Searching for GOD...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

AB

...

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

You missed an opportunity to back up your claim that what Alan said was total rubbish.

How do you observe and measure the effects of love, anger, enthusiasm? What are the SI units for these?

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

A euphemism for Alan answered the question, but I didn't like the answer and was not able to find a way to disagree with it, although I desperately want it to be wrong

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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

And the thing stopping you from investigating them for yourself is ...

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

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.

Yikes! When you crash you sure crash hard don't you. AB is free to use whatever "stroke" he likes. When the only stroke he has is "faith" though, then he has no argument against faith claims for anything else - leprechauns included.

Do you see where you've gone wrong again?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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.

Indeed, and human nature being what it is, the same people here complaining would be the first to complain that they have no choice in the matter.

[Stranger]

Inviting Alan Burns to play your game...

That would be the 'game' of actually producing some evidence or sound reasoning in order to support claims of objective fact, would it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

And the thing stopping you from investigating them for yourself is ...

The complete absence of a method of any kind with which to do the investigating.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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

There is a difference between putting your faith in God and putting your faith in arguments about God.

There is no tease involved. You guys just need to change your worldview. It's not difficult. I for example have less faith than Stephen Hawking because he is prepared to believe that you can start with nothing and after several billion years end up with where we are today!!. What kind of faith is required to believe that nothing can cause something and then the something can then self-enhance itself. Wow!!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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?

Did you choose to respond to SteveH's post, or did someone force you?

[Maeght]

Did you choose to respond to SteveH's post, or did someone force you?

Or neither?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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 has been very patient for a long time in giving plenty of examples, to which you always respond with why what he has suggested is wrong. It's one reason why I keep on accusing you of doing the equivalent of asking him to swim from A to B, but say that he cannot use breast-stroke, backstroke, etc.

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?

I want to introduce you to classical music and suggest that you listen to Rossini's William Tell overture. You then complain about why I chose that piece of music and not one of Rossini's other overtures, or any of his other music, or music from another composer.

Nothing is stopping you from making your own mind up.

[Stranger]

Did you choose to respond to SteveH's post, or did someone force you?

I chose to - what has that got to do with my point? How about growing a spine and getting involved with the actual arguments...?

[Gordon]

There is a difference between putting your faith in God and putting your faith in arguments about God.

There is no tease involved. You guys just need to change your worldview. It's not difficult. I for example have less faith than Stephen Hawking because he is prepared to believe that you can start with nothing and after several billion years end up with where we are today!!. What kind of faith is required to believe that nothing can cause something and then the something can then self-enhance itself. Wow!!

I think I see your strategy now: instead of wasting time waffling you just jump head-first into the nearest fallacy, as you've just demonstrated yet again.

If you are going to even dabble in philosophical-type arguments you're going to have to do some homework.

[torridon]

There is a difference between putting your faith in God and putting your faith in arguments about God.

There is no tease involved. You guys just need to change your worldview. It's not difficult. I for example have less faith than Stephen Hawking because he is prepared to believe that you can start with nothing and after several billion years end up with where we are today!!. What kind of faith is required to believe that nothing can cause something and then the something can then self-enhance itself. Wow!!

Short answer : the faith required to believe in a 'creator' that can create something from nothing is even greater.  Longer, more nuanced answers are available if you actually want to stick around and engage with ideas.

[Stranger]

There is no tease involved. You guys just need to change your worldview. It's not difficult. I for example have less faith than Stephen Hawking because he is prepared to believe that you can start with nothing and after several billion years end up with where we are today!!. What kind of faith is required to believe that nothing can cause something and then the something can then self-enhance itself. Wow!!

Where to begin....

• I don't believe that is what Stephen Hawking believes (and I've read quite a lot about what he does believe).
  
  
• The existence of an unknown (why the universe exists) does not make one particular baseless story (your or AB's god) about it (amongst many, many other baseless stories) any more believable.
  
  
• Postulating a god doesn't provide any actual explanation anyway - it just changes the problem: "why this universe?" is just replaced with "why this god?"
  
  
• So actually god (if it exists) is definitely teasing and playing silly hide-and-seek games.
  
  
• How about growing that backbone, sticking around, getting involved, and putting some real arguments forward?

[ippy]

And the thing stopping you from investigating them for yourself is ...

The lack of any verifiable evidence that is pointing to there being any such thing as a god.

Point me to some verifiable evidence that proves your case that there is such a thing as a god, if the evidence proves your case I will join you and become as devout as you are, I can't see I'll be joining you S O S, any time soon.

Regards ippy

[Maeght]

Where to begin....

• I don't believe that is what Stephen Hawking believes (and I've read quite a lot about what he does believe).
  
  
• The existence of an unknown (why the universe exists) does not make one particular baseless story (your or AB's god) about it (amongst many, many other baseless stories) any more believable.
  
  
• Postulating a god doesn't provide any actual explanation anyway - it just changes the problem: "why this universe?" is just replaced with "why this god?"
  
  
• So actually god (if it exists) is definitely teasing and playing silly hide-and-seek games.
  
  
• How about growing that backbone, sticking around, getting involved, and putting some real arguments forward?

Stephen Hawking has said recently that there was nothing before the big bang.

[Alan Burns]

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?

Our freedom to choose is a God given gift, the nature of which is beyond our understanding - but that does not prevent us from using this gift.

[Alan Burns]

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

But in a purely deterministic world, nothing can be subjective since everything is entirely defined by past events over which we have no control.  Love must emanate from the free will of the human soul, for love not freely given is no love at all.

[Nearly Sane]

Our freedom to choose is a God given gift, the nature of which is beyond our understanding - but that does not prevent us from using this gift.

So you just ignored the questiin to post random pabulum. Ignorant and discourteous.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

There is a difference between putting your faith in God and putting your faith in arguments about God.

No there isn’t. There have to be compelling arguments for this “God” before you can decide that he exists (at least for some of us). “Putting you faith” in this god absent any argument to support the proposition on the other hand is just guessing. So why pick one such guess over any other?

There is no tease involved. You guys just need to change your worldview. It's not difficult.

Why do we need to do that? Why don’t you need to change your worldview to a rational one, or for that matter to one that embraces the aborigine animal spirits or the Amazonian tribes peoples’ tree spirits? What makes your guess any more special than theirs?

I for example have less faith than Stephen Hawking because he is prepared to believe that you can start with nothing and after several billion years end up with where we are today!!.

Ah, the old argument from personal incredulity fallacy. Good effort!

That you personally happen to find something incomprehensible tells you (much less other people) nothing about whatever conjecture you may want to use to fill the gap. 

What kind of faith is required to believe that nothing can cause something and then the something can then self-enhance itself. Wow!!

No faith at all – just reason and evidence. Why is that so difficult for you?

[Nearly Sane]

SotS,

No there isn’t. There have to be compelling arguments for this “God” before you can decide that he exists (at least for some of us). “Putting you faith” in this god absent any argument to support the proposition on the other hand is just guessing. So why pick one such guess over any other?

Why do we need to do that? Why don’t you need to change your worldview to a rational one, or for that matter to one that embraces the aborigine animal spirits or the Amazonian tribes peoples’ tree spirits? What makes your guess any more special than theirs?

Ah, the old argument from personal incredulity fallacy. Good effort!

That you personally happen to find something incomprehensible tells you (much less other people) nothing about whatever conjecture you may want to use to fill the gap. 

No faith at all – just reason and evidence. Why is that so difficult for you?

Just to be clear, I don't think 'nothing caused something' and I am pretty sure you don't too. So why accept the presentation of a strawman?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

Alan has been very patient for a long time in giving plenty of examples, to which you always respond with why what he has suggested is wrong. It's one reason why I keep on accusing you of doing the equivalent of asking him to swim from A to B, but say that he cannot use breast-stroke, backstroke, etc.

No Alan hasn’t for the reasons I’ve explained (what he actually does is attempt very bad arguments, then ignore the rebuttals when they’re given to him and resort instead to assertions of personal faith), and I just knocked your swimming stroke analogy out of the park. Typically though you’ve just ignored that and carried on as if it hadn’t happened.

Why do you do that, and what does it say about you do you think?

I want to introduce you to classical music and suggest that you listen to Rossini's William Tell overture. You then complain about why I chose that piece of music and not one of Rossini's other overtures, or any of his other music, or music from another composer.

Your really don’t understand this analogy thing do you. Alan makes claims of objective fact about the world (“God” etc). Liking or not Rossini is about aesthetics, opinion, taste – a fundamentally different category of experience. 

Nothing is stopping you from making your own mind up.

Actually something is – reason. Why on earth would I decide that some very bad arguments followed by assertions of personal faith would persuade me to agree with him (or you)?

So, you made some stupid observations about the description I gave of AB’s modus operandi and I explained to you why they were stupid. As is you way you’ve just ignored that and carried on as if nothing had happened. Why? Why not finally at least attempt to engage with the arguments than undo you rather than stick with your hit and run tactic of posting nonsense and then disappearing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Just to be clear, I don't think 'nothing caused something' and I am pretty sure you don't too. So why accept the presentation of a strawman?

Fair point. There are so many levels of wrongness in his efforts though that it's hard to know sometimes which ones to pick.

[SusanDoris]

Yesterday, I came to the end of a (talking) book called 'The Ancient Greeks' by Edith Hall. It has bbeen extremely interesting. The last chapter was a consideration of the influence of Christianity on the  Greeks and Romans.

There were several Greek writers , whose names I should have paused the disc to note down, who pointed out the irrationality of the beliefs espoused by those early Christian believers because of the knowledge gained by observation and experiment by Galen and others. I really recommend that AB and SotS take the time to find a copy of the book and read carefully that last chapter. 

The whole book provides a vivid and comprehensive picture of the nearly two thousand years of Greek life, travel and culture.

[torridon]

But in a purely deterministic world, nothing can be subjective since everything is entirely defined by past events over which we have no control.  Love must emanate from the free will of the human soul, for love not freely given is no love at all.

Oh please, this is supposed to be a place of debate and ideas, not pointless irrelevant platitudes.  The first sentence is nonsense, everything has a subjective aspect, determinism or no determinism. Second piece of wrongness, love does not arise from willpower, be it free or not.  Can you choose to love something that you hate or hate something that you love ? Doesn't work like that,and if you'd bothered to read responses on this thread you'd understand that already.