Searching for GOD...

[SusanDoris]

But nothing I have posted could be dismissed as being equivalent to 2+2=5.

Well, I'm no good at wit, but in this case I think I'd say that two plus two equals five is more sensible!!

[ippy]

And Evelyn Waugh, the author of what you deem to be a load of mindless drivel is recognised as one of the great prose stylists of the English language in the 20th century. (as quoted in Wiki)

Not one of us is or can be perfect I can only surmise this was one of E Waugh's off days, go to Aldus Huxley a contemporary of Evelyn Waugh and far more aware.

I don't think you'll ever realise how severely indoctrinated you are, you're a really sad case, you've never come up with or found anything that would be considered capable of supporting your god idea, all you seem to be capable of is to assert knowledge without underwriting any of it.

Surly the fact you haven't been able to supply anything that could be taken as viable evidence that would confirm for once and all that this god idea of yours actually exists and nor has anyone else, it must be telling you something, it has to be?

The fact you never reply to a post of this nature shows your fingers in the ears etc.., attitude only too well.

Necessarily the kindest of regards and good wishes for your health Alan, ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, I agree but I am questioning the extent of 'all'.  Does that mean all posts since the beginning of this topic, all posts on every topic, all posts addressed to him, all posts written by you.  You said  'he has stated that he understands all posts completely' so if you could direct me to this statement I can see for myself and that it's not you exaggerating for effect.

Here you go reply 25090
www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.25075

[Nearly Sane]

But nothing I have posted could be dismissed as being equivalent to 2+2=5.

Most of it can be because of your use of logical fallacies.

[Sriram]

On the basis of not using my intellect, I readily came to the conclusion that if your God represents some sort of truth, no such God exists. Then I decided to use my intellect, and came to the much sounder conclusion that I would be foolish to dismiss any god at all. A far more sensible position would be not to have an actual belief in any god until evidence accrued which would make my unbelief unsustainable. Until then, I could simply disregard any thought of his existence. Are you suggesting that I should simply revert back to my intuitions and innermost feelings in some sort of a search for truth?

Actually, in spirituality intellect is regarded as only of limited value.  Our eyes and ears  are very useful but are of limited value in knowing the universe. Similarly the intellect is also very useful in our lives but of limited value in understanding the intricacies of our inner experiences.

Spirituality and  religion emphasize direct knowing of reality rather than intellectual understanding. 

[ippy]

Yes...birds are smart and have been known to do amazing things.

Looking out of my balcony there are plenty of trees and about 10-12 species of birds.  It is bright sunny with clear blue sky nearly 9 months in the year. So, dozens of kites circling high up in the blue sky. Plenty of parrots. Koyal (cuckoo), barbets, bulbul (nightingale), owls , hawks, partridges...and the usual crows and pigeons. Lots of squirrels and sometimes even monkeys. A tribe lives in a nearby wooded area and they visit now and then.

There were plenty of sparrows at one time but they seem to have disappeared now. I saw sparrows only in Paris last year.

Cheers ippy.

Sriram

Our Jim reckons this little Robin uses something out of quantum physics, to navigate, when you fully understand how he arrived at his conclusion Sriram, please pass it on to me so that I can understand him as well.

It's a bit of a brain teaser, but I'm sure Jim has got something going by his past record.

Regards ippy

[ippy]

Actually, in spirituality intellect is regarded as only of limited value.  Our eyes and ears  are very useful but are of limited value in knowing the universe. Similarly the intellect is also very useful in our lives but of limited value in understanding the intricacies of our inner experiences.

Spirituality and  religion emphasize direct knowing of reality rather than intellectual understanding.

And how do you know this?

Regards ippy

[Sriram]

Our Jim reckons this little Robin uses something out of quantum physics, to navigate, when you fully understand how he arrived at his conclusion Sriram, please pass it on to me so that I can understand him as well.

It's a bit of a brain teaser, but I'm sure Jim has got something going by his past record.

Regards ippy

  See above post to enki. Intellectual understanding is never the answer to many things.  It has its usefulness but should not be over stated.

The objective of the Robin is to fly, not to understand its own flight mechanism.

This is where life becomes intricate. We have evolved an ability to understand things intellectually. It is useful but perhaps we are over doing it. Intellectual understanding can become an obsessive need just like other needs. 

Spirituality and religions try to wean us away from too much of intellectualism.

[Sriram]

And how do you know this?

Regards ippy

Through spiritual practice!

[ekim]

Here you go reply 25090
www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.25075

OK, thanks, a bit of a rash statement I should think. It's too easy to misunderstand what others are communicating on a discussion site.

[Nearly Sane]

OK, thanks, a bit of a rash statement I should think. It's too easy to misunderstand what others are communicating on a discussion site.

Agree. As I have noted since I doubt people's ability to fully understand their own posts.

[floo]

But nothing I have posted could be dismissed as being equivalent to 2+2=5.

Your statements about god could be viewed in that way.

[wigginhall]

But nothing I have posted could be dismissed as being equivalent to 2+2=5.

Well, within maths as we use it, we can say that 2 + 2 = 5, is wrong.   Some of your assertions don't seem to reach that level. As the saying goes, they are 'not even wrong'.   

[ippy]

Through spiritual practice!

Sorry, you're welcome to that, I'm sure you really believe what you say.

regards ippy

[Robbie]

Tantric off the menu tonight then Ippy? 

[ippy]

Tantric off the menu tonight then Ippy? 

If I had any idea what tantric was I'd give you an answer Rob.

Regards ippy

[ippy]

If I had any idea what tantric was I'd give you an answer Rob.

Regards ippy

P S Googled it, looks like another word for bollocks, do I really need to say?

[torridon]

But nothing I have posted could be dismissed as being equivalent to 2+2=5.

Eh ? You are joking right ? Pretty much all your claims are similarly self contradictory.

Just off the top of my head, we have :

- a god of goodness that hates sin yet creates the Devil and continues to tolerate the Devil day in day out.
- an all powerful creator god that seemingly cannot get his creation right from the get go and has been having to tinker with evolution every since to try to get his desired result
- a god that is open to all yet hides from many, refusing to manifest in any public verifiable way, preferring secret telepathic communication with individuals only
- a god who wishes to make himself known to the human species but uses methods calculated to hide all evidence of his interventions so utterly so that it is impossible for science to detect it
- free will depending on our ability to think thoughts before we thought them
- free will depending on a soul's ability to make meaningful choices on a basis that is not contingent upon the relevant considerations
- a god who loves all but just uses his supreme cosmic powers to do trivial favours in secret for his acolytes leaving others to suffer
- a god who loves all but threatens all apart from his acolytes with unnecessary eternal destruction
- a god wishing to create a place for humanity creates a universe which is overwhelmingly inhospitable to life

 

[Alan Burns]

Eh ? You are joking right ? Pretty much all your claims are similarly self contradictory.

Just off the top of my head, we have :

- a god of goodness that hates sin yet creates the Devil and continues to tolerate the Devil day in day out.
- an all powerful creator god that seemingly cannot get his creation right from the get go and has been having to tinker with evolution every since to try to get his desired result
- a god that is open to all yet hides from many, refusing to manifest in any public verifiable way, preferring secret telepathic communication with individuals only
- a god who wishes to make himself known to the human species but uses methods calculated to hide all evidence of his interventions so utterly so that it is impossible for science to detect it
- free will depending on our ability to think thoughts before we thought them
- free will depending on a soul's ability to make meaningful choices on a basis that is not contingent upon the relevant considerations
- a god who loves all but just uses his supreme cosmic powers to do trivial favours in secret for his acolytes leaving others to suffer
- a god who loves all but threatens all apart from his acolytes with unnecessary eternal destruction
- a god wishing to create a place for humanity creates a universe which is overwhelmingly inhospitable to life

 

I just hope and pray that one day you will see the truth about God and His love for us.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Eh ? You are joking right ? Pretty much all your claims are similarly self contradictory.

Just off the top of my head, we have :

- a god of goodness that hates sin yet creates the Devil and continues to tolerate the Devil day in day out.

Let's not forget his tolerance of antitheism, reductionism and materialism, Rose tinted Pinkerism and religionethics day after day.

[Sriram]

Sorry, you're welcome to that, I'm sure you really believe what you say.

regards ippy

Ha..ha!  As with most people here, you ask lots of questions  but are unable to accommodate or digest the answers....even when they are not contrary to known facts. 

Anyway cheers! 

[torridon]

Let's not forget his tolerance of antitheism, reductionism and materialism, Rose tinted Pinkerism and religionethics day after day.

What's this supposed to be, mitigating circumstances ? character evidence ?  Hitler was fond of animals, apparently.

A god that creates evil is evil, whatever else he might have going on.

[torridon]

I just hope and pray that one day you will see the truth about God and His love for us.

He'd have to show some evidence for that, I can't see something that is not there. I cannot believe things for no reason.

First he'd have to show some evidence that he exists rather than hiding that evidence.  Then he'd have to show some evidence that he loves us rather than hiding it.

Nothing happens except by God's will, we are told; who are we to think we could force his hand to manifest if he doesn't want to ?

Clearly your hopes and prayers are out of line with god's will.

[torridon]

Actually, in spirituality intellect is regarded as only of limited value.  Our eyes and ears  are very useful but are of limited value in knowing the universe. Similarly the intellect is also very useful in our lives but of limited value in understanding the intricacies of our inner experiences.

Spirituality and  religion emphasize direct knowing of reality rather than intellectual understanding.

But what does it mean given that research ('intellectual understanding') demonstrates that 'direct knowing' is not direct knowing at all, but a personalised fabrication of more fundamental processes of mind.  To continue to emphasise direct knowing in that case reduces to choosing delusion, fully knowing it is delusion,  over truth.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's this supposed to be, mitigating circumstances ? character evidence ?  Hitler was fond of animals, apparently.

A god that creates evil is evil, whatever else he might have going on.

The idea of God needing to present "mitigating circumstances" to muggle antitheism is by turns mildly laughable and mildly distasteful.

The last sentence is a reductionist theology. The "God is a Barsteward" hypothesis was never really a good proof of atheism anyway.