Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

All we can do is sincerely seek the truth behind our existence.  What I endeavour to do is to remove some of the false barriers which people encounter in order to help them to discover the true meaning of their existence.

Might help if that had anything to do with the post you are replying to but as so often your reply seems to show yoj don't read what you are replying to.

[torridon]

All we can do is sincerely seek the truth behind our existence.  What I endeavour to do is to remove some of the false barriers which people encounter in order to help them to discover the true meaning of their existence.

False barriers ? you mean, like, logic, evidence, reason ?  I'd hate to think what the world would be like if we all abandoned our critical thinking skills to find this mythical 'true meaning'.

[Dicky Underpants]

"If god exists and if god is as described in the bible (albeit that in itself is somewhat confusing)"

What a beautiful sense of understatement you have, Prof!

[ProfessorDavey]

All we can do is sincerely seek the truth behind our existence.  What I endeavour to do is to remove some of the false barriers which people encounter in order to help them to discover the true meaning of their existence.

That sounds all very biased AB - surely if you want to uncover the truth behind existence then you will need to rely on evidence rather than faith. Indeed faith (in other words something that you rely on in the absence of evidence) is exactly one of those false barriers that you speak of - basically if you rely on faith you are likely to refuse to accept evidence unless it backs up your faith (in which case you don't need faith in the first place).

And what if there isn't actually a meaning to our existence AB - you are presuming that there is but of course there doesn't need to be. Your presumption seems both biased and deeply anthropocentric.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All we can do is sincerely seek the truth behind our existence.

If you want to claim “sincerely” to do something you should begin with not dishonestly ignoring the falsifications and corrections you’re given and then repeating the same mistakes later on.
 

What I endeavour to do is to remove some of the false barriers…

If you think the “barriers” to people accepting your various faith claims are false, then you need to show then to be false. So far the only barriers you’ve encountered are the reasoning and evidence that undo you, none of which you seem willing or able to address
 

…which people encounter in order to help them to discover the true meaning of their existence.

If you want to claim to be able to help people to “discover the true meaning of their existence” then you need to demonstrate some evidence at least for you knowing what that “true meaning” might be. So far all you’ve offered is blind faith claims and consistently incompetent attempts at reasoning to justify them. This is not a good way to proceed if you hope to achieve your aim.

I addressed your fundamental mistakes in principle here in Reply 48811, which you continue to ignore.   

[Alan Burns]

So do you accept that the vastly greater numbers of people who reject catholicism in favour of not being religious are doing so because the are also following what they consider to be true - in other words that they are rejecting that catholicism leads them to the truth and considering that a non religious outlook leads them to the truth.

I believe that many people in our western society have rejected the Christian faith in the mistaken belief that science can be used to explain away the need for God.

The truth is that science has uncovered more mysteries about our existence than explanations.
Science has revealed the amazingly precise fine tuning of our universe which is essential for the development of carbon based life forms.
Science has discovered the unpredictable quantum behaviour of sub atomic elements which does not reflect the predictable deterministic behaviour perceived at the atomic level.
Science shows us the unfathomable complexity in the working of our human brains - far greater complexity than Darwin could ever have envisaged when he came up with his theory of evolution driven entirely by random unguided forces.
And there is the inability of science to explain the miraculous nature of self awareness and free will we all experience as human beings.

[Gordon]

I believe that many people in our western society have rejected the Christian faith in the mistaken belief that science can be used to explain away the need for God.

What about the need for Weetabix? You do realise that some of us never accepted the Christian faith in the first place.

The truth is that science has uncovered more mysteries about our existence than explanations.
Science has revealed the amazingly precise fine tuning of our universe which is essential for the development of carbon based life forms.
Science has discovered the unpredictable quantum behaviour of sub atomic elements which does not reflect the predictable deterministic behaviour perceived at the atomic level.
Science shows us the unfathomable complexity in the working of our human brains - far greater complexity than Darwin could ever have envisaged when he came up with his theory of evolution driven entirely by random unguided forces.
And there is the inability of science to explain the miraculous nature of self awareness and free will we all experience as human beings.

Mindless and fallacious waffle - you seem to be lost in an ocean of personal incredulity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I believe that many people in our western society have rejected the Christian faith in the mistaken belief that science can be used to explain away the need for God.

Then you believe wrongly. “…many people in our western society have rejected the Christian faith” in the correct belief that people like you can’t justify it with logically sound reasoning. 

The truth is that science has uncovered more mysteries about our existence than explanations.

Perhaps – but so what?

Science has revealed the amazingly precise fine tuning of our universe which is essential for the development of carbon based life forms.

No science hasn’t, and nor has anything else. The “fine tuning” argument is just circular reasoning for the reasons that have been given to you often and that you routinely ignore.   

Science has discovered the unpredictable quantum behaviour of sub atomic elements which does not reflect the predictable deterministic behaviour perceived at the atomic level.

No science hasn’t. No-one knows whether or not quantum activity is truly random. 

Science shows us the unfathomable complexity in the working of our human brains - far greater complexity than Darwin could ever have envisaged when he came up with his theory of evolution driven entirely by random unguided forces.

Darwinian evolutionary theory doesn’t claim evolution is “driven” by “random unguided forces”. 

And there is the inability of science to explain the miraculous nature of self awareness and free will we all experience as human beings.

The extent to which science is unable to explain these things is debatable, but there are many phenomena that science can’t explain. All that tells us though is that science doesn’t explain something, not that it must therefore be magic.

I addressed your fundamental mistakes in principle here in Reply 48811, which you continue to ignore.     

[torridon]

I believe that many people in our western society have rejected the Christian faith in the mistaken belief that science can be used to explain away the need for God.

I doubt many people in modern times came to faith in the first place via a scientific reasoning process.  Such forms of reasoning, such as intelligent design, are more about a post-hoc rationalisation of a faith position that people already hold for other reasons.

The truth is that science has uncovered more mysteries about our existence than explanations.
Science has revealed the amazingly precise fine tuning of our universe which is essential for the development of carbon based life forms.
Science has discovered the unpredictable quantum behaviour of sub atomic elements which does not reflect the predictable deterministic behaviour perceived at the atomic level.

I don't see how having a deterministic system emerge from an unpredictable substrate would be an indicator of purposeful intelligent design.  If I wanted to build something to work reliably I wouldn't introduce unpredictable elements into its workings in the first place, what would be the benefit ?

Science shows us the unfathomable complexity in the working of our human brains - far greater complexity than Darwin could ever have envisaged when he came up with his theory of evolution driven entirely by random unguided forces.
And there is the inability of science to explain the miraculous nature of self awareness and free will we all experience as human beings.

There is nothing miraculous about self awareness, this is just hyperbole, all sentient species have self awareness to some degree.  No more miraculous than having legs to walk with or teeth in exactly the right place to munch our food.  These things evolved over time.  If you insist on believing these things to be evidence of intelligent guidance then I guess you must believe the Chixculub impactor that took out the terrestrial dinosaurs was a guided divine missile, whose trajectory was finely tuned by God to cause maximum damage to the ecosystems of the late Cretaceous. After all, without that attack, we would not be here currently.

[Outrider]

I believe that many people in our western society have rejected the Christian faith in the mistaken belief that science can be used to explain away the need for God.

In my experience people aren't 'rejecting' the Christian faith, so much as they just aren't really being immersed in it, and if you aren't thoroughly doused in it then it makes no sense in its own right - you don't need science to reject it.

The truth is that science has uncovered more mysteries about our existence than explanations.

And continues to investigate those mysteries. The truth is that this questioning moves us - hopefully forward - whereas religion's reverence for ignorance keeps us stagnant.

Science has revealed the amazingly precise fine tuning of our universe which is essential for the development of carbon based life forms.

No. Science has found incredibly precise values for some fundamental features of the universe, but so far has not uncovered anything about what causes them to be so. In the absence of knowledge you are trying to lever religion in as an excuse to not explain something, and instead credit your sky fairy.

Science has discovered the unpredictable quantum behaviour of sub atomic elements which does not reflect the predictable deterministic behaviour perceived at the atomic level.

And it has shown that the kinetic activity of molecules of lava does not mimic the Brownian motion of mixing liquids or the near-static molecular activity of frozen nitrogen - that different objects in the universe behave differently is WHY we need to investigate, not an excuse not to.

Science shows us the unfathomable complexity in the working of our human brains - far greater complexity than Darwin could ever have envisaged when he came up with his theory of evolution driven entirely by random unguided forces.

No, and no. Science shows us, actually, that the function of our brain is at the base level incredibly simple - a neuron is stimulated, and in turn activates other nerve cells, some of which are also neurons. That this simple mechanism can manifest incredibly complex effects because of the mass of interconnections is amazing, but it's not yet been determined if it's 'unfathomably complex' or just beyond our current capacity. As to whether it's more complexity than Darwin could have envisaged, I'd suggest that given he explicitly included humanity in the full range of life on Earth that he predicted his evolutionary theory could explain that it was well within his vision - that he could not, at the time, explain the mechanism doesn't mean that the notion was beyond him.

And there is the inability of science to explain the miraculous nature of self awareness and free will we all experience as human beings.

Notwithstanding your continued attempts to assert free will into reality - so what? Science has a boundary, there is knowledge that we have not yet acquired. What has religion developed in terms of new understanding in the last, say, two thousand years? Even if science has the faults you think, even if science is imperfect, it's still fantastically, practically useful.

O.

[Enki]

I believe that many people in our western society have rejected the Christian faith in the mistaken belief that science can be used to explain away the need for God.

I think that science has taken away a lot of the mystique that has surrounded Christianity and I would suggest it has certainly put Christianity on the back foot. As to rejecting the Christian faith, I suggest that many people in Western society are not in the position of even rejecting the Christian faith because it has held little significance to them in the first place, and that number is increasing. The need for your God seems to be a shrinking one and, yes, perhaps science has helped in this by showing that in certain respects there is no need of explanations which rely on a belief in your God, when other, more viable explanations seem more convincing.

The truth is that science has uncovered more mysteries about our existence than explanations.

And that is one of the fascinations of science. As we seek explanations to questions, it tends to expand our knowledge and engage our curiosity to ask even more difficult questions, whereas Christianity tends to stifle ideas with its antagonism to change and its emphasis on convention.

For myself, long before I delved into science I found the idea of a God to be kinda odd. As a boy I used to watch everyone reciting the Lord's Prayer in my school, and wondered who on earth they were praying to. It didn't bother me, but I felt not the slightest compulsion to pray to this 'being' whom I never felt existed and didn't seem to have the slightest effect on my life. it was much later that I discovered that science had little to do with the idea of God and often put forward ideas which explained things without the need for God at all.

Science has revealed the amazingly precise fine tuning of our universe which is essential for the development of carbon based life forms.

For which there is no need of God as an explanation, of course.

Science has discovered the unpredictable quantum behaviour of sub atomic elements which does not reflect the predictable deterministic behaviour perceived at the atomic level.

It has indeed and there is much more to learn, especially about the decoherence which happens in the atomic plus world. I cannot even conceive how the presence of your God provides an explanation for this.

Science shows us the unfathomable complexity in the working of our human brains - far greater complexity than Darwin could ever have envisaged when he came up with his theory of evolution driven entirely by random unguided forces.

Correction, evolution is not 'driven entirely by random unguided forces'. Natural selection, genetic drift etc. have essential parts to play.

And there is the inability of science to explain the miraculous nature of self awareness and free will we all experience as human beings.

Why on earth is self awareness 'miraculous'? We are not the only creatures to show this trait, and plenty of creatures show awareness of their environment. I would suggest that they are good evolutionary traits. An inability to fully explain the workings of consciousness is no reason to simply say, and therefore God. That would be inane and it would be no explanation whatever. As to your version of 'free will', it has been clearly rejected on the the grounds of illogicality, a problem that you have consistently been unable to grapple with.

And, from my personal level, that's not even approaching the immoralities inherent in the Christian faith.

[Stranger]

I believe that many people in our western society have rejected the Christian faith in the mistaken belief that science can be used to explain away the need for God.

Rejecting baseless superstition that explains nothing (except in the vacuous "it's magic, innit?" way) and is riddled with contradictions, has little to do with science.

The truth is that science has uncovered more mysteries about our existence than explanations.

Debatable, and it has explained many things that were previously supposed to be 'explained' by god. The 'god of the gaps' is shrinking fast.

Science has revealed the amazingly precise fine tuning of our universe which is essential for the development of carbon based life forms.

We don't even know if there is any 'fine tuning'.

Science has discovered the unpredictable quantum behaviour of sub atomic elements which does not reflect the predictable deterministic behaviour perceived at the atomic level.

Misrepresentation of the situation.

Science shows us the unfathomable complexity in the working of our human brains - far greater complexity than Darwin could ever have envisaged when he came up with his theory of evolution driven entirely by random unguided forces.

Evolution isn't "driven entirely by random unguided forces" and there is no reason that greater complexity in any way at all would require any explanation other than evolution.

And there is the inability of science to explain the miraculous nature of self awareness and free will we all experience as human beings.

Free will in the sense you want to be true is logically self-contradictory and there is zero evidence that it exists. Self awareness is as yet unexplained (although there are numerous hypotheses) but that doesn't make it "miraculous".

The existence of the unexplained in no way justifies an absurd, self-contradictory and baseless superstition. That is an argument from ignorance fallacy (dimwitted mistake in logic).

[Alan Burns]

I addressed your fundamental mistakes in principle here in Reply 48811, which you continue to ignore.     

I have thought long and hard how to reply to the many points you bring up on your reply 48811

I could give detailed replies to every one of your points, but I have no doubt that you will once more demonstrate your God given freedom to think up reasons to reject every one of my explanations in order to continue belief in your materialistic scenario.

So rather than continue the fruitless dialog I will highlight the evidence which you continue to ignore or try to dismiss.

There is ample historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
There are many reasons why the books of the Christian bible, and in particular the New Testament can be considered to be divinely inpired rather than man made.
There are hundreds of personal witness stories of a miraculous nature which are hard to dismiss without calling the witness a liar - here is just one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7Uukone7c&lc=UgxAAh_NVw9gNJLKuqJ4AaABAg
Recently there have been many accounts of Muslims having encountered visions of Jesus in their dreams - hard to dismiss when three members of the same family had identical visions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7bR-1W9c9s
Despite your considerable ability to deliberately choose to seek reasons not to believe, you continue to claim that your freedom to do so is "just the way it seems" without any feasible explanation for how such reasoned arguments can emerge from physically controlled material reactions beyond your conscious control.

[Stranger]

I have thought long and hard how to reply to the many points you bring up on your reply 48811

Just for a moment there, I thought, just maybe, that you might have spent the time you've not been posting, thinking of something new. But no, just the same old, mindless, thought-free repetition...

Silly me, eh? 

I could give detailed replies to every one of your points, but I have no doubt that you will once more demonstrate your God given freedom to think up reasons to reject every one of my explanations in order to continue belief in your materialistic scenario.

Yet again: you have provided no hint of evidence or sound reasoning to even suggest that anything humans can do is "God given", and nobody needs a reason to reject a proposition, it is up to those making claims to back them up. Something you have utterly failed to do.

So rather than continue the fruitless dialog I will highlight the evidence which you continue to ignore or try to dismiss.

More dishonesty. There is nothing new here. This supposed 'evidence' has not been ignored and the reasons why it doesn't stand up have been well explained to you, multiple times.

There is ample historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Where?

There are many reasons why the books of the Christian bible, and in particular the New Testament can be considered to be divinely inpired rather than man made.

Why have you not given us any, then?

There are hundreds of personal witness stories of a miraculous nature which are hard to dismiss without calling the witness a liar - here is just one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7Uukone7c&lc=UgxAAh_NVw9gNJLKuqJ4AaABAg
Recently there have been many accounts of Muslims having encountered visions of Jesus in their dreams - hard to dismiss when three members of the same family had identical visions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7bR-1W9c9s

If this is your standard of evidence, then you'd have to accept (for example) alien abductions as real...

Despite your considerable ability to deliberately choose to seek reasons not to believe...

Yet again: nobody needs to seek reasons to not believe. Rational people need reasons to believe. You are, yet again, bearing false witness.

...you continue to claim that your freedom to do so is "just the way it seems" without any feasible explanation for how such reasoned arguments can emerge from physically controlled material reactions beyond your conscious control.

And the same mindless mantra.

Just to remind you, not only is this a misrepresentation, but you have never got past the logical self-contradiction of your alternative.

[Maeght]

I have thought long and hard how to reply to the many points you bring up on your reply 48811

I could give detailed replies to every one of your points, but I have no doubt that you will once more demonstrate your God given freedom to think up reasons to reject every one of my explanations in order to continue belief in your materialistic scenario.

So rather than continue the fruitless dialog I will highlight the evidence which you continue to ignore or try to dismiss.

There is ample historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

No there isn't. There is evidence for a belief of a resurrection in some form amongst early Christians.

There are many reasons why the books of the Christian bible, and in particular the New Testament can be considered to be divinely inpired rather than man made.

Don't know of any. Can you present your best reason?

There are hundreds of personal witness stories of a miraculous nature which are hard to dismiss without calling the witness a liar - here is just one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7Uukone7c&lc=UgxAAh_NVw9gNJLKuqJ4AaABAg

No need to call anyone a liar if they are genuinely mistaken. Witness stories/anecdotes are the worst type of evidence.
 

Recently there have been many accounts of Muslims having encountered visions of Jesus in their dreams - hard to dismiss when three members of the same family had identical visions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7bR-1W9c9s

Dreams are dreams - not evidence for anything.

Despite your considerable ability to deliberately choose to seek reasons not to believe, you continue to claim that your freedom to do so is "just the way it seems" without any feasible explanation for how such reasoned arguments can emerge from physically controlled material reactions beyond your conscious control.

Not being convinced by about something is not a deliberate choice.

Did you really think long and hard about this and come up with that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have thought long and hard how to reply to the many points you bring up on your reply 48811

Good. I look forward to the results of that long and hard thinking…

I could give detailed replies to every one of your points, but I have no doubt that you will once more demonstrate your God given freedom to think up reasons to reject every one of my explanations in order to continue belief in your materialistic scenario.

Well, there’s the first trap you’ve fallen into. My “points” explain to you how you go wrong by making false arguments, and you’ve just done that once again – in this case a fallacy called begging the question. You’re being invited to produce a logically sound argument to justify your claim “god”. Just asserting instead a “God given freedom” is hopeless for that purpose.

0/10 so far. Try again. 

So rather than continue the fruitless dialog I will highlight the evidence which you continue to ignore or try to dismiss.

And there’s another fallacy – this once call poisoning the well. I don’t “ignore or try to dismiss” anything. What I actually do is falsify the arguments you attempt to justify your faith claim “god” – so far without rebuttal.

Still 0/10. Try again. 

There is ample historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

No there isn’t. There’s a story written long after the episode by people who weren’t there that could also readily be explained with various non-miraculous causes that you have no means to exclude.

0/10 still.

There are many reasons why the books of the Christian bible, and in particular the New Testament can be considered to be divinely inpired rather than man made.

That’s just an unqualified assertion. If you think there are such “many reasons” you need to tell us what they are, not just assert their existence.

0/10 still.

There are hundreds of personal witness stories of a miraculous nature which are hard to dismiss without calling the witness a liar - here is just one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7Uukone7c&lc=UgxAAh_NVw9gNJLKuqJ4AaABAg

No there aren’t. There are hundreds (or more likely thousands) of claims of supposed miracles from multiple faith traditions that collapse as soon as their rationales are examined. “Miracle” is a positive claim – “I don’t know how X could have happened naturally, therefore miracle” doesn’t come close to justifying the claim.

0/10 still.   

Recently there have been many accounts of Muslims having encountered visions of Jesus in their dreams - hard to dismiss when three members of the same family had identical visions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7bR-1W9c9s

And doubtless there are accounts of Christians “encountering” Allah too. All these accounts though involve a supposed god with which the claimants are culturally familiar. What you never find though are accounts of remote tribespeople never before contacted by Christians/ muslims/whatever who unilaterally have also “encountered” their various deities.

Why do you suppose that is?

0/10 still.
 

Despite your considerable ability to deliberately choose to seek reasons not to believe, you continue to claim that your freedom to do so is "just the way it seems" without any feasible explanation for how such reasoned arguments can emerge from physically controlled material reactions beyond your conscious control.

1. You have it backwards again. It’s not about “deliberately choose to seek reasons not to believe” – the burden of proof is for the claimant to find justifications for their beliefs. All I do is to find those justification to be wrong – a trivially simple thing to do, just as you'd find my justifications for my claim “leprechauns” to be false. Do you “deliberately choose to seek reasons not to believe” that claim too?

Why not? 

2. “...freedom to do so” must be “just the way it seems” because the alternative you cling to as a man clings to a concrete lifebelt is logically impossible. Your distaste for what that implies is neither here nor there for epistemological purposes.

3. The “feasible explanation” is that there’s a perfectly well-understood phenomenon called emergence – essentially “the sum is greater than its parts” – it's seen pretty much everywhere in nature, and that there’s no good reason to dismiss as an explanation for consciousness too. In any case though, even if that wasn’t the case all you’d have is a “don’t know” – which is no justification at all for the logically impossible “it’s magic innit” alternative you peddle here with no hint at all of a method to support it.

If you want to claim magic as your alternative, then justify it – don’t just assert it.

You’re now in worse than 0/10 territory. You’re not just wrong – you’re not even wrong.

You opened your eructation in place or argument with a claim to have thought long and hard about this. Unwittingly all you told us instead is that you’re incapable of thinking long and hard about anything.

Why not try at least to prove me wrong by producing some fruits of your thinking that aren’t either logically hopeless or absent entirely?       

[ProfessorDavey]

There is ample historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

No there isn't - there is zero credible evidence for the resurrection of Jesus - all there is are non-contemporaneous and non-impartial accounts which are without a shred of actual objective evidence. All we can say with any kind of certainty is that decades after the purported event that a small group of people believed that Jesus was resurrected.

That isn't the same as there being actual evidence that the thing they believed in actually happened.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There is ample historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Just by way of a postscript to this nonsense, presumably you’re aware that there are people called historians and that the supposed resurrection of Jesus Christ isn’t taught by them in mainstream educational establishments.

Do you suppose this is the case because:

1. There isn’t “ample historical evidence” for it at all as you mistakenly claim; or

2. There’s a global conspiracy of academic historians who know full well there is ample evidence for it but they had a secret meeting where they all decided that they would universally pretend otherwise?

Which one do you think it is?

Hmmm…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

Just by way of a postscript to this nonsense, presumably you’re aware that there are people called historians and that the supposed resurrection of Jesus Christ isn’t taught by them in mainstream educational establishments.

Do you suppose this is the case because:

1. There isn’t “ample historical evidence” for it at all as you mistakenly claim; or

2. There’s a global conspiracy of academic historians who know full well there is ample evidence for it but they had a secret meeting where they all decided that they would universally pretend otherwise?

Which one do you think it is?

Hmmm…

I think we have to defer to ancient historians rather than people who possibly gave up history at 15.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think we have to defer to ancient historians...

Why?

...rather than people who possibly gave up history at 15.

What makes you think modern academic historians gave up history at 15?

[Stranger]

I think we have to defer to ancient historians rather than people who possibly gave up history at 15.

If you aren't going to cite some, what on earth was the point of posting this?

[jeremyp]

There is ample historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

No there isn't. Dead people don't come alive again. On the other hand, people are often mistaken or they lie. You pretty much have to exclude both of those possibilities completely in order for an actual resurrection to be considered as the explanation.

There are many reasons why the books of the Christian bible, and in particular the New Testament can be considered to be divinely inpired rather than man made.

There are many reasons to discount the possibility that the Bible is divinely inspired. There are to many contradictions, too many translation errors, to many factual errors for it plausibly to be the work of a god.

There are hundreds of personal witness stories of a miraculous nature which are hard to dismiss without calling the witness a liar - here is just one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd7Uukone7c&lc=UgxAAh_NVw9gNJLKuqJ4AaABAg

I don't know why people have such an aversion calling other people who claim to have had miraculous experiences liars. The evidence is that people lie all the time. Why do we suddenly have to spare their feelings when they are lying for Jesus?

Recently there have been many accounts of Muslims having encountered visions of Jesus in their dreams - hard to dismiss when three members of the same family had identical visions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7bR-1W9c9s

Not hard to dismiss at all when you consider people also convert the other way and it's being weighed against "dead person comes alive again".

Despite your considerable ability to deliberately choose to seek reasons not to believe

You've got it the wrong wy around. You don't need a reason not to believe, you need a reason to b believe. Not believing is the default state. You don't go round looking for reasons not to believe in unicorns and leprechauns do you? You just don't believe in them.

[Maeght]

I think we have to defer to ancient historians rather than people who possibly gave up history at 15.

And what do you think the view of ancient historians is?

[jeremyp]

I think we have to defer to ancient historians rather than people who possibly gave up history at 15.

which ancient historians would you like us to defer to? Name names.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Good. I look forward to the results of that long and hard thinking…

Well, there’s the first trap you’ve fallen into. My “points” explain to you how you go wrong by making false arguments, and you’ve just done that once again – in this case a fallacy called begging the question. You’re being invited to produce a logically sound argument to justify your claim “god”. Just asserting instead a “God given freedom” is hopeless for that purpose.

0/10 so far. Try again. 

And there’s another fallacy – this once call poisoning the well. I don’t “ignore or try to dismiss” anything. What I actually do is falsify the arguments you attempt to justify your faith claim “god” – so far without rebuttal.

Still 0/10. Try again. 

No there isn’t. There’s a story written long after the episode by people who weren’t there that could also readily be explained with various non-miraculous causes that you have no means to exclude.

0/10 still.

That’s just an unqualified assertion. If you think there are such “many reasons” you need to tell us what they are, not just assert their existence.

0/10 still.

No there aren’t. There are hundreds (or more likely thousands) of claims of supposed miracles from multiple faith traditions that collapse as soon as their rationales are examined. “Miracle” is a positive claim – “I don’t know how X could have happened naturally, therefore miracle” doesn’t come close to justifying the claim.

0/10 still.   

And doubtless there are accounts of Christians “encountering” Allah too. All these accounts though involve a supposed god with which the claimants are culturally familiar. What you never find though are accounts of remote tribespeople never before contacted by Christians/ muslims/whatever who unilaterally have also “encountered” their various deities.

Why do you suppose that is?

0/10 still.
 
1. You have it backwards again. It’s not about “deliberately choose to seek reasons not to believe” – the burden of proof is for the claimant to find justifications for their beliefs. All I do is to find those justification to be wrong – a trivially simple thing to do, just as you'd find my justifications for my claim “leprechauns” to be false. Do you “deliberately choose to seek reasons not to believe” that claim too?

Why not? 

2. “...freedom to do so” must be “just the way it seems” because the alternative you cling to as a man clings to a concrete lifebelt is logically impossible. Your distaste for what that implies is neither here nor there for epistemological purposes.

3. The “feasible explanation” is that there’s a perfectly well-understood phenomenon called emergence – essentially “the sum is greater than its parts” – it's seen pretty much everywhere in nature, and that there’s no good reason to dismiss as an explanation for consciousness too. In any case though, even if that wasn’t the case all you’d have is a “don’t know” – which is no justification at all for the logically impossible “it’s magic innit” alternative you peddle here with no hint at all of a method to support it.

If you want to claim magic as your alternative, then justify it – don’t just assert it.

You’re now in worse than 0/10 territory. You’re not just wrong – you’re not even wrong.

You opened your eructation in place or argument with a claim to have thought long and hard about this. Unwittingly all you told us instead is that you’re incapable of thinking long and hard about anything.

Why not try at least to prove me wrong by producing some fruits of your thinking that aren’t either logically hopeless or absent entirely?     

It is quite obvious to me that you, along with other recent responders to my post, have a consciously chosen goal to seek reasons to dismiss any evidence for the existence of God.  And it is also obvious that you are employing your god given gift of free will to think up these reasons in spite of your continual denial that you have been given such freedom.

The evidence is there in abundance for all to see.

If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains. John 9:41