Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

From Sassy's opening post:It is apparent that no matter what evidence is put forward to confirm God's existence, some people will use their God given human intelligence to find fault with it.  The irony is that some of these people are in denial that they have the freedom to do this and claim it is all done within the sub conscious activity of the human brain.   

Nonsense.

[Shaker]

I can't put my fingers to keys without demonstrating my God given freedom to do so. 

That's a perfect example of the illogic I was referring to - your habit of thinking that assertion of personal belief (imprinted in childhood) counts as fact.

Here's another - your utter cowardice in ignoring/refusing to engage with your addled thinking, viz., the fact that you made no comment on this:

Consider the whopping begging the question/circular argument/petitio principii in the example above. You won't even know what this means and why it's a fallacy, and moreover you don't care.

in favour of quoting something else.

[torridon]

I can't put my fingers to keys without demonstrating my God given freedom to do so. 

Assertion, not evidence 

[Shaker]

Assertion, not evidence 

... and no matter how many times you repeat this, it'll make not a jot of difference.

[Walter]

I can't put my fingers to keys without demonstrating my God given freedom to do so. 

Have a nice day AB 

[floo]

I can't put my fingers to keys without demonstrating my God given freedom to do so. 

You are entitled to believe that to be true, but you have never produced any credible evidence to verify your POV.

[Alan Burns]

... and no matter how many times you repeat this, it'll make not a jot of difference.

And no matter how much you try to deny the existence of human free will, it will not make it go away, because the conscious act of denial itself verifies your freedom to make such a choice.  A freedom which can't be derived from the uncontrollable physical reactions to events in a Godless material world.

[floo]

And no matter how much you try to deny the existence of human free will, it will not make it go away, because the conscious act of denial itself verifies your freedom to make such a choice.  A freedom which can't be derived from the uncontrollable physical reactions to events in a Godless material world.

In your opinion.

[Shaker]

And no matter how much you try to deny the existence of human free will, it will not make it go away

Go away? You haven't demonstrated that it even exists yet, or had you forgotten that small fact?

A ton of empty blather.

Himalayan ranges of logical fallacies.

A neutron star's worth of assertion.

But that's all. That's all it's ever been or ever going to be.

[torridon]

And no matter how much you try to deny the existence of human free will, it will not make it go away, because the conscious act of denial itself verifies your freedom to make such a choice.  A freedom which can't be derived from the uncontrollable physical reactions to events in a Godless material world.

Apparent free will can be derived from the uncontrollable physical reactions to events in a Godless material world, apparently

True free will cannot be thus derived because it is an irrational concept.  To be meaningful, a choice must be a function of its inputs, otherwise it is a random, unrelated event.  A meaningful choice cannot be a truly free choice.

[Gordon]

And no matter how much you try to deny the existence of human free will, it will not make it go away, because the conscious act of denial itself verifies your freedom to make such a choice.  A freedom which can't be derived from the uncontrollable physical reactions to events in a Godless material world.

It might seem that you have free will, Alan, but it only seems that way. You say 'uncontrollable physical reactions to events in a Godless material world' like it is a bad thing: it isn't.

[Alan Burns]

Apparent free will can be derived from the uncontrollable physical reactions to events in a Godless material world, apparently

True free will cannot be thus derived because it is an irrational concept.

This is the inevitable conclusion if you consciously deny the existence of God.

[torridon]

This is the inevitable conclusion if you consciously deny the existence of God.

Not at all.  They are both independently irrational concepts in their own right.  There are no dependencies involved.

[Alan Burns]

It might seem that you have free will, Alan, but it only seems that way. You say 'uncontrollable physical reactions to events in a Godless material world' like it is a bad thing: it isn't.

Not bad, but a totally unrealistic model of reality.

[Shaker]

I'm sure you think you have reality all sewn up 

[Sebastian Toe]

And no matter how much you try to deny the existence of human free will, it will not make it go away, because the conscious act of denial itself verifies your freedom to make such a choice.  A freedom which can't be derived from the uncontrollable physical reactions to events in a Godless material world.

Not bad, but a totally unrealistic model of reality.

[floo]

Not bad, but a totally unrealistic model of reality.

Your realty maybe, but definitely not mine.

[Walter]

Not bad, but a totally unrealistic model of reality.

my true godless reality is also true for you AB , whether you accept it or not is irrelevant

[Alan Burns]

my true godless reality is also true for you AB , whether you accept it or not is irrelevant

Yes, there can only be one reality which we will all come to accept.

[floo]

Yes, there can only be one reality which we will all come to accept.

But it might not be your reality.

[Alan Burns]

Apparent free will can be derived from the uncontrollable physical reactions to events in a Godless material world, apparently

True free will cannot be thus derived because it is an irrational concept.  To be meaningful, a choice must be a function of its inputs, otherwise it is a random, unrelated event.  A meaningful choice cannot be a truly free choice.

How many times do I need to say this:
Freedom to consciously choose is not random, neither is it uncontrollably determined by the forces of nature.  It is simply determined by the spiritual power of our conscious human will which can interact with this physical world, not just react to it.

[Outrider]

From Sassy's opening post:It is apparent that no matter what evidence is put forward to confirm God's existence, some people will use their God given human intelligence to find fault with it.

Except that the evidence you proffer - personal testimony, 'feelings', ancient documents of questionable integrity and false dichotomies are extremely weak evidence for an otherwise extraordinary claim.

The irony is that some of these people are in denial that they have the freedom to do this and claim it is all done within the sub conscious activity of the human brain.   

Whilst others have the intelligence and choose to forgo using it critically, instead accepting a pithy answer of 'goddidit'...

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

  It is simply determined by the spiritual power of our conscious human will which can interact with this physical world, not just react to it.

Not bad, but a totally unrealistic model of reality.

[Outrider]

Freedom to consciously choose is not random, neither is it uncontrollably determined by the forces of nature.

Based on what? If it isn't determined by the prior events, then how is not at least partially random? What are the other options?

It is simply determined by the spiritual power of our conscious human will which can interact with this physical world, not just react to it.

How do you demonstrate this? How do you measure 'spiritual power'? What are the units, what are the physical effects that can be observed to demonstrate it?

O.

[Enki]

This is the inevitable conclusion if you consciously deny the existence of God.

The position of 'denying the existence of God' is fraught with problems. To deny the existence of something means that one is certain that this something doesn't exist. Yet many atheists, including myself, do not take a position of certainty at all. I simply lack a belief in any god, which obviously includes yours. Science demands evidence for its findings, but every conclusion is considered provisional because of the possibility of new evidence which may alter prevailing thought on any scientific conclusions. I take a similar approach to the idea of a god. To date, I have found no evidence which even goes goes part of the way in establishing the existence of your God, or any other god, as an unassailable certainty at all. This, by the way, includes all your 'jigsaw puzzle' pieces, where any objective evidence at all is noticeably absent, either on an individual piece or a cumulative basis.

What I have found is that, for instance, explanations for the development of life on this planet, on the make-up of the universe or even my personal well being don't need a god as an explanation. That is not to say that a god doesn't come into this mix, but simply that there is no evidence for and no need of a god. Furthermore, simply to say we do not know how life began, or to say we do not know what(if anything) came before our universe began, does not presuppose a god at all. All it says is that we do not know. For a god to have any value at all, then it would have to explain all these 'don't knows' in detail, with accompanying evidence as to why and how this is so.

Hence to finish, my position is clear, at least to me. I do not deny the existence of any god, but I see no good reasons why I should bother with believing in one.