Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

You are shifting the goalposts from divine to supernatural. Time investigating divinity.

Those are the same goalposts, just painted a different colour - where's the distinction?

I smell intellectual and academic totalitarianism and imperialism.

I love the smell of an ad hominem in the morning...

There is only one divinity in abrahamic monotheism...the clue is in the word monotheism.

That would be the Holy Trinity, right? Clue's in the word... so use the word 'polytheism', think of it as a sort of spiritual clue-by-four.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Those are the same goalposts, just painted a different colour - where's the distinction?

I love the smell of an ad hominem in the morning...

That would be the Holy Trinity, right? Clue's in the word... so use the word 'polytheism', think of it as a sort of spiritual clue-by-four.

O.

Trinity equals three separate Gods......I don't think so.
Supernatural equals divinity....ditto.

[BeRational]

"Head in the sand" comes to mind 

The irony of course will be lost on you!

[Outrider]

Trinity equals three separate Gods......I don't think so.

And I think so, so unless you can actually demonstrate a reason we've just got your word for it...

Supernatural equals divinity....ditto.

And your basis for categorising supernatural entities is... what?

O.

[torridon]

I do not deny that the evolutionary process took place.
My contention is that to produce the unfathomable complexity of the human mind, you would need intelligent guidance rather than the unguided, purposeless forces of nature.
There is still no scientific method to show how conscious awareness is generated.

That is still denial, however, you are playing word games implying you accept natural selection whilst insisting it is 'guided', meaning, that it is not natural after all.  Likewise with consciousness, simply because we do not know all the details of how it works does not justify us in ignoring the fundamental insights that we have accrued to date.  By such means, you are attempting to hide your science denial

[Alan Burns]

That is still denial, however, you are playing word games implying you accept natural selection whilst insisting it is 'guided', meaning, that it is not natural after all.  Likewise with consciousness, simply because we do not know all the details of how it works does not justify us in ignoring the fundamental insights that we have accrued to date.  By such means, you are attempting to hide your science denial

Natural selection certainly plays a part, but it can be no more than a fine tuning process on already complex life forms.  To generate the specific complexity needed in a functioning human brain will need far more that the blind "trial and error" process of natural selection.

And I acknowledge that there is correlation between brain activity and conscious awareness - but I maintain that our conscious awareness comprises perception of brain activity rather than the activity itself.  At any moment when you are conscious, the single entity which is you has awareness of the state of many thousands of brain cells.  Our conscious state is not a reaction, but awareness of reactions - reactions alone do not generate awareness - if they did we could replicate it, but creating entities of awareness is God's regime.

So I am not in denial of any of the amazing scientific inroads made to date - my contention lies in the overly optimistic extrapolation of these findings which are used to deny the need for our Creator.

[torridon]

Natural selection certainly plays a part, but it can be no more than a fine tuning process on already complex life forms.  To generate the specific complexity needed in a functioning human brain will need far more that the blind "trial and error" process of natural selection.

This is just creationism, nothing more. Science reveals that species come into being through a process of evolution and we have known this since Darwin's time. All species are related through their DNA, there is no evidence of 'already complex lifeforms' being created ex-nihilo and then fine tuned. Do you imagine that todays megafauna - horses, elephants, buffalo etc are nothing more than 'fine tuned' dinosaurs perhaps ?

[torridon]

And I acknowledge that there is correlation between brain activity and conscious awareness - but I maintain that our conscious awareness comprises perception of brain activity rather than the activity itself.  At any moment when you are conscious, the single entity which is you has awareness of the state of many thousands of brain cells.  Our conscious state is not a reaction, but awareness of reactions - reactions alone do not generate awareness - if they did we could replicate it, but creating entities of awareness is God's regime.

 
This is wrong, nobody is aware of their brain cells, but rather our awareness derives from their collective state. 100 billion neurons in your head, can you tell me the state of even one of them ? What does it feel like ? Our brain gathers sentience of things external to it, but the brain is not sentient of itself.

[Stranger]

"Head in the sand" comes to mind 

Since you've offered not the slightest hint of reasoning or evidence for your baseless list, and you continue to utterly refuse to accept things that are backed up by evidence and reasoning, the irony level is off the scale.

[Stranger]

Natural selection certainly plays a part, but it can be no more than a fine tuning process on already complex life forms.  To generate the specific complexity needed in a functioning human brain will need far more that the blind "trial and error" process of natural selection.

And I acknowledge that there is correlation between brain activity and conscious awareness - but I maintain that our conscious awareness comprises perception of brain activity rather than the activity itself.  At any moment when you are conscious, the single entity which is you has awareness of the state of many thousands of brain cells.  Our conscious state is not a reaction, but awareness of reactions - reactions alone do not generate awareness - if they did we could replicate it, but creating entities of awareness is God's regime.

Argument by assertion fallacy, together with evidence denial. 

Do you know, for example, that the genetic differences due to mutations between individual husbands, follows the same pattern as those between humans and chimpanzees? Obviously, there are far more of them in the latter case, but the statistics are the same. So, if you regard (as you suggest) that humans have totally different (and magical) cognitive abilities to non-human animals, and that this would require more than the accumulation of random mutations and natural selection, then why would a god go to so much trouble to make it look exactly as if the difference were just that - the accumulations of the same sort of random mutations taking place in the current human population?


(Source - from a Christian site)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And I think so, so unless you can actually demonstrate a reason we've just got your word for it...

If you are arguing against Christianity you should know what it is they believe in in terms of the trinity. One God which Christianity meets in three persons which are eternal (for an encounter with God is never impersonal) as opposed to say Zeus who is not the only God and appears in multiple personalities some of which manifest for the most trivial of purposes. If you don't engage with what your are against and misrepresent it you end up straw manning and saddling christians with what they don't believe in anyway...which brings us to how christians believe it. For me I became engrossed in the idea of a single unified answer to several of the big questions. A single unified answer is a feature sought by all sorts so that's not an unusual thing. I became aware of a real authority superior to and behind the literature of Christianity. This was never multiple and my encounter with Christ was the turning point in my relationship with this ONE thing.
I don't know what your experience of pantheons is. There was less of a prescribed curriculum when I received my education so my english teacher was free to start us at the Odyssey

And your basis for categorising supernatural entities is... what?

Cosmic relevence and status with God at the top and Leprechauns holding the role that Pluto holds..... Dwarf supernaturalities/obvious myth

I include an eternal material universe or a universe which pops out of nowhere as supernatural events or conditions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It's a shame this isn't that sort of board. Debate? Posseing, loud assertion and turdpolishing yes. Not sure about proper debate.

As your only “contribution” here has been to flat out lie about pretty much everything that’s ever been explained to here you’ve never made “proper debate” an option.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

"Head in the sand" comes to mind   

Then remove your head from the sand (or from wherever else you have it wedged) and try looking around you.

You set out a list of reasons for “seeing god”. I told you that there’s no evidence for any of them suggesting your or any other god. Your options in reply were:

1. Say, “yes, you’re right about that and so I should reconsider my position”; or

2. Say, “no you’re wrong about that. There is evidence, and here it is…”; or

3. Just ignore the problem, and post instead an meaningless evasion.

You chose 3. Why?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Natural selection certainly plays a part, but it can be no more than a fine tuning process on already complex life forms.  To generate the specific complexity needed in a functioning human brain will need far more that the blind "trial and error" process of natural selection.

That’s called an argument by assertion - a basic failure in reasoning. Do you have any arguments to justify why you think that remarkable claim to be true?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

And your basis for categorising supernatural entities is... what?

I think I can help you with that:

1. God: really, really magic. Super magic with bells on in fact.

2. Satan: also magic, but either has the wrong script or suffers from a bad press. Still pretty magic though because “god” (see 1.) isn’t quite magic enough to defenestrate him.

3. Angels: er, kind of magic-ish, but not nearly as magic as God (1.) or Satan (2.). Sort of like your uncle doing tricks at a birthday party, but no Paul Daniels.

4. Saints: yikes – OK, just people really, but somehow able to pull off the occasional wowser of a trick such that some time later a man in a dress in Rome can decide that they were magic enough for promotion to magic land.

I think that covers it. Vlad may of course want to refine this a little though.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As your only “contribution” here has been to flat out lie about pretty much everything that’s ever been explained to here you’ve never made “proper debate” an option.

Ad Homineming, Muddying the waters I've noticed these in several posts.

I was actually involved in a couple of debates when religionethics ran a well moderated debating thread for a shortwhile.

I don't recall your involvement in that...I don't see that that would be suited to your style.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Quote from Vlad:

...and misrepresent it you end up straw manning...

01 December 2021 - the day that irony died.

[Outrider]

If you are arguing against Christianity you should know what it is they believe in in terms of the trinity.

I'm aware of the sophistry - they want to cling to the claimed differences from the 'classical' European pantheons of old, whilst still being able to portray a range of supernatural characters to tell their story, but also want to try to maintain a pretense of differentiation from the Hindu religious examples of manifesting avatars because it's important to claim that you're something different despite being exactly the same in every demonstrable way.

If you don't engage with what your are against and misrepresent it you end up straw manning and saddling christians with what they don't believe in anyway...

I'm engaging, I'm just not buying the bullshit.

...which brings us to how christians believe it. For me I became engrossed in the idea of a single unified answer to several of the big questions. A single unified answer is a feature sought by all sorts so that's not an unusual thing. I became aware of a real authority superior to and behind the literature of Christianity. This was never multiple and my encounter with Christ was the turning point in my relationship with this ONE thing.

I'm not especially bothered about HOW people find a way to believe this, because in most instances I think that people who already do are too far gone to bring back.

I don't know what your experience of pantheons is.

People talked about them, I read some bits and pieces - nothing as formal as the attempts to make Christianity a thing.

I include an eternal material universe or a universe which pops out of nowhere as supernatural events or conditions.

Do you? Perhaps you should read into quantum phenomena a little more, and into bronze-age mythology a little less?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Outy,

I think I can help you with that:

1. God: really, really magic. Super magic with bells on in fact.

No, the necessary entity with sufficient reason as opposed to the Brute fact ''just is'' beloved of atheists from Bertrand Russell right down the philosophical heirarchy until we come to you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Ad Homineming,

That’s not what “ad hom” means. I’ve schooled you on this several times in the past - why are you still getting it wrong?

Muddying the waters I've noticed these in several posts.

No you haven’t, because it hasn’t happened. Just the opposite in fact. 

I was actually involved in a couple of debates when religionethics ran a well moderated debating thread for a shortwhile.

So you claim. So, by your own admission, how many years has it been then since you actually engaged in debate (allegedly) rather than pitched up here just to pollute this mb with pathological dishonesty instead? 

I don't recall your involvement in that...I don't see that that would be suited to your style.

As you just killed irony in your last effort to Outy, what term should we use for this dishonesty instead?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm aware of the sophistry - they want to cling to the claimed differences from the 'classical' European pantheons of old, whilst still being able to portray a range of supernatural characters to tell their story, but also want to try to maintain a pretense of differentiation from the Hindu religious examples of manifesting avatars because it's important to claim that you're something different despite being exactly the same in every demonstrable way.

I'm engaging, I'm just not buying the bullshit.

I'm not especially bothered about HOW people find a way to believe this, because in most instances I think that people who already do are too far gone to bring back.

People talked about them, I read some bits and pieces - nothing as formal as the attempts to make Christianity a thing.

Do you? Perhaps you should read into quantum phenomena a little more, and into bronze-age mythology a little less?

O.

Oh Dear perpetuation of the myth that a bit of quantum phenomena allows you into the debate on any subject under the sun.

Now I have stated the reasons I believe that the trinity is one God. I think you now need to explain why you don't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, the necessary entity with sufficient reason as opposed to the Brute fact ''just is'' beloved of atheists from Bertrand Russell right down the philosophical heirarchy until we come to you.

Leaving aside for now that your attempt at the cosmological argument has been detonated several times here, you still claim an “it’s magic innit?” god though don’t you whenever you’re asked anything about this supposed god remember?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That’s not what “ad hom” means. I’ve schooled you on this several times in the past - why are you still getting it wrong?

No you haven’t, because it hasn’t happened. Just the opposite in fact. 

So you claim. So, by your own admission, how many years has it been then since you actually engaged in debate (allegedly) rather than pitched up here just to pollute this mb with pathological dishonesty instead? 

As you just killed irony in your last effort to Outy, what term should we use for this dishonesty instead?

In terms of your oft stated desire to remove religion from all public forums I think you deserve a medal...but also to be completely ignored for the unsubtlety of it all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Leaving aside for now that your attempt at the cosmological argument has been detonated several times here, you still claim an “it’s magic innit?” god though don’t you whenever you’re asked anything about this supposed god remember?

Brute fact does not detonate anything for it denies the principle of sufficient reason, perhaps by dint of the principle of sufficient reason.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Quote from Vlad:

01 December 2021 - the day that irony died.

Extreme whataboutism.