Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Nothing on this forum has come anywhere near to show that my beliefs are nonsense or to show that my reasoning should be rejected out of hand.

Suggest you take the theogoggles off: only then will you have a chance of understanding that your 'reasoning' is too flawed to be called that.

Indeed, my faith is considerably enhanced by the so called arguments which try to convince me that I have no conscious control of my own thoughts!

As above.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Nothing on this forum has come anywhere near to show that my beliefs are nonsense…

You’re not getting it. The arguments on this forum demonstrate that the reasons you attempt to justify your beliefs are wrong, not that the beliefs themselves are necessarily false too. 

…or to show that my reasoning should be rejected out of hand.

That’s not true. Your reasoning is rejected logically when it’s demonstrably logically false, and it's rejected out of hand when it’s incoherent – ie, not even wrong.

Indeed, my faith is considerably enhanced by the so called arguments which try to convince me that I have no conscious control of my own thoughts!

That’s not true either. The “so called” arguments you’re given are actually logically sound arguments and your habit of routinely ignoring them, disdaining them or abusing them doesn’t change that. You seem to do this because the consequence if you actually tried to rebut them instead and failed would be unbearable to your sense of yourself.

In other words, when the data contradicts your opinion you always dismiss the data solely because it contradicts your opinion.

[Sebastian Toe]

Nothing on this forum has come anywhere near to show that my beliefs are nonsense or to show that my reasoning should be rejected out of hand.

Indeed, my faith is considerably enhanced by the so called arguments which try to convince me that I have no conscious control of my own thoughts!

I put it to you that your ramblings on this board especially regarding "souls" have convinced absolutely nobody reading them that they have any merit.
But you can continue to delude yourself otherwise.

[Alan Burns]

I put it to you that your ramblings on this board especially regarding "souls" have convinced absolutely nobody reading them that they have any merit.
But you can continue to delude yourself otherwise.

I will continue to use my God given freedom to witness to the truth which sets us free.

[Gordon]

I will continue to use my God given freedom to witness to the truth which sets us free.

I'm perplexed at this use of 'witness' - they way you religious types use it makes no sense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I will continue to use my God given freedom to witness to the truth which sets us free.

No you won’t. What you’ll actually do is to continue to deny the objective data about reality that contradicts your subjective opinions about reality. That’s the only way you can preserve your sense of self – the alternative cannot be considered no matter how compelling because it would annihilate that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

I'm perplexed at this use of 'witness' - they way you religious types use it makes no sense.

It's a cheat word some religious people use because it skips entirely the burden of demonstrating in the first place that there's something to be witnessed. What it actually means is something like, "express my wholly subjective opinion about". Re religious cheat words, see also "testimony", "spiritual" etc.

[Sebastian Toe]

I will continue to use my God given freedom to witness to the truth which sets us free.

Then I will continue to witness your frankly shit attempts to convince rational people that your fantasy has some merit in reality.

[torridon]

You talk as if I could not possibly have chosen any other way, yet most of my peer group who had very similar upbringing to me have chosen different paths.  We are not automated biological robots.  We are all unique with the freedom to choose our own destiny.

Yet nonetheless, had you been born in Islamabad or Jakarta or Tehran or Cairo or Kabul, then you'd be prostrating to Mecca now and upholding the Pillars of Islam.  You didn't have any control over where or when you were born, and what you are now and the choices you make now is a consequence of that.

[Alan Burns]

Yet nonetheless, had you been born in Islamabad or Jakarta or Tehran or Cairo or Kabul, then you'd be prostrating to Mecca now and upholding the Pillars of Islam.  You didn't have any control over where or when you were born, and what you are now and the choices you make now is a consequence of that.

I have seen reports which show evidence that Christianity is the fastest growing religion in Iran, though the Islamic authorities predictably try to deny it.

It does not matter where you are born - you are free to choose Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.

[Gordon]

I have seen reports which show evidence that Christianity is the fastest growing religion in Iran, though the Islamic authorities predictably try to deny it.

It does not matter where you are born - you are free to choose Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.

There are gullible people everywhere, Alan, and that religion can be used politically - and that is not confined to Iran, and the role Christianity has in US politics is hardly benign - is not necessarily a 'good thing'.

By the way, I'm not 'free' to choose Christianity - it seems that my hard-wiring won't blindly accept palpable nonsense.

[Sebastian Toe]

I have seen reports which show evidence that Christianity is the fastest growing religion in Iran, though the Islamic authorities predictably try to deny it.

It does not matter where you are born - you are free to choose Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour.

Yet good very report that I have seen indicate that Islam will inevitably be the dominant world religion in the next few decades.

That must mean that more and more people will recognise that salvation will not lie in the path of Jesus.

[Outrider]

Nothing on this forum has come anywhere near to show that my beliefs are nonsense or to show that my reasoning should be rejected out of hand.

You're conflating what the arguments show with what you choose to take away from them.

Indeed, my faith is considerably enhanced by the so called arguments which try to convince me that I have no conscious control of my own thoughts!

Because your faith (like, I suspect, all faith positions) is not based on the argument, it's held REGARDLESS of the arguments, that's what makes it faith and not a conclusion.

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You’re not getting it. The arguments on this forum demonstrate that the reasons you attempt to justify your beliefs are wrong, not that the beliefs themselves are necessarily false too. 

The reasons for my unshakable belief in Christianity go far deeper than my postings on this thread.

My posts are pointing out the obvious flaws in trying to explain the freedom we all enjoy as human beings in materialistic terms, which effectively denies our freedom by reducing us to biological robots entirely driven by physically defined material reactions beyond any conscious control.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The reasons for my unshakable belief in Christianity go far deeper than my postings on this thread.

They may well go “far deeper” for you but the point is whether or not they’re any more logically sound than the consistently wrong arguments you’ve relied on here.

Also by the way if you do have sound arguments but have kept them secret, why? If your purpose here is to evangelise for your faith, why do it only with arguments that are demonstrably shit?

My posts are pointing out the obvious…

“Obvious” is not an argument – it’s just an expression of your opinion. And you’re not “pointing out” anything – you’re just telling us that you routinely deny any objective data that contradicts your subjective opinions solely because it contradicts your subjective opinions... 

…flaws in trying to explain the freedom we all enjoy as human beings in materialistic terms, which effectively denies our freedom by reducing us to biological robots entirely driven by physically defined material reactions beyond any conscious control.

…like this. You’ve just tried an argumentum ad consequentiam (again) – a basic mistake in reasoning.

Look, just admit that you don’t care at all about the arguments that falsify you, which is why you’ll never address them. “If they falsify my faith opinions they must be wrong” is all you have – you know it, we know it. Why then bother? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Tell you what – why not put up or shut up: do you have even one justifying argument for your belief “god” that isn’t wrong?

Just one will do.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Tell you what – why not put up or shut up: do you have even one justifying argument for your belief “god” that isn’t wrong?

Just one will do.

I have discovered God's love.

The love so well referred to by Paul in Romans 8:38-39:

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

[Alan Burns]

I often wonder, Blue, if your faith in materialistic explanations could ever be as strong as my faith in Jesus Christ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have discovered God's love.

The love so well referred to by Paul in Romans 8:38-39:

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I asked you for just one justifying argument for your belief “god” that isn’t wrong. Instead you've just told me again what your belief is.

Again then: do you have even one justifying argument for your belief “god” that isn’t wrong?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I often wonder, Blue, if your faith in materialistic explanations could ever be as strong as my faith in Jesus Christ?

Now you're abusing the term "faith".

My "faith" is the colloquial version - ie, I have "faith" that my car will start because it's a good car and it's well-maintained. "Faith" in this context means something like "reasonable degree of confidence based on data". That is, it's objective.

Your "faith" in a god on the other hand is the religious version, which is the fingers-in-the-ears guessing you have to do when there's no data to support you or when the data falsifies you. That is, it's subjective. 

Can you see the difference?

[Alan Burns]

Again then: do you have even one justifying argument for your belief “god” that isn’t wrong?

It is hard to imagine what you would consider to be a justifying argument for belief in God because you have chosen to dismiss, ridicule or ignore every valid reason I have offered to support my unshakeable belief in Christianity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is hard to imagine what you would consider to be a justifying argument for belief in God because you have chosen to dismiss, ridicule or ignore every valid reason I have offered to support my unshakeable belief in Christianity.

It’s not hard to imagine at all: just finally make an argument that’s coherent and cogent – ie, sound.

Just pretending I’ve “chosen to dismiss, ridicule or ignore every valid reason I have offered” is ludicrous (and quite breathtakingly hypocritical too by the way). What I’ve always actually done is to falsify the arguments you have occasionally attempted – thus none of which have been “valid” at all. By contrast, dismissing, ridiculing or ignoring every falsification you’ve been given is precisely what you do.

So, once again: do you have even one justifying argument for your belief “god” that isn’t wrong?

[torridon]

I have seen reports which show evidence that Christianity is the fastest growing religion in Iran, though the Islamic authorities predictably try to deny it.

Predictably you cherry pick some data point that you favour but ignore the bigger picture, which is that Islam is the world's fastest growing major rellgion and Christianity one of the fastest shrinking such that Islam will become humanity's main religion by mid century.  This is mainly due to demographics, and to some extent to conversions, with Islam net gaining adherents through conversion and Christianity losing adherents.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It’s not hard to imagine at all: just finally make an argument that’s coherent and cogent – ie, sound.

Just pretending I’ve “chosen to dismiss, ridicule or ignore every valid reason I have offered” is ludicrous (and quite breathtakingly hypocritical too by the way). What I’ve always actually done is to falsify the arguments you have occasionally attempted – thus none of which have been “valid” at all. By contrast, dismissing, ridiculing or ignoring every falsification you’ve been given is precisely what you do.

So, once again: do you have even one justifying argument for your belief “god” that isn’t wrong?

You chose not to answer my question:

what you would consider to be a justifying argument for belief in God?
Please give an example of an argument that you consider coherent and cogent

[Gordon]

You chose not to answer my question:

what you would consider to be a justifying argument for belief in God?

For crying out loud, Alan: that is for you to answer since its is your claim - the burden of proof here is yours.

Since, by definition, an atheist would tend to regard 'God' as incoherent nonsense then you are, in effect, asking an atheist to formulate an argument that justifies something that said atheist probably regards as being incoherent nonsense.

You haven't though this through very well, if at all.