Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

That's not a method, it's an assertion that what is there isn't human ideas. Again what method are you using to establish that your assertion is true?

prayer

[Nearly Sane]

prayer

This won't let you establish that there is anything beyond human ideas as far as i can see. You need to expand how this allows you to make the claims for it as a method. A single word answer is not a method. So please expand how this will work and why it allows the claims you make to be validated.

[torridon]

But you, and many others, are indulging in a huge fallacy.  That of assigning more importance to the human ideas and deductions than to reality itself. You are effectively trying to make ideas and deductions the reality and explaining away facets of true reality in order to fit in with the ideas and deductions.

Don't follow that.

'human ideas and deductions' are our attempts to describe reality, perhaps in simplified terms.  Thus, biological evolution for instance, is an observed phenomenon, whereas the Theory of Evolution is the description of the phenomenon is simplified formal language.  How is that a fallacy ? Which fallacy is it ?

[Alan Burns]

Don't follow that.

'human ideas and deductions' are our attempts to describe reality, perhaps in simplified terms.  Thus, biological evolution for instance, is an observed phenomenon, whereas the Theory of Evolution is the description of the phenomenon is simplified formal language.  How is that a fallacy ? Which fallacy is it ?

You seem to assume that human  theories are more real than the reality they attempt to describe.  Hence you consciously deny the reality of your freedom to choose in order to fit with the pseudo reality derived from human theory.  I do not have a Latin name for this fallacy, but it is self evidently an obvious fallacy.

[Nearly Sane]

You seem to assume that human  theories are more real than the reality they attempt to describe.  Hence you consciously deny the reality of your freedom to choose in order to fit with the pseudo reality derived from human theory.  I do not have a Latin name for this fallacy, but it is self evidently an obvious fallacy.

Your first sentence is a complete misrepresentation of what torridon wrote. I suggest you reread his post and apologise since it is so far removed from what he stated that it reads like a lie.

[Alan Burns]

This won't let you establish that there is anything beyond human ideas as far as i can see. You need to expand how this allows you to make the claims for it as a method. A single word answer is not a method. So please expand how this will work and why it allows the claims you make to be validated.

If God does exist, and you genuinely want to find Him, then prayer would be a recommended means of communication.

[Shaker]

If God does exist, and you genuinely want to find Him

I see absolutely no reason whatever to think so; and even if it did, I wouldn't have it in the house.

[Nearly Sane]

If God does exist, and you genuinely want to find Him, then prayer would be a recommended means of communication.

That's in no sense an answer to my post. Further we have examples on the board of people who have told you that they genuinely did want to find god, prayed and didn't. So your claim, in your post here which isn't a method, seems to be invalid.

[Alan Burns]

Your first sentence is a complete misrepresentation of what torridon wrote. I suggest you reread his post and apologise since it is so far removed from what he stated that it reads like a lie.

My first sentence, along with the rest of my post, was based on the content and implied meanings derived from my past knowledge of hundreds of Torri's previous posts.  I am certain that Torri is very sincere in what he says.  I am just pointing out a possible error in the way he looks at human theories.

[Nearly Sane]

My first sentence, along with the rest of my post, was based on the content and implied meanings derived from my past knowledge of hundreds of Torri's previous posts.

Can you show given it was the opposite of what you represented it as saying, what you think in other posts justify your mistepresentation?

[ippy]

If God does exist, and you genuinely want to find Him, then prayer would be a recommended means of communication.

Alan, have a look on YouTube at Jim Al-Khalili's talk about the migration of the continental Robin, our U K Robins don't migrate.

It would be particularly interesting to you, I know I think your views on religion are far gone and potty but I do at the same time reckon this documentary of Jim's would really make you think.

Commiserations Alan, ippy

[BeRational]

If God does exist, and you genuinely want to find Him, then prayer would be a recommended means of communication.

So, if we pray and do not find him, does that mean he does not exist.

If you say no, then this is no use as a method.

You need a method that can falsify a god.

[Sebastian Toe]

If God does exist, and you genuinely want to find Him, then prayer would be a recommended means of communication.

Is there a correct way to do that?

[torridon]

You seem to assume that human  theories are more real than the reality they attempt to describe.  Hence you consciously deny the reality of your freedom to choose in order to fit with the pseudo reality derived from human theory.  I do not have a Latin name for this fallacy, but it is self evidently an obvious fallacy.

Firstly, theories are simplifications, or abstractions, of reality usually.  That doesn't warrant 'more real', and it doesn't warrant 'pseudo reality'.  But I get where you are coming from, people are often abashed that science undermines intuitive and traditional beliefs.  Ancient peoples would have ridiculed Eratosthenes for claiming the Earth was spherical.  It was an 'evident' fallacy, wasn't it ?  Any idiot could see the Earth was flat and people on the underside of a spherical Earth would spend all day being upside down and would fall off anyway.  Well, science has always been in the business of finding deeper understandings underlying our everyday concepts of reality and that has never been more true than at this point in history.  Gradually we come to terms with them.

[Sriram]

Firstly, theories are simplifications, or abstractions, of reality usually.  That doesn't warrant 'more real', and it doesn't warrant 'pseudo reality'.  But I get where you are coming from, people are often abashed that science undermines intuitive and traditional beliefs.  Ancient peoples would have ridiculed Eratosthenes for claiming the Earth was spherical.  It was an 'evident' fallacy, wasn't it ?  Any idiot could see the Earth was flat and people on the underside of a spherical Earth would spend all day being upside down and would fall off anyway.  Well, science has always been in the business of finding deeper understandings underlying our everyday concepts of reality and that has never been more true than at this point in history.  Gradually we come to terms with them.

Yes...'any idiot could see that the world was flat'...but that was wrong.

Similarly...'any idiot can see that there is nothing more than physical laws operating in the world'...and ....'any idiot can see that it is the brain that produces all experiences' .....could also be wrong.

[BeRational]

Yes...'any idiot could see that the world was flat'...but that was wrong.

Similarly...'any idiot can see that there is nothing more than physical laws operating in the world'...and ....'any idiot can see that it is the brain that produces all experiences' .....could also be wrong.

Indeed it could be wrong.

Have a guess what would bring us to that conclusion.

Would it be someone having a dream or hearing a voice from a god, or perhaps it might be evidence.

[Alan Burns]

Firstly, theories are simplifications, or abstractions, of reality usually.  That doesn't warrant 'more real', and it doesn't warrant 'pseudo reality'.  But I get where you are coming from, people are often abashed that science undermines intuitive and traditional beliefs.  Ancient peoples would have ridiculed Eratosthenes for claiming the Earth was spherical.  It was an 'evident' fallacy, wasn't it ?  Any idiot could see the Earth was flat and people on the underside of a spherical Earth would spend all day being upside down and would fall off anyway.  Well, science has always been in the business of finding deeper understandings underlying our everyday concepts of reality and that has never been more true than at this point in history.  Gradually we come to terms with them.

As Sriram correctly pointed out, human reasoning (which includes scientific theory) can be subject to change as we learn more about reality.  Our scientific knowledge has certainly changed over the centuries,  and will no doubt continue to change in future years.  But in contrast our knowledge and awareness of God has changed little since the psalms were written over three thousand years ago.  As I read the psalms during daily prayers I am struck by the oneness I feel with the writers of the psalms as I know they write of the same God as I have come to know and love.  So I put my trust and faith in what is eternal and unchanging - and continue to experience the peace and joy of knowing God's love.

[Nearly Sane]

As Sriram correctly pointed out, human reasoning (which includes scientific theory) can be subject to change as we learn more about reality.  Our scientific knowledge has certainly changed over the centuries,  and will no doubt continue to change in future years.  But in contrast our knowledge and awareness of God has changed little since the psalms were written over three thousand years ago.  As I read the psalms during daily prayers I am struck by the oneness I feel with the writers of the psalms as I know they write of the same God as I have come to know and love.  So I put my trust and faith in what is eternal and unchanging - and continue to experience the peace and joy of knowing God's love.

Do you feel the same oneness about your god encouraging the slaughter of the male Midianite children, and raping the women?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you feel the same oneness about your god encouraging the slaughter of the male Midianite children, and raping the women?

Ah, absolute morality creeping in.

[Nearly Sane]

Ah, absolute morality creeping in.

First of of what you actually mean to say is objective morality. Secondly I can think that there is no such thing as objective motality, and still think something is wrong, just as I can say that there is no such thing as objective taste, and still say Marmite is good  Third, Alan does believes in objective morality so it's his problem and indeed yours since it means that you worship a god that demands child slaughter and rape.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

First of of what you actually mean to say is objective morality. Secondly I can think that there is no such thing as objective motality, and still think something is wrong, just as I can say that there is no such thing as objective taste, and still say Marmite is good  Third, Alan does believes in objective morality so it's his problem and indeed yours since it means that you worship a god that demands child slaughter and rape.

No, I think i'm ok with absolute morality.


We now know so much better than the people in the OT whose actions in war and indeed the actions of all belligerents throughout time is predicted in the account of the fall of man.

Taste is a shite analogy for morality.

[Nearly Sane]

No, I think i'm ok with absolute morality.


We now know so much better than the people in the OT whose actions in war and indeed the actions of all belligerents throughout time is predicted in the account of the fall of man.

Taste is a shite analogy for morality.

That you are fine with being wrong about meanings isn't surprising. Sad but not surprising.

Taste and morality are the same in my opinion as regards being subhective. If you think they aren't demonstrate that morality is objective.

And that you avoid that it's your God that demanded killing and raping children just means you think that your morality is better than what you worship.

[Enki]

Yes...'any idiot could see that the world was flat'...but that was wrong.

Similarly...'any idiot can see that there is nothing more than physical laws operating in the world'...and ....'any idiot can see that it is the brain that produces all experiences' .....could also be wrong.

Or, conversely, anyone can see that there has to be a spiritual non material dimension to our lives, and/or anyone can see that some of our deepest experiences come from some sort of divine presence... could also be wrong.

It is worth considering how AB has decided that there has to be a god, which is the same god of the psalmists, and because he feels this personally, he has decided that he knows that this god truly exists. As he says, he puts his 'trust and faith' in his God. He mentions what you have said in his response in post 30916, but,  glaringly,  seems to forget your last highly significant phrase'.....could also be wrong'.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That you are fine with being wrong about meanings isn't surprising. Sad but not surprising.

Taste and morality are the same in my opinion as regards being subhective. If you think they aren't demonstrate that morality is objective.

And that you avoid that it's your God that demanded killing and raping children just means you think that your morality is better than what you worship.

There is nothing wrong with the notion of absolute morality.....perhaps if you disagree you might outline why you think the idea is wrong.
Taste and morality are not the same in my opinion. A better analogy would be mathematics.

[Nearly Sane]

There is nothing wrong with the notion of absolute morality.....perhaps if you disagree you might outline why you think the idea is wrong.
Taste and morality are not the same in my opinion. A better analogy would be mathematics.

Absolute morality is that something like stealing, or killing, is always wrong, no matter the circumstances. You are talking about objective morality where the action in specific circumstances is always wromg. It isn't at that stage a question of something being wrong with the idea, just that you are confused about the what the two terms mean.


Taste and morality are both things we express with no method to show anything that ties to the external. That is why I'm the absence of you demonstrating such a way of morality being determined in the same way as maths is simply wrong.


And you still worship a god that demands slaughter and rape of childten, or you are saying Alan is wrong in his point about Psalms and the unchanging relationship. So which is it?