Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

I did not imply there was anything supernatural about gravity.  I was just pointing out that we do not have the ability to detect what it is, and we only know it is there by its effect on material.  I used this to highlight the limitations of our human senses.

That still leaves you to explain why a god wishing us to know some spiritual realm would so limit our senses that it is undetectable.

[Alan Burns]

That still leaves you to explain why a god wishing us to know some spiritual realm would so limit our senses that it is undetectable.

God has given us a profound insight into the spiritual nature of things, which is evidenced by human history in seeking God.  That there is a barrier between us and God does not imply that He does not exist.  Some of the barrier may be man made, some may be from another source.

[Stranger]

You can detect the presence of gravity by its effect on material elements, but not gravity itself.

Good grief - what an utterly bizarre universe you inhabit! We can only detect anything because of its effects.

The way we investigate what is there is called science and it involves constructing hypotheses and then testing them to produce theories. This has been done in the case of gravity and has not been done in the case of souls or any of the thousands of gods...

[torridon]

God has given us a profound insight into the spiritual nature of things, which is evidenced by human history in seeking God.  That there is a barrier between us and God does not imply that He does not exist.  Some of the barrier may be man made, some may be from another source.

That's nonsensical and circular, assuming the conclusion as a starting premise. Neither does it answer the previous question :

That still leaves you to explain why a god wishing us to know some spiritual realm would so limit our senses that it is undetectable.

If our senses are limited and we are created by a god then it follows that our senses are limited by divine design; this 'barrier' would be entirely of god's contrivance.  This is just one of many contradictions in this thinking - A god wishing us to know the spiritual realm would not stitch us up in such a way as this spiritual realm is inaccessible to us.

[Stranger]

God has given us a profound insight into the spiritual nature of things, which is evidenced by human history in seeking God.

There is a history of humans erroneously ascribing purpose and meaning where there is none. Hence the endless gods, ghosts, spirits, astrology, and other superstitions.

That there is a barrier between us and God does not imply that He does not exist.  Some of the barrier may be man made, some may be from another source.

Which brings us right back to the question that you have been ignored: if this god exists, has an important message, and has the ability to communicate with us, why isn't it obvious? Why the silly game of hide-and-seek?

And no, you can't just blame us or some devil - if an almighty god wanted to make itself known, it would be able to do so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

God has given us a profound insight into the spiritual nature of things, which is evidenced by human history in seeking God.

Why not try to work out for yourself why that non sequitur is so wrong?

If enough people go looking for dragons does that constitute evidence for dragons in your mind?
 

That there is a barrier between us and God does not imply that He does not exist.

Ah, the negative proof fallacy. It's been a while. Of course no evidence for "God" does not mean that "He does not exist" at all, any more than no evidence for leprechauns means they do not exist.

How do you think that helps you?
 

Some of the barrier may be man made, some may be from another source.

Or those "barriers" may not be barriers at all because there's no reason to think there's a god to hide behind them.

That's your problem here remember? Demonstrate "God" first and then we'll worry about why he's so fond of playing hide and seek.

[SusanDoris]

AB

The effects of gravity are the same for all - if you jump off the top of  a tall building and another person does too, you will both end up on the ground.

You tried to make an analogy with souls, but that is total rubbish. How would you observe and measure the effects of souls?

It is not clever to avoid answering questions, it is very discourteous.

[wigginhall]

The idea of a barrier to God seems both bizarre and hilarious, as if God is cowering behind it, waiting like a shy wallflower, for us to find him.   Oh yes, AB will now spout about God granting us free will, so that we can overcome the barriers or not.   Let's face it, he is impaled on so many contradictions now, if he was a fish, I would either throw him back in the water, or grill him for dinner.

[ippy]

God has given us a profound insight into the spiritual nature of things, which is evidenced by human history in seeking God.  That there is a barrier between us and God does not imply that He does not exist.  Some of the barrier may be man made, some may be from another source.

How can you or anyone else with a similar view possibly know any of these things you have stated asserted in this post of yours?

This post of yours and the things you say within it can only be conjecture and there's no logical or rational basis for making such statements within this post of yours and why is it being irrational for as many occasions as you have doesn't seem to bother you.

It doesn't matter how fluffed up and full of authoritative notions are given by anybody that makes such a statement, not just you, it still needs a well considered amount of substance to make anything worth listening to, we, all of us are able to assert anything we like, but as you must be aware, it doesn't necessarily lend any credibility to the assertion or assertions made.

All of the very best wishes and kind thoughts to you Alan, you need them, ippy     

[SteveH]

That still leaves you to explain why a god wishing us to know some spiritual realm would so limit our senses that it is undetectable.

The orthodox answer would be that God wants to leave us free to choose. If we had direct experience of God, we would not really have a choice.

[wigginhall]

Come on, God is playing hard to get.   He's a big tease.   

[Stranger]

The orthodox answer would be that God wants to leave us free to choose. If we had direct experience of God, we would not really have a choice.

Even leaving aside the logical contradiction of having a 'free choice' from the point of view of an omniscient, omnipotent creator, that makes no sense. If we have no reason to think that this god even exists, let alone the exact nature of any choice, how can our 'choice' be in any sense free?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

The orthodox answer would be that God wants to leave us free to choose. If we had direct experience of God, we would not really have a choice.

Then the orthodox answer is crap.

Stranger has already addressed the free choice problem, but even then what kind of god would he who wanted you to know he was there but didn't provide any argument or evidence to indicate that he was?

Alan invites us to "take the first step in faith" or some such - ie, just to assume the premise and to hell with reason or logic - but even then he provides no good reason for anyone to select his faith rather than any of the others. Why not a first step in faith in the Sumerian gods, the Roman god, the Amazonian tree spirits etc?

[Nearly Sane]

SteveH,

Then the orthodox answer is crap.

Stranger has already addressed the free choice problem, but even then what kind of god would he who wanted you to know he was there but didn't provide any argument or evidence to indicate that he was?

Alan invites us to "take the first step in faith" or some such - ie, just to assume the premise and to hell with reason or logic - but even then he provides no good reason for anyone to select his faith rather than any of the others. Why not a first step in faith in the Sumerian gods, the Roman god, the Amazonian tree spirits etc?

And indeed what a 'first step in faith' might be?

[Dicky Underpants]

The reality I perceive is all God's creation, in particular myself.

Start with Schopenhauer, page 1, and work on from there. It will at least show you that there are different routes to take that lead on from the phrase "The reality I perceive..."

[Rhiannon]

The orthodox answer would be that God wants to leave us free to choose. If we had direct experience of God, we would not really have a choice.

And yet it’s a choice that leaves us damned. According to orthodox belief.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Hi Susan,

He never will. AB’s approach is as follows:
1. Assert a faith belief as if it's a fact

It may be a fact, it may not be a fact. What is missing is proof.

2. When asked why he thinks it’s a fact, make one (or several) very bad arguments to validate it

According to you. Do not presume to think that everyone agrees with the foundation that is the basis for your arguments.

3. Receive logically coherent rebuttals

A euphemism for disagreement with what he has said. It also puts you in the embarrassing position of violating your own point 1:
1. Assert a faith belief as if it's a fact

4. Ignore the rebuttals and repeat the very bad arguments

A euphemism for he disagrees with the point made. Again,  it puts you in the embarrassing position of violating your own point 1:

5. Receive more rebuttals

As per response to 3

6. Concede that his arguments may not be “watertight”

You should be congratulating him on this.

7. Have explained to him that the problem isn’t that they’re not watertight, it’s that they’re flat wrong

A euphemism for he disagrees with your conclusion. Again, you are violating your own point 1. YOU are the one claiming your position as true by default, so it follows that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, by default.

8. Repeat Step 1

Which you do time and time again.

And on and on it goes.

Indeed.

Every single charge here (and elsewhere) that you lay against Alan Burns (and elsewhere with e.g. Private FraZer) is something you do yourself! Bluehillside looks in the mirror and tries to claim that the reflection is not him, rofl

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Go on Amazon and see how many soul-meters you can find on sale.

I did. I couldn't find any ...

There again, I couldn't find any love-meters, enthusiasm-meters, funny-meters, ...

You won't find any, probably because of the same reason that CERN would be unable to detect them.  They don't exist, that is why they are hard to detect.

Guess that means that love, enthusiasm, funny (humour), ... doesn't exist.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Well said, indeed. But AB's woolly, saccharine desperately predictable thinking will no doubt be trotted out as usual.

desperately predictable thinking being trotted out as usual. I suppose in your case, it's ok.

[Gordon]

I did. I couldn't find any ...

There again, I couldn't find any love-meters, enthusiasm-meters, funny-meters, ...
Guess that means that love, enthusiasm, funny (humour), ... doesn't exist.

Don't be silly: it just means that these terms are subjective.

[Stranger]

Every single charge here (and elsewhere) that you lay against Alan Burns (and elsewhere with e.g. Private FraZer) is something you do yourself! Bluehillside looks in the mirror and tries to claim that the reflection is not him, rofl

Humm... all you've done here is make some unsupported assertions about what is a 'euphemism' for what. What you consistently lack the intellectual courage to do is actually take part in the discussion and substantiate your many claims...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

AB,

...

That's your problem here remember? Demonstrate "God" first and then we'll worry about why he's so fond of playing hide and seek.

Inviting Alan Burns to play your game, I see ...

Alan: Please swim from A to B, but in doing so, you cannot use freestyle, breast stroke, butterfly, backstroke, ...

Bluehillside then goes away smug because Alan cannot swim from A to B.

[Stranger]

There again, I couldn't find any love-meters, enthusiasm-meters, funny-meters, ...
Guess that means that love, enthusiasm, funny (humour), ... doesn't exist.

Happy to put god in the same category as these subjective, personal experiences, are you?

[Gordon]

Inviting Alan Burns to play your game, I see ...

Alan: Please swim from A to B, but in doing so, you cannot use freestyle, breast stroke, butterfly, backstroke, ...

Bluehillside then goes away smug because Alan cannot swim from A to B.

You'll first need to demonstrate the existence of a swimming pool.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

It may be a fact, it may not be a fact. What is missing is proof.

Actually what’s missing is a cogent argument. Proof is another matter. For now, AB is squarely in “not even wrong” territory.

According to you. Do not presume to think that everyone agrees with the foundation that is the basis for your arguments.

No, according to logic. These things have been worked out, codified and documented over the centuries. The argumentum ad populum, the post hoc ergo propter hoc, the god of the gaps etc fallacies are all standard models. When AB (or anyone else) attempts them they’re necessarily making wrong arguments.

A euphemism for disagreement with what he has said. It also puts you in the embarrassing position of violating your own point 1:
1. Assert a faith belief as if it's a fact

Of course it doesn’t – see above.

A euphemism for he disagrees with the point made. Again,  it puts you in the embarrassing position of violating your own point 1:

Wrong again – see above.

As per response to 3

See above.

You should be congratulating him on this.

Why when it’s dissembling as if there was still some value in the arguement when flat wrong is flat wrong? If he said, “OK I was flat wrong about that” you might have a point though.

A euphemism for he disagrees with your conclusion. Again, you are violating your own point 1. YOU are the one claiming your position as true by default, so it follows that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, by default.

Wrong again – see above. When an argument aligns exactly with the construction of a logical fallacy then it’s a wrong argument. There’s no wriggle room there.

Which you do time and time again.

Clearly not true as I don’t assert faith claims as if they are facts. Why pretend otherwise?

Indeed.

Every single charge here (and elsewhere) that you lay against Alan Burns (and elsewhere with e.g. Private FraZer) is something you do yourself! Bluehillside looks in the mirror and tries to claim that the reflection is not him, rofl

If you think so then why not try to find an example of it? OK, you’ve crashed and burned again here but just because you’ve always been wrong so far (and then refused to man up when your wrongness has been explained to you – see your “gullible” mistake for example ) doesn’t mean that you necessarily will be in future.

Good luck with it!