Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lucky you then.  A shame this erratic God of yours could not be more omnibenevolent, and treat everyone to the same favours.

You are in immediate trouble with the term Omnibenevolent here. It is a word not like the other omnis for reasons which are pretty straight forward.

[torridon]

You are in immediate trouble with the term Omnibenevolent here. It is a word not like the other omnis for reasons which are pretty straight forward.

Do explain.

[Alan Burns]

Really?

Really really?

100%?

Explain.

I know you will see this as a cop out, but I could literally write a book in answering this question.  There are many books which have been written by people who witness to how God has worked in their lives, but no doubt you will find reasons to dismiss them all.

[Rhiannon]

I know you will see this as a cop out, but I could literally write a book in answering this question.  There are many books which have been written by people who witness to how God has worked in their lives, but no doubt you will find reasons to dismiss them all.

So when you prayed for cancer in babies to end, God answered you 100%? You putting that in your book?

[torridon]

I know you will see this as a cop out, but I could literally write a book in answering this question.  There are many books which have been written by people who witness to how God has worked in their lives, but no doubt you will find reasons to dismiss them all.

A supreme being with unlimited powers of goodness that intervenes secretively to benefit the lives of selected followers whilst ignoring everyone else does not require any reasons for dismissal, it dismisses itself.

[SusanDoris]

I know you will see this as a cop out, but I could literally write a book in answering this question.  There are many books which have been written by people who witness to how God has worked in their lives, but no doubt you will find reasons to dismiss them all.

ALL of the people to whom you refer believed the The God they believed exists/existedwas doing whatever they thought he/she/it was doing. Not one of them has or had any objective, reliable, testable, able-to-predict, etc evidence of any such thing. Their whole belief is based on 100% faith.

This will be like water off a duck's back for you, won't it?!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do explain.

Benevolent in whose definition?

[Shaker]

I know you will see this as a cop out, but I could literally write a book in answering this question.

Let's hope you find the time and space in which to do it that you can't find to explicate your opinions here.

There are many books which have been written by people who witness to how God has worked in their lives

I'm sure they're as replete with fallacies as are your attempts at reasoning.

but no doubt you will find reasons to dismiss them all.

Which tells you that they must be shoddy arguments, does it not.

[Gordon]

I know you will see this as a cop out, but I could literally write a book in answering this question.  There are many books which have been written by people who witness to how God has worked in their lives, but no doubt you will find reasons to dismiss them all.

Unless they have some method to confirm divine intervention other than their personal conviction then they are easily dismissed: after all they could be mistaken or telling lies so I'd need some basis to exclude these risks, and on the absence of such as basis (which implies an underlying method) then we're into pinch of salt territory.

Love the way you guys use the flowery term 'witness' rather that 'believe': no doubt you think it sounds more holy when, it seems to me, in the absence of any method to assess these claims, all you are actually 'witness' to is your own personal incredulity (mixed with a dash of confirmation bias and other assorted fallacies).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A supreme being with unlimited powers of goodness that intervenes secretively to benefit the lives of selected followers whilst ignoring everyone else does not require any reasons for dismissal, it dismisses itself.

But apparently, not quite yet.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

Love the way you guys use the flowery term 'witness' rather that 'believe': no doubt you think it sounds more holy when, it seems to me, in the absence of any method to assess these claims, all you are actually 'witness' to is your own personal incredulity (mixed with a dash of confirmation bias and other assorted fallacies).

It’s actually a bit more Orwellian than flowery I think. “Witness” implies that there’s necessarily something to be witnessed, only it shifts the conversation to the motivation of the witness etc and away from the now reified object of his belief. And once you’ve pulled that switcheroo you can indulge in false analogies like, “Ah but witnesses are fine in courts of law so why wouldn’t they be fine in religion then?” etc.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon,

It’s actually a bit more Orwellian than flowery I think. “Witness” implies that there’s necessarily something to be witnessed, only it shifts the conversation to the motivation of the witness etc and away from the now reified object of his belief. And once you’ve pulled that switcheroo you can indulge in false analogies like, “Ah but witnesses are fine in courts of law so why wouldn’t they be fine in religion then?” etc.

Muddy

I think witness is more apt to describe someone who has experienced rather than using the New atheist definition of the word belief.

Happy linguistic totalitarianising on this fine day ya'hear.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

I think witness is more apt to describe someone who has experienced rather than using the New atheist definition of the word belief.

Wrong again. The “experience” bit is fine, but what caused that experience is of course moot. “Witness” requires the explanatory narrative that suits the experiencer to be correct with no effort to demonstrate it first.

Oh, and there’s nothing “new atheist” about the meaning of “belief” either. You’re cheating again by requiring others just to accept at face value that the belief was actually something more than only a belief.   

Happy linguistic totalitarianising on this fine day ya'hear.

The irony of that will be lost on you. Happy Orwell day to you too though.

[savillerow]

Msg 20115 Susan Doris. "When I was young etc" just to support your view. I too am feeling the religion thing is being challenged so well as to make believers start to question what the heck they think they think they know. Its interesting times.

[bluehillside Retd.]

sav,

Msg 20115 Susan Doris. "When I was young etc" just to support your view. I too am feeling the religion thing is being challenged so well as to make believers start to question what the heck they think they think they know. Its interesting times.

There's something in that I think. Back in the day it was considered impolite, not the done thing to question religious beliefs. The local vicar was as respected for his expertise as the local bank manager or solicitor. Polite people were expected to defer to him by right, even more so perhaps if the cleric was a catholic priest. Now though, "hang on a minute, why do you believe this stuff exactly?" has been legitimised. Which is a very good thing in my rarely humble opinion.     

[savillerow]

Msg 20141 BHS I did mention it earlier on a couple of pages back but just to say it again. Im seeing a lot of pushback on Youtube with Essence of thought, Bionic dance, Cosmic skeptic, godless cranium etc. These people are doing a real good job of challenging people of faith with well thought out answers(a bit like yourself) to belief systems that do not warrant any respect, have no sense of real meaning and wanting special rules. Keep up the good work. Surely it can only benefit the planet in the long run!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

BHS, Essence of thought, Bionic dance, Cosmic skeptic, godless cranium

Ah yes.......The Giants.

[floo]

I know you will see this as a cop out, but I could literally write a book in answering this question.  There are many books which have been written by people who witness to how God has worked in their lives, but no doubt you will find reasons to dismiss them all.

Devout belief can often lead  people to think they are experiencing things, which aren't credible in the eyes of others.

The question has been asked over and over again, if god exists and able to do all that is claimed for it, why isn't its existence clear to all?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Ah yes.......The Giants.

In which, having exhausted the standard list of logical fallacies, Fallacy Boy bravely sets out to invent a new one of his own. So here we have the inverse argument from authority - if the person making the arguments isn't of sufficient authority then, um, the argument must be wrong.

Possibly the plan is to charge a royalty to anyone daft enough to attempt it?

 

[Alan Burns]

    There are many books which have been written by people who witness to how God has worked in their lives

I'm sure they're as replete with fallacies as are your attempts at reasoning.

    but no doubt you will find reasons to dismiss them all.

Which tells you that they must be shoddy arguments, does it not.

It tells me that, predictably, you are prepared to dismiss any evidence of God as shoddy arguments without even reading them.

[Gordon]

I'm sure they're as replete with fallacies as are your attempts at reasoning.

Which tells you that they must be shoddy arguments, does it not.

It tells me that, predictably, you are prepared to dismiss any evidence of God as shoddy arguments without even reading them.

If these arguments are replete with the same old fallacies, which they are since we've yet to see arguments for God that aren't either fallacious or incoherent, then they are easily dismissed. What you need is a brand new argument that doesn't involve either of these deficiencies. 

Got one?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which, having exhausted the standard list of logical fallacies, Fallacy Boy bravely sets out to invent a new one of his own.

Er, I think i'll leave that sort of thing to you and the Posse, Thank you.

[Shaker]

It tells me that, predictably, you are prepared to dismiss any evidence of God as shoddy arguments without even reading them.

That's the thing: I have. After all, they're all much of a muchness in the fallacy stakes, are they not.

Unless of course you're claiming that somebody has finally come up with a brand-new and definitely non-fallacious and as Gordon said non-incoherent argument.

Have they?

And if so, what is it?

If such a thing exists can you find the time and space to summarise it?

[floo]

I'm sure they're as replete with fallacies as are your attempts at reasoning.

Which tells you that they must be shoddy arguments, does it not.

It tells me that, predictably, you are prepared to dismiss any evidence of God as shoddy arguments without even reading them.

I repeat. The question has been asked over and over again, if god exists and able to do all that is claimed for it, why isn't its existence clear to all? It shouldn't be open to faith, speculation or doubt.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It tells me that, predictably, you are prepared to dismiss any evidence of God as shoddy arguments without even reading them.

To the contrary. Evidence for “God” would be a remarkable and astonishing and fscintaing thing. Your problem though – and that of the authors you refer to – is that there isn’t any.

If you think otherwise, then why not tell us what it is?