Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Not strictly true, because in this universe God appears to have delegated control to the laws of nature and human free will.

But still chooses to torture babies with diseases and then kill them - because you worship a thug god

[Alan Burns]

Can experience be compared with lack of experience ? Many who have religious experience make grand true-for-all claims of objective truth based on that experience.  I don't think it is valid to claim objective truth on the back of personal experience, especially given that others have no such experience.

You seem to be implying that you can't believe in anything relating to other people's experience unless you experience it yourself.  (Just like Thomas the apostle) 

[Nearly Sane]

You seem to be implying that you can't believe in anything relating to other people's experience unless you experience it yourself.  (Just like Thomas the apostle) 

You keep telling other people that they are lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I see nothing wrong with this logic, so please try to explain why you deem it to be non sequitur ?

A non sequitur is an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from its premise. In this case your conclusion (that, “Any emergent property can have no control in itself”) does not follow from the premise, “because it is entirely defined by the deterministic reactions of the material it emerges from”. You just assume that “control” has to operate externally to the entity that’s controlled, whereas all that’s necessary is the experiential sensation of control.

Your standard fallback when this is explained you to by the way is another fallacy - the argumentum ad consequentiam: "Yes, but that would mean that..." etc, which tells you nothing whatever about the truth of the matter.     

[Alan Burns]

But still chooses to torture babies with diseases and then kill them - because you worship a thug god

I do not think you read my post correctly -
Delegating control to the laws of nature does not imply a deliberate choice to torture.  Natural laws have their own consequences which are not subject to any form of deliberate choice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not think you read my post correctly -
Delegating control to the laws of nature does not imply a deliberate choice to torture.  Natural laws have their own consequences which are not subject to any form of deliberate choice.

So which of the "omnis" have you abandoned for this god of yours to make that work?

[Nearly Sane]

I do not think you read my post correctly -
Delegating control to the laws of nature does not imply a deliberate choice to torture.  Natural laws have their own consequences which are not subject to any form of deliberate choice.

So your god doesn't care about babies dying in pain - and again a  thug. He creates the torture and then as a sort of reverse lottery watches as babies die in pain. BTW you do know you have just declared there are no miracles?

[wigginhall]

Not strictly true, because in this universe God appears to have delegated control to the laws of nature and human free will.

God seems a bit like the Cheshire Cat then, who as you may recall, gradually faded away.  If God delegates, how do we know that he's there?   Guess, I suppose.

As blue has just said, it also seems to get rid of the omnis.   I suppose God could stop gravity working, if you fell out of the window, but he's an equal opportunity kind of guy, so lets you fall.   Errm, so what's the point in God?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

God seems a bit like the Cheshire Cat then, who as you may recall, gradually faded away.  If God delegates, how do we know that he's there?   Guess, I suppose.

As blue has just said, it also seems to get rid of the omnis.   I suppose God could stop gravity working, if you fell out of the window, but he's an equal opportunity kind of guy, so lets you fall.   Errm, so what's the point in God?

Strictly he'd only have to abandon any one of them I think. He might for example posit an omnipresent and omnipotent god who doesn't give a damn (ie, no omnibenevolence) so just watches babies dying of brain cancer with arms folded, not my problem guv' indifference. Alternatively he might posit an omnipresent and omnibenevolent but not omnipotent god who'd love to do something about it but can't, what with nature being on control and all, and so on. 

[Nearly Sane]

Wiggs,

Strictly he'd only have to abandon one of them I think. He might for example posit an omnipresent and omnipotent god who doesn't give a damn (ie, no omnibenevolence) so just watches babies dying of brain cancer with arms folded, not my problem guv' indifference. Alternatively he might posit an omnipresent and omnibenevolent but not omnipotent god who'd love to do something about it but can't, what with nature being on control and all, and so on.

Except Alan believes and has 'cited' miracles - which means the last can't apply if he were being logically consistent

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Except Alan believes and has 'cited' miracles - which means the last can't apply if he were being logically consistent

It's Alan. I admire your optimism with that "if", but frankly he seems to me to be entirely indifferent to logical consistency.

[Nearly Sane]

Wiggs,

Strictly he'd only have to abandon any one of them I think. He might for example posit an omnipresent and omnipotent god who doesn't give a damn (ie, no omnibenevolence) so just watches babies dying of brain cancer with arms folded, not my problem guv' indifference. Alternatively he might posit an omnipresent and omnibenevolent but not omnipotent god who'd love to do something about it but can't, what with nature being on control and all, and so on.

Just to note that you didn't cite the idea of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god who isn't 'omnipresent' - presumably because a god who is omnipotent cannot be prevented from action and stopping babies dying in horrific pain because he's popped away for a quick fag.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Just to note that you didn't cite the idea of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god who isn't 'omnipresent' - presumably because a god who is omnipotent cannot be prevented from action and stopping babies dying in horrific pain because he's popped away for a quick fag.

That was the "etc" at the end but yes, quite so: "Darn it if only I hadn't been on a fag break I'd have saved that kid from brain cancer. Honest injun" etc.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

That was the "etc" at the end but yes, quite so: "Darn it if only I hadn't been on a fag break I'd have saved that kid from brain cancer. Honest injun" etc.

Being omnipotent he could just reverse time, and be there.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Being omnipotent he could just reverse time, and be there.

Ooh clever 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Ooh clever 

  and presumably he doesn't have to worry about all that crossing timelines nonsense.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

A non sequitur is an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from its premise. In this case your conclusion (that, “Any emergent property can have no control in itself”) does not follow from the premise, “because it is entirely defined by the deterministic reactions of the material it emerges from”. You just assume that “control” has to operate externally to the entity that’s controlled, whereas all that’s necessary is the experiential sensation of control.

Sorry, but a sensation of control is not control - it is just a reaction which is deemed to appear like control.

For any form of control to exist, whether is is perceived as internal or external, it must by definition come from a source capable of deliberately exerting control.  Such a source is not definable in material science, but I am currently in total control of the keys I am deliberately typing.  It is not a sensation of control, it is definitive control exerted my me - it is not just an uncontrollable reaction dictated entirely by past events.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

They're only "charges" rather than just descriptions though when you re-define these terms in order to attack them.

The good news however is that never again will we be treated to you assuring us that atheism entails arguing that there are no gods.

Huzzah!

atheism ? or as we should now call it post Tyson......Deism.

[ekim]

Not strictly true, because in this universe God appears to have delegated control to the laws of nature and human free will.

I'm glad you said 'appears to'.  Others could say God appears to have lost control or it appears that Satan has gained control and so much for the prayer 'Thy Will be done on Earth'.

[ekim]

You seem to be implying that you can't believe in anything relating to other people's experience unless you experience it yourself.  (Just like Thomas the apostle) 

I think Torri's reply is about 'objective truth' which is not the same as 'belief'.  You can believe anything you like on the say so of others but that doesn't mean that it is the truth.  They could be deceived or deluded or they so desire the belief to be true that they suspend their critical faculties.  Another approach might be 'hope', which is being open to the possibility and if so inclined, find a way to discover the truth so that belief becomes irrelevant.

[wigginhall]

Well, if we are talking about appearances, it appears that there is no God.  My oldest friend died in pain, and I couldn't detect any supernatural force which was helping him.   Or was it delegating, in absentia?

[Alan Burns]

BTW you do know you have just declared there are no miracles?

Divine intervention does exist, but it is exceptional - it is not the norm.  That is why such intervention is perceived as miraculous rather than just a natural phenomenon.

[floo]

Divine intervention does exist, but it is exceptional - it is not the norm.  That is why such intervention is perceived as miraculous rather than just a natural phenomenon.

You have no evidence that is so, only a belief.

[wigginhall]

I've got the thing about miracles - God will help you find a parking place, but doesn't help a child dying in pain.   It all makes sense!

[Gordon]

Sorry, but a sensation of control is not control - it is just a reaction which is deemed to appear like control.

For any form of control to exist, whether is is perceived as internal or external, it must by definition come from a source capable of deliberately exerting control.  Such a source is not definable in material science, but I am currently in total control of the keys I am deliberately typing.  It is not a sensation of control, it is definitive control exerted my me - it is not just an uncontrollable reaction dictated by past events.

So - you're deciding what words to type in response to what people said to you, as opposed to typing random words: so what? It means you are thinking, and it doing so using those bits of your biology that support thinking - and what you think doesn't occur in isolation, and you aren't aware of any unconscious influences.

This stuff about some external source of control that is 'not definable by material science' is just raw assertion via personal incredulity that is borne of your desperate need to contrive a hook to hang your god on - you are as much a passenger of determinism as the rest of us - that you don't like the idea matters it a jot.