The elusive 'truth'

[floo]

We all have different experiences during our lives, and they are what a person makes of them, it doesn't mean they point to the elusive 'truth'.  People who are convinced a god does exist have no more credibility than those of us who are non believers. My experience has convinced me the Biblical god is a human creation as it  didn't provide any help or comfort when I needed it most, in spite of me pleading with it for assistance Without any evidence to support the existence, or non existence, of a god of any sort, you can only hold on to what seems to make sense to you personally.

[Walter]

what angers me is the arrogance of the deluded.

[floo]

I guess we are all deluded about some things!

[SusanDoris]

what angers me is the arrogance of the deluded.

In many cases it's more of complacency, I think, with a 'we're-so-much-more-blessed' etc attitude.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We all have different experiences during our lives, and they are what a person makes of them, it doesn't mean they point to the elusive 'truth'.  People who are convinced a god does exist have no more credibility than those of us who are non believers. My experience has convinced me the Biblical god is a human creation as it  didn't provide any help or comfort when I needed it most, in spite of me pleading with it for assistance Without any evidence to support the existence, or non existence, of a god of any sort, you can only hold on to what seems to make sense to you personally.

My experience tells me that he isn't a human creation.
How is your experience 'superior' to mine and why should I take it as ''True for me also''?

[torridon]

My experience tells me that he isn't a human creation.
How is your experience 'superior' to mine and why should I take it as ''True for me also''?

I think the positive claim of a universal true for everyone position is what is disputed by atheists.  Your rebuff to Floo is a flavour of the negative proof fallacy - it isn't feasible to make the counter claim of a true for everyone universal absence of experience.  I experience music as something moving and enjoyable but that doesn't mean everyone has that experience; Floo being one of those, I think.

[trippymonkey]

It's a pity that such a large amount of EGO stands up at the slightest provocation on these boards ?!!?!?
Gets in the way of meaningful discussion !?!?!?

Nick

[floo]

My experience tells me that he isn't a human creation.
How is your experience 'superior' to mine and why should I take it as ''True for me also''?

Where did I say my experience is superior to that of others?

[trippymonkey]

Well it MUST be - mustn't it or it wouldn't be worth having, eh?

[floo]

Well it MUST be - mustn't it or it wouldn't be worth having, eh?

Ehhhhhhhhhhh?

[trippymonkey]

Most religions pander to the human ego - Christianity is no different or else why choose it?

[Walter]

My experience tells me that he isn't a human creation.
How is your experience 'superior' to mine and why should I take it as ''True for me also''?

the fact that your 'experience' is imagined only by you, by definition, has no value to the rest of us. Therefore it can be classed as inferior when judged by reality. I have never had your kind of experience so it cannot be measured against yours. But what I do know is , you should keep it to yourself  or risk some severe questioning and ridicule when you broadcast and defend your experiences as truth

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the positive claim of a universal true for everyone position is what is disputed by atheists.  Your rebuff to Floo is a flavour of the negative proof fallacy - it isn't feasible to make the counter claim of a true for everyone universal absence of experience.  I experience music as something moving and enjoyable but that doesn't mean everyone has that experience; Floo being one of those, I think.

I'm sorry but the truth for everyone is either a cosmos with God or a cosmos. Naturalistic explanations are  unavoidably naturalistic and starting off on that foot is always going to be a circular argument.

Again why is Floo's experience the superior experience?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Naturalistic explanations are  unavoidably naturalistic and starting off on that foot is always going to be a circular argument.

Only when you misunderstand or lie about what "naturalism" entails. When you apply its correct meaning though there is no circular argument at all.

Then again, you knew that already didn't you. 

[Hope]

Only when you misunderstand or lie about what "naturalism" entails. When you apply its correct meaning though there is no circular argument at all.

Then again, you knew that already didn't you.

Obviously, if one believes that everything has a merely naturalistic explanation, there is no circular argument.  For those of us who, as a result of experiences and events in our lives (material that will never be accepted by those bound by naturalistic thinking), believe that there is level beyond the naturalistic then the arguments that you come up with are inevitably circular, blue.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Obviously, if one believes that everything has a merely naturalistic explanation, there is no circular argument.  For those of us who, as a result of experiences and events in our lives (material that will never be accepted by those bound by naturalistic thinking), believe that there is level beyond the naturalistic then the arguments that you come up with are inevitably circular, blue.

Of course they'e not. If you seriously think otherwise, try to identify that circularity.

[torridon]

I'm sorry but the truth for everyone is either a cosmos with God or a cosmos. Naturalistic explanations are  unavoidably naturalistic and starting off on that foot is always going to be a circular argument.

I don't see that as circular. Any explanation will be naturalistic because that is in the nature of 'explanation'.  If we invoke magic or supernatural then that is abandonment of any attempt to understand as supernatural is inexplicable by definition.  Supernaturalism is just a form of escapism.

[Walter]

I don't see that as circular. Any explanation will be naturalistic because that is in the nature of 'explanation'.  If we invoke magic or supernatural then that is abandonment of any attempt to understand as supernatural is inexplicable by definition.  Supernaturalism is just a form of escapism.

and the road to madness . Some people think what Derren Brown does is real!

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm sorry but the truth for everyone is either a cosmos with God or a cosmos.

Would it not be more accurate to say
Either a cosmos   or  a cosmos with something else?
Why plonk in God and your god at that? Is that not a wee bit presumptuous?

[Walter]

Would it not be more accurate to say
Either a cosmos   or  a cosmos with something else?
Why plonk in God and your god at that? Is that not a wee bit presumptuous?

I know, the arrogance of these next Tuesdays really gets on my nerves