Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

Sorry, but I still fail to see how the incredibly precise conditions needed to bring about the existence and sustainability of life cannot be taken as evidence of deliberate intention from a source beyond our human perception rather than a series of accidental coincidences.

Personal incredulity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Sorry, but I still fail to see how the incredibly precise conditions needed to bring about the existence and sustainability of life cannot be taken as evidence of deliberate intention from a source beyond our human perception rather than a series of accidental coincidences.

Given that it’s been explained to you serval times now (including one attempt using the simplest words possible) why do you still fail to understand circular reasoning?

Are you saying for example that if you read the following definition from Wiki all you’d see is a sea of words with no meaning that you can glean?

“Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy, but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[3] Circular reasoning is closely related to begging the question, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[4]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

[torridon]

Sorry, but I still fail to see how the incredibly precise conditions needed to bring about the existence and sustainability of life cannot be taken as evidence of deliberate intention from a source beyond our human perception rather than a series of accidental coincidences.

And I still fail to see how the incredibly precise positioning of the teeth within my mouth cannot be taken as evidence of deliberate intention of the tooth fairy.  I mean, like, what are the chances ?

[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.

Scriptural speaking. No one has 'observed' God but Jesus has made him known.
God is not changed physically because he is independent of physicality

Change in God instigated by physical beings?
Because God is not subject to time we are not aware of how and when his will is instigated.

In terms of revelation it isn't as if he ever goes away.Even atheists can display reaction to God's presence and existence.

We should be careful to state that God cannot be changed.

How it looks to us is perhaps another affair, but appeal to things not looking like they seem is a trope in Everyone's argument.

[Maeght]

Scriptural speaking. No one has 'observed' God but Jesus has made him known.
God is not changed physically because he is independent of physicality

Change in God instigated by physical beings?
Because God is not subject to time we are not aware of how and when his will is instigated.

In terms of revelation it isn't as if he ever goes away.Even atheists can display reaction to God's presence and existence.

We should be careful to state that God cannot be changed.

How it looks to us is perhaps another affair, but appeal to things not looking like they seem is a trope in Everyone's argument.

How can atheists 'can display reaction to God's presence and existence'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How can atheists 'can display reaction to God's presence and existence'?

I can suggest two ways. Firstly one could suggest that God is a cockamamy idea, then argue against God by suggesting alternatives as or more cockamamy, thus demonstrating that 'cockamamyness" isn't their real issue with God.

Secondly, the simulated universe theory leaves a universal creator with the attributes of God. The atheist proposer would then deny the similitude between his argument and theism.

[jeremyp]

Scriptural speaking. No one has 'observed' God but Jesus has made him known.

Jesus hasn't made God known to me. And if he did (unlikely, since Jesus died nearly 2,000 years ago), how would I know he is not lying? Or that I am not suffering from a delusion?

God is not changed physically because he is independent of physicality

Change in God instigated by physical beings?
Because God is not subject to time we are not aware of how and when his will is instigated.

You said God was unchanging. If he is unchanging, he couldn't create time and the Universe because that would involve God changing.

Also, he couldn't assume human form, because that is change and he couldn't live as a human because that involves constant change.

Neither could God answer prayer because that would involve him changing.

In terms of revelation it isn't as if he ever goes away

Well, he's not here now. He must have gone away.

.Even atheists can display reaction to God's presence and existence.

Please give an example of an atheist (or anybody else, for that matter) reacting to God's existence.

We should be careful to state that God cannot be changed.

If God answers prayer, then the above musty be false.

How it looks to us is perhaps another affair, but appeal to things not looking like they seem is a trope in Everyone's argument.

Nobody is appealing to things not looking the same like they seem. We are pointing out that your assertion that God is unchanging is totally absurd if God has any agency whatsoever.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Scriptural speaking. No one has 'observed' God but Jesus has made him known.
God is not changed physically because he is independent of physicality

Scripturally speaking, when Noah was 500 years old he had three sons too. So?

Change in God instigated by physical beings?

If you’re daft enough to think to think praying actually makes “God” do things he wouldn’t otherwise do, then for you yes.

Because God is not subject to time we are not aware of how and when his will is instigated.

See above.

In terms of revelation it isn't as if he ever goes away.Even atheists can display reaction to God's presence and existence.

Did you actually mean to say that? If you did, in that case I can claim that even a-leprechaunists can display reaction to leprechauns’ presence and existence right?

We should be careful to state that God cannot be changed.

Make your mind up! Do you think this “God” of yours can be changed by, for example, prayer or not? Which is it?

How it looks to us is perhaps another affair, but appeal to things not looking like they seem is a trope in Everyone's argument.

How it looks is exactly how you’d expect it to look if there was no “God” there at all.

Funny that…

[Maeght]

I can suggest two ways. Firstly one could suggest that God is a cockamamy idea, then argue against God by suggesting alternatives as or more cockamamy, thus demonstrating that 'cockamamyness" isn't their real issue with God.

Secondly, the simulated universe theory leaves a universal creator with the attributes of God. The atheist proposer would then deny the similitude between his argument and theism.

So not a reaction to God's presence and existence but to the claims of God's existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So not a reaction to God's presence and existence but to the claims of God's existence.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Scripturally speaking, when Noah was 500 years old he had three sons too. So?

So you seem to be ignoring that the books in the Bible were written in different genres, by different people, at different times for different purposes.

Did you actually mean to say that? If you did, in that case I can claim that even a-leprechaunists can display reaction to leprechauns’ presence and existence right?

As an A leprechaunist I never find myself having to suspend the principle of sufficient reason, claim that the universe is, have things bringing themselves into existence, necessary beings that are dependent on things for which they are necessary or end up arguing that an independent creator of the universe is not the same as an independent creator of the universe.All things I recall folks on here being caught doing at one time or another.

Nor, like Thomas Nagel or Lawrence Krauss find myself not wanting Leprechauns to exist, or like legions of atheists would I refuse to follow Leprechauns if they were found to exist.

I’m sure there are agnostic atheists who are neither committed to their agnosticism or their atheism,
Just like there are agnostic aleprechaunism committed to neither.

[Maeght]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

They are different and what you wrote was about a reaction to God's presence and existence not to the claims of God's existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They are different and what you wrote was about a reaction to God's presence and existence not to the claims of God's existence.

Explain the difference then and, as I think your suggesting, their mutual exclusivity.

[Maeght]

Explain the difference then and, as I think your suggesting, their mutual exclusivity.

Because one is about the reaction to God's presence and the other is the reaction to a claim of God's presence. Clearly different things.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because one is about the reaction to God's presence and the other is the reaction to a claim of God's presence. Clearly different things.

I believe the distaste for claims ofGod needs to be accounted for. Since that is a reaction also.

[Maeght]

I believe the distaste for claims ofGod needs to be accounted for. Since that is a reaction also.

Fine - that can be discussed. But I go back to my original question - How can atheists 'can display reaction to God's presence and existence'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fine - that can be discussed. But I go back to my original question - How can atheists 'can display reaction to God's presence and existence'?

And I have outlined two of the ways.
If somebody accuses arguments for God as being cockamamy but do so standing by cockamamy arguments then the issue isn’t arguments or claims, it’s God.

[Nearly Sane]

And I have outlined two of the ways.
If somebody accuses arguments for God as being cockamamy but do so standing by cockamamy arguments then the issue isn’t arguments or claims, it’s God.

Or they could just be bad at arguing.

[Maeght]

And I have outlined two of the ways.
If somebody accuses arguments for God as being cockamamy but do so standing by cockamamy arguments then the issue isn’t arguments or claims, it’s God.

You've outlined two ways regarding the claims about God not about God itself. I conclude therefore that in your initial post you meant to have said claims about or belief in God. Fair enough.

Regarding your points - as I see it, I don't accept the claims about God or gods as I'm not convinced by the evidence presented and the arguments made. I am willing to say 'I don't know' in answer to certain things rather than assigning the cause to be God. I (and others) may present potential alternative explanations but that doesn't mean I (or others) am claiming those alternatives to be necessarily true, only that they demonstrate that God as an explanation isn't the only option.

[Outrider]

And I have outlined two of the ways.
If somebody accuses arguments for God as being cockamamy but do so standing by cockamamy arguments then the issue isn’t arguments or claims, it’s God.

Perhaps, but if someone is willing to accept cockamamy arguments for the idea of gods, do they have the wherewithal to judge whether the alternatives are cockamamy or not?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps, but if someone is willing to accept cockamamy arguments for the idea of gods, do they have the wherewithal to judge whether the alternatives are cockamamy or not?

O.

I think you'll find I'm talking about the person who states that all arguments for God are cockamamy....and then defends
Popping out of nothings, suspension of the PSR contingent necessary beings, things creating themselves, unknown unknowns, circular hierarchies, simulated universes or all of the above.

One has to suspect that is not then the nature of the claim that troubles but what is being claimed.

[SteveH]

...God is not subject to time...

says who? A timeless God is logically incoherent.

[Gordon]

I think you'll find I'm talking about the person who states that all arguments for God are cockamamy....and then defends
Popping out of nothings, suspension of the PSR contingent necessary beings, things creating themselves, unknown unknowns, circular hierarchies, simulated universes or all of the above.

One has to suspect that is not then the nature of the claim that troubles but what is being claimed.

I take it that 'cockamamy' is your new 'word du jour' but, especially as the weather hopefully improves, you need to be careful with all that straw.

That someone, like me, rejects the arguments/claims to date for 'God' as being fallacious and/or incoherent says nothing about any other conjectures.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

says who? A timeless God is logically incoherent.

Please demonstrate. Atheist alternatives often include a timeless or infinite component so timelessness there cannot be the issue.

[Nearly Sane]

Please demonstrate. Atheist alternatives often include a timeless or infinite component so timelessness there cannot be the issue.

You claim your god exists - existence is a time based concept.

You claim your god has thoughts - thinking is a time based concept.

You claim your god takes actions - action  is a time based concept.

You claim Jesus was god - Jesus, if he existed, existed in Time.