Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Be my guest

You routinely elide terms like "naturalism", "materialism" etc into absolutist positions like "physicalism", "scientism" etc. When this deceit is explained to you you always run away, presumably so you can make the same dishonest accusations over and over again. What's the point though?

Oh....Bugger

Sorry to have broken the news to you.

[Alan Burns]

You routinely elide terms like "naturalism", ....

Concerning naturalism, I just came across this snippet from the Masters University web site:

Consider the dogma of evolution, for example. The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it “scientific” in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can furnish no knowledge whatsoever about where the human race came from or how it got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more “scientific” than any other kind of religious faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Concerning naturalism, I just came across this snippet from the Masters University web site:

Consider the dogma of evolution, for example. The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it “scientific” in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can furnish no knowledge whatsoever about where the human race came from or how it got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more “scientific” than any other kind of religious faith.

Just spectacular ignorance.

This is what The Master’s University say about themselves by the way lest anyone think they’re they’re objective on the subject: 

“The mission of The Master’s University is to empower students for a life of enduring commitment to Christ, biblical fidelity, moral integrity, intellectual growth and lasting contribution to the Kingdom of God worldwide.”

https://www.masters.edu/about/

[jeremyp]

All you can thus do is look for the effects.

Agree. What effects should we be looking for? How would we detect them?

Not an unusual suggestion since it crops up in cosmological and multiverse theories other than that

At this point, the multiverse is just speculation. People will only start thinking it may be real when somebody figures out a way to test whether it exists or not. Your talk of the multiverse doesn't help your case.

you are showing the presumption that we have to reveal God rather than considering the possibility that he reveals himself to us.

If I experience such a revelation, how will I be able to tell it is the real God and not some sort of delusion?

How do you explain other religions where their followers have revelations of different gods?

If God is unchanging, he could he reveal himself to us? That would involve him changing.

As CS Lewis said Prayer does not change God, it changes me. Ideally we should be confiding in God in unbroken communion but no one manages that IMO.

If your prayer doesn't change God, then he is not listening to you. Why not just pray to a rock? It's functionally the same, but we can be reasonably certain that the rock exists. 

[jeremyp]

Consider the dogma of evolution

Oh dear. As soon as you see that, you can be sure that the writer does not understand the Theory of Evolution. I haven't read the rest, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be garbage.

[Nearly Sane]

Concerning naturalism, I just came across this snippet from the Masters University web site:

Consider the dogma of evolution, for example. The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it “scientific” in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can furnish no knowledge whatsoever about where the human race came from or how it got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more “scientific” than any other kind of religious faith.

Showing an ignorance of science, philosophy, and naturalism. Almost impressively dumb

[Outrider]

Consider the dogma of evolution, for example.

Evolution is not 'dogma'. Evolution is an observed phenomenon, in both nature and the laboratory. The post-Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, which is what's being referred to here, is also not dogma.

The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact.

Partially true - evolutionary theory does not try to account for the origin of life. However, the diversity of life that we see currently, and in the historical record, very much CAN be explained by the current theory. Whether or not it transpires that it's actually the case is difficult to guarantee, but certainly there are no credible supplementary ideas and absolutely nothing that makes sense as a replacement for it.

Nor is it “scientific” in any true sense of the word.

Absolute bullshit.

Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation.

Not entirely, but not the worst definition I've heard.

The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory.

Which, as has be explained, is not relevant as the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life.

By definition, then, true science can furnish no knowledge whatsoever about where the human race came from or how it got here.

See above as to why this is wrong on pretty much every level.

Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith.

I'm so glad I had my faith position peer reviewed so extensively.

And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more “scientific” than any other kind of religious faith.

I'm not sure at exactly what point this crossed over into being not even wrong, but it was certainly there by the end.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Agree. What effects should we be looking for? How would we detect them?
At this point, the multiverse is just speculation. People will only start thinking it may be real when somebody figures out a way to test whether it exists or not. Your talk of the multiverse doesn't help your case.
If I experience such a revelation, how will I be able to tell it is the real God and not some sort of delusion?

How do you explain other religions where their followers have revelations of different gods?

If God is unchanging, he could he reveal himself to us? That would involve him changing.
If your prayer doesn't change God, then he is not listening to you. Why not just pray to a rock? It's functionally the same, but we can be reasonably certain that the rock exists.

Because a rock cannot change you Jeremy.
God changes me when I pray.
Prayer is metaphorically beholding God.
Then it facilitates knowledge of God.and God's will.


With all due respect you seem to be working on the "Sweetie dispenser" model of prayer.

[Maeght]

Because a rock cannot change you Jeremy.
God changes me when I pray.
Prayer is metaphorically beholding God.
Then it facilitates knowledge of God.and God's will.


With all due respect you seem to be working on the "Sweetie dispenser" model of prayer.

Belief can change people.

[Dicky Underpants]

AB,

Just spectacular ignorance.

This is what The Master’s University say about themselves by the way lest anyone think they’re they’re objective on the subject: 

“The mission of The Master’s University is to empower students for a life of enduring commitment to Christ, biblical fidelity, moral integrity, intellectual growth and lasting contribution to the Kingdom of God worldwide.”

https://www.masters.edu/about/

Not surprising that it was immediately obvious they hadn't a clue what they were talking about. They even started to introduce abiogenesis into the mishmash.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Because a rock cannot change you Jeremy.

And, absent any sound reasoning to suggest that there is a god, nor it seems can your faith belief "god".
 

God changes me when I pray.

I don’t doubt that you believe that, albeit for bad reasons.

Prayer is metaphorically beholding God.

Or, presumably, anything else you might choose to pray to.

Then it facilitates knowledge of God.and God's will.

Does it now. How did you make that leap exactly?

With all due respect you seem to be working on the "Sweetie dispenser" model of prayer.

Isn’t that what the Christian version of prayer is though – “please god, let me get that promotion I’m after and not the other contender” etc? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Also from the The Master’s University site:

"1. We teach biblical clarity on the creation/evolution debate.

One of our required core courses is Origins. This class addresses one of the distinctives of TMU: that the Earth and everything in it were created by the God of the Bible approximately 6,000 years ago, and that there was a single couple, Adam and Eve, on the newly created Earth. In this course, we clarify many misconceptions regarding evolution and creation and clearly show that a belief in evolutionism is an anti–God religion masquerading as science.

In every course, we discuss the evolutionary and creationist views. In this way, students are exposed to both views and taught how to think through the many extravagant claims of the evolutionary community.”

So batshit crazy then.

Hysterically, what comes next though is…

“2. We teach critical thinking.”

Just wow.

https://www.masters.edu/the-masters-university-magazine/practicing-christ-honoring-science-in-an-age-of-naturalism/

[Dicky Underpants]

Concerning naturalism, I just came across this snippet from the Masters University web site:

Consider the dogma of evolution, for example. The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it “scientific” in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can furnish no knowledge whatsoever about where the human race came from or how it got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more “scientific” than any other kind of religious faith.

I hope you're not too firm an adherent of all the beliefs promoted by the "Master's University", otherwise you might be encouraging even more ridicule than you have previously experienced. Do you for instance believe that the Earth and everything in it was created by God approximately 6,000 years ago?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Concerning naturalism, I just came across this snippet from the Masters University web site:

Consider the dogma of evolution, for example. The notion that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. Nor is it “scientific” in any true sense of the word. Science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The origin of life can be neither observed nor reproduced in any laboratory. By definition, then, true science can furnish no knowledge whatsoever about where the human race came from or how it got here. Belief in evolutionary theory is a matter of sheer faith. And dogmatic belief in any naturalistic theory is no more “scientific” than any other kind of religious faith.

correct me if I am wrong but you have previously stated that you don't deny the findings of science.

What you have linked to is a mixture of  misrepresentation and out and out falsehoods.

If you were in the least bit interested in science you would have dismissed this for the bullshit it clearly is.

[Alan Burns]

correct me if I am wrong but you have previously stated that you don't deny the findings of science.

What you have linked to is a mixture of  misrepresentation and out and out falsehoods.

If you were in the least bit interested in science you would have dismissed this for the bullshit it clearly is.

The quote I posted came up in a Google search on naturalism.  I thought it was an interesting point being made that belief in natural, unguided causes bringing life into existence requires as much, if not more faith than belief in God.  In posting this quote I was not endorsing other more extreme views made in this website of which I was not aware.

[Nearly Sane]

The quote I posted came up in a Google search on naturalism.  I thought it was an interesting point being made that belief in natural, unguided causes bringing life into existence requires as much, if not more faith than belief in God.  In posting this quote I was not endorsing other more extreme views made in this website of which I was not aware.

And yet the quote is based on an idea of science that is false, and shows misunderstandings of philosophy,and naturalism. It wasn't a crap quote because the institution has questionable views elsewhere, it was a crap quote, and the institution has lots of them 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The quote I posted came up in a Google search on naturalism.  I thought it was an interesting point being made that belief in natural, unguided causes bringing life into existence requires as much, if not more faith than belief in God.

Except that’s nonsense because the notion rests on basic mistake in logic – called circular reasoning. I’ve explained why this is the case several times here but you’ve just ignored the explanation (and then repeated the same mistake later on) so I’m not sure there’d be much point in explaining it to you again.

If you do feel that this time you could at least try to deal with the problem I will though do it again.

In posting this quote I was not endorsing other more extreme views made in this website of which I was not aware.

Fair enough, but perhaps you can see too how false justifications for one argument can open the door to even more wrongheadedness.

[jeremyp]

Because a rock cannot change you Jeremy.

Neither can God, if God is unchanging.

God changes me when I pray.

No. You change you. You only think it's God, but how can something that is totally unresponsive change you.

Prayer is metaphorically beholding God.
Then it facilitates knowledge of God.and God's will.

God can't have a will if God is unchanging.

With all due respect you seem to be working on the "Sweetie dispenser" model of prayer.

Well Alan, who is a Christian, also thinks it works that way as do many other Christians. Are you the only Christian with a correct understanding of prayer?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Except that’s nonsense because the notion rests on basic mistake in logic – called circular reasoning. I’ve explained why this is the case several times here but you’ve just ignored the explanation (and then repeated the same mistake later on) so I’m not sure there’d be much point in explaining it to you again.

I do not see why you can claim circular reasoning.
There is valid evidence in scripture, in history, in science and in critical thinking that we are not just an unintended consequence of unguided random forces.  To believe otherwise requires putting a great deal of faith in what can be achieved within the chaotic, ever increasing entropy produced by an exploding cloud of gas.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not see why you can claim circular reasoning.
There is valid evidence in scripture, in history, in science and in critical thinking that we are not just an unintended consequence of unguided random forces.  To believe otherwise requires putting a great deal of faith in what can be achieved within the chaotic, ever increasing entropy produced by an exploding cloud of gas.

Flat wrong. As I said, if you agree actually to engage this time with the argument then I’ll tell you again why your thesis preciously is circular reasoning. It's up to you.

[jeremyp]

I do not see why you can claim circular reasoning.
There is valid evidence in scripture, in history, in science and in critical thinking that we are not just an unintended consequence of unguided random forces.  To believe otherwise requires putting a great deal of faith in what can be achieved within the chaotic, ever increasing entropy produced by an exploding cloud of gas.

Now you are denying the laws of thermodynamics.

I'm afraid that you are totally unequipped for a discussion about science, entropy and evolution. You've been fed a load of horse shit by your fellow Christians.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Flat wrong. As I said, if you agree actually to engage this time with the argument then I’ll tell you again why your thesis preciously is circular reasoning. It's up to you.

I am well aware of your logical arguments, but we seem to have a fundamental problem with the premise from which you make your logical arguments.  I believe that your logic is based upon the time related cause and effect scenario as observed in the study of material behaviour.  This would lead to a presumption that every event will have a previous cause defined by the laws of physics - (with the exception of quantum indeterminacy which you seem to gloss over).  As you correctly concluded, this logic would effectively rule out any possibility of exerting conscious control over our thought processes, because whatever enters our conscious awareness has already been determined by past events.  What you have never explained is how you can achieve such a verified conclusion without having conscious control of the thought processes needed to reach such a conclusion.  Our conscious control of thoughts is a demonstrable reality which defies any physically based explanation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am well aware of your logical arguments, but we seem to have a fundamental problem with the premise from which you make your logical arguments.  I believe that your logic is based upon the time related cause and effect scenario as observed in the study of material behaviour.  This would lead to a presumption that every event will have a previous cause defined by the laws of physics - (with the exception of quantum indeterminacy which you seem to gloss over).  As you correctly concluded, this logic would effectively rule out any possibility of exerting conscious control over our thought processes, because whatever enters our conscious awareness has already been determined by past events.  What you have never explained is how you can achieve such a verified conclusion without having conscious control of the thought processes needed to reach such a conclusion.  Our conscious control of thoughts is a demonstrable reality which defies any physically based explanation.

You’ve completely missed (or diverted from) the point here. Your contention is that the unlikeliness of evolution producing you unguided is so high that a god must have intervened to make it so, therefore God. This is a fundamentally flawed argument for the reason I’ve explained to you several times before now without response.   

I will explain it to you again if you agree actually to respond to it, and I won’t bother if you’ll just ignore it again.

It’s still up to you.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

  Our conscious control of thoughts is a demonstrable reality which defies any physically based explanation.

Ok then demonstrate it. I don't mean give an example of a thought. No one denies we have thoughts. I mean a demonstration of controlling thoughts i.e where given exactly the same circumstances you were able to think a different thought than you previously did.

For example when I read the anti science nonsense you posted yesterday I though it was a load of bs, it doesn't seem to me that if time were rewound that I would find it anything other than a load of bs.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You’ve completely missed (or diverted from) the point here. Your contention is that the unlikeliness of evolution producing you unguided is so high that a god must have intervened to make it so, therefore God. This is a fundamentally flawed argument for the reason I’ve explained to you several times before now without response.   

I will explain it to you again if you agree actually to respond to it, and I won’t bother if you’ll just ignore it again.

It’s still up to you.

What I am saying is that the overwhelmingly precise conditions needed to bring life into existence combined with the unfathomable complexity of our human mind offer ample evidence of we are the result of conscious intent as opposed to an accidental outcome.  Our consciously driven ability to think things out is no accident.