Searching for GOD...

[Roses]

I think I am a better person for having lost my faith.

[ippy]

It is impossible to speculate what this world would be like if Jesus had not been born.

But what I can say with some degree of certainty is that I am a better person than I would have been without my Christian faith.

It's possible he was born but that's not even 100% certain.

There's no special need to have any questionable belief to be a decent person striving to do better, take the example of the individuals that work for 'Medecins Sans Frontieres', they manage quite well without a need to think they've got fairies at the bottom of their gardens.

Just one other thing AB, how do you manage to reconcile this belief of yours when as you must be aware that the whole foundation of your church was built on indulgences?

Oh yes and that ludicrous idea of 'limbo', that so sensitive, loving, and consoling idea for dealing in a caring way for the feelings of the parents that have and have had stillborn children.

The Catholic church such a really worthwhile religious organisation to be a fully signed up member of.

The wonderful catholic insight about the use of condoms in Africa preaching that condoms don't help to prevent the spread of aids.

I'll leave it there only there's so much more a bit of a massive list and now the rain's stopped I'll need to be getting out into the garden.

Commiserations to all of the sad heavily indoctrinated Catholics of this world AB, not just you, ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Sounds like an ad pop argument

Presumably because you don’t know what “ad pop” means. I made no claim to correctness based on popularity – rather I pointed out that as a supposed rebuttal to the Guardian review you’d trawled through many equally unqualified but mostly favourable reviews on Amazon to find the one that best suited you, and then posted it.

Worse still, you told us that you’d not bother with the book or the review because (as it turned out) some bloke on Amazon had criticised it whereas the Guardian review was written by Tim Whitmarsh:

“Tim Whitmarsh (born 1970) is a British classicist and the second A. G. Leventis Professor of Greek Culture at the University of Cambridge. He is best known for his work on the Greek literary culture of the Roman Empire, especially the Second Sophistic and the ancient Greek novel.”

“Publications

His publications include Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The Politics of Imitation,[4] Ancient Greek Literature,[5] The Second Sophistic,[6] and Narrative and Identity in the Ancient Greek Novel: Returning Romance,[7] Beyond the Second Sophistic: Adventures in Greek Postclassicism.[8]

•   Dirty Love: The Genealogy of the Ancient Greek Novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
•   Battling the Gods: Atheism in the Ancient World, Faber & Faber, 2016”

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

What does this say about you do you think?

I was merely giving an extract from a very detailed review I found on Amazon which presented an alternative perspective to that given in the Guardian.

You weren’t “merely” doing that at all. See above.
 

Sorry I omitted a citation.

I suspect that your “omitting” was in fact an attempt to hide that fact that you’d posted something from someone with zero known credentials to rebut a review from someone with substantial credentials, and hoped no-one would notice.

[Alan Burns]

In what way are you better?

Well, for starters there are the fruits of the Holy Spirit, as identified by St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

If these attributes were available on a commercial basis, I am sure they would spawn a multi billion dollar industry.  But they are freely available to those who can accept Jesus as their saviour and follow His teachings through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Looking at human history, I perceive these fruits to be more evident since the life of Christ than before.

[Roses]

Well, for starters there are the fruits of the Holy Spirit, as identified by St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

If these attributes were available on a commercial basis, I am sure they would spawn a multi billion dollar industry.  But they are freely available to those who can accept Jesus as their saviour and follow His teachings through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Looking at human history, I perceive these fruits to be more evident since the life of Christ than before.

They are human attributes, nothing to do with the mythical HS.

[Gordon]

Well, for starters there are the fruits of the Holy Spirit, as identified by St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

If these attributes were available on a commercial basis, I am sure they would spawn a multi billion dollar industry.  But they are freely available to those who can accept Jesus as their saviour and follow His teachings through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Looking at human history, I perceive these fruits to be more evident since the life of Christ than before.

These are just human attributes, Alan, that some brains in some people can exhibit: no supernatural bollocks required.

I would be interested to see the methods you used to establish that the attributes you mention are more apparent in people living in the first century and later that those living prior to this: how did you get you select your sample and collect data since, with very few exceptions, everyone born prior to around 1910 CE is already dead and information regarding their personality traits would be problematic - it sounds to me like you have a romanticised view of your precious (to you) religion and its far from benign influence.

[ippy]

These are just human attributes, Alan, that some brains in some people can exhibit: no supernatural bollocks required.

I would be interested to see the methods you used to establish that the attributes you mention are more apparent in people living in the first century and later that those living prior to this: how did you get you select your sample and collect data since, with very few exceptions, everyone born prior to around 1910 CE is already dead and information regarding their personality traits would be problematic - it sounds to me like you have a romanticised view of your precious (to you) religion and its far from benign influence.

Exactly, take note Alan, and while I hope you may be taking note, it might help you as an individual if were to take in and make some much needed adjustments to the robot like dogma you keep on quoting time after time most of these these very sensible things passed back to you should be making you take stock of how trapped you seem to be within the well versed, to the last letter catholic dogma you seem unable to get away from.

I didn't add, unable to get away from, because I think, unfortunately for you, you're a willing enough victim.

Sadly, commiserations to you Alan, ippy

[jeremyp]

Well, for starters there are the fruits of the Holy Spirit, as identified by St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

How come I know a lot of people with those "fruits" who are not Christians and, conversely, I know a few Christians who lack some of those fruits?

Looking at human history, I perceive these fruits to be more evident since the life of Christ than before.

Do you really? Can you explain howe the Christian penchant for burning heretics at the stake relates to those fruits?

[Alan Burns]

How come I know a lot of people with those "fruits" who are not Christians and, conversely, I know a few Christians who lack some of those fruits?

It is a fact that Christianity played a major part in forming the society we all enjoy today.  I would think that Christian ethos and values will have infiltrated our modern society to the extent that we now take them for granted as attributes of natural human behaviour.  If Jesus had never lived, I am sure society and human behaviour would be much different, but we can only speculate as to whether it would be better or worse.

[torridon]

It is a fact that Christianity played a major part in forming the society we all enjoy today.  I would think that Christian ethos and values will have infiltrated our modern society to the extent that we now take them for granted as attributes of natural human behaviour.  If Jesus had never lived, I am sure society and human behaviour would be much different, but we can only speculate as to whether it would be better or worse.

That smacks of the rose tinted view that characterises survivor bias.  It could be that we are where we are today despite the ingress of christian thought into European life, not because of it. The philosophy and arts produced by prechristian Europe, Greece in particular, were fabulous compared to the backward superstitions that characterised the dark age and the early middle ages that followed.  Europe had been on a meteoric rise in enlightened thinking before it was subsumed under the onslaught of superstitious thinking originating from the Middle East.  It took a thousand years for Europe to recover as the Enlightenment eventually re-established honest observation and rational thought as the dominant paradigm relegating superstition to the fringes once again.

[Gordon]

It is a fact that Christianity played a major part in forming the society we all enjoy today.  I would think that Christian ethos and values will have infiltrated our modern society to the extent that we now take them for granted as attributes of natural human behaviour.

Presumably you've got yourself a nice new pair of theogoggles.

If Jesus had never lived, I am sure society and human behaviour would be much different, but we can only speculate as to whether it would be better or worse.

I'd imagine it would be pretty much the same, since people would essentially be pretty much the same, albeit that they may have different religious allegiances and affectations, or fewer of them. Had Christianity not survived, due it seems to me to the subsequent conflation of Christianity with political power and as a social influence over several centuries, your religion would probably have gone the way of other superstitious religious belief systems that originated in antiquity - but people would still be people with all their human attributes and foibles: you can bet they would, by Jove! 

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan Burns on October 06, 2019, 02:51:04 PM
Well, for starters there are the fruits of the Holy Spirit, as identified by St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

They are human attributes, nothing to do with the mythical HS.

Yes, these are human attributes, unique to the human race, because they emanate from the spiritual nature of our human soul, rather than from the predefined electro chemical activity in material brain.

[Roses]

They are human attributes, nothing to do with the mythical HS.

Yes, these are human attributes, unique to the human race, because they emanate from the spiritual nature of our human soul, rather than from the predefined electro chemical activity in material brain.

You might believe that to be true, but cannot support the statement with any verifiable evidence whatsoever.

[Stranger]

Yes, these are human attributes, unique to the human race, because they emanate from the spiritual nature of our human soul, rather than from the predefined electro chemical activity in material brain.

    He asserted without the slightest hint of any reasoning or evidence....

[Outrider]

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.

You'll forgive my pointing it out, but you've offered no definition of how 'souls' (or whatever corrollary you are using) work, and yet we are supposed to accept that they 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.

Our perception does not exist in the present.  Even just considering the science, there is a time delay in the light from an event reaching the retina, the sound from an event reaching the ear canal, then there are biochemical processes that occur to render these into nerve signals, which are then processed by the dedicated centres of the brain devoted to each sense.  Those then activate various autonomous processes (refocussing the eyes, accessing memory parts to activate associate sound concepts etc.) and the unconscious areas of the brain conduct all sorts of identifying processes and examinations and navigational assessments to determine relative positions and hazard potentials and then determines a course of action.

And at that point we become consciously aware that something has happened.  The conscious choice - if it is conscious at all - does not happen 'in the present'.

O.

[Outrider]

It is a fact that Christianity played a major part in forming the society we all enjoy today.

To a greater or lesser extent - I suspect, for instance, that Sriram probably has had a less significant interaction with it than we have.  However, I'd also argue probably not as much as you think.  You want a genuinely Christian-focussed society, look at (say) the Amish, or some of the more fundamentalist regions of the African West.  Here in Britain Christianity has a long and influential history, and it's at best mixed.  Some things - institutional homophobia and misogyny, for instance - are less desirable throwbacks, whilst there are any number of developments which have come about in spite of the influence of Christianity, not because of it.  The established church in England is the limp, flaccid insignificance that it is comes from Britain making deliberate choices to follow a moral path rather than blindly following Christian teachings.

I would think that Christian ethos and values will have infiltrated our modern society to the extent that we now take them for granted as attributes of natural human behaviour.

And we just need to look at somewhere without a significant 'Christian ethos' to see if that's true - does it happen in China, for instance, or in Japan, or in relatively uncontacted tribes in the Amazon.  If it does, it's intrinsically human (and, therefore, probably not very much to do with Christianity); if it doesn't, then it's purely cultural.

If Jesus had never lived, I am sure society and human behaviour would be much different, but we can only speculate as to whether it would be better or worse.

We can, to an extent.  Or we can look at the societies in the world that have the least influence of Jesus and see how they are performing - predominantly non-Christian societies like Japan, China, much of Scandinavia and increasingly Western Europe all seem to be doing fine; fundamentally Abrahamic nations like most of the Arab nations, West and Central Africa and  South America are doing less well on pretty much any measurable scale you choose.  Is it 'speculation' to suggest that's a pretty clear indication that even if shifting away from Jesus isn't the cause of the improved situation, then it certainly doesn't seem to be working to improve the lot of the less fortunate?

O.

[Alan Burns]

You'll forgive my pointing it out, but you've offered no definition of how 'souls' (or whatever corrollary you are using) work, and yet we are supposed to accept that they impact on the logic?

Our perception does not exist in the present.  Even just considering the science, there is a time delay in the light from an event reaching the retina, the sound from an event reaching the ear canal, then there are biochemical processes that occur to render these into nerve signals, which are then processed by the dedicated centres of the brain devoted to each sense.  Those then activate various autonomous processes (refocussing the eyes, accessing memory parts to activate associate sound concepts etc.) and the unconscious areas of the brain conduct all sorts of identifying processes and examinations and navigational assessments to determine relative positions and hazard potentials and then determines a course of action.

And at that point we become consciously aware that something has happened.  The conscious choice - if it is conscious at all - does not happen 'in the present'.

O.

I am fully aware that the processing of information within our material brain involves time intervals within this processing, but my point is that conscious awareness of this information is a definitive datum for what we perceive to be the present.  Perhaps you may imagine the information getting processed and presented in the form of a computer screen with built in speakers to be perceived by whatever constitutes our conscious awareness.  The information on the screen together with accompanying sound will all be perceived by the present state of our conscious awareness, and somewhere within the material brain will be the equivalent of a keyboard to facilitate the spiritual push of a button to invoke the conscious choices emanating from this present state of conscious awareness.  Without this interaction via a pseudo screen and keyboard, we can only be biological robots driven by the forces of nature.

[Outrider]

I am fully aware that the processing of information within our material brain involves time intervals within this processing, but my point is that conscious awareness of this information is a definitive datum for what we perceive to be the present.

I'm consciously aware of the Kennedy assassination, but because it happened in the past my conscious awareness is of academic interest, I can't do anything about it.  Similarly, I'm consciously aware of deciding to type these words, but the decision happened in the past - all my conscious understanding can do is make me aware of the fact that my decision this time is going to feed back into the next unconscious decision making process that I undertake in a similar area.

Perhaps you may imagine the information getting processed and presented in the form of a computer screen with built in speakers to be perceived by whatever constitutes our conscious awareness.  The information on the screen together with accompanying sound will all be perceived by the present state of our conscious awareness, and somewhere within the material brain will be the equivalent of a keyboard to facilitate the spiritual push of a button to invoke the conscious choices emanating from this present state of conscious awareness.  Without this interaction via a pseudo screen and keyboard, we can only be biological robots driven by the forces of nature.

OK. So the internet (your senses) send that computer (your brain) a signal, and that get's processed and decisions are made at which point the anti-virus kicks in and deletes the incoming and pops a message up on the screen to tell you.  You're consciously aware of the decision to delete the virus, but conscious awareness is after the fact.  That's how our brains operate.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

So how does this sealioning thing work exactly Alan? Each time you're caught out (on logic, on evolution, on dishonest referencing etc) you just pretend that it didn't happen and move on the the next mistake? Seems an odd tactic to keep embarrassing yourself on a public forum, and it's clearly doing your cause no good at all (you seem to have invented anti-evangelism whereby you actively dissuade people from thinking your faith beliefs are correct) but who knows, maybe you're some kind of uber atheist under deep cover working assiduously to discredit Christianity? I have to say that, if that is your mission, then you're doing a bang on (if frankly dull) job.   

[Alan Burns]

Oh well. What you’re attempting here is called circular reasoning. On the one hand you look at the remarkable unlikeliness of evolution producing little old you just as you are and conclude therefore that “God” must have had a hand in it, but on the other you also conclude that the same “God” must have intended you little old you as his blueprint in the first place. Thus your argument begins with what it hopes to end with – your premise and your conclusion are the same thing. And round and round you go, forever it seems lost in a death spiral of fallacious thinking.

Much of my reasoning is based upon the improbability of random, unguided forces being capable of producing the unfathomable complexity we see in such entities as the human brain.  I find it strange how Dawinists immediately dismiss such questioning and reiterate the mantra that it is all eminently possible within the scope of natural selection - without being able to verify the real probabilities involved in generating sufficient beneficial mutations to feed the process.

Make yourself a nice cup of tea, open a packet of garibaldis, sit yourself down and actually try to think this time. For you to exist, the universe doesn't need to know or care that you do exist. Given enough gazillions of events the chances are that life will begin somewhere (indeed quite possibly in many somewheres). And given enough time, the chances are too that those initial forms of life will adapt and will evolve into different types of life – to use the jargon, they will speciate. And sometimes, if those species become self-aware but not to the point of thinking very hard or very clearly, some of them it seems will also conclude that the fact of their existence must have been the outcome of a grand plan that was intended to end up that way all along.     

I am certain that life is no accident.  If life does exist anywhere else in this universe, it will be God's will that brought it into existence. 

[Roses]

Much of my reasoning is based upon the improbability of random, unguided forces being capable of producing the unfathomable complexity we see in such entities as the human brain.  I find it strange how Dawinists immediately dismiss such questioning and reiterate the mantra that it is all eminently possible within the scope of natural selection - without being able to verify the real probabilities involved in generating sufficient beneficial mutations to feed the process.I am certain that life is no accident.  If life does exist anywhere else in this universe, it will be God's will that brought it into existence.

How would you react if verifiable evidence was discovered, which proved no god was involved in the creation of the universe and life forms?

[Stranger]

The information on the screen together with accompanying sound will all be perceived by the present state of our conscious awareness...

And the "present" is still totally devoid of any logically significant meaning. There is no way in which a choice can be not entorely due to what led up to it without being partly due to nothing that led to it (random).

Wibbling on and on about things happening in "the present" doesn't change that one iota.

Much of my reasoning is based upon the improbability of random, unguided forces being capable of producing the unfathomable complexity we see in such entities as the human brain.

That isn't reasoning Alan, that is incredulity.

I find it strange how Dawinists immediately dismiss such questioning and reiterate the mantra that it is all eminently possible within the scope of natural selection - without being able to verify the real probabilities involved in generating sufficient beneficial mutations to feed the process.

Firstly, considering that you are proposing self-contradictory magic as a solution, this is incredibly hypocritical.

Secondly, what makes you think the probabilities are too low and why do you think nobody who works in the field would have noticed? In fact beneficial mutations are quite commonly observed (source).

Also: Evolution myths: Evolution is just so unlikely

I am certain that life is no accident.  If life does exist anywhere else in this universe, it will be God's will that brought it into existence. 

Blind faith.

[Alan Burns]

I'm consciously aware of the Kennedy assassination, but because it happened in the past my conscious awareness is of academic interest, I can't do anything about it.  Similarly, I'm consciously aware of deciding to type these words, but the decision happened in the past - all my conscious understanding can do is make me aware of the fact that my decision this time is going to feed back into the next unconscious decision making process that I undertake in a similar area.

We are consciously aware of the past, but the awareness itself exists in our present state of mind

OK. So the internet (your senses) send that computer (your brain) a signal, and that get's processed and decisions are made at which point the anti-virus kicks in and deletes the incoming and pops a message up on the screen to tell you.  You're consciously aware of the decision to delete the virus, but conscious awareness is after the fact.  That's how our brains operate.

O.

You appear to be saying that our conscious awareness is just a spectator which perceives what has already been determined by subconscious activity, which as I previously mentioned, would relegate us to being a biological robot driven by natural forces beyond our conscious control.  In the case of your computer analogy, the virus was automatically removed  due to the pre programmed functionality of the anti virus software - which can be likened to our body's own immune system which has been programmed over time to remove real viruses.  Yet after the virus removal we are still free to consciously interact with whatever we perceive on the screen via the facilities provided through the keyboard and the mouse.  These are not driven by preprogrammed software, but enacted through the conscious freedom which emanates from within our current state of conscious awareness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Much of my reasoning is based upon the improbability of random, unguided forces being capable of producing the unfathomable complexity we see in such entities as the human brain.

Why have you just ignored the explanation I gave you for why this is wrong headed thinking? Here it is again:

“Oh well. What you’re attempting here is called circular reasoning. On the one hand you look at the remarkable unlikeliness of evolution producing little old you just as you are and conclude therefore that “God” must have had a hand in it, but on the other you also conclude that the same “God” must have intended you little old you as his blueprint in the first place. Thus your argument begins with what it hopes to end with – your premise and your conclusion are the same thing. And round and round you go, forever it seems lost in a death spiral of fallacious thinking.”

First, as I keep explaining to you and you keep ignoring, evolution ISN’T "random". For practical proposes genetic mutation is random, but evolution occurs when mutation causes ADAPTATIONS TO ENVIRONMENT, which isn’t random at all.

Second, you’re still committing the reference point error (and the argument from personal incredulity fallacy too by the way). Of course consciousness appears to be remarkably unlikely to the person who is its outcome, as it would to any other sentient being anywhere else in the universe. That does NOT though imply that the universe needs to know or care what it produces for that to be the case.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?       
 

I find it strange how Dawinists immediately dismiss such questioning and reiterate the mantra that it is all eminently possible within the scope of natural selection - without being able to verify the real probabilities involved in generating sufficient beneficial mutations to feed the process.

They dismiss it because it relies on a fundamental ignorance both of evolution and of logic for the reasons I’ve explained and you’ve ignored again. However fantastically unlikely the events required to arrive at “you”, THEY’RE ONLY FANTASTICALLY UNLIKELY FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE. If you didn’t keep making the same basic mistake of assuming little old you to be the plan all along, then there’s nothing surprising about it at all.   
 

I am certain that life is no accident.

“Accident” is the wrong word, but apart from it upsetting a faith position you hold a priori, why?

If life does exist anywhere else in this universe, it will be God's will that brought it into existence.

So you assert with no logic or evidence of any kind to a support the assertion.

[SteveH]

How would you react if verifiable evidence was discovered, which proved no god was involved in the creation of the universe and life forms?

You can't prove a negative. Do you even know what "verifiable evidence" is? You never produce any for your assertions.