Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Incorrect.   As torridon says, if this strikes me as nonsense, or even meaningless, I can't force myself to accept it as meaningful, no more than I can like something that I don't.

We have the freedom to seek God, or we have the freedom to think of reasons not to believe in Him, (as aptly illustrated in this thread.)
The choice is ours.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

We have the freedom to seek God, or we have the freedom to think of reasons not to believe in Him, (as aptly illustrated in this thread.)
The choice is ours.

We also have the "freedom" to conclude - rightly as it happens - that you provide no sound reasons at all to think that claims like this are true. 

That's your problem. If you want your evangelising to be taken seriously then you need to up your game above mindless assertions and very bad arguments. Why not for example start with one of those "logical thoughts" you claim to have? 

[torridon]

We have the freedom to seek God, or we have the freedom to think of reasons not to believe in Him, (as aptly illustrated in this thread.)
The choice is ours.

Incorrect, yet again.  There needs to be positive evidence to justify a positive belief.  It is not a question of assuming god in the absence of disproof.  All your thinking is back to front.

[wigginhall]

We have the freedom to seek God, or we have the freedom to think of reasons not to believe in Him, (as aptly illustrated in this thread.)
The choice is ours.

That to me is like having the freedom to think that Berlin is the capital of France.

[Stranger]

We have the freedom to seek God...

First we would need some reason to think that any of the thousands of gods humanity does or has believed in are at all likely to exist. As has been pointed out, we cannot just choose to find something convincing if it isn't.

...or we have the freedom to think of reasons not to believe in Him, (as aptly illustrated in this thread.)

The total absence of any reason to take any of the thousands of god-ideas seriously, is quite enough. Nobody needs to think of any other reasons.

[Gordon]

We have the freedom to seek God, or we have the freedom to think of reasons not to believe in Him, (as aptly illustrated in this thread.)
The choice is ours.

I seem to have the 'freedom' to, say, like or dislike pineapple (I intensely dislike the stuff), which I can test by deciding to eat some, but I'll pass: the thing is my inherent dislike isn't a choice I've 'freely' made, and the only choice I can make is in relation to the avoidance of pineapple - can you see the difference?

By the way, I haven't spent time thinking 'of reasons not to believe in Him' - all I've had to do is reject the reasons offered by such as yourself as being incoherent and/or fallacious.

[Sebastian Toe]

The bottom line is this:

We have all been given the freedom to choose to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.

The bottom line is this:

We have the freedom to choose to accept Mohammed as the true prophet and let him lead you to God.

The other bottom line is that we have the freedom to choose the one true path to God is via Smith and the Mormon way.

The other bottom line us that we have the freedom to choose to follow the path of Buddha.

The other bottom line is.....
Need I go on?

By the way, all of the freedoms to choose clearly demonstrates the workings of a biological brain making choices entirely under deterministic principles with no magic, logic free, fantasy ridden soul required.

[Alan Burns]

Incorrect, yet again.  There needs to be positive evidence to justify a positive belief.

Have you ever sought positive evidence for God?

It is not a question of assuming god in the absence of disproof.  All your thinking is back to front.

You can either assume God exists, then look for reasons why He does not exist,
or you can assume God does not exist, then look for reasons why He might exist.

Either are valid starting points.
The choice where to start is all yours.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Have you ever sought positive evidence for God?

Yes - from you. So far at least though you've been unwilling or unable to provide any of it.

It is not a question of assuming god in the absence of disproof.  All your thinking is back to front.
You can either assume God exists, then look for reasons why He does not exist,
or you can assume God does not exist, then look for reasons why He might exist.

Either are valid starting points.
The choice where to start is all yours.

Wrong again. It's called the burden of proof - something else you've never grasped – and if you think otherwise then you have no choice but to accept the same approach to leprechauns, pixies and the Loch Ness Monster.

Oh, and about showing us one of these "logical thoughts" of yours - any progress on that yet?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Have you ever sought positive evidence for God?You can either assume God exists, then look for reasons why He does not exist,
or you can assume God does not exist, then look for reasons why He might exist.

Either are valid starting points.
The choice where to start is all yours.

Are you actually being serious here?

You told us, some time ago that you were a serious thinker, or words to that effect.
And then you post this.

Seriously?

[Gordon]

Have you ever sought positive evidence for God?You can either assume God exists, then look for reasons why He does not exist,
or you can assume God does not exist, then look for reasons why He might exist.

Either are valid starting points.
The choice where to start is all yours.

Another false dichotomy, Alan: you've forgotten the option of concluding that claim(s) of 'God' are an incoherent mess that can simply be ignored until such times as an argument for 'God' is offered that isn't an incoherent mess.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another false dichotomy, Alan: you've forgotten the option of concluding that claim(s) of 'God' are an incoherent mess that can simply be ignored until such times as an argument for 'God' is offered that isn't an incoherent mess.

And of course outright Goddodgery hasn't been mentioned for some time.

[Gordon]

And of course outright Goddodgery hasn't been mentioned for some time.

Thank God for that.

[torridon]

Have you ever sought positive evidence for God?You can either assume God exists, then look for reasons why He does not exist,
or you can assume God does not exist, then look for reasons why He might exist.

Either are valid starting points.
The choice where to start is all yours.

If there were any evidence then it would be in the science text books already.  But it isn't, why, because there isn't any.

[Spud]

OK, and the reason why one soul might succumb to temptation whereas the next one might succeed in resisting temptation is ...

Did God deal out some souls that are better able to resist temptation than others ?

Everyone has fallen at some point. No-one has completely resisted temptation.
That's the reason why "We have all been given the freedom to choose to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour."

[jeremyp]

Have you ever sought positive evidence for God?You can either assume God exists, then look for reasons why He does not exist,
or you can assume God does not exist, then look for reasons why He might exist.

Either are valid starting points.
The choice where to start is all yours.

I have sought positive evidence of God. Now I’m reasonably certain that it doesn’t exist.

[Sebastian Toe]

And of course outright Goddodgery hasn't been mentioned for some time.

To busy dealing with logicdodgery for now.

[Alan Burns]

Another false dichotomy, Alan: you've forgotten the option of concluding that claim(s) of 'God' are an incoherent mess that can simply be ignored until such times as an argument for 'God' is offered that isn't an incoherent mess.

I did not mean to imply that these were the only options.

They were meant to be valid starting points for a serious search for the possibility of God's existence.

Another option, if you do not want to believe in God is to deliberately look for reasons to dismiss any evidence of God's possible existence

[Gordon]

I did not mean to imply that these were the only options.

They were meant to be valid starting points for a serious search for the possibility of God's existence.

Another option, if you do not want to believe in God is to deliberately look for reasons to dismiss any evidence of God's possible existence

You really are mixed-up, Alan.

The only 'serious' point upon which to consider the claim of 'God' as being sound would be an argument in support of 'God' that wasn't fallacious or incoherent, therefore I've already dismissed any reasons offered to date by such as yourself.

Nor is it the case that I don't want to believe in 'God': it is simply that there are no good reasons for me to take the claim of 'God' as being a serious proposition in the first place.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I did not mean to imply that these were the only options.

Just assuming the premise isn’t an option at all - or at least it isn’t unless you afford the same status to any other undefined, un-argued assertion about the existence of something.

They were meant to be valid starting points for a serious search for the possibility of God's existence.

Then they failed. As has been explained to you countless times and you’ve always ignored, agreeing on the possibility of something – gods and leprechauns included – isn’t the problem (I’m leaving aside here your basic definitional problem by the way). We can agree on the possibility of anything you like. Your problem though is to bridge the gap from possibility to probability, which is the point at which you always run way. 

Another option, if you do not want to believe in God is to deliberately look for reasons to dismiss any evidence of God's possible existence

That could be (it's the deeply idiotic idea of "goddodging"), but that’s why we rely on logic rather than personal opinion. However much someone may not want your or any other god to exist when you attempt to validate the claim with a logical fallacy all that's necessary to falsify the effort is to identify the fallacy. And that’s what always happens when you try to validate your beliefs with an argument, which is when you always either run for cover or resort to mindless assertion.

Remember?

PS Any news on you finally posting a "logical thought” by the way? Something? Anything at all?

[Alan Burns]

If there were any evidence then it would be in the science text books already.  But it isn't, why, because there isn't any.

The main evidence is in your own existence - a creative being with freedom to choose and to consciously manipulate the forces of nature, made in the image of its creator.

[Sebastian Toe]

The main evidence is in your own existence - a creative being with freedom to choose and to consciously manipulate the forces of nature, made in the image of its creator.

Ah, good old wishful thinking and a fine example of the workings of a biological brain making choices entirely under deterministic principles with no magic, logic free, fantasy ridden soul required.

[torridon]

The main evidence is in your own existence - a creative being with freedom to choose and to consciously manipulate the forces of nature, made in the image of its creator.

Oh, come on, that is the best you can come up with after years on this thread with thousands of posts, and you still don't understand the basic concept of evidence ? Whatever happened to your 'serious search'  If you want to scrutinise concepts seriously you need a far higher level of diligence.  Your incredulity at what we have learned from science does not constitute evidence, it is simply incredulity.  Your confusion around issues of logic, and the meaning of 'freedom' does not constitute evidence, it is simply confusion.  If these things really were evidence, then why are they not in the science text books.    They aren't because they aren't evidence, they are merely muddles you need to straighten out in your own mind.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

That could be (it's the deeply idiotic idea of "goddodging"), but that’s why we rely on logic rather than personal opinion.

Since you have taken up your challenge of a few posts ago let me take this on and maybe answer some of Sebastian Toes points as we go.

First of all, evidence of God aversion. Both Lawrence Krauss and Thomas Nagel talk of not wanting (aversion) God and both would along with many atheists acknowledge that they don't have full certainty that God does not exist. You yourself have counselled your fellow atheists not to declare that. In other words Logic does not decree atheism.

Given then that God may exist we are presented with various approaches to and understandings of God.

Which understanding garners most aversion? Is it the remote God? Is it the improbable God of the atheists? Is it the Ant God? Is it the God that Mohammed talks about?or what buddha talks about?

No, the evidence from this board is that the God who garners most heartfelt aversion is the Christian God, a God presented as close, once incarnate as a human being, who seems to offer personal relationship in which mere intellectual assent will not seem to suffice.

Plenty evidence of God aversion then

Given this the claim that Goddodging is a deeply idiotic idea looks unfounded.

[jeremyp]

The main evidence is in your own existence - a creative being with freedom to choose and to consciously manipulate the forces of nature, made in the image of its creator.

Surely you have been participating in this thread long enough to understand that the existence of humans is not evidence for a god. The people arguing against you think that humans arose through the natural process of evolution and the evidence for that is virtually incontrovertible. If you want to convince us that there is a god, you need real evidence.