Author Topic: Searching for GOD...  (Read 1812708 times)

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13854
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34100 on: January 05, 2019, 03:50:41 PM »
Gabriella,

Quote
Ok. Here is the citation:
http://www.catholiceducation.org.uk/images/RECD_2012.pdf

Page 6

The aims of Religious Education:


1.To present engagingly a comprehensive content which is the basis of knowledge and understanding of the Catholic faith;

Ah yes – thank you for reminding me of the document and of your penchant for selective quoting. Sadly for you though the same document also says variously stuff like:

“The primary purpose of Catholic Religious Education is to come to know and understand God’s revelation which is fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. The Catholic school is ‘a clear educational project of which Christ is the foundation.’ 6 In the person of Christ, the deepest meaning of what it is to be human — that we are created by God and through the Holy Spirit united with Christ in his Incarnation — is discovered. 7 This revelation is known through the scriptures and the tradition of the Church as taught by the Magisterium.”

“…thus the Gospel will impregnate the mentality of the students in the field of their learning, and the harmonization of their culture will be achieved in the light of faith.”

“It is necessary, therefore, that Religious Education in schools be regarded as an academic discipline with the same systematic demands and the same rigour as other disciplines. It must present the Christian message and the Christian event with the same seriousness and the same depth with which other disciplines present their knowledge. However, it should not simply be regarded as one subject among many, but should be the key element in an inter-disciplinary dialogue. The presentation of the Christian message influences the way in which, for example, the origins of the world, the sense of history, the basis of ethical values, the function of religion in culture, the destiny of the human person, and our relationship with nature, are understood. Religious Education in schools underpins, activates, develops and completes the educational and catechetical activity of the whole school.”

“Though we can know God with certainty by natural reason, there is another order of knowledge: the order of divine Revelation. Through grace, God has revealed himself and given himself to human beings. This he does by revealing the mystery, his plan of loving goodness, formed from all eternity in Christ, for the benefit of all people. God has fully revealed this plan by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.”

“Creation is the action of the Trinity, the first step towards the covenant relationship God seeks with all of humanity. Pupils are taught that each human person is created in the image of God and called by grace to a covenant relationship with God and responsibility for stewardship of God’s creation. The Father, through the Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit constantly draws each of us to this mystery, seeking a free and personal response. Pupils come to realise that human nature is challenged in the struggle to choose God alone above all other temptations.”

“Pupils are offered knowledge and understanding of God’s Self-Revelation and the covenant-relationship as the way to reach their fullness in Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God. He is truly God and truly human. In him the entire revelation of the most high God is summed up. His life, death and resurrection are the core events of human history and the heart of our faith. His cross is the ultimate sacrifice for each of us. Jesus reveals the truth and love of God through himself; truly human, truly God. Jesus is presented to our pupils as the perfect response to God through his own intimate communion with his Father.”

“God’s Self-Revelation is made perfect in us by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth. This truth was promised by Jesus and revealed at Pentecost. Through the Holy Spirit people are formed and guided to become God’s people through knowing God. Our pupils are invited to enter into a communion with God through Jesus Christ.”

“To be a Catholic is to be a member of the one true Church of Christ. While elements of truth can be found in other churches and religions, the fullness of the means of salvation subsists in the Catholic Church.”


Notice anything there? How about the absence of a “but this stuff is just our faith” in favour of “true”, “truth”, “truly”, “certain”, “knowledge”, “impregnate the mentality” (such a revealing phrase!), “present the Christian message and the Christian event with the same seriousness and the same depth with which other disciplines present their knowledge”, "Pupils are taught that each human person is created in the image of God and called by grace to a covenant relationship with God and responsibility for stewardship of God’s creation", “creation is….”, “made perfect”, “one true Church” etc?

Hmmm…

Quote
Yes this is all very interesting if Alan was using the philosophical terms as above. However, back to the way Alan is using words on this forum when discussing his beliefs.

So again you seem to think you know that Alan is using words in some way other than their everyday meaning? They’re not even “philosophical” words either – “real”, “exists” etc mean what they commonly mean. For him, a “soul” is every bit as real as the Eiffel tower is real to you – more so in fact because he refuses to accept even the possibility that he could be wrong about that. Ask him – he’ll tell you so himself if you do.

Quote
Alan’s belief about dualism being true is not worked probabilistically (as there is no method to calculate a probability, even if he was inclined to do so) but seems to be based on his perceptions of reality (assuming we are not all in a Matrix) and also based on his belief that the immaterial mind/ soul/ consciousness has separate properties from the physical body and is therefore not 'out there' in the sense it can be objectively proved. No one has identified the properties of the mind/soul/consciousness therefore he can’t test or justify his beliefs about these properties.

“Out there” just means “not mind created” – and it’s exactly what he thinks a “soul” to be. He‘s said so so many times there’s no reason to think he actually means something else however much you try to guess that he does.   

Quote
That’s something Alan would have to clarify as to whether he sees a difference between my experience of visiting the Eiffel Tower and his experience of free will.  I can take Alan to the Eiffel Tower and we can climb up it and both agree that we are experiencing the Eiffel Tower in pretty much the same way. But if Alan and I can’t agree that I am experiencing dualism or the influence of a soul the same way that he appears to be experiencing it, this would create a difference in his perception of the Eiffel Tower vs soul. He would however, continue to believe that an immaterial soul/ conscious awareness is true but without being able to show a justification that would cause me to share his belief that the soul/ conscious awareness is true.

I just explained all this to you and you dismissed it with a “that’s all very interesting but….”. Again, for him a “soul” is every bit as real as the Eiffel tower is to both of you. He’s as bemused at your inability to agree with him about “soul” as you would be if you took him to Paris and he said, “there’s no Eiffel tower here”. Your conclusion that he’d be the one with the problem for not seeing it is exactly what he thinks about you for not seeing “soul”. In his head they’re epistemically the same thing.   

Quote
Hardly surprising. He doesn't have evidence that would convince you, which means he restates his belief of what's true without being able to justify it to the satisfaction of others, presumably because one of the reasons he is on here is to evangelise.

Nope. His problem isn’t that he doesn’t have evidence that would convince me – it’s that he doesn’t have evidence at all. You can test this because to claim evidence he has to set the bar so low that it lets in anything else that may pop into someone’s head – leprechauns included. And that means that if we accept his claim of evidence then anything else that meets the same evidential standard must also be accepted on the same basis, or we conclude that he doesn’t have evidence at all.   
 
Quote
I was not comparing Alan’s belief about souls with Alan’s beliefs about gender. I was comparing Alan’s beliefs about souls and dualism with the beliefs held by some entirely separate transgender activist who does believe in dualism when it comes to gender and does see it as fact rather than an opinion. And the actual point I made was that society seems to be able to accommodate this form of dualism as fact.


Here’s what you said in Reply 33909 when you attempted an analogy between “soul” and gender:

Quote
While I don't have a problem with this thread going round and round in circles, I am not really seeing why a belief in this particular concept - AB's idea of his soul being him - is any more problematic than other beliefs in concepts that people never agree on. For example, it's unlikely the "no need for it" line of argument would work with a transgender person - e.g. telling them what they believe is their reality is a spurious concept because it doesn't feel like your reality, or because people cannot agree on the definitions and how the concept works. We seem to be a complex species which probably leads to our complex realities.

As has been explained to you several times now th analogy fails, and whether it’s AB’s concept of gender or anyone’s else’s concept of gender that that you’re trying to compare to his concept of “soul” makes no difference to that. 

Quote
The reason it isn't false is because I am comparing 2 types of dualism, as I have explained in pretty much every post I wrote since I made the comparison.

Not in Reply 33909 you didn’t. If you want to argue instead for a different type of dualism though, by all means give it a go.     

Quote
You have not proved that I am not being honest so your request for honesty is just your usual irrelevant, ineffective "schtick".

Wrong again. I explained to you what “analogy” means, I showed you where you’d tried it, and I explained why it failed. You could easily have said, “OK, those are the words I used but on reflection…” or similar, but instead you just shifted ground. Dishonesty can be both by commission and by omission.   

Quote
"Hard to pin me down"? Thanks for another example from your repertoire on here.

When anyone shifts ground rather than address a problem that makes them hard to pin down. Now you’ve worked through “here’s an analogy”; “it’s not an analogy”; “I’m just telling you how I treat his claims”; and (I think) back to “OK, it’s an analogy” you’ll understand the confusion.   

Quote
I don't just make one point at a time, so it is possible in a single post for for me to interpret Alan's words and also tell you how I treat his claims. It does not need to be either/or.

I know you do, but that’s different from trying different replies to the same question.

Quote
You haven't shown as false the comparison between Alan's dualism and the dualism of a transgender activist who believes gender to be innate and fact. And like I said, my point was that society seems to accommodate some forms of dualism.

I have falsified the analogy you attempted in Reply 33909. I haven’t attempted to falsify any revisions to your position you’ve made since 


« Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 05:15:05 PM by bluehillside Retd. »
"To understand via the heart is not to understand."

Michel de Montaigne

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6184
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34101 on: January 05, 2019, 04:31:06 PM »
bluehillside

With dogma and doctrine like that quoted being taught to so many people, and to children particularly, it is  desperately sad to realise that ignorance of reality will continue for generations.

It is all very well having as a human right the freedom to believe and worship as people wish - and I would uphold that right - but there should be a much more important statement, and that is that no-one should have the right to teach as objective truth that which is not.
The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13854
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34102 on: January 05, 2019, 05:21:09 PM »
Hi Susan,

Quote
With dogma and doctrine like that quoted being taught to so many people, and to children particularly, it is  desperately sad to realise that ignorance of reality will continue for generations.

It is all very well having as a human right the freedom to believe and worship as people wish - and I would uphold that right - but there should be a much more important statement, and that is that no-one should have the right to teach as objective truth that which is not.

Well yes – the various statements they claim as “true”, “certain” etc aren’t qualified with an “according to our faith” or similar. For them, if it’s their faith then it is true necessarily – as true as the facts taught in any other discipline. More true in fact given the supposed impossibility of being wrong. There’s also a bit in there somewhere that begins, “we offer pupils the opportunity….”. Some “offer” eh? So what happens exactly if you decline this offer? 
"To understand via the heart is not to understand."

Michel de Montaigne

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10644
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34103 on: January 05, 2019, 05:52:05 PM »
So if a religious person says that it's the truth that Jesus was the son of God or talks about following the true faith - those are assertions based on their subjective, internal spiritual conviction. It might sound 'arrogant' but if a Christian is asked the question "do you think Jesus being the son of God is true?" the simple answer is "yes" because that is their belief.
No shit Sherlock.

But that is about belief - and if you ask an atheist "do you think Jesus being the son of God is true?" the simple answer is "no" because that is their belief.

Neither has any greater credence than the other, without evidence. And both are merely opinions, beliefs - but they are made about an objective claim - that Jesus is the son of god. Neither tells us anything about the truth of whether Jesus actually is the son of god.

So the only meaningful truth in that subjective belief or opinion is that it is true that person x believes that Jesus is the son of god. Just as it is equally true that person y does not believe that Jesus is the son of god.

Now subjective 'truths' about subjective claims - i.e. something which is inherently subjective, such as whether I like cheese, are reasonable as there is no right or wrong answer and each person can hold a different subjective claim - each has a different 'truth'. But subjective beliefs about objective claims are inherently weak in terms of 'truth'. As there is a real, objective truth out there - regardless of whether people believe the world to be flat, or to be round - there is objectively an overarching truth (the world is either flat or round) that trumps any notion of subjective 'truth'. Indeed the presence of an objective truth (we might not know the answer yet but the answer exists) makes the term 'truth' about subjective belief or opinion applied to an objective claim unsustainable in my opinion.

Ultimately in those circumstances there is no 'truth' in the claim, the only truth is that is it is true that person x believes that Jesus is the son of god. Just as it is equally true that person y does not believe that Jesus is the son of god. The truth, such as it is, related only the existence of the belief, not to the veracity of the claim.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 06:08:23 PM by ProfessorDavey »

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13854
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34104 on: January 05, 2019, 06:08:58 PM »
Hi Prof,

Quote
No shit Sherlock.

But that is about belief - and if you ask an atheist "do you think Jesus being the son of God is true?" the simple answer is "no" because that is their belief.

Neither has any greater credence than the other, without evidence. And both are merely opinions, beliefs - but they are made about an objective claim - that Jesus is the son of god. Neither tells us anything about the truth of whether Jesus actually is the son of god.

So the only meaningful truth in that subjective belief or opinion is that it is true that person x believes that Jesus is the son of god. Just as it is equally true that person y does not believe that Jesus is the son of god.

Now subjective 'truths' about subjective claims - i.e. something which is inherently subjective, such as whether I like cheese, are reasonable as there is no right or wrong answer and each person can hold a different subjective claim - each has a different 'truth'. But subjective beliefs about objective claims are inherently weak in terms of 'truth'. As there is a real, objective truth out there - regardless of whether people believe the world to be flat, or to be round - there is objectively a overarching truth (the world is either flat or round) that trumps any notion of subjective 'truth'. Indeed the presence of an objective truth (we might not know the answer yet but the answer exists) makes the term 'truth' about subjective belief or opinion applied to an objective claim unsustainable in my opinion.

Ultimately in those circumstances there is no 'truth' in the claim, the only truth is that is it is true that person x believes that Jesus is the son of god. Just as it is equally true that person y does not believe that Jesus is the son of god. The truth, such as it is, related only the existence of the belief, not to the veracity of the claim.

While I agree with the sentiment, it’s more nuanced than that. The Christian says, “Jesus is the son of God”; the atheist though does not say in reply, “Jesus was not the son of God” – rather he says, “you offer no reason for me to share your belief that Jesus is the son of God that I cannot falsify”.

In short, the Christian’s belief is an article of faith; the atheist’s belief is validated by reason.   
"To understand via the heart is not to understand."

Michel de Montaigne

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13854
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34105 on: January 05, 2019, 06:16:59 PM »
Gabriella,

Quote
So if a religious person says that it's the truth that Jesus was the son of God or talks about following the true faith - those are assertions based on their subjective, internal spiritual conviction. It might sound 'arrogant' but if a Christian is asked the question "do you think Jesus being the son of God is true?" the simple answer is "yes" because that is their belief.

Gee, you think? No-one doubts that the Christian (or the leprechaunist for that matter) is sincere when he expresses his personal, subjective faith beliefs. The point though concerns what happens when such people overreach into asserting those beliefs also to be objective, “out there”, true for everyone else facts that the rest of us apparently lack the wit or insight to grasp. Have a look at the catholic education document you cited for numerous examples of this phenomenon.   

"To understand via the heart is not to understand."

Michel de Montaigne

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10644
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34106 on: January 05, 2019, 06:19:58 PM »
Hi Prof,

While I agree with the sentiment, it’s more nuanced than that. The Christian says, “Jesus is the son of God”; the atheist though does not say in reply, “Jesus was not the son of God” – rather he says, “you offer no reason for me to share your belief that Jesus is the son of God that I cannot falsify”.

In short, the Christian’s belief is an article of faith; the atheist’s belief is validated by reason.   
Indeed but I didn't particularly want to open that can of worms. Hence I left the issue dangling by my comment:

'Neither has any greater credence than the other, without evidence.'

But the point is that there is no meaningful truth in the claim within the belief - it is pointless to talk about 'truth' in a claim (for example) that god exists, or that god doesn't exist. One it true, the other isn't, but the only way to know if by reference to the overarching objective truth as the claim is objective. Now in this case the waters are muddlied by the fact that we do not know the objective truth, but that doesn't make subjective opinions or beliefs about that objective claim any more the 'truth'.

Subjective truths are only sustainable for subjective claims - e.g. my family are the most important thing in my life. Appealing to the notion of 'truth' in a subjective belief about an objective claim isn't sustainable as there is, objectively a right or wrong answer - the world is flat or the world is round, so a belief that the world is flat, or a belief that the world is round has no 'truth' currency beyond the notion that it is true that some people believe the world to be flat and that it is true that some other people believe the world to be round.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 06:27:54 PM by ProfessorDavey »

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6184
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34107 on: January 05, 2019, 06:29:00 PM »
In one of Gabriella's posts above, there seems to be an equivalence given to a belief that God exists and that the earth is flat.
I really don't know how, or why, anyone would do that.
The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13854
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34108 on: January 05, 2019, 06:37:34 PM »
Hi again Prof,

Quote
Indeed but I didn't particularly want to open that can of works. Hence I left the issue dangling by my comment:

'Neither has any greater credence than the other, without evidence.'

But the point is that there is no meaningful truth in the claim within the belief - it is pointless to talk about 'truth' in a claim (for example) that god exists, or that god doesn't exist. One it true, the other isn't, but the only way to know if by reference to the overarching objective truth as the claim is objective. Now in this case the waters are muddlied by the fact that we do not know the objective truth, but that doesn't make subjective opinions or beliefs about that objective claim any more the 'truth'.

Subjective truths are only sustainable for subjective claims - e.g. my family are the most important thing in my life. Appealing to the notion of 'truth' in a subjective belief about an objective claim isn't sustainable as there is, objectively a right or wrong answer - the world is flat or the world is round, so a belief that the world is flat, or a belief that the world is round has no 'truth' currency.

Yes – no subjective, “true for me only” faith belief is any more valid or invalid than any other for anyone else. It doesn’t matter for this purpose whether the claim happens to be God, leprechauns of Jack Frost. I was just highlighting though that “Jesus wasn’t the son of God” is a straw man version of atheism (I’m not sure that there even is a word for the equivalent “no god” certainty to the “yes god” certainty of the theist), and that atheism (ie, “there’s no good reason to….” etc) is more sustainable than theism because it need rest only on the demonstrable falsification of the reasoning theists attempt to validate their claims.     
"To understand via the heart is not to understand."

Michel de Montaigne

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10644
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34109 on: January 05, 2019, 06:41:59 PM »
In one of Gabriella's posts above, there seems to be an equivalence given to a belief that God exists and that the earth is flat.
I really don't know how, or why, anyone would do that.
I think Gabriella's problem is that she places a religious belief in a different and higher category than other beliefs or opinions. So going back to her rather bizarre reliance on a BBC GCSE revision page, she seems very taken by the fact that they claim religious truth as a separate category.

In reality religious 'truth' is merely a subset of claims to truth based on subjective belief - in other words subjective truths. It exists in a further sub-category - in which there is an appeal to 'truth' in a subjective belief applied to an objective claim. To my mind that is far and away the weakest claim to the 'truth' of all, so weak that it isn't sustainable to use the term truth at all as applied to the claim rather than as applied merely to the existence of that belief or opinion.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2019, 06:46:52 PM by ProfessorDavey »

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10644
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34110 on: January 05, 2019, 06:46:12 PM »
Hi again Prof,

Yes – no subjective, “true for me only” faith belief is any more valid or invalid than any other for anyone else. It doesn’t matter for this purpose whether the claim happens to be God, leprechauns of Jack Frost. I was just highlighting though that “Jesus wasn’t the son of God” is a straw man version of atheism (I’m not sure that there even is a word for the equivalent “no god” certainty to the “yes god” certainty of the theist), and that atheism (ie, “there’s no good reason to….” etc) is more sustainable than theism because it need rest only on the demonstrable falsification of the reasoning theists attempt to validate their claims.     
I understand where you are coming from BH - this rest on the notion that the onus of evidence rests on the person making the claim.

So a better example is:

'I believe the world is flat'

vs

'I believe the world is round'

There is an objective truth out there (in this case we know what it is) so there is no 'truth' currency on either subjective belief as they apply to an objective claim and therefore an objective truth.

Phyllis Tyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24978
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34111 on: January 06, 2019, 12:06:56 PM »
Hi again Prof,

Yes – no subjective, “true for me only” faith belief is any more valid or invalid than any other for anyone else. It doesn’t matter for this purpose whether the claim happens to be God, leprechauns of Jack Frost. I was just highlighting though that “Jesus wasn’t the son of God” is a straw man version of atheism (I’m not sure that there even is a word for the equivalent “no god” certainty to the “yes god” certainty of the theist), and that atheism (ie, “there’s no good reason to….” etc) is more sustainable than theism because it need rest only on the demonstrable falsification of the reasoning theists attempt to validate their claims.     
Difficult then to distinguish atheism from agnosticism and why the word atheism is not just a redundant tautology.

Im interested by your qualification of the use reason by adding the word good.

The reasons for positing the idea of God are manifold including considering thinking around why there is anything anyway, alternatives to the highly unsatisfactory philosophies of physicalism, pop scientism and empiricism and of course the moral argument where moral irrealism renders morality as a matter of taste and pop scientism renders it as labelled behaviour a practice that the honest scientismatist should abandon and stop flooding forums with complaints about the behaviour of others.
''Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice- stability and strong government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband''             David Cameron

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10644
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34112 on: January 06, 2019, 12:24:52 PM »
Difficult then to distinguish atheism from agnosticism and why the word atheism is not just a redundant tautology.
Not at all - they relate to different things. Atheism (and theism) area bout belief or lack of, agnosticism is about knowledge. So in the context of the current debate atheism (and theism) are about subjective belief or opinion as to whether or not god or gods exist.

Agnosticism is about objective knowledge as to whether god or gods exist.

So I, and perhaps a number of others here, would describe myself as both atheist (I do not believe that god or god exists) but also agnostic as I do not know for certain whether god or gods exist.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2019, 12:27:26 PM by ProfessorDavey »

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13854
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34113 on: January 06, 2019, 12:59:13 PM »
Prof,

Quote
Not at all - they relate to different things. Atheism (and theism) area bout belief or lack of, agnosticism is about knowledge. So in the context of the current debate atheism (and theism) are about subjective belief or opinion as to whether or not god or gods exist.

Agnosticism is about objective knowledge as to whether god or gods exist.

So I, and perhaps a number of others here, would describe myself as both atheist (I do not believe that god or god exists) but also agnostic as I do not know for certain whether god or gods exist.

It's Vlad. He's made these same mistakes and been corrected on them by my count 438,947,238 times yet still he repeats them. No idea what he hopes to achieve by it, but there it is nonetheless.
"To understand via the heart is not to understand."

Michel de Montaigne

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10644
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34114 on: January 07, 2019, 07:51:22 AM »
Prof,

It's Vlad. He's made these same mistakes and been corrected on them by my count 438,947,238 times yet still he repeats them. No idea what he hopes to achieve by it, but there it is nonetheless.
I know, but still important to remind him. Otherwise he'll likely take our silence as a sign we agree with his non-sense.

Phyllis Tyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24978
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34115 on: January 08, 2019, 02:54:29 PM »
I know, but still important to remind him. Otherwise he'll likely take our silence as a sign we agree with his non-sense.
Nonsense? How do you feel about Hillside apparently smuggling this statement past you.

Quote
I was just highlighting though that “Jesus wasn’t the son of God” is a straw man version of atheism
''Britain faces a simple and inescapable choice- stability and strong government with me, or chaos with Ed Miliband''             David Cameron

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13854
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34116 on: January 08, 2019, 03:32:42 PM »
438,947,239
"To understand via the heart is not to understand."

Michel de Montaigne

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10644
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34117 on: January 08, 2019, 04:33:28 PM »
Nonsense? How do you feel about Hillside apparently smuggling this statement past you.
In what respect?

Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7104
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34118 on: January 11, 2019, 07:42:29 AM »
Thanks for replies. Am busy with work. Should be able to respond to these posts after 19 Jan. Or failing that after 31 Jan.
“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32045
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34119 on: January 11, 2019, 03:21:50 PM »
Moderator Note a number of posts have been removed as they were off topic, even for this thread.

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7121
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34120 on: January 15, 2019, 10:44:15 AM »
Just imagine this scenario:

you come to the end of your life here on earth.
You become acutely aware of a reality you never believed existed.
You are aware of a presence which can see into the depths of your soul.
You become aware of every significant choice you have made in your life, together with your reasons for making those choices.

What would you feel?

Such a scenario is based upon a common theme witnessed by people who have encountered a near death experience

We are all free to have personal beliefs, but there is only one truth.
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32

jeremyp

  • Admin Support
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23644
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34121 on: January 15, 2019, 10:48:35 AM »
Just imagine this scenario:

you come to the end of your life here on earth.
You become acutely aware of a reality you never believed existed.
You are aware of a presence which can see into the depths of your soul.
You become aware of every significant choice you have made in your life, together with your reasons for making those choices.

What would you feel?
Have you got any evidence that such a scenario is at all likely. In my opinion, when I come to the end of my life on Earth, I will stop being aware of anything,

Quote
Such a scenario is based upon a common theme witnessed by people who have encountered a near death experience
But they weren't actually dead though.
This post and all of JeremyP's posts words certified 100% divinely inspired* -- signed God.
*Platinum infallibility package, terms and conditions may apply

enki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3113
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34122 on: January 15, 2019, 11:27:48 AM »
Just imagine this scenario:

you come to the end of your life here on earth.
You become acutely aware of a reality you never believed existed.
You are aware of a presence which can see into the depths of your soul.
You become aware of every significant choice you have made in your life, together with your reasons for making those choices.

What would you feel?

Probably a mixture of very human characteristics, which might well include intense curiosity, fear of the unknown, excitement, awe, wondering what happens next, anxiety about the possibility of being controlled by a presence who has the capability of knowing my deepest thoughts, a need for explanations, exhilaration. Why do you want to know?

Quote
Such a scenario is based upon a common theme witnessed by people who have encountered a near death experience

I'm not sure why you have brought the idea of NDEs into this scenario as they are near death experiences, not death experiences. I do not see any point in developing this further as Sriram, myself and others have delved into this in some detail in past threads.

Quote
We are all free to have personal beliefs, but there is only one truth.

Not sure what you are supposed to be saying here. It sounds like some sort of deepity to me.
Sometimes I wish my first word was 'quote,' so that on my death bed, my last words could be 'end quote.'
Steven Wright

Littleroses

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2357
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34123 on: January 15, 2019, 11:37:43 AM »
Just imagine this scenario:

you come to the end of your life here on earth.
You become acutely aware of a reality you never believed existed.
You are aware of a presence which can see into the depths of your soul.
You become aware of every significant choice you have made in your life, together with your reasons for making those choices.

What would you feel?

Such a scenario is based upon a common theme witnessed by people who have encountered a near death experience

We are all free to have personal beliefs, but there is only one truth.


Those people didn't die, they had an experience, which is caused by the brain beginning to shut down. It doesn't indicate any afterlife exists. I hope that when I die I cease to be. If a god does exist it would be very wrong to have made its existence a matter of faith only.  If it is around somewhere, it should make its presence clear to all in a way that cannot be refuted by anyone.

Steve H

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3163
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #34124 on: January 15, 2019, 11:43:44 AM »

Those people didn't die, they had an experience, which is caused by the brain beginning to shut down. It doesn't indicate any afterlife exists.
Exactly. They are near-death experiences. They tell us nothing about what conscious experiences, if any, lie beyond death.
I thought LGBT was a sandwich until I discovered Smirnoff.