Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

But you do apparently, and you think it on to say that people who disagree with you are lying.

No not me - God defines reality.

[Nearly Sane]

No not me - God defines reality.

but that's you saying that and defining reality. BTW I note you haven't responded to calling those who disagree with you liars.

[wigginhall]

Well, first you need to stop thinking up reasons not to believe in Him.  Try removing all the false barriers and let Him into your life.  We were made to know God.  If I may quote the first line of my memorised catechism - God made us to know Him, love Him and serve Him.  You may try to write this off as childhood indoctrination, but I can find no reason whatever not to believe it.

Echoing blue, what reasons are there to believe?  And I don't mean stuff about how unlikely it is that clouds of gas would lead to planets and life. 

[torridon]

Well, first you need to stop thinking up reasons not to believe in Him.  Try removing all the false barriers and let Him into your life.  We were made to know God.  If I may quote the first line of my memorised catechism - God made us to know Him, love Him and serve Him.  You may try to write this off as childhood indoctrination, but I can find no reason whatever not to believe it.

I think your logic here is all back to front.

We don't believe things by default unless we find good reasons to disbelieve. What is required, is positive reasons to substantiate beliefs;  no evidence for gods = no grounds for belief

[Nearly Sane]

Well, first you need to stop thinking up reasons not to believe in Him.  Try removing all the false barriers and let Him into your life.  We were made to know God.  If I may quote the first line of my memorised catechism - God made us to know Him, love Him and serve Him.  You may try to write this off as childhood indoctrination, but I can find no reason whatever not to believe it.

And again calling those who disagree with you liars.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

How about the reason that there are no cogent reasons to believe it?

I find it much more plausible than trying to believe that I am just the emergent property of uncontrollable deterministic material reactions driven and entirely defined by past events.

[Alan Burns]

but that's you saying that and defining reality. BTW I note you haven't responded to calling those who disagree with you liars.

I have never accused anyone of lying - some people can be genuinely mistaken, and my aim is to simply share the truth that we are all God's creation.

[Nearly Sane]

I have never accused anyone of lying - some people can be genuinely mistaken, and my aim is to simply share the truth that we are all God's creation.

No, you have said people are seeking reasons to avoid god. That means that are doing it deliberately while knowing your god to exist.

[SteveH]

And again calling those who disagree with you liars.

Where did he accuse anyone of lying?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I find it much more plausible than trying to believe that I am just the emergent property of uncontrollable deterministic material reactions driven and entirely defined by past events.

But that's just a function of your inability to grasp logical argument - if you assume that you were the end game all along, then the chances of that outcome happening unplanned are indeed very slim. What you then do though is to take that unlikeliness and use it as evidence that you were intended all along. It's just more circular reasoning - sometimes known as the lottery winner's fallacy.

What you were actually asked for though was a cogent argument, not a fallacious one. 

[Nearly Sane]

Where did he accuse anyone of lying?

He's stated people are seeking reasons to avoid believing in his god, despite being told many tines by many people that that isn't the case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have never accused anyone of lying - some people can be genuinely mistaken...

Exactly so AB, exactly so. Now dwell on that thought for a minute...

...and my aim is to simply share the truth that we are all God's creation.

Except you have no hope of sharing something when you're unable to explain why anyone else should think it to be "the truth" at all.

[SteveH]

No, you have said people are seeking reasons to avoid god. That means that are doing it deliberately while knowing your god to exist.

It means nothing of the sort.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

He's stated people are seeking reasons to avoid believing in his god, despite being told many tines by many people that that isn't the case.

Exactly so. It only works if you accept his premise "God" as true in the first place (it's just a re-statement of Vlad's "goddodging" nonsense). What actually happens is that some of us consider whether the arguments he attempts are cogent or not, and when they're not (ie, always) whatever outcome they happen produce are white noise.   

[Nearly Sane]

It means nothing of the sort.

If you state that the motivations someone states for something are not correct and they are denying something deliberately then that is precisely somethine of the sort.

[bluehillside Retd.]

HV,

It means nothing of the sort.

Why not?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

But that's just a function of your inability to grasp logical argument - if you assume that you were the end game all along, then the chances of that outcome happening unplanned are indeed very slim. What you then do though is to take that unlikeliness and use it as evidence that you were intended all along. It's just more circular reasoning - sometimes known as the lottery winner's fallacy.

What you were actually asked for though was a cogent argument, not a fallacious one.

But the end game can't be entirely defined in material terms.

The cogent argument for me not to be entirely driven by uncontrolled material reactions is simply my ability to drive my own thoughts and actions.  Control can't be defined in absolute material terms - only uncontrolled inevitable reactions.

[Sebastian Toe]

Well, first you need to stop thinking up reasons not to believe in Him.

I don't believe that I do that so on to the next step....

  Try removing all the false barriers and let Him into your life.

What false barriers?

[wigginhall]

So much incredulity, so little time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

Exactly so. It only works if you accept his premise "God" as true in the first place (it's just a re-statement of Vlad's "goddodging" nonsense). What actually happens is that some of us consider whether the arguments he attempts are cogent or not, and when they're not (ie, always) whatever outcome they happen produce are white noise.

There are people throughout history who have reported God avoidance. St Augustine, Bunyan, Fr HAV Williams and Christians here will have experienced this in themselves and their associates.

I suppose you wish us to believe they are the liars.

[Nearly Sane]

There are people throughout history who have reported God avoidance. St Augustine, Bunyan, Fr HAV Williams and Christians here will have experienced this in themselves and their associates.

I suppose you wish us to believe they are the liars.

Using the word reported there to claim objectivity is you lying again

[Alan Burns]

I don't believe that I do that so on to the next step....

What false barriers?

Perhaps we can start with the Einstein quote in your profile.  It was apparently a commentary on a particular interpretation of God from the Jewish Bible based mainly on the old testament view that elevates Jews to be a superior, chosen race.

You may be aware of this quote from the same man which puts things in a better perspective:

"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

[Sebastian Toe]

Perhaps we can start with the Einstein quote in your profile.  It was apparently a commentary on a particular interpretation of God from the Jewish Bible based mainly on the old testament view that elevates Jews to be a superior, chosen race.

You may be aware of this quote from the same man which puts things in a better perspective:

"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

Was he a Christian?

[Shaker]

Well, first you need to stop thinking up reasons not to believe in Him.

I can't claim originality here - I haven't come up with anything of my own (assuming that Nietzsche's "atheism is instinctively obvious" doesn't count); on the other hand a very great many very smart people have come up with lots of reasons not to think that any gods exist over hundreds, in fact thousands of years of thinking about it. All their own work, but I find it entirely persuasive and the opposite case laughable.

Try removing all the false barriers and let Him into your life.  We were made to know God.  If I may quote the first line of my memorised catechism - God made us to know Him, love Him and serve Him.  You may try to write this off as childhood indoctrination

One hardly needs to try ...

but I can find no reason whatever not to believe it.

I suspect that's because you are to rationality and critical thinking what Churchill was to Woodbines.

[Gordon]

But the end game can't be entirely defined in material terms.

The cogent argument for me not to be entirely driven by uncontrolled material reactions is simply my ability to drive my own thoughts and actions.  Control can't be defined in absolute material terms - only uncontrolled inevitable reactions.

You're rambling, Alan: not a pretty sight!