Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

No, that's not the point here. You posit a god that will find your contact lens but will allow a child to suffer in agony. It isn't a reason to not believe in a god, it's a reason to believe that the god you believe is a capricious thug.

If you allow yourself to just look at the negative things about Christianity you will never find God.  There are many positives which will help you find God, and once you have found Him, He will help you sort out the negatives.  I admit that I do not have all the answers to the points you make - only God has the whole picture which I hope to share once I get to heaven.  What I have is faith in God's love for us all, and I am able to put all my hope and trust in Him.  And I will continue to pray for little things as well as big things because faithful prayer is the means we have to open up God's power to help us in our earthly life.

[floo]

If you allow yourself to just look at the negative things about Christianity you will never find God.  There are many positives which will help you find God, and once you have found Him, He will help you sort out the negatives.  I admit that I do not have all the answers to the points you make - only God has the whole picture which I hope to share once I get to heaven.  What I have is faith in God's love for us all, and I am able to put all my hope and trust in Him.  And I will continue to pray for little things as well as big things because faithful prayer is the means we have to open up God's power to help us in our earthly life.

That is your belief to which you are entitled, however others don't live in your little cocoon. My experience of Christianity was not pleasant, god, if it exists, didn't do anything positive for me, I never had any sense it was there. It was a relief when I lost my faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If you allow yourself to just look at the negative things about Christianity you will never find God.  There are many positives which will help you find God, and once you have found Him, He will help you sort out the negatives.  I admit that I do not have all the answers to the points you make - only God has the whole picture which I hope to share once I get to heaven.

Nope. What some people actually do is to identify the failings in the arguments you attempt to demonstrate that the claims of (your version of) Christianity are true. It’s not that people “will never find God” as you put it but rather, absent a cogent argument for “God” in the first place, people won’t find a good reason to think there is a god at all.   

What I have is faith in God's love for us all, and I am able to put all my hope and trust in Him.  And I will continue to pray for little things as well as big things because faithful prayer is the means we have to open up God's power to help us in our earthly life.

I’m sure you do have faith in your god, just as lots of other people have their own faiths about lots of other gods. Your problem when you proselytise for it though is that you offer nothing whatever that would cause others to think that your faith is well-placed.

In short, the only rational response to, “But that’s my faith” is, “So what?”

[Alan Burns]

That's not consistent with your claim in #23590 that cause and effect is unavoidable.

Choosing which path to follow is merely us enacting our preference in any given situation, and we have no control over our preferences or beliefs. We cannot choose what to want.

If you fully understood my #23590 you should realise that I was implying that the human self is capable of consciously initiating the start of a physical chain of cause and effect by using the spiritual willpower of the soul.  The implementation of a conscious choice requires a consciously initiated event.  But if you assume that the conscious self is generated purely by physical events then I agree that a conscious choice is just an unavoidable reaction.  But if the spiritual power of the soul does exist, you can't just apply the same logic as you do with physical cause and effect because you do not know what the human soul is capable of or how it works.   The reality most of us perceive is that we do have the power to consciously choose our thoughts, words and actions.  And if this perception is true, we can thank God for this amazing gift because it certainly can't be achieved by physical means alone.

[floo]

Faith in any religion is just a matter of trust, but without the evidence to support its veracity.

[Gordon]

If you fully understood my #23590 you should realise that I was implying that the human self is capable of consciously initiating the start of a physical chain of cause and effect by using the spiritual willpower of the soul.  The implementation of a conscious choice requires a consciously initiated event.  But if you assume that the conscious self is generated purely by physical events then I agree that a conscious choice is just an unavoidable reaction.  But if the spiritual power of the soul does exist, you can't just apply the same logic as you do with physical cause and effect because you do not know what the human soul is capable of or how it works.   The reality most of us perceive is that we do have the power to consciously choose our thoughts, words and actions.  And if this perception is true, we can thank God for this amazing gift because it certainly can't be achieved by physical means alone.

This is possibly one of the better examples of theobabble we've seen here (amongst strong competition too).

[Nearly Sane]

If you allow yourself to just look at the negative things about Christianity you will never find God.  There are many positives which will help you find God, and once you have found Him, He will help you sort out the negatives.  I admit that I do not have all the answers to the points you make - only God has the whole picture which I hope to share once I get to heaven.  What I have is faith in God's love for us all, and I am able to put all my hope and trust in Him.  And I will continue to pray for little things as well as big things because faithful prayer is the means we have to open up God's power to help us in our earthly life.

I'm not looking at the negative things only. I'm just looking at the way you portray your god which is as capricious thug.

[Shaker]

If you allow yourself to just look at the negative things about Christianity you will never find God.  There are many positives which will help you find God, and once you have found Him, He will help you sort out the negatives.  I admit that I do not have all the answers to the points you make - only God has the whole picture which I hope to share once I get to heaven.  What I have is faith in God's love for us all, and I am able to put all my hope and trust in Him.

Epidermolysis bullosa.

Google is your friend, if you're unfamiliar with the term.

Novel notion of love you've got yourself there. But still: I suppose God is hard at work sorting it out, Alan?

[Walter]

If you fully understood my #23590 you should realise that I was implying that the human self is capable of consciously initiating the start of a physical chain of cause and effect by using the spiritual willpower of the soul.  The implementation of a conscious choice requires a consciously initiated event.  But if you assume that the conscious self is generated purely by physical events then I agree that a conscious choice is just an unavoidable reaction.  But if the spiritual power of the soul does exist, you can't just apply the same logic as you do with physical cause and effect because you do not know what the human soul is capable of or how it works.   The reality most of us perceive is that we do have the power to consciously choose our thoughts, words and actions.  And if this perception is true, we can thank God for this amazing gift because it certainly can't be achieved by physical means alone.

the fact that you are able to continue with this nonsense day after day is a credit to you.
You have my respect as one of the best trolls I've encountered  , good work Alan.

[torridon]

If you fully understood my #23590 you should realise that I was implying that the human self is capable of consciously initiating the start of a physical chain of cause and effect by using the spiritual willpower of the soul.  The implementation of a conscious choice requires a consciously initiated event.  But if you assume that the conscious self is generated purely by physical events then I agree that a conscious choice is just an unavoidable reaction.  But if the spiritual power of the soul does exist, you can't just apply the same logic as you do with physical cause and effect because you do not know what the human soul is capable of or how it works.   The reality most of us perceive is that we do have the power to consciously choose our thoughts, words and actions.  And if this perception is true, we can thank God for this amazing gift because it certainly can't be achieved by physical means alone.

I think the same logic does apply.

Whatever the mechanism of choice, be it a mind or a soul or an AI bot, a choice, or a 'new chain of cause and effect' either is a consequence of something prior, or it is not (in which case it is random).  You have not been able to say what is the origin or nature of the 'willpower of the human soul'. On what basis could a soul want to take some course of action other than it wanting to as a result of some of other determining factors ? If you want something for no reason, then it is random; if you want something for a reason, then that want is a consequence of that reason.

Just claiming that we do not understand the soul is nothing but a sleight of hand to buy cover, so you don't have to face up to the logic of the situation.

[wigginhall]

Yes, AB seems to think that by repeating the word 'physical' as often as possible, he can avoid the logic of cause and effect.   And then he says, 'you do not know what the human soul is capable of or how it works'.  Well, OK, please enlighten us about this.

It reminds me that Freud is often quoted as saying that mental events have mental causes, although I can't find the quote.   But it sounds in tune with his thinking, after he had given up neurology.   But he still argues that mental events do have causes, not that they are random.   

I suppose AB is comparing the soul with God, that it can initiate things completely out of nothing.   But this makes even less sense.

[SusanDoris]

If you allow yourself to just look at the negative things about Christianity you will never find God.  There are many positives which will help you find God, and once you have found Him, He will help you sort out the negatives.  I admit that I do not have all the answers to the points you make - only God has the whole picture which I hope to share once I get to heaven.  What I have is faith in God's love for us all, and I am able to put all my hope and trust in Him.  And I will continue to pray for little things as well as big things because faithful prayer is the means we have to open up God's power to help us in our earthly life.

How can all those babies NS refers to - which are real, acgtual babies, you know, not imagined ones - trust in a God they are not able to even think about.

[Alan Burns]

I think the same logic does apply.

Whatever the mechanism of choice, be it a mind or a soul or an AI bot, a choice, or a 'new chain of cause and effect' either is a consequence of something prior, or it is not (in which case it is random).  You have not been able to say what is the origin or nature of the 'willpower of the human soul'. On what basis could a soul want to take some course of action other than it wanting to as a result of some of other determining factors ? If you want something for no reason, then it is random; if you want something for a reason, then that want is a consequence of that reason.

Just claiming that we do not understand the soul is nothing but a sleight of hand to buy cover, so you don't have to face up to the logic of the situation.

Your logic seems to be stuck in the robotic action defined, driven and dictated entirely by past events with no form of conscious control or choice.  In your scenario there is no need for conscious awareness because everything is entirely pre defined.  Can you not see that at any one time we can be conscious of several possible courses of action each with their own reasons.  The conscious willpower of the human soul has the final say in which choice to make, and the reason for that choice is simply a consciously driven preference.  And it is certainly not random.

[Nearly Sane]

How can all those babies NS refers to - which are real, acgtual babies, you know, not imagined ones - trust in a God they are not able to even think about.

Alan does it for them. One contact lens is worth millions of babies suffering to Alan and his mad evil god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your logic seems to be stuck in the robotic action defined, driven and dictated entirely by past events with no form of conscious control or choice.  In your scenario there is no need for conscious awareness because everything is entirely pre defined.  Can you not see that at any one time we can be conscious of several possible courses of action each with their own reasons.  The conscious willpower of the human soul has the final say in which choice to make, and the reason for that choice is simply a consciously driven preference.  And it is certainly not random.

The BurnsBot has spoken. Can you not see that thinking logic is "stuck" at a conclusion you happen not to like tells you nothing whatever about whether it's right or wrong? Just inventing "soul" because it gives you an answer you happen to prefer but that's logically incoherent is hopeless thinking.   

[Sebastian Toe]

.  The conscious willpower of the human soul has the final say in which choice to make, and the reason for that choice is simply a consciously driven preference.  And it is certainly not random.

..then it is based on something? Something prior to the decision?

[Alan Burns]

..then it is based on something? Something prior to the decision?

It is driven by You!

[SteveH]

No, that's not the point here. You posit a god that will find your contact lens but will allow a child to suffer in agony. It isn't a reason to not believe in a god, it's a reason to believe that the god you believe is a capricious thug.

Or that God is not as omnipotent as we often think. It depends on what you mean by omnipotence. It can be defined as "able to do anything that can be done", but that may be less than we think. It is generally admitted that human free-will is a limit on God's omnipotence: I suggest that that limitation applies to the whole of creation. Obviously, it is foolish to talk without a lot of qualification of "free will" in relation to stones or trees, but something analogous to free-will may apply: matter is obdurate stuff, and even God can't do what God wants with it.
 

[Sebastian Toe]

It is driven by You!

...based on prior events!

[Nearly Sane]

Or that God is not as omnipotent as we often think. It depends on what you mean by omnipotence. It can be defined as "able to do anything that can be done", but that may be less than we think. It is generally admitted that human free-will is a limit on God's omnipotence: I suggest that that limitation applies to the whole of creation. Obviously, it is foolish to talk without a lot of qualification of "free will" in relation to stones or trees, but something analogous to free-will may apply: matter is obdurate stuff, and even God can't do what God wants with it.

Oh come now! A bit of  sarcasm a day helps you work, pest, and slay!


No. I get the idea about omnipotence but that creates problems for anyone claiming a miracle. Is their god sort of able to do good things but prevented because of the way they set this up? Which if they are omniscient is problematic. Alan Burns has cited the miracle of the found contact lens, and prevented parking ticket on her as why his god is great. He also thinks it saves some babies, but not others, from agonising deaths -it seems to me entirely reasonable to challenge the logic of that approach.

Essentially the god that Alan seems to have belief in follows a Panglossian rule that this is the best of all possible worlds because it choose it.

BTW I wasn't being sarcastic in the reply to Alan, I am genuinely disgusted that someone appears to think the miracle of the lost contact lens is worth being happy about while children die of natural causes in agony.

[SteveH]

Oh come now! A bit of  sarcasm a day helps you work, pest, and slay!

I agree, but I got rid of that final sentence!

[bluehillside Retd.]

HV,

Or that God is not as omnipotent as we often think. It depends on what you mean by omnipotence. It can be defined as "able to do anything that can be done", but that may be less than we think. It is generally admitted that human free-will is a limit on God's omnipotence: I suggest that that limitation applies to the whole of creation. Obviously, it is foolish to talk without a lot of qualification of "free will" in relation to stones or trees, but something analogous to free-will may apply: matter is obdurate stuff, and even God can't do what God wants with it.

Seriously? "Omni" means omni - it doesn't mean "a bit", "quite a lot", "omni normally but half day closing Wednesdays" or something. Doesn't bother me much because the whole "God" conjecture seems to me so deeply incoherent as to be gibberish anyway, but if you want to posit a god who's a bit powerful but not completely so that's up to you I guess.

Having diluted that omni though, why not dilute the others? "Omnipresent" could be, "present quite a bit, but nips round the back of the bike sheds when it suits" perhaps, and "omnibenevolent" could mean, "quite nice, but a bit of a bastard when he's having a grumpy day" or similar.

Go for it!   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

HV,

Seriously? "Omni" means omni - it doesn't mean "a bit", "quite a lot", "omni normally but half day closing Wednesdays" or something. Doesn't bother me much because the whole "God" conjecture seems to me so deeply incoherent as to be gibberish anyway, but if you want to posit a god who's a bit powerful but not completely so that's up to you I guess.

Having diluted that omni though, why not dilute the others? "Omnipresent" could be, "present quite a bit, but nips round the back of the bike sheds when it suits" perhaps, and "omnibenevolent" could mean, "quite nice, but a bit of a bastard when he's having a grumpy day" or similar.

Go for it!

The insertion of omnibenevolent in the omnis is a bit of a category fuck isn't it?
We Know potential is one thing and presence is another but benevolence is open to interpretation. Benevolent from your point of view or God's?

[Nearly Sane]

Omnipotence  is diluted immediately by the whole four sided triangle, or adolescence of that huge stone that he made that he might not be able to lift.
The idea that if you make decisions they have impacts if you are being consistent is surely not difficult?

In the end if you still have omniscience it's irrelevant as this must be the best of all possible worlds.

[Nearly Sane]

The insertion of omnibenevolent in the omnis is a bit of a category fuck isn't it?
We Know potential is one thing and presence is another but benevolence is open to interpretation. Benevolent from your point of view or God's?

Omnishambles.