Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

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

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

[torridon]

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

Nobody has 'faith in materialistic explanations', that would be a false equivalance.  In scientific research, we don't know what we are going to find, and it is that open mindedness about the truth that has allowed us to make progress in understanding our world.  To have 'faith' in one particular truth claim is to close the mind to all else.  Not the way to go.

[Gordon]

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.

An argument that is coherent and is not obviously fallacious would be a start.

[Maeght]

I like Matt Dillahunty's answer when asked about what evidence would convince him God exists. He says 'I don't know but God should know and certainly hasn't presented it as yet'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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

1. You didn’t ask a question.

2. So just to be clear, you’re now asking me (an atheist remember) what argument you could make that would persuade me (still an atheist) not to be an atheist. Is that right?

Does anything strike you as quite painfully dim-witted about that question?

Anything?

Slowly now – if YOU want to make an argument to justify YOUR claim “god” then its content it’s entirely up to YOU. What you must do too though if you also want to call that argument “valid” is to make it coherent and cogent – something you’ve never yet managed to do.     

You claimed to have valid arguments to justify your claim "god". Why not then just cut and paste one of them here so that claim can be examined?

What's stopping you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

By the way, just to save you some time when you do finally decide to post your valid argument:

“I am not satisfied by a different explanation” is not a valid argument for your explanation.

“It’s obvious” is not a valid argument for your explanation.

“Lots of people agree with me” is not a valid argument for your explanation.

“If you were right, the outcome would contradict my opinions” is not a valid argument for your explanation.

‘God loves a me and Jesus wants me for a sunbeam” is not a valid argument for your explanation.

“I assure you…you are much more than etc” is not a valid argument for your explanation.

“My existence is too unlikely to be accidental, therefore…” is not a valid argument for your explanation.

I may have missed one or two, but from memory this is the entire suite of arguments you’ve attempted here to persuade others that your beliefs are valid. As none of them are though the field is clear finally for you to try an argument that is valid.

Good luck with it. 

[Alan Burns]

Nobody has 'faith in materialistic explanations', that would be a false equivalance.  In scientific research, we don't know what we are going to find, and it is that open mindedness about the truth that has allowed us to make progress in understanding our world.  To have 'faith' in one particular truth claim is to close the mind to all else.  Not the way to go.

You apparently have faith that there will be a materialistic explanation for conscious awareness, despite there being no material definition for what it comprises or how it works.

You apparently have faith that every one of the billions of beneficial mutations which brought you into existence were consequences of unguided material reactions.

You apparently have faith that your perception of freedom in thought, word and deed can be explained entirely by physically defined material reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You apparently have faith that there will be a materialistic explanation for conscious awareness, despite there being no material definition for what it comprises or how it works.

You apparently have faith that every one of the billions of beneficial mutations which brought you into existence were consequences of unguided material reactions.

You apparently have faith that your perception of freedom in thought, word and deed can be explained entirely by physically defined material reactions.

You’re again conflating “faith” in the religious sense – ie certainty based on dumb guessing – with “faith” in the colloquial sense – ie possibility based on reason and evidence.

It would help if you stopped lying about this.

[torridon]

You apparently have faith that there will be a materialistic explanation for conscious awareness, despite there being no material definition for what it comprises or how it works.

You apparently have faith that every one of the billions of beneficial mutations which brought you into existence were consequences of unguided material reactions.

You apparently have faith that your perception of freedom in thought, word and deed can be explained entirely by physically defined material reactions.

None of these are genuine faith positions, you are mischaracterising things.  There are lots of things we don't currently know and many we will likely never know.  it's OK to say 'we don't know' to these things, that does not constitiute a faith position and this is a better attitude than 'God must have done it using his powers' which explains precisly zero and advances our understanding of how the world works not one iota.  It's a cop out, a failure of will to understand.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Since I can’t see you giving this reply if asked about any entity other than God....it looks like a special plead on your part, Gordon.

[Gordon]

Since I can’t see you giving this reply if asked about any entity other than God....it looks like a special plead on your part, Gordon.

Well, Vlad, I was replying to a post of Alan's in which he specifically mentioned 'God' - but had he said 'Jove' instead I'd say my reply would be more or less the same.

Perhaps you should look up 'special pleading' since it seems you don't really understand the term.

[Alan Burns]

I may have missed one or two, but from memory this is the entire suite of arguments you’ve attempted here to persuade others that your beliefs are valid. As none of them are though the field is clear finally for you to try an argument that is valid.

Just to remind you of some of the arguments you have chosen to dismiss:

You choose to dismiss any evidence of miracles attributed to the power of God.
You choose to dismiss any personal testimonies from people who witness to personal encounters with God.
You choose to dismiss the content of every book in the Christian bible - some written by divine inspiration and some referring to eye witness accounts of Jesus and His works.
You choose to dismiss any historical evidence of the resurrection.
You choose to dismiss any evidence of your own spiritual nature - particularly your own free will.
You choose to dismiss the amazing odds against the unintended formation of stars and planets and environments capable of sustaining life.
You choose to dismiss the extreme unlikelihood of the unfathomable complexities of the human mind arising from unguided material reactions.
You choose to dismiss any evidence of the supernatural - such as Near Death Experiences.
You choose to dismiss evidence of any answers to prayer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just to remind you of some of the arguments you have chosen to dismiss:

You choose to dismiss any evidence of miracles attributed to the power of God.

You haven’t provided any such evidence.

You choose to dismiss any personal testimonies from people who witness to personal encounters with God.

Personal testimonies are subjective anecdotes, not evidence. That's what the "personal" bit means. 

You choose to dismiss the content of every book in the Christian bible - some written by divine inspiration and some referring to eye witness accounts of Jesus and His works.

You’ve provided no valid reasons to treat “every book of the Christian bible” as evidence, and “…some written with divine inspiration” is the begging the question fallacy (again).

You choose to dismiss any historical evidence of the resurrection.

You haven’t provided any.

You choose to dismiss any evidence of your own spiritual nature - particularly your own free will.

See above.

You choose to dismiss the amazing odds against the unintended formation of stars and planets and environments capable of sustaining life.

That’s a basic mistake in reasoning (the lottery winner’s fallacy) that I’ve explained to you more than once, and that you’ve just ignored.

You choose to dismiss the extreme unlikelihood of the unfathomable complexities of the human mind arising from unguided material reactions.

See above.

You choose to dismiss any evidence of the supernatural - such as Near Death Experiences.

NDEs no more provide information about death than sex provides information about pregnancy. If you had evidence from actual DEs rather than from NDEs though you might have a point. 

You choose to dismiss evidence of any answers to prayer.

You haven’t provided any.

Look, you claimed to have made valid arguments to justify your faith belief “god”. Do you ever intend to post even one of them here?

[Gordon]

Just to remind you of some of the arguments you have chosen to dismiss:

You choose to dismiss any evidence of miracles attributed to the power of God.
You choose to dismiss any personal testimonies from people who witness to personal encounters with God.
You choose to dismiss the content of every book in the Christian bible - some written by divine inspiration and some referring to eye witness accounts of Jesus and His works.
You choose to dismiss any historical evidence of the resurrection.
You choose to dismiss any evidence of your own spiritual nature - particularly your own free will.
You choose to dismiss the amazing odds against the unintended formation of stars and planets and environments capable of sustaining life.
You choose to dismiss the extreme unlikelihood of the unfathomable complexities of the human mind arising from unguided material reactions.
You choose to dismiss any evidence of the supernatural - such as Near Death Experiences.
You choose to dismiss evidence of any answers to prayer.

Wow - this list is just inane incredulity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

Wow - this list is just inane incredulity.

Somewhat embarrassingly, it's also what AB considers to be valid arguments.   

[Nearly Sane]

Wow - this list is just inane incredulity.

Inane credulity, surely?

[Gordon]

Inane credulity, surely?

True - in haste I got that wrong.

[torridon]

Just to remind you of some of the arguments you have chosen to dismiss:

You choose to dismiss any evidence of miracles attributed to the power of God.
You choose to dismiss any personal testimonies from people who witness to personal encounters with God.
You choose to dismiss the content of every book in the Christian bible - some written by divine inspiration and some referring to eye witness accounts of Jesus and His works.
You choose to dismiss any historical evidence of the resurrection.
You choose to dismiss any evidence of your own spiritual nature - particularly your own free will.
You choose to dismiss the amazing odds against the unintended formation of stars and planets and environments capable of sustaining life.
You choose to dismiss the extreme unlikelihood of the unfathomable complexities of the human mind arising from unguided material reactions.
You choose to dismiss any evidence of the supernatural - such as Near Death Experiences.
You choose to dismiss evidence of any answers to prayer.

All the above are claims, not evidence.  If there were any actual evidence for God then we'd have a scientific theory of God based on that evidence already.  There is no such theory because there is no such evidence

[Maeght]

Just to remind you of some of the arguments you have chosen to dismiss:

You choose to dismiss any evidence of miracles attributed to the power of God.
You choose to dismiss any personal testimonies from people who witness to personal encounters with God.
You choose to dismiss the content of every book in the Christian bible - some written by divine inspiration and some referring to eye witness accounts of Jesus and His works.
You choose to dismiss any historical evidence of the resurrection.
You choose to dismiss any evidence of your own spiritual nature - particularly your own free will.
You choose to dismiss the amazing odds against the unintended formation of stars and planets and environments capable of sustaining life.
You choose to dismiss the extreme unlikelihood of the unfathomable complexities of the human mind arising from unguided material reactions.
You choose to dismiss any evidence of the supernatural - such as Near Death Experiences.
You choose to dismiss evidence of any answers to prayer.

Not convinced by claims of miracles attributed to the power of God.
Not convinced by any personal testimonies from people who witness to personal encounters with God.
Not convinced by the content of every book in the Christian bible - Not convinced by any written by divine inspiration. Not convinced by claimed eye witness accounts of Jesus and His works.
Not convinced by claimed historical evidence of the resurrection. Not convinced there is any.
Not convinced there is any evidence of your own spiritual nature - particularly your own free will.
Not convinced by claims about the amazing odds against the unintended formation of stars and planets and environments capable of sustaining life. We don't know that the odds are amazing.
Not convinced by claims that the complexities of the human mind couldn't arise from unguided material reactions.
Not convinced by claims of the supernatural - such as Near Death Experiences.
Not convinced by claims of answers to prayer.

[Alan Burns]

NDEs no more provide information about death than sex provides information about pregnancy. If you had evidence from actual DEs rather than from NDEs though you might have a point. 

We will all discover our own DE
My endeavour is to be well prepared for it.

[Enki]

We will all discover our own DE
My endeavour is to be well prepared for it.

And NDEs are not evidence for DEs. You are quite welcome to think that DEs exist as long as you also accept that this is purely your personal belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

We will all discover our own DE

As the evidence suggests that there will be no “we” after death, that’s just yet another blind faith claim.

My endeavour is to be well prepared for it.

That’s a matter for you. Seems like a bit of a waste of time though given the things you could be doing instead in the life we know we have before (y)our likely annihilation.

Anyway…

...about one of those “valid” arguments you claimed to have but have still failed to produce. Will one such finally be along some time soon?   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

As the evidence suggests that there will be no “we” after death, that’s just yet another blind faith claim.

Not exactly blind faith.
Have you given any consideration to the numerous miracles attributed to the intersession of saints after they die?
The RC church requires at least two verified miracles as one of the steps leading to canonisation as a saint.

[Sebastian Toe]

Not exactly blind faith.
Have you given any consideration to the numerous miracles attributed to the intersession of saints after they die?
The RC church requires at least two verified miracles as one of the steps leading to canonisation as a saint.

Some people have an over active imagination.
Some churches feed off that and utilise people's gullibility in order to justify their existence.

[torridon]

Not exactly blind faith.
Have you given any consideration to the numerous miracles attributed to the intersession of saints after they die?
The RC church requires at least two verified miracles as one of the steps leading to canonisation as a saint.

How can anyone educated to PhD level fall for this nonsense. So, we are supposed to accept that some dead people had a hand in talking God into doing the right thing, like God lacks his own moral compass and so dead people with an agenda to can therefore benefit certain individuals but not others by bending God's ear ?

Lourdes attracts around 6 million pilgrims annually.  Many of them people in dire need suffering from terrible afflications.  And how many miracles has God decided to grant ?  According to the Catholic Church, Zero.  Not a single miracle granted so far this century.  God has chosen to ignore the pleadings and prayers of every single one.  I guess this must be because not a single one of these millions of individuals were lucky enough to have a dead saint speaking up on their behalf, right ?