Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

If you are talking about God being the hidden treasure, He is obscured by the dross of millenia, more recently the 100% secular society the blight of sin both original and personal.

So your god can't show itself? Or created a world knowing it would result in it being hidden? Or...?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I haven't spent years on a forum about leprechauns, no.

Then you’re even more leprechaun dodging than I am goddodging. After all, I at least bother turning up on a religious website to find out whether the posters there have sound reasons for believing in their gods (so far, none have) whereas you can’t even be arsed to make same enquiries about leprechauns. 

Your avoidances of the other recent arguments that undid you are noted.

[ProfessorDavey]

Agree. Having been brought up as an RC, I didn't stop believing because of reasons. Indeed I didn't stop believing at all, I just realised I didn't believe.

If you believed and then you didn't believe then you must have stopped believing. It might not have been some kind of obvious point but it must have happened.

The alternative is if you came to recognise that you actually never really believed all along. That is how I think my journey it - I thought I believed in god, because that was simply the default, what everyone told you. Later in life I came to recognise that I didn't believe in god and that realistically I'd never really believed in god all along.

[Nearly Sane]

If you believed and then you didn't believe then you must have stopped believing. It might not have been some kind of obvious point but it must have happened.

The alternative is if you came to recognise that you actually never really believed all along. That is how I think my journey it - I thought I believed in god, because that was simply the default, what everyone told you. Later in life I came to recognise that I didn't believe in god and that realistically I'd never really believed in god all along.

yep

[Stranger]

I don't know about it being virtuous to have faith - it is a component of religious belief and therefore seems to be a requirement in the religious experience. I also don't know what it would take to convince people to believe in an omni creator without employing faith. Just because you come across some kind of miraculous unexplainable event, why would that convince anyone of an omni creator?

Can't disagree but I just don't see the value.

Faith just seems to be an aspect of being human and some people are more inclined to have it than others. It's often linked having certain beliefs about morality. Having conviction in something is often considered to be laudable and people are often urged to 'have the courage of their convictions".

I don't really see that as the same thing as believing 'matters of fact', like there is a god, without evidence. Having 'the courage of ones convictions' is about the way you see your own abilities.

So I can see why the idea of faith is appealing to some / many people. And religious faith often works for people because they feel they have a personal relationship and they feel gratitude, so it's hardly surprising that despite any struggles and misery in their lives e.g. their baby having brain cancer, some religious people are still able to feel grateful for the positives in their lives precisely because they see all the worse suffering that others may be enduring that they themselves are not subjected to.

"Thanks god, that you didn't make my life as shit as some other people's." ...

[ProfessorDavey]

yep

Would you care to elaborate.

Yep - that you did believe, then didn't believe and therefore must have stopped believing.

Or yep - that when you came to recognise that you didn't believe it became clear that you never really believed all along.

[Nearly Sane]

Would you care to elaborate.

Yep - that you did believe, then didn't believe and therefore must have stopped believing.

Or yep - that when you came to recognise that you didn't believe it became clear that you never really believed all along.

That I agreed with your post as an explanation of what happened with me as well.

[Stranger]

Not searching for something and running away from something are aspects of the same thing, avoidance.

Garbage. If there is no good reason to go looking for something then nobody is going to waste their time on it. I don't spend time researching (for example) astrology because it's a daft idea that nobody has ever been able to show even a real hint that actually might work at all.

Same goes for the god concepts I've heard.

I have pointed out Goddodging where I have seen specific examples as well as the notion in general.

Yes, you've frequently made yourself look like an idiot in that way.

I'm sure there are people who are not believers who are not Goddodging but these are unlikely to be committed to agnosticism or antitheism or who think that the real evil is believing in God or even that it's a pretty bad thing.

Well, there are at least some examples where belief in god seems to have a very negative effect. Apart from the obvious extreme examples out in the world, we have people here, and on other forum I use, whose intellects seem to be seriously impaired by the faith positions they cling to. They seem perfectly reasonable on other subjects, but get them onto the subject of their god, and suddenly we're in a fallacy-fest of nonsense.

The evidence is that Atheists seem quite happy to suppose that believers are avoiding the truth either deliberately or subconsciously because they have invested so much in belief not even thinking that THEY THEMSELVES could be subconsciously avoiding or in denial, that atheists are people who are immune from such things.

Nobody is immune from subconscious bias, but one of the problems with the rather silly notion of 'goddodging' is that there are endless different gods to choose from. Which is it that people are supposed to be dodging? Isn't it just as 'true' that you might be 'goddodging' the real god by believing in a false one....?

Then of course if people talk about going from atheism to christianity i've seen them treated to the ''well, they can't have been a proper atheist to begin with''....That's right, the ''No true scotsman'' fallacy.

Have you? I can't say I've ever encountered that anywhere. The converse, however, is reactively common, especially with Christianity. I've heard many times, and not just online, that if you stop believing you can't have been a proper Christian.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then you’re even more leprechaun dodging than I am goddodging. After all, I at least bother turning up on a religious website to find out whether the posters there have sound reasons for believing in their gods (so far, none have) whereas you can’t even be arsed to make same enquiries about leprechauns. 

Your avoidances of the other recent arguments that undid you are noted.

If I hadn't seen this post I could scarcely believe that anybody would post it. I know enough about Leprechauns to know that there is what is known about Leprechauns....and what is unique to you on this forum only unless of course you've been ''posting away'' as they say.

Given that qualification what more should one have to know about Leprechauns for one's salvation other than they are Little Irish Chaps dressed in green who appear where there is the end of a rainbow with a pot of Gold at the end. I don't even think you are aware that the end of the rainbow bit is obviously an irish cultural literary flourish tipping us off that the whole notion is nothing more than a bit o'fun.

Top of the morning to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Garbage. If there is no good reason to go looking for something then nobody is going to waste their time on it.

Well that, peculiarly enough is a positive assertion and needs evidence. A necessary entity for whom personal revelation cannot definitionally be incapable  is certainly worth investigating even more so given the absolute hysteria evoked by some at the mere mention of him[ ditto the moral argument, that's  worth investigating

I don't spend time researching (for example) astrology because it's a daft idea that nobody has ever been able to show even a real hint that actually might work at all.

Goodness knows how many fallacies are in this paragraph. Where's Hillside then, The Sherlock Holmes of Logic? Oh, Nowhere of course.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If I hadn't seen this post I could scarcely believe that anybody would post it. I know enough about Leprechauns to know that there is what is known about Leprechauns....and what is unique to you on this forum only unless of course you've been ''posting away'' as they say.

Given that qualification what more should one have to know about Leprechauns for one's salvation other than they are Little Irish Chaps dressed in green who appear where there is the end of a rainbow with a pot of Gold at the end. I don't even think you are aware that the end of the rainbow bit is obviously an irish cultural literary flourish tipping us off that the whole notion is nothing more than a bit o'fun.

Top of the morning to you.

Are you suggesting that the claims you make for your belief in a god are any less fantastical than the claims I make for my belief in leprechauns?

Why?

Or are you still convinced that for some reason the argumentum ad consequentim fallacy isn’t a fallacy after all (“salvation” etc)?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well that, peculiarly enough is a positive assertion and needs evidence.

No it isn’t.

A necessary entity for whom personal revelation cannot definitionally be incapable  is certainly worth investigating…

Not when the argument for a “necessary entity” is false it isn’t, and the rest of that sentence is incoherent.

…even more so given the absolute hysteria evoked by some at the mere mention of him[ ditto the moral argument, that's  worth investigating

There is no hysteria, and even if there was that would have nothing to do with whether it’s worth investigating a claim that rests only on false reasoning.

Goodness knows how many fallacies are in this paragraph.

None.

Where's Hillside then, The Sherlock Holmes of Logic? Oh, Nowhere of course.

Right here Moriarty. You find an actual fallacy (rather than just peddle them yourself) and I’ll call it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So your god can't show itself? Or created a world knowing it would result in it being hidden? Or...?

I refer to Matthew because it gives the Human perspective. Obviously God is not so hidden that he cannot ever be found. Even Dawkins admits that looking at the universe or the world around leads to what he would term a God hypothesis which in recent years has evolved into the simulated universe theory. I think it is therefore the call to arrest any subsequent thought of God in any area to the point of poo pooing those other areas where God isn't so easily forgotten about e.g  Hawkings dismissal of philosophy that is a call to bury God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it isn’t.

Holmes, have you been at the substances again?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Obviously in my personal faith belief I've decided that God is not so hidden that he cannot ever be found.

FIFY. You really do have a very bad case of the reifications sometimes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Holmes, have you been at the substances again?

You said that Stranger had made a “positive assertion and needs evidence”.

He didn’t do that though. Try reading what he actually said rather than straw manning him.

[Stranger]

Well that, peculiarly enough is a positive assertion and needs evidence.

No it isn't, and no it doesn't. It's an "if, then" statement - you can tell that because it starts with 'if', has a condition, then the word 'then', followed by an action (or lack of one, in this case). If you disagree with the "if, then" or think it unreasonable, for example, if you think people do go looking for things they have no reason to look for, then why? Then we can perhaps, talk about the specific example.

A necessary entity...

Is logically incoherent, for reasons I've explained before - several times.

...even more so given the absolute hysteria evoked by some at the mere mention of him[ ditto the moral argument, that's  worth investigating

The moral argument is just as silly. This is something else I've explained before. What's more, neither of these 'arguments', even if they weren't so appallingly bad, lead directly to anything like any version of the god-concept in Christianity, or any god at all, for that matter.

Goodness knows how many fallacies are in this paragraph.

Given your appalling record on using fallacies yourself, and an equally bad record of identifying them, forgive me if I don't just take your word for it. Name one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't, and no it doesn't. It's an "if, then" statement - you can tell that because it starts with 'if', has a condition, then the word 'then', followed by an action (or lack of one, in this case). If you disagree with the "if, then" or think it unreasonable, for example, if you think people do go looking for things they have no reason to look for, then why? Then we can perhaps, talk about the specific example.

Is logically incoherent, for reasons I've explained before - several times.

I'm sorry my man you never did. As far as I recall you and Hillside ended up by wondering why I couldn't get the idea that you and he didn't know into my head and expected us to believe that that trumped all.

There is nothing incoherent about all contingent things ultimately needing a separate non contingent, necessary entity.

Infinite regress doesn't answer anything.
Circular heirarchies introduce things being self dependent which is what you are trying to eliminate anyway.

Composition fallacy is an informal fallacy and the moment you have composition you are talking about a contingent thing anyway.

So game set and match to me i'm afraid.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sorry my man you never did.

Yes he did, in Reply #46857 (“If there is no good reason to go looking for something then nobody is going to waste their time on it”). Why bother lying about something so easily checked?

As far as I recall you and Hillside ended up by wondering why I couldn't get the idea that you and he didn't know into my head and expected us to believe that that trumped all.

Gibberish. What are you trying to say here?

There is nothing incoherent about all contingent things ultimately needing a separate non contingent, necessary entity.

Yes there is – it just relocates the same questions about origin etc to this supposed necessary entity, that you then hand wave away with an “it’s magic innit”.

Infinite regress doesn't answer anything.

Hs anyone said otherwise?

Circular heirarchies introduce things being self dependent which is what you are trying to eliminate anyway.

More gibberish. Do you ever read anything you type before hitting post?

Composition fallacy is an informal fallacy and the moment you have composition you are talking about a contingent thing anyway.

See above.

So game set and match to me i'm afraid.

Only if you’re delusional. Or lying. Or both.

[Stranger]

I'm sorry my man you never did. As far as I recall you and Hillside ended up by wondering why I couldn't get the idea that you and he didn't know into my head and expected us to believe that that trumped all.

There is nothing incoherent about all contingent things ultimately needing a separate non contingent, necessary entity.

Infinite regress doesn't answer anything.
Circular heirarchies introduce things being self dependent which is what you are trying to eliminate anyway.

Composition fallacy is an informal fallacy and the moment you have composition you are talking about a contingent thing anyway.

So game set and match to me i'm afraid.

You really are out of your depth. You never explained how, logically and self-consistently, anything could be its own reason for existence or cause a contradiction if it didn't exist or was different. Without that explanation, you're just left with the logical equivalent of "it's magic, innit?".

Just because we can't come up with a good answer to the question of why things exist and are as they are, doesn't excuse resorting to magic. Nobody needs to supply an alternative to point out the gaping logical holes in your preferred 'solution'.

As for composition, I explained multiple times why the whole space-time manifold was, in very important and relevant ways, entirely different from objects embedded in it. It is not, itself, subject to time, being the important point.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So game set and match to me i'm afraid.

I should have thought of this before:

"Pigeon chess:

Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

Origin:

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer"

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You really are out of your depth. You never explained how, logically and self-consistently, anything could be its own reason for existence or cause a contradiction if it didn't exist or was different. Without that explanation, you're just left with the logical equivalent of "it's magic, innit?".

Just because we can't come up with a good answer to the question of why things exist and are as they are, doesn't excuse resorting to magic. Nobody needs to supply an alternative to point out the gaping logical holes in your preferred 'solution'.

As for composition, I explained multiple times why the whole space-time manifold was, in very important and relevant ways, entirely different from objects embedded in it. It is not, itself, subject to time, being the important point.

How can anything be it's own reason for being?Why not?
The only condition where something cannot be is of course infinite regression and that is no explanation. I cannot see and you cannot explain how infinite regression is preferable to a necessary entity.

Also there is the question of why something(AND YOU CAN INCLUDE AN INFINITE REGRESSION IN THAT IF YOU MUST) and not nothing.
There has to be a reason for something rather than nothing and that , given that the alternative is nothing is the ultimate reason and necessary being.

Your most welcome.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How can anything be it's own reason for being?Why not?

(sic)

1. Don’t know.

2. How can a god be its own reason for being?

The only condition where something cannot be is of course infinite regression and that is no explanation. I cannot see and you cannot explain how infinite regression is preferable to a necessary entity.

1. A non-contingent universe does not imply an infinite regression (see fallacy of composition again).

2. How would you propose to escape that same question relocated to a (supposed) god without resorting to “it’s magic innit?”

Also there is the question of why something(AND YOU CAN INCLUDE AN INFINITE REGRESSION IN THAT IF YOU MUST) and not nothing.

1. Why not?

2. Why “god”?

There has to be a reason for something rather than nothing…

1. Why are you assuming that a property in the universe (contingency) is also a property of the universe?

2. What's the reason for “god”?

…and that , given that the alternative is nothing is the ultimate reason and necessary being.

Your most welcome.

"Pigeon chess:

Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory.

Origin:

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer"

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Pigeon%20chess

[Stranger]

How can anything be it's own reason for being?Why not?

Because it doesn't make any logical sense. How could anything possibly be it's own reason for existing? What's more, if it wouldn't cause a contradiction by not existing, and that's, as far as I can see, impossible to even imagine, then how would it be different from a brute fact, even it  was its own reason, somehow?

The only condition where something cannot be is of course infinite regression and that is no explanation. I cannot see and you cannot explain how infinite regression is preferable to a necessary entity.

First, I'm not proposing an answer. I don't know what the answer is. Pretty much all of the proposals have big problems. I don't see how an infinite regression is any worse than a nonsensical 'necessary entity'. Neither offer an explanation. Why is whatever is necessary actually the thing that is necessary? Why couldn't it have not existed? What would be the contradiction if it had been different or didn't exist?

See? You just can't answer any relevant questions. You're trying to cover your total ignorance with the magic mantra of 'necessary entity'. It's not logic, it's just "it's magic, innit?" dressed up as logic.

Also there is the question of why something(AND YOU CAN INCLUDE AN INFINITE REGRESSION IN THAT IF YOU MUST) and not nothing.
There has to be a reason for something rather than nothing and that , given that the alternative is nothing is the ultimate reason and necessary being.

Your mere assertion of a necessary entity doesn't provide an answer. Just because you like it better than the other bad 'answers', because of your desperation to justify 'god', which it doesn't even do, doesn't make it make any more sense.

Your most welcome.

I didn't ask for a load of blind faith, illogical, magical thinking.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

A great example was with you and stranger denied that a simulated universe was basically the same as the claim of monotheistic religion.

Are you suggesting that a universe simulator would be the "necessary being " for anything in the simulated universe?