Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

...pacific...

...specific... 

[ippy]

ippy,

...specific... 

Yea Les D

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

Yea Les D

Classic Les:

I was lying in bed the other morning playing a lament on my euphonium when the wife, who was prising her teeth out of an apple, looked back at me and said softly, 'Joey.' She calls me Joey because she always wanted a budgie. She said, 'I'm homesick.' I said, 'But precious one, this is your home.' She said, 'I know, and I'm sick of it.'

[ippy]

ipster,

Classic Les:

I was lying in bed the other morning playing a lament on my euphonium when the wife, who was prising her teeth out of an apple, looked back at me and said softly, 'Joey.' She calls me Joey because she always wanted a budgie. She said, 'I'm homesick.' I said, 'But precious one, this is your home.' She said, 'I know, and I'm sick of it.'

Forget Shakespeare, time to move on

ippy

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Vlad the Mendacious,

Generally my instinct when people make mistakes like this is to suggest that they’re forgetful – have your forgotten already for example that when you did try this (and referenced RationalWiki too by the way) it quite spectacularly blew up in your face when the actual meanings turned out to be what I told you they were and not your personal re-definitions at all?

In your case though, the fact that I use one of the very quotes that undid you as my tag line on every post I make combined your notoriety here for producing more porky pies than Wall’s suggests behaviour less savoury.

And so it goes. “Methodological naturalism” doesn’t entail a philosophical position. Insisting that you at least try to use words correctly isn’t “totalitarian”. “Scientism” does not mean the conviction that science will answer everything there is to know. “Atheism” is not the position that gods necessarily do not exist. “Secularism” is just the separation of state from church, and there’s nothing “Stalinist” about that. To be “reductionist” there has to be something reduced from etc. I could continue with the lexicon of Vladdisms – perfectly good and well-understood words that you’ve had to twist and subvert into different meanings in order to attack them – but frankly what would be the point?         

You keep on accusing Vlad of this ...

You like to hide behind the definition of these words. Vlad addresses what they mean in practice, i.e. how they are worked out. There is a certain inconsistency, which you cannot (or are unwilling) to see ...

... starting with your signature!

[Shaker]

You keep on accusing Vlad of this ...

You like to hide behind the definition of these words.

Using words according to their definitions, the horror 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

You keep on accusing Vlad of this ...

Yes, and rightly so. Re-defining words to suit your purpose is dishonest and nullifies any attempt at discussion.

You like to hide behind the definition of these words.

"...hide behind the definition of these words" ??!!??

Did you actually mean to say that?

Seriously though?

Vlad addresses what they mean in practice, i.e. how they are worked out.

But only "in practice" to him, and then only to make spurious "arguments". In practice people who do know and care what they mean use them appropriately.

Why do you sniff bicycle saddles in your spare time?

What's that you say? You don't do that at all?

Ah, but by "sniff" I meant "play" and by "bicycle saddles" I meant "football", so, you know, I had you bang to rights then didn't I?

Doesn't work does it. Now, if you could just explain that to Vlad please...
 

There is a certain inconsistency, which you cannot (or are unwilling) to see ...

... starting with your signature!

You demonstrate that supposed inconsistency, and I'll see it.

[Dicky Underpants]

ipster,

Classic Les:

I was lying in bed the other morning playing a lament on my euphonium when the wife, who was prising her teeth out of an apple, looked back at me and said softly, 'Joey.' She calls me Joey because she always wanted a budgie. She said, 'I'm homesick.' I said, 'But precious one, this is your home.' She said, 'I know, and I'm sick of it.'

I think this is a variant of an anecdote originally told by the great Tommy Cooper. Very jolly wags both of them, though.

[ippy]

I think this is a variant of an anecdote originally told by the great Tommy Cooper. Very jolly wags both of them, though.

Philosophical giants!!

ippy

[Alan Burns]

On returning from our cycling holiday in France, we were passing through London on Sunday and attended a wonderful spirit filled Mass at St Patrick's church in Soho square.  There were two readings in particular which relate to much of the discussion on this thread.

Romans 11:33-36
How rich and deep are the wisdom and the knowledge of God! We cannot reach to the root of his decisions or his ways.
Who has ever known the mind of the Lord? Who has ever been his adviser?
Who has given anything to him, so that his presents come only as a debt returned?
Everything there is comes from him and is caused by him and exists for him. To him be glory for ever! Amen.
This highlights the naive argument that God can't exist if He allows so much suffering and evil.  We do not know the mind of God, but we do know that everything comes from Him - including our knowledge of good and evil.  Can good things be known or recognised if there is no suffering or evil? Or would we just take it all for granted?

Matthew 16:15-17
'But you,' he said, 'who do you say I am?'

Then Simon Peter spoke up and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'

Jesus replied, 'Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was not mere flesh and blood that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.

How true.  The mechanical workings of flesh and blood alone could not even contemplate the existence of God.

[Sebastian Toe]

This highlights the naive argument that God can't exist if He allows so much suffering and evil.  We do not know the mind of God, but we do know that everything comes from Him - including our knowledge of good and evil.  Can good things be known or recognised if there is no suffering or evil? Or would we just take it all for granted?

If there is no suffering or evil in heaven, will you know good or will you even care that you don't?

[floo]

On returning from our cycling holiday in France, we were passing through London on Sunday and attended a wonderful spirit filled Mass at St Patrick's church in Soho square.  There were two readings in particular which relate to much of the discussion on this thread.

Romans 11:33-36
How rich and deep are the wisdom and the knowledge of God! We cannot reach to the root of his decisions or his ways.
Who has ever known the mind of the Lord? Who has ever been his adviser?
Who has given anything to him, so that his presents come only as a debt returned?
Everything there is comes from him and is caused by him and exists for him. To him be glory for ever! Amen.
This highlights the naive argument that God can't exist if He allows so much suffering and evil.  We do not know the mind of God, but we do know that everything comes from Him - including our knowledge of good and evil.  Can good things be known or recognised if there is no suffering or evil? Or would we just take it all for granted?

Matthew 16:15-17
'But you,' he said, 'who do you say I am?'

Then Simon Peter spoke up and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'

Jesus replied, 'Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was not mere flesh and blood that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.

How true.  The mechanical workings of flesh and blood could not even contemplate the existence of God.

Whatever turns you on.

[SusanDoris]

Well, it rather goes against the grain to say this - and I'll have to grit my teeth slightly - but welcome back, AB! Glad you had a good holiday. Such a pity you headed into a church instead of the London Assembly, or the Natural History Museum or something!
This thread has been static recently!

Edited to remove one 'instead'

[BeRational]

We do not know the mind of God, but we do know that everything comes from Him - including our knowledge of good and evil.

We do NOT know this at all.

You just believe it, for bad reasons.

[Shaker]

We do NOT know this at all.

You just believe it, for bad reasons.

This!

[Dicky Underpants]

Matthew 16:15-17
'But you,' he said, 'who do you say I am?'

Then Simon Peter spoke up and said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'

Jesus replied, 'Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was not mere flesh and blood that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.

How true.  The mechanical workings of flesh and blood could not even contemplate the existence of God.

You trust the reportage? Mark* relates Peter affirming that Jesus is no more than "the Christ of God", as does Luke. I suggest that Matthew, in his characteristic manner, has done a bit of tarting up. And for all we know, Mark's narrative may be at fault too. And none demonstrate anything conclusively, other than that certain beliefs came to be held by certain people.

*See how plainly Mark relates the incident:

"[29] And he asked them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered him, "You are the Christ."
[30] And he charged them to tell no one about him."
Mark 8

[Alan Burns]

You trust the reportage? Mark relates Peter affirming that Jesus is no more than "the Christ of God", as does Luke. I suggest that Matthew, in his characteristic manner, has done a bit of tarting up. And for all we know, Mark's narrative may be at fault too. And none demonstrate anything conclusively, other than that certain beliefs came to be held by certain people.

I think you missed the point.
Two thousand years later and human scientific endeavours still can't define how mere flesh and blood can ever reveal the existence of God.

[SusanDoris]

I think you missed the point.
Two thousand years later and human scientific endeavours still can't define how mere flesh and blood can ever reveal the existence of God.

Nor can you!

[Dicky Underpants]

I think you missed the point.
Two thousand years later and human scientific endeavours still can't define how mere flesh and blood can ever reveal the existence of God.

Then you still need to argue your case, not simply quote biblical texts whose veracity of reportage is suspect.

[Alan Burns]

If there is no suffering or evil in heaven, will you know good or will you even care that you don't?

Can we recognise beauty if there is no ugliness?
Can we know love if there is nothing we can give to help each other?
Can we have joy if there is no sadness?
Can we appreciate good health without illness?
Can we experience peace without war?
Can goodness exist without evil?
Can God exist without the Devil?

This earth is a battleground between good and evil - we are not in Heaven yet, but when we are we will fully appreciate the love, joy and peace which salvation will bring.

And for those who naively claim that a loving God will save everyone, would you really like to share Heaven with those who love evil?

[Sebastian Toe]

Can God exist without the Devil?

Who came first?
God or the devil?

[Sebastian Toe]

Can we recognise beauty if there is no ugliness?
Can we know love if there is nothing we can give to help each other?
Can we have joy if there is no sadness?
Can we appreciate good health without illness?
Can we experience peace without war?
Can goodness exist without evil?
Can God exist without the Devil?

Will all or any of those 2nd sets of items exist in heaven eg ugliness, evil etc?

[torridon]

And for those who naively claim that a loving God will save everyone, would you really like to share Heaven with those who love evil?

and this is not naive ?

Really ?

[floo]

Can we recognise beauty if there is no ugliness?
Can we know love if there is nothing we can give to help each other?
Can we have joy if there is no sadness?
Can we appreciate good health without illness?
Can we experience peace without war?
Can goodness exist without evil?
Can God exist without the Devil?

This earth is a battleground between good and evil - we are not in Heaven yet, but when we are we will fully appreciate the love, joy and peace which salvation will bring.

And for those who naively claim that a loving God will save everyone, would you really like to share Heaven with those who love evil?

But the god of the god of the Bible is far from loving.

[Shaker]

But the god of the god of the Bible is far from loving.

Only the other day I saw a quote to the effect that if you can read the Bible and still seriously maintain that the God depicted therein is a God of love, you're an almost superhumanly poor judge of character.