Author Topic: Searching for GOD...  (Read 1959684 times)

Steve H

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3370
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27825 on: April 03, 2018, 12:21:05 PM »
Are you open to the fact that you may be wrong about Islam, and they may be right about some other god?

If not, then you are closed minded.
You don't give the impression of being open to the fact that you may be wrong.
"That bloke over there, from Ultravox, is so childish."
"Him? Midge Ure?"
"Yes, very."

BeRational

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8385
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27826 on: April 03, 2018, 01:40:05 PM »
You don't give the impression of being open to the fact that you may be wrong.

Then you misunderstand me.

I am completely open to being wrong. I am wrong lots of time, and at least twice today!

Your god may exist and be exactly the way you describe him/her/it.

You could be completely correct on this, and I could be completely wrong.

Not sure I can be more open than that, but if so, please let me know.

Can you say you are open to the fact that you could be wrong, and there is no god or gods?

I see gullible people, everywhere!

Steve H

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3370
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27827 on: April 03, 2018, 01:49:23 PM »
Then you misunderstand me.

I am completely open to being wrong. I am wrong lots of time, and at least twice today!

Your god may exist and be exactly the way you describe him/her/it.

You could be completely correct on this, and I could be completely wrong.

Not sure I can be more open than that, but if so, please let me know.

Can you say you are open to the fact that you could be wrong, and there is no god or gods?
OK, you are open-minded. Yes, I am as well - I'm a very liberal Christian, and have stopped believing twice in my life, last time in the early 90s, when I got as far as joining the British Humanist Association and the Rationaist Press Association. I still consider myself a humanist as well as a Christian.
"That bloke over there, from Ultravox, is so childish."
"Him? Midge Ure?"
"Yes, very."

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14243
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27828 on: April 03, 2018, 01:56:30 PM »
Gabriella,

Quote
Nope - doesn't work. I keep explaining your mistake and you keep making it. I asked for evidence that AB has claimed to have objective evidence of the existence of God rather than testimony or experience for his belief in God. Since faith is an important aspect of may religions it wouldn't be faith if there was objective evidence.

Because it’s not a mistake. What he said (Reply 27831) was:

"But I can find no arguments to support the existence of leprechauns, but overwhelming evidence for the existence of God."

So far as he’s concerned, praying for an event then that event happening is objective evidence for god. You might not think it is, but that’s his claim nonetheless.

Quote
Testimony and experience can lead to people making decisions for the way they lead their life as if something was an objective fact. However, without the objective evidence it remains a belief. Why are you finding this so hard to grasp?

Because you’re wrong again - you’re confusing “as if” truths with epistemic “definitely is” truths. AB (and others) think their various faith claims (“god” etc) are categorical facts about the world rather than just beliefs that inform the way they live their lives. In other words, he thinks that his god is necessarily therefore my god too.     

Quote
What I said in #27495 was "can you refer me to the post where I introduced forensics into the conversation as I thought I had been talking about testimony as evidence that other people may/may not find credible, so not sure what I am supposed to have said about forensics." and further on I said that I was talking about testimony and wasn't referring to forensics". These statements were based on me using a different dictionary meaning of "forensics" from you.

Wrong again. I asked you why you’d introduced forensics into the conversation. You said that you hadn’t. I explained that you had, and why. You then said that your denial referred only to one specific definition of the term. As I first raised the term though, then the primary meaning I intended stands. QED 

Quote
When you clarified the meaning you were using I explained I was using a different meaning. Explaining that to you is not dishonest - you really don't seem to understand some of the words you use. I agree that I was talking about forensics based on the meaning you were using - I even thanked you for clarifying your meaning.

Doesn’t work – see above. The only “clarification” explained that you’d denied introducing the term by retrospectively narrowing the denial to one specific meaning of it.

Oh, and the irony of “you really don't seem to understand some of the words you use” is clearly lost on you here – the meaning was precisely as I and the dictionary intended it to be - ie, "related to court proceedings". 

Quote
You are entitled to your opinion. You do this a lot by the way - when you are caught out with no evidence to back up your claims you try to wriggle out of your embarrassing situation by asserting that you have falsified arguments or corrected me, despite having no evidence to back up that claim either. I go quiet by the way because I have a job - get used to it. But don't worry - I don't forget that I am in a discussion with you and come back to it when time permits.

As we both know that that’s not true, why bother with it? I even found AB’s quote in a subsequent Reply, albeit that you ignored it (see above). Your other trick is to demand evidence when the truths are axiomatic: advertising works (that’s why there’s a big industry doing it); there’s no special reason for religion to be exempt from that principle; declining “sales” isn’t evidence of an exemption (some products are just unsellable) etc. Demanding then evidence that advertising works for religion as it does for anything else is just shifting the burden of proof. If you think that for some reason religion isn’t advertising apt, it’s your job to explain why.     

Quote
And your use of the word "us" isn't fooling anyone - you do that a lot too - try to pretend that a number of people agree with you as though that adds credibility to your un-evidenced assertions. I have read the RC documents and to me it's a document that explains beliefs and values - there is no claim that science (the only method we currently have for proving objective fact) has proved any of their beliefs as objective fact.

Nice straw man there. No-one said that it does claim that science does that. In fact it just skips that bit and goes straight to “it’s factually true”. Apparently as true as the earth orbiting the sun and germs causing diseases. You might think that science is “the only method we currently have for proving objective fact” (your terminology is askew by the way – science doesn’t claim to “prove” anything, but rather to provides tentative models that are in principle falsifiable), but the point is that the RCs it seems don’t – and so they teach their “facts” without it.       

Quote
When you present some evidence to falsify me, rather than assertions, we can look at my reaction to the evidence and see if your opinion is reasonable.

I have. That and logic.

Quote
If having a discussion with someone who disagrees with your assertions is so difficult for you, maybe a debate forum is not the correct place for you.

To the contrary, if someone actually did engage with the arguments rather than endlessly distract, divert, prevaricate, put up straw men etc I’d be happy to respond in kind. Very few religious believers here seem willing or able to do that though – not sure why.     

Quote
Usually you don't link to quotes or evidence to support your assertions - that's my experience of you. Maybe after Easter AB can clarify if he meant objective evidence testable by science or if he meant evidence in the form of testimony and experience.

See above. I quoted him just a few posts after the one you replied to. Perhaps you missed it?
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 07:23:55 PM by bluehillside Retd. »
"To understand via the heart is not to understand."

Michel de Montaigne

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6356
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27829 on: April 03, 2018, 03:39:14 PM »
If you are using committed as synonymous with being intolerant, I profoundly disagree with this.
I find it very surprising that you can consider that torridon would write something indicating that committed was equivalent to being intolerant. If you read his posts consistently, I do not think you can find a post which would imply that.
Quote
I have found that commitment to Islam has strengthened my identity and opened me up to so much more than I was open to when I was an atheist
As an atheist, I am always aware that I must allow for the possibility, however vanishingly small, of a god appearing one day with objective evidence to back it up. Do you take a similar position from your Islamic point of view?


The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.

Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7104
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27830 on: April 05, 2018, 11:29:26 AM »
Gabriella,

Because it’s not a mistake. What he said (Reply 27831) was:

"But I can find no arguments to support the existence of leprechauns, but overwhelming evidence for the existence of God."

So far as he’s concerned, praying for an event then that event happening is objective evidence for god. You might not think it is, but that’s his claim nonetheless.
Are you claiming to be a mind reader? Because I can't find the word "objective" in AB's reply. I see the word "evidence" and the word "overwhelming" but maybe you can point out where the word "objective" appears - did the word "objective" transfer from AB's mind to your mind and bypassed the forum altogether?

That his experience of praying and his prayers being answered gives him the impression or is evidence for him for his concept of God, does not make it objective evidence that has been investigated and tested.

Quote
Because you’re wrong again - you’re confusing “as if” truths with epistemic “definitely is” truths. AB (and others) think their various faith claims (“god” etc) are categorical facts about the world rather than just beliefs that inform the way they live their lives. In other words, he thinks that his god is necessarily therefore my god too.
Nope, you're wrong again. The key word in your sentence "AB (and others) think their various faith claims (“god” etc) are categorical facts about the world"  is "think".

Thinking or accepting it to be true without objective evidence is a belief. Establishing it to be true makes it a fact, until new evidence proves an alternative fact. So if you could provide a link to AB saying he has evidence of the objective kind to prove God a fact, I would be happy to take a look 

Quote
Wrong again. I asked you why you’d introduced forensics into the conversation. You said that you hadn’t. I explained that you had, and why. You then said that your denial referred only to one specific definition of the term. As I first raised the term though, then the primary meaning I intended stands. QED
Which bit are you asserting (as usual without evidence) to be wrong? Are you asserting that I didn't say in #27495 "can you refer me to the post where I introduced forensics into the conversation as I thought I had been talking about testimony as evidence that other people may/may not find credible, so not sure what I am supposed to have said about forensics." 

Or are you asserting, without evidence, that I didn't say further on (#27536) that I was talking about testimony and wasn't referring to forensics?

You then explained that you were using meaning 1 of the Merriem-Webster online dictionary for "forensics" and I explained that I was using meaning 3 in the Merriem-Webster definition and meaning 1 of the Oxford online dictionary and the Cambridge online dictionary, and thanked you for clarifying which meaning you were using. The evidence for this statement is in #27564.

So, we have my evidence for my statements on the forum in the replies I have provided numbers for. Over to you for your evidence for your assertions. By the way, you failed to explain what was dishonest about me explaining I had assumed a different dictionary meaning from you in my responses. Perhaps you can explain why you called it dishonest. The only explanation I can come up with is that you don't understand the meaning of the word "dishonest". Or a possible explanation is that you like to throw out accusations in the hope of distracting us from your failure to provide evidence to support your assertions. It doesn't work.

Quote
Oh, and the irony of “you really don't seem to understand some of the words you use” is clearly lost on you here – the meaning was precisely as I and the dictionary intended it to be - ie, "related to court proceedings".
Please explain the irony part. Are you claiming that it's impossible for you to misuse a word, simply because you understood the meaning of "forensics" when you used it? It's perfectly possible you understood how to correctly use "forensics" in a sentence but got yourself into problems understanding how to correctly use the word "dishonestly".

Quote
As we both know that that’s not true, why bother with it? I even found AB’s quote in a subsequent Reply, albeit that you ignored it (see above).
As we both know you have yet to find a quote where AB said he had objective evidence, why are you still pretending you have justified your assertions?
Quote
Your other trick is to demand evidence when the truths are axiomatic: advertising works (that’s why there’s a big industry doing it); there’s no special reason for religion to be exempt from that principle; declining “sales” isn’t evidence of an exemption (some products are just unsellable) etc. Demanding then evidence that advertising works for religion as it does for anything else is just shifting the burden of proof. If you think that for some reason religion isn’t advertising apt, it’s your job to explain why.
Your trick is to assert that advertising works as an argument for a conclusion you have reached about religious privilege, and keep blustering about how you don't need to provide evidence to justify your claim when you are challenged, in the hope that if you repeat it enough times the person challenging your assertion will just give up. It won't work. It's your job to justify your claim in relation to religion - your claim, your burden of proof.

By the way, the existence of a big advertising industry is not evidence for a claim that advertising works in a particular situation. I explained where you went wrong before - to know if something has worked in a particular situation, you need to prove it with metrics, by identifying the organisation's goals, identifying KPIs that can be used to monitor if those goals have been reached and identify and investigate any variances. Sensible people don't just assume it has worked.   

Quote
Nice straw man there. No-one said that it does claim that science does that. In fact it just skips that bit and goes straight to “it’s factually true”. Apparently as true as the earth orbiting the sun and germs causing diseases.
Which page number and paragraph in the document does it state this? Or is this another one of your claims that you can't evidence?
Quote
You might think that science is “the only method we currently have for proving objective fact” (your terminology is askew by the way – science doesn’t claim to “prove” anything, but rather to provides tentative models that are in principle falsifiable), but the point is that the RCs it seems don’t – and so they teach their “facts” without it.
I see them teaching beliefs. The evidence for this is that the document is about Religious Education and religion is a belief or faith system, hence it is an education about a particular belief. If you want quotes from the document it says on page 3 (or page 6 of the PDF), para 4 "Religious Education has developed in a way that reflects the particular identity of our Catholic schools in England and Wales. It teaches about the faith in the context of a school which proclaims the Gospel, and invites the individual to respond to the message of Christ...." (my emphasis).

Your turn. All you have provided here is your belief that they are somehow teaching facts without objective evidence, though you seem at a loss to explain how you are categorising their beliefs as "facts" as opposed to their faith.         

Quote
I have. That and logic.
Nope - you've provided your assertions and opinions. While  interesting, other opinions are available. 

Quote
To the contrary, if someone actually did engage with the arguments rather than endlessly distract, divert, prevaricate, put up straw men etc I’d be happy to respond in kind. Very few religious believers here seem willing or able to do that though – not sure why.
Interesting opinion - others are available. 

Quote
See above. I quoted him just a few posts after the one you replied to. Perhaps you missed it?
His quote does not contain the word "objective". Try again.
“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14610
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27831 on: April 05, 2018, 12:48:52 PM »
Perhaps Alan, when he reads recent posts, could advise whether or not he considers 'God' to be an objective fact: that it exists in the universe independently of any beliefs relating to it.

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6356
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27832 on: April 05, 2018, 01:25:09 PM »
Perhaps Alan, when he reads recent posts, could advise whether or not he considers 'God' to be an objective fact: that it exists in the universe independently of any beliefs relating to it.
That would be a real bonus if in fact he did so. It is more likely that he will respond, if he does respond, with an unrlated comment.

AB: Prove me wrong.
The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7356
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27833 on: April 05, 2018, 01:47:37 PM »
Perhaps Alan, when he reads recent posts, could advise whether or not he considers 'God' to be an objective fact: that it exists in the universe independently of any beliefs relating to it.
Having recently enjoyed the wonderful, joy filled celebrations of Easter with fellow Christians, it is truly depressing and sad to return to the dreadful negativity put forward to deny God's existence on this forum. 

Of course God's existence is an objective fact.  For anything to exist at all, there has to be an ultimate source for any existence - and it is not in this material universe which itself came into existence from a source beyond our understanding.

What saddens me, and God I feel, is that humans are so capable of wilfully refuting any evidence for God by using their God given gifts of intelligence and free thought to concoct reasons not to believe.  I feel the key to discover God will only be found if you truly want to search for Him.  The Devil will always provide an abundance of reasons not to believe for those who do not wish to find God.
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32
Truth is not an abstraction, but a person - Edith Stein
Free Will is the highest truth about humanity - GK Chesterton

floo

  • Guest
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27834 on: April 05, 2018, 01:51:32 PM »
Having recently enjoyed the wonderful, joy filled celebrations of Easter with fellow Christians, it is truly depressing and sad to return to the dreadful negativity put forward to deny God's existence on this forum. 

Of course God's existence is an objective fact.  For anything to exist at all, there has to be an ultimate source for any existence - and it is not in this material universe which itself came into existence from a source beyond our understanding.

What saddens me, and God I feel, is that humans are so capable of wilfully refuting any evidence for God by using their God given gifts of intelligence and free thought to concoct reasons not to believe.  I feel the key to discover God will only be found if you truly want to search for Him.  The Devil will always provide an abundance of reasons not to believe for those who do not wish to find God.

Oh AB, as had been said times without number, there is NO evidence to verify the existence of your version of god, or any other. Yes one could exist, but if it remains in hiding then it must expect non believers to be sceptical, and if it punishes them for non belief it is evil!

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7356
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27835 on: April 05, 2018, 01:53:50 PM »
Oh AB, as had been said times without number, there is NO evidence to verify the existence of your version of god, or any other. Yes one could exist, but if it remains in hiding then it must expect non believers to be sceptical, and if it punishes them for non belief it is evil!
And as I have said many times - you are the evidence.
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32
Truth is not an abstraction, but a person - Edith Stein
Free Will is the highest truth about humanity - GK Chesterton

Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7104
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27836 on: April 05, 2018, 01:55:53 PM »
Perhaps Alan, when he reads recent posts, could advise whether or not he considers 'God' to be an objective fact: that it exists in the universe independently of any beliefs relating to it.
He could do. And AB might well think God is a fact, but if has no objective evidence that can be tested, then all he has is a belief that God is a fact. He has no evidence that could prove his belief to be true. 

The discussion that BHS and I are having, per reply #27500

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.27500

is whether Alan claimed to have objective evidence for God.

BHS claims that Alan has claimed to have objective evidence for God. I was asking BHS to provide evidence that Alan claimed to have objective evidence.

As far as I can see Alan has claimed to have overwhelming evidence for his concept of God, which could be objective (testable) or it could be subjective i.e. his experience, feelings and/or other people's testimony.
“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

floo

  • Guest
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27837 on: April 05, 2018, 02:01:17 PM »
And as I have said many times - you are the evidence.

In your opinion, NOT in mine or that of others! ::)

Stranger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4787
  • Freedom evolves.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27838 on: April 05, 2018, 02:01:39 PM »
What saddens me, and God I feel, is that humans are so capable of wilfully refuting any evidence for God...

I'll ask again: where is this evidence?

...by using their God given gifts of intelligence and free thought to concoct reasons not to believe.

There is no reason to "concoct" reasons not to believe, the total lack of evidence or reasoning for any of the many, many gods that humans do and have worshipped, is quite reason enough to disbelieve.

I feel the key to discover God will only be found if you truly want to search for Him.

Once again: so why is god hiding or allowing itself to be hidden? If it's as important as you make out that we know of god's message and respond to it, it would actually make god unfair and unjust if it did not make its existence and its message clear to everybody.

And as I have said many times - you are the evidence.

Trite and ridiculous.
x(∅ ∈ x ∧ ∀y(yxy ∪ {y} ∈ x))

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14610
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27839 on: April 05, 2018, 03:11:23 PM »
He could do. And AB might well think God is a fact, but if has no objective evidence that can be tested, then all he has is a belief that God is a fact. He has no evidence that could prove his belief to be true. 

The discussion that BHS and I are having, per reply #27500

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.27500

is whether Alan claimed to have objective evidence for God.

BHS claims that Alan has claimed to have objective evidence for God. I was asking BHS to provide evidence that Alan claimed to have objective evidence.

As far as I can see Alan has claimed to have overwhelming evidence for his concept of God, which could be objective (testable) or it could be subjective i.e. his experience, feelings and/or other people's testimony.

In response to my previous post Alan says:


Of course God's existence is an objective fact. 


Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33539
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27840 on: April 05, 2018, 03:17:35 PM »
In response to my previous post Alan says:
Isn't that just in line with Gabriella's position. That Alan Burns may well regard god as an objective fact BUT that doesn't mean he is stating that the evidence is testable?


That said when he further writes 'What saddens me, and God I feel, is that humans are so capable of wilfully refuting any evidence for God by using their God given gifts of intelligence and free thought to concoct reasons not to believe', then I think that he is certainly close to arguing hat the evidence is objective.


As ever the issue here is what would be evidence for such a claim.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14243
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27841 on: April 05, 2018, 03:46:13 PM »
Gabriella,

Briefly:

Quote
Are you claiming to be a mind reader? Because I can't find the word "objective" in AB's reply. I see the word "evidence" and the word "overwhelming" but maybe you can point out where the word "objective" appears - did the word "objective" transfer from AB's mind to your mind and bypassed the forum altogether?

That his experience of praying and his prayers being answered gives him the impression or is evidence for him for his concept of God, does not make it objective evidence that has been investigated and tested.


You’re terribly confused. He thinks he has objectively true evidence because the claim he thinks this (supposed) evidence (supposedly) validates is an objectively true one – ie, he thinks that its validating “god” for him means it must also therefore validate the same god for me if only I’d realise it. 

Quote
Nope, you're wrong again. The key word in your sentence "AB (and others) think their various faith claims (“god” etc) are categorical facts about the world"  is "think".

Thinking or accepting it to be true without objective evidence is a belief. Establishing it to be true makes it a fact, until new evidence proves an alternative fact. So if you could provide a link to AB saying he has evidence of the objective kind to prove God a fact, I would be happy to take a look

You’re embarrassing yourself now. He “thinks” his god is my god in just the same way that I “think” the earth orbiting the sun is as true for him as it is for me. That his confidence in his supposed evidence is entirely misplaced is neither here no there – that’s his claim nonetheless.

Quote
Which bit are you asserting (as usual without evidence) to be wrong? Are you asserting that I didn't say in #27495 "can you refer me to the post where I introduced forensics into the conversation as I thought I had been talking about testimony as evidence that other people may/may not find credible, so not sure what I am supposed to have said about forensics." 

Or are you asserting, without evidence, that I didn't say further on (#27536) that I was talking about testimony and wasn't referring to forensics?

You then explained that you were using meaning 1 of the Merriem-Webster online dictionary for "forensics" and I explained that I was using meaning 3 in the Merriem-Webster definition and meaning 1 of the Oxford online dictionary and the Cambridge online dictionary, and thanked you for clarifying which meaning you were using. The evidence for this statement is in #27564.

So, we have my evidence for my statements on the forum in the replies I have provided numbers for. Over to you for your evidence for your assertions. By the way, you failed to explain what was dishonest about me explaining I had assumed a different dictionary meaning from you in my responses. Perhaps you can explain why you called it dishonest. The only explanation I can come up with is that you don't understand the meaning of the word "dishonest". Or a possible explanation is that you like to throw out accusations in the hope of distracting us from your failure to provide evidence to support your assertions. It doesn't work.

You got something wrong and I corrected it. You know as well as I do that when I said “forensics’ you thought it meant, “to do with bodies and stuff” or similar (there’s no shame in that by the way – most people do) and so you denied it without bothering to look it up. When I explained that it could just mean “concerning court proceedings” so used it correctly, you then dissembled into denying one secondary definition of it as if that in some way invalidated what I’d said.   

Rather than keep twisting the wind about this with ever more convoluted post rationalisations why not just accept it and move on?

Quote
Please explain the irony part. Are you claiming that it's impossible for you to misuse a word, simply because you understood the meaning of "forensics" when you used it? It's perfectly possible you understood how to correctly use "forensics" in a sentence but got yourself into problems understanding how to correctly use the word "dishonestly".

This is bonkers. It was ironic because you accused me of not understanding a word I’d used when in fact I’d used it perfectly correctly.

Quote
As we both know you have yet to find a quote where AB said he had objective evidence, why are you still pretending you have justified your assertions?

Stop digging – see above. AB thinks he has objective evidence for an objectively true god. If he thought he had only subjective evidence for his personal belief “god”, then he couldn’t make the claim. Repeatedly telling me that he can’t have objective evidence is neither here nor there – that’s what he thinks he has, however daft his position.   

Quote
Your trick is to assert that advertising works as an argument for a conclusion you have reached about religious privilege, and keep blustering about how you don't need to provide evidence to justify your claim when you are challenged, in the hope that if you repeat it enough times the person challenging your assertion will just give up. It won't work. It's your job to justify your claim in relation to religion - your claim, your burden of proof.

By the way, the existence of a big advertising industry is not evidence for a claim that advertising works in a particular situation. I explained where you went wrong before - to know if something has worked in a particular situation, you need to prove it with metrics, by identifying the organisation's goals, identifying KPIs that can be used to monitor if those goals have been reached and identify and investigate any variances. Sensible people don't just assume it has worked.

Why are you doing this to yourself? If you think that for some mysterious reason advertising works for all goods and services except for religion, then it’s your job to explain why it’s the exception. Until you do, there’s no reason to think otherwise. (You might also by the way want to explain your thinking to the US evangelicals in particular who spend $ms on it every year.)   

Quote
Which page number and paragraph in the document does it state this? Or is this another one of your claims that you can't evidence?

It’s been evidenced already. If you can’t or won’t read it, that’s not my problem.

Quote
I see them teaching beliefs. The evidence for this is that the document is about Religious Education and religion is a belief or faith system, hence it is an education about a particular belief. If you want quotes from the document it says on page 3 (or page 6 of the PDF), para 4 "Religious Education has developed in a way that reflects the particular identity of our Catholic schools in England and Wales. It teaches about the faith in the context of a school which proclaims the Gospel, and invites the individual to respond to the message of Christ...." (my emphasis).

Oh dear. What it thinks is that its beliefs are objectively true facts about the world. It doesn’t think, “God exists, but only for RCs” or similar, and it thinks this presumably because it also thinks “faith” is a reliable means of identifying these supposedly objectively true facts about the world.

You can dissemble and obfuscate about this as much as you like, but that’s what they claim. That you and I might think the claim to be utter rowlocks is neither here nor there – that’s the claim nonetheless, which is why it teaches these things precisely as facts to the pupils who attend its schools.     

Quote
Your turn. All you have provided here is your belief that they are somehow teaching facts without objective evidence, though you seem at a loss to explain how you are categorising their beliefs as "facts" as opposed to their faith.

See above. How or why they think their faith claims are objectively factually true is a problem for them, not for me.         

Quote
Nope - you've provided your assertions and opinions. While  interesting, other opinions are available.

Unless you finally manage actually to engage with the reasoning that undoes you, this is not something you can know to be the case.

Quote
Interesting opinion - others are available.

Time for your nap I think.   

Quote
His quote does not contain the word "objective". Try again.

Nor does it say, “and this evidence is written on a piece of paper”. There’s no need to try again as it’s a slam dunk in any case – see above variously.
"To understand via the heart is not to understand."

Michel de Montaigne

floo

  • Guest
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27842 on: April 05, 2018, 03:46:42 PM »
Isn't that just in line with Gabriella's position. That Alan Burns may well regard god as an objective fact BUT that doesn't mean he is stating that the evidence is testable?


That said when he further writes 'What saddens me, and God I feel, is that humans are so capable of wilfully refuting any evidence for God by using their God given gifts of intelligence and free thought to concoct reasons not to believe', then I think that he is certainly close to arguing hat the evidence is objective.


As ever the issue here is what would be evidence for such a claim.

AB reckons that because humans inhabit this plant that is evidence enough to prove his take on faith. ::)
« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 03:54:13 PM by Littleroses »

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14610
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27843 on: April 05, 2018, 03:48:34 PM »
Isn't that just in line with Gabriella's position. That Alan Burns may well regard god as an objective fact BUT that doesn't mean he is stating that the evidence is testable?


That said when he further writes 'What saddens me, and God I feel, is that humans are so capable of wilfully refuting any evidence for God by using their God given gifts of intelligence and free thought to concoct reasons not to believe', then I think that he is certainly close to arguing hat the evidence is objective.


As ever the issue here is what would be evidence for such a claim.

Indeed: Alan clearly claimed that 'God' is an objective fact, and he seems to that feel that is so to his personal satisfaction, and it is his subjective feeling that God is indeed objective seems to be what Gabriella is highlighting - but for Alan to imply, as he does, that 'God' is objective surely requires him to substantiate his claim of objectivity using appropriate methods that are mutually exclusive of any subjective beliefs.

As you say, his claims of objectivity stands or falls on his supporting evidence (and the methods used), and if in making this claim he avoids explicitly stating how it is testable then, it seems to me, he is misusing the term 'objective'.     

Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7104
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27844 on: April 05, 2018, 03:50:58 PM »
Isn't that just in line with Gabriella's position. That Alan Burns may well regard god as an objective fact BUT that doesn't mean he is stating that the evidence is testable?


That said when he further writes 'What saddens me, and God I feel, is that humans are so capable of wilfully refuting any evidence for God by using their God given gifts of intelligence and free thought to concoct reasons not to believe', then I think that he is certainly close to arguing hat the evidence is objective.


As ever the issue here is what would be evidence for such a claim.
That's what I would like AB to clarify. I have read a selection of his posts and all I keep reading about as his claims of evidence is testimony and experience e.g. his personal experience (Jesus making himself known to him) or faith or his belief in free will or other people's testimony of miracles that he couldn't substantiate with testable evidence .

AB feeling sad about people "wilfully refuting any evidence for God" could just mean refuting experiences that he thinks are evidence for God e.g seeing the sun or the moon or our ability to conceptualise or hearing people say they prayed and their prayers were answered.

I haven't seen a post where AB has claimed he has testable evidence - there might well be such a post since I haven't read the whole thread.

Challenging AB's testimony and not believing it is the default position, because as AB is hopefully aware, testimony is usually challenged unless testable evidence is provided that turns the testimony into fact.

He can feel sad and depressed that his testimony is not automatically believed but still feel it is his duty to keep testifying nonetheless. He probably feels equally sad and depressed when people do believe testimony, when that testimony is "there is no god but Allah and Mohamed is his messenger".
“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33539
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27845 on: April 05, 2018, 04:00:44 PM »
That's what I would like AB to clarify. I have read a selection of his posts and all I keep reading about as his claims of evidence is testimony and experience e.g. his personal experience (Jesus making himself known to him) or faith or his belief in free will or other people's testimony of miracles that he couldn't substantiate with testable evidence .

AB feeling sad about people "wilfully refuting any evidence for God" could just mean refuting experiences that he thinks are evidence for God e.g seeing the sun or the moon or our ability to conceptualise or hearing people say they prayed and their prayers were answered.

I haven't seen a post where AB has claimed he has testable evidence - there might well be such a post since I haven't read the whole thread.

Challenging AB's testimony and not believing it is the default position, because as AB is hopefully aware, testimony is usually challenged unless testable evidence is provided that turns the testimony into fact.

He can feel sad and depressed that his testimony is not automatically believed but still feel it is his duty to keep testifying nonetheless. He probably feels equally sad and depressed when people do believe testimony, when that testimony is "there is no god but Allah and Mohamed is his messenger".


The idea that people in some way have to wilfully refute evidence though even if it is about experiences, puts him in a position pf appearing to argue that the  evidence is there for all and is in that sense objective, rather than personal.

However I think  whether Alan thinks it is objective or subjective evidence is secondary to establishing what might be any form of evidence for the claim of a god existing.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33539
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27846 on: April 05, 2018, 04:06:14 PM »
Indeed: Alan clearly claimed that 'God' is an objective fact, and he seems to that feel that is so to his personal satisfaction, and it is his subjective feeling that God is indeed objective seems to be what Gabriella is highlighting - but for Alan to imply, as he does, that 'God' is objective surely requires him to substantiate his claim of objectivity using appropriate methods that are mutually exclusive of any subjective beliefs.

As you say, his claims of objectivity stands or falls on his supporting evidence (and the methods used), and if in making this claim he avoids explicitly stating how it is testable then, it seems to me, he is misusing the term 'objective'.     

But he isn't as Gabriella has been pointing out saying that the evidence is objective. I think that much of his posting lines up that way and makes little sense otherwise but he might be arguing that the subjective 'evidence' is somehow enough for him and in his opinion for others to believe that God exists.


Again though, I think this is at base a specious debate until it can be agreed what might be evidence for his claim, as currently the claim seems incoherent.

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6356
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27847 on: April 05, 2018, 04:18:22 PM »
It seems to me that Gabriella has added a couple of new twists to her previous posts, but I am not sure because it is impossible for me to check back through.
The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14243
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27848 on: April 05, 2018, 04:28:50 PM »
NS,

Quote
But he isn't as Gabriella has been pointing out saying that the evidence is objective. I think that much of his posting lines up that way and makes little sense otherwise but he might be arguing that the subjective 'evidence' is somehow enough for him and in his opinion for others to believe that God exists.

Surely claiming to have “overwhelming evidence” (or indeed any evidence) to validate a claim about an objectively true fact (ie, “god”) means that the claimed objectivity of that evidence is baked in necessarily doesn’t it? If instead he said, “I have evidence that “The Haywain” is a great painting” or similar then you (and Gabriella) would have a point – is he claiming to have subjective evidence for its greatness or objective evidence for its greatnesss? etc. When though he claims that his evidence validates an objectively true fact about the world, then the objectivity of that evidence is a necessary pre-condition for the claim to be made at all.

Gabriella incidentally is missing the point by demanding to know where specifically he used the word “objective” – if I say that I have evidence for the earth orbiting the sun, I don’t bother to include the prefix “objective” to indicate that I think this evidence is objective. When AB prays for an unlikely event and that event happens, so far as he’s concerned that is objective evidence for an intercessionist god. If the thought otherwise, why would he bother telling us about it?       

Quote
Again though, I think this is at base a specious debate until it can be agreed what might be evidence for his claim, as currently the claim seems incoherent.

Well yes – all “god claims” that I know of are incoherent, hence ignosticism as the response to them. It seems to me that these discussions all play a kind of unspoken game though: “OK, let’s both pretend that we know what one of us actually means when he asserts “god” and then we’ll examine the arguments for it” kind of thing.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2018, 04:49:02 PM by bluehillside Retd. »
"To understand via the heart is not to understand."

Michel de Montaigne

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33539
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #27849 on: April 05, 2018, 04:47:20 PM »
It just serms to me a waste if time to discuss what type of evidence is being used if you haveb't agreed what constitutes evidence for this type of claim.