Evangelising young children

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It does not give an answer so your method is no good.

Another poster, the moderation and I are setting something up. It is taking weeks to come to fruition. I am sure it will happen at a suitable time.

I am heartened that you in fact understood my instructions or at least interpreted them.

Did you want it to work? Did you want knowledge of God to be revealed through a relationship with God?

[BeRational]

Another poster, the moderation and I are setting something up. It is taking weeks to come to fruition. I am sure it will happen at a suitable time.

I am heartened that you in fact understood my instructions or at least interpreted them.

Did you want it to work? Did you want knowledge of God to be revealed through a relationship with God?

I would love nothing more.

Is it real or just imagined?

Do you have a real method that ensures success?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would love nothing more.

Is it real or just imagined?

Do you have a real method that ensures success?

If you would love nothing more than a relationship with God then I suggest you are not completely alienated toward him.

On the other hand and speculating on God's attitude based on someone wanting confirmation that God was another item IN the universe to be treated as such and I was NOT that, would I want you to come away with the wrong end of the stick and give you what was false or misleading information about myself? Not really sure....there may be a case not to answer.

Mercifully it's finally between you and God.....It's your journey, not mine.

[Sebastian Toe]

Without prejudice toward yourself

It is possible not to be genuine in this.
I did warn about having expectations but, rather be expectant
D) God is not a gumball machine....also if you have expectations you could be waiting a long time.

Why would I have to wait a long time?

If I don't have expectations,  then for how long should I wait?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is all just an excuse for the method failing.

Either you have a method to test this god or you don't.

Blaming other people for not being genuine is absurd.

Why not just accept that you believe in god for bad reasons.

No, I am aware of people for whom such an approach has worked,
even eventually after time.

So how can you say the method has failed.

I guess it's like people for whom marriage doesn't work, they think others must be faking marital bliss or success.

[Sebastian Toe]

even eventually after time.

after what time?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

after what time?

Sometimes years.

[BeRational]

No, I am aware of people for whom such an approach has worked,
even eventually after time.

So how can you say the method has failed.

I guess it's like people for whom marriage doesn't work, they think others must be faking marital bliss or success.

So you can just keep saying it has not worked yet.

This is crazy and is not a method just an excuse for failure

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you can just keep saying it has not worked yet.

This is crazy and is not a method just an excuse for failure

But apparently it has worked.
Also you sound as if you want all variables to be independent and control variables.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

after what time?

I cannot say.

[BeRational]

But apparently it has worked.
Also you sound as if you want all variables to be independent and control variables.

There is no evidence that it works just assertion.

When I try the method it fails which gives a no go answer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is no evidence that it works just assertion.

When I try the method it fails which gives a no go answer.

....So why isn't your statement that it doesn't work NOT just assertion?

[torridon]

Did you want it to work? Did you want knowledge of God to be revealed through a relationship with God?

It would be far better for knowledge of God to be revealed through science.  Then we can be more confidant it is something real, and not just a trick of the mind that some people seem to be adept at, others not. Like Mulder, people who want to believe will find a way to convince themselves somehow or other, that is why we had to derive scientific method. to remove the personal, the subjective, and all the biases that come with individual minds to inch closer to real objective truth.

[Nearly Sane]

How could a naturalistic method that explicitly excludes non naturalistic claims do this? it doesn't reveal morality or beauty. Science is extraordinary but I suspect we overload it with demands. It cannot even reveal who won the FA Cup in 1927, or what a 'game' is.

[Nearly Sane]

....So why isn't your statement that it doesn't work NOT just assertion?

It is. They both are. That's why it is essentially not a method

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It would be far better for knowledge of God to be revealed through science.  Then we can be more confidant it is something real, and not just a trick of the mind that some people seem to be adept at, others not. Like Mulder, people who want to believe will find a way to convince themselves somehow or other, that is why we had to derive scientific method. to remove the personal, the subjective, and all the biases that come with individual minds to inch closer to real objective truth.

Your post appeals to some pretty vague ideas on psychological incompetence which are then generalised.

When I have mentioned science in this thread it is analogous.
Given that, the speed at which I suspect some opponents have tried a suggestion to punt a message into the cloud of unknowing about God and concluding that there is nothing there, is astonishing given it takes at least two or three days to cultivate a petri dish.

[torridon]

How could a naturalistic method that explicitly excludes non naturalistic claims do this? it doesn't reveal morality or beauty. Science is extraordinary but I suspect we overload it with demands. It cannot even reveal who won the FA Cup in 1927, or what a 'game' is.

Yes that is right I think.  The claim that humans can have knowledge of, or a relationship with something, implies that that something is part of the natural order.  That of course contradicts the companion claim that god is supernatural.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes that is right I think.  The claim that humans can have knowledge of, or a relationship with something, implies that that something is part of the natural order.  That of course contradicts the companion claim that god is supernatural.

I think you are claiming the totality of cosmos for science here whereas NS strikes me that he is talking about science having limits in successfully describing what you have termed nature.

[BeRational]

....So why isn't your statement that it doesn't work NOT just assertion?

Because the method was tried and failed.

If the method is sound it will work EVERY time

[Nearly Sane]

Yes that is right I think.  The claim that humans can have knowledge of, or a relationship with something, implies that that something is part of the natural order.  That of course contradicts the companion claim that god is supernatural.

Why imbue the natural order with this slightly mystic tinge? Given we can't break out of hard solipsism, we need to be careful about moving beyond the practical to dreams of truthiness.


Note for any theists going down this route and agreeing with me, that's enormously problematic for all truth claims as it attacks the notion of truth. Agreeing with this means you can never cite another person's views or beliefs as in any way related to yours (hard solipsism again).

[Nearly Sane]

Because the method was tried and failed.

If the method is sound it will work EVERY time

ergo medicine isn't science.

[BeRational]

ergo medicine isn't science.

Yes it is

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because the method was tried and failed.

So far that is an assertion.
How long was it between you starting the experiment and concluding that it had failed?
It sounds like you have turned a dependent variable (time taken for result to appear) into an independent variable ( If it doesn't happen within X minutes it hasn't worked)

[Nearly Sane]

Yes it is

But there are different results at different times so it by your approach is neither a method nor science.

[BeRational]

But there are different results at different times so it by your approach is neither a method nor science.

Yes it is