Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Storm,

But I guess that means life is a guess.

Dear god but you struggle. Assuming no prior knowledge, here are two guesses:

A. Jumping out of a sixth floor window will get you to the ground more safely than option B.

B. Using the stairs will get you to the ground more safely than option A.

What then do we do with these guesses? Yes that’s right – we test them. And when we’ve done that, guess what? Yes, that’s right again – they cease to be just guesses because we can assign probabilistic truth values to them! In this case, option A probably isn’t true, and option B probably is.

So to the question you always run away from – what method should anyone else use to test your guess that “God” paid you a visit?

If this still hasn’t sunk in though, try the Tim Minchin again.

That you are guessing that I am wrong about my experience.

Stop lying. What we’re actually reasoning is that – so far at least – you’ve provided no coherent reason to think you’re right about your attribution of cause.
 

But life isn't one big guess or sequence of guesses. Things are what they are.

Nope, no idea.

It looks as if you and Hillside see the universe as a series of arguments. That must therefore be a guess. But experience is not a guess.

Jeepers but you’re collapsing completely now. “The Universe” is what it is. The “arguments” concern how we make sense of it. Of course “experience” isn’t a guess, but your identification of its possible cause precisely is. How do we know this? We know this because it’s a statement that aligns exactly with the characteristics of a guess – ie, it’s an assertion of certainty with no underlying logic or evidence to validate it. QED

You and Hillside have therefore arrived at the wager. Here is someone myself who has made a commitment, who has taken a punt rather than stayed as you both have in the state of argument, the state of guess....

Stop digging!

This person who faces you has taken the punt and found God to be fulfilled.

Yes, we know that that’s the guess you’re convinced by. So what?

Now, as far as you are concerned, are you going to take the punt or are you going to take the punt on remaining in the state of guess or are you going to take a punt on something else?

The attraction of the world of guess.....that life is an argument is if you are self defined by your ability to argue...into or out of.....any position......then why give up such ego reinforcement?

Wibble. Wibble wibble wibble.

Why not make a fresh start and, after all your thousands of evasions, lies and gibberish ramblings finally calmly and rationally address what’s actually said to you?

Go on. You know you want to really don’t you?

Don’t you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Storm,

Dear god but you struggle. Assuming no prior knowledge, here are two guesses:

A. Jumping out of a sixth floor window will get you to the ground more safely than option B.

B. Using the stairs will get you to the ground more safely than option A.

What then do we do with these guesses? Yes that’s right – we test them. And when we’ve done that, guess what? Yes, that’s right again – they cease to be just guesses because we can assign probabilistic truth values to them! In this case, option A probably isn’t true, and probably B probably is.

So to the question you always run away from – what method should anyone else use to test your guess that “God” paid you a visit?

If this still hasn’t sunk in though, try the Tim Minchin again.

Stop lying. What we’re actually reasoning that – so far at least – you’ve provided no coherent reason to think you’re right about your attribution of cause.
 
Nope, no idea.

Jeepers but you’re collapsing completely now. “The Universe” is what it is. The “arguments” concern how we make sense of it. Of course “experience” isn’t a guess, but your identification of its possible cause precisely is. How do we know this? We know this because it’s a statement that aligns exactly with the characteristics of a guess – ie, it’s an assertion of certainty with no underlying logic or evidence to support it. QED

Stop digging!

Yes, we know that that’s the guess you’re convinced by. So what?

Wibble. Wibble wibble wibble.

Why not make a fresh start and, after all your thousands of evasions, lies and gibberish ramblings finally calmly and rationally address what’s actually said to you?

Go on. You know you want to really don’t you?

Don’t you?

I don't know why you are focussing on Minchin, I am not anti science.

I do not share your scientism Hillside. Live with it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Storm,

Me:

Why not make a fresh start and, after all your thousands of evasions, lies and gibberish ramblings finally calmly and rationally address what’s actually said to you?

Go on. You know you want to really don’t you?

Don’t you?

You:

I don't know why you are focussing on Minchin, I am not anti science.

I do not share your scientism Hillside. Live with it.

So that's a "no" then.

To be frank I expected no more of you than just to ignore the perfectly clear arguments that had been put to you, but it tells the rest of us all we need to know about your character when you do it.

Briefly:

1. The Minchin is relevant because his character "Storm" tries various of the arguments you attempt and Minchin detonates them very adroitly.

2. I don't espouse either what "scientism" actually means ("placing undue weight on the methods and findings of science") or your personal re-definition of it ("science wll one day answer everything") so it'd be helpful if you stopped lying about that.

3. The next time you feel like getting your problem of guessing all wrong again, just go back to my last Reply that you've ignored to see why you go wrong.

[ippy]

After the latest selection of Vlad's posts, I am beginning to wonder whether to look forward to another SotS post!!!

I can see that Susan, Swords posts go from laughable on to pathetic and then on to the really sad case they are, I'll give him, I think it's a him, it's hard to pop his bubble, could be he hasn't cottoned on the things that are really telling him about the cavernous holes in his descriptions of his faith/belief/religion based reposts, reposts, reposts; at least they're good for wry smile.

Mind, it is difficult for the believers on the forum, where they have zero evidence to back the veracity of almost any aspect of their so obviously, man made beliefs.

Kind regards ippy.

[SusanDoris]

I can see that Susan, Swords posts go from laughable on to pathetic and then on to the really sad case they are, I'll give him, I think it's a him, it's hard to pop his bubble, could be he hasn't cottoned on the things that are really telling him about the cavernous holes in his descriptions of his faith/belief/religion based reposts, reposts, reposts; at least they're good for wry smile.

Mind, it is difficult for the believers on the forum, where they have zero evidence to back the veracity of almost any aspect of their so obviously, man made beliefs.

Kind regards ippy.

Yes. I was thinking this morning: when I was young, the scientific information about the universe, medicine, other faiths, etc etc simply wasn't available. I pored over the World of Wonder (two volumes)  and loved finding out things, but at least I had an excuse for believing that there definitely was a God. As I have mentioned before, this was a conviction inculcated by my parents, although very fortunately neither of them believed any of the other biblical,non-evidenced stuff and  the idea of evidence was a very rare one when it came to religion, since it was bad manners to mention the subject !

Nowadays with all the media information available, scientific programmes, instant information about all the religions in the world, a far better understanding of history, etc, I don't accept that there is more than the slimmest of excuses for people stil to believe in heaven, any God, resurrections, and a million other things. It goes to show the power of indoctrination that such totally unevidenced beliefs are still so current.

As JeremyP has just pointed out in the hiddenness thread, everything I believe (and believ in, whatever the difference is) has evidence to back it up, or is a don't know,
 if there is not yet enough evidence to be sure.

I definitely think that if I had been 50 years younger, and in the position of having a faith belief and was reading all the stuff I have read over the past 20+ years, I would have seen through the faith belief and dropped it easily.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

1. The Minchin is relevant because his character "Storm" tries various of the arguments you attempt and Minchin detonates them very adroitly.

Feel free to demonstrate rather just than publicly stroke the terms ''detonate'' and ''adroitly''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Storm,

Feel free to demonstrate rather just than publicly stroke the terms ''detonate'' and ''adroitly''.

It was demonstrated in Reply 27800 that you just ignored and the same point made by Minchin when he invites "Storm" to try the window instead.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Storm,

It was demonstrated in Reply 27800 that you just ignored and the same point made by Minchin when he invites "Storm" to try the window instead.

So Minchin is one big appeal to ridicule and caricature too?

[Robbie]

That is interesting. Hav you 'moved forward'? Can you say from what to what?

Sorry it has taken me so long to reply, Susan; I have a house-full so this is a flying visit.

I will explain things from time to time as issues come up but it would take a long time for me to tell everything, rather like a blog or essay, and be boring for those who don't want to know all about me.  Hope you understand.
________

NS: I read your link about the Vatican 'backtrack' on what Pope Francis said; disappointing but not at all surprising to me unfortunately. I expected it.

See you all. Hope you are enjoying some time off for Easter.

[torridon]

You and Hillside have therefore arrived at the wager. Here is someone myself who has made a commitment, who has taken a punt rather than stayed as you both have in the state of argument, the state of guess....
This person who faces you has taken the punt and found God to be fulfilled.

Commitment closes the mind.  A commitment to A is also a commitment to Not B and Not C and Not D and Not E, and thataway lies partisanship, prejudice, sectarianism, tribalism.

We only make progress in understanding in so far as we can keep an open mind; a narrowed mind that decides first what it wants to be true will only ever discover its own prejudices.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Commitment closes the mind.  A commitment to A is also a commitment to Not B and Not C and Not D and Not E, and thataway lies partisanship, prejudice, sectarianism, tribalism.

And you are committed against these things?

[torridon]

And you are committed against these things?

Evidence suggests they cause more problems than they solve.

[ekim]

Commitment closes the mind.  A commitment to A is also a commitment to Not B and Not C and Not D and Not E, and thataway lies partisanship, prejudice, sectarianism, tribalism.

We only make progress in understanding in so far as we can keep an open mind; a narrowed mind that decides first what it wants to be true will only ever discover its own prejudices.

One could also say, a commitment to love might have a unifying effect and that it is the mind which creates divisiveness and with self centred emotions creates prejudices.  The Samaritan story is about overcoming mind forged  prejudices.

[SusanDoris]

torridon

Ah, yes, very well said indeed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Evidence suggests they cause more problems than they solve.

But that could also be true of good things too.
In other words what you thought was a nice avoiding shuffle has,er, caused more problems than it solves.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Yep. AB – if you’re still around could you confirm for Gabriella please that you have told us that you have lots of evidence (and logic too) for your beliefs being objectively true? I forget now whether your phrase was “lots” or “plenty” of evidence, but either way it’d put this to bed. Thanks.

Nope - doesn't work. I keep explaining your mistake and you keep making it. I asked for evidence that AB has claimed to have objective evidence of the existence of God rather than testimony or experience for his belief in God. Since faith is an important aspect of may religions it wouldn't be faith if there was objective evidence.

Clearly you haven’t because you’ve just shifted ground. AB can tell us himself what he said (I had a flick through earlier but couldn’t find it, but several of us repeated his quote since in order to rebut it). What you were talking about though was testimony and experience as evidence, in reply to which I explained to you that you’re committing a category error – essentially evidence of opinion, memory etc vs evidence of objective facts about the world.

Testimony and experience can lead to people making decisions for the way they lead their life as if something was an objective fact. However, without the objective evidence it remains a belief. Why are you finding this so hard to grasp?   

That’s just dishonest. I reminded you that you’d introduced forensic evidence into the discussion. You denied it.

What I said in #27495 was "can you refer me to the post where I introduced forensics into the conversation as I thought I had been talking about testimony as evidence that other people may/may not find credible, so not sure what I am supposed to have said about forensics." and further on I said that I was talking about testimony and wasn't referring to forensics". These statements were based on me using a different dictionary meaning of "forensics" from you.

I explained why I was correct by giving you the dictionary definition. You now say that your denial related to a different part of the definition. Doesn’t wash – it was me who said you’d introduced forensics (meaning “to do with court proceedings”) and that remains the case – that you’ve now decided that your denial related to just one definition of the term is irrelevant.

When you clarified the meaning you were using I explained I was using a different meaning. Explaining that to you is not dishonest - you really don't seem to understand some of the words you use. I agree that I was talking about forensics based on the meaning you were using - I even thanked you for clarifying your meaning.   

You do this a lot – you claim that something isn’t the case, some of us take the time to find the evidence that falsifies you, you go quiet for a bit, then you repeat the mistake, then when you’re reminded that you’ve already been corrected you demand to see the evidence again.

You are entitled to your opinion. You do this a lot by the way - when you are caught out with no evidence to back up your claims you try to wriggle out of your embarrassing situation by asserting that you have falsified arguments or corrected me, despite having no evidence to back up that claim either. I go quiet by the way because I have a job - get used to it. But don't worry - I don't forget that I am in a discussion with you and come back to it when time permits.

What do you think this is - some kind of free endless fetch can carry service? Go back to when we provided the evidence already, read it properly, then try to tell us that it doesn’t say that the RC position isn’t that God, the resurrection etc are as factually, objectively true as, say, the speed of light in a vacuum.

And your use of the word "us" isn't fooling anyone - you do that a lot too - try to pretend that a number of people agree with you as though that adds credibility to your un-evidenced assertions. I have read the RC documents and to me it's a document that explains beliefs and values - there is no claim that science (the only method we currently have for proving objective fact) has proved any of their beliefs as objective fact.

As for lying, what else should it be called when you’re given the evidence that falsifies you and then just repeat the mistake? Amnesia? Difficulty in understanding? What?

When you present some evidence to falsify me, rather than assertions, we can look at my reaction to the evidence and see if your opinion is reasonable.

See above. Presumably your thinking here is that when you’re given something then repeatedly ask for it over and over again your interlocutor will just go away? Well, it’s working.

If having a discussion with someone who disagrees with your assertions is so difficult for you, maybe a debate forum is not the correct place for you.   

Usually I do. I can’t lay my hands on AB’s quote but it was widely discussed after he made it and with a bit of luck he’ll short cut this by repeating it in any case.

Usually you don't link to quotes or evidence to support your assertions - that's my experience of you. Maybe after Easter AB can clarify if he meant objective evidence testable by science or if he meant evidence in the form of testimony and experience.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Commitment closes the mind.  A commitment to A is also a commitment to Not B and Not C and Not D and Not E, and thataway lies partisanship, prejudice, sectarianism, tribalism.

We only make progress in understanding in so far as we can keep an open mind; a narrowed mind that decides first what it wants to be true will only ever discover its own prejudices.

If you are using committed as synonymous with being intolerant, I profoundly disagree with this. I have found that commitment to Islam has strengthened my identity and opened me up to so much more than I was open to when I was an atheist. Being committed isn't automatically being closed-minded. I find commitment can lead to disciplined behaviour, without also leading to intolerance. 

[BeRational]

If you are using committed as synonymous with being intolerant, I profoundly disagree with this. I have found that commitment to Islam has strengthened my identity and opened me up to so much more than I was open to when I was an atheist. Being committed isn't automatically being closed-minded. I find commitment can lead to disciplined behaviour, without also leading to intolerance.

This is fine, as long as you accept that the tenets of Islam may not be true.

[torridon]

If you are using committed as synonymous with being intolerant, I profoundly disagree with this. I have found that commitment to Islam has strengthened my identity and opened me up to so much more than I was open to when I was an atheist. Being committed isn't automatically being closed-minded. I find commitment can lead to disciplined behaviour, without also leading to intolerance.

If you are committed to :

there is only one God (Allah) and Muhammad is his messenger

then you are denying the truth of rival faith claims that conflict with that.  If you are open to a pluralist view of faith, eg all faiths and none are equally valid, then you are denying a core Pillar of Islam.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If you are committed to :

there is only one God (Allah) and Muhammad is his messenger

then you are denying the truth of rival faith claims that conflict with that.  If you are open to a pluralist view of faith, eg all faiths and none are equally valid, then you are denying a core Pillar of Islam.

Depends on what you mean by denying the truth of other people’s beliefs. What are you proposing is wrong with denying someone’s else’s truth - my interpretation is that that means  I am not accepting it as truth for myself?

For example, I don’t see anything wrong with denying the truth of their beliefs while accepting they have a right to hold beliefs different from my beliefs. We seem to take the same approach to morality or other subjective views such as love - people hold whatever beliefs they want and if society denies people the right to act on their beliefs it is because society has currently adopted a public policy that prevents that particular behaviour as being harmful in some way.

[BeRational]

Are you open to the fact that you may be wrong about Islam, and they may be right about some other god?

If not, then you are closed minded.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This is fine, as long as you accept that the tenets of Islam may not be true.

I don’t claim to be correct in my interpretation of the tenets of Islam so I have no idea if my interpretation is true.

There is no objective proof that anyone’s interpretation of the tenets of any religion are true - I see the tenets of a religion as open to a continuous process of learning and interpreting and experiencing and committing and applying to your life, based on available knowledge of the world around us, cultural beliefs of the time we live in and context regarding the specific circumstances of any situation you find yourself in.

[BeRational]

I don’t claim to be correct in my interpretation of the tenets of Islam so I have no idea if my interpretation is true.

There is no objective proof that anyone’s interpretation of the tenets of any religion are true - I see the tenets of a religion as open to a continuous process of learning and interpreting and experiencing and committing and applying to your life, based on available knowledge of the world around us, cultural beliefs of the time we live in and context regarding the specific circumstances of any situation you find yourself in.

So to be clear, you do accept that Islam may not be true?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Are you open to the fact that you may be wrong about Islam, and they may be right about some other god?

If not, then you are closed minded.

I am open to being wrong about pretty much everything.

Having said that I am close-minded in terms of certain beliefs I hold because of a commitment I have made  e.g. having an extra-marital affair or marrying a non-Muslim if I was no longer with my husband, and my children are alive.  I am sure there are lots of other beliefs I have committed to but don’t plan on listing them here. I am open to those beliefs being wrong, as there is not objective evidence to prove them correct, but I may well be committed to them, nevertheless, while accepting others may be committed to different beliefs.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So to be clear, you do accept that Islam may not be true?

I don’t think Islam is a single idea that everyone agrees on unless you mean a monotheistic concept of God with a final specific Arab prophet? Yes as it’s a belief - it could be wrong as it is not open to be tested to be proved right or wrong.

I think there are only people’s interpretations of a message and interpretations of alleged behaviour, traditions and sayings of a supposedly historical figure - yes, interpretations may be wrong.