Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

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?   

In this statement, you seem to be assuming that all reasons to believe in God must be "bad".

[Gordon]

In this statement, you seem to be assume that all reasons to believe in God must be "bad".

I've yet to encounter any good ones.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

Note to Mods: Maybe we should have one of those checks with weirdly shaped letters and numbers you have to complete to confirm that you're a real person? I'm pretty sure the BurnsBot is actually an algorithm programmed to ignore every falsification of its hopeless reasoning and instead to repeat endlessly basic misunderstandings of terms like "control", "ultimate source" etc.

Just a thought.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In this statement, you seem to be assume that all reasons to believe in God must be "bad".

"Bad" is a freighted term - "false" perhaps would be better, and it's not "all reasons" necessarily but rather "all reasons presented hitherto". That's not to say that one day someone somewhere won't come up with a reason to believe in "God" (or indeed in leprechauns) that's unfalsifiable, but so far at least the cupboard is bare. 

[Alan Burns]

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

It can be put quite simply -

I AM IN CONTROL

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It can be put quite simply -

I AM IN CONTROL

What do you mean by "I"?

[Gordon]

It can be put quite simply -

I AM IN CONTROL

You'd certainly get that on a T-shirt (or perhaps a sandwich board}. 

[ekim]

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.

I think it is more fundamental even than that.  Nobody seems to have described what is being looked for.  At least with unicorns, there is a rough idea.  In my post 23305, in response to Alan's claim 'God has made himself known to me' I suggested 'Perhaps you could expand upon this so that others can understand the nature of the experience.' in order to give seekers a clue, but so far no response.  It seems to be a case of knowers cannot tell and believers do not know.

[Shaker]

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.

You're here claiming that belief is voluntaristic, i.e. a matter of this freely conscious choice that you're for ever boring on about.

Easily dismissed: choose not to believe in a god. Choose of your own free will that there's no such thing. Choose to take it as true that no such entities exist anywhere.

If you say that you cannot do this but atheists can choose to disbelieve in a god, then needless to say you'll not only have pissed all over your attempt at an argument from a great height but will, as a special Brucie bonus, shown yourself up to be a monumental festering hypocrite.

[Shaker]

You'd certainly get that on a T-shirt (or perhaps a sandwich board}.

Or on a suspiciously soft wall.

In crayon.

[ekim]

You'd certainly get that on a T-shirt (or perhaps a sandwich board}.

I think a sandwich board would state 'God is in control'.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

What do you mean by "I"?

That which has the power control.
My soul of course.

Any emergent property can have no control in itself, because it is entirely defined by the deterministic reactions of the material it emerges from.

[torridon]

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

Can experience be compared with lack of experience ? Many who have religious experience make grand true-for-all claims of objective truth based on that experience.  I don't think it is valid to claim objective truth on the back of personal experience, especially given that others have no such experience.

[floo]

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

In their opinion!

[torridon]

I think it is more fundamental even than that.  Nobody seems to have described what is being looked for.  At least with unicorns, there is a rough idea.  In my post 23305, in response to Alan's claim 'God has made himself known to me' I suggested 'Perhaps you could expand upon this so that others can understand the nature of the experience.' in order to give seekers a clue, but so far no response.  It seems to be a case of knowers cannot tell and believers do not know.

Fair point.  How could you describe saltiness to someone who lacks a sense of taste ?  If god is unknowable and indescribable, how can so many specific claims be made as to the nature of god ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

That which has the power control.
My soul of course.

So just more circular reasoning then.

Any emergent property can have no control in itself, because it is entirely defined by the deterministic reactions of the material it emerges from.

And then a non sequitur to follow.

Have you any sense at all of how your very, very bad arguments undermine whatever point you think you're making?

Anything?

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I think it is more fundamental even than that.  Nobody seems to have described what is being looked for.  At least with unicorns, there is a rough idea.  In my post 23305, in response to Alan's claim 'God has made himself known to me' I suggested 'Perhaps you could expand upon this so that others can understand the nature of the experience.' in order to give seekers a clue, but so far no response.  It seems to be a case of knowers cannot tell and believers do not know.

This is true. "God" (any god) is fundamentally incoherent even conceptually, but there's a sort of unwritten contract here where some of us tacitly say, "OK, let's pretend that you and we know what it is you're talking about, now let's see whether your arguments for it hold water".

As it happens none so far at least have, but you're right: the proper response should be ignosticism - ie, "I have no idea what your talking about (and nor it seems have you)."   

[torridon]

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?

All our wants have an origin, and this places them firmly within a context of cause and effect.  If you ever wanted something for no reason, then it would be random. We do not choose what to want, this means that we are merely acting out impulses that are not of our choosing. This means that 'control' is an illusion; it means that 'choice' is really an illusion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can experience be compared with lack of experience ? Many who have religious experience make grand true-for-all claims of objective truth based on that experience.  I don't think it is valid to claim objective truth on the back of personal experience, especially given that others have no such experience.

Because the ontological discovery of God in experience rather than in the abstraction of philosophical debate changes the philosophical position of the person. On the other hand since I recognise your position to be philosophical with what must be a moment by moment repudiation of your experience I for one know that you are going to approach every proposition from an empiricists point of view.

That isn't to say that there can be no intellectual conversion since I understand the idea of an intelligent creator who is not of the universe but is outside it is now considered not unreasonable by people self identifying as atheist.

[wigginhall]

Because the ontological discovery of God in experience rather than in the abstraction of philosophical debate changes the philosophical position of the person. On the other hand since I recognise your position to be philosophical with what must be a moment by moment repudiation of your experience I for one know that you are going to approach every proposition from an empiricists point of view.

That isn't to say that there can be no intellectual conversion since I understand the idea of an intelligent creator who is not of the universe but is outside it is now considered not unreasonable by people self identifying as atheist.

Just curious who you mean by that, since Tyson has explicitly rejected the label of atheist.   Do you mean somebody else?

"And he’s definitely not an atheist.

But he doesn’t believe in god.

Curious how that works? Well, if you go to Tyson’s Wikipedia page, you’ll see that Tyson describes himself as a “passionate agnostic”. In a recent interview with Christopher Thielen of the American Atheist Podcast, he explained that he’d repeatedly had to go back in and edit it when people wikied him to an atheist."

https://scathingatheist.com/2011/05/30/is-neil-degrasse-tyson-an-atheist/

[Shaker]

That doesn't reflect creditably on Tyson though - he seems to regard atheism and agnosticism as mutually exclusive. The blogger above comes down pretty hard on him - justifiably, in my view.

[wigginhall]

That doesn't reflect creditably on Tyson though - he seems to regard atheism and agnosticism as mutually exclusive.

Yes, he sounds confused, but Vlad used the term 'self-identifying as an atheist', when in fact Tyson has corrected his Wiki page repeatedly, when it says he is. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just curious who you mean by that, since Tyson has explicitly rejected the label of atheist.   Do you mean somebody else?

"And he’s definitely not an atheist.

But he doesn’t believe in god.

Curious how that works? Well, if you go to Tyson’s Wikipedia page, you’ll see that Tyson describes himself as a “passionate agnostic”. In a recent interview with Christopher Thielen of the American Atheist Podcast, he explained that he’d repeatedly had to go back in and edit it when people wikied him to an atheist."

https://scathingatheist.com/2011/05/30/is-neil-degrasse-tyson-an-atheist/

Can you point out where in my post I mention Tyson?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, he sounds confused, but Vlad used the term 'self-identifying as an atheist', when in fact Tyson has corrected his Wiki page repeatedly, when it says he is.

Where did I mention The word Tyson in my post?

[wigginhall]

Where did I mention The word Tyson in my post?

That's why I said 'do you mean somebody else?'