Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Without the concept which you describe as "a little man at the controls", there is nothing else in control but the natural unguided, purposeless laws of nature which act upon and within the material elements of your brain.  Can this control really enable the state of mind which we perceive to be forgiveness?

As that's what the logic and evidence indicates, yes.

Or does it need some other form of control which can be consciously guided?

As that's what the logic and evidence contra-indicates, no.

[Gordon]

Without the concept which you describe as "a little man at the controls", there is nothing else in control but the natural unguided, purposeless laws of nature which act upon and within the material elements of your brain.

Which is simplistic (and fallacy-ridden) nonsense.

Can this control really enable the state of mind which we perceive to be forgiveness?

Yes, although again your simplistic pastiche of millions or years of evolution is becoming wearing.

Or does it need some other form of control which can be consciously guided?

All it needs is the organ inside your skull, Alan: no superstitious woo required.

[Stranger]

Without the concept which you describe as "a little man at the controls", there is nothing else in control but the natural unguided, purposeless laws of nature which act upon and within the material elements of your brain.  Can this control really enable the state of mind which we perceive to be forgiveness?  Or does it need some other form of control which can be consciously guided?

Personal incredulity followed by baseless assertion.

[Gordon]

Be honest. You (and I suspect SusanDoris, Walter and a few others) are scared shitless that Alan Burns may be right.

Don't be silly: a flock of savage dead sheep would be scarier.

Alan Burns' posts on here convict you and that is why you have to be here constantly opposing them.

Alan's posts are consistently rebutted because they are consistently fallacious. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

SoTs,

Erm, back in 26995 and 26996 you made several statements about my posts that in 26998 I took the trouble to correct. At the end of that I said, “Presumably I should say goodbye to you now as, now you’ve been corrected again, you’ll just vanish again?”.

As you have indeed just ignored the corrections (as you consistently do) what does that say about you do you think, and why should I bother correcting you again do you think given your track record?

Anyway, for what it's worth... 

Gabriella has made a good point here.

Well, let’s see…

bluehillside Retd: If you really thought Alan Burns was doing the equivalent of posting green ramblings elephant furiously, not only would you be bored of it, you wouldn't give it the time of day and erm ... stay retired?

Be honest. You (and I suspect SusanDoris, Walter and a few others) are scared shitless that Alan Burns may be right. Where would that leave your indefensible faith in arguments for disbelief? You would have no excuse and nowhere to go.

On what possible basis could I (I’ll leave the others to speak for themselves) even think AB to be correct (let alone be scared about that) when his efforts are entirely incoherent?

So far at least, there’s nothing to be scared of – even conceptually. 

Alan Burns' posts on here convict you and that is why you have to be here constantly opposing them.

What are you even trying to say here? How can repeated gibberish “convict” anyone of anything?

[Maeght]

Be honest. You (and I suspect SusanDoris, Walter and a few others) are scared shitless that Alan Burns may be right.

What would be so scary?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Erm, back in 26995 and 26996 you made several statements about my posts that in 26998 I took the trouble to correct. At the end of that I said, “Presumably I should say goodbye to you now as, now you’ve been corrected again, you’ll just vanish again?”.

As you have indeed just ignored the corrections (as you consistently do) what does that say about you do you think, and why should I bother correcting you again do you think given your track record?

Seems fair enough to call this now I'd have thought. Once again he's repeated his behaviour of posting mistakes, had them corrected, then just ignored the corrections.

Truly I have the power of prophecy!

[Stranger]

Be honest. You (and I suspect SusanDoris, Walter and a few others) are scared shitless that Alan Burns may be right. Where would that leave your indefensible faith in arguments for disbelief? You would have no excuse and nowhere to go.

Says the person who's too scared to actually join in the debate properly...     

[SusanDoris]

An interesting set of new posts!!

I think I'll just very kindly point out that  SotS's 'bored of' should have been 'bored with'.
Herewith a quote from Oxford Dictionaries

Bored of something is incorrect and to use it indicates a lack of education.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Says the person who's too scared to actually join in the debate properly...     

Quite. At least Vladdo turns up again to lie about what you've just said.

Not sure which behaviour is worse really...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

As that's what the logic and evidence indicates, yes.

Only because you appear to cherry pick the evidence which supports what you want to believe, and deliberately ignore or try to ridicule any evidence of God's existence and our spiritual nature

[Gordon]

Only because you appear to cherry pick the evidence which supports what you want to believe, deliberately ignore any evidence of God's existence and our spiritual nature

The ain't none so far in respect of 'God' or this 'spiritual nature', Alan: nada, zilch, zero - and ancient superstitions and fallacious arguments from incredulity, authority and tradition (etc) don't count.

I see you've amended your post to add 'ridicule' - I'd  say ridicule is a perfectly reasonable response when confronted with the ridiculous.

[Alan Burns]

The ain't none so far in respect of 'God' or this 'spiritual nature', Alan: nada, zilch, zero - and ancient superstitions and fallacious arguments from incredulity, authority and tradition (etc) don't count.

I see you've amended your post to add 'ridicule' - I'd  say ridicule is a perfectly reasonable response when confronted with the ridiculous.

But I am not alone in putting forward such arguments which offer substantial evidence for our spiritual nature.  People who are much more qualified than I have come up with similar arguments, and to have to resort to ridicule is not an acceptable or convincing way to refute such arguments.  I have never knowingly tried to ridicule any posters who oppose my views - I have always done my best to give honest, substantiated answers despite the obvious provocations I have had to endure.  And I will continue to use my God given gift of free will to witness to what I firmly believe is the truth behind our existence.

[Gordon]

But I am not alone in putting forward such arguments which offer substantial evidence for our spiritual nature.

No doubt, but they are bad arguments nonetheless.

People who are much more qualified than I have come up with similar arguments, and to have to resort to ridicule is not an acceptable or convincing way to refute such arguments.

Ridicule is a perfectly reasonable response to the ridiculous, and if the arguments are ridiculous they do not become less ridiculous because they are made by someone you regard as being an authority - it is the argument that matters. 

I have never knowingly tried to ridicule any posters who oppose my views - I have always done my best to give honest, substantiated answers despite the obvious provocations I have had to endure.

I have no doubts regarding your honesty and sincerity, and I recognise that you are always civil - but it isn't about how you argue but what you argue.

And I will continue to use my God given gift of free will to witness to what I firmly believe is the truth behind our existence.

I understand that you believe that, Alan, but I think you are mistaken (albeit honestly and sincerely mistaken).

[Stranger]

Only because you appear to cherry pick the evidence which supports what you want to believe, and deliberately ignore or try to ridicule any evidence of God's existence and our spiritual nature

Where is this evidence for any god or our "spiritual nature"? You haven't presented anything remotely like evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Only because you appear to cherry pick the evidence which supports what you want to believe, and deliberately ignore or try to ridicule any evidence of God's existence and our spiritual nature

But we both know that that's not true now don't we? Why? Because you've never once ever, ever, ever managed to provide even a scintilla of an iota of a jot of evidence for this supposed "God" or supposed "spiritual nature" at all.

What you actually do is attempt some very bad arguments that are quickly falsified, then resort to assertions of personal faith. And that's it. There's nothing else - zip, zilch, nada, sweet FA etc.

Look, it'd be very simple to do: if you genuinely think you do have some evidence, then just tell us what it is. The only proviso though is that, to be evidence at all, it has to be something that's coherent, cogent and credible. And a useful short cut you could try before trying it is to ask yourself, "does this work just as well for leprechauns?" and, when it does, to abandon the effort there. 

Deal?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But I am not alone in putting forward such arguments…

That lots of people may attempt the same bad arguments doesn’t stop them from being bad arguments. You do know that don’t you?

…which offer substantial evidence for our spiritual nature.

A bad argument doesn’t provide evidence (substantial or otherwise) for anything, let alone for a “spiritual nature” (whatever that might mean). To do that you’d have to define your terms (what is this “spiritual” exactly?) and make one or more arguments to demonstrate them that aren’t clearly false. 

People who are much more qualified than I have come up with similar arguments…

That’s called an argument from authority (another fallacy), and again “more qualified” people making a bad argument doesn’t stop it from being a bad argument.

…to have to resort to ridicule is not an acceptable or convincing way to refute such arguments.

You’ve missed the point entirely. Referencing leprechauns or similar isn’t a resort to ridicule at all. It’s actually very useful for you for the reason I’ve explained: when an argument you want to try for “God” works equally for leprechauns, then you know automatically that it’s a bad argument so you can abandon it and try something else instead. So far at least though all you’ve managed are arguments that do work just as well for leprechauns (argument from personal incredulity, argumentum ad consequentiam, argumentum ad populum, the reference point error etc and weariiy etc). And that’s your problem when you claim to have “evidence”.

I have never knowingly tried to ridicule any posters who oppose my views - I have always done my best to give honest, substantiated answers despite the obvious provocations I have had to endure.

No you haven’t. What you’ve actually done is to ignore at every opportunity the arguments that undo you. Why not finally at least try to address them – the binary determined vs random problem for example – without resorting to the equivalent of, “it’s magic” for your answer?

And I will continue to use my God given gift of free will to witness to what I firmly believe is the truth behind our existence.

And you finish with an incoherent statement of blind faith with neither logic nor evidence of any kind to support it. Can you really not see why people here who actually have functioning intellects get so frustrated when you do this kind of thing?

[torridon]

What about the concept of forgiveness?

Forgiveness is a state of mind which requires no outward physical reaction, but it does involve a conscious choice.  And it is difficult to see how it could be instinctive.  Can forgiveness be defined in terms of physically determined patterns of electro chemical brain activity?  Or is it a conscious state of mind derived from within the human soul?

Maybe forgiveness is not instinctive, that doesn't mean that it is not consistent with a deterministic universe.  I've lost count of the number of times I've had to explain this.  Instinctive behaviours are more ancient and lie at the simpler and more primitive end of the range of human responses.  As brains evolve in size and complexity they are able to model a greater range of concepts and scenarios, they are able to see more subtle ways to obtain what they want.  In a casual sense, we could call this freedom of a sort, freedom from the limitations.   But it isn't freedom in a profound sense of freedom from laws of nature or logic.  It is sophistication and complexity.  Sophistication and complexity are not freedom, they are sophistication and complexity.  Freedom is a different type of concept altogether.  Now please read this again, and then again, and keep reading it until it sinks in, I don't want to have to come back here and explain this again in six months on finding you still haven't grasped it.

[torridon]

Only because you appear to cherry pick the evidence which supports what you want to believe, and deliberately ignore or try to ridicule any evidence of God's existence and our spiritual nature

This is truly absurd, it is surreal. Someone of your gargantuan persistent bias accusing others of cherry picking ?  Oh please, just take of those massive blinkers and look at the world with open eyes and honesty.  There isn't any evidence for gods from amongst which one could cherry pick.  Your feelings on the matter are not evidence, they are just your feelings, they are not evidence.  If you truly had found some real evidence for god then no doubt you would have published already and you'd be more famous than Stephen Hawking already.  We'd have already read about it; theology would have become a branch of science already.  But you haven't, and there isn't.  Your personal biases do not constitute evidence for anyone that cares about truth.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

So we’ve gone straight from “what equivalence?” to, “ I disagree that it’s a false equivalence” with no, “Oh OK, thanks for reminding me of what I said” in between? Oh well.

I didn’t assert it, I argued it (albeit that you just ignored the argument). Again: it’s a false equivalence because one is logically coherent, the other isn’t. You can have “not worked out all the details” for the former, but not of the latter. To be even in “details” territory you need first a logically consistent epistemic framework. Just now what he has is the equivalent of "not having worked out all the details" of, “&Y*T^&^T46tgyo3870t”. That’s why AB’s “soul” is just white noise.

Your argument is wrong. I was discussing AB trying to distinguish between choices being "influenced" and "defined" not what made those choices.

You’ve just shifted ground. Your argument was that the length of the exchanges here implied that AB offered something worth considering (“There is plenty to consider, hence the point of having a discussion that has run for pages”). That’s a non sequitur for the reason I explained.

You're wrong again. There is plenty to consider about how choices are made, hence the thread has run on for many pages with many interesting posts on how people think choices are made.

Whether I get “bored with its incoherence” is a different matter. Why though wouldn’t anyone be bored with incoherence? If I posted, “green ramblings elephant furiously” often enough wouldn’t you get bored with it too?

You don’t need to – rather it was en explanation of why AB rules himself out of any meaningful discussion every time he tries a logically false argument to validate his beliefs.

Which is essentially all he has – that and assertions of personal faith.

But not interested in figuring out how far I’m going with my concept of “&Y*T^&^T46tgyo3870t?

Seems a bit unfair.

Oh look, you are still here, considering the arguments posted on this thread. As usual you make statements you can't back up. Feel free to start a thread on the concept of “&Y*T^&^T46tgyo3870t if you want to consider that and see how far you get. But my guess is you will still be here a few pages from now, contradicting your own statement that there is nothing worth considering.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Without the concept which you describe as "a little man at the controls", there is nothing else in control but the natural unguided, purposeless laws of nature which act upon and within the material elements of your brain.  Can this control really enable the state of mind which we perceive to be forgiveness?  Or does it need some other form of control which can be consciously guided?

I think you're over-complicating it. It could just be a part of your brain.

In my understanding of Islam there is an idea that Muslims have a duty to seek knowledge and think. So you read a book that tells you to seek knowledge, you seek knowledge, and while continuously seeking you learn about different concepts of forgiveness and reasons for applying them, which is an input into your brain that influences/determines that your brain will consider that input when making a decision in any relevant situation.

I remember knowing the answer to questions such as the name of the book that an opening line is from e.g. “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” where the answer just popped into my head from something I had read in A'Level English and not looked at again for 20 years. But if I hadn't read it in the first place my brain could not have retrieved that information. Seeking knowledge is a choice you make, probably influenced/ determined by going to school and practising seeking knowledge. I'm still not sure what the difference is for you between your brain being influenced and being determined or defined.

[Stranger]

But I am not alone in putting forward such arguments which offer substantial evidence for our spiritual nature.

You have offered no substantial evidence, you haven't even offered the hint of a jot of any evidence whatsoever. You keep insisting that your ability to write what like is evidence and then totally ignoring people who point out that every single hypothesis, conjecture, or guess about consciousness and 'free will' is consistent with your subjective experiences of doing as you please (that is, after all, what they try to explain), so claiming it as evidence of your own is simply not objectively true - no matter how much it might subjectively seem to be to you.

People who are much more qualified than I have come up with similar arguments...

Possibly - but I suggest you check. Some very qualified people have come up with some very silly 'arguments' but I'm not aware of any quite as lacking in substance as your 'arguments' here.

...and to have to resort to ridicule is not an acceptable or convincing way to refute such arguments.

You have totally ignored the logical arguments that refute what your claims. Given that, pretending that something isn't ridiculous when it is, would not be a favour - and this is a debating forum.

I have never knowingly tried to ridicule any posters who oppose my views - I have always done my best to give honest, substantiated answers despite the obvious provocations I have had to endure.

You may not use ridicule but if you honestly think the rest of this you really should take some time to look back at your posts. You have a history of completely ignoring counterarguments and simply repeating the same things over and over again, no matter how many times they have been addressed.

Providing an honest answer to a post involves reading it, trying to understand it, and addressing the points raised in it - not evading the issue, ignoring it, or just repeating your general beliefs about the subject, no matter how sincerely you hold them.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

But we both know that that's not true now don't we? Why? Because you've never once ever, ever, ever managed to provide even a scintilla of an iota of a jot of evidence for this supposed "God" or supposed "spiritual nature" at all.

What you actually do is attempt some very bad arguments that are quickly falsified, then resort to assertions of personal faith. And that's it. There's nothing else - zip, zilch, nada, sweet FA etc.

Look, it'd be very simple to do: if you genuinely think you do have some evidence, then just tell us what it is. The only proviso though is that, to be evidence at all, it has to be something that's coherent, cogent and credible. And a useful short cut you could try before trying it is to ask yourself, "does this work just as well for leprechauns?" and, when it does, to abandon the effort there. 

Deal?

Have you ever tried to analyse how your thoughts originate?  Are they really produced by the natural, uncontrollable forces of nature acting on and within the material elements of your brain?  You may of course label my argument as personal incredulity, but how it could be labelled as "personal" if my own thoughts are just uncontrollable consequences of nature acting within my own brain is a mystery to me.  I put it to you that your own analysis of this can be labelled as personal optimism in the extreme.

[floo]

I am God's creation, as are the animals.  The difference is that God has enabled me, and other humans, to become aware of their creator.

An assertion with no verifiable evidence to support it.

[Stranger]

Have you ever tried to analyse how your thoughts originate?  Are they really produced by the natural, uncontrollable forces of nature acting on and within the material elements of your brain?

How would you be able to tell if they were or not? This is not evidence or logic.

You may of course label my argument as personal incredulity

It is.

...but how it could be labelled as "personal" if my own thoughts are just uncontrollable consequences of nature acting within my own brain is a mystery to me.

It's been explained to you many times - what's confusing you?

I put it to you that your own analysis of this can be labelled as personal optimism in the extreme.

No, it's following all the evidence we have and taking account of the logic that rules out non-deterministic, purposeful action. Why would you even think it's optimistic?