Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

On another point, I thought that it was Christian doctrine that our will is corrupted, so that for example, 'no man is good'.  If this is correct, how can we ever know that we are thinking correctly?

Most intelligent human beings have a knowledge of what is good and what is evil.   Our God given conscience should be used to discern when we are doing something wrong.  But we have the freedom to ignore this conscience if we so wish and carry on ...

[ProfessorDavey]

Most intelligent human beings have a knowledge of what is good and what is evil.

But what is considered to be good and evil, or right and wrong is a social construct and evolves over time. There are many things that modern western cultures consider wrong today that would have been considered fine a few hundred years ago, or even a few decades ago. And vice versa.

[Shaker]

But what is considered to be good and evil, or right and wrong is a social construct and evolves over time. There are many things that modern western cultures consider wrong today that would have been considered fine a few hundred years ago, or even a few decades ago. And vice versa.

... not to mention disagreement between different people at the same time, let alone over time.

Given this ... well, I was going to say hypothesis but it isn't even that - this fancy of a "god-given" conscience, we might suppose that we see uniformity in agreement of what constitutes right and wrong. One god, one god-given conscience, easy squeezy. But no.

[ProfessorDavey]

... not to mention disagreement between different people at the same time, let alone over time.

Indeed - so most societies have recognised the importance of some rules to ensure social order, but the nature of the rules in terms of what is and is not acceptable are incredibly variable.

Sure there are some broad consensus areas - e.g. prohibitions on killing, but even then most moral codes are conditional with many exceptions, such as self defence, war, in some cases the prohibition is only on innocent people etc.

[Sebastian Toe]

There is only one God who has given us this gift,

You might be correct. You also might be incorrect in the one which you have chosen. Maybe one day you will come to realise your mistake and live happily ever after for ever and ever.

[Alan Burns]

You might be correct. You also might be incorrect in the one which you have chosen. Maybe one day you will come to realise your mistake and live happily ever after for ever and ever.

It is not I that is mistaken.

[Shaker]

It is not I that is mistaken.

Are you claiming infallibility?

[Sebastian Toe]

It is not I that is mistaken.

The truth will set you free. You are just not ready for it yet, obviously.

[Alan Burns]

Are you claiming infallibility?

I can't possibly doubt the existence of someone with whom I have a personal relationship.

[ippy]

Are you claiming infallibility?

Shakes, he's not claiming infallibility, I would have thought it would be obvious to you of all people, he's asserting his infallibility, you know he's the assertion specialist, A B.

ippy

[ippy]

I can't possibly doubt the existence of someone with whom I have a personal relationship.

My arse!

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I can't possibly doubt the existence of someone with whom I have a personal relationship.

But you can doubt the belief that you have a relationship with that someone.

And that's your problem.

[torridon]

Most intelligent human beings have a knowledge of what is good and what is evil.   Our God given conscience should be used to discern when we are doing something wrong.  But we have the freedom to ignore this conscience if we so wish and carry on ...

What about the one's that don't ?  What about the humans of below average intelligence ?  Why would a god deal out knowledge on an erratic basis ?

Apart from which, it isn't knowledge, it is opinion, and opinion varies.  Go to India, and you will find most people believe killing is wrong and so refuse to eat the flesh of killed animals.  Go to Argentina and you will find most people believe such killing is OK so long as it is restricted to non humans and the animals are killed nicely.  This would not be the case if there were some sort of objective basis to this, gifted to all people fairly by an external deity who was always right about moral judgements.

[torridon]

The evidence is provided by scientific analysis of material properties and reactions to events, which indicate that any form of control or manipulation of events (within your brain cells) is not possible unless there is interaction from something acting outside the scientifically defined consequences of cause and effect within physical materials.

That is not valid.  It is just tantamount to claiming that science does not recognise the principle of emergence, which it plainly does.  There might not exist any particles of control, we have not seen any molecules of mood or atoms of will; so what, is the scientific position therefore that control, mood or will must be supernatural ? Do we imagine the dominant chimp must be supernatural in order for it to exert control over its group as it is made of hydrocarbons rather than particles of control ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What about the one's that don't ?  What about the humans of below average intelligence ?  Why would a god deal out knowledge on an erratic basis ?

Not sure about the link between morality and intelligence. Compare the social usefulness between an unintelligent person who is loving and does a lot for charity as opposed to a nasty string theorist who, by definition, does nothing for their fellow human being?

[floo]

The evidence is provided by scientific analysis of material properties and reactions to events, which indicate that any form of control or manipulation of events (within your brain cells) is not possible unless there is interaction from something acting outside the scientifically defined consequences of cause and effect within physical materials.

Your analysis?

[Shaker]

I can't possibly doubt the existence of someone with whom I have a personal relationship.

Personal relationships rely upon people. That's to say, human beings who actually exist.

For reasons known only to yourself, what you define as a personal relationship is simply a train of thoughts in your head based upon what somebody else has interpreted as a constellation of beliefs about a middle-eastern man who died two thousand years ago.

You know when people think that religion is insanity? This is why.

[floo]

Personal relationships rely upon people. That's to say, human beings who actually exist.

For reasons known only to yourself, what you define as a personal relationship is simply a train of thoughts in your head based upon what somebody else has interpreted as a constellation of beliefs about a middle-eastern man who died two thousand years ago.

You know when people think that religion is insanity? This is why.

Exactly, how can you have a personal relationship with a long dead person, or an entity like god for whose existence there is no reliable evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Personal relationships rely upon people. That's to say, human beings who actually exist.

For reasons known only to yourself, what you define as a personal relationship is simply a train of thoughts in your head based upon what somebody else has interpreted as a constellation of beliefs about a middle-eastern man who died two thousand years ago.

You know when people think that religion is insanity? This is why.

....And we should be taking lessons on relationships and sanity from an admirer of Neitszche because..........?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Exactly, how can you have a personal relationship with a long dead person, or an entity like god for whose existence there is no reliable evidence?

Because he isn't long dead but is God and Man.
I think you guys are mistaking new atheism with personal relationship.

I have heard it said though that one's attitude to God is reflects one's closest relationships. I know that is quite controversial but since were on the subject and people are able to fall back on their central belief ''It's all crap anyways'' I don't think raising this can do any harm.

[floo]

Because he isn't long dead but is God and Man.
I think you guys are mistaking new atheism with personal relationship.

I have heard it said though that one's attitude to God is reflects one's closest relationships. I know that is quite controversial but since were on the subject and people are able to fall back on their central belief ''It's all crap anyways'' I don't think raising this can do any harm.

And you can prove that statement to be a fact, can you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you can prove that statement to be a fact, can you?

1: Experience of myself and others.
1a: Failure of antitheists to get the medical profession to endorse their ''Oi Nutter'' approach to religion.
2: A wealth of evidence of God Dodging abroad in society.
3: The elephant in the room of wrong doing.
4: The failure of moral irrealism to arbitrate in moral issues see point 2.
5: The failure of honest philosophical naturalism and the unfeasible efforts to support it see point 2.
6: The stubborn refusal of any portrayal of God by antutheists other than something along the lines of an old man with a white beard in robes see point 2.
7: The necessity of an ultimate actual rather than a world of the derived.

[Maeght]

The answer to Floo's question is no. It's a belief not a fact.

[Shaker]

Because he isn't long dead but is God and Man.

Assertion.

I think you guys are mistaking new atheism with personal relationship.

No; we're the guys not mistaking fantasy for relationship.

[Shaker]

....And we should be taking lessons on relationships and sanity from an admirer of Neitszche because..........?

Because why not if said admirer can distinguish between relationship and fantasy?