Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

AB - I am glad you have found meaning and purpose from your search for God as finding meaning and purpose seem to be a way of achieving peace of mind.

The evidence from this message board seems to be that your reality, your perceived experience is true for you and others who agree with you but is not universal. Other people do not have the same interpretations as you whereby the gaps in their knowledge can be filled by a god-shaped explanation that gives them a feeling of meaning and purpose.

This post of yours Gabriella is meaningless.

ippy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

This post of yours Gabriella is meaningless.

ippy.

Ok.

Posting on this thread to let me know you don't find any meaning in my post seems to give some purpose and meaning to your life - if that works for you, by all means carry on.

For AB on the other hand, evangelising on this thread is what gives him a sense of meaning and purpose, which is why he carries on.

Each to their own.

[torridon]

All the evidence I need to support the reality of meaning and purpose in our lives is contained in the Christian bible and in the many witnesses who show how a relationship with God transforms lives (including my own).

Not really evidence in a strong sense of the word though; that is more in the way of personal justification.  People trying to understand things may want something stronger than that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All the evidence I need to support the reality of meaning and purpose in our lives is contained in the Christian bible and in the many witnesses who show how a relationship with God transforms lives (including my own).

But your problem with trying to evangelise here is that, while that may be all the “evidence” you need, it’s not sufficient evidence for more reasoning people. The fact that a belief in (your choice of a) god gives you meaning tells you nothing whatever about whether or not the object of that belief is real.

So yet again…

...do you have any arguments at all that aren’t false to justify your belief “god”?

Surely there must be something in the locker mustn’t there?

Mustn’t there?

Something?

Anything?

[Outrider]

All the evidence I need to support the reality of meaning and purpose in our lives is contained in the Christian bible and in the many witnesses who show how a relationship with God transforms lives (including my own).

Those are both evidence that other people believe it, they aren't directly evidence for it.  Which is not to dismiss it entirely, as I said sociology (for instance) is a science and would take widespread cultural acceptance of a concept as evidence of something, but not necessarily of what's being accepted.

Even within the Christian Bible (for clarity, I'm considering that to be the Old Testament and New Testament, I'm not sure on your definition) there is more than enough internal contradiction and confusion to suggest that it's difficult to consider good evidence for anything at all.

O.

[ippy]

Ok.

Posting on this thread to let me know you don't find any meaning in my post seems to give some purpose and meaning to your life - if that works for you, by all means carry on.

For AB on the other hand, evangelising on this thread is what gives him a sense of meaning and purpose, which is why he carries on.

Each to their own.

Most religionists would do a far better job of evangelising if they could at least locate something of an evidential nature, poor old Alan's gone back onto his, the bible proves the bible tack, and you're not doing much better yourself with your usual reams of words that don't seem to convey destination. (Mind you to be fair evidence and religion don't gel together that well).

I didn't say I couldn't find any meaning in your post Gabriella, have a re-read.

Ever done any precis work? Try some on your next post.

ippy   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Most religionists would do a far better job of evangelising if they could at least locate something of an evidential nature, poor old Alan's gone back onto his, the bible proves the bible tack, and you're not doing much better yourself with your usual reams of words that don't seem to convey destination. (Mind you to be fair evidence and religion don't gel together that well).

I didn't say I couldn't find any meaning in your post Gabriella, have a re-read.

Ever done any precis work? Try some on your next post.

ippy   

No thanks - the level of thought in your posts is not something I want to replicate. Hope that post was brief enough for you to discern some meaning. My commiserations to you Ippy

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

AB,

But your problem with trying to evangelise here is that, while that may be all the “evidence” you need, it’s not sufficient evidence for more reasoning people. The fact that a belief in (your choice of a) god gives you meaning tells you nothing whatever about whether or not the object of that belief is real.

So yet again…

...do you have any arguments at all that aren’t false to justify your belief “god”?

Surely there must be something in the locker mustn’t there?

Mustn’t there?

Something?

Anything?

Why is it a problem? Part of evangelising is to invite people to take a leap of faith to believe something exists without any objective evidence to prove its existence.

[Stranger]

Why is it a problem? Part of evangelising is to invite people to take a leap of faith to believe something exists without any objective evidence to prove its existence.

Alan claims (most recently in #38202) to have "sound logic" to back up his claims about free will and god. If he was just asking for "a leap of faith" without evidence or reasoning, that would be far more honest but he keeps insisting he has evidence and reasoning on his side.

[Stranger]

My view that conscious awareness can't be generated from material reactions alone is not just personal incredulity.  It is based upon sound logic...

By the way, do you actually know how a logically sound deductive argument is defined and how it differs from a logically valid argument? If not, google for "validity and soundness".

The thing is, if you had to look it up, perhaps you should reconsider the claims you keep making about "sound logic", if you didn't, why haven't you presented anything that's even in a form that we can properly assess validity or soundness?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Why is it a problem? Part of evangelising is to invite people to take a leap of faith to believe something exists without any objective evidence to prove its existence.

Because he doesn’t just ask people to take “a leap of faith” at all. Rather he asserts that he has logic and evidence to support his claims, so it’s reasonable to ask what it is and to consider it when he tries it. And when it fails – as it always does – it’s reasonable too to explain why it fails (which explanations he just ignores as if it's not a problem). I have more than once suggested to him by the way that if he dropped the pretence of a sound means to justify his claims and instead just said something like, “look, I can’t validate any of this stuff but it’s my faith nonetheless and I’d like to be yours too” no-one would care much.

Oh, and for what it’s worth your earlier post to him along the lines of, “if these subjective truths are have meaning for you then fine, but you have no basis to assert them to be objectively true for anyone else too” seemed pretty reasonable to me.

[Sriram]

Of course we can. The entirety of the history of science is a record of increasingly removing the human subjectivity out of the study of the universe to get a more objective understanding of its operation.  Whether we will ever be able to entirely remove a degree of subjectivity is an open question, I suspect we won't be able to, but that doesn't mean that we don't have a less subjective understanding now than we used to.

Actually, the pictures do come from the metal and plastics in the TV - the information the TV uses to know what picture to show comes from somewhere else... this isn't 'reductionism', it's just not holisticism.  Reality is too vast to try to understand it from nothing in its entirety - it needs to be investigated in managable chunks, and then those chunks need to be put back together to investigate the interactions.

You're confusing the evidence and our understanding or interpretation of it.  The evidence merely is, and we collectively and increasingly improve our understanding of it.  We're not perfect, but if you operate from the standpoint that because our understanding isn't perfect we can't trust anything then you stand in the straight waiting for gravity to change its mind and send spinning into a cold, wet sun...

O.

When you talk of 'removing human subjectivity'....you mean the removal of emotional reactions and personal beliefs that colour our observations.  That is not what I am talking about.

Subjectivity is much more fundamental than mere emotional or mental noise. We have discussed this before...

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16937.0


My point about evidence is that it is everywhere if we can see it.  Perception is the key. 

[Outrider]

When you talk of 'removing human subjectivity'....you mean the removal of emotional reactions and personal beliefs that colour our observations.  That is not what I am talking about.

No, I don't, I mean removing that part of the sensory input to academic understanding process from an individual so that we can have confidence it's a consistent interpretation based upon the reality and not one person's perspective.

Subjectivity is much more fundamental than mere emotional or mental noise. We have discussed this before...

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=16937.0

I know.  We've discussed how science's imperfection doesn't meant that it's exactly as useless as throwing any potentially logically coherent option at the wall and seeing what sticks, but we still have people falsely equivocating bronze age superstition with actual investigative rational enquiry.

My point about evidence is that it is everywhere if we can see it.  Perception is the key.

And my point is that evidence is there regardless of whether you can immediately see it.  If you need to be 'special' in order for the evidence to exist, that's a subjective system.

O.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Because he doesn’t just ask people to take “a leap of faith” at all. Rather he asserts that he has logic and evidence to support his claims, so it’s reasonable to ask what it is and to consider it when he tries it. And when it fails – as it always does – it’s reasonable too to explain why it fails (which explanations he just ignores as if it's not a problem). I have more than once suggested to him by the way that if he dropped the pretence of a sound means to justify his claims and instead just said something like, “look, I can’t validate any of this stuff but it’s my faith nonetheless and I’d like to be yours too” no-one would care much.

Oh, and for what it’s worth your earlier post to him along the lines of, “if these subjective truths are have meaning for you then fine, but you have no basis to assert them to be objectively true for anyone else too” seemed pretty reasonable to me.

BHS

Oh right. Yes I agree there is no objective evidence for gods and any subjective evidence is a product of individual brain functions of perception and interpretation. However, not all of AB's posts assert objective truth - my interpretation of his posts is that he also posts to say this is his interpretation of reality and it works for him and evangelises on that basis - something along the lines of "it feels so real so why not allow yourself to accept the possibility it is real because I'm convinced it is". I am not sure whether he accepts that just allowing the possibility does not get you any closer to a belief in the existence of his particular concept of 'God' or anyone else's concepts of gods i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, just , benevolent.

The all-loving, just and benevolent parts are particularly problematic as everyone has a different idea of what is just, and killing people who do not want to be killed doesn't seem benevolent or all-loving, according to how we normally use those words. So if those words have a special meaning when used to describe gods whereby killing people who would rather stay alive becomes benevolent and loving, then that may be one of the reasons the evangelical message is not getting through if it includes those particular terms.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Oh right. Yes I agree there is no objective evidence for gods and any subjective evidence is a product of individual brain functions of perception and interpretation. However, not all of AB's posts assert objective truth - my interpretation of his posts is that he also posts to say this is his interpretation of reality and it works for him and evangelises on that basis - something along the lines of "it feels so real so why not allow yourself to accept the possibility it is real because I'm convinced it is". I am not sure whether he accepts that just allowing the possibility does not get you any closer to a belief in the existence of his particular concept of 'God' or anyone else's concepts of gods i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, just , benevolent.

The all-loving, just and benevolent parts are particularly problematic as everyone has a different idea of what is just, and killing people who do not want to be killed doesn't seem benevolent or all-loving, according to how we normally use those words. So if those words have a special meaning when used to describe gods whereby killing people who would rather stay alive becomes benevolent and loving, then that may be one of the reasons the evangelical message is not getting through if it includes those particular terms.

To the contrary, AB has consistently insisted that his god is everyone else’s god too if only they would realise the objective truth of that belief. He says he has arguments that are robust to justify the claim, and evidence to demonstrate it. Whenever he attempts either though the effort collapses into illogic, gibberish or irrelevance. When these problems are explained to him – often and at length by the way – he just ignores the explanations and repeats the same mistakes over and over again.

As I said before, if he just confined himself to “this is my faith and I think you’d find meaning in it if it was your faith too” as you suggest he does that’d be fine, albeit proper to the faith sharing area rather than a discussion area. That’d come at a big price though, namely that any unqualified faith claim that "works” for the person holding it is a (in)valid as any other, Allah, Zeus and leprechauns included. That’s why he continues with his doomed and essentially dishonest claims of being able to justify his faith beliefs, apparently unaware of the paradox of trying to validate faith with reason.

[Enki]

BHS

Oh right. Yes I agree there is no objective evidence for gods and any subjective evidence is a product of individual brain functions of perception and interpretation. However, not all of AB's posts assert objective truth - my interpretation of his posts is that he also posts to say this is his interpretation of reality and it works for him and evangelises on that basis - something along the lines of "it feels so real so why not allow yourself to accept the possibility it is real because I'm convinced it is". I am not sure whether he accepts that just allowing the possibility does not get you any closer to a belief in the existence of his particular concept of 'God' or anyone else's concepts of gods i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving, just , benevolent.

The all-loving, just and benevolent parts are particularly problematic as everyone has a different idea of what is just, and killing people who do not want to be killed doesn't seem benevolent or all-loving, according to how we normally use those words. So if those words have a special meaning when used to describe gods whereby killing people who would rather stay alive becomes benevolent and loving, then that may be one of the reasons the evangelical message is not getting through if it includes those particular terms.

Hi Gabriella,

With reference to your first paragraph, I also, like Blue, have no problem with the idea that if his faith works for him then fine. I have no quarrel with him on this at all. I have conveyed that message in previous posts to him, of course. The idea that we should accept the possibility that his concept of God is real is one which, over the years, AB has regularly put forward. I, as well as others, have assured him that I do not disregard that possibility at all, but I do not find it particularly convincing. Unfortunately he either doesn't believe me, or completely ignores the responses, to suggest exactly the same thing further down the line. In addition, he fills his posts with assertions, claims that his views are based upon sound logic, without ever producing any, and seems reluctant to address the rational and logical points that other people make. He might have his evangelistic fervour, but I have seen nothing from him that would convince me, and, indeed, makes me rather cynical about his approach.

[ippy]

No thanks - the level of thought in your posts is not something I want to replicate. Hope that post was brief enough for you to discern some meaning. My commiserations to you Ippy

No the the precis is the way to go Gabriella, without a doubt, the trick is to get the meaning over before the recipient nods off.

ippy. (handle all lower case, it cuts millisecond). 

[Sriram]

No, I don't, I mean removing that part of the sensory input to academic understanding process from an individual so that we can have confidence it's a consistent interpretation based upon the reality and not one person's perspective.

What are you talking about?  How can you remove an individuals senses and brain and make him see 'reality' independent of these processing units? Subjectivity is inherent in observation and experience.  Its not about how you choose to see things.

And my point is that evidence is there regardless of whether you can immediately see it.  If you need to be 'special' in order for the evidence to exist, that's a subjective system.

You don't need to be 'special'. But you do need to have necessary faculties, right background, right technology and right mindset...to be able to see and notice any evidence.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No the the precis is the way to go Gabriella, without a doubt, the trick is to get the meaning over before the recipient nods off.

ippy. (handle all lower case, it cuts millisecond).

As fascinating as it is to learn about your inadequacies, I give you permission to nod off when reading my posts. Your contributions on here won’t be missed. Preferably nod off before you get the urge to link to a YouTube video of someone to speak for you.

It would be nice to sometimes see you justify your opinions by showing evidence of an actual thought process. Or do you nod off in the middle of writing your posts as well?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What are you talking about?  How can you remove an individuals senses and brain and make him see 'reality' independent of these processing units? Subjectivity is inherent in observation and experience.  Its not about how you choose to see things.

Readings based on standardised measurements are not subjective in the sense that it has nothing to do with how you to choose to see things. How you interpret those readings might lead to subjectivity and differing theories and explanations of the objective evidence.

You don't need to be 'special'. But you do need to have necessary faculties, right background, right technology and right mindset...to be able to see and notice any evidence.   

Having the right mindset sounds like you need to be special to me. Objective evidence would be more useful in convincing others that there really is something to detect, rather than needing a particular mindset that detects things that cannot be objectively verified. A mindset leads to more subjectivity and differing opinions than objective readings and measurements.

[ippy]

As fascinating as it is to learn about your inadequacies, I give you permission to nod off when reading my posts. Your contributions on here won’t be missed. Preferably nod off before you get the urge to link to a YouTube video of someone to speak for you.

It would be nice to sometimes see you justify your opinions by showing evidence of an actual thought process. Or do you nod off in the middle of writing your posts as well?

Having an area of inadequacy must be something we all have in common with each other Gabriella, I suppose because some of us seem to be completely unaware of facts like this there will always be those odd few that are inclined to carry on merrily without countenancing the idea in the first place.

ippy.

[Alan Burns]

And my point is that evidence is there regardless of whether you can immediately see it.  If you need to be 'special' in order for the evidence to exist, that's a subjective system.

O.

The concepts of evidence and information only exist in conscious awareness.  Information does not exist as information until it is perceived and consciously interpreted.  Outside conscious awareness, there is only matter and energy.  All evidence will be subjective within the conscious awareness that perceives and interprets it.

[torridon]

The concepts as evidence and information only exist in conscious awareness.  Information does not exist as information until it is perceived and consciously interpreted.  Outside conscious awareness, there is only matter and energy.  All evidence will be subjective within the conscious awareness that perceives and interprets it.

That implies the rather narrow definition of 'information' commonly used in everyday situations.  There are patterns within matter and energy, and we can refer to those patterns as 'information'.  Light waves carry information about the last thing they bounced off from irrespective of whether they get to be 'consciously' observed.

Having said that, I take the point about the subjective nature of experience.  Maybe that is why the Bible constitutes good evidence in your eyes, but it doesn't in mine.  We are all different, and that's why I don't buy the idea of a god that would discriminate on such basis.

[Sriram]

Readings based on standardised measurements are not subjective in the sense that it has nothing to do with how you to choose to see things. How you interpret those readings might lead to subjectivity and differing theories and explanations of the objective evidence.

Having the right mindset sounds like you need to be special to me. Objective evidence would be more useful in convincing others that there really is something to detect, rather than needing a particular mindset that detects things that cannot be objectively verified. A mindset leads to more subjectivity and differing opinions than objective readings and measurements.

Please try these to understand what I mean.......

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/11/04/reality/

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/evidence/

[Outrider]

What are you talking about?  How can you remove an individuals senses and brain and make him see 'reality' independent of these processing units? Subjectivity is inherent in observation and experience.  Its not about how you choose to see things.

Of course it is - as an example, we have a sense of colour, and depending on cultural background and personal 'preference' we may make a judgement on whether a particular shade is, say, green or blue - that's subjective.

Then we can measure the specific frequency of light (or frequencies) that are being given off and come up with a calibrated standard, that's objective.  The frequency is the frequency, independent of what people's subjective opinion of the shade is.

You don't need to be 'special'. But you do need to have necessary faculties, right background, right technology and right mindset...to be able to see and notice any evidence.

Except that you are talking about things that can't be detected by independent means, and then presume that people without the subjective sensation are somehow incorrect with means by which you can validate the stance.  It could equally be your sense that's a false positive, could it not?

O.