Searching for GOD...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

Theists have got it.

Sorry, I don't worship the god that Dawkins created.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword,

No it isn't.

Oh yes it is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Sorry, I don't worship the god that Dawkins created.

It's "described" not "created", and of course you do - only you don't realise it. If you think there's a "God" who got you that promotion at work, then "He's" also the God who gives brain cancer to babies.

Oh yes it is.

Then you don't understand what "oxymoron" means.

[floo]

That's an oxymoron, Floo.

You obviously need to look that word up!

[ippy]

Oh yes it is.

Saying you believe in something so malevolent, then professing that you actually think you're worshipping it as well and then on top of that, the magical mystical or superstition based parts of your manual score a zero when it comes to the verifiable evidence stakes; it must be so depressing for you Sword.

ippy

[Gordon]

That's an oxymoron, Floo.

We can now add 'oxymoron' to the list of terms you don't understand.

[floo]

We can now add 'oxymoron' to the list of terms you don't understand.

 

[Alan Burns]

Is Britain a free country ?

We might be inclined to answer yes, but hang on, there are literally thousands of pieces of primary legislation in the UK preventing us from doing all sorts of things - murdering, raping, pillaging and so forth. So is it right to say we are free if we are so curtailed ? Well, we still say yes, because we don't want to do any of those things anyway, by and large, well okay I might be up for a bit of pillaging on a Friday night but mostly, we still feel free because we are not obstructed by external powers preventing us from doing what we want. It is only when we become aware of external infringements on our freedom that we feel the lack of it. Otherwise we feel free, that is the norm, and that is how it comes that we can feel free in a deterministic realm, we simply are not normally aware of or not bothered by the infringements on our freedom, such as not being able to want something that we don't want.  You aren't bothered by your inability to want to be an atheist are you ?

The example of choosing what you believe is not realistic.  No one can choose what they believe, but they can choose what evidence to consider in reaching a conclusion.  We are all guilty somewhat of cherry picking the evidence we want to consider - and this is where the freedom to guide our choice kicks in.

[Shaker]

The example of choosing what you believe is not realistic.  No one can choose what they believe

I thought we had free will, according to you?

 but they can choose what evidence to consider in reaching a conclusion

I can give you one disconfirmatory example:

me.

I can't.

[ippy]

The example of choosing what you believe is not realistic.  No one can choose what they believe, but they can choose what evidence to consider in reaching a conclusion.  We are all guilty somewhat of cherry picking the evidence we want to consider - and this is where the freedom to guide our choice kicks in.

I believe in most ideas/theories that have a modicum of convincing evidence that can support them, now what was that idea a lot of people follow in spite of its large shortfall in the evidence department Alan?

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The example of choosing what you believe is not realistic.  No one can choose what they believe, but they can choose what evidence to consider in reaching a conclusion.  We are all guilty somewhat of cherry picking the evidence we want to consider - and this is where the freedom to guide our choice kicks in.

It's true that we're all susceptible to biases when considering evidence - that's why the scientific method in particular is so heavily geared to trying to eliminate them - for example with double blind trials.

Your problem however is that what you call "evidence" is actually no such thing. When for example you can't find your car keys, pray for a bit and then then find them the narrative you tell yourself is that that's evidence for an interventionist god. To test that hypothesis however you'd need some way to eliminate the possibility that there was some other cause, or more likely it was just co-incidence. You might for example ask your wife to hide ten items around the house, pray to God to help you find them and them count the successes. Then you could repeat the experiment without the praying bit and compare the results.

The problem with that though is that whenever people have tested claims of evidence for various gods they've always failed - the results are the same whether you pray or not. Bluntly, while you claim evidence for your particular god the reason that you've never been able to provide any of it is that there is none. It turns out that what you call "evidence" is precisely confirmation bias, or one or more of a range of other biases.

Sorry, but there it is. Stick with personal faith claims and it's no-one's business but your own; claim evidence for your beliefs though and you'll continue to crash and Burns.       

[Shaker]

Shortfall.

I just remembered why, though he posts too little and too rarely, I love ippy's Sahara-dry wit 

[floo]

AB,

It's true that we're all susceptible to biases when considering evidence - that's why the scientific method in particular is so heavily geared to trying to eliminate them - for example with double blind trials.

Your problem however is that what you call "evidence" is actually no such thing. When for example you can't find your car keys, pray for a bit and then then find them the narrative you tell yourself is that that's evidence for an interventionist god. To test that hypothesis however you'd need some way to eliminate the possibility that there was some other cause, or more likely it was just co-incidence. You might for example ask your wife to hide ten items around the house, pray to God to help you find them and them count the successes. Then you could repeat the experiment without the praying bit and compare the results.

The problem with that though is that whenever people have tested claims of evidence for various gods they've always failed - the results are the same whether you pray or not. Bluntly, while you claim evidence for your particular god the reason that you've never been able to provide any of it is that there is none. It turns out that what you call "evidence" is precisely confirmation bias, or one or more of a range of other biases.

Sorry, but there it is. Stick with personal faith claims and it's no-one's business but your own; claim evidence for your beliefs though and you'll continue to crash and Burns.     

There have been scientific experiments to test out if when prayer results in a positive effect it was anymore than a coincidence.  I think it was discovered that it makes no difference whether you pray or not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

There have been scientific experiments to test out if when prayer results in a positive effect it was anymore than a coincidence.  I think it was discovered that it makes no difference whether you pray or not.

There’s no difference in the results when the participants don’t know that they’ve been prayed for. The experiment I recall that involved a group that was told they were being prayed for though actually had outcomes that were a bit worse. The theory is that those people thought: “Blimey, this is more serious than I thought” and responded accordingly.   

[Shaker]

Bugger.

Blue in first 

[Nearly Sane]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer

[Maeght]

The example of choosing what you believe is not realistic.  No one can choose what they believe, but they can choose what evidence to consider in reaching a conclusion.  We are all guilty somewhat of cherry picking the evidence we want to consider - and this is where the freedom to guide our choice kicks in.

Your freedom element is getting smaller and smaller all the time.

We of course tend to recognise evidence that matches our preconceived ideas - but that ain't freedom.

[Gordon]

Your freedom element is getting smaller and smaller all the time.

We of course tend to decognise evidence tuat matches our preconceived ideas - but that ain't freedom.

Reminds me of this quote from Bertrand Russell:

'If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.'

[ippy]

Shortfall.

I just remembered why, though he posts too little and too rarely, I love ippy's Sahara-dry wit 

Ta, now that's mutual.

ippy

[ippy]

I'm inclined to think most of these religios can see the massive shortcommings in their various beliefs, whatever they may be, and have too much of an invesment in them to allow themselves to admit there may be the slightest sign of cracks showing in these questional beliefs, or admiting their doubts to themselves.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

And Alan's god willed the torture and murder of Charlie Gard.

God grieves at such misfortune as much as any one of us.
Jesus wept when He heard of the death of Lazarus.

But whatever misfortunes we have to endure, God will help us through them if we put our faith and trust in Him.

[Robbie]

Who said Charlie Gard was tortured and murdered (apart from George Galloway saying that removing the life support was "Murder")?

[Shaker]

God grieves at such misfortune as much as any one of us.

Which means that this god character is useless if it wanted to stop such events but couldn't, or a monster of callous sadism if it could but chose not to.

I'm not seeing the USP of this supposed entity, Al, frankly.

[Shaker]

I'm inclined to think most of these religios can see the massive shortcommings in their various beliefs, whatever they may be, and have too much of an invesment in them to allow themselves to admit there may be the slightest sign of cracks showing in these questional beliefs, or admiting their doubts to themselves.

There is that, ipster - the sunk costs fallacy has a lot to answer for.

[torridon]

The example of choosing what you believe is not realistic.  No one can choose what they believe, but they can choose what evidence to consider in reaching a conclusion.  We are all guilty somewhat of cherry picking the evidence we want to consider - and this is where the freedom to guide our choice kicks in.

Again, and for the same reasons, the freedom to indulge your bias is not really a freedom.  If you have a bias that inclines you to one way rather than another, that bias is a pre-existing state.  You are merely following your biases, not choosing them.  How can your actions be free if they are predetermined as in your example ?