Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

Translation: "You have to be gullible to believe this stuff". Some other religions say the same thing I believe.

Works for the Tooth Fairy and for Father Christmas too.

[Roses]

AB,

Translation: "You have to be gullible to believe this stuff". Some other religions say the same thing I believe.

Works for the Tooth Fairy and for Father Christmas too.

The tooth fairy and Father Christmas actually do some good and give pleasure to kids.

[Outrider]

Looks like Kayne West has found God:
https://tinyurl.com/y538jljq
There is hope for us all

On the plus side, less of the usual drivel from Kanye West; on the down side people still talking about Kanye West, which is ultimately what he wants...

O.

[Stranger]

I am sorry that I come across as not reading or fully understanding the responses made, but I have limited time to answer all the points as fully as I would like.  I am often accused of accepting my faith without question or critical appraisal.  But I do have an enquiring mind and I had already contemplated most of the points made in responses on this thread before I began posting here.

There is no evidence in your posts that you have contemplated the points people raise or have taken the time to understand the multiple fallacies you keep blundering into. If you have, why do you never provide any answers or counterarguments? Why the endless, inane repetition of the same things over and over again? You clearly have enough time to endlessly repeat yourself, so why don't you use some of it more constructively by actually engaging with the answers you get?

[torridon]

I believe there is a substantial difference in my motivation to post and in the motivation of those who do not share my faith.  For my part, the motivation is simply to share the good news of salvation which will benefit all who accept it beyond their wildest dreams....

... he asserted without any justification.

I've got a magic dragon living in my shed and he will grant you eternal blessings if only you will believe in him.  See, we can all do baseless assertions.

What you need is something stronger than assertion, something solid and convincing, but that, you don't appear to have.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No, what you want to "share" is your belief that there is this "good news".

Brings to mind Pilate's answer:

The chief priests of the Jews protested to Pilate, “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews,’ but that this man claimed to be king of the Jews.”
Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”

John 19:21-22

[Stranger]

Brings to mind Pilate's answer:

Brings to mind Hitchens' answer: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

[Alan Burns]

... he asserted without any justification.

I've got a magic dragon living in my shed and he will grant you eternal blessings if only you will believe in him.  See, we can all do baseless assertions.

But will the magic dragon in your shed become the most famous being that ever lived, changing the world over the next two thousand years?

[Outrider]

I believe there is a substantial difference in my motivation to post and in the motivation of those who do not share my faith.  For my part, the motivation is simply to share the good news of salvation which will benefit all who accept it beyond their wildest dreams.

You want to help people see what you think is a fundamental truth about reality, for their benefit it seems.  I'd suggest that there are a number of people who don't share your faith who are least partially motivated by that.

There are other motivations, of course, but that's at least part of it for me.

O.

[Outrider]

But will the magic dragon in your shed become the most famous being that ever lived, changing the world over the next two thousand years?

Like Buddha? Or Mohammed? Or Thor?

How far from the reality of an itinerant preacher with some nice ideas in pacifism does the myth of the demigod/avatar Jesus have to diverge before it can no longer be attributed to the real person, and becomes a purely literary creation like Harry Potter?

O.

[Alan Burns]

You clearly have enough time to endlessly repeat yourself, so why don't you use some of it more constructively by actually engaging with the answers you get?

I do engage, but often you dismiss my replies as drivel or word salad, which leads me to presume that you have not fully understood the answers I gave.

I will endeavor to improve my responses.

[Roses]

I do engage, but often you dismiss my replies as drivel or word salad, which leads me to presume that you have not fully understood the answers I gave.

I will endeavor to improve my responses.

Don't bother Alan, however you phrase your beliefs, to which you are entitled, they are not going to change the views of the non believers on the forum who will never see it your way. Why don't you join in some of the non religious debates, it would be interesting to know your views on them.

[Stranger]

I do engage, but often you dismiss my replies as drivel or word salad, which leads me to presume that you have not fully understood the answers I gave.

But you don't engage, do you?

For example, I have presented a logical argument that shows that you can't have a choice (or any event) that is not entirely due to the things that led to it without introducing randomness, and you either just assert that it's "short-sighted" or "flawed", without saying in what way, assert that it doesn't match our experiences, without justification, or you post something about "conscious awareness" that "exists and acts in the present". In the latter case, I point out that "the present" is meaningless (word salad) unless you can come up with a logical definition.

Then that's it until you repeat yourself yet again. You never attempt a definition, try to come up with an actual flaw in the logic, or justify your assertions about experience.

[Alan Burns]

Like Buddha? Or Mohammed? Or Thor?

How far from the reality of an itinerant preacher with some nice ideas in pacifism does the myth of the demigod/avatar Jesus have to diverge before it can no longer be attributed to the real person, and becomes a purely literary creation like Harry Potter?

O.

GK Chesterton covers this topic in great detail in his book "The Everlasting Man".  The first half of the book describes the advent of the thinking man, beginning with the evidence of early cave paintings and progressing to a search for the truth behind their existence. The second half
 explains at great length how the life of Jesus becomes the definitive answer to mankind's quest and how the Christian faith differs significantly from all the manmade religions and philosophies.

[Outrider]

GK Chesterton covers this topic in great detail in his book "The Everlasting Man".  The first half of the book describes the advent of the thinking man, beginning with the evidence of early cave paintings and progressing to a search for the truth behind their existence. The second half
 explains at great length how the life of Jesus becomes the definitive answer to mankind's quest and how the Christian faith differs significantly from all the manmade religions and philosophies.

Chesterton's book is, essentially, special pleading/argument from incredulity written large.  It boils down to 'if we are evolved animals then we're particularly unique ones' (see Steve H's thread on that, and bear in mind that all of the organisms of the world are 'particularly unique' and that if Jesus was just another wise man he was somehow still unique... without really being clear why he was any more 'special' than (say) Buddha, or Gandhi.  He completely fails to acknowledge the centuries of PR implemented by sword and word on behalf of the Christian faith to leverage a dominant position in the more technologically advanced areas of the world during the Renaissance, and fails to acknowledge that the post-Enlightenment boom in those areas has come as that religiosity and devotion have faded away in that same area.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Chesterton's book is, essentially, special pleading/argument from incredulity written large.  It boils down to 'if we are evolved animals then we're particularly unique ones' (see Steve H's thread on that, and bear in mind that all of the organisms of the world are 'particularly unique' and that if Jesus was just another wise man he was somehow still unique... without really being clear why he was any more 'special' than (say) Buddha, or Gandhi.  He completely fails to acknowledge the centuries of PR implemented by sword and word on behalf of the Christian faith to leverage a dominant position in the more technologically advanced areas of the world during the Renaissance, and fails to acknowledge that the post-Enlightenment boom in those areas has come as that religiosity and devotion have faded away in that same area.

O.

This sort of stuff reminds me of two things. One that if you go on a tour of a Scotch Whisky distillery, something I have dine on a number of occasions, there will always be something that they will state makes them unique, oldest, smallest, only one whose storage runs under the sea, etc etc.


The other is John Cleese on the Parkinson show explaining that he was going to see his accountant just after a Monty Python with a sketch mocking accountants for being boring. He was a little worried, but it all went through ok. At the end he couldn't help asking if the accountant had seen the show. To which the reply was that he had and enjoyed it. Cleese then asked if he hadn't got a bit annoyed at the sketch. And the reply was 'Oh no. It was about chartered accountants, I'm a certified accountant. '

[Alan Burns]

…. you post something about "conscious awareness" that "exists and acts in the present". In the latter case, I point out that "the present" is meaningless (word salad) unless you can come up with a logical definition.

"The present" is not meaningless.
It is simply defined by where our conscious awareness exists.
I am sure the vast majority of people on this planet would agree that this is a logical definition of the present.  It is not in the past, it is not in the future, it is where I exist now.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You recently repeated some egregious misunderstandings of evolution and of logic that in Reply 33617 I took the trouble to rebut. Can I take if that by ignoring those rebuttals you intend to pursue your tactic of avoiding your mistakes in order to move on to new ones in the short term and to repeat them in the longer term?

[Stranger]

"The present" is not meaningless.

It is in the context of the logic of making a choice. Either it is (in a strcit sense) a single, infinitesimal instant, in which nothing can happen, or (more colloquially) it is a short amount of time during which several things can happen in the normal sequence and subject to the logic I presented. In neither case does it affect the logic. In the former case, nothing can happen in the present, so your statement about it is nonsensical, and in the latter, it is irrelevant.

Again - this is something I've explained before and you just ignore it.

It is simply defined by where our conscious awareness exists.

Which firstly, doesn't change what I said above, and secondly, makes your whole statement about "conscious awareness" that "exists and acts in the present" into a pointless, and entirely meaningless truism.

I am sure the vast majority of people on this planet would agree that this is a logical definition of the present.

Only those who don't understand logic. It's a vague and imprecise definition that has zero impact on the logic of how minds work.

It is not in the past, it is not in the future, it is where I exist now.

Except that you don't in any strict, logical sense. Composing that message in your mind and then typing it out happened over a period of time. By the time you'd finished, the start was in the past. And that's before we get into the fact that everything you perceive is already in the past.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

"The present" is not meaningless.

Not if you bother to think about it it isn’t.

It is simply defined by where our conscious awareness exists.

Only by you and perhaps by other people who don’t bother to think about it. Have you really forgotten already that the lag between desires emerging form the subconscious and consciously becoming aware of them has been measured?

I am sure the vast majority of people on this planet would agree that this is a logical definition of the present.

I know you’re utterly indifferent to logic, but why do you think collapsing into an argumentum ad populum fallacy helps you here? “The vast majority of people on this planet” would agree that their fingers actually touch things too. So what? 

It is not in the past, it is not in the future, it is where I exist now.

Just repeating a mistake doesn’t make it less of a mistake. Popular beliefs that have served well enough in the past often fall apart when greater intellectual rigour is applied to them, and this is just one of them. 

[torridon]

But will the magic dragon in your shed become the most famous being that ever lived, changing the world over the next two thousand years?

Ad populum.  You won't get away with that around here.  Especially with Gordon watching.

[Alan Burns]

Only those who don't understand logic. It's a vague and imprecise definition that has zero impact on the logic of how minds work.

But unless you can define in physical terms how the mind works, you can't presume that "the present" has zero impact on the logic.

Except that you don't in any strict, logical sense. Composing that message in your mind and then typing it out happened over a period of time. By the time you'd finished, the start was in the past. And that's before we get into the fact that everything you perceive is already in the past.

Yes, what we perceive exists in the past, but our perception exists in the present, and what we choose to do gets invoked after we choose it, but the conscious choice occurs in the present. It all happens within the present state of conscious awareness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

Ad populum.  You won't get away with that around here.  Especially with Gordon watching.

It's also a nice example of survivorship bias:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias 

[Stranger]

But unless you can define in physical terms how the mind works, you can't presume that "the present" has zero impact on the logic.

Yes I can, simply because something that has no precise definition can't possibly have an impact on a logical argument.

Yes, what we perceive exists in the past, but our perception exists in the present, and what we choose to do gets invoked after we choose it, but the conscious choice occurs in the present. It all happens within the present state of conscious awareness.

There is so much wrong with this it's difficult to know where to even start. Just to begin with:

• You still haven't defined "the present" in a logically meaningful way.
  
  
• Making a choice is a process that takes time. You need to consider the options and what each one means, or might mean to you.
  
  
• Anything that exists in whatever you want to call "the present" either arrived because of reasons that existed before it or just popped into it for no reason (random).

[torridon]

But unless you can define in physical terms how the mind works, you can't presume that "the present" has zero impact on the logic.Yes, what we perceive exists in the past, but our perception exists in the present, and what we choose to do gets invoked after we choose it, but the conscious choice occurs in the present. It all happens within the present state of conscious awareness.

Whether you take a moment to make a choice or many moments, it still makes no difference to the logic of choice, which is that the choice eventually made reflects the outcome with greatest appeal to you.  And we have no control over how much things appeal to us.  No one can make a choice that is free of influences without being random.