Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

I do not cling to anything - I just adhere to the truth.

Who could have doubted AB's love for begging the question. It's like sticky backed plastic, he wraps it round him and begging the question, together forever, united in perfect fallacy.

[Rhiannon]

The trouble is, everyone can be accused of denying the opposite to what they state.    The atheist is denying the obvious reality of God (as AB might say), the Christian is suppressing his own doubts, and so on.    I suppose it would make for an interesting discussion, if we take the opposite of everybody's view.

All I know is that when I was AB's side of the fence trying to 'prove' my faith left me feeling very unhappy, yet I felt driven to do it. Not using pseudoscience so much as lots of nice things about love and feelings plus anecdotes about, well, feelings. No idea why and it's a bit like looking back on a bad dream. I've escaped the nightmare.

[Shaker]

I do not cling to anything - I just adhere to the truth.

Funnily enough nobody seems to be taking you up on it.

[ippy]

I do not cling to anything - I just adhere to the truth.

Adhering to the truth, that's a good thing Alan but you're being asked why you cling on to this superstitious belief of yours in spite of the lack of evidence for any of it?

ippy

[Enki]

That's just Grimsby

Not so.

‘From Hell, Hull and Halifax, may the Good Lord deliver us…’

These words form part of the so-called Thieves’ Litany, uttered in Mediaeval Yorkshire as a leave-taking ‘prayer’ between two thieves as they parted.
 

[Enki]

I do not cling to anything - I just adhere to the truth.

The search for Knowledge is not nourished by certainty: it is nourished by  a radical distrust in certainty.
This means not giving credence to those who say they are in possession of the truth. For this reason, science and religion frequently find themselves on a collision course. Not because science pretends to know ultimate answers but precisely for the opposite reason: because the scientific spirit distrusts whoever claims to be the one having ultimate answers, or privileged access to the Truth. This distrust is found to be disturbing in some religious quarters. It is not science which is disturbed by religion: there are certain religions that are disturbed by scientific thinking.

From page 231 of 'Reality Is Not What It Seems(The Journey To Quantum Gravity)' by Carlo Rovelli

[Shaker]

That's a great quote.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's a great quote.

.....for a dogmatic agnostic looking for a crumb of 'assurance'.
Rovelli has no methodological naturalism as back up for this opinion.

Another great example of conflating antitheism with science.

[Alan Burns]

While touring Spain and Portugal, we visited some magnificent churches and cathedrals.  I ponder what motivates the human race to build such amazing artefacts dedicated to the son of a carpenter who spent most of his life in oblivion, preached for a few years, and was executed for blasphemy.  Why did His story not disappear into the oblivion to which it should have been taken?  The answer, of course, is summed up in just one word - the Resurrection.

[Rhiannon]

While touring Spain and Portugal, we visited some magnificent churches and cathedrals.  I ponder what motivates the human race to build such amazing artefacts dedicated to the son of a carpenter who spent most of his life in oblivion, preached for a few years, and was executed for blasphemy.  Why did His story not disappear into the oblivion to which it should have been taken?  The answer, of course, is summed up in just one word - the Resurrection.

Do you ponder why Stonehenge was built? The pyramids? I went to Flag Fen this week. Do you ponder why Bronze Age people went to such lengths to build a causeway, at least partly so they could make offerings to the water?

[Alan Burns]

oh, I don't know, it reminds me of those old seaside amusement arcade games where something pops up and you have to hit them back down with a hammer again.  Alans assertion and fallacy generators are a bit like that, he keeps them coming a pace and we keep knocking them back down.

But the truth is that your scientific logic alone is not sufficient to knock down my arguments for the existence of our God given spiritual nature.  So they keep popping back up!

[Alan Burns]

Do you ponder why Stonehenge was built? The pyramids? I went to Flag Fen this week. Do you ponder why Bronze Age people went to such lengths to build a causeway, at least partly so they could make offerings to the water?

The examples you give are evidence of our human need to search for God.  But we no longer need to search since God has made Himself known to us through Jesus.

[Rhiannon]

The examples you give are evidence of our human need to search for God.  But we no longer need to search since God has made Himself known to us through Jesus.

So why did he wait? Are the people that built these things saved too?

[ekim]

God has made Himself known to us through Jesus.

Could you explain what you mean by that, Alan.

[wigginhall]

The examples you give are evidence of our human need to search for God.  But we no longer need to search since God has made Himself known to us through Jesus.

I wish you would stop this totalitarian language.   You speak of 'our' human need for God, and God made known 'to us'.   You may see it that way, but could you stop including me in your scheme?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

.....for a dogmatic agnostic…

You have no means of knowing whether the author is a “dogmatic agnostic”, nor indeed a dogmatic anything else.

…looking for a crumb of 'assurance'.

You have no means of knowing what the author may or may not be “looking for”.

Rovelli has no methodological naturalism as back up for this opinion.

“Methodological naturalism” precisely backs up his opinion because it proceeds on the assumption of a naturalistic universe but makes no claims to certainty about that.

I’ve corrected you on this mistake many times now. I've even used the quotes you thought would support you to show you to be wrong. Why then are you still making it? 

Another great example of conflating antitheism with science.

Another great example of you asserting precisely the opposite of the case. He’s not “conflating” anything – he’s comparing and contrasting science and religion.

You also by the way overreach yet again with “antitheism”. Pointing out that there’s no method to validate certainty is not antitheistic, it’s just a commonplace.

If you seriously think the observation to be wrong though, then it’d be easy for you to correct. All you’d have to do would be (after what, a 100 times of asking? A 1,000 times maybe?) is to tell us what that method would be, rather than your standard tactic of disappearing out of the door leaving behind a flurry of irrelevance, lies and insult.

I won’t hold my breath about that though if you don’t mind.

[Alan Burns]

Could you explain what you mean by that, Alan.

If Shakespeare wants to make himself known to the characters in one of his plays, he needs to become one of those characters.

[BeRational]

If Shakespeare wants to make himself known to the characters in one of his plays, he needs to become one of those characters.

It is not known that Jesus even existed, you do know that right.

The stories about him written by unknown authors, could be about several people just made to fit.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The examples you give are evidence of our human need to search for God.

Of course they're not. What they actually are is evidence of "our" need to search for explanations. That you find "God" to be an explanation that satisfies you (albeit one that you attempt to validate with very bad arguments) tells you nothing about whether anyone else wants or would be satisfied with the same answer. 

But we no longer need to search since God has made Himself known to us through Jesus.

So you personally believe. If you expect anyone else to take these claims seriously though, then – finally – you'll need to make some arguments for them that aren't hopeless.

Good luck with it though.

 

[Rhiannon]

If Shakespeare wants to make himself known to the characters in one of his plays, he needs to become one of those characters.

No he really doesn't.

[ekim]

If Shakespeare wants to make himself known to the characters in one of his plays, he needs to become one of those characters.

It seems odd that Shakespeare has to become a fictional character to make himself known to other fictional characters.  I should have thought a direct 'I am Shakespeare the author of the play you are acting in'.

[ippy]

While touring Spain and Portugal, we visited some magnificent churches and cathedrals.  I ponder what motivates the human race to build such amazing artefacts dedicated to the son of a carpenter who spent most of his life in oblivion, preached for a few years, and was executed for blasphemy.  Why did His story not disappear into the oblivion to which it should have been taken?  The answer, of course, is summed up in just one word - the Resurrection.

The religious organisations were the only ones with any funds with which to pay and motivate the artisans of those ignorant times, to provide for their families in the usual way where we all try to do our best.

In those ignorant times none of the people were aware of how flimsy the basis of their beliefs were; not surprising when you think they weren't that much further on than the last lot of redundant gods like Wotan, Zeus, and Thor etc , a bit like the replacement for them is gradually fading away in Europe, tomorrow more than likely the rest of world, it's only a matter of time.

ippy

[torridon]

Why did His story not disappear into the oblivion to which it should have been taken?  The answer, of course, is summed up in just one word - the Resurrection.

As ever, a simplistic analysis from you.

Anyone can construct naïve narratives that obscure more authentic ones.  English is the most widely spoken language in the world. Why ? Because it is the best language, obviously 

A deeper reading of history would reveal all manner of twists and turns that lead up to the contemporary world.  I would guess that the single biggest reason for Christianity's current widespread popularity is not the resurrection, but its backing by Constantine the Great leading to it's defacto adoption as the state religion of the Roman Empire.  If he had gone with Mithraism instead, few people today would have heard of Jesus and many would instead be worshipping Mithras, who is now largely forgotten.

[torridon]

The examples you give are evidence of our human need to search for God.  But we no longer need to search since God has made Himself known to us through Jesus.

Maybe the 'human need to search for God' is part of the more profound need to search for meaning and pattern. 'God' traditionally serves up a rather simple (imv) satisfaction of that need; it works for most people for most of the time, but it doesn't really cut it for everyone.  Likewise, most people are happy to look up at the night sky and admire the beauty of stars as fixed points of light, but if you are an astronomer or a physicist, you would want to develop a much deeper understanding of the underlying reality behind the superficial and the apparent.

[Alan Burns]

The religious organisations were the only ones with any funds with which to pay and motivate the artisans of those ignorant times, to provide for their families in the usual way where we all try to do our best.

In those ignorant times none of the people were aware of how flimsy the basis of their beliefs were; not surprising when you think they weren't that much further on than the last lot of redundant gods like Wotan, Zeus, and Thor etc , a bit like the replacement for them is gradually fading away in Europe, tomorrow more than likely the rest of world, it's only a matter of time.

ippy

But it is still going on, Ippy.
For example the magnificent Sagrada Familia Basilica:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Fam%C3%ADlia

Construction began in 1882, and it is now 70% complete.  Expected completion date is 2026.  Construction is totally funded by public donations.