Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

nature doesn't care either way ,AB. But keep posting, you provide hours of amusement, thank you 

Jesus prophesied that His followers would have to endure ridicule, so you are doing your bit in helping to fulfil this prophesy.

[Nearly Sane]

Jesus prophesied that His followers would have to endure ridicule, so you are doing your bit in helping to fulfil this prophesy.

did he also 'prophesy' that on occasion it might be somewhat overcast?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Jesus prophesied that His followers would have to endure ridicule, so you are doing your bit in helping to fulfil this prophesy.

So a religion that makes ridiculous claims warns that it will be ridiculed.

Fair enough.

How's that finally providing a definition, some cogent logic and some evidence thing going by the way?

[Shaker]

Jesus prophesied that His followers would have to endure ridicule, so you are doing your bit in helping to fulfil this prophesy.

Ridiculous things being ridiculed isn't my idea of a prophecy.

ETA: As I see bluey has also pointed out.

[Alan Burns]

Ridiculous things being ridiculed isn't my idea of a prophecy.

If anything deserves ridicule it is the idea that all our posts are just the inevitable result of natural forces acting upon material elements.

[Shaker]

If anything deserves ridicule it is the idea that all our posts are just the inevitable result of natural forces acting upon material elements.

I await your better explanation, with supporting evidence of course, with avid interest.

In the meantime, how about an answer to the question in #20625?

[Nearly Sane]

If anything deserves ridicule it is the idea that all our posts are just the inevitable result of natural forces acting upon material elements.

Again Alan, it doesn't matter how often you use the word 'jyst' in begging the question, or sticking in natural/physical/material irrelevantly, until you provide a definition of free and/ spiritual that makes any logical sense, you are making incoherent statements.

And again why after all this time do you ignore what is actually being said and misrepresent it?

[torridon]

So if god unwittingly created evil in the form of Lucifer, why does he continue to tolerate him ?

I do not know the answer to this - I just know that God gives us the strength and power to resist the Devil's temptations if we put our faith in Him.

So why persist in such a patently irrational belief ?  Your god not only tolerates evil, but by choosing not to eliminate it when he could, he sanctions evil, and whosoever sanctions evil, is evil.

This is the flakiest of all the cards in your flakey house of cards.  We don't need to look to science to dismiss your fantastic claims, logic alone is sufficient.  A hypothesis needs to be coherent before it becomes worthy of empirical investigation.

[torridon]

If anything deserves ridicule it is the idea that all our posts are just the inevitable result of natural forces acting upon material elements.

But it is science that suggests that our universe is effectively deterministic, at least from chemistry upwards.  How come you can ridicule science whilst always denying being a science-denier ?

[Shaker]

Your god not only tolerates evil, but by choosing not to eliminate it when he could, he sanctions evil, and whosoever sanctions evil, is evil.

http://tinyurl.com/y9dh22so

[SusanDoris]

AB

As several excellent posters above have said, it is time to come up with an answer.

I hope it is one which doesn't involve putting on very large, thick  blinkers which, I suppose you think, shieled you from reality, and which do not allow even a fleeting glimpse of said reality to ceep into your peripheral vision.

I don't suppose you - or of course your soul, or the little chap who controlsthe said soul, etc - have ever tried standing up to God and, instead of very humbly prraying for this and that, actually do a bit of challenging? No? I thought not.

Needless to say, answerwould come there none, since the possibility or probability of God's (or god/s)  actual existence is so vanishingly remote ... ...

I was thinking of putting in something about hand-wringing humility, but decided not to.



Edited small grammar fault.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But it is science that suggests that our universe is effectively deterministic, at least from chemistry upwards.  How come you can ridicule science whilst always denying being a science-denier ?

Scientism ridicules science.
Several people on this board are tainted by a scientism and promissory science.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Scientism ridicules science.

Presumably you are as ever using your personal definition of "scientism" here rather than its actual meaning?

Several people on this board are tainted by a scientism and promissory science.

So all you need to do now is back up that assertion with some examples...

[torridon]

Scientism ridicules science.
Several people on this board are tainted by a scientism and promissory science.

Perhaps you should lobby the government to stop teaching chemistry to our children then.

[floo]

If anything deserves ridicule it is the idea that all our posts are just the inevitable result of natural forces acting upon material elements.

When you come up with evidence to support your POV, maybe we will take you seriously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When you come up with evidence to support your POV, maybe we will take you seriously.

Everything should be taken on it's merits. Otherwise you become guilty of fallacy. Not that the pro New Atheist hypocrisy around here have anything to say about that.

[Shaker]

Everything should be taken on it's merits.

Oh, it is, Vlad, it is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Everything should be taken on it's merits. Otherwise you become guilty of fallacy. Not that the pro New Atheist hypocrisy around here have anything to say about that.

Perhaps if you stopped frothing at the mouth about your pet bogey man and tried instead to articulate an argument you'd actually contribute something worth reading?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Presumably you are as ever using your personal definition of "scientism" here rather than its actual meaning?

As ever I recommend readers read the complete Wikipedia entry for scientism. As always a reading will render your post nonsense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As ever I recommend readers read the complete Wikipedia entry for scientism. As always a reading will render your post nonsense.

If you really are that keen to shoot yourself in both feet again, go right ahead.

What you're attempting to describe by the way is called metaphysical naturalism - the position that the natural (or material) is necessarily all there is. I've never come across someone who subscribes to it, but since that kind of thing doesn't impinge on your reliance on the straw man you might as well try to get the terminology right at least.   

[floo]

Everything should be taken on it's merits. Otherwise you become guilty of fallacy. Not that the pro New Atheist hypocrisy around here have anything to say about that.

When AB says something which is worthy of merit on the topic of god, I am sure we will all stand to attention.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

If you really are that keen to shoot yourself in both feet again, go right ahead.

What you're attempting to describe by the way is called metaphysical naturalism - the position that the natural (or material) is necessarily all there is. I've never come across someone who subscribes to it, but since that kind of thing doesn't impinge on your reliance on the straw man you might as well try to get the terminology right at least.

The answer, Hillside, lies in a complete reading of the Wikipedia entries.
I admire your 'Vlad's special personal definition' gambit as a way to please your ''less than critical fandom'' as a ploy and example of style over substance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The answer, Hillside, lies in a complete reading of the Wikipedia entries.
I admire your 'Vlad's special personal definition' gambit as a way to please your ''less than critical fandom'' as a ploy and example of style over substance.

You don't need to admire it - just stop attempting your own personal definition is all. There's a perfectly clear term ("metaphysical naturalism") for what you're trying to describe in your straw man argument, so why not at least use it?

[Alan Burns]

But it is science that suggests that our universe is effectively deterministic, at least from chemistry upwards.  How come you can ridicule science whilst always denying being a science-denier ?

I have never ridiculed or disputed any of the scientific discoveries made by mankind.  What I do dispute is the presumptions of what can be achieved by material science alone.

[Nearly Sane]

I have never ridiculed or disputed any of the scientific discoveries made by mankind.  What I do dispute is the presumptions of what can be achieved by material science alone.

You will have another methodology to achieve stuff you claim then? You know the methodology you have been asked for before and consistently not given?


Oh and BTW in your belief system, what is happening here?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain