How The Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Even if your faith seems to you to be like something distinct from knowledge you think you hold, which is what you seem to be saying, why do you feel inclined to believe (as in have faith in) in what you are told that doesn't correspond to any knowledge you hold? Surely you need to critique what you are told, else you'd end up having faith in everything and anything that is told to you - and I suspect you don't.   

Your method for finding the 'truth about God' is what exactly? It sounds to me like your approach to this 'truth' is entirely subjective: might you be wrong?

Make up your mind Gordon either you want to go along in faith with what you are told or you want to critique what you are told.
What is it about the world that tells you that God is an unreasonable proposition? I can agree with every piece of researched and peer reviewed piece of science you agree to. So on what basis do we differ? Matters that are not established or disestablished by science.

Corporate religion too is agreed and there is corporate worship and fellowship as opposed to the new atheists fantasy of religious people always at odds with each other.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad’s not answered my point about how I did love, accept and seek but couldn’t find what I once had. I was hoping he could tell me where I was going wrong, or at least explain why it happened.

Perhaps it might help if you explained what happened in more detail. I believe I have shared my testimony in some detail. Do you feel you could do that?

[Rhiannon]

Perhaps it might help if you explained what happened in more detail. I believe I have shared my testimony in some detail. Do you feel you could do that?

I’ve done it on here several times.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are, I assume, forgetting that you are betting against the god that will punish you for your baseless beliefs in your chosen myth. What is more, that god is actually unfalsifiable, whereas the sort of god you are trying to convince us about is falsified by the argument I gave above.

The stakes are far higher for you than those of us rejecting your contradictory god...

No you are asking to accept some of your definitions and beliefs concerning love and what you find baseless. etc. These are not scientific matters and are debateable in reason.
Besides why do you think your God has any more base than mine? And what does finding a god with base do for your claim that God is baseless?

[Gordon]

Make up your mind Gordon either you want to go along in faith with what you are told or you want to critique what you are told.

The latter: you see I'm aware that humans are fallible.

What is it about the world that tells you that God is an unreasonable proposition?

The arguments offered by proponents of God are all clearly flawed, and therefore the God claim is unreasonable as argued by them.

I can agree with every piece of researched and peer reviewed piece of science you agree to. So on what basis do we differ?

On matters that are not within the scope of science and where there seems to be no alternative methodology to assess claims.

Matters that are not established or disestablished by science.

See above.

Corporate religion too is agreed and there is corporate worship and fellowship as opposed to the new atheists fantasy of religious people always at odds with each other.

Maybe not always, but often enough: the terms 'religious wars' and 'religious conflict' come to mind and can be applied throughout history right up to the present day. You'd have thought that by now this God would have done something about the constant in-fighting among theists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I’ve done it on here several times.

can you reference it. I cannot recall reading it.

[Rhiannon]

can you reference it. I cannot recall reading it.

It would have been a while ago. Think there’s a potted version on SforG but the fuller ones have probably gone in one of the purges.

I used to post about it because it interested me I guess. It doesn’t much now but if I get the time and can be bothered I’ll post it at some point.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The latter: you see I'm aware that humans are fallible.

The arguments offered by proponents of God are all clearly flawed, and therefore the God claim is unreasonable as argued by them.

On matters that are not within the scope of science and where there seems to be no alternative methodology to assess claims.

See above.

Maybe not always, but often enough: the terms 'religious wars' and 'religious conflict' come to mind and can be applied throughout history right up to the present day. You'd have thought that by now this God would have done something about the constant in-fighting among theists.

We can use philosophy and metaphysics.
Again What part of science is evidence of philosophical naturalism or scientism?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It would have been a while ago. Think there’s a potted version on SforG but the fuller ones have probably gone in one of the purges.

I used to post about it because it interested me I guess. It doesn’t much now but if I get the time and can be bothered I’ll post it at some point.

Thanks

What is SforG?

[Gordon]

We can use philosophy and metaphysics.

So we can, and yet there are still these bad arguments being advanced by theists.

Again What part of science is evidence of philosophical naturalism or scientism.

No idea: you'll need to ask a proponent of philosophical naturalism or scientism (which I'm not). Do you know anyone here who fits that description?

[Rhiannon]

Thanks

What is SforG?

The Searching for God thread.

[Stranger]

No you are asking to accept some of your definitions and beliefs concerning love and what you find baseless. etc. These are not scientific matters and are debateable in reason.

I have no idea what this is about.

Besides why do you think your God has any more base than mine?

I don't - that's the point. You have been wittering on for ages about how we are taking a 'punt' by ignoring something without supporting evidence or argument just because it is unfalsifiable, so can't be 100% ruled out.

The god I've just 'discovered' is similarly free from those pesky arguments and evidence and is also totally unfalsifiable.

On the other hand, your god has been falsified, see #345.

And what does finding a god with base do for your claim that God is baseless?

You really should try to pay more attention...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have no idea what this is about.

I don't - that's the point. You have been wittering on for ages about how we are taking a 'punt' by ignoring something without supporting evidence or argument just because it is unfalsifiable, so can't be 100% ruled out.

The god I've just 'discovered' is similarly free from those pesky arguments and evidence and is also totally unfalsifiable.

On the other hand, your god has been falsified, see #345.

Just and fairminded are not scientific terms Stranger. Nothing therefore can be falsified on these terms.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea: you'll need to ask a proponent of philosophical naturalism or scientism (which I'm not). Do you know anyone here who fits that description?

Anyone appealing to science in a non scientific context e.g. claiming that God can be falsified in terms of fairness and Justice.

[SteveH]

Just and fairminded are not scientific terms Stranger. Nothing therefore can be falsified on these terms.

If a supposedly just and fair God appears to behave unjustly and unfairly, that falsifies that God's existence. Who says that you can only falsify something in scientific terms?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If a supposedly just and fair God appears to behave unjustly and unfairly, that falsifies that God's existence. Who says that you can only falsify something in scientific terms?

justice and fairness are not scientific and atheists would treat them as subjective and relative. If they are absolutes it is evident that humans do not have a proper handle on them and only something which is capable of realising Justice and fair-mindedness perfectly would give sense to the concept of absolute fairness and justice. A natural world would not have that capability.

[SteveH]

Justice and fairness are objective and absolute. Punishing a guilty person is just; punishing an innocent one is unjust, beyond a peradventure in each case.

[Stranger]

Just and fairminded are not scientific terms Stranger. Nothing therefore can be falsified on these terms.

It really doesn't matter - the subjective human understanding of justice and fairness will suffice. If the god in question is not fair-minded in the way humans generally understand the term, then it can't be trusted to behave according to that understanding with regard to its message and any promises contained therein. All bets, as they say, would be off.

Your fictional 'punt' is undermined - as if it wasn't daft enough to begin with...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Justice and fairness are objective and absolute. Punishing a guilty person is just; punishing an innocent one is unjust, beyond a peradventure in each case.

Which is of course the beginning of the moral argument for God.
A form of which says if fairness and justice are just made up then each individuals sense will be different and treating ones own as being more fair and just is not justified. Fairness and justice becomes debateable
If fairness is absolute then what represents or embodies or is it? It cannot be a human since experience militates against that conclusion.It cannot be nature since material energy is neutral in that respect since itcan be turned to good or bad. It must therefore be embodied in something capable of justice and fairmindedness absolutely.

[Nearly Sane]

Justice and fairness are objective and absolute. Punishing a guilty person is just; punishing an innocent one is unjust, beyond a peradventure in each case.

in your opinion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It really doesn't matter - the subjective human understanding of justice and fairness will suffice.

Good luck with that one old boy since human understanding of justice and fairness is by no means agreed.

[Nearly Sane]

Which is of course the beginning of the moral argument for God.
A form of which says if fairness and justice are just made up then each individuals sense will be different and treating ones own as being more fair and just is not justified. Fairness and justice becomes debateable
If fairness is absolute then what represents or embodies or is it? It cannot be a human since experience militates against that conclusion.It cannot be nature since material energy is neutral in that respect since itcan be turned to good or bad. It must therefore be embodied in something capable of justice and fairmindedness absolutely.

Leaving aside question of whether they ate absolutes, why would a concept need to be embodied?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It really doesn't matter - the subjective human understanding of justice and fairness will suffice.

Since when have you guys allowed subjective human understanding to suffice?
When it suits apparently.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Leaving aside question of whether they ate absolutes, why would a concept need to be embodied?

Alright then freefloating. Should you insist though on irrealism you would be back to individual conceptions of fairness and justice.
Can fair mindedness be free floating? Surely that suggests a mind and fairness the dispensation of same from a source.

[SteveH]

in your opinion.

Now you're being silly.