Why didn't Jesus appear to his mother?

[jeremyp]

You rule it out because it stops you reasoning about the Universe. So basically you rule it out because you want to.

Yes, that's a pretty good reason to rule it out. I want to reason about the Universe, I do not want to be sitting around saying "godidit".

Notice that, by ruling it out, we have made really good progress in understanding the Universe. I'd say that's good evidence that the Universe does not have miracles in it, but of course, God could have designed it to look like there are no miracles.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

You rule it out because it stops you reasoning about the Universe. So basically you rule it out because you want to.

No, you can rule it out because there's nothing to rule in - it's incoherent, white noise etc so not truth apt.

[Maeght]

Maeght,

No, you can rule it out because there's nothing to rule in - it's incoherent, white noise etc so not truth apt.

Nonsense.

[ippy]

Easier if you explained yourself.

Even easier if you explained why you seem to not understand what seems obvious to others.

I think it's you that needs to do the explaining why you don't understand, unless you're one of the posters that doesn't understand anything short of a multi paged thesis.

Regards ippy

[Maeght]

Yes, that's a pretty good reason to rule it out. I want to reason about the Universe, I do not want to be sitting around saying "godidit".

So you can decide not to consider it but you can't rule it out of any discussions if others are happy to rule it in.

Notice that, by ruling it out, we have made really good progress in understanding the Universe. I'd say that's good evidence that the Universe does not have miracles in it, but of course, God could have designed it to look like there are no miracles.

Indeed, it is possible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Nonsense.

Fine, so perhaps you'd like to be the first person ever to provide a coherent definition for "God" then so we'd finally have something that at least conceptually could be an answer to something.   

[Maeght]

Even easier if you explained why you seem to not understand what seems obvious to others.

I think it's you that needs to do the explaining why you don't understand, unless you're one of the posters that doesn't understand anything short of a multi paged thesis.

Regards ippy

It wasn't clear what you wondered Alan might or might not know about.
That 'You cannot rule out the supernatural by inductive reasoning'
That 'The supernatural has no limits.   You can imagine anything, and it's as likely as anything else.'
That 'Or to put it another way, if God can do magic, how do you know that he didn't just place illusions into his followers' heads so they just believed Jesus rose from the dead when he didn't.'

All points made in posts before yours.

[Maeght]

Maeght,

Fine, so perhaps you'd like to be the first person ever to provide a coherent definition for "God" then so we'd finally have something that at least conceptually could be an answer to something.

What relevance does that have to whether or not you can discount miracles on the basis of such things not normally happening?

[jeremyp]

So you can decide not to consider it but you can't rule it out of any discussions if others are happy to rule it in.

If you want to have a discussion using reason and evidence, you have to rule out the possibility that there is a God behind the scenes just making stuff up. As soon as you say "for God, all things are possible", that's the end of the conversation.

Although I have to ask, if all things are possible for God, why was it necessary to have Jesus crucified?

[Maeght]

If you want to have a discussion using reason and evidence, you have to rule out the possibility that there is a God behind the scenes just making stuff up. As soon as you say "for God, all things are possible", that's the end of the conversation.

So you are ruling something out just so you can have a discussion?

Although I have to ask, if all things are possible for God, why was it necessary to have Jesus crucified?

No idea. As a theologian perhaps. I'm sure they'll come up with something.

[jeremyp]

So you are ruling something out just so you can have a discussion?

Essentially yes, although it goes much further than that. All of science relies on the implicit assumption that there is God does not perform arbitrary miracles.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

What relevance does that have to whether or not you can discount miracles on the basis of such things not normally happening?

It's relevant because "miracle" is incoherent so isn't "not normally happening" apt.   

[Maeght]

Essentially yes, although it goes much further than that.

Trouble is I really don't see much discussion going on anyway. Rather each 'side' makes its arguments from different world view pints and we go round and round. To me the only point of this forum is to point out mistaken ideas on evolution, science,and what atheism is. The rest is generally pointless.

All of science relies on the implicit assumption that there is God does not perform arbitrary miracles.

I don't think Science does God. It makes observations on the natural world but doesn't rule out other stuff.

[Maeght]

Maeght,

It's relevant because "miracle" is incoherent so isn't "not normally happening" apt.

Which has nothing to do with a definition of God does it?

Could you explain why this is incoherent and what you mean.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Which has nothing to do with a definition of God does it?

Could you explain why this is incoherent and what you mean.

It has everything to do with "the definition of God" (or more accurately, with the absence of one).

"God" is incoherent because it's not defined in any way. You may as well say "pixies", or for that matter "u97869786jh". It's just white noise, information free static. If you want to use "God" as the answer to something then you need first to explain what you mean by it. That's what ignosticism entails - essentially, "I have no idea what you mean by "God" and nor have you, so there's nothing to discuss until you do".

In practice though most of the discussions here play a sort of unspoken game in that they assume that the term has been defined and then consider the (always bad) arguments for it as if it had.   

[ippy]

It wasn't clear what you wondered Alan might or might not know about.
That 'You cannot rule out the supernatural by inductive reasoning'
That 'The supernatural has no limits.   You can imagine anything, and it's as likely as anything else.'
That 'Or to put it another way, if God can do magic, how do you know that he didn't just place illusions into his followers' heads so they just believed Jesus rose from the dead when he didn't.'

All points made in posts before yours.

Ref j p's post 226, how can the suggestion offered in post 226 be ruled out of a selection of possibilities?

When you look at the things A B persistently adheres to throughout all of his posts, why this needs to be explained I don't know, it's hardly surprising he manages to attract some flack, there are several posters giving him some flack, now do you understand or are you completely without humour, does everything have to be written as though we are writing a watertight legal document? There are times when you're allowed to lighten up Maeght.

Regards ippy

[Maeght]

Maeght,

It has everything to do with "the definition of God" (or more accurately, with the absence of one).

"God" is incoherent because it's not defined in any way. You may as well say "pixies", or for that matter "u97869786jh". It's just white noise, information free static. If you want to use "God" as the answer to something then you need first to explain what you mean by it. That's what ignosticism entails - essentially, "I have no idea what you mean by "God" and nor have you, so there's nothing to discuss until you do".

Don't see what it has to do with it, but there you go.

In practice though most of the discussions here play a sort of unspoken game in that they assume that the term has been defined and then consider the (always bad) arguments for it as if it had.   

They do. One of the many unspoken games on here.

[Maeght]

Ref j p's post 226, how can the suggestion offered in post 226 be ruled out of a selection of possibilities?

Who ruled it out?

When you look at the things A B persistently adheres to throughout all of his posts, why this needs to be explained I don't know, it's hardly surprising he manages to attract some flack, there are several posters giving him some flack, now do you understand or are you completely without humour, does everything have to be written as though we are writing a watertight legal document? There are times when you're allowed to lighten up Maeght.

Regards ippy

I'm not without humour thanks. Just couldn't see any in your post or really understand the point you were trying to make. Suggesting people don't have a sense of humour and telling them to lighten up when they don't get a post you made is a common defensive mechanism and a disappointing one to see you use.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Maeght,

It has everything to do with "the definition of God" (or more accurately, with the absence of one).

"God" is incoherent because it's not defined in any way. You may as well say "pixies", or for that matter "u97869786jh". It's just white noise, information free static. If you want to use "God" as the answer to something then you need first to explain what you mean by it. That's what ignosticism entails - essentially, "I have no idea what you mean by "God" and nor have you, so there's nothing to discuss until you do".

In practice though most of the discussions here play a sort of unspoken game in that they assume that the term has been defined and then consider the (always bad) arguments for it as if it had.   

A lot of the time the discussions are around what the concept of God means to individual theists - other theists seem to not really have a problem understanding what the concept means to the theist who is using the term, even though every theist might not share the same concept, because there is a shared understanding that God is expressed through ideas and stories, rather than something to be measured and tested.

For example, in Islam the concept involves monotheism and Allah is described as the eternal, the absolute, who begets not, nor is begotten (which is just another way of saying eternal) and that there is nothing else like Allah.

[ippy]

Who ruled it out?

I'm not without humour thanks. Just couldn't see any in your post or really understand the point you were trying to make. Suggesting people don't have a sense of humour and telling them to lighten up when they don't get a post you made is a common defensive mechanism and a disappointing one to see you use.

You say you're not without humour, nor am trying to write watertight legal documents here.

Regards ippy

[Maeght]

You say you're not without humour, nor am trying to write watertight legal documents here.

Regards ippy

Have never asked you to.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

A lot of the time the discussions are around what the concept of God means to individual theists - other theists seem to not really have a problem understanding what the concept means to the theist who is using the term, even though every theist might not share the same concept, because there is a shared understanding that God is expressed through ideas and stories, rather than something to be measured and tested.

For example, in Islam the concept involves monotheism and Allah is described as the eternal, the absolute, who begets not, nor is begotten (which is just another way of saying eternal) and that there is nothing else like Allah.

I think after stating that God isn't defined or definable Hillside then goes on to define God as that which is logically contradictory. He then uses his usual ruse of reeling of examples of the logical contradictory as proof of his assertion. Shoddy I know but he thinks he has covered his bases.

[bluehillside Retd.]

I think after stating that God isn't defined or definable Hillside then goes on to define God as that which is logically contradictory. He then uses his usual ruse of reeling of examples of the logical contradictory as proof of his assertion. Shoddy I know but he thinks he has covered his bases.

The stupidity is deep with this one.

1. I have no idea what I mean by “leprechauns”.

2. Leprechauns are musical.

3. Leprechauns are tone deaf.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The stupidity is deep with this one.

1. I have no idea what I mean by “leprechauns”.

2. Leprechauns are musical.

3. Leprechauns are tone deaf.

Now Hillside is chasing the Base by entertainingly plucking Leprechauns out of his philosophical spiv's overcoat and making them do tricks.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

4. Leprechauns are the real gods.

Hillside is a devotee.