Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

I suppose Alan, and presumably other Christians, are trying to avoid the notion of a physical reality, and also determinism.  The soul, and presumably God, from which it derives, are not physical, and exist outside deterministic logic.   The fact that this points to randomness and magic, seems to be ignored.

I'm trying to see this historically.   God has traditionally  been conceived of as prior to the universe, and outside its parameters.   However, this can lead to ignosticism,  that is,  being unable to assess such a claim, as it makes no sense.

[Sebastian Toe]

I leave that in God's hands

But I know that God will not force conversion.
So I pray for the opportunity to convert.

And how would that prayed-for opportunity arise, as opposed to it arising without your prayer?

[wigginhall]

Still thinking about physicalism and determinism, as above.   You can say that in classical theism, the will of God exists prior to everything, is obviously non-physical, and has no cause and no 'before'.    Then the soul is a kind of miniature version of that.

As I said, this doesn't make sense to many people, but apparently to some.   One issue is that you can't investigate the non-natural.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's just playing word games semantics, using a double negative to obscure the need to justify a position.

Well to put it another way, I don't believe in naturalism or a soulely natural universe.


There …..you are still undone.

[torridon]

Well to put it another way, I don't believe in naturalism or a soulely natural universe.


There …..you are still undone.

Don't think so; that implies you must entertain a belief in supernaturalism and that would need to be justified.  I think you're in deep doodoos now, as supernatural cannot be evidenced; evidence being a naturalistic concept.  Supernaturalism is impossible to justify.

[wigginhall]

Yes, basically the non-natural can't be investigated.   Err, what now?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, basically the non-natural can't be investigated.   Err, what now?

Er, Torriden's, theory about what beliefs need to be justified lies in pieces? But I suppose you've quickly Turd skated over that.


The supernatural can be explored personally and of course, dodged, for fear of finding one's self in the exploration......not that I'm well impressed by the words natural and supernatural anyway since the naturalists seem so flexible with the definition of the former that they then can't adequately define the supernatural.

[Gordon]

The supernatural can be explored personally and of course, dodged, for fear of finding one's self in the exploration......

How? Do you have a set of instructions for doing so?

not that I'm well impressed by the words natural and supernatural anyway since the naturalists seem so flexible with the definition of the former that they then can't adequately define the supernatural.

It would be for 'super-naturalists' to define the supernatural though: wouldn't you agree? 

[torridon]

Er, Torriden's, theory about what beliefs need to be justified lies in pieces? But I suppose you've quickly Turd skated over that.


The supernatural can be explored personally and of course, dodged, for fear of finding one's self in the exploration......not that I'm well impressed by the words natural and supernatural anyway since the naturalists seem so flexible with the definition of the former that they then can't adequately define the supernatural.

Nonsense.  Science extends our personal abilities to investigate by orders of magnitude, and if science can't find the supernatural, you can be pretty damn sure any bloke in the street is not going to have any luck. Working definitions for 'supernatural' might include 'that which inherently cannot be investigated', 'that which cannot be comprehended'.  It rules itself out of any investigation by definition.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nonsense.  Science extends our personal abilities to investigate by orders of magnitude, and if science can't find the supernatural, you can be pretty damn sure any bloke in the street is not going to have any luck. Working definitions for 'supernatural' might include 'that which inherently cannot be investigated', 'that which cannot be comprehended'.  It rules itself out of any investigation by definition.

And a quick duck behind science by Torridon there. We are of course talking about naturalism. The foul stain on the underpants of science....rather than science itself.

Low, even for your standards.

[Alan Burns]

You write such sentences so blithely, Alan: they might sound profound to you, when you say things like 'outside the physically pre determined *deterministic* nature of this material universe' but they sound silly to anyone who stops to consider what 'outside' the universe could possibly mean since you seem to think it would involve a breakdown of cause and effect in favour of some kind of ineffable magic.

Isn't there something in your holy book about growing up and leaving childish nonsense behind?

* my addition, and redundant terms struck-through.

If you consider everything to be derived from physically controlled reactions of material particles, then of course I would agree that these terms are redundant.

But current scientific knowledge would indicate that conscious awareness coupled with its associated property of consciously driven choice are not naturally occurring properties of material reactions, which is why I differentiate between physically predetermined and (actively) determined.  The latter being determined by the spiritual power of the human soul.   

I have previously indicated that my Christian faith is not entirely dependent on this being true, but having awareness of God's existence allows me postulate such theory to make sense of the reality we live in.

[SusanDoris]

If you consider everything to be derived from physically controlled reactions of material particles, then of course I would agree that these terms are redundant.

But current scientific knowledge would indicate that conscious awareness coupled with its associated property of consciously driven choice are not naturally occurring properties of material reactions, which is why I differentiate between physically predetermined and (actively) determined.  The latter being determined by the spiritual power of the human soul.   

I have previously indicated that my Christian faith is not entirely dependent on this being true, but having awareness of God's existence allows me postulate such theory to make sense of the reality we live in.

You do not actually have an 'awareness of the imagined idea you refer to as God', you only believe that you have. That belief is not substantiated by any science, any objective evidence, any method of showing it, any common sense, any rational argument, any aspect of technology, any .. ... well, I'm sure there must be a much longer list than this.
All you have here is the, to me, dubious support of Sword of the spirit and Vlad!

How about answering some of the many questions you continuously avoid, evade, etc?

[Gordon]

If you consider everything to be derived from physically controlled reactions of material particles, then of course I would agree that these terms are redundant.

But current scientific knowledge would indicate that conscious awareness coupled with its associated property of consciously driven choice are not naturally occurring properties of material reactions,.....

What knowledge is this - citations please?

....which is why I differentiate between physically predetermined and (actively) determined.

You've added yet another redundant term here: we now have both 'actively' (which means what exactly?) and you are hanging on to 'physically' too I seen - this is arrant nonsense, Alan.

The latter being determined by the spiritual power of the human soul.

Nope - you've provided no good reasons to take this notion seriously.

I have previously indicated that my Christian faith is not entirely dependent on this being true, but having awareness of God's existence allows me postulate such theory to make sense of the reality we live in.

This is about as good a mess of a sentence as I've read for some time: it reads that you've given yourself a license to make stuff up as you go along. Is it possible your 'theory' is wrong?

[ippy]

If you consider everything to be derived from physically controlled reactions of material particles, then of course I would agree that these terms are redundant.

But current scientific knowledge would indicate that conscious awareness coupled with its associated property of consciously driven choice are not naturally occurring properties of material reactions, which is why I differentiate between physically predetermined and (actively) determined.  The latter being determined by the spiritual power of the human soul.   

I have previously indicated that my Christian faith is not entirely dependent on this being true, but having awareness of God's existence allows me postulate such theory to make sense of the reality we live in.

Alan, you must have noticed that the combination of your posts and Gordon's replies are absolutely hilarious, I have to hand it to Gordon virtually zero of your flights of fancy get past his succinct eagle eye, I note post 30062 on this thread he's got you again, you'll have to stop banging your head against the wall eventually Alan, an absolute hoot.

Regards all round ippy 

[torridon]

But current scientific knowledge would indicate that conscious awareness coupled with its associated property of consciously driven choice are not naturally occurring properties of material reactions.

That would be news.

Can you provide a link to this research ?

[Nearly Sane]

That would be news.

Can you provide a link to this research ?

Not just news, it would be indicative of a new methodology given that science is methodologically natural. This would be extraordinary.

[Stranger]

If you consider everything to be derived from physically controlled reactions of material particles, then of course I would agree that these terms are redundant.

It really doesn't have anything to do with the physical. Why not at least try to understand, rather than mindlessly repeating the same things and totally ignoring what people are saying to you? Perhaps you'd have an answer if you actually thought about it instead of ignoring it.

Whether or not our minds are physical, logically they must either be deterministic systems or they must, to some extent, involve randomness. This is not a constraint of the physical universe, it is just logic.

But current scientific knowledge would indicate that conscious awareness coupled with its associated property of consciously driven choice are not naturally occurring properties of material reactions...

Citation missing.

...which is why I differentiate between physically predetermined and (actively) determined.  The latter being determined by the spiritual power of the human soul.   

Once again you are pretending that saying what determines something is a substitute for explaining how the choice is made. It's blatant evasion of the point. Labelling something "the spiritual power of the human soul" does not free it from the constraints of logic.

Here is the logic again as you continue to totally ignore it:

If every single factor that may affect a choice (including the state of mind of the chooser, all of her nature, nurture, and experience) do not result in only one possible choice, then any remaining choice can have no basis at all, and a choice made for no reason, is random.

How about you at least try to say what you think is wrong with that?

[Alan Burns]

If every single factor that may affect a choice (including the state of mind of the chooser, all of her nature, nurture, and experience) do not result in only one possible choice, then any remaining choice can have no basis at all, and a choice made for no reason, is random.

How about you at least try to say what you think is wrong with that?

Nothing wrong with it - as long as you include the consciously driven will of human beings in the list of factors pertaining to choice.

[torridon]

And a quick duck behind science by Torridon there. We are of course talking about naturalism. The foul stain on the underpants of science....rather than science itself.

Low, even for your standards.

And a quick escape into the comforting fog of Vladobabble there.

Science is inherently naturalistic, I don't see how you could disentangle science from naturalism.  There'd be no point in setting out to investigate something that is not investigable. How can anyone believe in supernatural when there can be no convincing evidence in favour of it, by definition, I don't know.

[torridon]

Nothing wrong with it - as long as you include the consciously driven will of human beings in the list of factors pertaining to choice.

And given that we do not choose our will or choose our beliefs, it remains deterministic.

Are you going to post up that link to the scientific discovery that consciousness is not natural ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And a quick escape into the comforting fog of Vladobabble there.

Science is inherently naturalistic, I don't see how you could disentangle science from naturalism.

Not being able to tell the difference is your problem.

[Stranger]

Nothing wrong with it - as long as you include the consciously driven will of human beings in the list of factors pertaining to choice.

At last, an attempt! Unfortunately it's just more evasion dressed up as an answer. It shows (once again) a total misunderstanding of (or refusal to accept) the nature of the problem.

The question is about how the "consciously driven will of human beings" works - how decisions get made - you can't just add it as another input.

Look, you object to the brain making choices because you "look inside" to see what sort of processes can happen and conclude that it must be deterministic. You don't like that because of your faith, so you invent this soul thingy but when we ask how that makes choices, you change the rules and refuse to "look inside" the decision making process at all and just pretend that the "problem" of determinism has been solved.

You then play with the language by adding a redundant "pre" to the physical case and pretending that "determined by" or "actively determined by" are answers to the "determined how" question. I don't think you're too unintelligent to see the differences, so it's either conscious avoidance or an unconscious self-deception.

The logic regarding all decision making processes being deterministic or involving randomness is completely independent of physics and must apply to all decision makers (including any soul you may postulate).

So let's go back to the logic:

If every single factor that may affect a choice (including the state of mind of the chooser, all of her nature, nurture, and experience) do not result in only one possible choice, then any remaining choice can have no basis at all, and a choice made for no reason, is random.

Adding the output of another choice making process does not address the issue.

[Stranger]

I don't believe in a universe without a God Torridon.

I've put that in to show there really is nothing superior about your position and using your logic to prove it.

Well to put it another way, I don't believe in naturalism or a soulely natural universe.

The problem with this kind of word play is that it's either a positive claim dressed up as an absence of belief or it's all but meaningless.

If you "don't believe in a universe without a God" either you are stating the absence of a positive belief in a universe with no gods - which is a statement many atheists could equally make or you are making a positive claim that the universe needs a god (presumably with certain characteristics).

The same applies if you "don't believe in naturalism" - either you are asserting the existence of the supernatural (whatever the fuck that is supposed to be) or you are making the bland statement that you can't rule out something that might be regarded as supernatural (if we can define what it is).

[ippy]

The problem with this kind of word play is that it's either a positive claim dressed up as an absence of belief or it's all but meaningless.

If you "don't believe in a universe without a God" either you are stating the absence of a positive belief in a universe with no gods - which is a statement many atheists could equally make or you are making a positive claim that the universe needs a god (presumably with certain characteristics).

The same applies if you "don't believe in naturalism" - either you are asserting the existence of the supernatural (whatever the fuck that is supposed to be) or you are making the bland statement that you can't rule out something that might be regarded as supernatural (if we can define what it is).

Stranger, I think and of course I could be wrong but I think that you'll find that Alan has been brought up in a strongly believing catholic family and as usual most catholics make sure that their children don't stray outside of the mould.

As you most probably know all of psychology is based on average figures statistics, and the quest for identical twins, monozygotic twins, especially if they're brought up separately, another well known fact that figures in psychology is the gullibility of the very young where the ability to challenge is only
acquired at around the age of seven years.

It obviously follows that these vulnerable very young children unfortunately for them they are  brought up in this all surrounding inescapable catholic 'ethos' using their own word, so really when you see and hear about this situation it's hardly surprising that we get the occasional Alan Burns turning up from time to time.

This system to my mind has made him completely impervious to reason no matter where or who it comes from and I genuinely feel very sorry for him and his so deeply buried head.
 

[Alan Burns]

And given that we do not choose our will ........

So what precisely do you consider we have any choice in?