Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

 
Something that seems to have been put to one side in this marathon thread:

Surly A B needs to confirm the existence of this he, she or it god figure of his, something he hasn't managed to establish, before it becomes a subject worthy of any kind of detailed discussion also something that looks such a blindingly obvious requirement to me?

ippy

[Shaker]

Something that seems to have been put to one side in this marathon thread:

Surly A B needs to confirm the existence of this he, she or it god figure of his, something he hasn't managed to establish, before it becomes a subject worthy of any kind of detailed discussion also something that looks such a blindingly obvious requirement to me?

ippy

True, but that would have killed the thread stone dead on page 1, ippy.

[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."

You may be aware of this quote which puts things in even more perspective,

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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

First, the point was about your circular reasoning and not about its material vs non-material outcome. Start with you error in logic, and worry about its conclusions another time. 

Second, why not?

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 know full well that this is muddled thinking because it’s been explained to you over and over again. Whey then not deal with that rather than repeat your mistakes?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

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.

No they haven't, and nor does an argument from authority help you in any case. What they actually did was to note that sometimes people disagreed with them. 

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

Why would you suppose that as I've suggested no such thing?

[Alan Burns]

You know full well that this is muddled thinking because it’s been explained to you over and over again. Whey then not deal with that rather than repeat your mistakes?

Because I have the freedom to witness to the truth of our spiritual nature - a freedom which can't be derived from the uncontrollable deterministic reactions of material elements.

[torridon]

The opening post of this thread implies that many of the posters on this forum have no wish to search for and discover the joy of knowing God, but instead seem intent on finding reasons not to believe.  The content of this thread aptly demonstrates the truth of this opening post, showing the intent of posters not just to find fault, but in many cases to ridicule any arguments put forward for the existence of God by trying to equate such belief with magic, leprechauns, pixies etc.

Belief should be based upon evidence, and if there is no evidence then why do people believe ?  This is the question in the minds of many. For some of us, we are not searching for God, as we have been down that road and found nothing there, we have knocked on that door and had no answer; so how do we explain that ?  Either this God is erratic, revealing himself to some but hiding from others; that is not consistent with the claims of a god that is available to all that seek. So what you see as people seeking reasons not to believe is in truth people trying to figure out why believers believe.  In a sense it seems like the story of the Emperor's new clothes is being played out still, even in the modern age, with billions of people claiming to be able to see something that is not actually there.  Not everyone though is happy to conform to that great global pretence,  some of us are not interested in mind games, some of us prefer to speak the truth even if it means puncturing the popular mythology of the day.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Belief should be based upon evidence, and if there is no evidence then why do people believe ?  This is the question in the minds of many. For some of us, we are not searching for God, as we have been down that road and found nothing there, we have knocked on that door and had no answer; so how do we explain that ?  Either this God is erratic, revealing himself to some but hiding from others; that is not consistent with the claims of a god that is available to all that seek. So what you see as people seeking reasons not to believe is in truth people trying to figure out why believers believe.  In a sense it seems like the story of the Emperor's new clothes is being played out still, even in the modern age, with billions of people claiming to be able to see something that is not actually there.  Not everyone though is happy to conform to that great global pretence,  some of us are not interested in mind games, some of us prefer to speak the truth even if it means puncturing the popular mythology of the day.

All you are doing is elevating your experience and philosophy against theirs   

[Walter]

All you are doing is elevating your experience and philosophy against theirs   

yes ,and why not , it is superior. Wow! are you slowly beginning to understand?

[Alan Burns]

Belief should be based upon evidence, and if there is no evidence then why do people believe ?  This is the question in the minds of many. For some of us, we are not searching for God, as we have been down that road and found nothing there, we have knocked on that door and had no answer; so how do we explain that ?  Either this God is erratic, revealing himself to some but hiding from others; that is not consistent with the claims of a god that is available to all that seek. So what you see as people seeking reasons not to believe is in truth people trying to figure out why believers believe.  In a sense it seems like the story of the Emperor's new clothes is being played out still, even in the modern age, with billions of people claiming to be able to see something that is not actually there.  Not everyone though is happy to conform to that great global pretence,  some of us are not interested in mind games, some of us prefer to speak the truth even if it means puncturing the popular mythology of the day.

Another good post Torri.
As I see it, there are three types of people on this thread.  There are those who want to believe in God, and select the evidence to support that belief.  And there are those who do not want to believe, and select evidence in support of that belief.  And there is a third, perhaps rarer category of those who want to seek the truth and try to look objectively at the evidence on both sides.

But what is it that drives this inner want?

[ippy]

True, but that would have killed the thread stone dead on page 1, ippy.

Quite!

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

yes ,and why not , it is superior. Wow! are you slowly beginning to understand?

Show superiority. I believe exactly what Torridon does in terms of the scientifically proved or provable.
I do not believe that all that science can detect or elucidate is all there is. That at base is his world view and you think it is superior.

[floo]

Another good post Torri.
As I see it, there are three types of people on this thread.  There are those who want to believe in God, and select the evidence to support that belief.  And there are those who do not want to believe, and select evidence in support of that belief.  And there is a third, perhaps rarer category of those who want to seek the truth and try to look objectively at the evidence on both sides.

But what is it that drives this inner want?

And which category are you in AB?

[Sassy]

Since your definitions of spiritual 'stuff' are a bit wooly, punctuated with many dont-knows. Don't you think that your own "logic" is a bit thinner?

To be honest this argument is not about 'logic' it is really about defining what makes you, you.
Science and no amount of reasoning will not give you that answer?

You choose what to believe because you cannot prove to yourself or anyone else why you exist at all.

[Alan Burns]

And which category are you in AB?

Perhaps I should have mentioned a fourth category for those who have found God. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

All you are doing is elevating your experience and philosophy against theirs   

If not for "experience and philosophy" how else would you propose that someone distinguish probable truths from probable non-truths?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Perhaps I should have mentioned a fourth category for those who have found God. 

That's just the first type.

[Gordon]

Another good post Torri.

Agreed

As I see it, there are three types of people on this thread.

Let's see then.

There are those who want to believe in God, and select the evidence to support that belief.

That would be those with pre-exisiting confirmation bias with a penchant for cherry-picking: doesn't seem sensible to me.

And there are those who do not want to believe, and select evidence in support of that belief.

Nope - nobody here says they don't want to believe: they just say they find no good reasons to believe. You then seem to imply that rejecting bad reasons is in itself a belief, which it isn't, and what is this 'evidence' for disbelief you think is being sought by the likes of me?   

And there is a third, perhaps rarer category of those who want to seek the truth and try to look objectively at the evidence on both sides.

Just no - you've yet to demonstrate theistic 'truth' (Sword is also unsuccessfully flailing about in this area) and we've yet to see any objective evidence that theism is justified.

But what is it that drives this inner want?

You (whether you are conscious of it or not).

[Gordon]

Perhaps I should have mentioned a fourth category for those who have found God. 

Which is your first type: the confirmation-biased cherry-pickers.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Show superiority.

That's easy - guessing is by magnitudes more likely to be wrong than to be right.

I believe exactly what Torridon does in terms of the scientifically proved or provable.

Seems unlikely, but as you've not told us what that is there's no telling.

I do not believe that all that science can detect or elucidate is all there is.

No-one does, least of all scientists. That's why they still do science.
 

That at base is his world view...

No it isn't.

...and you think it is superior.

What's "superior" is that science and reason enable truth claims to be investigated and evaluated by objective means. Faith claims on the other hand don't.

[Sebastian Toe]

All you are doing is elevating your experience and philosophy against theirs   

...and you don't do similar?

[Sebastian Toe]

Another good post Torri.
As I see it, there are three types of people on this thread.  There are those who want to believe in God, and select the evidence to support that belief.  And there are those who do not want to believe, and select evidence in support of that belief.  And there is a third, perhaps rarer category of those who want to seek the truth and try to look objectively at the evidence on both sides.

..and for those in the third category who have looked objectively and still haven't 'found God' or reasoned that there is no 'God' to find?

...and more so for those in the third category who have looked and found another 'God', one different to you?

[Alan Burns]

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

Perhaps you have not understood the point I was making.
The can be no source of control in the materialist scenario where every biological event is entirely driven by the uncontrollable laws of nature.   For control to exist, there has to be an ultimate source which has the power to wilfully exert control. 

Do you really believe that all your thoughts, words and actions are just inevitable reactions over which we have no control?  And can an act of belief in itself be dismissed as just another inevitable reaction?

[ippy]

Another good post Torri.
As I see it, there are three types of people on this thread.  There are those who want to believe in God, and select the evidence to support that belief.  And there are those who do not want to believe, and select evidence in support of that belief.  And there is a third, perhaps rarer category of those who want to seek the truth and try to look objectively at the evidence on both sides.

But what is it that drives this inner want?

How about the forth lot that see no good/worthwhile reason to go searching for this god idea of yours you keep on referring to in the first place?

Odds on I live just as good and purposeful life as you do, the difference is I live mine without wasting my time on such a pointless belief that hasn't even got the slightest bit of evidential support for any of it's magical, mystical superstition based parts of its so obviously man made ideas.

ippy

[Gordon]

Perhaps you have not understood the point I was making.

That much is true: your points are usually incomprehensible.

The can be no source of control in the materialist scenario where every biological event is entirely driven by the uncontrollable laws of nature.   For control to exist, there has to be an ultimate source which has the power to wilfully exert control.

So your mantra goes: pity it is too rambling to go an a T-shirt. 

Do you really believe that all your thoughts, words and actions are just inevitable reactions over which we have no control?  And can an act of belief in itself be dismissed as just another inevitable reaction?

Yes, pending further information to the contrary.