Searching for GOD...

[Rhiannon]

God grieves at such misfortune as much as any one of us.
Jesus wept when He heard of the death of Lazarus.

But whatever misfortunes we have to endure, God will help us through them if we put our faith and trust in Him.

So your god grieves but lets a little boy die in agony. But hey, finds you a parking space.

And you worship him why exactly?

[floo]

But the evidence is in you.  And in my conscious choice to not reply to your previous post.   

Ok my evidence, from my life experience, tells me it is highly unlikely any god exists, how's that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I suspect that you see the reality of your freedom to choose just as much as I do, but you are consciously overriding this perception in order to comply with your false idealism of a non spiritual "you".

So I explain the reification fallacy to you, and in response you try…

…another reification fallacy! Good effort. It’s not the reality Alan, it’s a reality – yours in fact. My reality by contrast at least has the benefit of logic and evidence to support it, which is why it’s different from yours.

As you’re clearly proud of your closed mind though (“I’m absolutely certain”) no doubt explaining this to you will fall on deaf ears as much as the other countless falsifications you've had have fallen on deaf ears.

Oh, and again you’ve completely ignored the arguments in my Reply 21010. If we’re talking suspicions, mine is that you’re utterly terrified of opening that box marked “certain” for fear that the faith beliefs that define you will be shown to be hopeless.

You have my sympathy for that.   

[Alan Burns]

But we cannot choose our wants, any more than we can choose our beliefs; so we are not really free to change our mind.

Apart from which, you ought to know by now that consciousness does not operate in 'real time'.  Conscious awareness takes time to construct, so what feels like 'now' already happened about a half second ago.

But if the conscious choice is made half a second before the physical enactment of that choice, it is still a choice.  The alternative scenario is that the ultimate cause of the so called choice dates back over three billion years to the start of all our physical chains of cause and effect.

[Shaker]

They are not assertions, just perceived evidence of our conscious ability to choose.  The fact that science can't be used to explain our perception of conscious choice does not mean that it does not exist.

Uh oh!

Who's going to deal with this one?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The fact that science can't be used to explain our perception of conscious choice does not mean that it does not exist.  It just means there must be another explanation.

Or that it's not a fact, or that science will one day answer that, or that science never will but it's a materialistic phenomenon nonetheless...

...AND that declaring a definition-, logic- and evidence-free alternative of "God" has no explanatory value whatever. 

[torridon]

But if the conscious choice is made half a second before the physical enactment of that choice, it is still a choice.  The alternative scenario is that the ultimate cause of the so called choice dates back over three billion years to the start of all our physical chains of cause and effect.

No, the 'choice' was made subconsciously half a second before you became aware of it.  Cognitive science confirms what we have suspected for a long time, even going back to Freud, that it is subconscious mind that is the real driver calling the shots; conscious awareness lags behind.

[torridon]

They are not assertions, just perceived evidence of our conscious ability to choose.  The fact that science can't be used to explain our perception of conscious choice does not mean that it does not exist.  It just means there must be another explanation.

What the relevant science does, is illuminate how these things work.  What science has revealed may not be intuitive, granted, but it is coherent, which your models aren't.

[Nearly Sane]

They are not assertions, just perceived evidence of our conscious ability to choose.  The fact that science can't be used to explain our perception of conscious choice does not mean that it does not exist.  It just means there must be another explanation.

Apart from being more assertions and an NPF, where does that address that your model is logically incoherent? Why did you miss that out! Didn't you read it? Or don't you understand it? Or don't you want to answer that your model is nonsense?

As so often, AB, it's as if you don't have the courtesy to read posts and just repeat the tired and tawdry assertions that you cling to like some worn filthy security blanket that you have vomited and shit upon by your vacuous repeated mantras.

[Nearly Sane]

I suspect that you see the reality of your freedom to choose just as much as I do, but you are consciously overriding this perception in order to comply with your false idealism of a non spiritual "you".

ah your old trope of accusing everyone disagreeing with you of lying. Again your lack of courtesy shines through.

[Sebastian Toe]

They are not assertions, just perceived evidence of our conscious ability to choose.  The fact that science can't be used to explain our perception of conscious choice does not mean that it does not exist.  It just means there must be another explanation.

I suspect that you see the reality of your perceived freedom to choose just as much as I do, but you are subconsciously overriding this perception of freedom in order to comply with your false idealism of a spiritual "you".

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

ah your old trope of accusing everyone disagreeing with you of lying. Again your lack of courtesy shines through.

Yes, but there is a sort of logic to it. He’s convinced that his “perception” of reality is the reality and that everyone else must share it therefore only for some reason he can’t fathom they keep using this logic stuff to show his validating arguments to be hopeless.

So how to respond? Well, he can’t engage with the falsifications because the potential consequences are terrifying – the faith that has defined him for decades would be shown to be built on sand. The alternative therefore is to ignore the arguments and instead to accuse people of lying. Job done!     

[SusanDoris]

I hope that his little grandson will not be prevented from learning about the real world and the best Science etc by being subjected to the nonsense that AB posts.

[floo]

I hope that his little grandson will not be prevented from learning about the real world and the best Science etc by being subjected to the nonsense that AB posts.

I hope so too. No one should ever inflict their opinions about religion on their kids. My husband and I never forced our unbelief on our children.

[ippy]

I hope that his little grandson will not be prevented from learning about the real world and the best Science etc by being subjected to the nonsense that AB posts.

Trouble with that Susan, they're indoctrinated, usually between the ages of 4 and 7 years, to indoctrinate the next generation to indoctrinate the next ad infinitum,

They, people like Alan actually think they're doing these youngsters a favour.

Of course this religious indoctrination will always be on a percentage basis some will escape the nonsensical rubbish they come out with, and there will also be those that are deeply steeped into any nonsense you like to preach, unfortunately for Alan, I think you can work out for yourself Susan, which category do you think Alan might find to be a glove like fit.

ippy       

[Maeght]

They are not assertions, just perceived evidence of our conscious ability to choose.  The fact that science can't be used to explain our perception of conscious choice does not mean that it does not exist.  It just means there must be another explanation.

Nope, definitely assertions.

[SusanDoris]

Ippy #21064

Trouble with that Susan, they're indoctrinated, usually between the ages of 4 and 7 years, to indoctrinate the next generation to indoctrinate the next ad infinitum,

They, people like Alan actually think they're doing these youngsters a favour.

Of course this religious indoctrination will always be on a percentage basis some will escape the nonsensical rubbish they come out with, and there will also be those that are deeply steeped into any nonsense you like to preach, unfortunately for Alan, I think you can work out for yourself Susan, which category do you think Alan might find to be a glove like fit.

ippy       

And it is going to take so very long to make that situation change....
Once started, however, I am optimistic enough to think that it will be like one of those unstoppable domino set-ups*. It will be shown that the emperor really does not have clothes. There will always be a few who will cling on to faith, but not too many, I hope. I count myself lucky in that my parents indoctrinated us into only God, not any other faith belief.Even then it took a long time  to finally erase that by then, microscopic space in my brain containing the idea.

*I haven't seen one of those for ages - must google and see if I can find one! ...  Okay, done that!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

They are not assertions, just perceived evidence...

So now all you have to do is to explain why your science-denying and logically incoherent personal perception of what constitutes "evidence" should be treated as actual evidence by anyone else.

Good luck with it.

[Enki]

When reading AB's posts I often think of that excellent radio programme, 'Just a Minute'. He might do well with the hesitation rule but with the deviation rule I don't think that he'd last very long. However, the repetition rule would see him off within seconds.

[floo]

When reading AB's posts I often think of that excellent radio programme, 'Just a Minute'. He might do well with the hesitation rule but with the deviation rule I don't think that he'd last very long. However, the repetition rule would see him off within seconds.

 

[SusanDoris]

When reading AB's posts I often think of that excellent radio programme, 'Just a Minute'. He might do well with the hesitation rule but with the deviation rule I don't think that he'd last very long. However, the repetition rule would see him off within seconds.

Also of course the players do not have to be speaking the truth!!

[Alan Burns]

NS,

Yes, but there is a sort of logic to it. He’s convinced that his “perception” of reality is the reality and that everyone else must share it therefore only for some reason he can’t fathom they keep using this logic stuff to show his validating arguments to be hopeless.

So how to respond? Well, he can’t engage with the falsifications because the potential consequences are terrifying – the faith that has defined him for decades would be shown to be built on sand. The alternative therefore is to ignore the arguments and instead to accuse people of lying. Job done!   

No
Some people are deluding themselves by trying to shoe-horn their perception of reality to fit in with limited human scientific discovery, and in doing so they have to sacrifice their gift of freedom and assume that everything they do is just unavoidable consequences to previous events.

Yet in the act of denying their freedom they are actually demonstrating it.   

[Nearly Sane]

No
Some people are deluding themselves by trying to shoe-horn their perception of reality to fit in with limited human scientific discovery, and in doing so they have to sacrifice their gift of freedom and assume that everything they do is just unavoidable consequences to previous events.

Yet in the act of denying their freedom they are actually demonstrating it.   

And again you accuse those who disagree with you lying.

[floo]

No
Some people are deluding themselves by trying to shoe-horn their perception of reality to fit in with limited human scientific discovery, and in doing so they have to sacrifice their gift of freedom and assume that everything they do is just unavoidable consequences to previous events.

Yet in the act of denying their freedom they are actually demonstrating it.   

Limited human scientific discovery? I think human's scientific knowledge is far from limited. What is more than limited is evidence any god exists.

[Nearly Sane]

Limited human scientific discovery? I think human's scientific knowledge is far from limited. What is more than limited is evidence any god exists.

  far from limited would mean unlimited. So that would be wrong.