Searching for GOD...

[Walter]

That's a cop out. Or has this become the discussion board which refuses to discuss...…….(yes?)

why don't you come-up with something new then . It's all been done to death .

Give me a reason to change my mind , which , unlike you I am prepared to do .

[Stranger]

Have you read it? I think not since you are still finding things 'laughable'.

Have you? It's not the first time I've seen it and I've read enough to know that parts of it are indeed laughable. As I've said before, philosophy in general is, at best, a curate's egg of a subject.

As far as I have seen the article has objections to all the arguments it presents, so I'll ask again if there is one of the arguments you think is solid, point out which it is and we can talk about it.

There's still the matter to be settled of why something and not nothing.

...which inventing a god goes no way at all towards answering. This is where your mate Feser's argument became comical - after arguing (at great and unnecessary length) that there must be a "base of the hierarchy", his attempts to make it look anything like a god were hilarious.

[Roses]

Important for who?

One of your dafter questions!

[ippy]

Have you? It's not the first time I've seen it and I've read enough to know that parts of it are indeed laughable. As I've said before, philosophy in general is, at best, a curate's egg of a subject.

As far as I have seen the article has objections to all the arguments it presents, so I'll ask again if there is one of the arguments you think is solid, point out which it is and we can talk about it.

...which inventing a god goes no way at all towards answering. This is where your mate Feser's argument became comical - after arguing (at great and unnecessary length) that there must be a "base of the hierarchy", his attempts to make it look anything like a god were hilarious.

Round and round Vlad loads of words that don't end up giving out anything meaningful, in fact just like any other post you make, how about Gordon's question asking you to explain to the forum some good, viable, evidence based explanation of why anyone should take this idea about gods seriously, we'd all convert in an instant if you came up with some bullet proof evidence that proved god does in fact exist.

Don't forget Vlad if you did find the evidence and published, instant world wide recondition of the 'Vlad the Great'; but when you take a moment and think about it, the fact that nobody has managed to find any conclusive evidence that god does in fact exist to date, isn't that glaringly obviously telling you something?

ippy.

[jeremyp]

I'm sure you'd love that: why are you so dissatisfied with 'there are no good reasons to think there is a 'God'?

because it’s not a positive claim for which he can demand proof

[jeremyp]

And yet it his hard to find an atheist round here who will commit to the statement:

There IS no God.

I’ll commit to the statement “the Christian god does not exist” if you like.

[Alan Burns]

Vlad remember, nobody in the history of the world has ever shown any clear evidence for what you say you believe to be true
And lying about it is not an argument.

Nobody in the history of the world?
Can you dismiss the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ so easily?
Or the countless witnesses who have testified to the miraculous power of Jesus in their lives?

[Gordon]

Nobody in the history of the world?

Seemingly not, else we'd have a sound argument for 'God' by now, along with a testable definition and methods whereby evidence could be obtained and evaluated: we don't, but we do have a number of failed attempts at a sound argument for 'God'.

Can you dismiss the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ so easily?

Yes - the stories about him may have cultural and social significance but they are indistinguishable from fiction.

Or the countless witnesses who have testified to the miraculous power of Jesus in their lives?

Yes - that they may sincerely hold certain faith beliefs does not imply their beliefs are sound - which is where we come back to the need for definitions and methods suited to supernatural claims.

[Walter]

Seemingly not, else we'd have a sound argument for 'God' by now, along with the a testable definition and methods via which evidence could be obtained and evaluated: we don't, but we do have a number of failed attempts at a sound argument.

Yes - the stories about him may have cultural and social significance but they are indistinguishable from fiction.

Yes - that they may sincerely hold certain faith beliefs does not imply their beliefs are sound - which is where we come back to the need for definitions and methods suited to supernatural claims.

fuck me ! round and round in circles .

Why is it so difficult ? It's as though some peoples' brains are built with a short circuit.

Or they just lie for some  unfathomable reason ?

Gordon , WTF is going on?

[torridon]

Nobody in the history of the world?
Can you dismiss the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ so easily?
Or the countless witnesses who have testified to the miraculous power of Jesus in their lives?

This from someone who thinks he employs supernatural powers just to make choices.  Some people, interested in boring things, like what is actually true and correct, will want to bring a modicum of critical thinking and reasoning to the way they understand the world.

[Alan Burns]

Yes - the stories about him may have cultural and social significance but they are indistinguishable from fiction.

This weekend I will be joining with millions of fellow Christians to celebrate the single, most profound event in the history of mankind which is responsible for much of the world we live in today (including this marathon thread!) - the Resurrection.  Could fiction have achieved this?  Can you imagine what this world would be like if the resurrection had not occurred?

[Alan Burns]

This from someone who thinks he employs supernatural powers just to make choices.

If you remove the supernatural, you are left with inevitable reactions, not choices.

[Nearly Sane]

If you remove the supernatural, you are left with physically defined reactions, not consciously driven choices.

Gibberish with a dash of the ad consequentiam fallacy.

[Nearly Sane]

This weekend I will be joining with millions of fellow Christians to celebrate the single, most profound event in the history of mankind which is responsible for much of the world we live in today (including this marathon thread!) - the Resurrection.  Could fiction have achieved this?  Can you imagine what this world would be like if the resurrection had not occurred?

Like this

[Gordon]

This weekend I will be joining with millions of fellow Christians to celebrate the single, most profound event in the history of mankind which is responsible for much of the world we live in today (including this marathon thread!) - the Resurrection.

You're over-egging the pudding again, Alan, as well as begging the question: the claimed resurrection simply isn't history.

Could fiction have achieved this?

Yes, especially where people take the NT too literally.
 

Can you imagine what this world would be like if the resurrection had not occurred?

Yes, since I just need to look around: remember the 'resurrection' can't be claimed as a historical event, and you're going all ad consequentiam again.

[Stranger]

This weekend I will be joining with millions of fellow Christians to celebrate the single, most profound event in the history of mankind which is responsible for much of the world we live in today (including this marathon thread!) - the Resurrection.  Could fiction have achieved this?  Can you imagine what this world would be like if the resurrection had not occurred?

Just like it is. Why couldn't fiction achieve this? What about the other major world religions? Really Alan, your thinking is so simplistic and so utterly dominated by your superstitions.

[Stranger]

If you remove the supernatural, you are left with inevitable reactions, not choices.

Why can't human choices be inevitable reactions (your own personal redefinition of words aside)?

Still waiting for the logic you said you had, Alan - or the basic honesty needed to admit you have none.

[Gordon]

If you remove the supernatural, you are left with inevitable reactions, not choices.

Choices are 'inevitable reactions', Alan, to all the prevailing conditions unless a random element is involved - whether you like it or not.

The logic here is inescapable to any rational thinker: the irrational thinker, like you, runs away - but that is no real escape for the logic remains. You'd get on better if you treated your faith as being a set of illogical beliefs that provide you with a warm and cosy feeling, and stop trying to rationalise what is, fundamentally, irrational.

To borrow from the approach of that great philosopher Jim Royle - resurrection my arse! 

[torridon]

If you remove the supernatural, you are left with inevitable reactions, not choices.

What makes you think that ? After all we have no way of knowing whether our choices are themselves inevitable anyway.

[Nearly Sane]

What makes you think that ? After all we have no way of knowing whether our choices are themselves inevitable anyway.

Logically our choices are inevitable

[Alan Burns]

You're over-egging the pudding again, Alan, as well as begging the question: the claimed resurrection simply isn't history.

Yes, especially where people take the NT too literally.
 
Yes, since I just need to look around: remember the 'resurrection' can't be claimed as a historical event, and you're going all ad consequentiam again.

Gordon, it is time to come out from behind your fallacy detector and face up to these simple truths:
If the resurrection did not happen, Christianity would have died on the cross with Jesus.
Your choices are not inevitable reactions.
You have the power to choose your own destiny, by accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

[Alan Burns]

Logically our choices are inevitable

Realistically, my choices are mine to make.

[Nearly Sane]

Realistically, my choices are mine to make.

Which does not preclude their inevitability.

[Gordon]

Gordon, it is time to come out from behind your fallacy detector and face up to these simple truths:

OK - I'll take a peek to see what you've got.

If the resurrection did not happen, Christianity would have died on the cross with Jesus.

Nope - generalised religiosity was the norm then, so various religious narratives and supersitions had a ready audience, but when Christianity morphed into an authoritative social and political force that ensured its survival even though some core aspects the Christian beliefs are clearly nonsensical and are predicated on material that is indistinguishable from fiction. Oh - you are falling for survivorship bias again.   

Your choices are not inevitable reactions.

I suspect they probably are, even if it does feel like we are making free choices.

You have the power to choose your own destiny, by accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

The how come I can't if I truly have 'free will'?

Having had a peek it seems you're flogging the same dead horse, Alan.

[torridon]

Gordon, it is time to come out from behind your fallacy detector and face up to these simple truths:
If the resurrection did not happen, Christianity would have died on the cross with Jesus.
Your choices are not inevitable reactions.
You have the power to choose your own destiny, by accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

Fallacy-strewn thinking, I'm afraid.  Beliefs spread irrespective of their truth. Look at the internet, originally conceived as a tool for knowledge sharing but now it is awash with misinformation and untrue beliefs like flat earth; truth is often mundane and slow to spread, whereas false beliefs spread virally.  There is no reason to suppose the same principles would not have obtained in earlier times.  After all, the earliest gospel had no account of the resurrection, this was added in later gospels, this is consistent with the understanding that tales grow in the telling.

Your choices are not inevitable reactions.

The claim that a choice is not an inevitable consequence of the reason for it is a claim that the choice is random.  This is simple logic.

You have the power to choose your own destiny, by accepting Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

But I cannot believe things I don't believe. I cannot find plausible things that I don't find plausible. Neither can i want to try to believe things that I don't want to try to believe and neither do I want to become superstitious if I do not want to become superstitious.