Searching for GOD...

[Dicky Underpants]

Well the Unitarians did and still do argue that they got at least one bit wrong.
In fact our own Sassy would and in fact did  quote chapters and verses from your bible to "prove it"!

As did the original Arians. Poor old Arius- died of a rectal prolapse. That's what you get from God if you disagree with the 'official' explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well the Unitarians did and still do argue that they got at least one bit wrong.
In fact our own Sassy would and in fact did  quote chapters and verses from your bible to "prove it"!

I haven't seen the unitarian argument, just that they believe the trinity is wrong.
A Unitarian would agree that God is rather than isn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As did the original Arians. Poor old Arius- died of a rectal prolapse. That's what you get from God if you disagree with the 'official' explanation.

It's what you get talking out of your arse.

[Sebastian Toe]

To me it suggests the necessary entity status of God centuries before. Aquinas thought to create his set of apologetics.
Since these are not empirical attributes being capable of being measured, in what way could they be wrong?

They of course could be wrong about that and a lot of things.
So wrong that God had to send an angel to a chap called Mohammed to try to set things right again.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

“Presume” means “suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability” so as a general principle a naturalistic explanation for observed phenomena is a sensible premise to have, yes.

As for:

“regardless of how complex”

Yes. There’s nothing inherently problematic about complexity. (See below for fuller explanation.)

“regardless of how impossible it would be to replicate”

Theoretical physics comes up with all manner of explanations that are difficult or impossible for experimental physics to test. That doesn’t mean we should just junk the theories in favour of superstitions though. 

“regardless of the fact that no one understands what it comprises or how it works.”

No, that should be something like “regardless of the fact that the explanations we have are partial and subject to amendment” but again, so what? Why junk the possible picture when you only have some parts of the jig-saw in favour of a picture (“god”) with no parts of the jig-saw at all?   

No, I don’t “shoe horn” anything. What I actually do is to map my understanding of reality to the only verifiable method of investigation available to me. The irony here (which will be lost on you) is that “shoe horning” is precisely what you must do to bend the reality you observe to fit a theistic narrative for which there’s no evidence at all (eg prayers being “answered”).

That’s not “the reality” at all for reasons that have been explained to you countless time without rebuttal; it’s just your personal reality, and it collapses under its own absence of evidence and deep contradictions as soon as you examine it. 

OK, you mentioned complexity earlier, which seems to be a particular hang up for you. If I explain to you again where you go wrong will you promise actually to address the explanation rather than just ignore it as you have before?

OK then…

…what you attempt here is a logical fallacy called circular reasoning – that is, you’re using your premise to justify your conclusion rather than rely on connecting logic to make your case – that is, your premise and your conclusion are the same. Before we get to your use of it, here’s a different example to get you started: “The Bible is the word of God because God says so in the Bible, therefore the Bible is the word of God…” etc.

Can you see why that fails as an argument?

OK, to your use of the same construction. You think that the complexity of the outcome “Alan Burns” occurring entirely naturally is so fantastically unlikely that it’s more likely that some intelligent guidance was necessary to make it that way, hence “God”. You also though assume that “Alan Burns” was the plan all along because God wanted it that way, so “God” is required for both your ab initio premise and for your conclusion – ie, your premise and your conclusion (“God”) are the same. And that’s circular reasoning.

Now re-set, and consider instead a universe that neither knew nor cared whether Alan Burns, three-headed aliens on Alpha Centauri or anything else appeared – no matter how complex any of them might have be. The process involved would have been natural and unguided, and there was nothing specially chosen about whatever it produced. That’s you. And me. And bonobos.

If it helps at all, consider a three-headed alien on Alpha Centauri for example that could have occurred that's self-aware and reasoning too, but not particularly thoughtful. Now imagine too that this alien reasoned that it was so fantastically unlikely that it could have occurred naturally that there must have been a god of the three-headed aliens to guide events in that direction. What would you make of his reasoning?       

Do you get it now?

Well thanks for another very detailed response , Blue - apparently compiled entirely from sub conscious brain activity.

I have to admit that your optimism for what can be achieved from the unguided natural forces of this universe can only be surpassed by your optimism on what can be achieved from unguided subconscious brain activity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They of course could be wrong about that and a lot of things.
So wrong that God had to send an angel to a chap called Mohammed to try to set things right again.

How is that claim any stronger than Christianity?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Well thanks for another very detailed response , Blue - apparently compiled entirely from sub conscious brain activity.

By jove he think he might be getting it! Keep going...

I have to admit that your optimism for what can be achieved from the unguided natural forces of this universe can only be surpassed by your optimism on what can be achieved from unguided subconscious brain activity.

Aw no - and then you fell apart again. By magnitudes how much epically more optimism must it require would you say to think that there's a universe-creating god who cares all about little old Alan Burns (but cares not enough to stop babies dying of bone cancer)?

Anyway, as I took the time to explain circular reasoning to you could you at least indicate whether you now understand it please and, if you do, will you least try to avoid it in future?   

[Sebastian Toe]

How is that claim any stronger than Christianity?

I never said it was but Mohammed claims he had a revelation.
Don't you believe him?
Doesn't that outweigh whatever the Nicene blokes came up with, however learned they were?

[Dicky Underpants]

It's what you get talking out of your arse.

Or simply because the Trinitarians poisoned him. He was far too popular to be allowed a free rein.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I never said it was but Mohammed claims he had a revelation.
Don't you believe him?
Doesn't that outweigh whatever the Nicene blokes came up with, however learned they were?

I cannot agree with him regarding Jesus.
However you look at Nicea and the other councils, whether it was the grotesque carnival of bishops as portrayed in the Da Vinci code or otherwise, as far as Christianity is concerned it has been thoroughly debated and considered and analysed and we end with four viewpoints and the theology of the epistles

[Sebastian Toe]

I cannot agree with him regarding Jesus.

That doesn't make him wrong though does it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That doesn't make him wrong though does it?

He rejected the councils and the canon of the New Testament sifted by prayer and intellect through decades. It all has to be weighed up. Becoming a Christian I found it was not long before one comes across the alternatives and you go through a sifting of your own. I emerged still a Christian.

[Gordon]

He rejected the councils and the canon of the New Testament sifted by prayer and intellect through decades. It all has to be weighed up. Becoming a Christian I found it was not long before one comes across the alternatives and you go through a sifting of your own. I emerged still a Christian.

So, during all the "sifting" you did, on what basis did you reject the possibility that the miracle stories in the NT might be examples of exaggeration or lies?

[Sebastian Toe]

He rejected the councils and the canon of the New Testament sifted by prayer and intellect through decades.

I would guess that anyone would do the same had they been visited by an angel send by God who told them that those councils and cannons were wrong.
You wouldn't?

[Dicky Underpants]

He rejected the councils and the canon of the New Testament sifted by prayer and intellect through decades. It all has to be weighed up. Becoming a Christian I found it was not long before one comes across the alternatives and you go through a sifting of your own. I emerged still a Christian.

And yet, coming back to a point I made earlier, the Filioque clause, was also debated for decades. And it was sufficient to cause a massive schism in the whole of Christendom. A mere Latin ablative noun and a conjunctive particle! It seems that all these great intellectual debates hang on a knife-edge.*

Thing is, you may believe you've proved that there's some creative power behind everything, but as for whether the Trinity is true, or whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father only, you know no more than the rest of us - and indeed how could you?

*I've just checked how long this matter was fiercely contested - earliest reference about 410 a.d. through the centuries till the Council of Jerusalem in 1672. And in modern times, old Benedict was still blathering on about it!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would guess that anyone would do the same had they been visited by an angel send by God who told them that those councils and cannons were wrong.
You wouldn't?

It seems to me that such an experience is a once in history experience in that faith.
I'm not sure if the spiritual experience of the Sufis is considered mainstream.
My experience is not of Islam but of Christianity. I'm not even sure that such experience can be included in Islam.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And yet, coming back to a point I made earlier, the Filioque clause, was also debated for decades. And it was sufficient to cause a massive schism in the whole of Christendom. A mere Latin ablative noun and a conjunctive particle! It seems that all these great intellectual debates hang on a knife-edge.*

Thing is, you may believe you've proved that there's some creative power behind everything, but as for whether the Trinity is true, or whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, or from the Father only, you know no more than the rest of us - and indeed how could you?

*I've just checked how long this matter was fiercely contested - earliest reference about 410 a.d. through the centuries till the Council of Jerusalem in 1672. And in modern times, old Benedict was still blathering on about it!

I must admit the filioque is not an area of theological interest to me but in these latter times I'm sure people involved in the flilioque disagreement are frequently assailed by trainspotters telling them to "get a life".

[Dicky Underpants]

I must admit the filioque is not an area of theological interest to me but in these latter times I'm sure people involved in the flilioque disagreement are frequently assailed by trainspotters telling them to "get a life".

First time I've taken any notice of it for ten years - and only in the context of Sebastian Toe's point about the Christian God being a very divided entity.
Googling a bit, I was amazed to find clerics still wittering on about it.

[Dicky Underpants]

It seems to me that such an experience is a once in history experience in that faith.
I'm not sure if the spiritual experience of the Sufis is considered mainstream.
My experience is not of Islam but of Christianity. I'm not even sure that such experience can be included in Islam.

I thought Seb was talking about Mohammed being visited by the Archangel Gabriel.
Regarding Sufism - I was once at a Muslim conference where I spoke to one Sufi Ma'ruf Hosein, who told me that "Sufism is the heart, the very spiritual core of Islam."

[Sebastian Toe]

It seems to me that such an experience is a once in history experience in that faith.
I'm not sure if the spiritual experience of the Sufis is considered mainstream.
My experience is not of Islam but of Christianity. I'm not even sure that such experience can be included in Islam.

Sufis? Concentrate ...
What about Mohammed's visit from the angel sent from God?
Surely it has to be significant for Christians to know that the Nicene blokes got it a bit wrong?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

First time I've taken any notice of it for ten years - and only in the context of Sebastion Toe's point about the Christian God being a very divided entity.e
Googling a bit, I was amazed to find clerics still wittering on about it.

And I am trying to get to the bottom of why Seb and indeed other atheists find the trinity insufficiently monolithic.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I thought Seb was talking about Mohammed being visited by the Archangel Gabriel.
Regarding Sufism - I was once at a Muslim conference where I spoke to one Sufi Ma'ruf Hosein, who told me that "Sufism is the heart, the very spiritual core of Islam."

I told Seb that I do not agree with all Islam says about Jesus. What is unclear about that? I do not make the fallacy that if he was wrong about Jesus he's wrong about everything.

Regarding your discussion with your Sufi acquaintance. Would a Wahhabist agree with him?

[Dicky Underpants]

And I am trying to get to the bottom of why Seb and indeed other atheists find the trinity insufficiently monolithic.

And it is being explained to you.

[Dicky Underpants]

Regarding your discussion with your Sufi acquaintance. Would a Wahhabist agree with him?

What is then the Christian department that is at the heart, the spiritual core of Christianity?
Nulla salus extra Ecclesiam....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And it is being explained to you.

Is it? It seems to me atheists want a big man, or a titanic statue, or tablet of stone in the God seat presumably because he's easier to deny and sounds less threatening.