Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

Where in the commandments and the Noachite commandments does God demand that? Where does Jesus demand that?


Have you addressed this to any Jewish poster? If not, why not?

[Nearly Sane]

Where in the commandments and the Noachite commandments does God demand that? Where does Jesus demand that?


Have you addressed this to any Jewish poster? If not, why not?

Why does it have to be in the commandments when it is in Numbers?

Why would I raise a question to some poster, other than Alan when he claimed oneness and consistency of view, or to you when you replied to that post of mine?

[Shaker]

As Sriram correctly pointed out

That would be a first.

human reasoning (which includes scientific theory) can be subject to change as we learn more about reality.

No; the reasoning - that is, the scientific method - is broadly the same as it has ever been since there has been such a thing. Observation - hypothesis - experiment and so forth. The facts we uncover by that process are what change, not the process by which we uncover them. I don't know how you managed to fluff this since you said so yourself in your next sentence:

Our scientific knowledge has certainly changed over the centuries,  and will no doubt continue to change in future years.

There you go. 

But in contrast our knowledge and awareness of God

Once again you mean 'belief in'.

has changed little since the psalms were written over three thousand years ago.

For anyone in the reality-based community, that should set alarm bells ringing bigger and louder than Big Ben.

[Alan Burns]

No; the reasoning - that is, the scientific method - is broadly the same as it has ever been since there has been such a thing. Observation - hypothesis - experiment and so forth. The facts we uncover by that process are what change, not the process by which we uncover them. I don't know how you managed to fluff this since you said so yourself in your next sentence:

I would have thought you had the intelligence to realise that I was referring to perceived results of reasoning, rather than the method.

[Gordon]

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.

Some us prefer not to stop the clock at, roughly, the time of the Bronze-age collapse and start of the iron age. It's called progress, which of course doesn't stop us having a degree of affection for cultural history and appreciating its long-term influence - but not to the extent of thinking it to be critically relevant to the current situation some three millennia later.

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.

You clearly get a warm and cosy feeling from one brand of organised religious superstition dating from antiquity: but then again some no doubt find a similar level of personal satisfaction in football or motorcycles. So, so what!

[Shaker]

I would have thought you had the intelligence to realise that I was referring to perceived results of reasoning, rather than the method.

Then that's what you should have said. You didn't.

[Maeght]

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.

We all understand that scientific theories are open to new evidence which can modify or invalidate them. This is a strength of the scientific method. Religious beliefs are different things altogether and as such the idea that they might be unchanged over thousands of years is both not a surprise and, frankly, not significant.

[Shaker]

We all understand that scientific theories are open to new evidence which can modify or invalidate them. This is a strength of the scientific method. Religious beliefs are different things altogether and as such the idea that they might be unchanged over thousands of years is both not a surprise and, frankly, not significant.

... and, some of us might add, downright fatuous.

[Gordon]

I would have thought you had the intelligence to realise that I was referring to perceived results of reasoning, rather than the method.

If you have 'results' then you must have had a method of obtaining these 'results', and the details of this method, or theoretical framework underpinning the reasoning,  is of critical importance in determining whether the claimed 'results' are meaningful or not.

To appeal to 'results' without saying something meaningful about the method or reasoning whereby these 'results' have been obtained is of no value whatsoever - you may as well just make stuff up and claim 'result' and then slope off before anyone asks questions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why does it have to be in the commandments when it is in Numbers?

Why would I raise a question to some poster, other than Alan when he claimed oneness and consistency of view, or to you when you replied to that post of mine?

I think you have a case of not considering the bible in toto.

Yes, there are embarrassing bits in the bible which seem to be dealbreakers for some.

Of course you haven't approached jewish posters on what is their main scripture because there haven't been any for sometime......prior to 2015?

[Nearly Sane]

I think you have a case of not considering the bible in toto.

Yes, there are embarrassing bits in the bible which seem to be dealbreakers for some.

Of course you haven't approached jewish posters on what is their main scripture because there haven't been any for sometime......prior to 2015?

I find it odd that you think your god demanding child rape and slaughter as embarassing. How will thinking it about it in toto make a difference? And why would Alan be ok to cite one part and appear not be considering it in toto?

I have no idea what relevance you think that we haven't got a Jewish poster has to me asking a question of Alan, and you responding to that post.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you have a case of not considering the bible in toto.

Yes, there are embarrassing bits in the bible which seem to be dealbreakers for some.

Of course you haven't approached jewish posters on what is their main scripture because there haven't been any for sometime......prior to 2015?

oh and given that you have now dropped the comments about absolutely morality, am I to assume that silence is you consenting to you being wrong?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I find it odd that you think your god demanding child rape and slaughter as embarassing. How will thinking it about it in toto make a difference? And why would Alan be ok to cite one part and appear not be considering it in toto?

I have no idea what relevance you think that we haven't got a Jewish poster has to me asking a question of Alan, and you responding to that post.

I find it odd that you find no trouble believing in this bad bit of the bible as history and yet have trouble with the Gospels in that respect. The bible predicts fallenness of human activity, the triumph of what Paul describes as the lower nature and what I describe as Darwinian imperitives.


Here, God licences according to you sexual incontinenceelsewhere and at another time no doubt it will be argued that God is a sexual spoilsport.

For me, then God pronounces on man in Genesis, fallen, then out of love continues to deal with humanity even when it has fallen into the cesspit.

Lastly the Bible is not God....it is not the fourth person of the trinity. It is not all about rape and murder and if Alan finds the bible help in finding onenness who are you to gainsay that.


I am rather glad we have warts and all documentation. All scripture is for edification and education says Paul as a pronouncement on the role of scripture. Grown ups books do not hide horror.


Antitheism in the shape of the NSS seem to be in the process of airbrushing embarrassing moments in the antitheist experience out unless of course Krauss's biography has been restored.

[Nearly Sane]

I find it odd that you find no trouble believing in this bad bit of the bible as history and yet have trouble with the Gospels in that respect. The bible predicts fallenness of human activity, the triumph of what Paul describes as the lower nature and what I describe as Darwinian imperitives.


Here, God licences according to you sexual incontinenceelsewhere and at another time no doubt it will be argued that God is a sexual spoilsport.

For me, then God pronounces on man in Genesis, fallen, then out of love continues to deal with humanity even when it has fallen into the cesspit.

Lastly the Bible is not God....it is not the fourth person of the trinity. It is not all about rape and murder and if Alan finds the bible help in finding onenness who are you to gainsay that.


I am rather glad we have warts and all documentation. All scripture is for edification and education says Paul as a pronouncement on the role of scripture. Grown ups books do not hide horror.


Antitheism in the shape of the NSS seem to be in the process of airbrushing embarrassing moments in the antitheist experience out unless of course Krauss's biography has been restored.

It's not a question of believing anything as history. It's a question of you, and in this case's Alan's consistency in your thoughts. Your second sentence seems a completely non sequitur.

Alan's argument was that oneness was somehow indicative of something and he regards the bible as consistent. You seem both to do so, and you haven't answered any question about what in toto actually means.


Your second para is a misrepresentation

Your fourth para seems irrelevant


Your fifth paragraph ignores the claim that of ordered the slaughter and rape of the Midianite children, to present that as simply what happens. If you take that approach then any claim to what you see as good orders are no more useful, other than you very picking.



You last para is completely irrelevant.

And I take it you have now dropped the irrelevance of the Jewish poster?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not a question of believing anything as history. It's a question of you, and in this case's Alan's consistency in your thoughts. Your second sentence seems a completely non sequitur.

Alan's argument was that oneness was somehow indicative of something and he regards the bible as consistent. You seem both to do so, and you haven't answered any question about what in toto actually means.


Your second para is a misrepresentation

Your fourth para seems irrelevant


Your fifth paragraph ignores the claim that of ordered the slaughter and rape of the Midianite children, to present that as simply what happens. If you take that approach then any claim to what you see as good orders are no more useful, other than you very picking.



You last para is completely irrelevant.

And I take it you have now dropped the irrelevance of the Jewish poster?

An accusation of cherry picking is peculiar and indeed humbug flavoured coming from yourself who here demands we treat rape and child murder as God's commandment for us thus eliminating the other 99.99 % of the Bible.

It is not even one of the commandments.

The intriguing question remains. Why is God commanding this believable and God raising Christ unbelievable for you?

[Alan Burns]

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

I feel oneness with the God who so loved the world, that he gave us His only son - not to condemn the world, but to save it.

[Gordon]

I feel oneness with the God who so loved the world, that he gave us His only son - not to condemn the world, but to save it.

So, for the sake of argument, would you say that this plan has been an effective one?

[Nearly Sane]

I feel oneness with the God who so loved the world, that he gave us His only son - not to condemn the world, but to save it.

That isn't an answer to the question.


Here it is again

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

[Maeght]

I feel oneness with the God who so loved the world, that he gave us His only son - not to condemn the world, but to save it.

Loaned I would say rather than gave, according to the story anyway.

[Sriram]

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'.

My point was that what we take as obvious through sensory observation cannot be relied upon to give us the complete picture. 

The true picture of the universe requires to be painstakingly put together through rigorous study and effort, it isn't obvious. Similarly, the spiritual dimension to life isn't very obvious.  It requires certain awareness of the subtle aspects of life and requires years/decades of study and personal effort to understand.

Asking for evidence of spiritual things is like asking for evidence of the sun being the centre of the solar system or the stars being huge balls of fire many light years away. The evidence cannot be shown because it is all indirect. If one is genuinely interested they have to undertake years of study and become aware of  many fundamental things before they can 'see' the evidence.

Belief in specific deities is a deep emotional issue. It is about what we have grown up with. It is similar to respecting ones mother or father or ones community or country. Objectivity may take a beating.

[torridon]

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.

This post illustrates the fact that human nature does not change quickly, whereas human knowledge does.  That there is beauty in the Psalms does not invalidate any scientific theory. Hunter gatherers in the palaeolithic would have been struck by the beauty of a rainbow and might have believed it a sign from god.  I am also struck by its beauty but for me it is in no way diminished by the knowledge that it is a meteorological phenomenon of light refraction through atmospheric water droplets.  There is for many though a dissonance that derives from this conflict between human nature and human knowledge that leads them into an unholy vortex of knowledge denial.  If that is a destination that Searching for God gets you to, it's a ride I'll skip, thank you very much.

[Alan Burns]

This post illustrates the fact that human nature does not change quickly, whereas human knowledge does.  That there is beauty in the Psalms does not invalidate any scientific theory. Hunter gatherers in the palaeolithic would have been struck by the beauty of a rainbow and might have believed it a sign from god.  I am also struck by its beauty but for me it is in no way diminished by the knowledge that it is a meteorological phenomenon of light refraction through atmospheric water droplets.  There is for many though a dissonance that derives from this conflict between human nature and human knowledge that leads them into an unholy vortex of knowledge denial.  If that is a destination that Searching for God gets you to, it's a ride I'll skip, thank you very much.

But knowledge alone does not necessarily give us the wisdom to perceive any true meanings behind our existence.  In particular, if you try to use your limited knowledge to dismiss the divine revelations of the Christian bible, you are visibly demonstrating the truth in this prophetic verse from psalm 49: "In his riches, man lacks wisdom"

[Nearly Sane]

An accusation of cherry picking is peculiar and indeed humbug flavoured coming from yourself who here demands we treat rape and child murder as God's commandment for us thus eliminating the other 99.99 % of the Bible.

It is not even one of the commandments.

The intriguing question remains. Why is God commanding this believable and God raising Christ unbelievable for you?

I am not demanding you eliminate any of the Bible. I've already pointed it out that I'm just expecting you to treat it consistently. So stop with the misrepresentation.

Your commandments comment is just more of the cherry picking.

And your last para is just more misrepresentation. It's not an intriguing question because it's an invalid one. I don't find it believable, you do but yo u, and Alan, cherry pick.


Oh, and btw, just to check I take it you now accept that:

You were wrong to refer to absolute morality when you actually meant objective morality?

Your questions about a Jewish poster were irrelevant?

Your reference to the NSS and Lawrence Krause was irrelevant?

[Gordon]

But knowledge alone does not necessarily give us the wisdom to perceive any true meanings behind our existence.

Depends what you mean by 'true meanings', and I suspect you're begging the question again. Would you not say that knowledge is likely to be more conducive to wisdom than is ignorance?

In particular, if you try to use your limited knowledge to dismiss the divine revelations of the Christian bible, you are visibly demonstrating the truth in this prophetic verse from psalm 49: "In his riches, man lacks wisdom"

Can't see that you need to be 'divine' to conclude that assets (including knowledge gained) and wisdom don't always coincide: but this is you over-egging the pudding again by seeing what is little more than a cliche as being especially profound because of where you read it.

[Enki]

My point was that what we take as obvious through sensory observation cannot be relied upon to give us the complete picture. 

The true picture of the universe requires to be painstakingly put together through rigorous study and effort, it isn't obvious. Similarly, the spiritual dimension to life isn't very obvious.  It requires certain awareness of the subtle aspects of life and requires years/decades of study and personal effort to understand.

Asking for evidence of spiritual things is like asking for evidence of the sun being the centre of the solar system or the stars being huge balls of fire many light years away. The evidence cannot be shown because it is all indirect. If one is genuinely interested they have to undertake years of study and become aware of  many fundamental things before they can 'see' the evidence.

Belief in specific deities is a deep emotional issue. It is about what we have grown up with. It is similar to respecting ones mother or father or ones community or country. Objectivity may take a beating.

I know what you meant, Sriram. I'm just pointing out that if we are to accept that any of our evidential views could be wrong(a position that I'm all in favour of) then this must at least equally apply to the subjective view that there is a 'spiritual dimension'(no matter how many years of study etc.). What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.