Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

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.

The fact that the Christian Bible exists and has many devotees is not a valid argument against the divine inspiration of the Qur'an.

I agree that prophecy should be viewed with caution, especially since if one excludes lucky guesses and logical deductions it is just gloriously imprecise woo.

[Sebastian Toe]

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.

The fact that the Bible exists and has many devotees is not a valid argument against the divine inspiration of the Qur'an.

One man could be correct though, couldn't he?
And if he was correct how are you going to reconcile that when judgement comes around?

[Alan Burns]

The fact that the Christian Bible exists and has many devotees is not a valid argument against the divine inspiration of the Qur'an.

I agree that prophecy should be viewed with caution, especially since if one excludes lucky guesses and logical deductions it is just gloriously imprecise woo.

But the New Testament offers far more than gloriously imprecise woo.  It is not prophesy, but witness to fulfilment of prophesy - comprising the writings of several independent witnesses to the life of the person who changed the world and brought us salvation.

[Gordon]

But the New Testament offers far more than gloriously imprecise woo.  It is not prophesy, but witness to fulfilment of prophesy - comprising the writings of several independent witnesses to the life of the person who changed the world and brought us salvation.

Even 'fulfilment' claims give credence to prophetic woo but, and more importantly, how have you addressed the risks of mistakes and lies in the NT given that it was written post hoc and the provenance of chunks of it is uncertain?
 

[Alan Burns]

Even 'fulfilment' claims give credence to prophetic woo but, and more importantly, how have you addressed the risks of mistakes and lies in the NT given that it was written post hoc and the provenance of chunks of it is uncertain?

The clinical analysis of evidence which you advocate is simply not feasible, and frankly it could add nothing to the spiritual dimension of my Christian faith.

For me, the evidence for the validity of the NT lies in the profound meanings obtained from the words themselves.  Meanings which have taken over people's lives and revolutionised the way we live.  Every time I hear the word of God proclaimed in the writings of the NT I perceive ever deeper meanings and insights into the reality of our existence and our relationship with God.

[torridon]

The clinical analysis of evidence which you advocate is simply not feasible, and frankly it could add nothing to the spiritual dimension of my Christian faith.

For me, the evidence for the validity of the NT lies in the profound meanings obtained from the words themselves.  Meanings which have taken over people's lives and revolutionised the way we live.  Every time I hear the word of God proclaimed in the writings of the NT I perceive ever deeper meanings and insights into the reality of our existence and our relationship with God.

The same can be said for all the world's faiths; people across India for instance find spiritual enrichment through Hindu spiritual practices and teachings, so to understand that diversity of experience we can look for common denominators in human nature.  What doesn't make sense is to downplay the importance of a 'clinical' analysis of teachings from an epistemic truth point of view when it suits but then use that approach to deny the 'validity' of other faiths.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so they say, and beholders vary according to their culture.

[Gordon]

The clinical analysis of evidence which you advocate is simply not feasible, and frankly it could add nothing to the spiritual dimension of my Christian faith.

I'd agree with you that the NT is immune to any meaningful analysis as regards what it claims being historical facts: hence you need 'faith'. The implication here must therefore be that it can't be claimed by anyone that the key event in the NT, the claimed resurrection of Jesus, is a historical fact but it sounds like, for you anyway, the story is enough.   

For me, the evidence for the validity of the NT lies in the profound meanings obtained from the words themselves.

There isn't valid evidence that confirms the NT as being historical fact: you just conceded that when you said 'The clinical analysis of evidence which you advocate is simply not feasible'. You're falling into the relativist (it's true for me) fallacy.

Meanings which have taken over people's lives and revolutionised the way we live.  Every time I hear the word of God proclaimed in the writings of the NT I perceive ever deeper meanings and insights into the reality of our existence and our relationship with God.

So it floats your boat: we get that.

[Alan Burns]

I'd agree with you that the NT is immune to any meaningful analysis as regards what it claims being historical facts: hence you need 'faith'. The implication here must therefore be that it can't be claimed by anyone that the key event in the NT, the claimed resurrection of Jesus, is a historical fact but it sounds like, for you anyway, the story is enough.   

There isn't valid evidence that confirms the NT as being historical fact: you just conceded that when you said 'The clinical analysis of evidence which you advocate is simply not feasible'. You're falling into the relativist (it's true for me) fallacy.

So it floats your boat: we get that.

It does indeed float many millions of people's boats, but I would much rather float than sink. 

In your earlier post, you suggested the possibility of the NT being based upon human mistakes and deliberate lies, but could such profound world changing insights and meanings be derived from what amounts to a concoction of lies and mistakes?  I think not.  And once again I no doubt stand accused of personal incredulity.

[Gordon]

It does indeed float many millions of people's boats, but I would much rather float than sink.

Argumentum ad populum.

In your earlier post, you suggested the possibility of the NT being based upon human mistakes and deliberate lies,

Not quite: I suggested that mistakes and lies were known risks when dealing with human accounts and asked how you'd assessed these risks in respect of the NT - so how did you?

but could such profound world changing insights and meanings be derived from what amounts to a concoction of lies and mistakes?  I think not.

Don't be silly: the NT isn't especially 'profound' in terms of insights, since its messages (for want of a better term) seem to consist largely of cliches and deepities and its social affects can be seen as a consequence of its prominent role in political power over many centuries, though that is thankfully waning in the UK at least.

People can be credulous you know, and especially where authority and tradition are involved, so that they can align themselves to suspect thinking: and this is evident in politics as well as religion.   

And once again I no doubt stand accused of personal incredulity.

Indeed: personal incredulity is just one of the fallacies you are prone to committing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It does indeed float many millions of people's boats, but I would much rather float than sink.   

In your earlier post, you suggested the possibility of the NT being based upon human mistakes and deliberate lies, but could such profound world changing insights and meanings be derived from what amounts to a concoction of lies and mistakes?  I think not.  And once again I no doubt stand accused of personal incredulity.

Couple of problems there. First, the NT makes various claims of fact – that a man/god existed, was dead for a bit, then was alive again for example. These claims are either true or they’re not – why they may not be (lies, mistakes etc) is a secondary issue. So far however, no-one has been able to produce a logical path to miracle stories being more likely to be true than not.

Second, countless other people find just as deep insights in their different "holy" texts as you find in yours. If you think the “concoction of lies and mistakes” idea about the NT is problematic for the purpose of finding meaning, then you have no choice but to accept that it'd be problematic for those other texts too – and thus that they must all be true as well. As (presumably) you don’t think that (ten commandments and all that), a moment’s thought should tell you that there doesn’t have to be a word of truth in the NT’s claims of fact for you to find it deeply meaningful nonetheless.   

In other words, "...but could such profound world changing insights and meanings be derived from what amounts to a concoction of lies and mistakes?  I think not" is a non sequitur for the same reason that "if there wasn't really a hare and a tortoise then Aesop's fables couldn't be insightful" is a non sequitur.   

[Shaker]

I think not.

We know.

And once again I no doubt stand accused of personal incredulity.

Yup.

[Alan Burns]

I suggested that mistakes and lies were known risks when dealing with human accounts and asked how you'd assessed these risks in respect of the NT - so how did you?

My assessment of the risk of the NT not having divine origins is based on the unlikely scenario that it could ever have been concocted by humans alone.

And may I ask if you have considered the risk of your presumption that every aspect of our human nature could be entirely driven by predetermined physical reactions of material elements not being true?  In other words, have you been able to evaluate the risk of assuming that you do not have a spiritual self?

[Shaker]

My assessment of the risk of the NT not having divine origins is based on the unlikely scenario that it could ever have been concocted by humans alone.

And how have you ascertained that this is unlikely?

[Sebastian Toe]

My assessment of the risk of the NT not having divine origins is based on the unlikely scenario that it could ever have been concocted by humans alone.

My assessment of the risk of the NT not having divine origins is based on the very likely scenario that it could only ever have been concocted by humans alone.

[Nearly Sane]

My assessment of the risk of the NT not having divine origins is based on the unlikely scenario that it could ever have been concocted by humans alone.

And may I ask if you have considered the risk of your presumption that every aspect of our human nature could be entirely driven by predetermined physical reactions of material elements not being true?  In other words, have you been able to evaluate the risk of assuming that you do not have a spiritual self?

Since probability is a methodologically naturalistic concept - your post is vacuous. Do you have a non naturalistic methodology where you can evaluate probability of such claims?

[Gordon]

My assessment of the risk of the NT not having divine origins is based on the unlikely scenario that it could ever have been concocted by humans alone.

On what basis have you done your assessment: what method(s) did you use?

And may I ask if you have considered the risk of your presumption that every aspect of our human nature could be entirely driven by predetermined physical reactions of material elements not being true?  In other words, have you been able to evaluate the risk of assuming that you do not have a spiritual self?

What parameters does the the 'spiritual self' comprise so that I can assess whether or not I have one? For me to do that your definition of 'spiritual self' will also need to lend itself to some sort of method suited to investigating the 'spiritual', and this is where you've always fallen down before.

[Alan Burns]

The same can be said for all the world's faiths; people across India for instance find spiritual enrichment through Hindu spiritual practices and teachings, so to understand that diversity of experience we can look for common denominators in human nature.  What doesn't make sense is to downplay the importance of a 'clinical' analysis of teachings from an epistemic truth point of view when it suits but then use that approach to deny the 'validity' of other faiths.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so they say, and beholders vary according to their culture.

I am well aware of the spiritual insights claimed from other faiths, but I fail to see how their existence can detract from the insights obtained from the New Testament.  The fact that there may be conflicting claims over what is true is not a valid reason to believe that none of them are true.  Atheism is just another belief system which lays claim to the truth.  One thing is certain - they can't all be right.  Most of us have a desire to discover the truth behind our existence, and to do this we need to utilise all our faculties and not be blinkered by looking only at what human scientific investigation can offer.

[Gordon]

I am well aware of the spiritual insights claimed from other faiths, but I fail to see how their existence can detract from the insights obtained from the New Testament.

The burden of proof regarding the NT remains yours irrespective of what others believe.

The fact that there may be conflicting claims over what is true is not a valid reason to believe that none of them are true.

Nor is it a good reason to be believe that any of them are true: while it can be said that not all of them can be true it can also be said that all of them can be wrong.

Atheism is just another belief system which lays claim to the truth.

No it isn't, and you should know that by now.

One thing is certain - they can't all be right.

But they can all be wrong.

Most of us have a desire to discover the truth behind our existence, and to do this we need to utilise all our faculties and not be blinkered by looking only at what human scientific investigation can offer.

Begging the question (with a dash of reification for good measure).

[Shaker]

I am well aware of the spiritual insights claimed from other faiths, but I fail to see how their existence can detract from the insights obtained from the New Testament.

Very much your problem there - credulity toward the set of putative truth claims with which you were raised and incredulity toward all the others.

The fact that there may be conflicting claims over what is true is not a valid reason to believe that none of them are true.

Actually, yes it is. You're shortly to demonstrate why. In the meantime ...

Atheism is just another belief system which lays claim to the truth.

One of your stupider fatuities and that's saying something. Atheism isn't a belief system; it's the absence or the rejection of one, namely, theism.

One thing is certain - they can't all be right.

There we go. But they most certainly can all be wrong, can't they?

[Alan Burns]

What parameters does the the 'spiritual self' comprise so that I can assess whether or not I have one? For me to do that your definition of 'spiritual self' will also need to lend itself to some sort of method suited to investigating the 'spiritual', and this is where you've always fallen down before.

The fact that I have the consciously driven freedom to choose to contemplate the existence of my spiritual self is in itself compelling evidence for the existence of an entity within my being which is not driven by the uncontrollable natural forces of nature, but from the spiritual source of my God given soul.  Nature does not do freedom - it just does predefined reactions.

[Gordon]

The fact that I have the consciously driven freedom to choose to contemplate the existence of my spiritual self is in itself compelling evidence for the existence of an entity within my being which is not driven by the uncontrollable natural forces of nature, but from the spiritual source of my God given soul.  Nature does not do freedom - it just does predefined reactions.

You mean you have a brain and you can think abstractly - that isn't news, and nor does it imply anything other than good old biology at work.

Please tell me you're not going to start banging on about yon 'soul' bollocks again.

[Alan Burns]

One of your stupider fatuities and that's saying something. Atheism isn't a belief system; it's the absence or the rejection of one, namely, theism.
 

To reject the existence of God requires a belief that there will be a natural Godless explanation for everything.  Hence it is just another belief system.

[BeRational]

To reject the existence of God requires a belief that there will be a natural Godless explanation for everything.  Hence it is just another belief system.

It's not a belief, it is a rejection of the claim that a god exists.

I am an atheist and I do not know if a god exists, I just do not believe it.

Atheism is NOT a belief system.

Do you believe in Pixies?

If not is that your belief system?

[Gordon]

To reject the existence of God requires a belief that there will be a natural Godless explanation for everything.  Hence it is just another belief system.

Don't be stupid, Alan: this has all been explained to you many times before.

[torridon]

I am well aware of the spiritual insights claimed from other faiths, but I fail to see how their existence can detract from the insights obtained from the New Testament.  The fact that there may be conflicting claims over what is true is not a valid reason to believe that none of them are true.  Atheism is just another belief system which lays claim to the truth.  One thing is certain - they can't all be right.  Most of us have a desire to discover the truth behind our existence, and to do this we need to utilise all our faculties and not be blinkered by looking only at what human scientific investigation can offer.

ah, so much wrong in such a small space.  Have you not been paying attention ?

Atheism is not a belief system. There are 31000 posts on this thread, can you find a single one where an atheist has made this claim ?  Atheism does not lay claim to the 'truth'.  Can you point to any post claiming such.  If you cannot find such then you owe the board an apology for wasting people's time for inventing straw men to argue to thus avoiding engaging with what other posters actually say

Science does not 'blinker' us, it does the opposite, it opens our eyes, it extends our senses so that we can perceive and understand things beyond the reach of our inbuilt perception capabilities.  What would you have us do, walk around with eyes closed arguing that good vision is an impairment ?