Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

I think you missed the deeper meaning as God being the source of all existence.
I placed God's existence in the present tense because time is only relevant to this universe.

Can you demonstrate the existence of god rather than just assert it?

[Gordon]

Me: And I repeat that there is no scientific definition of meaning…

Blue: Yes there is. You’re just making stuff up again here

Perhaps you need to make clear what you mean by 'meaning'.

I'm assuming that you aren't intending consequential stuff, such as 'when it is very cold overnight in December it means there might be ice or frost in the morning' - if so, then what do you mean?

[Gordon]

I think you missed the deeper meaning as God being the source of all existence.

So this 'meaning' involves you in begging the question again.

I placed God's existence in the present tense because time is only relevant to this universe.

How do you know that?

[Alan Burns]

Can you demonstrate the existence of god rather than just assert it?

The logic is that if anything exists, there will be an ultimate source of existence - which we can call God.

[Alan Burns]

How do you know that?

I read it in Stephen Hawkin's "A brief history of time"

[Alan Burns]

Perhaps you need to make clear what you mean by 'meaning'.

By meaning, I refer to your conscious interpretation of whatever is represented by any word, written or spoken.

[Gordon]

I read it in Stephen Hawkin's "A brief history of time"

I've got a copy of that somewhere so I'll look at the context tomorrow.

[BeRational]

The logic is that if anything exists, there will be an ultimate source of existence - which we can call God.

No we do not do that as that is not logical.

We do not know what the ultimate source of existence is or if there was one.

So the only honest answer is "don't know".

You need to demonstrate this god and not just assert or guess it exists.

[Gordon]

By meaning, I refer to your conscious interpretation of whatever is represented by any word, written or spoken.

So it's how we subjectively conclude something of the intention(s) behind instances of spoken or written language we encounter?

[Gordon]

The logic is that if anything exists, there will be an ultimate source of existence - which we can call God.

Which isn't logical, though it is your personal belief even so.

[Shaker]

I think you missed the deeper meaning as God being the source of all existence.

That has no meaning at all. It's just assertion (unsurprisingly).

I placed God's existence in the present tense because time is only relevant to this universe.

I don't know of any others. Do you?

[Shaker]

The logic is that if anything exists, there will be an ultimate source of existence - which we can call God.

Why not Malcolm?

[torridon]

The logic is that if anything exists, there will be an ultimate source of existence - which we can call God.

Therefore if God exists, as you claim, what is the source of God's existence ?

[Shaker]

Therefore if God exists, as you claim, what is the source of God's existence ?

I think AB will now claim that the regress stops there, because ... well, because.

[SusanDoris]

I think you missed the deeper meaning as God being the source of all existence.
I placed God's existence in the present tense because time is only relevant to this universe.

Ah, but you, being, as you appear to think you are,  especially chosen by this god you believe exists can see this 'deeper' meaning? 
Please provide clear, objective evidence for it.

Well, that's 40 characters typed unnecessarily!

[Maeght]

The logic is that if anything exists, there will be an ultimate source of existence - which we can call God.

That's a no then.

[floo]

I think you missed the deeper meaning as God being the source of all existence.
I placed God's existence in the present tense because time is only relevant to this universe.

That is your belief, fine, but you have presented no evidence it is anymore than that.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Sword of the Spirit

Do you read torridon's posts?

Yes I do, because unlike you, he can defend his position!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I think you missed the deeper meaning as God being the source of all existence.
I placed God's existence in the present tense because time is only relevant to this universe.

Ah, but you, being, as you appear to think you are,  especially chosen by this god you believe exists can see this 'deeper' meaning? 
Please provide clear, objective evidence for it.

And what are you going to use to evaluate this 'objective evidence' bearing in mind your yearning for a 'brave new world' where religious belief is absent?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The other aspect is just as we don't seem to choose what we believe, if we apply that consistently we don't choose to believe what we regard as rationality. I am not sure how someone without your experiences can say that you are being irrational in what you state is true for you.

Yes - it's perplexing. Can I choose the meanings I ascribe to what my brain perceives/ experiences? It feels like i can - I know the consequences change based on the meaning I attach to what my brain perceives. If I just react based on the first meaning my mind "reaches for" there is a different set of emotions generated compared to if I consciously choose a different meaning, which then influences my behaviour.

Presumably my ability to control my impulses is due to a combination of the physical make-up of my brain and the meanings I attach to possible consequences, and the possible meanings available in my mind are based on my experiences.   

[Nearly Sane]

Yes - it's perplexing. Can I choose the meanings I ascribe to what my brain perceives/ experiences? It feels like i can - I know the consequences change based on the meaning I attach to what my brain perceives. If I just react based on the first meaning my mind "reaches for" there is a different set of emotions generated compared to if I consciously choose a different meaning, which then influences my behaviour.

Presumably my ability to control my impulses is due to a combination of the physical make-up of my brain and the meanings I attach to possible consequences, and the possible meanings available in my mind are based on my experiences.   

And if we look at confirmation bias, we are then trying to find things that back up the existing experience. In these days of social media and web communication, it means we can easily avoid much that challenges us and link in to what we agree with.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Now, you're getting to the difficulty of these discussions.... the inner truth v the external truth, and, of course, the 'I' which is in the state of love.

Yes - and my inner truth is based on the meanings I attach, and affects the way I function and interact with my environment and the choices I make. For example, I loved the free-fall part of my one and only experience of sky-diving - it is probably one of the best feelings I have had in my life as the meaning I attached to the air rushing past me was that it felt like flying and freedom even though I felt a huge amount of fear because I was falling. Someone else in my group did not enjoy it - they felt fear and did not seem to associate it with flying or freedom, whereby it became enjoyable for them. The external truth is we were both falling. 

[Nearly Sane]

Yes - and my inner truth is based on the meanings I attach, and affects the way I function and interact with my environment and the choices I make. For example, I loved the free-fall part of my one and only experience of sky-diving - it is probably one of the best feelings I have had in my life as the meaning I attached to the air rushing past me was that it felt like flying and freedom even though I felt a huge amount of fear because I was falling. Someone else in my group did not enjoy it - they felt fear and did not seem to associate it with flying or freedom, whereby it became enjoyable for them. The external truth is we were both falling.

just to note though 'you' felt fear as well as freedom. The idea of a unitary individual bizarrely seems to be some thing that Alan Burns asserts because he feels and I\it\we\they asserts doesn't exist because of how we all feel. Neuroscience would seem to indicate that we etc have more evidence but then that might just be how we etc interpret it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And if we look at confirmation bias, we are then trying to find things that back up the existing experience. In these days of social media and web communication, it means we can easily avoid much that challenges us and link in to what we agree with.

Yes and the problem is that I do not necessarily know what I would like to be true. Especially in relation to a God. It feels like I would like it to be true that there is no God - that seems simpler, cleaner, more efficient, and gives me control, and death especially feels more comforting - when you die, that's the end. But I have experienced a benefit to believing a God to exist, which seems to outweigh the comfort of death that the no God idea generates, so even if it is not happening consciously, I may well have a preference to believe a God exists.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes and the problem is that I do not necessarily know what I would like to be true. Especially in relation to a God. It feels like I would like it to be true that there is no God - that seems simpler, cleaner, more efficient, and gives me control, and death especially feels more comforting - when you die, that's the end. But I have experienced a benefit to believing a God to exist, which seems to outweigh the comfort of death that the no God idea generates, so even if it is not happening consciously, I may well have a preference to believe a God exists.

Much of the back and forth on here feels to me as if it's post hoc rationalising. Note that doesn't men that the arguments are incorrect rather I doubt that anyone believes anything because of say the Kalam or the problem of evil. At one stage I just realised that I had no belief in the religion of my parents, and a non comprehension of the term god. Over time I think my non comprehension of the term has been validated by the inability of those who say they believe such a concept to tell me anything that is logically consistent or comprehensible about it but my basic position is not something I remember arriving it through rational thought.