Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

It may take some people a lifetime to find God, or to rediscover Him.  The essential thing is not to give up.

How do you spend a lifetime looking for god, exactly?

[Nearly Sane]

It may take some people a lifetime to find God, or to rediscover Him.  The essential thing is not to give up.

Why would your god ever hide?

[Alan Burns]

'Faith and Trust' - that's where you are going wrong.  Faith and trust are the enemies of evidence and reason. To discern truth, we need to be able to put aside our prejudices and biases, and let the evidence speak for itself.

But you appear to be selective about what evidence is to be considered.  If you restrict evidence to what can be discovered by scientific investigations into material behaviour, any perceived conclusions will be restricted to what can be achieved by the physical properties of material elements alone.  My own deductions conclude that there must be more to life than the physically pre defined reactions of material elements.

[torridon]

But you appear to be selective about what evidence is to be considered.  If you restrict evidence to what can be discovered by scientific investigations into material behaviour, any perceived conclusions will be restricted to what can be achieved by the physical properties of material elements alone.  My own deductions conclude that there must be more to life than the physically pre defined reactions of material elements.

Your 'deductions' are merely manifestations of your faith, not some grand epistemic truth.  This is the whole ethos underpinning science - to see clearly we need to eliminate human bias, not elevate it, which is all you are doing if you value faith above truth.

[BeRational]

But you appear to be selective about what evidence is to be considered.  If you restrict evidence to what can be discovered by scientific investigations into material behaviour, any perceived conclusions will be restricted to what can be achieved by the physical properties of material elements alone.  My own deductions conclude that there must be more to life than the physically pre defined reactions of material elements.

But as you admit, you are fallible, so you could be wrong.

That's why we need independent evidence that is not just how you feel things to be.

[Alan Burns]

How do you spend a lifetime looking for god, exactly?

You could well spend most of your life not looking for Him, but then finding Him before it is too late.

[Alan Burns]

But as you admit, you are fallible, so you could be wrong.

That's why we need independent evidence that is not just how you feel things to be.

But the independent evidence may not be sufficient to discover the truth about God's existence, and you may never find Him this way.  Yet God has made Himself known to us if we only realise this.

[Enki]

But you appear to be selective about what evidence is to be considered.  If you restrict evidence to what can be discovered by scientific investigations into material behaviour, any perceived conclusions will be restricted to what can be achieved by the physical properties of material elements alone.  My own deductions conclude that there must be more to life than the physically pre defined reactions of material elements.

I quite accept that your 'deductions' suggest that there is more to life than the workings of the natural world. The trouble is that this is simply your personal point of view. My own 'deductions' are very different to yours. I am quite prepared to look at any evidence which suggests that there is something beyond the natural world. The trouble is I have never been able to find any which stands up to rigid examination. Whose 'deductions' do I take, AB? Yours or mine?  At no time have you given any argument that would convince me that your 'deductions' are correct, especially as you so often rely upon pure assertion and come across as highly selective in your conclusions, which often seem to be little more than an attempt to fit in with your own theological mind set.

[Alan Burns]

Your 'deductions' are merely manifestations of your faith, not some grand epistemic truth.  This is the whole ethos underpinning science - to see clearly we need to eliminate human bias, not elevate it, which is all you are doing if you value faith above truth.

I value faith based upon God's revelations above man made efforts to discover the truth.

[BeRational]

But the independent evidence may not be sufficient to discover the truth about God's existence, and you may never find Him this way.  Yet God has made Himself known to us if we only realise this.

He has not made himself known to me.

And you could be mistaken about his existence?

[torridon]

I value faith based upon God's revelations above man made efforts to discover the truth.

You are playing word games with yourself.  i cannot make any effort that is not man-made; I am a man.  All of God's 'revelations' in the Bible are the works of human hand, as are those in the Qur'an and in the Eastern scriptures.  God's don't write or speak or play backgammon; these are human activities.  So we end up with half the world trusting in God's revelations in the Qur'an and the other half trusting in god's revelations in the Bible and they don't reconcile because all parties value their faith above any truth that requires us to drop our narrow prejudices.  We could do better than that.

[ippy]

I value faith based upon God's revelations above man made efforts to discover the truth.

Hopelessly and fully indoctrinated; everything in psychology works on averages, I suppose there'll always be the extremes to one side or the other and sadly the fully indoctrinated ones will never be able to appreciate just how thoroughly they have been indoctrinated.   

Commiserations to your sad case Alan, ippy

P S Have a look at N M's posts Alan, can you see the similarities? It's very sad.

[Gordon]

I value faith based upon God's revelations above man made efforts to discover the truth.

Then you've abandoned critical thinking.

[Sebastian Toe]

You could well spend most of your life not looking for Him, but then finding Him before it is too late.

Doesnt really answer my question though does it?
If you don't know then just say.

[Dicky Underpants]

You could well spend most of your life not looking for Him, but then finding Him before it is too late.

Still, seems all our searching would be pretty well useless if the following pronouncement were true:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:44

[Alan Burns]

Still, seems all our searching would be pretty well useless if the following pronouncement were true:

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day."

John 6:44

In order to be drawn to God, you first need to make a commitment using your God given free will.  You can't be drawn if you resist.

[Alan Burns]

You are playing word games with yourself.  i cannot make any effort that is not man-made; I am a man.  All of God's 'revelations' in the Bible are the works of human hand, as are those in the Qur'an and in the Eastern scriptures.  God's don't write or speak or play backgammon; these are human activities.  So we end up with half the world trusting in God's revelations in the Qur'an and the other half trusting in god's revelations in the Bible and they don't reconcile because all parties value their faith above any truth that requires us to drop our narrow prejudices.  We could do better than that.

You are making the presumption that none of the Christian bible was divinely inspired, which is inevitable if you refuse to admit the existence of God.  And there is far more evidence for the divine inspiration of the Christian bible than there is for the Qur'an, which is entirely based upon just one person's supposed prophesy.

[Shaker]

In order to be drawn to God, you first need to make a commitment using your God given free will.  You can't be drawn if you resist.

When the OED want a definition of circular reasoning, they'll come a-calling ...

[Shaker]

You are making the presumption that none of the Christian bible was divinely inspired, which is inevitable if you refuse to admit the existence of God. 

Yup.

I do.

And?

[Gordon]

You are making the presumption that none of the Christian bible was divinely inspired, which is inevitable if you refuse to admit the existence of God.

How do you know - as in having knowledge - that it was 'divinely inspired'?

And there is far more evidence for the divine inspiration of the Christian bible than there is for the Qur'an, which is entirely based upon just one person's supposed prophesy.

Evidence for 'divine inspiration' in the Bible is what exactly? You see, Alan, that people feel that the Bible was the result of 'divine inspiration' is evidence only that they feel this to be the case, and they could be wrong: so evidence that is independent of their faith-based personal beliefs is also needed.

As it stands there are no good reasons to take 'divinely inspired' as anything other than unevidenced religious superstition - unless you have something new up your sleeve.

[Shaker]

You are making the presumption that none of the Christian bible was divinely inspired, which is inevitable if you refuse to admit the existence of God.  And there is far more evidence for the divine inspiration of the Christian bible than there is for the Qur'an

Don't think the Muslims will be agreeing with you there, Al, since everything you say about the Bible (spectacularly and pacifically its historically later and rather more slender component) is exactly what they say about their book.

See how this works? You have no more evidence for the credibility of your book than they do for theirs. And the same goes for their book as compared to yours similarly, likewise and contrariwise. Formally it's called the Argument from Inconsistent (sometimes: Competing) Revelations. In short, it's a great big theobabblilogical game of "He said, she said." (Without the 'she' component, obvs. Monotheism not really favouring the distaff side of humanity and all that. So it's more like 'He said ... no, he said ... no, he said ... no, he said ...' ... there's a fairly famous Monty Python sketch which - I assume unintentionally, notwithstanding the later films - encapsulates the entire history of theism within a few minutes. Highly recommended).

Good luck with that one.

[torridon]

You are making the presumption that none of the Christian bible was divinely inspired, which is inevitable if you refuse to admit the existence of God.  And there is far more evidence for the divine inspiration of the Christian bible than there is for the Qur'an, which is entirely based upon just one person's supposed prophesy.

You are making the presumption that the Bible was divinely inspired.  That's a presumption that needs justification, which in turn requires a presumption of the existence of the divine.  Why should we presume the existence of the divine ?  Because the Bible says so perhaps ?

[ippy]

In order to be drawn to God, you first need to make a commitment using your God given free will.  You can't be drawn if you resist.

Exactly how do you know that there is a god to be drawn to in the first place Alan?

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.

[Alan Burns]

Don't think the Muslims will be agreeing with you there, Al, since everything you say about the Bible (spectacularly and pacifically its historically later and rather more slender component) is exactly what they say about their book.

See how this works? You have no more evidence for the credibility of your book than they do for theirs. And the same goes for their book as compared to yours similarly, likewise and contrariwise. Formally it's called the Argument from Inconsistent (sometimes: Competing) Revelations. In short, it's a great big theobabblilogical game of "He said, she said." (Without the 'she' component, obvs. Monotheism not really favouring the distaff side of humanity and all that. So it's more like 'He said ... no, he said ... no, he said ... no, he said ...' ... there's a fairly famous Monty Python sketch which - I assume unintentionally, notwithstanding the later films - encapsulates the entire history of theism within a few minutes. Highly recommended).

The fact that the Qur'an exists and has many devotees is not a valid argument against the divine inspiration of the Christian bible.  And I noticed that you clipped off the last bit of my sentence in the quote which pointed out that the Qur'an is entirely based upon the alleged prophesy of just one person.

[BeRational]

The fact that the Qur'an exists and has many devotees is not a valid argument against the divine inspiration of the Christian bible.  And I noticed that you clipped off the last bit of my sentence in the quote which pointed out that the Qur'an is entirely based upon the alleged prophesy of just one person.

Does that make it wrong?