puppets or robots.

- a soul which is immaterial that has no problems communicating with matter in a brain: incoherent

Human science can't yet define how the soul interacts with our physical brain, but that does not mean that the interaction is not there.

- heaven, a place of sublime happiness wherein souls retain a memory of earthly life which would tarnish any happiness - incoherent

I do not presume to make judgements about Heaven until I get there!

- free will, wherein meaningful choices are made on a basis that is free of any relevant basis - incoherent

No - just free of the unavoidable consequences of material reactions, which allows us the freedom to choose rather than just react.

- consciousness derived thinking that requires one to think a thought before you thought it - incoherent

I do not think you understand how thoughts are initiated, driven and perceived by our spiritual soul.  I do not understand this myself, but it is just the way it is (not just the way it seems!).

- a God that is good who reveals himself to some but hides from others - incoherent

God has made Himself known to all mankind in the form of Jesus Christ.

- a God who saves those who believe but forsakes the rest - incoherent

I see it as man rejecting God rather than the other way round.

[BeRational]

As far as I know no Leprechaun has died for anyone's sins. There is I think you'll find that if you kept going your logic would have Leprechauns and God the same thing and your appeal inevitably would and is just to ridicule.

As far as I know no one has done this, or could do this.

Leprechauns are exactly equivalent given your argument. You can simply replace Leprechaun with God and it works just the same.

In fact, stars died for us.

[Shaker]

I feel I must refute the idea that these are incoherent.

Then do so. This mess:

He created beings with their own free will - to follow Him or to reject Him.
The Devil is a consequence of this God given freedom.
He did not create us as puppets or robots.Human science can't yet define how the soul interacts with our physical brain, but that does not mean that the interaction is not there.I do not presume to make judgements about Heaven until I get there!No - just free of the unavoidable consequences of material reactions, which allows us the freedom to choose rather than just react.I do not think you understand how thoughts are initiated, driven and perceived by our spiritual soul.  I do not understand this myself, but it is just the way it is (not just the way it seems!).God has made Himself known to all mankind in the form of Jesus Christ.I see it as man rejecting God rather than the other way round.

is not refutation but yet another wearying parade of assertion of belief. Refutation requires an evidence-based counterargument, not another regurgitation of what you think is true.

The core meaning of refute is ‘prove a statement or theory to be wrong’, as in attempts to refute Einstein's theory. In the second half of the 20th century a more general sense developed, meaning simply ‘deny’, as in I absolutely refute the charges made against me. Traditionalists object to this newer use as an unacceptable degradation of the language, but it is widely encountered.

(OED).

Refute means to prove that a statement or a concept is incorrect, to disprove an argument or idea. Related terms are refutes, refuted, refuting, refutal, refutable, refuter. Refute comes into the English language in the 1540s for the meaning to prove wrong, from the Middle French word réfuter and the Latin word refutare meaning drive back; rebut, disprove, oppose. Remember, rebut means to make an argument against an idea, whether or not that argument is correct. Refute means to successfully prove an idea is wrong.

Refutation requires evidence, that thing you don't have. What you have is no more than "No it isn't ... no it isn't ... no it isn't", which isn't reasoned debate but the substance of a well-known comedy sketch. The salient difference here however is that said sketch was both clever and funny.

[wigginhall]

AB wrote:

I do not think you understand how thoughts are initiated, driven and perceived by our spiritual soul.  I do not understand this myself, but it is just the way it is (not just the way it seems!).

  (my emphasis).

Gee, Alan, you should get a job writing those little slips of paper in Christmas crackers.   What a pile of steaming ordure. 

[Alan Burns]

Then do so. This mess:
is not refutation but yet another wearying parade of assertion of belief. Refutation requires an evidence-based counterargument, not another regurgitation of what you think is true.
(OED).

Refutation requires evidence, that thing you don't have. What you have is no more than "No it isn't ... no it isn't ... no it isn't", which isn't reasoned debate but the substance of a well-known comedy sketch. The salient difference here however is that said sketch was both clever and funny.

I was refuting the accusation that my ideas are incoherent.  You may or may not agree with my ideas, but they are not incoherent for the reasons I gave.

[Shaker]

I was refuting the accusation that my ideas are incoherent.

No. At best you were attempting to rebut it, and making an utter Horlicks of it at that. What you were not doing was refuting it.

You may or may not agree with my ideas, but they are not incoherent for the reasons I gave.

From someone who doesn't even know what a logical fallacy is, what's that worth?

[wigginhall]

How is it coherent to say that people don't understand how the soul directs thoughts, and furthermore, that you don't understand it either, but none the  less, it is the case?   This is bonkers.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I know no one has done this, or could do this.

Leprechauns are exactly equivalent given your argument. You can simply replace Leprechaun with God and it works just the same.

In fact, stars died for us.

In the question of sin it would be more correct to replace Leprechaun with teapot. I.e. they both have nothing to do with it. How does that help you. You are diddling and handwaving.

[torridon]

He created beings with their own free will - to follow Him or to reject Him.
The Devil is a consequence of this God given freedom.
He did not create us as puppets or robots.

Elision, straw man and evasion.

Free will is not the same as the Devil.  The apparent freedom to choose, say between tea or coffee, is not evil. Even if the Devil were nothing more than a temptation to not believe, the question still stands, why would a God create some temptation to not believe ? Last time I checked, planning to invoke evil is pretty much as bad as doing evil. And if the Devil is no more than a construction aimed at dissuading people of God's existence, why would he want to do that, and why would he reject people for being convinced by some mechanism that He himself set up to convince them with.

none of this makes the slightest sense as far as I can see.

[BeRational]

In the question of sin it would be more correct to replace Leprechaun with teapot. I.e. they both have nothing to do with it. How does that help you. You are diddling and handwaving.

You are making stuff up.

Whatever you make up, can be replaced by some other made up stuff.

Jesus, God, Leprechaun, Pixie. All the same.