Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course you are free to try to ridicule such evidence…

Again, there is no such evidence – or at least none that you’ve produced here. Why do you persist it this lie?

…of God by claiming it is just a "God of gaps" argument.

It is.

But conversely you are implying an atheistic belief that there must be a natural, unintended explanation to fill those gaps despite there being no feasible understanding of how those gaps could be filled.

That’s not a “atheistic belief”. We atheists accept the possibility of gods in the same way that a-leprechaunists accept the possibility of leprechauns. The problem though is that neither group has been given sufficient reasons to accept gods or leprechauns.

But in essence it is not a God of gaps argument I am putting forward - it is a God of everything argument.

It’s the same thing when the gap is a gap in human knowledge. If you didn’t keep running away from your ignorance of logic you’d be able to see why this is the case.

[Outrider]

A perpetual motion machine which is what you seem to be suggesting is not a natural thing definitionally.

The universe, as we understand it, is that 'perpetual motion' machine - the heat death of the universe is not when the energy has all gone away, it's when it has spread evenly all across space. That energy cannot be destroyed, it cannot be created, it can only be changed in form. Energy is already 'perpetual', and it's one of the underpinnings of what is 'natural'.

We know energy is not created or destroyed but there is the issue of entropy,  useful energy and heat death.

And, within the larger cosmos, the extra-universal physics, even if we presume that the same rules continues that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, we can still posit that there are eddies and currents within that energy, just like we have in the universe. They have a long-term tendency towards dissipating and levelling out, but something had to happen to accumulate a 'clump' into our universe, who knows how often that might happen, what might cause it.

If the universe exists perpetually then what is it about the universe that keeps it going?

The universe may not be perpetual, we're  reasonably confident that it had a definite start point - the cosmos beyond that, though, who knows. If energy can't be destroyed, why shouldn't it be an eternal shifting sea?

Shouldn't it have experienced heat death sometime in the infinite past?

Maybe, yes. But maybe there are other traits that we haven't witnessed yet.

There is still no answer as to why it exists rather than doesn't.

If that question makes sense, and I'm not sure it does, doesn't it apply just as equally to a creator deity? Why God and not 'not God'? Why 'that God' and not a different one?

Your statement that the universe is not transportation is a denial of the principle of analogy.

I didn't say it wasn't transportation - although I note that the elements of it that are transportational aren't the elements to which you were referring - but rather that as an analogy goes it was... lacking.

You've made a lot of assertions of what can and can't be with precious little justification.IMHO.

Because, and I can't believe this needs to be said yet again, but here we go: I'M NOT MAKING A CASE. I'm positing possibilities that undermine the claim there must be a creator because there is a creation. Repeatedly I get told that there has to be an uncaused cause, a prime mover, the first little choo-choo (to borrow a shit analogy), but very little explanation of WHY. Just 'infinite regress', as though giving it a definition constituted an argument. So I suggest the possibility of an infinite cosmos - I don't need to 'prove' it, I just need it to be a possibility in order to the job of showing that you can't even show that there's necessarily a creation, let alone a creator.

Potential energy needs to be actualised

Physics - indeed, the thermodynamics you were so keen to cite earlier - put pay to that Aristotelian view of energy centuries ago.

O.

[torridon]

Of course you are free to try to ridicule such evidence of God by claiming it is just a "God of gaps" argument.  But conversely you are implying an atheistic belief that there must be a natural, unintended explanation to fill those gaps despite there being no feasible understanding of how those gaps could be filled.

But in essence it is not a God of gaps argument I am putting forward - it is a God of everything argument.

There's no such thing as an 'atheistic' belief, any more than 'not skiing' is a popular winter sport.  We have some knowledge about things, and there are things we don't yet understand.  Why not let it stand like that, it shows humility and integrity to admit to things we don't yet know.  Conversely filling those knowledge gaps with imaginary beings with special powers is no way forward if you value understanding.  Those imaginary beings just get in the way and they dull the appetite for discovery.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Again, there is no such evidence – or at least none that you’ve produced here. Why do you persist it this lie?

It is you who is committing the lie by claiming there is no evidence of God.
You choose to find reasons to reject any evidence of God.
Why do you choose to do this?

[ProfessorDavey]

It is you who is committing the lie by claiming there is no evidence of God.
You choose to find reasons to reject any evidence of God.
Why do you choose to do this?

There is no 'rejection' - rather there is a choice not to accept 'evidence' which is weak, incoherent and non-credible.

I can throw this one back at you AB - why do you reject the evidence for Thor? I suspect because the claims for the existence of Thor are weak, incoherent and non-credible. And you do this, I suspect, for all the other gods purported to exist, except (surprise, surprise) for the one you were brought up to believe in.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is you who is committing the lie by claiming there is no evidence of God.

You can’t even get your false accusation right. I don’t say that there is no evidence for “God” – or nor indeed for leprechauns. What I actually say is that you claim it exists but haven’t produced any of it.

You choose to find reasons to reject any evidence of God.

Not reject, falsify. You so abuse the term “evidence” to justify your faith beliefs that it becomes the equivalent of me saying “rainbows are overwhelming evidence for leprechauns”.   

Why do you choose to do this?

Because if I lowered the bar for evidence as low as you make it for your belief “god” I’d have no basis to reject any other faith belief justified by an equally hopeless claim of evidence.

Why don’t you? 

[Alan Burns]

There is no 'rejection' - rather there is a choice not to accept 'evidence' which is weak, incoherent and non-credible.

I can throw this one back at you AB - why do you reject the evidence for Thor? I suspect because the claims for the existence of Thor are weak, incoherent and non-credible. And you do this, I suspect, for all the other gods purported to exist, except (surprise, surprise) for the one you were brought up to believe in.

I am not alone in claiming overwhelming evidence for God making Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.
I am in the company of great minds such as CS Lewis, GK Chesterton and professor John Lennox.
You may well disagree with their views, but to claim the evidence they quote as weak, incoherent and non-credible is frankly wrong.

[Outrider]

I am not alone in claiming overwhelming evidence for God making Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

You're not absolutely alone, but you're in a very small circle.

I am in the company of great minds such as CS Lewis, GK Chesterton and professor John Lennox.

They don't suggest that there's overwhelming evidence, they feel on balance that they believe.

You may well disagree with their views, but to claim the evidence they quote as weak, incoherent and non-credible is frankly wrong.

I can't speak much to Lewis or Chesterton, but Lennox - every single one of his arguments appears to be from personal incredulity regarding a natural origin for man/morality/thought coupled with the false dichotomy conclusion of 'therefore god'. I can't suggest that his evidence is weak because he deploys a logical fallacy which makes him feel like he doesn't need to present evidence FOR his case, he thinks questioning an alternative is sufficient.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am not alone in claiming overwhelming evidence for God making Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.
I am in the company of great minds such as CS Lewis, GK Chesterton and professor John Lennox.
You may well disagree with their views, but to claim the evidence they quote as weak, incoherent and non-credible is frankly wrong.

I'm sure that there were plenty of people who believed in Thor just as adamantly as you believe in the Christian god, and similarly claimed personal knowledge of Thor.

Evidence that people believe in something (however fervently) is not evidence that the thing they believe in actually exists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not alone in claiming overwhelming evidence for God making Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

But you are in a minority, so if you really want to try the argumentum ad populum fallacy you lose.

I am in the company of great minds such as CS Lewis, GK Chesterton and professor John Lennox.

And the argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) won’t rescue you either. If you think any of these “great minds” had the evidence you claim to have but never produce, why not tell us what it is so it can be examined and evaluated on its merits here?

You may well disagree with their views, but to claim the evidence they quote as weak, incoherent and non-credible is frankly wrong.

Your problem isn’t that it’s “weak, incoherent and non-credible”, it’s that it doesn’t exist at all – or at least not in a form that you’ve been able to produce.

As I keep explaining to you and you keep running away from: if you bothered to find out the first thing about logical argument you’d at least have a chance of not repeatedly making a fool of yourself here. Why do you persist in making a fool of yourself rather than obtain the tools to avoid it?   

[Alan Burns]

And the argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) won’t rescue you either. If you think any of these “great minds” had the evidence you claim to have but never produce, why not tell us what it is so it can be examined and evaluated on its merits here?

I have done

Your problem isn’t that it’s “weak, incoherent and non-credible”, it’s that it doesn’t exist at all – or at least not in a form that you’ve been able to produce.

These so called weak, incoherent and non-credible arguments were sufficient to drag Lewis into being (his own words) "I gave in, and admitted that God was God ... perhaps that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England." - from his book Surprised by Joy

[Maeght]

I have doneThese so called weak, incoherent and non-credible arguments were sufficient to drag Lewis into being (his own words) "I gave in, and admitted that God was God ... perhaps that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England." - from his book Surprised by Joy

His arguments don't convince me and just because he was convinced doesn't mean anyone else should be. People should assess the evidence for themselves, and I have seen now convincing evidence for your God so am atheistic towards it. Same with any god claims I have seen.

[torridon]

I am not alone in claiming overwhelming evidence for God making Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.
I am in the company of great minds such as CS Lewis, GK Chesterton and professor John Lennox.
You may well disagree with their views, but to claim the evidence they quote as weak, incoherent and non-credible is frankly wrong.

And you would not be alone in claiming that God made himself known to us through the direct revelation of angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad.  So what ? This is what you and the others mentioned would likely have been claiming had they been born in Indonesia or some other Islamic country.  Such beliefs are not evidence, they are cultural memes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have done

Not yet you haven’t. What you have done though (and repeatedly) is to post what you claim to be evidence, had it falsified (repeatedly), just ignored the falsifications (repeatedly) and then attempted exactly the same but now falsified arguments (repeatedly).

If you had the courtesy or honesty ever actually to address the falsifications you’re given you might have a chance of escaping your self-imposed spiral of wrong. 

These so called weak, incoherent and non-credible arguments were sufficient to drag Lewis into being (his own words) "I gave in, and admitted that God was God ... perhaps that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England." - from his book Surprised by Joy

See above.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am in the company of great minds such as CS Lewis ...

Oh dear, oh dear. CS Lewis, a great mind? I don't think so.

CS Lewis was a middling academic whose scholarly works are largely completely forgotten and indeed he would be entirely forgotten had it not been for the fact that he wrote a bunch of popular children's books.

His claimed 'conversion' to christianity seems nothing of the sort to me. He was brought up as a christian, with relatives that were priests and a bishop. His schooling, at traditional christian private schools would have cemented his christian upbringing. Like many kids he had a brief rebellious phase as a teenager where he claimed to not believe in god, but was comfortably back in the christian fold of his upbringing in his 20s. And during his claimed atheist phase he is reported as saying that he was "very angry with God for not existing" and "equally angry with him for creating a world". These aren't the words of someone who does not believe in god (how can you be angry with something that doesn't exist). Nope these are the words of someone who believes in god but is in denial - rebelling against his christian theistic belief, so to speak.

And don't get me started on his ludicrous 'trilemma' - I cannot decide whether this is deliberately dishonest and disingenuous in ignoring the most obvious explanations, or whether Lewis simply was unable to see beyond the blinkers of his faith. The fundamental issue with the trilemma is that it assumes that the NT claims come from Jesus himself, whereas we no that they come from the NT writers, writing decades (if not centuries, on the basis of the actual earliest extant texts) after the purported events and written by people where there is no evidence (or indeed it would be impossible) that they ever even met Jesus. Lewis completely ignores the fundamental issue that the claims are not contemporaneous and therefore the key issue is whether there is exaggeration, misinterpretation and misunderstanding of what actually may have happened extending through decades and centuries until we actually have text we can assess.

But I rather like the Narnia books - albeit recent rereading shows them full of unsubtle christian allegory, racism and sexism (the latter two rather too common of children's books written at the time).

[Nearly Sane]

While I don't disagree with Prof D's post, what kind of mind Lewis had is not of importance. It's the arguments that are important.

[ProfessorDavey]

While I don't disagree with Prof D's post, what kind of mind Lewis had is not of importance. It's the arguments that are important.

True - and his arguments are weak and the only reason they even get a hearing is that he became famous for writing a bunch of popular children's books.

I find it very odd that AB (and also Vlad) seem so enamoured by such a mediocre mind capable only of formulating simplistic and laughably weak arguments such as his trilemma.

But I do think it is relevant that he claims some kind of dramatic conversion (which AB and Vlad seem to think is deeply important) when (at the least) all he was doing was folding back into the religion of his upbringing. Hardly a great 'conversion' really is it - born into a christian family, brought up christian, went to schools that would have cemented his christian beliefs, (briefly rebelled, albeit seems from his writings to be solidly theistic even if not being actively christian), returns to being an active christian. Hmmm. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

While I don't disagree with Prof D's post, what kind of mind Lewis had is not of importance. It's the arguments that are important.

Yes, but it's AB who introduced Lewis and it's also AB who refuses to tell us which of his arguments he finds persuasive and why. Just say "Lewis" and the job's a good 'un (according to AB).   

[Enki]

I have done

Not objective evidence, you haven't. The only 'evidence' you have submitted is that which convinces you and that is usually from your own emotional standpoint, disregarding or ignoring alternative arguments completely.

These so called weak, incoherent and non-credible arguments were sufficient to drag Lewis into being (his own words) "I gave in, and admitted that God was God ... perhaps that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England." - from his book Surprised by Joy

Disregarding my own view of Lewis as a rather facile, shallow and bigotted writer who delved into Christian apologetics, he, himself, accepted the idea that there is no objective evidence for his God.

The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside ourselves as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way.( Ch 4 'What lies Behind The Law' Mere Christianity)

He does go on to suggest that influence is the moral influence, a view which is highly contested today. But the bottom line is that Lewis considers that all the evidence for God is personal, it's within your own mind. And that's what many people here have been saying, it's simply your beliefs.

Why you should call upon the works of C S Lewis therefore then as producing 'overwhelming evidence' (Your post 49631) is anybody's guess!

[Nearly Sane]

True - and his arguments are weak and the only reason they even get a hearing is that he became famous for writing a bunch of popular children's books.

I find it very odd that AB (and also Vlad) seem so enamoured by such a mediocre mind capable only of formulating simplistic and laughably weak arguments such as his trilemma.

But I do think it is relevant that he claims some kind of dramatic conversion (which AB and Vlad seem to think is deeply important) when (at the least) all he was doing was folding back into the religion of his upbringing. Hardly a great 'conversion' really is it - born into a christian family, brought up christian, went to schools that would have cemented his christian beliefs, (briefly rebelled, albeit seems from his writings to be solidly theistic even if not being actively christian), returns to being an active christian. Hmmm.

I think Lewis chimes with people and that is why they cite him. I also think that for many who cite him it's his Christian writings that they like rather than Narnia, but that you are right about the use of him being more noticeable because of that.

I think that because their experiences match with Lewis and he expresses that clearly people feel he has some power that is greater than it is.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think Lewis chimes with people and that is why they cite him. I also think that for many who cite him it's his Christian writings that they like rather than Narnia, but that you are right about the use of him being more noticeable because of that.

I think that because their experiences match with Lewis and he expresses that clearly people feel he has some power that is greater than it is.

I think Lewis chimes with certain christians because his journey - christian upbringing, brief rebellious phase, return to the fold is similar to many.

But the key is that it chimes because they've heard of him, and I suspect in most cases that is because they know of the Narnia books from their childhood. I'd be interested to know how many people come to Lewis purely via his christian writing having never had any engagement or knowledge of the Narnia books first. And it is that latter point that also makes Lewis attractive in the christian vs atheist debates, such as we have here. The point being that those of us who are not christian and are atheist have also heard of Lewis, again because of the Narnia books.

So much easier to use an example that everyone has heard of rather than some random christian apologist, who may have written a pile of books but the only people who will be aware of the author and the books will be other christians.

[ProfessorDavey]

Not objective evidence, you haven't. The only 'evidence' you have submitted is that which convinces you and that is usually from your own emotional standpoint, disregarding or ignoring alternative arguments completely.

Disregarding my own view of Lewis as a rather facile, shallow and bigotted writer who delved into Christian apologetics, he, himself, accepted the idea that there is no objective evidence for his God.
He does go on to suggest that influence is the moral influence, a view which is highly contested today. But the bottom line is that Lewis considers that all the evidence for God is personal, it's within your own mind. And that's what many people here have been saying, it's simply your beliefs.

Why you should call upon the works of C S Lewis therefore then as producing 'overwhelming evidence' (Your post 49631) is anybody's guess!

I think that is right - Lewis' arguments aren't really arguments but explanations as to why he believes on the basis of his own personal journey. That's fine, of course, everyone is entitled to provide their own story, but it is hardly compelling in terms of persuading others, unless they are on a similar journey.

There are, of course, countless other people who may or may not tell their own stories of their own journeys - many of whom (of course) will start off like Lewis but end up with a settled adult view that they do no believe in the claims of christianity and do not believe in god. In terms of 'conversion' stories, surely these people have a more compelling story as they have permanently rejected the faith claims of their upbringing, rather than merely temporarily moved away from active involvement before folding back into those childhood upbringing beliefs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

True - and his arguments are weak and the only reason they even get a hearing is that he became famous for writing a bunch of popular children's books.

I find it very odd that AB (and also Vlad) seem so enamoured by such a mediocre mind capable only of formulating simplistic and laughably weak arguments such as his trilemma.

But I do think it is relevant that he claims some kind of dramatic conversion (which AB and Vlad seem to think is deeply important) when (at the least) all he was doing was folding back into the religion of his upbringing. Hardly a great 'conversion' really is it - born into a christian family, brought up christian, went to schools that would have cemented his christian beliefs, (briefly rebelled, albeit seems from his writings to be solidly theistic even if not being actively christian), returns to being an active christian. Hmmm.

Ah, the trilemma. Did he actually call it ‘ the Trilemma’ or formulate it into some apparent formal scientismic rule? What is laughably weak about it?

The objection to it as far as I am aware of it is that it is really a quadrillemma and because he missed a possibility out, what he did say can be discarded. That is though, atheists wankfantasy.

If we examine what Lewis said we see that he says that Jesus and those who claim he is God cannot just be mistaken, there must be more to it. I move that what Lewis is suggesting is that despite politically correct sentiment from skeptics to the contrary, Jesus and his followers throughout history can rightly and logically be suspected of deliberate con or mental abberation which prevents them seeing Christianity as obvious nonsense OR their claims are correct. That boils down to mad, bad or true although you could I suppose chuck ‘sad’ in there as well.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah, the trilemma. Did he actually call it ‘ the Trilemma’ or formulate it into some apparent formal scientismic rule? What is laughably weak about it?

What is laughably weak about it is that he describes it as a choice between three options about Jesus himself, ignoring firstly the fact that the claims don't come from Jesus himself but are from texts written decades, if not centuries later so we cannot know whether Jesus made any of those claims. And secondly that because of the undeniable truth of the first issue the most obvious explanation (which Lewis completely ignores) is that the claims that eventually came down to us were exaggerated, misinterpreted or misrepresentations of what Jesus might have actually claimed or what might have happened decades if not centuries earlier.

This may or may not have been deliberate 'lost in translation' so the 'bad' of 'mad, bad or god' wouldn't apply. So the trilemma in its simplest formula should be a quartralemma - mad, bad, god or just wrong.

[Dicky Underpants]

No, he didn't just 'miss a possibility out'; he expressed his Trilemma in the strongest possible terms that those were the only possibilities. His argument is infantile, as are other arguments of his. A professor forsooth!