Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I said personal witness stories, not statements.

What, like David Icke has personal witness statements you mean? 

[Dicky Underpants]

I said personal witness stories, not statements.
What I am referring to is the life stories of the numerous Christian saints which give witness to the power and love of God working through the extraordinary lives of these saints.

And you believe them all?
If not, what criteria do you apply to determine which are reliable?

[Sebastian Toe]

I said personal witness stories, not statements.
What I am referring to is the life stories of the numerous Christian saints which give witness to the power and love of God working through the extraordinary lives of these saints.

And the personal witness statements of Mohammed who was delivered a message from an angel sent by God.
Does his experience count for anything?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And the personal witness statements of Mohammed who was delivered a message from an angel sent by God.
Does his experience count for anything?

As mystics will tell you, like the material world, there are a lot of agents out there.
I have no reason to doubt anyone's experience but what happens when their's contains a revelation contradictory with mine? e.g when your experience of agnosticism leads to acting as if God doesn't exist and another agnostic's experience leads to acting like they don't know whether God exists or not?

[Sebastian Toe]

As mystics will tell you, like the material world, there are a lot of agents out there.
I have no reason to doubt anyone's experience but what happens when their's contains a revelation contradictory with mine? e.g

Eg Mohammed's experience.....what happens?
Do tell.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Eg Mohammed's experience.....what happens?
Do tell.

Not following you. Do you mean what happens in mystical experience or what?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Eg Mohammed's experience.....what happens?
Do tell.

Oh I get you, I suppose you have to examine the implications of the interpretation of the experience. Getting taken to heaven by various means is pretty standard for many religions of course but mystics would talk of the possibility and having the experience of ending up in, shall we say, other places, or incomprehension leading to post experience contemplation along the lines of ''what was all that about?''.

Mystics though also report experiences 'beyond words' so reporting mystic experiences is a tricky businesses.

But you want the punchline from me which is, assuming both Mohammed and say, St Paul were honest men, Mohammed didn't meet Christ, and not all mystic experiences  logically guarantee that anyway, and St Paul did.

So Seb what makes one agnostic act as though God doesn't exist and another act as if he doesn't know whether God exists or not?.....or is agnostics acting as if God doesn't exist not just another bollocks atheist statement?   

[Sebastian Toe]

But you want the punchline from me which is, assuming both Mohammed and say, St Paul were honest men, Mohammed didn't meet Christ, and not all mystic experiences  logically guarantee that anyway, and St Paul did.

Are you saying that angels, sent by God, are not to be believed?

[Dicky Underpants]

And the personal witness statements of Mohammed who was delivered a message from an angel sent by God.
Does his experience count for anything?

We mustn't forget the Angel Moroni and the golden plates of Joseph Smith. Nor the testimony by the witnesses printed at the beginning of the Book of Mormon about the golden plates - "Which we have seen and hefted".

[Sebastian Toe]

We mustn't forget the Angel Moroni and the golden plates of Joseph Smith. Nor the testimony by the witnesses printed at the beginning of the Book of Mormon about the golden plates - "Which we have seen and hefted".

Don't go introducing more, it will just confuse him!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you saying that angels, sent by God, are not to be believed?

Are you saying the son of God is not to be believed?
I'm saying that unlike God angels are unlikely to be self evident in what they say.. That's not to say they are automatically wrong.

Now. Why is it that one agnostic acts as if there isn't a God and another acts as though there may or may not be?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We mustn't forget the Angel Moroni and the golden plates of Joseph Smith. Nor the testimony by the witnesses printed at the beginning of the Book of Mormon about the golden plates - "Which we have seen and hefted".

I think we should defer to the great theologian Larrie Williams on this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdpcdVZPLlY

[Alan Burns]

Just a thought to spare you further embarrassment.       

I will never be embarrassed about witnessing to the truth about our own spiritual nature and the limitations of what science can ever explain about the reality we live in.

[Sebastian Toe]

Are you saying the son of God is not to be believed?
I'm saying that unlike God angels are unlikely to be self evident in what they say.. That's not to say they are automatically wrong.

...but they might be wrong sometimes?
Is that what you are saying?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I will never be embarrassed about witnessing to the truth about our own spiritual nature and the limitations of what science can ever explain about the reality we live in.

Except of course you're not "witnessing" anything - you're just asserting it. I explained to you where you went wrong in thinking your unqualified assertions and declarations were also logic but, predictably, I see you've just ignored that part.

Oh well.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh I get you, I suppose you have to examine the implications of the interpretation of the experience...

No you don't. The implications of the interpretations are a second order issue - the a priori issue is whether or not the interpretation can justifiably be said to be accurate (which is where you, AB et al always fall over). Only once you've established that would any implications be of interest.   

[Dicky Underpants]

Are you saying the son of God is not to be believed?
I'm saying that unlike God angels are unlikely to be self evident in what they say.. That's not to say they are automatically wrong.

Now. Why is it that one agnostic acts as if there isn't a God and another acts as though there may or may not be?

As if  the gospels were consistent!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As if  the gospels were consistent!

The Gospels were inspired by the experience of Christ and that is how they were written to be understood. They point to Christ who is self evident.

As it says in Revelations, Behold I stand at the door and knock, if anyone hears me and opens the door I will come in and he will share his meal with me and I with him. Angels and scripture point toward experience.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Angels and scripture point toward experience.

Found one for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2ZZUu2HUuo

Can I interest you in a bridge I have for sale?

[Sebastian Toe]

. Angels and scripture point toward experience.

angels are unlikely to be self evident in what they say..

Is there a way to accurately determine when you can deduce what angels are saying?
Do tell.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is there a way to accurately determine when you can deduce what angels are saying?
Do tell.

Not having conscious personal experience of them, I'm no expert but where angels have been present in the Bible they  say what God himself intends to do, so it's very much trust and wait I suppose.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Except of course you're not "witnessing" anything - you're just asserting it. I explained to you where you went wrong in thinking your unqualified assertions and declarations were also logic but, predictably, I see you've just ignored that part.

Oh well.

I am not making unqualified assertions.
I am pointing out the logical improbability of human reasoning being derived from the material reactions of sub conscious brain activity which are beyond conscious control.  And you do not seem to understand that the phrase "emergent property" is just a meaningless label which offers no viable explanation for how a single entity of conscious awareness can be generated from the activity of many discrete material reactions.  You need to come to terms with the difference between a reaction (which can only generate further reactions) and the awareness of  a reaction.  You may well disagree with these postulations, but they are not unqualified assertions.

[Gordon]

I am not making unqualified assertions.
I am pointing out the logical improbability of human reasoning being derived from the material reactions of sub conscious brain activity which are beyond conscious control.  And you do not seem to understand that the phrase "emergent property" is just a meaningless label which offers no viable explanation for how a single entity of conscious awareness can be generated from the activity of many discrete material reactions.  You need to come to terms with the difference between a reaction (which can only generate further reactions) and the awareness of  a reaction.  You may well disagree with these postulations, but they are not unqualified assertions.

They are Alan and, moreover, they are nonsensical.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not making unqualified assertions.

Yes you are. That’s all you do.

I am pointing out the logical improbability of human reasoning being derived from the material reactions of sub conscious brain activity which are beyond conscious control.

First you’ve shifted ground here from “impossibility” to “improbability”.

Second, very improbable things happen all the time. Try dealing a randomly shuffled deck of cards for example – that exact sequence of 52 cards is fantastically unlikely to occur again, yet there it is nonetheless.

So what?

And you do not seem to understand that the phrase "emergent property" is just a meaningless label which offers no viable explanation for how a single entity of conscious awareness can be generated from the activity of many discrete material reactions.

I understand emergent properties much better than you do Alan, certainly enough to know that the term is anything but a “meaningless label”. Emergence is an academically well-studied and well-understood phenomenon that we see pretty much everywhere we look when you know what to look for. There are books about it if you could be bothered to read them.

You need to come to terms with the difference between a reaction (which can only generate further reactions) and the awareness of  a reaction.

Not if “awareness of a reaction” is just consciousness at work, and if consciousness is itself an emergent phenomenon as neuroscience suggests it likely is. You’re just trying yet another unqualified assertion here with no reasoning or logic at all to justify it.     

You may well disagree with these postulations, but they are not unqualified assertions.

Yes they are. That’s exactly what they are. Do you want to know how I know that? I’ll tell you then: when you tell us WHAT you believe (which is all you ever do) that’s an unqualified assertion; if ever you told us WHY you believe it on the other hand (which you never do), then you’d have tried at least to provide some justifying logic (that could then be tested on its merits).

As things stand though there’s nothing to test: all you ever make is WHAT statement, but never WHY statements.

Try to understand this much at least.     

[Maeght]

I said personal witness stories, not statements.
What I am referring to is the life stories of the numerous Christian saints which give witness to the power and love of God working through the extraordinary lives of these saints.

Okay stories not statements. Sorry for misquoting you.

What you have referred to sounds like it could just as well be the power of belief, so don't see that as being evidence.

What about the historical evidence of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus you mentioned?