Searching for GOD...

[Rhiannon]

One word would have sufficed: masochism.

Not quite. A bit of persecution complex perhaps.

[Shaker]

Not quite. A bit of persecution complex perhaps.

But to persist in putting yourself in situations where you are "persecuted" (which in forum terms reaches the dizzy heights of being critiqued and challenged) is surely masochism.

[Alan Burns]

Science extends limited human perception.  It does not limit it.  There would be no point in science if it limited us.

Science may well extend our limited human perception of how things work, but it offers no insight into the nature of a designer responsible for enabling things to work.  Science does not limit human perception - our human perception is not limited by science.

[ekim]

Because they like to try and despise those who don't agree with them? Seems a bit odd as a proselytising message.

I doubt whether it is a proselytising message but more an anticipation of what can confront the preacher i.e. there will be those who will endeavour to trample under foot what has been said and the parable of the seeds also includes the possibility of some of the seeds falling upon fertile soil.  As there are almost 4 times as many viewers as posters on this thread, perhaps Alan is hoping that there is some fertile soil.

[Alan Burns]

The probability of "unguided" evolutionary theory being correct relies on the evidence for it (which is overwhelming).

In your opinion.  Many would disagree.

[Nearly Sane]

In your opinion.  Many would disagree.

Many would disagree the earth is round - so what?

[Rhiannon]

But to persist in putting yourself in situations where you are "persecuted" (which in forum terms reaches the dizzy heights of being critiqued and challenged) is surely masochism.

Not if it just confirms what your big book tells you happens to true believers. It confirms faith, hence the warm and fuzzies.

[Walter]

In your opinion.  Many would disagree.

those who disagree are idiots though , which side are you on AB?

[Alan Burns]

Nobody is saying that there isn't spiritual awareness in human beings, although I suspect that you and I mean different things by that. Non believers can have a spiritual awareness too. Its a very important part of my life.

My own meaning of spiritual can be summed up in this online dictionary definition:

adjective: spiritual
    1.
    relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

But I suspect many on this forum will deny the existence of anything spiritual in this context.

[torridon]

Science may well extend our limited human perception of how things work, but it offers no insight into the nature of a designer responsible for enabling things to work..

Human perception and science both offer no insight into anything supernatural, that much flows from the definition of 'supernatural'.  All you have is irrational conjecture that is permanently beyond any verification.

[Gordon]

Science may well extend our limited human perception of how things work, but it offers no insight into the nature of a designer responsible for enabling things to work.

If not science then you'll need a method which is comparably robust to methodological science whereby this enabling designer claim can be systematically investigated: if you don't have one, old chap, then do us a favour and stop bleating on about science since all you are doing is critiquing it for not being what it isn't anyway.

We can agree science doesn't do supernatural woo - the problem you have is that you have nothing that does do supernatural woo.

Science does not limit human perception - our human perception is not limited by science.

This is just theobabble.

[Alan Burns]

But to persist in putting yourself in situations where you are "persecuted" (which in forum terms reaches the dizzy heights of being critiqued and challenged) is surely masochism.

I am a Christian posting my views on the Christian section of this forum.  Is this masochism?

[Shaker]

I am a Christian posting my views on the Christian section of this forum.  Is this masochism?

That Christian section is for the discussion of Christianity, though and not a Christian-only section (as though such a thing was enforceable in the first place). This means that non-Christians debate as well and therefore you're going to have bad arguments demolished - which they are, thoroughly.

Continually having your woeful arguments shot down in flames on an almost daily basis and yet persisting in making the same old mistakes over and over and over and over and over and over and over again certainly looks like masochism to me.

[Alan Burns]

We can agree science doesn't do supernatural woo - the problem you have is that you have nothing that does do supernatural woo.

Apart from my ability to consciously choose my own destiny.

[Gordon]

Apart from my ability to consciously choose my own destiny.

As I said: theobabble.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In your opinion.  Many would disagree.

And many wouldn't - specifically the ones who know something about he subject. Either way though, its irrelevant because you've just tried (yet) another logical fallacy, the argumentum ad consequentiam. 

I also by the way described a few posts ago you behaviour here - posting errors, having them corrected, ignoring the corrections, then repeating the errors. When you denied it I took the time to explain line-by-line what your errors were only for you to ignore the explanations, thereby repeating exactly the behaviour I ascribed to you.

Why do you do that? If you really are confident in your beliefs, why would you not want to engage with the arguments that undo you in order to counter them rather than just pretend they haven't been made?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am a Christian posting my views on the Christian section of this forum.

But this is the Christian discussion section. You however clearly have no intention of discussing anything, and nor indeed do you show any sign of being capable of discussing anything. Just repeating endlessly fallacious assertions mantra-like is at best suited to the faith sharing area, where those who presumably like that kind of thing can enjoy it.
 

Is this masochism?

Dunno – I have no way of telling what you get out of having your proverbial handed to you in a sling every time you're corrected by someone more capable of thinking than you are, but whether it's masochism, lack of self-awareness, dimwittedness, whatever makes no difference to your problem really.   

[Alan Burns]

This means that non-Christians debate as well and therefore you're going to have bad arguments demolished - which they are, thoroughly.

My perception on this forum is that any arguments in support of Christian faith are considered to be bad arguments in the opinion of the non believers.  This to me confirms the opening post of this thread which suggests that many on this forum seek reasons not to believe rather than seek God.  As I have stated previously, many arguments boil down to differences of opinion.  But what is it that drives our personal opinions?

[Nearly Sane]

My perception on this forum is that any arguments in support of Christian faith are considered to be bad arguments in the opinion of the non believers.  This to me confirms the opening post of this thread which suggests that many on this forum seek reasons not to believe rather than seek God.  As I have stated previously, many arguments boil down to differences of opinion.  But what is it that drives our personal opinions?

Back at calling those who disagree with you luars. Why do you do this so frequently, Alan?

[SusanDoris]

And as usual |I shudder to think how many children have been affected by the non sense constantly posted by AB.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Science may well extend our limited human perception of how things work, but it offers no insight into the nature of a designer responsible for enabling things to work.

But that's only because those who would posit that conjecture offer nothing with which science can engage to investigate it - ie, evidence.

And your problem there Alan is that, other than your assertions on the matter, you offer no alternative means of investigation of any kind.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My perception on this forum is that any arguments in support of Christian faith are considered to be bad arguments in the opinion of the non believers.

Then, as so often, your perception is wrong. The logic involved has nothing to do with being a believer or being a non-believer – it stands on its own. A bad argument is a bad argument is a bad argument whether it’s arguing for god, leprechauns or the man in the moon. In many ways what you’re arguing for (or, more accurately, asserting) doesn’t matter at all. As soon as the argument for it fails, then all you have is white noise. 

This to me confirms the opening post of this thread which suggests that many on this forum seek reasons not to believe rather than seek God.

Which is perhaps a convenient way for you to process the falsification of your position, but it doesn’t address it and moreover it relies on your accusation that other people are being dishonest.

What does that say about you do you think?

As I have stated previously, many arguments boil down to differences of opinion.  But what is it that drives our personal opinions?

And as has been explained (rather than just “stated”) to you many times in reply, no it doesn’t. A false argument remains a false argument no matter what your opinion about its conclusion.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

[Shaker]

My perception on this forum is that any arguments in support of Christian faith are considered to be bad arguments in the opinion of the non believers.  This to me confirms the opening post of this thread which suggests that many on this forum seek reasons not to believe rather than seek God.  As I have stated previously, many arguments boil down to differences of opinion. 

Your "perception" tells you that logical fallacies are no more than differences of subjective opinion, on the same footing as preferring Utterly Butterly against Clover. Once again, your perception is flat wrong. Since my suspicion is that you know this full well, it explains why you consistently fail to engage with it.

[Gordon]

My perception on this forum is that any arguments in support of Christian faith are considered to be bad arguments in the opinion of the non believers.

Then you'd be wrong. That the pro-god arguments offered here can be shown to be fallacious is not a matter of opinion. Some basic reading on logical fallacies should be sufficient for you to junk this notion of yours.

This to me confirms the opening post of this thread which suggests that many on this forum seek reasons not to believe rather than seek God.  As I have stated previously, many arguments boil down to differences of opinion.

Then you'd be wrong, again, and are ignoring what people actually say to you.
U

But what is it that drives our personal opinions?

That's your biology, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

Your "perception" tells you that logical fallacies are no more than differences of subjective opinion, on the same footing as preferring Utterly Butterly against Clover. Once again, your perception is flat wrong. Since my suspicion is that you know this full well, it explains why you consistently fail to engage with it.

I engage with the logic that tells me my ability to choose my own arguments is derived from the gift of conscious free will, which has no feasible explanation in the materialist scenario other than: "Well it must be an illusion because that's what the (scientific) evidence suggests."