Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Your problem Alan isn't that "they" can't produce an effective response, it's that you don't understand why it is an effective response. Just ignoring the arguments that undo you doesn't in other words make them go away.

I fully understand the arguments put up against me, but I do not consider that the attempt to convince me that my freedom to think is just an illusion using such phrases as: "that's just the way it seems", or "that's what the evidence points to" have been very effective, and in no way can they be said to undo my position.  So I feel justified in illustrating the shallowness of these arguments.

[Alan Burns]

I didn't compare your present day intellect to that of a monkey, although some apes are considered to be quite intelligent like the ones who make and use primitive tools. Back in the day, I doubt what went on to be the human animal was very different to our monkey cousins.

It was not you, Floo, it was Shaker.   And I see he has since retracted his statement, for which I am grateful. 

[Shaker]

It was not you, Floo, it was Shaker.   And I see he has since retracted his statement, for which I am grateful. 

Whoosh 

Hopeless, utterly hopeless.

[Shaker]

I fully understand the arguments put up against me, but I do not consider that the attempt to convince me that my freedom to think is just an illusion using such phrases as: "that's just the way it seems", or "that's what the evidence points to" have been very effective

How effective have any of your maunderings been?

[torridon]

I fully understand the arguments put up against me, but I do not consider that the attempt to convince me that my freedom to think is just an illusion using such phrases as: "that's just the way it seems", or "that's what the evidence points to" have been very effective, and in no way can they be said to undo my position.  So I feel justified in illustrating the shallowness of these arguments.

 

.. said the market stall holder to the physicist.

[Gordon]

It was not you, Floo, it was Shaker.   And I see he has since retracted his statement, for which I am grateful. 

Then you need to re-read what Shaker said and give it some more thought.

[Alan Burns]

Then you need to re-read what Shaker said and give it some more thought.

Perhaps in your role as administrator you could give his postings some thought.  I was prepared to overlook his reference to Pan troglodytes, but he seems to want to emphasise it!

[Shaker]

Perhaps in your role as administrator you could give his postings some thought.  I was prepared to overlook his reference to Pan troglodytes, but he seems to want to emphasise it!

What's the problem with P. troglodytes Alan? What have you got against our closest evolutionary relatives?

[Sebastian Toe]

.  I was prepared to overlook his reference to Pan troglodytes,

Did they have souls though?
It is important with reference to your perceived slur.

[ippy]

I fully understand the arguments put up against me, but I do not consider that the attempt to convince me that my freedom to think is just an illusion using such phrases as: "that's just the way it seems", or "that's what the evidence points to" have been very effective, and in no way can they be said to undo my position.  So I feel justified in illustrating the shallowness of these arguments.

Mandy Rice Davis!!

ippy

[ippy]

What's the problem with P. troglodytes Alan? What have you got against our closest evolutionary relatives?

What about the feelings of the residents of Coober Pedy Shakes?

ippy

[Sebastian Toe]

I fully understand the arguments put up against me, but I do not consider that the attempt to convince me that my freedom to think is just an illusion using such phrases as: "that's just the way it seems", or "that's what the evidence points to" have been very effective, and in no way can they be said to undo my position.  So I feel justified in illustrating the shallowness of these arguments.

I understand why you feel the need to put up your arguements the way that you do, but I do not consider that your attempt to convince anyone that your asserted freedom to think is not just an illusion.
Endlessly using such phrases as: " endless cause and effect chains", or "My God given freedom to choose" have been very ineffective, and can said to undo your position. 
So I feel entirely justified in illustrating the shallowness of your arguments.

[Alan Burns]

 

.. said the market stall holder to the physicist.

And who is to say that the market stall holder is not closer to the truth than the physicist?

[torridon]

And who is to say that the market stall holder is not closer to the truth than the physicist?

For a good guide to fruit and veg in season, I'll trust the stall holder.  That's his area of expertise.

For a good guide to the fundamental nature of reality, I'd go with the physicist.  That's his area of expertise.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I fully understand the arguments...

Then if you do why not finally show that you do by actually engaging with them rather than endlessly assert, "god", "soul", "spiritual" etc as if these terms constituted counter-arguments?

...put up against me...

Too solipsistic. They're not "against me" (ie, you), they're against the arguments (or rather the assertions you rely on instead of arguments) you attempt.

...but I do not consider that the attempt to convince me that my freedom to think is just an illusion using such phrases as: "that's just the way it seems", or "that's what the evidence points to" have been very effective,...

What you "consider" is neither here nor there. Your only escape would be to address and rebut the reason and evidence that undo you, not to put your fingers on your ears and shout "God" in the hope they'll go away.

...and in no way can they be said to undo my position.

Of course they do, for the same reason the logic for 2+2=4 undoes the claim "2+2=5". You've had explained to you countless times that a phenomenon occurs either deterministically or randomly, and that there's no third option. Just asserting "soul" that somehow sits outside of that binary choice "only I haven't got all the details worked out yet" is ludicrous. It's white noise.     

So I feel justified in illustrating the shallowness of these arguments.

Indeed you would be if in fact you could "illustrate" that. Unfortunately though, showing no sign of understanding those arguments, then ignoring them anyway, then asserting undefined alternatives that have no supporting logic or evidence of any kind doesn't illustrate anything, except that is how lost you are to reason.   

[Alan Burns]

For a good guide to fruit and veg in season, I'll trust the stall holder.  That's his area of expertise.

For a good guide to the fundamental nature of reality, I'd go with the physicist.  That's his area of expertise.

The physicist is an expert on a branch of science which deals with material properties, energy and how things react.  Anything outside the realms of physical science will be outside his expertise.  To assume that all reality can be explained in terms of physical science is truly naive.

[Shaker]

The physicist is an expert on a branch of science which deals with material properties, energy and how things react.  Anything outside the realms of physical science will be outside his expertise.

What is outside the realms of physical science and on what methodological basis are you claiming to know this?

To assume that all reality can be explained in terms of physical science is truly naive.

You don't seem to be doing any better in the explanation stakes, now do you?

[Alan Burns]

Of course they do, for the same reason the logic for 2+2=4 undoes the claim "2+2=5". You've had explained to you countless times that a phenomenon occurs either deterministically or randomly, and that there's no third option. Just asserting "soul" that somehow sits outside of that binary choice "only I haven't got all the details worked out yet" is ludicrous. It's white noise.     

But you still seem to overlook the possibility of a spiritually determined option, which offers a far better explanation for our ability to make consciously determined choices than the endless chains of unavoidable physical cause and effect.

[ippy]

AB,

Then if you do why not finally show that you do by actually engaging with them rather than endlessly assert, "god", "soul", "spiritual" etc as if these terms constituted counter-arguments?

Too solipsistic. They're not "against me" (ie, you), they're against the arguments (or rather the assertions you rely on instead of arguments) you attempt.

What you "consider" is neither here nor there. Your only escape would be to address and rebut the reason and evidence that undo you, not to put your fingers on your ears and shout "God" in the hope they'll go away.

Of course they do, for the same reason the logic for 2+2=4 undoes the claim "2+2=5". You've had explained to you countless times that a phenomenon occurs either deterministically or randomly, and that there's no third option. Just asserting "soul" that somehow sits outside of that binary choice "only I haven't got all the details worked out yet" is ludicrous. It's white noise.     

Indeed you would be if in fact you could "illustrate" that. Unfortunately though, showing no sign of understanding those arguments, then ignoring them anyway, then asserting undefined alternatives that have no supporting logic or evidence of any kind doesn't illustrate anything, except that is how lost you are to reason.

Unfortunatly for Alan it looks like he's not that far away from taking the chair of the bible proves the bible club.

ippy

[Shaker]

But you still seem to overlook the possibility of a spiritually determined option, which offers a far better explanation for our ability to make consciously determined choices than the endless chains of unavoidable physical cause and effect.

As bluey would say - has said - injecting your pet phrase "spiritually" into a sentence adds precisely nothing to a discussion. It's filler. It's white noise.

Non-explanations by definition fail at that little thing you're always coming up short with, i.e. actually explaining anything.

[Sebastian Toe]

But you still seem to overlook the possibility of a spiritually determined option, which offers a far better explanation for our ability to make consciously determined choices than the endless chains of unavoidable physical cause and effect.

Have you overlooked the possibility of there not being a spiritually determined option?

[Sebastian Toe]

And who is to say that the market stall holder is not closer to the truth than the physicist?

 I feel entirely justified in highlighting the shallowness of your arguments.....

[Alan Burns]

Have you overlooked the possibility of there not being a spiritually determined option?

If there is no spiritually determined option, everything we do would be driven by basic animal instincts, and we would certainly not be able to post on a forum such as this.

[ippy]

If there is no spiritually determined option, everything we do would be driven by basic animal instincts, and we would certainly not be able to post on a forum such as this.

The arrogance of religious believers!

ippy
 

[SusanDoris]

If there is no spiritually determined option, everything we do would be driven by basic animal instincts, and we would certainly not be able to post on a forum such as this.

If we didn't have what you call 'basic' animal instincts, our species would probably not even have  begun to evolve, let alone arrive at the stage of having language with which to express your thoughts here. And yes, I think they are shallow because you have such opaque blinkers on to shield you fromreal life.