Searching for GOD...

[SusanDoris]

As I have said in the past several times, my aim here is to show the possibility of God's existence and our own spirituality.  I am at liberty to suggest a possible solution to fill in a gap in human knowledge which does not conflict with existing science, but which does concur with human beings' own demonstrable spiritual awareness and with what I believe to be the divine revelations of the Christian Bible.  In this context I do not see how my arguments can be classified as wrong.

And that is where the somewhat smug complacency comes in. I have checked synonyms for 'smug' but complacent is close. You apparentlyy do not attempt to consider any argument impartially; the possibility, or probability, that you are not right  is kept firmly outside the barrier of your belief, it seems to me.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Two problems there:

First, that’s not your aim at all. Rather your am is to assert these things as facts, not just as possibilities.

Second, you’ve just committed the vacuous truth fallacy again. No-one denies that – conceptually at least – anything is possible. (I’m leaving aside for now the definitional problem of your claims being incoherent and so not even possibility apt by the way.) Why then would you bother posting just to tell people that something is possible given that I could do the same thing about, say, leprechauns? 

You’re doing a lot more than “suggesting” something, and the assertions you do make do "conflict with existing science” – both directly (eg the deterministic vs binary problem) and indirectly (eg having no cogent reason to junk the prevailing model of consciousness as an emergent property). Essentially you rely on an argument from ignorance here – another fallacy. That you don’t know what science tells us already does not give you licence to insist that your alternatives deserve consideration. 

There is no such “demonstrable spiritual awareness”. If you seriously think otherwise, then you’d need to start with a coherent definition for “spiritual”.

The key words there being “I believe”. Your problem though is that that’s all you have – a personal belief. Trying to build a bridge from that to necessary beliefs for others by relying solely on logical fallacies doesn’t change that.

They’re wrong because they precisely correlate to the accepted models for the way fallacious arguments are structured. And fallacious arguments are always wrong arguments.

And that’s your problem.

Your reply just brought me back (sadly) to recall the words of Sassy's opening post:

it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him.

[Sebastian Toe]

........., my aim here is to show the possibility of God's existence and our own spirituality.

Well I for one can safely say that you have achieved your goal. I'd be surprised if anyone reading your posts could argue that you have not shown the possibility of those.

What is your next step now that you have succeeded in showing those are possibilities?

ps Other possibilities are available from many good and/or poorly argued scenario suppliers.

[Shaker]

Your reply just brought me back (sadly) to recall the words of Sassy's opening post:

it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him.

That's the very same begging-the-question fallacy that Vlad used yesterday.

What's that you said about not using fallacies?

[Nearly Sane]

Your reply just brought me back (sadly) to recall the words of Sassy's opening post:

it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him.

This is where I point out that you are accusing people of lying, and you go, oh I don't mean that. You do this  every few thousand posts. Can I suggest you just stop posts that accuse people of lying?

[Sebastian Toe]

Your reply just brought me back (sadly) to recall the words of Sassy's opening post:

it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him.

Sadly it is abundantly clear that you are unwilling to look into the truth of Islam with a true and open heart and are thus unable to seek the truth of the Prophet Mohammad but simply hide behind reasons to keep believing in the one true path to Allah.

[wigginhall]

Hang on, no, it's the truth of Quelzalcoatl that AB is missing.   He definitely told his disciple  Huitzilopochtli that all we had to do, was break an egg on your car bonnet, and see if there are any specks of blood.   If there are, you had better be careful today.  Well, it's worked for me for 70 years, so there you go.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your reply just brought me back (sadly) to recall the words of Sassy's opening post:

it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him.

That’s a complete avoidance of the issue, and another fallacy to boot.

Identifying your arguments as false isn’t “seeking reasons to avoid “God”” at all. It’s just identifying as false the arguments you attempt to demonstrate this supposed god in the first place. There may or may not be good arguments that lead to “God”, but the ones you’ve tried so far at least are not good. You can’t just avoid that problem by imputing a motive for my posts that you cannot know to be the case.

And the fallacy by the way is called the fallacy of reification – you’ve just assumed “God” as a fact a priori, and then accused me of finding reasons to deny this supposed fact. What we’re actually discussing though is whether or not there’s any good reason to think it to be a fact at all.

And – so far at least – you’ve not managed to provide one.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's the very same begging-the-question fallacy that Vlad used yesterday.

What's that you said about not using fallacies?

Well Torrid Don was called out for begging the question and there was complete silence about it.
Just like the complete silence over Bluehillside starting every communication of with an ad hominem and a well poison and goodness knows what else.
You are down to tactics and driving the forum to the point where you want it. A cosy place for atheists to chat in peace.

I and the remaining few shall leave and the board will subsequently atrophy. Any passing theist will just be satisfaction for low benthic urges of marine slug like forum atheists .

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Perhaps if you looked up 'ad hom' you'd see why you're wrong again.

And while we're at it, what makes you think the loss of a poster who contributes nothing but mendacity and abuse would make this a poorer place to be?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

Perhaps if you looked up 'ad hom' you'd see why you're wrong again.

And while we're at it, what makes you think the loss of a poster who contributes nothing but mendacity and abuse would make this a poorer place to be?

That suggests this is any sort of place for a grown up.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

That suggests this is any sort of place for a grown up.

Words. Yup, them's definitely words.

Now all you have to do is explain what on earth you were trying to convey by using them.

[Sebastian Toe]

I and the remaining few shall leave and the board will subsequently atrophy. Any passing theist will just be satisfaction for low benthic urges of marine slug like forum atheists .

Well if you do leave, lets hope that it is not "indefinitely" like the last time you "left".
Note that during your "absence" the board didnt even blink, never mind die.
Will you have the balls to actually leave for more than a few days or even weeks next time?
Probably not IMO.

[Shaker]

Shaker's Law gets a light dusting and a quick polish ...

[Alan Burns]

it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him …

They claim there is no evidence.
They deny the resurrection
They deny the Gospels
They deny their own free will
They claim fallacy for every conceivable argument for their own spirituality.
They deny every miracle
They ignore personal testimonies
They deny the existence of sin
They deny the existence of evil
They seem deaf to those who proclaim the word of God

What will it take to get them to discover the reality of God's existence?

[Shaker]

Evidence for all of the above, not a shitload of fallacy and bland assertion 

Besides which - just why are you so tremendously bothered that people have to "think" (I use the word, of course, loosely - no actual thinking is involved) as you do? You claim you're here to get everyone to see it your way, but you are to successful evangelisation what Stephen Hawking is to line dancing.

[Sebastian Toe]

it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him …

They claim there is no evidence.
They deny the resurrection
They deny the Gospels
They deny their own free will
They claim fallacy for every conceivable argument for their own spirituality.
They deny every miracle
They ignore personal testimonies
They deny the existence of sin
They deny the existence of evil
They seem deaf to those who proclaim the word of God

What will it take to get them to discover the reality of God's existence?

A lot more than you are offering. That's for sure.

[Nearly Sane]

it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him …

They claim there is no evidence.
They deny the resurrection
They deny the Gospels
They deny their own free will
They claim fallacy for every conceivable argument for their own spirituality.
They deny every miracle
They ignore personal testimonies
They deny the existence of sin
They deny the existence of evil
They seem deaf to those who proclaim the word of God

What will it take to get them to discover the reality of God's existence?

Calling everyone liars again, Alan! Twice in one day.

[ippy]

it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him …

They claim there is no evidence.
They deny the resurrection
They deny the Gospels
They deny their own free will
They claim fallacy for every conceivable argument for their own spirituality.
They deny every miracle
They ignore personal testimonies
They deny the existence of sin
They deny the existence of evil
They seem deaf to those who proclaim the word of God

What will it take to get them to discover the reality of God's existence?

I don't think this god you keep going on about is there in the first place so to avoid, this god idea of yours more than likely only exists inside your head, it's a preposterous idea that has no evidence to support it in the first place.

Whatever evidence there is referring to this god idea of yours gives more support to it being a man made idea than anything else.

ippy

[Gordon]

it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him …

They claim there is no evidence.
They deny the resurrection
They deny the Gospels
They deny their own free will
They claim fallacy for every conceivable argument for their own spirituality.
They deny every miracle
They ignore personal testimonies
They deny the existence of sin
They deny the existence of evil
They seem deaf to those who proclaim the word of God

What will it take to get them to discover the reality of God's existence?

A pretty thoughtless list, Alan - since if you did think about these various items you would soon realise that those that aren't fallacious are incoherent.

My view is that the problem you have here personally is that instead of being a Christian whose faith is based a sense of personal conviction, where the Christian story is accepted and you live your life on the basis it is true for you, but instead you are trying to present something akin to an empirical argument for God which has been repeatedly shown to be spectacularly flawed since it consists mainly of fallacious arguments.

It should be obvious to you by now that not only do your arguments not convince those of who aren't theists but, I suspect, they won't convince those of your fellow Christians who are perhaps more nuanced about their faith.       

[torridon]

it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him …

They claim there is no evidence.
They deny the resurrection
They deny the Gospels
They deny their own free will
They claim fallacy for every conceivable argument for their own spirituality.
They deny every miracle
They ignore personal testimonies
They deny the existence of sin
They deny the existence of evil
They seem deaf to those who proclaim the word of God

What will it take to get them to discover the reality of God's existence?

Evidence, short and simple. 

Longer answers are available for those with ears to hear.

[torridon]

We are also products of the present, and at any moment in time, our conscious self can formulate many possible wants, and we then have the ability to consciously choose which of our wants to indulge and how to indulge it.   You claim it is all done subconsciously before it enters our awareness, but I doubt you will get any creative artist or writer or performer to concur with this scenario.

Creative artists and writers might not concur, mostly, but on the other hand, cognitive scientists and neuroscientists probably would, and since we are exploring aspects of cognition and consciousness I think they have the relevant expertise and insight

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him …

They claim there is no evidence.
They deny the resurrection
They deny the Gospels
They deny their own free will
They claim fallacy for every conceivable argument for their own spirituality.
They deny every miracle
They ignore personal testimonies
They deny the existence of sin
They deny the existence of evil
They seem deaf to those who proclaim the word of God

What will it take to get them to discover the reality of God's existence?

In a word, evidence.

You seem to have abandoned even the attempt at rationality here. What I was actually explaining to you though was that you cannot just assert “God” and accuse people of avoiding this supposed fact when your every attempt to demonstrate that fact in the first place is a false argument.

Of course people possessed with a functioning intellect are “deaf to those who proclaim the word of God” as you put it for exactly the same reasons that you’re “deaf” to those who proclaim the “words” of the superstitious beliefs in which you do not believe.

Why not start again? Provide a coherent definition for “God”, and provide some cogent reasoning for his existence. We’ll then have something actually to consider rather than to dismiss out of hand, and – in the event it that out turns out your beliefs aren’t wrong – that way you might even pick up a few converts.

After all, isn’t that what you’re trying to achieve here?

[Shaker]

You seem to have abandoned even the attempt at rationality here.

That was a few years back I think.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Creative artists and writers might not concur, mostly, but on the other hand, cognitive scientists and neuroscientists probably would, and since we are exploring aspects of cognition and consciousness I think they have the relevant expertise and insight

Cognitive scientists neuroscientists..........are, these jobs, vocations or modii vivendi?