Why only three days

[BeRational]

It does if you are a God!

So, are you saying that, being God, Jesus could have 'arranged' for his siblings to understand/be convinced?  Where does that leave the gift of free will that we, as humans, are blessed with?

Very simple.
Your beliefs are not chosen. Compelling evidence will force a belief on you

Why does God not give good evidence for his existence?

Why does he act like he does not exist?

What do you think would constitute 'good evidence'?

Why does god not know what will convince me?

Who says he doesn't?

Oh look, you dodged a question. How unusual. What do you think would constitute 'good evidence'?

So if he knows why does he not supply it?

[cyberman]

Why does your God not want people that need clear evidence that cannot easily be undone?

Is there such a thing?

Yes.

I believe London is the capital of England.

That is not easily undone.

"London is the capital of England" isn't evidence, it is a fact. A conclusion, if you like.

It is a belief I have based on evidence.

If God exists that too is a fact. Where is the evidence?

Oh look, you dodged a question. How unusual. Is there such a thing as "clear evidence that cannot easily be undone?"?

[cyberman]

It does if you are a God!

So, are you saying that, being God, Jesus could have 'arranged' for his siblings to understand/be convinced?  Where does that leave the gift of free will that we, as humans, are blessed with?

Very simple.
Your beliefs are not chosen. Compelling evidence will force a belief on you

Why does God not give good evidence for his existence?

Why does he act like he does not exist?

What do you think would constitute 'good evidence'?

Why does god not know what will convince me?

Who says he doesn't?

Oh look, you dodged a question. How unusual. What do you think would constitute 'good evidence'?

So if he knows why does he not supply it?

Oh look, you dodged a question. How unusual. What do you think would constitute 'good evidence'?

 

[Gordon]

I find it fascinating that people are so willing to be taken in by such obviously man made nonsense, bit ghoulish I know, it's a bit like but not exactly like seeing the bearded lady, it's strange we're into the 21st century and we still have people that believe this stuff.

I'd agree, ippy, and point out that, seeing as we are in the 21st century, its strange that so many people believe in stuff that they have never seen, never even experienced - just been told about it by other people who have been told about it by other people - who may have read about it in a journal, which may only give one explanation of the events that are being referred to - several times over.

I take it this another vacuous attempt of yours to portray 'science' (as in the current range of naturalistic knowledge in general) as being on a par with the theobabble, myth and superstition that we hear from some religious people, such as yourself: if so, this this is just an argument from ignorance. 

[BeRational]

Why does your God not want people that need clear evidence that cannot easily be undone?

Is there such a thing?

Yes.

I believe London is the capital of England.

That is not easily undone.

"London is the capital of England" isn't evidence, it is a fact. A conclusion, if you like.

It is a belief I have based on evidence.

If God exists that too is a fact. Where is the evidence?

Oh look, you dodged a question. How unusual. Is there such a thing as "clear evidence that cannot easily be undone?"?

Yes.

The earth orbits the sun and not the other way round.

The evidence we have for this is only readable and understandable with that single outcome.

Also the evidence for evolution from the genome clearly shows common ancestry and is not easily twisted to some other conclusion

[Shaker]

I take it this another vacuous attempt of yours to portray 'science' (as in the current range of naturalistic knowledge in general) as being on a par with the theobabble, myth and superstition that we hear from some religious people, such as yourself: if so, this this is just an argument from ignorance.

Oooooh, that's his favourite.

[Hope]

Do we freely choose our beliefs? How does that work then?

We've had that discussion before and, as I've said several times before, yes we can do so.  As far as I'm aware there is no innate, internal system that stops individuals choosing what they believe; there may be legal or social blocks, but these are external and man-made.  The very fact that there are people here who have chosen to change their belief-systems during their lives would seem to be evidence of that freedom (or are you suggesting that they were forced to chnge them by other people?)

[BeRational]

Do we freely choose our beliefs? How does that work then?

We've had that discussion before and, as I've said several times before, yes we can do so.  As far as I'm aware there is no innate, internal system that stops individuals choosing what they believe; there may be legal or social blocks, but these are external and man-made.  The very fact that there are people here who have chosen to change their belief-systems during their lives would seem to be evidence of that freedom (or are you suggesting that they were forced to chnge them by other people?)

Can you choose to believe something that I ask you to?

[Hope]

I take it this another vacuous attempt of yours to portray 'science' (as in the current range of naturalistic knowledge in general) as being on a par with the theobabble, myth and superstition that we hear from some religious people, such as yourself: if so, this this is just an argument from ignorance.

Oooooh, that's his favourite.

So, can either of you - with your hand on your heart - state that you were in the LHC tunnel at the time that the folk there confirmed the existence of the Higgs-Bosun?  Or do you have to admit that you have only heard it reported on the news, read it in journals and other 'printed materials' and/or from people you know?  Can you be absolutely certain that what was seen/experienced was the Higgs-Bosun, or is it just your belief that it is and that the theory behind the idea is solid?

[BeRational]

I take it this another vacuous attempt of yours to portray 'science' (as in the current range of naturalistic knowledge in general) as being on a par with the theobabble, myth and superstition that we hear from some religious people, such as yourself: if so, this this is just an argument from ignorance.

Oooooh, that's his favourite.

So, can either of you - with your hand on your heart - state that you were in the LHC tunnel at the time that the folk there confirmed the existence of the Higgs-Bosun?  Or do you have to admit that you have only heard it reported on the news, read it in journals and other 'printed materials' and/or from people you know?  Can you be absolutely certain that what was seen/experienced was the Higgs-Bosun, or is it just your belief that it is and that the theory behind the idea is solid?

Boson

[Nearly Sane]

Do we freely choose our beliefs? How does that work then?

We've had that discussion before and, as I've said several times before, yes we can do so.  As far as I'm aware there is no innate, internal system that stops individuals choosing what they believe; there may be legal or social blocks, but these are external and man-made.  The very fact that there are people here who have chosen to change their belief-systems during their lives would seem to be evidence of that freedom (or are you suggesting that they were forced to chnge them by other people?)

That people's views change is merely evidence that they change not that they have chosen to change them. I either believe something or I don't. It isn't something that I make a choice removed from everything else.

[Hope]

Can you choose to believe something that I ask you to?

I believe that - as a human being - I can choose to believe something or not, yes; unless there are legal and societal barriers to stop me.  Even then, I may well choose to believe something in private, but appear to believe something else in public.

[BeRational]

Can you choose to believe something that I ask you to?

I believe that - as a human being - I can choose to believe something or not, yes; unless there are legal and societal barriers to stop me.  Even then, I may well choose to believe something in private, but appear to believe something else in public.

Okay.

Believe that God does not exist.

Can you do that?

If not why not?

[Hope]

Boson

Thanks for that BR.  I know how to spell it, but I always seem to see a ship/boat whenever I hear the word and consequently spell it wrongly!!

[Hope]

Believe that God does not exist.

Can you do that?

Yes, as a human being, I could do so.

If not why not?

The evidence I have been presented with over the years precludes me from making that choice.

[Shaker]

For me to disbelieve in the results of the LHC experiments (the Higgs boson not definitively confirmed beyond all and any reasonable doubt, by the way) I would have to believe that scientists and engineers and so forth, internationally numbering almost certainly in the hundreds of thousands altogether at least, every single one of them highly trained for years, have subverted the usual standards of the scientific method - peer review included - and concocted a worldwide conspiracy to conceal the truth or put out misinformation.

If I were that credulous I'd be believing in Jesus.

[BeRational]

Believe that God does not exist.

Can you do that?

Yes, I could do so.

If not why not?

The evidence I have been presented with over the years precludes me from making that choice.

But that is the whole point!!!!!!!!!!

The evidence forces a belief. Beliefs are emergent and NOT chosen as you have just admitted.

Therefore beliefs are NOT chosen!

[Nearly Sane]

Believe that God does not exist.

Can you do that?

Yes, as a human being, I could do so.

If not why not?

The evidence I have been presented with over the years precludes me from making that choice.

You aren't making any sense here, if you are precluded from doing something then you have no choice, and you do not have free will in your belief

[Hope]

For me to disbelieve in the results of the LHC experiments (the Higgs boson not definitively confirmed beyond all and any reasonable doubt, by the way) I would have to believe that scientists and engineers and so forth, internationally numbering almost certainly in the hundreds of thousands altogether at least, every single one of them highly trained for years, have subverted the usual standards of the scientific method - peer review included - and concocted a worldwide conspiracy to conceal the truth or put out misinformation.

If I were that credulous I'd be believing in Jesus.

OK, over the centuries, similar numbers of people have studied the stories about God and Jesus, more recently using scientific means such as literary criticism and linguistic principles and have come to the conclusion that 'yes, they are valid' or 'no, they aren't valid'.  Some have started from a 'believing' point of view; others from a 'non-believing' one. Are you suggesting to us that only those who come to the latter conclusion are to be trusted? 

Is it really true that hundres of thousands of scientists have been involved in the Higgs-Boson (yeh, I spelt it right this time!!) project?  Not quite sure what engineers have to do with the issue since they only build at the instruction of the scientists, they don't (unless they are scientists as well, in which case they would count as scientists for this situation) do the experimentation.

I am also aware that 'the Higgs boson (has) not (been) definitively confirmed beyond all and any reasonable doubt', by the way.  However, there do seem to be those for whom the work at the LHC is sufficient for them to believe that it has been.  Not very scientific, I know, but then there are scientists and 'scientists'.

[BeRational]

Hope

Did you see the point that if the evidence for God as you see it precludes you from believing he does not exist. Do you accept that you have no choice in forming the belief that God exists?

[Nearly Sane]

For me to disbelieve in the results of the LHC experiments (the Higgs boson not definitively confirmed beyond all and any reasonable doubt, by the way) I would have to believe that scientists and engineers and so forth, internationally numbering almost certainly in the hundreds of thousands altogether at least, every single one of them highly trained for years, have subverted the usual standards of the scientific method - peer review included - and concocted a worldwide conspiracy to conceal the truth or put out misinformation.

If I were that credulous I'd be believing in Jesus.

OK, over the centuries, similar numbers of people have studied the stories about God and Jesus, more recently using scientific means such as literary criticism and linguistic principles and have come to the conclusion that 'yes, they are valid' or 'no, they aren't valid'.  Some have started from a 'believing' point of view; others from a 'non-believing' one. Are you suggesting to us that only those who come to the latter conclusion are to be trusted? 

Is it really true that hundres of thousands of scientists have been involved in the Higgs-Boson (yeh, I spelt it right this time!!) project?  Not quite sure what engineers have to do with the issue since they only build at the instruction of the scientists, they don't (unless they are scientists as well, in which case they would count as scientists for this situation) do the experimentation.

I am also aware that 'the Higgs boson (has) not (been) definitively confirmed beyond all and any reasonable doubt', by the way.  However, there do seem to be those for whom the work at the LHC is sufficient for them to believe that it has been.  Not very scientific, I know, but then there are scientists and 'scientists'.

Scientific means are methodologically naturalustic. They cannot be used to determine supernaturalistic claims. It's only a couple of days since I last raised this with you and asked you for your supernaturalistic methodology for more than the 50th time. I presume you are just going to runaway from the issue yet again

[Shaker]

OK, over the centuries, similar numbers of people have studied the stories about God and Jesus, more recently using scientific means such as literary criticism and linguistic principles and have come to the conclusion that 'yes, they are valid' or 'no, they aren't valid'.

How do these allegedly scientific (i.e. by definition methodologically naturalistic) techniques determine that the supernatural claims in the aforementioned stories are valid?

[Hope]

You aren't making any sense here, if you are precluded from doing something then you have no choice, and you do not have free will in your belief

NS, you are making even less sense.  I am able, as a human being, to make a choice about one or more action/belief/etc.  As a human being, there is nothing stopping me making that choice.  As an educated human being I choose to make that choice based on the evidence.  As can be seen, there are often occasions when the same evidence results in more than one choice (take those in Tunisia, recently, some of whom chose to stay in the country and others who chose to come home early).  I fully accept that there may be legal or societal hindrances to making that choice - look at the numbers of places where changing one's political or faith position can result in one being disowned by your community, perhaps imprisoned and/or tortured - perhaps even executed - but those are man-made hindrances, not barriers that are intrinsic to being a human being.

[Hope]

Hope

Did you see the point that if the evidence for God as you see it precludes you from believing he does not exist. Do you accept that you have no choice in forming the belief that God exists?

I did 'see' the point you tried to make (and rather ungrammatically have tried to repeat here).  However, I believe that you are working from a false premis with that 'point'; I have therefore only 'seen' it with my eyes.

[Shaker]

Well chaps; I think we can conclude that after years of searching we have finally found the one person in the world apparently prepared to defend the stance that he can consciously choose what to believe.