Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

I find it puzzling why a person who has discovered God should be given less credibility than people who claim to have discovered the non existence of God.

I wonder if you even realise that in your defending your use of one fallacy you've gone and used another - I suspect not.

[Stranger]

It is obvious to me and many fellow Christians who have come to know God.

The problem here is that there are large numbers of people in the world who claim to "know god" and, far from agreeing about what sort of god exists, they often forcefully and sometimes violently disagree; they can't all be right. In addition they can offer no evidence or sound reasoning to support their claims.

The point being that the world has plenty of people who are absolutely convinced about things (not only gods) that are either obviously wrong or totally lacking in evidence.

I find it puzzling why a person who has discovered God...

You mean claims to have discovered a god. See above: such claims are ten a penny.

...should be given less credibility than people who claim to have discovered the non existence of God.

Who is making that claim?

[Shaker]

Well, obviously. What else could it be?

Well, Alan thinks that it's the absolute, full, final, objective and unalterable truth - though with an irony which will certainly be lost on him although not on others, that too is just his personal opinion.

Alan was right: he was not committing the consequentialist fallacy.

Yes he was - but others have covered that one already in enough detail.

[Alan Burns]

Gordon is right in his above post; it is not necessary for it to be an 'attempt at proof' to qualify as a fallacy. Any attempt at persuasion using fallacious or logically incoherent reasoning is a fallacy.  Whether is succeeds or not is by the point

But how can an observation be deemed to be a fallacy

[Stranger]

But how can an observation be deemed to be a fallacy

The whole basis of your "observation" was that people are looking for reasons not to believe in your god, which is a reversal of the burden of proof.

[Alan Burns]

The whole basis of your "observation" was that people are looking for reasons not to believe in your god, which is a reversal of the burden of proof.

You are free to agree or disagree with my observation.  But there are no grounds for it being deemed a fallacy.

My observation is not used as proof of anything, so it can't be categorised as NPF as Torri implied.  It just leads to my conclusion that many people simply do not want to search for God.

[Shaker]

You are free to agree or disagree with my observation.

Correct for once. 

But there are no grounds for it being deemed a fallacy.

The fallacy was in #30233 - specifically, the ad consequentiam fallacy. This has been explained to you at length and in detail by people (torridon, Stranger and Gordon especially) with far more patience than I possess.

It just leads to my conclusion that many people simply do not want to search for God.

But your 'conclusion' is a castle in the air, based on nothing. It's absolutely no different to Vlad's regular accusations of 'god-dodging', and every bit as baseless.

[Stranger]

It just leads to my conclusion that many people simply do not want to search for God.

That isn't quite the same thing as you said before (that people "are looking for reasons not to believe", which is a reversal of the burden of proof).

Anyway, this raises many questions, for starters:

• Why should we take any of the god ideas at all seriously (given the complete lack of evidence or reasoned argument)?
  
  
• Which god should we search for?
  
  
• Why should we search for it?
  
  
• If it wants to be found, why would it be hidden?
  
  
• How would you go about such a search (given that there is no evidence or reasoning to follow)?

[torridon]

You are free to agree or disagree with my observation.  But there are no grounds for it being deemed a fallacy.

My observation is not used as proof of anything, so it can't be categorised as NPF as Torri implied.  It just leads to my conclusion that many people simply do not want to search for God.

That is somewhat different from your previous claim " ...why a person who has discovered God should be given less credibility than people who claim to have discovered the non existence of God".  Discovering non-existence is not the same thing as not looking in the first place. For sure, there are many who do not go searching for god, that's nothing surprising; there are many who do not research possibilities for cold nuclear fusion, there are many that do not go ballroom dancing.  I don't contend that cold nuclear fusion is impossible on the basis that I haven't tried personally; rather it is up to the teams that are trying to create it to provide positive evidence for their success.

[ippy]

You are free to agree or disagree with my observation.  But there are no grounds for it being deemed a fallacy.

My observation is not used as proof of anything, so it can't be categorised as NPF as Torri implied.  It just leads to my conclusion that many people simply do not want to search for God.

The main reason most in the U K do not want to search for god is something you have never been or more you're unable to give any sensible viable reason to start looking.

Most on the forum would sit up and take notice of you if you supplied some viable evidence for the existence of unicorns, fairies, leprechauns or this supposed god figure you're always banging on about.

Commiserations Alan, ippy

[Dicky Underpants]

My observation is not used as proof of anything, so it can't be categorised as NPF as Torri implied.  It just leads to my conclusion that many people simply do not want to search for God.

And there are also many who have searched for decades, occasionally think they have found he/she/it, and then have realised their search was futile. Which leads one to think: "Was it worth searching in the first place?" I think probably the answer is yes. Those that have searched, and critically analysed their search, are possibly in a position of even more 'existential' surety than those whose intellects tell them that such an enterprise is futile from the start.

[Dicky Underpants]

For sure, there are many who do not go searching for god, that's nothing surprising; there are many who do not research possibilities for cold nuclear fusion, there are many that do not go ballroom dancing.  I don't contend that cold nuclear fusion is impossible on the basis that I haven't tried personally; rather it is up to the teams that are trying to create it to provide positive evidence for their success.

I don't think it's quite the same. Many people (I don't know why) feel a great need for some overall answer (that 'God-shaped hole'), and since there are so many religions and spiritual teachings around that tell us that need can be assuaged, it is not surprising that huge numbers of people get hooked on the 'God-thing'. I was one such. I have, though, for a long time realised that, though there may indeed be 'a God-shaped hole', that does not mean that there is any actual God there to fill it.
Interesting to know quite why some people feel this and others don't. I don't think it's necessarily anything to do with the power of the intellect - there have been some pretty smart people around who have held and hold spiritual beliefs. I don't think Plato or Bishop Berkeley were stupid.

[wigginhall]

Good points, Dicky.  I was a Christian for decades, but I think evangelicalism finally took its toll.  As the old joke has it, very few people are intellectually argued into theism.

[torridon]

I don't think it's quite the same. Many people (I don't know why) feel a great need for some overall answer (that 'God-shaped hole'), and since there are so many religions and spiritual teachings around that tell us that need can be assuaged, it is not surprising that huge numbers of people get hooked on the 'God-thing'. I was one such. I have, though, for a long time realised that, though there may indeed be 'a God-shaped hole', that does not mean that there is any actual God there to fill it.
Interesting to know quite why some people feel this and others don't. I don't think it's necessarily anything to do with the power of the intellect - there have been some pretty smart people around who have held and hold spiritual beliefs. I don't think Plato or Bishop Berkeley were stupid.

I don't see the god shaped hole as surprising, humans have pretty much held religious beliefs ubiquitously until the blink of an evolutionary eyelid ago.  This has led to certain behaviours and responses becoming baked into our psyche; we have a reward mechanism for spiritual and ritualised worshipful behaviours; devotional acts trigger oxytocin release etc. and this works whether you are a catholic nun at prayer before the cross or a buddhist chanting.  I get that, many feel that longing, we need something to worship, to express archaic behaviours, so we end up searching for an outlet for those impulses.  There are many other legacy behaviours - the fact we have National Parks and enjoy the countryside probably owes to our lost intimate connection with nature that as hunter gatherers was so central to our survival.

[Shaker]

I don't see the god shaped hole as surprising, humans have pretty much held religious beliefs ubiquitously until the blink of an evolutionary eyelid ago.  This has led to certain behaviours and responses becoming baked into our psyche; we have a reward mechanism for spiritual and ritualised worshipful behaviours; devotional acts trigger oxytocin release etc. and this works whether you are a catholic nun at prayer before the cross or a buddhist chanting.

IIRC Freud thought religiously ritualized acts had their origin in obsessional behaviour - repetitive actions that (presumably) give the actor a semblance of control and thus reduce stress.

[Alan Burns]

That isn't quite the same thing as you said before (that people "are looking for reasons not to believe", which is a reversal of the burden of proof).

Anyway, this raises many questions, for starters:

1. Why should we take any of the god ideas at all seriously (given the complete lack of evidence or reasoned argument)?

There is evidence in abundance for the existence of God.
But the intellectual freedom you use to try to dismiss this evidence is itself evidence of your own spiritual nature, for such freedom can't exist in a physically deterministic material universe.

2. Which god should we search for?

You need to discern the difference between the human attempts to find and define God, and the God who has made Himself known to humans.

3. Why should we search for it?

To discover the true meaning and purpose behind our existence.
And seek the eternal salvation of the human soul.
The soul being defined as that which consciously perceives information in our material brains, and that which facilitates our freedom to make conscious choices.

4. If it wants to be found, why would it be hidden?

God has not made Himself hidden.  He made Himself known to us by becoming one of us, in the name of Jesus Christ

5. How would you go about such a search (given that there is no evidence or reasoning to follow)?

You could start with a prayer.
Listen to personal testimonies.
Read and contemplate on the New Testament.
Read the historical evidence of the saints.
Try opening the door to allow God into your life.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

IIRC Freud thought religiously ritualized acts had their origin in obsessional behaviour - repetitive actions that (presumably) give the actor a semblance of control and thus reduce stress.

Hmmm Sounds the same as what attracts people to forums like this.

[Alan Burns]

Good points, Dicky.  I was a Christian for decades, but I think evangelicalism finally took its toll.  As the old joke has it, very few people are intellectually argued into theism.

But where is this freedom to consciously drive our intellectual thoughts?  Certainly not in a physically deterministic material universe.  Sad that many intellectuals can't think a little deeper about what drives their freedom control their own thoughts.  Very sad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see the god shaped hole as surprising, humans have pretty much held religious beliefs ubiquitously until the blink of an evolutionary eyelid ago.  This has led to certain behaviours and responses becoming baked into our psyche; we have a reward mechanism for spiritual and ritualised worshipful behaviours; devotional acts trigger oxytocin release etc. and this works whether you are a catholic nun at prayer before the cross or a buddhist chanting.  I get that, many feel that longing, we need something to worship, to express archaic behaviours, so we end up searching for an outlet for those impulses.  There are many other legacy behaviours - the fact we have National Parks and enjoy the countryside probably owes to our lost intimate connection with nature that as hunter gatherers was so central to our survival.

This post is a work of pathological macho reduction and frank dehumanisation. Atrocious.

[Stranger]

But where is this freedom to consciously drive our intellectual thoughts?  Certainly not in a physically deterministic material universe.

Here we go again - assertion based on nothing but incredulity.

Sad that many intellectuals can't think a little deeper about what drives their freedom come up with their own thoughts.  Very sad.

Oh, the irony. Your version of freedom is logically impossible because it leads directly to a contradiction - hence disproving its premisses. It's sad that you can't think a bit more deeply about it.

[Maeght]

There is evidence in abundance for the existence of God.

Nope, no evidence for God.

[Maeght]

But where is this freedom to consciously drive our intellectual thoughts?  Certainly not in a physically deterministic material universe.  Sad that many intellectuals can't think a little deeper about what drives their freedom come up with their own thoughts.  Very sad.

Don't be so insulting Alan.

[Shaker]

Hmmm Sounds the same as what attracts people to forums like this.

No; what attracts people to forums like this is why people go to zoos*.

* Courtesy H. L. Mencken.

[Stranger]

There is evidence in abundance for the existence of God.

Where?

But the intellectual freedom you use to try to dismiss this evidence is itself evidence of your own spiritual nature, for such freedom can't exist in a physically deterministic material universe.

[Irrelevant terms deleted]

Baseless assertion. Your own version of 'freedom' is contradictory and hence impossible. And once again: claiming our experience as evidence for your particular view of consciousness is tantamount to lying.

You need to discern the difference between the human attempts to find and define God, and the God who has made Himself known to humans.

No god has made itself known to me.

To discover the true meaning and purpose behind our existence.

Why should looking for something that I have no reason to think exists help with that? Do I have to look for all apparently mythical beings?

And seek the eternal salvation of the human soul.

I have no reason to think this is anything but fantasy.

The soul being defined as that which consciously perceives information in our material brains, and that which facilitates our freedom to make conscious choices.

The logically impossible, self-contradictory soul for which there is no evidence... 

God has not made Himself hidden.  He made Himself known to us by becoming one of us, in the name of Jesus Christ

Don't be silly - that doesn't make any god known to us. If that's the best your god can do, it has a serious communication problem.

You could start with a prayer.
Listen to personal testimonies.
Read and contemplate on the New Testament.
Read the historical evidence of the saints.
Try opening the door to allow God into your life.

Looks like a recipe for self-deception. I've read the whole bible and its inconsistent, often contradictory, and contains no clear message.

[savillerow]

AB When are you going to crack? After 1200 pages there must be a whiff of doubt about something you believe in. Surely. Anything? Or that bloody annoying alternative IE someone like you is just a lost cause to all the clues, answers, best guesses and having an open mind. Must be really frustrating for you to peddle the things you do.