Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Some people are deluding themselves by trying to shoe-horn their perception of reality to fit in with limited human scientific discovery, and in doing so they have to sacrifice their gift of freedom and assume that everything they do is just unavoidable consequences to previous events.

If by 'reality' you mean what is known to be real then our knowledge is constrained by the methods available to us that allow us to investigate. These methods aren't static though, so our knowledge of 'reality' isn't static either: as such we conclude that there are probably unknowns that may well become known only once the relevant methods are developed - it is and incremental process built on preceding steps. 

Yet in the act of denying their freedom they are actually demonstrating it.   

Nope - recognising constraints isn't denying anything.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No

Yes.

Some people are deluding themselves by trying to shoe-horn their perception of reality to fit in with limited human scientific discovery, and in doing so they have to sacrifice their gift of freedom and assume that everything they do is just unavoidable consequences to previous events.

Oh dear. In order:

1. It’s not a question “shoe-horning” anything. Many of our perceptions are partial or wrong – we can for example only see within the visible spectrum (ie, light), yet there is much of reality that lies outside of it (as various instruments show); it used to be thought for another example that a galloping horse kept one or more hooves on the ground until Eadweard Muybridge’s photography showed that it didn’t. There are countless more examples that show our perceptions to be a limited and often wrong guide to reality. 

Contrary to your rather child-like notion that perception is a better guide to reality than the fruits of science, perception is only as good as evolution requires to it be. And as you should know by now but probably don’t, evolution carries no brief for objective reality.

2. Once again you attempt the fallacy of judgmental language. Of course scientific discovery is “limited” – that’s why people still do science, to discover more – but that tells you nothing about the veracity or otherwise of speculations you or anyone else may make about supposed phenomena outside its reach or remit.

As you've had this explained to you several times without response this tactic is now dishonest, and you should stop doing it.   

3. Grasping the most cogent and robust model of reality that the evidence provides isn’t “sacrificing” anything – it’s enhancing it. The sacrifice comes when people who think as you do have to deny or misrepresent the evidence so as to bend and force reality into the faith beliefs they happen to have. That's the only "shoe-horning" here.

Yet in the act of denying their freedom they are actually demonstrating it.

See above. The only “denial” here is your denial of the evidence in order to validate your various superstitions. That those superstitions also lack definition, cogent logic and investigable evidence just serves further to undermine you.   

As we both know that this may as well be written in Swahili for all you’re able to grasp it though, I’ll leave you to the private grief of which you’re entirely unaware. 

[torridon]

No
Some people are deluding themselves by trying to shoe-horn their perception of reality to fit in with limited human scientific discovery, and in doing so they have to sacrifice their gift of freedom and assume that everything they do is just unavoidable consequences to previous events.

Yet in the act of denying their freedom they are actually demonstrating it.   

With respect, that is really a rather silly attitude. In fact worse than silly, it is regressive.  The whole point of doing research is to deepen our understanding, to find out how things actually are rather than just how they seem on the surface. If everyone took your anti-science attitudes we would still be doing blood letting to cure disease and doing rain dances when the crops fail. Your attitude is that of the medieval church, opposing the new and counter-intuitive knowledge revealed by Copernicus and Gallileo because it meant giving up on traditional church teaching on the cosmic centrality of planet Earth.  They were wrong then, and you are wrong now, for pretty much the same reasons.

[floo]

  far from limited would mean unlimited. So that would be wrong.

Would it? Well to make it clear, there is NO evidence god exists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

Would it? Well to make it clear, there is NO evidence god exists.

Just to save NS’s typing fingers, that’s overstating. You cannot know definitively that there’s no anything – for all you or I know someone somewhere has come up with evidence for “God” (or perhaps for leprechauns for that matter) only he’s keeping it all to himself. What you can say rather is that you’re not aware of evidence for “God”, as indeed nor am I despite asking those here who claim it to produce it.

That incidentally is what atheism entails – not necessarily that there are no gods, but rather that there’s no god reason to think there are gods.   

[floo]

Floo,

Just to save NS’s typing fingers, that’s overstating. You cannot know definitively that there’s no anything – for all you or I know someone somewhere has come up with evidence for “God” (or perhaps for leprechauns for that matter) only he’s keeping it all to himself. What you can say rather is that you’re not aware of evidence for “God”, as indeed nor am I despite asking those here who claim it to produce it.

That incidentally is what atheism entails – not necessarily that there are no gods, but rather that there’s no god reason to think there are gods.

I didn't say a god didn't exist, I said there is no evidence that one does, which is rather different.

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't say a god didn't exist, I said there is no evidence that one does, which is rather different.

and since blue kindly saved my fingers, perhaps you need to reread his post. All you can say is you are unaware of any evidence. And BTW when you say something isn't limited then it clearly implies that it is unlimited.

[floo]

and since blue kindly savrd my fingers, perhaps you need to reread his post. All you can say is you are unaware of any evidence. And BTW when you say something isn't limited then it clearly implies that it is unlimited.

And are you aware of any evidence to point to the existence of a god?

[Nearly Sane]

And are you aware of any evidence to point to the existence of a god?

No, but I cannot say that there isn't any. Again read what blue wrote.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

I didn't say a god didn't exist, I said there is no evidence that one does, which is rather different.

Read my post again. How would you know there is definitively no (or "NO" as you put it) evidence for "God"?

[floo]

Floo,

Read my post again. How would you know there is definitively no (or "NO" as you put it) evidence for "God"?

Do you know of any definitive evidence that god exists?

[Nearly Sane]

Do you know of any definitive evidence that god exists?

and again read what was said.

[Alan Burns]

And again you accuse those who disagree with you lying.

No - deluded

[floo]

and again read what was said.

I have.

Anyway we are going round and round in circles.

If/when there is verifiable evidence a god of some sort exists I am sure it will be all over the media.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

Do you know of any definitive evidence that god exists?

No, in fact I don't know of any evidence for that at all - definitive or provisional. I cannot though say that therefore there is no such evidence.

To assert that there is no ("NO") such evidence is as epistemically worthless as AB telling us he's "absolutely certain" of his beliefs - something he cannot know to be true either.

[Nearly Sane]

I have.

Anyway we are going round and round in circles.

If/when there is verifiable evidence a god of some sort exists I am sure it will be all over the media.

we are going round in circles because you are ignoring the difference between the statements 'I am not aware of any evidence for x' and 'There is ni evidence for x'.

[Nearly Sane]

No - deluded

But you said they are deluding themselves, that would require lying. Note the deluding yourself claim is both calling other people liars and is another piece of logical incoherence in your model.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No - deluded

So all you need do now is to explain why identifying the various logical flaws in the arguments you attempt to validate your faith beliefs means some of us are delusional for not accepting your assertions nonetheless.

Good luck with that.   

[floo]

Floo,

No, in fact I don't know of any evidence for that at all - definitive or provisional. I cannot though say that therefore there is no such evidence.

To assert that there is no ("NO") such evidence is as epistemically worthless as AB telling us he's absolutely certain" of his beliefs - something he cannot know to be true either.

When I said there was no evidence, I meant there was none at the present time, surely if there was evidence that couldn't be refuted, we would have heard about it by now? This isn't to say, it is remotely possible some might be discovered in the future. It still begs the question, if there is a god why it doesn't makes its presence clear to all in a way, which is undeniable?

[Nearly Sane]

When I said there was no evidence, I meant there was none at the present time, surely if there was evidence that couldn't be refuted, we would have heard about it by now? This isn't to say, it is remotely possible some might be discovered in the future. It still begs the question, if there is a god why it doesn't makes its presence clear to all in a way, which is undeniable?

No, incorrect, there is only the ability to say you ate not aware of it. You are making the black swan mistake.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Trouble with that Susan, they're indoctrinated, usually between the ages of 4 and 7 years, to indoctrinate the next generation to indoctrinate the next ad infinitum,

They, people like Alan actually think they're doing these youngsters a favour.

Of course this religious indoctrination will always be on a percentage basis some will escape the nonsensical rubbish they come out with, and there will also be those that are deeply steeped into any nonsense you like to preach, unfortunately for Alan, I think you can work out for yourself Susan, which category do you think Alan might find to be a glove like fit.

ippy       

Yup - I definitely think I am doing my kids a favour by indoctrinating them into a religion - it appears to work in undermining some of the cultural influences they are exposed that I do not want them to adopt and keeps them busy - e.g. reciting the Quran in Arabic is a family activity and stretches their brains rather than allowing them to be on their phones or watching tv or on the internet or chatting with friends or hanging around at shopping centres. I find religion a pretty effective tool in countering peer influence to do pointless activities like drinking and dating and aimlessly hanging around, along with other tools such as public exams, Java coding courses, sport, work experience, volunteering, family cultural activities that usually revolve around hanging out with your cousins, cooking together, serving together, eating together, clearing up together or even fasting together and then eating together... 

The kids will have plenty of time and opportunity to do their own thing at university and beyond, but while I am held legally and financially accountable for their actions until they are 18, I need tools to get them to toe the line and not cause me unnecessary headaches by getting into problems that they do not have the capability or resources to resolve yet without running to Mum and Dad.

[Alan Burns]

With respect, that is really a rather silly attitude. In fact worse than silly, it is regressive.  The whole point of doing research is to deepen our understanding, to find out how things actually are rather than just how they seem on the surface. If everyone took your anti-science attitudes we would still be doing blood letting to cure disease and doing rain dances when the crops fail. Your attitude is that of the medieval church, opposing the new and counter-intuitive knowledge revealed by Copernicus and Gallileo because it meant giving up on traditional church teaching on the cosmic centrality of planet Earth.  They were wrong then, and you are wrong now, for pretty much the same reasons.

What I am saying is that science which is limited to investigating material properties is not capable of completely defining the source of human behaviour in material terms.

And there is a danger that if a person does believe that all one's thoughts, actions and words are unavoidably pre determined, it can give them the green light to do whatever they like on the understanding that they can't possibly do anything to change their behaviour, because changing their behaviour would require a consciously driven choice to do so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

When I said there was no evidence, I meant there was none at the present time…

But the important qualifier there should still be, “that I’m aware of”.

…surely if there was evidence that couldn't be refuted, we would have heard about it by now?

Not necessarily though.

This isn't to say, it is remotely possible some might be discovered in the future. It still begs the question, if there is a god why it doesn't makes its presence clear to all in a way, which is undeniable?

But that has nothing do with whether or not, say, someone in a shed somewhere with a pointy hat and a God-o-meter of his own invention with blue flames running up the two aerials hasn’t found some evidence only he wants to keep it really, really quiet.

That’s the point – the statement “there is NO evidence for God” is as epistemically unsupportable as AB's assertions of certainty. 

[torridon]

What I am saying is that science which is limited to investigating material properties is not capable of completely defining the source of human behaviour in material terms....

Science will never completely define anything, so what are we supposed to do, go back to our caves and start grunting in the dark ?  No, we run with what we have learned so far in the knowledge that further insights will accrue in the future.  We still don't completely understand gravity but that doesn't stop us sending landers to distant comets based on the limited understanding that we currently have.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What I am saying is that science which is limited to…

Nope – still wrong. It’s not that it’s “limited to” describing the material, it’s just that it describes the material. “Limited” implies that there’s something else beyond its purview (presumably a non-material) – something you can conjecture all you like but, so far at least, that you’ve gone not one step toward demonstrating to exist.

… investigating material properties is not capable of completely defining the source of human behaviour in material terms.

That “completely” is your weasel word there – how would you know that science “completely” describes anything (which not a claim it makes in any case) – and when science does fall short of explaining observable phenomena all that gives you is a “don’t know”. “God” no more fills the explanatory gap than “leprechauns” or “UH*&^(^&*O&” does.

And there is a danger that if a person does believe that all one's thoughts, actions and words are unavoidably pre determined, it can give them the green light to do whatever they like on the understanding that they can't possibly do anything to change their behaviour, because changing their behaviour would require a consciously driven choice to do so.

First that’s another argumentum ad consequentiam – one of your favourite fallacies. Even if that was true (and it isn’t) that would tell you nothing about the truth or otherwise of the explanatory model.

Second, of course it doesn’t imply that – that our freedoms are bounded by an underlying substrate of cause and effect does not mean that we can’t be judged on our use of that type of freedom.

Third incidentally I’d have though you’d want to be a lot more circumspect here given the litany of appalling abuse carried out by those whose defence was (and is) “but that’s what God wants”. 

Incidentally, I see that you've just ignored the corrections I gave you a few posts back on the unreliability of perception.

Why is that?