Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I find the evidence for God overwhelming.

Of course you do. The trouble is, to be so “overwhelming” you must set the evidential bar so low that it must be evidence for anything else that takes someone’s fancy too – leprechauns included.

Sadly, you appear to use your God given freedom…

“God-given freedom” here is circular reasoning Your premise and your conclusion (“God”) are the same thing.

… to seek reasons to dismiss the evidence –

That’s because it isn’t evidence at all. Assertions, anecdotes, logical fallacies and impossibly contradictory claims are not evidence.

…even the evidence of your own freedom to do this.

Which isn’t evidence at all because “your own freedom to do this” cannot be what you think it is for reasons that have been explained to you endlessly but you just ignore.
 

If you seek reasons to dismiss the evidence for God, the Devil will provide them in abundance.

Claiming that people don’t believe in one fairy tale claim because another fairy tale claim is making them not believe is just piling idiocy upon idiocy.

You should try seeking the truth - for the truth sets you free.

 

The evidence (proper evidence this time) is that many of us are a lot closer to "the truth" than you are.

Incidentally, which did you plump to assert in the end: a god that’s all powerful, or a god that’s not powerful enough to override “free” will?

[Alan Burns]

Yes.

God could stop it, but doesn't.  God created reality and set it on it's way, knowing it would turn out like this, instead of turning out some other way.  If God chose this reality to create, then it's God's choice; if God didn't, then is it really God?

As I said, you do not see the big picture
It is easy to take selective aspects of our life on this earth and pick faults with it.  That is one of the Devil's tactics to draw us away from God.
We do not know the reality of what the final outcome will be.
I have faith that if we put our trust in God's love, it will exceed all expectations.

[Outrider]

I find the evidence for God overwhelming.

Then you need to examine it more critically than you have done.

Sadly, you appear to use your God given freedom to seek reasons to dismiss the evidence - even the evidence of your own freedom to do this.

You need to look at the evidence for free will more critically, as well.

If you seek reasons to dismiss the evidence for God, the Devil will provide them in abundance.

Piece of evidence to review critically #1: If Christianity is a monotheistic religion, what is the Devil? How is it not another (arguably lesser) deity?  In what way are 'angels' not 'demi-gods/lesser divinities' in the same way as, say, Hercules was beneath the twelve Olympians?

You should try seeking the truth - for the truth sets you free.

I do. It has kept me free of religion.

O.

[Stranger]

I find the evidence for God overwhelming.

So where is it?

Sadly, you appear to use your God given freedom to seek reasons to dismiss the evidence...

I haven't seen any "evidence" for any of the thousands of gods humanity has and does believe in, that wasn't laughable.

...even the evidence of your own freedom to do this.

You have done a great deal to point out how utterly baseless that "argument" is. It appears to consist of nothing but baseless assertions, self-contradiction, and an endless supply of fallacies.

If you seek reasons to dismiss the evidence for God, the Devil will provide them in abundance.

There is no need to seek reasons to dismiss something that I've never seen. Where is even the first hint of any (objective) evidence for this god (let alone this devil character)?

You should try seeking the truth - for the truth sets you free.

Take your own advice - perhaps you'll break free from the blind faith and irrationality that seems to have crippled your intellect.

[Outrider]

As I said, you do not see the big picture

Really?  Ah, if only I were uncritically special.  It's easy to see a big picture if you don't actually focus on any of the aggravating little details which flag up how your conception of the big picture doesn't work.

It is easy to take selective aspects of our life on this earth and pick faults with it.

The point is that I don't have to pick aspects of my life - although I could.  There are people in the world born into abject poverty and disease brought about by natural disasters who die young, afraid, alone and in pain - there is no 'bigger picture' that can justify that.  The ends justifies the means is not sufficient for a supposedly all-powerful deity, it's a pragmatic argument deployed by people who have to make morally ambiguous choices.

That is one of the Devil's tactics to draw us away from God.

Then why doesn't the all-powerful God just stop the Devil tempting people?

We do not know the reality of what the final outcome will be.

But God apparently does.  And chose to build reality like this knowing that such an outcome would result from it.

I have faith that if we put our trust in God's love, it will exceed all expectations.

I find faith to be an insufficient excuse for accepting claims which defy logic and/or the evidence.

O.

[torridon]

As I said, you do not see the big picture
It is easy to take selective aspects of our life on this earth and pick faults with it.  That is one of the Devil's tactics to draw us away from God.
..

So, for the millionth time, why does God allow the devil to do this ? As far as I can see, it can only be either that God is incapable or unwilling to eliminate the Devil.  Which is it ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do. It has kept me free of religion.

Are you talking of facts here though...….and if so what facts keep you free from religion?

[torridon]

It is easy to take selective aspects of our life on this earth and pick faults with it.

it is your penchant to be selective.  All praise to God for all things bright and beautiful, but when it comes to all things vile, smelly and wriggly, your admonishment is nowhere to be seen.  We are merely demonstrating your double standards.  If you were unbiased and even handed in the first place then there would be no criticism.

[Outrider]

Are you talking of facts here though...….and if so what facts keep you free from religion?

Who mentioned facts?  The claim was 'truth', and we all have our one of those.

As to whether it's 'facts' or not - like everyone else I try to review the evidence presented, and so far as I can tell the 'facts' don't support the contention 'a god did it'.  How close our conception is to the actual facts is difficult to establish, but I choose to rely most on the mechanisms which have the best track record; scientific enquiry, logic, maths and when all else fails Occam's Razor.

O.

[Alan Burns]

You need to look at the evidence for free will more critically, as well.

I have yet to see a logical explanation for what can possibly invoke the actions needed to consciously seek and verify any evidence if all our thought processes are entirely driven by nothing but endless chains of physically defined reactions.

[torridon]

I have yet to see a logical explanation for what can possibly invoke the actions needed to consciously seek and verify any evidence if all our thought processes are entirely driven by nothing but endless chains of physically defined reactions.

Then you haven't been reading this thread.  I've lost count of the times such things have been explained to you.  it is only because our thoughts derive from those 'chains' that they are meaningful.  Were that not the case, then our thoughts would be random.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Are you talking of facts here though...….and if so what facts keep you free from religion?

It's a fact that I have never seen an argument to justify the claim "God" that I cannot falsify. QED

[Stranger]

I have yet to see a logical explanation for what can possibly invoke the actions needed to consciously seek and verify any evidence if all our thought processes are entirely driven by nothing but endless chains of physically defined reactions.

Even if this were true (which it isn't, you've just ignored all the answers you've had), that doesn't lend any credence at all to your self-contradictory, logically impossible, non-explanation that's basically "it's magic, innt?"

[Outrider]

I have yet to see a logical explanation for what can possibly invoke the actions needed to consciously seek and verify any evidence if all our thought processes are entirely driven by nothing but endless chains of physically defined reactions.

You feel that human consciousness cannot be a product solely of brain activity - why?  The brain is the single most complex structure humanity has discovered, by orders of magnitude.  How can you be so sure that consciousness cannot emerge from those complex interactions spontaneously, but you can accept that something allegedly more complex can self-create from nothing?

To claim that god self-creates as a complex thing but deny that consciousness cannot possible emerge from billions of years of evolution of brains defies understanding.

O.

[Enki]

No.
By delegating the power of free will to other beings, the resulting outcome is the will of those beings, not the will of God.

Yes.
By choosing to give (your version of) free will to other beings, it follows that they had no say in the matter. It was never put to them that He could take their free will back if they didn't want it. He should therefore have understood that He had ultimate responsibility for anything that those beings did. He avoided that responsibility, and, furthermore, decreed punishments if they went against what He wanted. Moreover He made sure that those punishments would be perpetuated on any other being that came after them, further compounding His totally irresponsible and uncaring attitude towards humanity. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's a bold,minority report, claim exonerating a mass of people from ever being caught talking bollocks

No, it's just the explanation for why you effed up again (whether deliberately or not) with your "atheist argument" straw man. All that's necessary for atheism is the identification of the failings in the arguments theists attempt to justify their claim "God". If you want to find an atheist who uses some other justification knock yourself out, but I haven't come across any.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have yet to see a logical explanation for what can possibly invoke the actions needed to consciously seek and verify any evidence if all our thought processes are entirely driven by nothing but endless chains of physically defined reactions.

That's not true. You've seen it many, many times. What you meant to say was, "I have yet to engage with the logical explanations I've been given many times for what can possibly invoke the actions needed to consciously seek and verify any evidence if all our thought processes are entirely driven by nothing but endless chains of physically defined reactions."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

That's not true. You've seen it many, many times. What you meant to say was, "I have yet to engage with the logical explanations I've been given many times for what can possibly invoke the actions needed to consciously seek and verify any evidence if all our thought processes are entirely driven by nothing but endless chains of physically defined reactions."

No, You repeated the 'atheism equals logic' fallacy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, You repeated the 'atheism equals logic' fallacy

The "atheist argument" is logic - it's the logic that falsifies the arguments theists attempt to justify their claim "god". That's not a fallacy. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It's a fact that I have never seen an argument to justify the claim "God" that I cannot falsify. QED

No, it's a fact that you think you haven't. I rather think your high regard for yourself is the problem here.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The "atheist argument" is logic - it's the logic that falsifies the arguments theists attempt to justify their claim "god". That's not a fallacy.

So you admit there IS an atheist argument. Logic can falsify a lot of things. That doesn't mean atheist argument can falsify the existence of God. Your efforts over years have merely comprised of horse laugh arguments rather than logic and reeling of lists of logical fallacies hoping that does the job in my ever so humble opinion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, it's a fact that you think you haven't. I rather think your high regard for yourself is the problem here.

Wrong again. Not only have I never seen an argument to justify the claim "God" that I can't falsify, but also falsification of any such arguments is all that's necessary for atheism. Your straw man BS about about "atheist argument" was just that - a straw man. Same as always. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So you admit there IS an atheist argument.

More dishonest stupidity. The argument is the logic. Atheism is just the conclusion it inexorably leads to.

Logic can falsify a lot of things.

Yes, the arguments attempted to justify the claim "God" included. That's the point.

That doesn't mean atheist argument can falsify the existence of God.

Or leprechauns. That's why it's not a claim atheism relies on. Do you get some sort of loyalty bonus fo every 1,000 straw men you try or something?

Your efforts over years have merely comprised of horse laugh arguments rather than logic and reeling of lists of logical fallacies hoping that does the job in my ever so humble opinion.

Why bother lying about this when you've been corrected on it so many times?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wrong again. Not only have I never seen an argument to justify the claim "God" that I can't falsify

We can all play that game.....I've never seen you falsify all claims for God...…..even all claims made around here, not that anybody seriously believed they would ever fulfil an atheist's criteria for demonstrating that claim.

Now if I just 'think' that it will be easy for for you to here and now falsify all claims you have ever seen. Get to it!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

We can all play that game.....I've never seen you falsify all claims for God...…..

All the ones I've been given here, yes you have. That you ignore it, lie about it, misrepresent it etc when it's done as your standard MO is a different matter though.

...even all claims made around here, not that anybody seriously believed they would ever fulfil an atheist's criteria for demonstrating that claim.

The "atheist's criteria" is just that the arguments attempted to justify the claim "God" are not fallacious. It's simple enough to understand I'd have thought, even for you.   

Now if I just 'think' that it will be easy for for you to here and now falsify all claims you have ever seen. Get to it!

I already have. Many times. You could try the same fallacies again and I could falsify them again if you like, but as you just ignore it, lie about it or misrepresent it when I do what would be the point?