Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Your posts consist mainly of assertions about your personal beliefs with no attempt at logic at all. Hence it comes as no surprise that you use the word logic completely inappropriately. To state that God's existence is a 'truth' is simply a personal belief, and the fact that you state that you will 'continue to be a witness to this truth' is no more than yet another assertion about your personal beliefs. You obviously feel that by saying this, it somehow supports your case. It doesn't. All it does, perhaps, is give you some sort of comfort that you think you are right.

And we have the logic of the secular arguments which have led to the conclusion that our apparent freedom to choose is "just the way it seems" because our perceived freedom must be defined entirely by uncontrollable natural forces of nature.  If this is the case, are all my own logical arguments just the inevitable outcome of the natural processes occurring in my brain?

My alternative logic allows for the wilful interaction of something existing outside the endless physical "cause and effect" chains to enable our perceived freedom of choice to become a reality.

[Shaker]

"My alternative logic" - now where have I heard something similar?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I refer you to my statement about the invention of fallacies, the improper use of fallacy claims, and then the use of the ''someone else has dealt with this'' and ''The rebuttal was posted in the past'' fallacies.
Now it seems you can be as hypocritical as you like and accuse people who pull you up on this as tu quoque and dismiss any criticism of you at all as the ''judgmental language'' fallacy.

All of which amounts to ''invincible ignorance'' on your part.

You can refer me to anything you like, but it’s still a fact that the arguments you attempt correlate precisely to the codified definitions of various logical fallacies. You can duck and dive, twist in the wind, throw insult and irrelevance at that as much as you like but a fact it remains nonetheless.

Your choice here is either to accept the problem and to try to construct an argument that isn’t false, or to keep using them. If you do the latter though you’ll keep being called on it and your wrong arguments will rightly continue to be dismissed out of hand. 

It's up to you really.

[Enki]

Yes, the conversion of opinion into 'truth' is one of the anomalies in AB's presentation.   But in fact, doesn't this lie at the heart of many theistic presentations?   I am hesitating to use the word 'argument'. 

My local shaman has various opinions about sacred animals, quite interesting, but I've never heard her state that these are truths, objective, or impersonal, or true for all.   

As to why some theists do this - I suppose it goes back a long way, and involves a kind of attempt to give a logical basis for their beliefs, which usually fails miserably.   So why do it?

Interesting point, Wiggs. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that when people of like minds get together, there is a tendency to feel it is acceptable to assert(and act out) all manner of things whether they can be justified on any rational level or not. I think that it is a part of a group mentality which seems to work on an emotional level basically. Maybe it is something about wanting to be part of the group so that individual thinking is easily subsumed in the overall desires of the group. If one is caught up in this group mentality thingy then it can become extremely difficult to extricate oneself from actually believing what the group asserts, for the alternative is to be isolated somewhat, or, indeed, to seek out another group.   

[wigginhall]

Interesting point, Wiggs. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that when people of like minds get together, there is a tendency to feel it is acceptable to assert(and act out) all manner of things whether they can be justified on any rational level or not. I think that it is a part of a group mentality which seems to work on an emotional level basically. Maybe it is something about wanting to be part of the group so that individual thinking is easily subsumed in the overall desires of the group. If one is caught up in this group mentality thingy then it can become extremely difficult to extricate oneself from actually believing what the group asserts, for the alternative is to be isolated somewhat, or, indeed, to seek out another group.

Very good points.  I think Christianity got in the habit of seeing itself as the norm, or the default position.    In a sense, this over-rode rational arguments, as you say.   It must be true, because lots of people think that way.   

So somebody like AB is still pursuing this path, when it has become outdated, and his 'logic' is shown to be threadbare or non-existent.   The emperor's clothes, really. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And we have the logic of the secular arguments which have led to the conclusion that our apparent freedom to choose is "just the way it seems" because our perceived freedom must be defined entirely by uncontrollable natural forces of nature.  If this is the case, are all my own logical arguments just the inevitable outcome of the natural processes occurring in my brain?

My alternative logic allows for the wilful interaction of something existing outside the endless physical "cause and effect" chains to enable our perceived freedom of choice to become a reality.

There’s no such thing as “secular” logic. Logic is logic. You are entitled to whatever beliefs and opinions you like, but you’re not entitled to an “alternative” logic all your own. What this means in practice is that every time you attempt a post hoc ergo propter hoc, an argumentum ad consequentiam, and argument from personal incredulity, an argument from ignorance, an argumentum ad populum, an argument…etc and wearily etc, you’re making wrong arguments.

If you have no idea what these terms means just say so, and some of us will explain them to you so you never need rely on them again.

If on the other hand you do know what they mean but think that by some mysterious process it’s fine to use them because the ends (“God”, ‘spirit” etc) somehow magic a bad argument into a good one, then you’ll need to explain why I can’t use the same wrong arguments to validate for you any personal beliefs that I happen to have. 

That in one case the logic and the evidence that supports it indicates a deterministic universe is irrelevant for this purpose. Your not liking that does not entitle you to rely on false arguments to validate your alternative conjecture.   

[wigginhall]

You have to laugh at the naivete of AB's points - he sets up 'something outside the chains of cause and effect', and hello, this corresponds to freedom of choice, the soul, 'wilful interaction',  and all manner of delights, which point to God.    Just a small point - that there isn't anything outside cause and effect, except random stuff. 

It reminds me of a children's game, where the leader decides that we are all aliens, and he is the good alien, and we are bad ones, and so on, great fun, but FFS it's pure invention.

[Enki]

And we have the logic of the secular arguments which have led to the conclusion that our apparent freedom to choose is "just the way it seems" because our perceived freedom must be defined entirely by uncontrollable natural forces of nature.  If this is the case, are all my own logical arguments just the inevitable outcome of the natural processes occurring in my brain?

My alternative logic allows for the wilful interaction of something existing outside the endless physical "cause and effect" chains to enable our perceived freedom of choice to become a reality.

All you have is an idea, which might or might not be true, but has zero evidence to support it. Also what do you mean by the 'uncontollable natural forces'? Nature is controlled by natural laws. All living things must obey these natural laws. You can't fly, you can't see like an eagle, you can't stoop like a peregrine, you can't breathe underwater like a fish. You accept these constraints without challenging them.

However you do have a brain which is incredibly complex compared with that of any other species. In the light of a total lack of evidence for a soul, and totally ignoring the dichotomy between supposed free will which is not random and making choices based upon cause and effect, you never seem to get any further than insisting that there has to be something more than the brain fashioning our choices.

Your last sentence is not a  product of 'alternative' logic', Alan, because there is no such thing. What you really mean is 'your own ideas'. The trouble with your idea of a 'soul' is that it is sans location, sans qualities, sans linkage to the material, sans evidence, sans everything.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

There’s no such thing as “secular” logic.

I entirely agree, which is why I used the phrase "secular argument".

Logic is logic.

Yes, and without the God given perception of the human soul you could not make this statement.

You are entitled to whatever beliefs and opinions you like, but you’re not entitled to an “alternative” logic all your own.

The difference is that your logical arguments exclude God.
Mine do not.

What this means in practice is that every time you attempt a post hoc ergo propter hoc, an argumentum ad consequentiam, and argument from personal incredulity, an argument from ignorance, an argumentum ad populum, an argument…etc and wearily etc, you’re making wrong arguments.

Only if you deliberately exclude God.

If you have no idea what these terms means just say so, and some of us will explain them to you so you never need rely on them again.

Of course I know what they mean.

If on the other hand you do know what they mean but think that by some mysterious process it’s fine to use them because the ends (“God”, ‘spirit” etc) somehow magic a bad argument into a good one, then you’ll need to explain why I can’t use the same wrong arguments to validate for you any personal beliefs that I happen to have. 

If you knew of God's existence, you would see things more clearly.

That in one case the logic and the evidence that supports it indicates a deterministic universe is irrelevant for this purpose. Your not liking that does not entitle you to rely on false arguments to validate your alternative conjecture.

If we did live in a physically deterministic universe, you would not have the freedom to form any argument - be it true or false.

[wigginhall]

Idiotic, really. 

[ekim]

If you knew of God's existence, you would see things more clearly.

If by this you are implying that you know, as opposed to believe in, your God's existence and that you see things more clearly than others on this site, then you should be in a position to demonstrate how others can attain your clarity and know that God, otherwise why should anybody believe what you say.  After all, this thread is about 'searching for God'.

[torridon]

My alternative logic allows for the wilful interaction of something existing outside the endless physical "cause and effect" chains to enable our perceived freedom of choice to become a reality.

This 'alternate logic' is not logic though, it is just a facile veneer of something that might pass for logic so long as it is not properly examined.  Just how could something 'outside' cause and effect be willful ?  What would 'outside cause and effect' even mean. 'Outside cause and effect' is just a fantasy space that seemingly escapes you from the confines of logic, of reason. Even if such a domain of reality were possible, the idea of 'willful' choice in that context is meaningless. 

Back in the real world, a choice represents a moment of discovery of our preference and we have no freedom to choose our preferences, because on what possible basis could such a judgement be made other than what we prefer.  You see there is an infinite regress implied here.  OK, ordinarily, a barman might ask me what I want to drink and I can choose amongst dozens of delightful drinks and I feel free in that as he isn't threatening to shoot my granny if I ask for a babycham. So, I feel free in that.  But there is a deeper level of insight into this that recognises that whatever my preference is, it is not something willfully chosen, it is something discovered.  Have a look at the colored lines below and say which colour you like best :

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

OK, I liked blue best, which did you like ?
Whichever colour you liked, ask yourself this : did I choose which colour to prefer ?  Or did you find, like me, that one colour appealed more than the others.

What this illustrates is that we do not choose our preferences, they evolve within us as we proceed through life.  How could I possibly choose which colour to like other than by reference to which colours I like ? True freedom of choice is an impossible regress and simply inventing a new domain of reality in which to make choices in does not invalidate the base logic of the situation. A moment of choice is a response to perceived need, and to be meaningful it must address that need, it is indeed a consequential outcome, a function, of that need; any choice that was free of that obligation to address need is just a random, irrelevant event and not a choice at all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I entirely agree, which is why I used the phrase "secular argument".

But “argument” is logic. Here for example from the Wiki article on argument:

“In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.[1][2] The general form of an argument in a natural language is that of premises (typically in the for of propositions, statements or sentences) in support of a claim: the conclusion.[3][4][5] The structure of some arguments can also be set out in a formal language, and formally defined "arguments" can be made independently of natural language arguments, as in math, logic, and computer science.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

If an argument isn’t logical, it isn’t an argument – or at least not a cogent one. Whether an argument leads to secularism, theism or any other –ism is entirely a separate matter.

Yes, and without the God given perception of the human soul you could not make this statement.

An un-defined, un-argued (or badly argued) and un-evidenced assertion you make a lot. If you want the claim to be taken more seriously than any other white noise though, then – finally – you’ll need to make a logically sound argument for it.

The difference is that your logical arguments exclude God.
Mine do not.

That’s because your arguments aren’t logical – they correlate precisely to the structure of fallacies. Which means they’re wrong.

That’s not to say that necessarily there is no good argument for “God”, but it is to say that, so far at least, you’ve never managed to produce one.

Only if you deliberately exclude God.

Categorically, cast iron, all out flat wrong. All the logical fallacies on which you depend aren’t wrong “because they exclude god” at all. They’re just wrong because they’re logically unsound. Whether you use them to argue for “God”, unicorns, or anything else is entirely irrelevant for that purpose.

Of course I know what they mean.

Finally! Well, if you do know what they mean as you claim perhaps we can move on to why you rely on them so heavily. Do you think that a bad argument becomes a good argument when its outcome is one you happen to have as a personal belief?

If you don’t, why else would you keep attempting arguments that (you now tell us) you know to be fallacious?

If you knew of God's existence, you would see things more clearly.

An utterly irrelevant piece of reification. Try again: do you think that a bad argument becomes a good one when you happen to like its outcome? 

If we did live in a physically deterministic universe, you would not have the freedom to form any argument - be it true or false.

That’s a lot of wrong to pack into one sentence: it’s an argumentum ad consequentiam (one of the many fallacies on which you depend); it plays fast and loose with the term “freedom” (by which you actually mean your personal but incoherent definition of “free from cause and effect”); and it’s entirely irrelevant to the point being made. The point being made was in fact that, no matter how much the conclusion that the universe is deterministic may not appeal to your tastes, that does not entitle you to use any fallacies you like to validate your alternative by calling them “logical”.

Desperate, desperate stuff AB. Really.

[ippy]

When I'm referring to Star Trek and the Force from Star Wars, A B,  just as you do I have very similar trouble with people taking my beliefs in Star Trek and the Force seriously and this is making it so difficult for me, I often wonder why especially when I'm taking these beliefs so really really really seriously, others seem to be so unable to see the truth of them?

ippy

[Shaker]

The difference is that your logical arguments exclude God.

That's why they're logical arguments.

Mine do not.

And that's why yours are not.

Of course I know what they mean.

If that were actually true, why do you continually use them regardless and demonstrate daily all the reasoning powers of a Mars bar?

[torridon]

The difference is that your logical arguments exclude God.
Mine do not.

'God' is inherently illogical, or at least by most conceptions of what that means.  Adding 'god' into any argument is a sure fire way to render it null and void.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

This 'alternate logic' is not logic though, it is just a facile veneer of something that might pass for logic so long as it is not properly examined.  Just how could something 'outside' cause and effect be willful ?  What would 'outside cause and effect' even mean. 'Outside cause and effect' is just a fantasy space that seemingly escapes you from the confines of logic, of reason. Even if such a domain of reality were possible, the idea of 'willful' choice in that context is meaningless. 

Back in the real world, a choice represents a moment of discovery of our preference and we have no freedom to choose our preferences, because on what possible basis could such a judgement be made other than what we prefer.  You see there is an infinite regress implied here.  OK, ordinarily, a barman might ask me what I want to drink and I can choose amongst dozens of delightful drinks and I feel free in that as he isn't threatening to shoot my granny if I ask for a babycham. So, I feel free in that.  But there is a deeper level of insight into this that recognises that whatever my preference is, it is not something willfully chosen, it is something discovered.  Have a look at the colored lines below and say which colour you like best :

___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________

OK, I liked blue best, which did you like ?
Whichever colour you liked, ask yourself this : did I choose which colour to prefer ?  Or did you find, like me, that one colour appealed more than the others.

What this illustrates is that we do not choose our preferences, they evolve within us as we proceed through life.  How could I possibly choose which colour to like other than by reference to which colours I like ? True freedom of choice is an impossible regress and simply inventing a new domain of reality in which to make choices in does not invalidate the base logic of the situation. A moment of choice is a response to perceived need, and to be meaningful it must address that need, it is indeed a consequential outcome, a function, of that need; any choice that was free of that obligation to address need is just a random, irrelevant event and not a choice at all.

As usual an excellent post. Thank you.

It is something I nearly sent to Alan a while ago. My local has a wide range of good ales and all the usual other stuff. I seem to have free will, no one is forcing me to choose which drink I want. However, I never order a pint of Advocaat.  The reason of course is obvious.

I  DON'T LIKE IT.

Can I choose to like. NO. It is clearly the by-product of liposuction.

I did think of sending such a scenario to AB but what is the point.

PS Note to AB: How do you feel that your argument have changed my position on the existence of God?

Seriously you have. I used to think that it was unlikely. IIRC you are on a mission to bring people to God, if such a God existed he could no doubt have equipped you with arguments that were not broken and could convince me and others. Therefore, IMO, the probability of such a God existing has been reduced further.i.e. rather than drawing people to God you are probably driving them away.

[Alan Burns]

That’s a lot of wrong to pack into one sentence: it’s an argumentum ad consequentiam (one of the many fallacies on which you depend); it plays fast and loose with the term “freedom” (by which you actually mean your personal but incoherent definition of “free from cause and effect”); and it’s entirely irrelevant to the point being made. The point being made was in fact that, no matter how much the conclusion that the universe is deterministic may not appeal to your tastes, that does not entitle you to use any fallacies you like to validate your alternative by calling them “logical”.

You and others constantly seem to misunderstand my meaning of freedom.  It does not mean free from cause and effect.  And it does not mean unrestricted freedom.  I use it in the context of being free from the pre defined consequences of physical cause and effect as defined by current scientific knowledge.   I am simply stating that in order for our thoughts and actions to be not pre defined from the beginning of time, there has to be a means of conscious interaction with this material universe which is defined by will, not by unavoidable consequence.

[Robbie]

  The truth of these things is out there.
What channels do you watch on tv?

Sass I answered this saying BBC,ITV, Ch4 sometimes 5 & Drama and asked if you had any recommendations. I like TV for relaxation but often find I can't concentrate, if you suggest something different I'd be happy to try, Ta.

[torridon]

You and others constantly seem to misunderstand my meaning of freedom.  It does not mean free from cause and effect.  And it does not mean unrestricted freedom.  I use it in the context of being free from the pre defined consequences of physical cause and effect as defined by current scientific knowledge.   I am simply stating that in order for our thoughts and actions to be not pre defined from the beginning of time, there has to be a means of conscious interaction with this material universe which is defined by will, not by unavoidable consequence.

Putting physical in front of cause and effect does not change anything.  As previously explained innumerable times, will is not some magic thing from another world that conveniently evades the principle of cause and effect.  Will is an outcome of prior events; will is a consequence of cause and effect.  If you form a desire to do something then it is because of something prior, if I form a desire to drink a beer, it is because I am thirsty - something prior gives rise to will. When a robin decides where to build its nest its choice represents a working out of perceived need - to find a place of shelter and security to raise young.  We humans make choices from a greater range of possibilities but that doesn't mean we are free from cause and effect, it merely reflects our greater cognitive abilities to consider a wider range of scenarios.   That is not ultimate freedom, it is intelligence.  If it were possible for will to form outside the chain of cause and effect, then it would not be will at all, it would be merely a random occurrence, irrelevant to perceived need.  Ultimately, will cannot be free, it must serve purpose otherwise it is just random and therefore not will at all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You and others constantly seem to misunderstand my meaning of freedom.  It does not mean free from cause and effect.  And it does not mean unrestricted freedom.  I use it in the context of being free from the pre defined consequences of physical cause and effect as defined by current scientific knowledge.   I am simply stating that in order for our thoughts and actions to be not pre defined from the beginning of time, there has to be a means of conscious interaction with this material universe which is defined by will, not by unavoidable consequence.

First, what we were actually talking about was your reliance on false arguments. You assured us that you know what the term “logical fallacy” means, so we moved on to why you rely on arguments you know to be wrong. You didn’t try to deny that they are false in themselves, but rather implied they ceased to be false when they “exclude God”.

I explained that the construction of logical argument is irrelevant to its outcome. However much for example I might happen to like the number 5 (indeed I may think it gives meaning to my life and even “worship” it too) that does not provide a path to 2+2=5, however much I may wish it otherwise.

And this if effectively what you do. You attempt one or more of a palette of wrong arguments, and somehow convince yourself that they cease to be wrong because of the outcomes they produce when you plug in the data that produces “God”, “soul” etc. 

Second, pouffing up a non-physical doesn’t help you a bit. Your position is so deeply irrational that it’s hard to make sense of, but it seems to go something like this:

- on the basis of your knowledge of computers you decide that no data processing entity can become self-aware, and then assert that as if it were a fact. To do this you must ignore or deny both the relatively massive additional complexity of the brain, and the prevailing model from several disciplines of emergence. Specifically, you ignore or deny all that on the basis that consciousness isn’t “fully defined”.

- then you fill the explanatory gap you’ve created for yourself with something you call “soul”. For reasons known only to you though, this soul it seems can both process (“perceive”) and exercise “will” in a way that the brain cannot. This piece of special pleading you think gets you off the hook of infinite regress, while at the same time you think adding a “non-“ before the word “physical” does away with the binary problem of something being either deterministic or random.

- when asked about this determined vs random problem, you tell us that you don’t actually know anything about this “soul” of yours so can’t answer that. Oddly, this seems to trouble you not a jot even though it puts you in a much worse position than thinking that reason and evidence based models for consciousness cannot apply because it’s not “fully defined”.

- finally, just to finish the job you throw in some more false arguments (judgmental language and an argument ad consequentiam specifically – “if the universe is determined we’d just be robots” etc).

And that’s it. It really is that intellectually impoverished but, in your head at least, that’s job done. 

Can you suggest any reason at all for someone possessed of a working intellect not to find this stuff ludicrous?

Anything?       

[Shaker]

First, what we were actually talking about was your reliance on false arguments. You assured us that you know what the term “logical fallacy” means, so we moved on to why you rely on arguments you know to be wrong. You didn’t try to deny that they are false in themselves, but rather implied they ceased to be false when they “exclude God”.

Hm, I noticed that too. Perhaps he thinks that a logically hopeless pseudo-argument suddenly works as soon as you plug God into it? That would explain a lot ...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

Hm, I noticed that too. Perhaps he thinks that a logically hopeless pseudo-argument suddenly works as soon as you plug God into it? That would explain a lot ...

Hence the second part of my question below:

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE TERM “LOGICAL FALLACY” MEANS AND, IF YOU DO, DOES YOUR RELIANCE ON THEM IMPLY THAT YOU THINK THAT A FALSE ARGUMENT SOMEHOW BECOMES A GOOD ONE WHEN YOU HAPPEN TO LIKE ITS OUTCOME?

So far he hasn't benefitted us with an answer, though he implied that it's a "yes" on the odd ground that the false arguments are only false because they "exclude God". It's grim stuff for those hoping for a rational response, but there it is nonetheless.

[Alan Burns]

Putting physical in front of cause and effect does not change anything.  As previously explained innumerable times, will is not some magic thing from another world that conveniently evades the principle of cause and effect.  Will is an outcome of prior events; will is a consequence of cause and effect.  If you form a desire to do something then it is because of something prior, if I form a desire to drink a beer, it is because I am thirsty - something prior gives rise to will. When a robin decides where to build its nest its choice represents a working out of perceived need - to find a place of shelter and security to raise young.  We humans make choices from a greater range of possibilities but that doesn't mean we are free from cause and effect, it merely reflects our greater cognitive abilities to consider a wider range of scenarios.   That is not ultimate freedom, it is intelligence.  If it were possible for will to form outside the chain of cause and effect, then it would not be will at all, it would be merely a random occurrence, irrelevant to perceived need.  Ultimately, will cannot be free, it must serve purpose otherwise it is just random and therefore not will at all.

The conscious will of the human soul is not random.

Neither is it the unavoidable consequence to previous physical events.

These are not merely assertions, but statements of truth which should be blindingly obvious to every human being on this planet.  You imply that our conscious awareness merely spectates upon events over which it has no control.  Were the actions of the London terrorists just unavoidable consequences to events which could not possibly be averted?  Or were they the result of three people succumbing to the evil temptation that being killed in a holy war was a shortcut to heaven?

I consciously choose to be a witness to the truth of God's existence.  I could choose to opt for an easy life and say nothing about my faith.  The choice is mine.

We all have the choice between right and wrong, good and evil, love and hate.  There is no physical explanation for how we implement these choices, so they must have their origins in the non physical - the conscious will of the human soul.

[ekim]

We humans make choices from a greater range of possibilities but that doesn't mean we are free from cause and effect, it merely reflects our greater cognitive abilities to consider a wider range of scenarios.   That is not ultimate freedom, it is intelligence.

I think the, so called, 'spiritual' freedom is a bit different.  It is more about freeing the consciousness from the desires and fears, wills and wont's of the mind so that the intelligence you mention can function with clarity.  The way or method is generally towards inner stillness where the consciousness is in a space of detached observation of the wilful forces which cloud it with their agitations.  Initially, will or intention is necessary to follow that path and faith is simply the persistence with the method until 'freedom' is attained.  The Jesus method, I would say, is metanoia (beyond mind) and the attachments to be transcended or freed from are what is called sins.