Searching for GOD...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

AB,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Oh, and the number of people who honestly claim to have encountered Mohammed in their lives is greater than the number of people who think they’ve encountered Jesus. If you still want to think that the truth is a popularity contest though, you’ve backed the wrong horse.

Agree popularity of a belief doesn't indicate its accuracy. Technical point but not sure if you've understood this right. Not sure what you mean here by people who claim to have encountered Mohammed in their lives - do you mean the stories about Prophet Mohammed's companions and spouses in Arabia during the time period he was supposed to have lived?

He was just a man so once he is supposed to have died it is not part of mainstream Muslim tradition for Muslims who came after him to claim they encountered him.... or God for that matter. There is no equivalent belief to the claims by some Christians of encountering Jesus. I say "some" because I have no idea if that is universal belief amongst all Christians.

The Muslim faith belief is that they have the Quran - a book of his messages believed to be the revelations or words of Allah/ God communicated via "angel" Jibreel . And the sunnah - supposedly accounts of Prophet Muhammed's sayings and actions, which were passed on by oral tradition and subsequently collected, verified as having been transmitted from multiple different sources considered by the collectors to be trustworthy, and written down over a century after he died.

Most Muslims don't claim they have encountered 1 or 3 supernatural entities - the Muslim faith as I understand it has a different vibe from the Christians - unless there are some Christians who don't believe it is possible to have personal encounters with God. Our concept is that we know of God through words we read and that there is nothing comparable to God because if God can be compared to anything e.g. a man (like Jesus for example) or anything else that we would "encounter" or make sense of, then God doesn't seem unique enough to be worthy of worship. There are various (99 to be precise) characteristics/ attributes given to God such as "merciful" or "just" etc but not physical attributes ( though I think physical attributes are occasionally used metaphorically).

Most Muslims don't seem to want to encounter their concept of God nor do they seem to want their concept of God to be like one of them i.e. a man, nor do they believe that an all-knowing God would need to become a man to understand anything - unlike the Christians who believe in the trinity with their concept of Jesus as a man as well as a God. I am aware there are Christians who don't believe in the trinity. I don't know if these Christians believe they have encountered God. But this claim of encountering Jesus or God is a Christian claim rather than a Muslim mainstream claim. At the end of the day these various beliefs are all beliefs of faith - there is no objective evidence.

[Sriram]

Hi VG,


What are your views of Sufi beliefs?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maeght,

Revelation 3:20 (New International Version):

“Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.”

So to take seriously Vlad’s claim that this “renders the resurrection plausible and acceptable” all you have to do now is:

1. Accept that Jesus ever actually said it rather than it was just attributed to him perhaps decades later;

2. Accept that the recording of it and the multiple translations of it thereafter are accurate;

3. Accept that Jesus was telling the truth, and that he was capable of knowing it to be true rather than just making a faith claim of his own; and

4. Accept that the same Jesus was also dead for a bit and then alive again before he turned up cold calling at someone’s door to invite himself to dinner, even though Vlad has already told us that “there is probably no physical evidence of the resurrection available”.

And on these desperately flimsy grounds is built the entire tottering edifice of Vlad’s belief in a resurrection it seems.

Ah well.   

A technical point. This is a post resurrection saying of Jesus a revelation recieved decades after the crucifixion.
It carries rather though philosophical, anthropological and psychological points rather than historical. It is not describing an event but a universal on going phenomena. It is after all written in the present tense and should be interpreted as such. You are treating something like Plato like a Pliny or a Josephus.

It is philosophical because Christ speaks as God, it is anthropological because of the mention of the ''whosoever.''
It is a reminder to Christians of the reality of God. It has become a focus for commitment to Christ for the first time.
It rather defines two psychologies, those who hear and respond in commitment to Christ and those who hear and keep the door of the ego firmly shut.
In this respect then, it doesn't matter who wrote it or when it was written

This then is the Christ who Christians old and new and future respond to with commitment since the historical and physical life death and resurrection by dint of their nature are past events.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Claims aren't evidence 

I looked for the most uncharitable dictionary definition of the term claims and came up with a statement made without having evidence or proof.
That suggests a distinction here between evidence and proof. I suppose they talking of proofs outside empirical or material evidence like mathematical proof or logical proof etc.

So I don't see we we should single out christianity here but apply it to agnosticism, materialism, empiricism, physicalism, atheism, and naturalism...which every fair minded person should do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agree popularity of a belief doesn't indicate its accuracy. Technical point but not sure if you've understood this right. Not sure what you mean here by people who claim to have encountered Mohammed in their lives - do you mean the stories about Prophet Mohammed's companions and spouses in Arabia during the time period he was supposed to have lived?

He was just a man so once he is supposed to have died it is not part of mainstream Muslim tradition for Muslims who came after him to claim they encountered him.... or God for that matter. There is no equivalent belief to the claims by some Christians of encountering Jesus. I say "some" because I have no idea if that is universal belief amongst all Christians.

The Muslim faith belief is that they have the Quran - a book of his messages believed to be the revelations or words of Allah/ God communicated via "angel" Jibreel . And the sunnah - supposedly accounts of Prophet Muhammed's sayings and actions, which were passed on by oral tradition and subsequently collected, verified as having been transmitted from multiple different sources considered by the collectors to be trustworthy, and written down over a century after he died.

Most Muslims don't claim they have encountered 1 or 3 supernatural entities - the Muslim faith as I understand it has a different vibe from the Christians - unless there are some Christians who don't believe it is possible to have personal encounters with God. Our concept is that we know of God through words we read and that there is nothing comparable to God because if God can be compared to anything e.g. a man (like Jesus for example) or anything else that we would "encounter" or make sense of, then God doesn't seem unique enough to be worthy of worship. There are various (99 to be precise) characteristics/ attributes given to God such as "merciful" or "just" etc but not physical attributes ( though I think physical attributes are occasionally used metaphorically).

Most Muslims don't seem to want to encounter their concept of God nor do they seem to want their concept of God to be like one of them i.e. a man, nor do they believe that an all-knowing God would need to become a man to understand anything - unlike the Christians who believe in the trinity with their concept of Jesus as a man as well as a God. I am aware there are Christians who don't believe in the trinity. I don't know if these Christians believe they have encountered God. But this claim of encountering Jesus or God is a Christian claim rather than a Muslim mainstream claim. At the end of the day these various beliefs are all beliefs of faith - there is no objective evidence.

Thank you for this timely and informative addition to the corpus of Forum Knowledge and wisdom. Hillside and others need their caricatures of religion pulled up.
I find this most productive and there are two points arising from your post concerning how you see Christians viewing God and supernatural encounters in Islam that I would like to discuss with you.

[Alan Burns]

Why do you post if you've already found God?

It's a discussion forum - that's what we do here.

As a Christian I am called to evangelise - to spread the Good News.
The ultimate aim of a discussion should be to home in on what is true.
As you rightly observe, I have already found God, and I hope I can help others find God too.

[ProfessorDavey]

As a Christian I am called to evangelise - to spread the Good News.

Sure - so you consider it your duty to promulgate your faith - OK, although I think others prefer to consider faith as a private matter and one that it for individuals to determine without hectoring from 'evangelicals'. Whether your faith represents Good News (note the weird capitalisation) or not is a matter of opinion. The countless who have suffered at the hands of christians over the centuries, those who have been persecuted with justification from christianity and those who have been left in poverty because christianity has often prioritised faith over improvements in life - well they may beg to differ.

The ultimate aim of a discussion should be to home in on what is true.

I think we are all interested in the truth - but to determine what it the truth you need evidence, not faith. And AB - you have no credible evidence to back up your faith claims.

As you rightly observe, I have already found God, and I hope I can help others find God too.

Which runs counter to your previous point about the truth. Which is it AB - are you more interested in what is true or your faith?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

    You would be in a tiny minority of ONE!
    The number of people who honestly claim to have encountered Jesus in their lives is vast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Oh, and the number of people who honestly claim to have encountered Mohammed in their lives is greater than the number of people who think they’ve encountered Jesus. If you still want to think that the truth is a popularity contest though, you’ve backed the wrong horse.

I was simply highlighting how ridiculous it is to compare belief in Leprechauns to belief in Jesus Christ.

[ProfessorDavey]

I was simply highlighting how ridiculous it is to compare belief in Leprechauns to belief in Jesus Christ.

Why - both are faith claims, without credible evidence to back them up.

[Alan Burns]

Which is it AB - are you more interested in what is true or your faith?

There can only be one truth.  We cannot choose what is true - we need to use whatever means are available to consciously discern  what is true.  And we only have one lifetime to discover the truth.

[Alan Burns]

Why - both are faith claims, without credible evidence to back them up.

Your concept of what constitutes credible evidence must be vastly different to mine.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A technical point. This is a post resurrection saying of Jesus a revelation recieved decades after the crucifixion.
It carries rather though philosophical, anthropological and psychological points rather than historical. It is not describing an event but a universal on going phenomena. It is after all written in the present tense and should be interpreted as such. You are treating something like Plato like a Pliny or a Josephus.

It is philosophical because Christ speaks as God, it is anthropological because of the mention of the ''whosoever.''
It is a reminder to Christians of the reality of God. It has become a focus for commitment to Christ for the first time.
It rather defines two psychologies, those who hear and respond in commitment to Christ and those who hear and keep the door of the ego firmly shut.
In this respect then, it doesn't matter who wrote it or when it was written

This then is the Christ who Christians old and new and future respond to with commitment since the historical and physical life death and resurrection by dint of their nature are past events.

But what you actually said was:

There is probably no physical evidence of the resurrection available but encounter with the Christ of revelations chapter 3 verse 20  renders the resurrection plausible and acceptable.

(Reply 45844)

Even leaving aside your various misunderstandings of the terms you’ve just attempted (“philosophical”, “anthropological” etc) the point here is that Revelations 3.20 does no such thing, for the reasons I set out (and you ignored).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I looked for the most uncharitable dictionary definition of the term claims and came up with a statement made without having evidence or proof.
That suggests a distinction here between evidence and proof. I suppose they talking of proofs outside empirical or material evidence like mathematical proof or logical proof etc.

Or, if you think there are other types, those too – which is the problem you always run away from.

So I don't see we we should single out christianity here but apply it to agnosticism, materialism, empiricism, physicalism, atheism, and naturalism...which every fair minded person should do.

I’ve explained to you why you’re wrong about this probably dozens of times now without you even bothering to address your mistake – only for you to repeat it over and over later on.

What then would be the point in trying to educate you about this again?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Thank you for this timely and informative addition to the corpus of Forum Knowledge and wisdom. Hillside and others need their caricatures of religion pulled up.
I find this most productive and there are two points arising from your post concerning how you see Christians viewing God and supernatural encounters in Islam that I would like to discuss with you.

Except of course what Hillside actually did was to explain to AB why his use of an argumentum ad populum was a very bad idea.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As a Christian I am called to evangelise - to spread the Good News.

No. As a Christian you may believe that, but so far at least you’ve never managed to produce a sound argument to suggest that there is anything to do the “calling”.

The ultimate aim of a discussion should be to home in on what is true.

Then why do you just ignore the problem of your reliance on fallacious arguments to do that?
 

As you rightly observe, I have already found God, and I hope I can help others find God too.

You may or may not have “already found god”. So far though you’ve failed to provide cogent reasoning to indicate that there even is a god, let alone that you’ve found “Him”.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I was simply highlighting how ridiculous it is to compare belief in Leprechauns to belief in Jesus Christ.

When the arguments attempted to justify a claim of a man/god Jesus apply equally well to justifications for leprechauns it’s not ridiculous at all, and what you actually “simply” did was to attempt an argumentum ad populum – a basic mistake in reasoning.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There can only be one truth.

There are lots of truths.

We cannot choose what is true - we need to use whatever means are available to consciously deduce what is true.

But the only means of establishing truths we know to be reliable so far are reason and evidence, yet you dismiss these out of hand in favour of blind faith claims.

And we only have one lifetime to discover the truth.

Finally you've got something right. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your concept of what constitutes credible evidence must be vastly different to mine.

Funnily enough in most cases it probably isn't - you I suspect would apply the same tests of credible evidence in your everyday life as the rest of us do (and if not, can I interest you in the bridge I have for sale that Vlad refused to buy?), but for your religious beliefs you abandon your critical faculties and instead accept no evidence at all, very bad arguments, trust in blind faith assertions etc. Worse yet, you then tell us you want to "evangelise" your beliefs on the same basis. 

It's very odd.     

[ProfessorDavey]

Your concept of what constitutes credible evidence must be vastly different to mine.

Not really - I suspect you reject the faith claims promulgated by all sorts of faiths over the millennia to support the existence of thousands of non-christian gods to be lacking 'credible evidence'. Yet their faith claims are, or were, based on identical subjective experiential claims lacking objective evidence as yours. It seems rather arrogant of you to declare that your subjective experience of a particular god represents 'credible evidence' for the objective existence of that god, while others subjective experience of allah, vishnu, thor, zeus etc etc doesn't represent credible evidence.

You cannot have it both ways AB.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Except of course what Hillside actually did was to explain to AB why his use of an argumentum ad populum was a very bad idea.

I think you should address Gabriella's points Hillside.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agree popularity of a belief doesn't indicate its accuracy. Technical point but not sure if you've understood this right. Not sure what you mean here by people who claim to have encountered Mohammed in their lives - do you mean the stories about Prophet Mohammed's companions and spouses in Arabia during the time period he was supposed to have lived?

He was just a man so once he is supposed to have died it is not part of mainstream Muslim tradition for Muslims who came after him to claim they encountered him.... or God for that matter. There is no equivalent belief to the claims by some Christians of encountering Jesus. I say "some" because I have no idea if that is universal belief amongst all Christians.

The Muslim faith belief is that they have the Quran - a book of his messages believed to be the revelations or words of Allah/ God communicated via "angel" Jibreel . And the sunnah - supposedly accounts of Prophet Muhammed's sayings and actions, which were passed on by oral tradition and subsequently collected, verified as having been transmitted from multiple different sources considered by the collectors to be trustworthy, and written down over a century after he died.

Most Muslims don't claim they have encountered 1 or 3 supernatural entities - the Muslim faith as I understand it has a different vibe from the Christians - unless there are some Christians who don't believe it is possible to have personal encounters with God. Our concept is that we know of God through words we read and that there is nothing comparable to God because if God can be compared to anything e.g. a man (like Jesus for example) or anything else that we would "encounter" or make sense of, then God doesn't seem unique enough to be worthy of worship. There are various (99 to be precise) characteristics/ attributes given to God such as "merciful" or "just" etc but not physical attributes ( though I think physical attributes are occasionally used metaphorically).

Most Muslims don't seem to want to encounter their concept of God nor do they seem to want their concept of God to be like one of them i.e. a man, nor do they believe that an all-knowing God would need to become a man to understand anything - unlike the Christians who believe in the trinity with their concept of Jesus as a man as well as a God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you should address Gabriella's points Hillside.

Why? They were addressed to AB, not to me.

Speaking of addressing points though, I think that after all these years of your ducking and diving, straw manning, flat out lying etc perhaps you should finally address at least some of mine. Why not start with the various corrections I've given you regarding your most recent suite of mistakes?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why? They were addressed to AB, not to me.

Speaking of addressing points though, I think that after all these years of your ducking and diving, straw manning, flat out lying etc perhaps you should finally address at least some of mine. Why not start with the various corrections I've given you regarding your most recent suite of mistakes?

Incorrect Gabriella's post responded to your post. An example of you caricaturing religion par excellence.Stop bullshitting.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Incorrect Gabriella's post responded to your post. An example of you caricaturing religion par excellence.Stop bullshitting.

Possibly for the first time here you’ve actually got something right – I skim-read the “AB” at the top and missed the “Quote from: Bluehillside Retd.” above that.

Fair enough. What did Gabriella say then?...

Agree popularity of a belief doesn't indicate its accuracy.

Good to know that she agrees with the point I was actually making.

And then…

Technical point but not sure if you've understood this right. Not sure what you mean here by people who claim to have encountered Mohammed in their lives - do you mean the stories about Prophet Mohammed's companions and spouses in Arabia during the time period he was supposed to have lived?

etc

I found Gabriella’s explanation of what Muslims believe interesting too, but the point here (as she opened with) is that epistemology isn’t a popularity contest, which was AB’s basic mistake. The differences between what Christians and Muslims mean by “met”, “encountered”, “revelations or words of Allah/ God communicated via "angel" Jibreel” vs communicated via man-god Jesus etc is doubtless interesting for the study of comparative theologies but we’re into two bald men arguing over a comb territory here.       

In any case, the other point is that I endlessly take the time to school and correct you on your countless mistakes and you just as endlessly ignore all that and repeat exactly the same mistakes, straw men, flat out lies etc over and over again as if nothing had been explained.     

Do you not think you should finally address your deep mendacity about this before you insist that other people should address Replies from third persons?

[ProfessorDavey]

There can only be one truth.

Depends on whether we are discussing subjective 'true for me, but not necessarily for you' truths or objective 'true for everyone' truths. Clearly there will be many versions of the former, but presumably only one version of the latter. But your claim that you have a duty to evangelise suggests that you consider your god to be 'objectively' true - i.e. actually exists for everyone (whether or not they have realised it yet) and not subjectively true, in other words true for a believer, but not true for a non-believer and does not actually exist outside of the subjective belief of believers.   

We cannot choose what is true

If we are discussing objective truths then you are correct, and that means that the truth may not be convenient, comfortable or easy.

- we need to use whatever means are available to consciously discern  what is true.

Wrong - we should not use whatever means, but those methods that are objectively robust if we are trying to determine objective truths. So basing a conclusion on an objective truth on someone's subjective experience or faith is a very poor way to determine objective truths. Fortunately we have some exceptionally robust approaches to determine what is most likely to be objectively true - we call them scientific methods.

And we only have one lifetime to discover the truth.

No shit Sherlock. Why do you think I am a professional scientific researcher who spends much of his professional life trying to ascertain, using robust objective methods, what is most likely to be true. And although my contribution to new scientific knowledge, through my over 150 peer-revered papers, represents a teeny, tiny, tiny, tiny advance in our understanding of the truth, it is at least some contribution. Your contribution AB?