Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Once more you seem to be confusing internal conscious awareness with observed instinctive reaction to sensory data.

Rather it is you that seems to be interminably mixing slightly different concepts up - awareness and response. Awareness comes first, you need to be aware of an issue before you can decide what to do about it.  If you could at least separate these two aspects of mind then that would be some small progress. Responses may be instinctive, or they may be more sophisticated, as I've explained innumerable times.

[Roses]

If I were Alan, I'd put in for a replacement which works efficiently! - or perhaps rationally is a better word!

Maybe in the future one could replace a brain which isn't functioning properly with an artificial one.

[ekim]

It is apparent that the atheist point of view can only be justified by reliance on human intellect, fickle though it is.  I have come across many Christians who will testify that their faith is based upon a personal, life changing encounter with God.  Such experience giving them faith that will endure for the rest of their lives.  Many atheists seem intent on finding ways to dismiss such personal witness stories by concluding that they are either lying or mentally deluded, regardless of the evidence presented.  In addition to personal witness stories of the modern day, we have many such witness stories of personal encounters with God throughout history.  The Christian bible is itself a collection of such witness stories, culminating in the New Testament containing the writings of at least seven people (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul and James) giving their independent accounts of their personal encounters with Jesus Christ Himself.  One has to ask, can all these witness accounts be entirely dismissed as lies or mental delusions?

I  think the difficulty with personal witness cases is that the experiences are personal and beyond the capabilities of that individual to present evidence of the experience to others who have not witnessed the event.  Even if there were a variety of individuals claiming similar experiences how do you know that they had an encounter with the same God?  Is there a description which might at least give a clue?  As this thread is 'Searching for God' a description would come in handy.

[torridon]

It is apparent that the atheist point of view can only be justified by reliance on human intellect, fickle though it is.  I have come across many Christians who will testify that their faith is based upon a personal, life changing encounter with God.  Such experience giving them faith that will endure for the rest of their lives.  Many atheists seem intent on finding ways to dismiss such personal witness stories by concluding that they are either lying or mentally deluded, regardless of the evidence presented.  In addition to personal witness stories of the modern day, we have many such witness stories of personal encounters with God throughout history.  The Christian bible is itself a collection of such witness stories, culminating in the New Testament containing the writings of at least seven people (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul and James) giving their independent accounts of their personal encounters with Jesus Christ Himself.  One has to ask, can all these witness accounts be entirely dismissed as lies or mental delusions?

Are you not likewise dismissing the experience of other faiths ?  This amounts to special pleading, only my faith is authentic.  At least atheists are consistent across the board, recognising there is diversity of religious experience across the world and through history and trying to understand this in totality.

Apart from special pleading, the testimony is also problematic in that a god that reveals himself to some who luck out whilst ignoring many others is erratic and inconsistent.  This violates the companion claims that god is good and god is available to all without favour.

[Alan Burns]

Matthew Mark Luke John Peter Paul and James
Obviousely common names of the time 2000 years ago in the Middle East
So confirming the validity of evidence available .
Don't know why I didn't recognise it before ? 😳

Perhaps that is why we call them Christian names 

[Roses]

Perhaps that is why we call them Christian names 

First names is more common these days.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps that is why we call them Christian names 

racist

[Roses]

racist

I think religionist is a better description.

[Nearly Sane]

I think religionist is a better description.

Might be but his attempt to enforce white western norms is illegal only if you approach it as racism.

[Alan Burns]

Rather it is you that seems to be interminably mixing slightly different concepts up - awareness and response. Awareness comes first, you need to be aware of an issue before you can decide what to do about it.  If you could at least separate these two aspects of mind then that would be some small progress. Responses may be instinctive, or they may be more sophisticated, as I've explained innumerable times.

As I have previously pointed out, it is our conscious awareness which enables us to make a conscious choice about what we do, rather than just react in a pre programmed way following basic instincts.

[Alan Burns]

If there is a god (or gods) it is making a right pig's ear of trying to communicate with us...

By becoming one of us

[Gordon]

As I have previously pointed out, it is our conscious awareness which enables us to make a conscious choice about what we do, rather than just react in a pre programmed way following basic instincts.

So you do - but the problem is, Alan, that what you keep 'pointing out' (or perhaps regurgitating would be a better term) is illogical nonsense peppered with your usual mix of equivocation and assorted other fallacies.

[Walter]

I am so looking forward to the day when Anal Burns comes clean and confesses to being the best Troll the board has ever seen
And you'll all be saying " I fuckin knew it , damn !"

[Nearly Sane]

Woo, changing Alan to Anal, how incredibly witty, tediously boring.

[Walter]

Woo, changing Alan to Anal, how incredibly witty, tediously boring.

it made me laugh 😂

[torridon]

As I have previously pointed out, it is our conscious awareness which enables us to make a conscious choice about what we do, rather than just react in a pre programmed way following basic instincts.

Yes, and so awareness is conscious, and the resulting response is conscious.  Have you ever seen a swift catch a fly in mid flight whilst it was unconscious ?  Of course you haven't. So why pretend ?

[ippy]

Perhaps that is why we call them Christian names 

Ever heard of given name Alan?

Commiserations to you, regards, ippy.

[Stranger]

If there is a god (or gods) it is making a right pig's ear of trying to communicate with us...

By becoming one of us

Even if I accept that as true - yes, it's still a pig's ear of a way to communicate with the world.

[Alan Burns]

Firstly, (as has been pointed out to you countless times and you just ignore) the atheist point of view does not need any justification, it's the many and varied claims about gods that need justification.

How can you claim this?
We have the unfathomable complexity and virtually unlimited capabilities of the human mind.
We have the freedom to contemplate:
The presumption that we are just an accident of nature.
Or that we are evidence of a creative force beyond human understanding.

[Roses]

How can you claim this?
We have the unfathomable complexity and virtually unlimited capabilities of the human mind.
We have the freedom to contemplate:
The presumption that we are just an accident of nature.
Or that we are evidence of a creative force beyond human understanding.

We are no less a creation of nature than any other animal species, imo.

[Stranger]

How can you claim this?

Burden of proof (philosophy). Atheism is just finding the many, varied, and contradictory claims of theists, unconvincing.

We have the unfathomable complexity and virtually unlimited capabilities of the human mind.
We have the freedom to contemplate:
The presumption that we are just an accident of nature.
Or that we are evidence of a creative force beyond human understanding.

Firstly, we have plentiful evidence that humans evolved naturally. Secondly, this is basically the same old "wow, isn't the universe amazing, complex, and unexplained - how can we explain it? I know, we'll posit something even more amazing, complex, and just as unexplained to 'explain' it." Even you must see the tiny problem with this, no?

[Roses]

The problem with devout believers is that many are unable to see the wood for the trees.

[Gordon]

How can you claim this?

Easy-peasy: the various arguments offered for 'god' all fail, and since to date there are no good arguments for 'god' it make no sense to see it as being a serious proposition.

We have the unfathomable complexity and virtually unlimited capabilities of the human mind.
We have the freedom to contemplate:
The presumption that we are just an accident of nature.
Or that we are evidence of a creative force beyond human understanding.

This is just naked incredulity, Alan.

[torridon]

Firstly, we have plentiful evidence that humans evolved naturally. Secondly, this is basically the same old "wow, isn't the universe amazing, complex, and unexplained - how can we explain it? I know, we'll posit something even more amazing, complex, and just as unexplained to 'explain' it." Even you must see the tiny problem with this, no?

I wouldn't put any money on that 

[Alan Burns]

Burden of proof (philosophy). Atheism is just finding Firstly, we have plentiful evidence that humans evolved naturally. Secondly, this is basically the same old "wow, isn't the universe amazing, complex, and unexplained - how can we explain it? I know, we'll posit something even more amazing, complex, and just as unexplained to 'explain' it." Even you must see the tiny problem with this, no?

But I was not referring to the material universe.
What really is amazing, complex and unexplained is the working of the human mind.