Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

It isn't though Shaker.
No one can say with conviction that you can be absolutely certain you can't be absolutely certain.
The prescription of Hillside and Torridon is therefore one of Dogmatic agnosticism. There is no way round that and that implies shutting down of faculties......of course we never see that since Dogmatic agnostics are caught acting from what they have nailed their colours to...... just like the moral relatives are seen taking firm moral stances in a state of convinced righteousness.

My own view is this... Dogmatic agnostics shut off doors and entrances and exits just in case there is ''something out there''. The danger here is of people in personal lockdown.

We can be pretty sure about things, but I think 100% certainty is out of reach. Do you exist ? A solipsist would see you as a figment of his own experience.  Can we be 100% sure that that we are not just simulants in an artificial reality created by some civilisation in a higher realm ? the idea seems barking to me but I don't see how we could rule it out.  At the end of the day we can say nothing with absolute certainty and it is good to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge and abilities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In a computer simulation, what is being simulated?
In a simulated simulation, what is being simulated?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.............. a figment of his own experience.............

Not sure what you mean here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you exist ?

Yes....How I exist is a different question.

[torridon]

Yes....How I exist is a different question.

On balance of probabilities, I'll believe your claim; I can't be certain though, you might be an AI bot.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

In a computer simulation, what is being simulated?

Your perception of reality.

In a simulated simulation, what is being simulated?

The simulated simulation.

You're very confused.

Start with baby steps. You would agree I think that you have no means to establish absolutely that your perception of reality isn't in fact, say, just a piece of computer code. If you do grasp that, whence then claims of "absolute", "ultimate" etc anything? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Yes....

How can you be certain of that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  Can we be 100% sure that that we are not just simulants in an artificial reality created by some civilisation in a higher realm ?

You mean like an avatar being driven by something else?

Bingo Jingo Ding Ding Ding!!!!!!!!!!!
Torridon has reached accordance with Alan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Golden ticker tape descends from ceiling, pyrotechnics explode etc,

Of course Alan was ''stupid'' and ''illogical'' when he suggested a version of this Ha Ha Ha.

How do you all feel now?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

You mean like an avatar being driven by something else?

Bingo Jingo Ding Ding Ding!!!!!!!!!!!

Torridon has reached accordance with Alan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Golden ticker tape descends from ceiling, pyrotechnics explode etc,

Of course Alan was ''stupid'' and ''illogical'' when he suggested a version of this Ha Ha Ha.

That's not what AB suggested, and a computer simulation is just one example of a possible unknown unknown. There are unknowably more such possibles.

How do you all feel now?

Vindicated.

[Enki]

You can question your experiences but I don't think a lot of that goes on here or anywhere. People are pretty unquestioning and only get round to questioning facts particularly if you've shut the door to experience which is pretty much what dogmatic agnosticism is.

The trouble is that some are proposing a philosophy...How can they do any other since the doors to experience are shut and others are talking about an experience which has philosophical ramifications.

Where the evasion is, is that the facts which are acceptable or significant are precisely those which are neutral and can be taken or left without affecting in anyway any internal comfort.

I think I understand Alan's experience IMHO Christian assurance isn't like the acceptable fact of dogmatic agnosticism......it's far, far ,far, far more concrete than that IME.
I'm not saying my experience of God is identical to Alan's but the world so far has not been able ''to put out the light'' as far as I am concerned.

Doubts can be part of a faith journey in fact if you read Bunyan Christians can doubt in a way not available to dogmatic agnosticism...but then I suppose that is probably true of hard convinced atheists as well.

Just to concentrate on your first paragraph, I have had several experiences and I certainly have and do question those experiences. The fact that other people have had experiences which are at total variance to my own has suggested to me that experiences, whether mine or other people's, are not a reliable guide to certainty, only a reliable guide to one's own interpretation put on them. Hence I would look for other means of establishing my position. That is why, in the absence of evidence, I do not have a belief in any god.

[torridon]

You mean like an avatar being driven by something else?

Bingo Jingo Ding Ding Ding!!!!!!!!!!!
Torridon has reached accordance with Alan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Golden ticker tape descends from ceiling, pyrotechnics explode etc,

Of course Alan was ''stupid'' and ''illogical'' when he suggested a version of this Ha Ha Ha.

How do you all feel now?

Eerm no.

I haven't endorsed Simulation Theory and neither have I endorsed theism.

Is the summer heat getting to you ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

On balance of probabilities, I'll believe your claim; I can't be certain though, you might be an AI bot.

Thank you, it's nice to be accredited with intelligence once in a while.

[torridon]

Thank you, it's nice to be accredited with intelligence once in a while.

I'll try not to make a habit of it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Thank you, it's nice to be accredited with intelligence once in a while.

You weren't. Thinking that, on balance, you're probably not a bot tells you nothing about how intelligent or not others think you to be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just to concentrate on your first paragraph, I have had several experiences and I certainly have and do question those experiences. The fact that other people have had experiences which are at total variance to my own has suggested to me that experiences, whether mine or other people's, are not a reliable guide to certainty, only a reliable guide to one's own interpretation put on them. Hence I would look for other means of establishing my position. That is why, in the absence of evidence, I do not have a belief in any god.

Enki I think we here, either come down on the side of ruling psychological incompetence or ruling psychological competence with regards to experience.
I'm open to a case for psychological incompetence, of evidence of delusion (but not from a starting premise of religious experience is definitionally delusion, illusion, hallucination etc.)
The thing though is that God seems to be everywhere.....particularly in Dawkins writings

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Eerm no.

I haven't endorsed Simulation Theory and neither have I endorsed theism.

I was referring to Alan's models of soul and consciousness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Enki I think we here, either come down on the side of ruling psychological incompetence or ruling psychological competence with regards to experience.

No “we” don’t. You’ve tried this nonsense before and it’s still nonsense. Logic and reason are logic and reason – they stand or fall on their own terms. However much you may want to assert yourself to be “psychologically competent” enough to identify “God” and someone else “psychologically incompetent” enough not to do so, if the arguments you make to demonstrate this supposed god are broken nonetheless then they are still broken nonetheless.   

I'm open to a case for psychological incompetence, of evidence of delusion (but not from a starting premise of religious experience is definitionally delusion, illusion, hallucination etc.)
The thing though is that God seems to be everywhere.....particularly in Dawkins writings     

Don’t be – it’s irrelevant. A bad argument doesn’t somehow become a good one when the person making it thinks himself to be more psychologically competent than the person who identifies that it is a bad argument. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

However much you may want to assert yourself to be “psychologically competent” enough to identify “God” and someone else “psychologically incompetent” enough not to do so, 

I don't, Muddy, that's another of your Straw Man arguments.

[Alan Burns]

From today's Gospel -

Matthew 11:25
Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from wise and intelligent people and have revealed them to infants.

So can I suggest that to find God, we must admit that human intellectual abilities alone are not capable of discovering the truth, and the fallacy detectors do not help.  Just allow God to reveal Himself to you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

I don't, Muddy, that's another of your Straw Man arguments.

So many mistakes in so few words. Not only do your efforts consist almost entirely of straw men, this is another one. If you don't think "psychological competence" has anything to do with it, then it's irrelevant; if you do think it has anything to say to the epistemology of the claim "God", then you have all your work ahead of you to explain why.

Make your mind up.   

[Enki]

Enki I think we here, either come down on the side of ruling psychological incompetence or ruling psychological competence with regards to experience.
I'm open to a case for psychological incompetence, of evidence of delusion (but not from a starting premise of religious experience is definitionally delusion, illusion, hallucination etc.)
The thing though is that God seems to be everywhere.....particularly in Dawkins writings

I think that 'experiences' are part of the human psyche. Whether they are the result of 'psychological competence' or of 'psychological incompetence' I would not know but the fact that they happen is surely beyond question.

All I know is that my experiences, which have been characterised by a distinct lack of anything divine, are pertinent to me. Because I put no more trust in my experiences as pointers towards some sort of objective reality than I do with the experiences of others, the possibility of a god remains, but that is all it is. However, because I see not the slightest evidence for the divine, I have no belief in any god whatever, and live my life accordingly.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

From today's Gospel -

Matthew 11:25
Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from wise and intelligent people and have revealed them to infants.

So can I suggest that to find God, we must admit that human intellectual abilities alone are not capable of discovering the truth, and the fallacy detectors do not help.  Just allow God to reveal Himself to you.

You can suggest anything you like. Until you provide some supporting logic for it though, it's still nonsense.

[Shaker]

From today's Gospel -

Matthew 11:25
Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from wise and intelligent people and have revealed them to infants.

So can I suggest that to find God, we must admit that human intellectual abilities alone are not capable of discovering the truth, and the fallacy detectors do not help.  YJust allow God to reveal Himself to you.

Tragically Alan that approach in itself is one particularly whopping fallacy, to wit, begging the question/circular reasoning/petitio principii. You are starting off assuming the truth/existence of the very thing (a god) which stands in need of demonstration.

Bit of a no-no and a whole lot of a boo-boo, logically speaking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.............. I put no more trust in my experiences as pointers towards some sort of objective reality ..........

Would you say you haven't had any that would lend themselves to that?

[wigginhall]

I think that 'experiences' are part of the human psyche. Whether they are the result of 'psychological competence' or of 'psychological incompetence' I would not know but the fact that they happen is surely beyond question.

All I know is that my experiences, which have been characterised by a distinct lack of anything divine, are pertinent to me. Because I put no more trust in my experiences as pointers towards some sort of objective reality than I do with the experiences of others, the possibility of a god remains, but that is all it is. However, because I see not the slightest evidence for the divine, I have no belief in any god whatever, and live my life accordingly.

Your post kills the argument from personal experience.   Well, I suppose one individual might say 'I've experienced God', but that does not lead to 'there is God', unless one thinks one's experience is guaranteed.   Somewhat hubristic.

I remember when I used to help run meditation retreats, and there were a huge variety of experiences that people had, including total emptiness, chaos, non-divinity, divinity, and so on.    Why would you pick one these as correct?