Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

Which is why I am trying to open up minds to the possibility, or even the probability of God's existence.

Are you open to the possibility that your God does not exist,  and you have misinterpreted your experience?

Are you open to the possibility that a completely different god exists?

I bet you are not open at all but closed minded.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Which is why I am trying to open up minds to the possibility…

No you’re not. People’s minds are already open to the possibility of pretty much anything.

…or even the probability of God's existence.

Which is a completely different matter, and to get started on that journey you’d finally have to come up with some reasoning for it that isn’t broken.

[Shaker]

Which is why I am trying to open up minds to the possibility, or even the probability of God's existence.

Except that in both cases you need to have some sort of pre-existing idea no matter how minimal of the thing deemed to be possible (or probable).

And probability can only be worked out on the basis of a prior knowledge of outcomes. Take a coin: it has two faces, an obverse and a reverse, so tossing a coin can only bring about one of two possible outcomes; either heads or tails. Therefore you can work out the probability of either.

A standard deck of playing cards has 52 cards, so the probability of drawing any one card (or combination of cards) can be worked out by knowing this in advance.

Since we have no knowledge of gods, whether there's one, two, 34 or 12,000, your case therefore fails.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you open to the possibility that your God does not exist,  and you have misinterpreted your experience?

Are you open to the possibility that a completely different god exists?

I bet you are not open at all but closed minded.

You obviously weren't around when Hillside and Torridon were shaking their Dogmatic Agnostic groove thing with Shaker banging out the rhythm on the tambourine.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

You obviously weren't around when Hillside and Torridon were shaking their Dogmatic Agnostic groove thing with Shaker banging out the rhythm on the tambourine.

He lied. Again.

Why bother with it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

He lied. Again.

Why bother with it?

Because you said you can't know absolute certainty and then did variations on the theme.

Anyway, were done here, Dogmatic Agnosticism 'r' U.

[torridon]

Perhaps it is not God who is stubbornly hiding.


Matthew 7:7-8

 ‘Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.  For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

Already covered this Alan, read the posts. Merely quoting scriptures is a poor substitute for actually engaging with people.

[torridon]

Well some have presented religious experience and it's interpretation as mental aberration and impairment. They know who they are. I think it's fair to wrap it up as psychological incompetence. Oh, and before somebody wades in 'well they could be wrong' while not acknowledging that they could be the one's in the wrong. We can include not having the right ideas as psychological incompetence as well.

I think you are still eliding experience with the interpretation of it.  Doubtless some instances of religious experience can have a pathological origin like temporal lobe epilepsy, and others clearly can be induced through substances etc. but it is simplistic to write all experiences down like that. The evidence is that religious experiences have always been there as part of the portfolio of human mind, not ubiquitous, but fairly widespread and also diverse in nature.  What I'd dispute is not that people have such experiences, but the deploying of grand true for all narratives that are on offer to explain these experiences.  I think it is a case of cart and horse being described the wrong way round - it is mostly the believing of the grand narrative and practice of it that yields experience and that seems to justify the truth of the narrative to the believer.  But this is not a universal and homogeneous phenomenon, such experiences come in many flavours and derive from diverse beliefs.  What this tells us is that the grand narratives, Jesus, Mohammed etc are not universal epistemic truths, but rather suitable vehicles that can lead to experience for people with the sorts of predispositions to accommodate such.

[Alan Burns]

Coming to terms with the possibility of God's existence.
Step 1:

Dare to believe that there is something which is not just an unavoidable inevitable reaction to previous physical events.  Dare to believe that this something is you.

[Rhiannon]

Dare to believe that there are no answers. Dare to believe that any meaning you get from life comes from what you, and you alone, bring to it. Dare to believe that you are responsible for your life. Dare to believe that you don't need 'saving' but the things that need fixing are down to you to sort out.  Dare to believe that this is your one short, messy, sad, beautiful, magical, insane life and see if you can make the most of living it, drinking in every drop that it has to offer now, because this is all there is.

[torridon]

Coming to terms with the possibility of God's existence.
Step 1:

Dare to believe that there is something which is not just an unavoidable inevitable reaction to previous physical events.  Dare to believe that this something is you.

Oh oh, not a promising start. 

1. Daring has nothing to do with it. What is required is evidence and reason. If there is convincing evidence then people might be convinced.

2. Looks like your headed down an 'it's all about me' road, some narcissist's wet dream.

3. You should know by now using free will as a springboard to belief will get you nowhere but into a great big muddle.

[Maeght]

Coming to terms with the possibility of God's existence.
Step 1:

Dare to believe that there is something which is not just an unavoidable inevitable reaction to previous physical events.  Dare to believe that this something is you.

You can't dare to believe something.

[Shaker]

Coming to terms with the possibility of God's existence.
Step 1:

Dare to believe that there is something which is not just an unavoidable inevitable reaction to previous physical events.  Dare to believe that this something is you.

Nothing to do with daring - where's the evidence for this?

[floo]

Coming to terms with the possibility of God's existence.
Step 1:

Dare to believe that there is something which is not just an unavoidable inevitable reaction to previous physical events.  Dare to believe that this something is you.

I believe there is a remote possibility a god could exist. If the Biblical god really exists, and all that is attributed to it is true, humans should be doing their best to find a way of disposing of such an evil entity.

[BeRational]

Coming to terms with the possibility of God's existence.
Step 1:

Dare to believe that there is something which is not just an unavoidable inevitable reaction to previous physical events.  Dare to believe that this something is you.

Dare to believe there might not be a god in charge.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I believe there is a remote possibility a god could exist. If the Biblical god really exists, and all that is attributed to it is true, humans should be doing their best to find a way of disposing of such an evil entity.

Some people find the very idea of God as oppressive from the get go. He is of course the ultimate spoil sport. This is contradictory that the idea has given us a measure of freedom and the negative feelings are to do with him taking that away.

From that premise the bible is then interpreted negatively and bowdlerised and not at all used properly.

[Shaker]

What is "using it properly", please?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is "using it properly", please?

Avoiding selective proof texting through confirmation bias. Focussing on the New Testament and the account of Jesus and in the
OT, wisdom writings, Psalms and Prophets.

[Rhiannon]

Dare to believe there might not be a god in charge.

We don't choose our beliefs, obviously. But I know that clinging to belief often comes from a place of fear.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Because you said you can't know absolute certainty and then did variations on the theme.

Yes, and I’ve also said that germs cause disease and gravity makes apples fall. What I’ve also said though – consistently in fact – is that I make no claims of epistemic certainty about any of these things, let alone of “absolute” certainty. The dogmatic bit is just something you made up to draw a false analogy with those who would claim certainty about their religious beliefs.   

Anyway, were done here, Dogmatic Agnosticism 'r' U.

Just thinking: if aversion therapy doesn’t help with your lying perhaps reward therapy would? Every time you feel yourself approaching another lie like this last one of yours if you manage not to use it you could give yourself a nice bourbon biscuit or something.

It’s worth a try surely?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

From that premise the bible is then interpreted negatively and bowdlerised and not at all used properly.

Been a while since we had someone attempt the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Good effort.

[Rhiannon]

Fallacy Boy,

Yes, and I’ve also said that germs cause disease and gravity makes apples fall. What I’ve also said though – consistently in fact – is that I make no claims of epistemic certainty about any of these things, let alone of “absolute” certainty. The dogmatic bit is just something you made up to draw a false analogy with those who would claim certainty about their religious beliefs.   

Just thinking: if aversion therapy doesn’t help with your lying perhaps reward therapy would? Every time you feel yourself approaching another lie like this last one of yours if you manage not to use it you could give yourself a nice bourbon biscuit or something.

It’s worth a try surely?

This Lying for Jesus stuff I find very odd. I don't think he'd have approved.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

Been a while since we had someone attempt the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Good effort.

I think I've said that were done Old Chap.

[BeRational]

I think I've said that were done Old Chap.

You also said you were leaving, but you were no true to your word!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rhi,

This Lying for Jesus stuff I find very odd. I don't think he'd have approved.

I agree of course. It's as if they think they have a higher standard because they "believe in Jesus", so any lie, any logical fallacy, any anything is fine so long as it supports that position. Odd indeed.