Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The whole first argument applies to any choice anybody makes to do or not do anything.

The first argument applies as I've just said, but the Christian message is of a need for repentance and the bible calls us all sinners (Romans 3:23, for example) which means that, regardless of the first argument, there is no free choice not to sin - which makes it unjust for god to judge us for it.

How are you defining sin here?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Given Vlad has not stated that you determine what is moral from the Bible specifically, I don't think it's a valid challenge.

Yes he has. He thinks that there's such a thing as objective morality, that its (supposed) existence is evidence for "God" (though only the god he happens to prefer) and that it's written in some "holy" texts. It's an argument WLC attempts (arguably one of the weakest from a suite of weak arguments) and WLC uses it to justify morally disgusting positions - that killing babies was fine as they got to meet "God" sooner that way for example. If Vlad follows that reasoning as slavishly as he follows everything else WLC says presumably he agrees with him about that.

Of course if he now doesn't think that there's such a thing as objective morality, that its (supposed) existence is evidence for "God" and that it's written in some "holy" texts he's free to say so.

[Outrider]

So why are these things absolutely wrong or right.

They aren't necessarily, that's what the 'relative' bit means.

O.

[Stranger]

How are you defining sin here?

It makes no difference, so however you think your god does. Have you now decided to just ignore the first augment?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes he has. He thinks that there's such a thing as objective morality, that its (supposed) existence is evidence for "God" (though only the god he happens to prefer) and that it's written in some "holy" texts. It's an argument WLC attempts (arguably one of the weakest from a suite of weak arguments) and WLC uses it to justify morally disgusting positions - that killing babies was fine as they got to meet "God" sooner that way. If Vlad follows that reasoning as slavishly as he follows everything else WLC says presumably he agrees with him about that.

Of course if he now doesn't think that there's such a thing as objective morality, that its (supposed) existence is evidence for "God" and that it's written in some "holy" texts he's free to say so.

I haven't seen Vlad state that the Bible is inerrant or that it contains how you decide what's moral

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They aren't necessarily, that's what the 'relative' bit means.

O.

So if they aren’t absolutely wrong why shouldn’t I therefore have slaves?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I haven't seen Vlad state that the Bible is inerrant or that it contains how you decide what's moral

I have. If he no longer thinks that though, he can just tell us. If he does still cling to the notion of objective morality but has changed his mind about where it's codified though, it'd be interesting to hear where else he thinks he can find it.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

So if they aren’t absolutely wrong why shouldn’t I therefore have slaves?

Because, obviously, arguments can be made for that being a morally bad choice that are more cogent than arguments for it being a morally good choice. 

[Alan Burns]

More self contradictory self aggrandizing nonsense.  If evil exists in a god-created world, it is by god's will, remember nothing exists except by god's will in the christian ideology. So not only are you working against your own god, the full extent of your 'battle with evil' seems to consist of disingenuous trolling of people on the internet who think differently to you.  You don't fool anyone.

God did not make us puppets.  He created beings with their own free will.  Our ability to recognise good and evil stems from the knowledge that we have freedom to choose between good and evil.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

God did not make us puppets.  He created beings with their own free will.  Our ability to recognise good and evil stems from the knowledge that we have freedom to choose between good and evil.

Worthless assertions – and still no sign of that critical thinking and sound reasoning you claimed to have but have never produced.

Why is that?

[Alan Burns]

How could being free of time make any sense when there are choices to be made ?  You have to be aware of something before you can choose to respond to it.  That implies a time dimension.

Our choices emanate from our present state of conscious awareness, which exists and acts in the present.  Our conscious awareness defines the present.  It is the only way choices can be invoked - otherwise they are not conscious choices - just reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Our choices emanate from our present state of conscious awareness, which exists and acts in the present.  Our conscious awareness defines the present.  It is the only way choices can be invoked - otherwise they are not conscious choices - just reactions.

All of which reason- and evidence-denying wrongheadedness you've had falsified countless times using critical thinking and sound logic, neither of which you've shown any sign of having of your own so as to offer rebuttals.

[Stranger]

Our choices emanate from our present state of conscious awareness, which exists and acts in the present.  Our conscious awareness defines the present.

And the mindless thought-free repetition of total gibberish (totally ignoring all the answers you've been give) just goes on and on. Do you want the world to think your faith can turn a MENSA member into a unthinking automaton who can do nothing but ignore and repeat?

It is the only way choices can be invoked - otherwise they are not conscious choices - just reactions.

Yet again: why can't a conscious choice be a reaction? And it isn't the only way, it isn't even a way at all, because it's nothing but meaningless gibberish.

[torridon]

God did not make us puppets.  He created beings with their own free will.  Our ability to recognise good and evil stems from the knowledge that we have freedom to choose between good and evil.

but clearly we will fail to discern between good and evil if we are deceived by the Devil.  So why would God create the Devil to cause us all such confusion ?

[Alan Burns]

“So finally and once and for all, answer the question: do you or do you not have an argument (ie critical thinking in the form of logic or evidence) that would justify your assertion that a materialistic explanation for consciousness is “impossible”?

The phrase "materialistic explanation" indicates a basic flaw in many of the arguments put forward on this thread.

The phrase itself indicates a presumption that there can be nothing else but material entities from which to produce an explanation, which inevitably leads to the fact that any such explanation will be entirely derived from observed behaviour of material elements.  So even when it is not possible to produce a feasible "material explanation" the initial premiss dictates that there must be a material explanation which has not yet been found.

Can you see the flaw in this?

[Outrider]

So if they aren’t absolutely wrong why shouldn’t I therefore have slaves?

From my point of view (and, I'd suggest, that of most of our community here in the UK) because we feel that people deserve to have the freedom to live their own lives for their own benefit.

Do you think we shouldn't have slaves?  If so, why?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The phrase "materialistic explanation" indicates a basic flaw in many of the arguments put forward on this thread.

No it doesn’t.

The phrase itself indicates a presumption that there can be nothing else but material entities from which to produce an explanation,…

No it doesn’t. What it actually means is that the material is all we know of so far at least that’s reliably investigable and testable. It makes no “presumptions” at all about speculations about a supposed non-material.   

…which inevitably leads to the fact that any such explanation will be entirely derived from observed behaviour of material elements.

No it doesn’t. It leads to materialist explanations because they’re the only ones available to us that are derived reliably from investigation and testing.

So even when it is not possible to produce a feasible "material explanation" the initial premiss dictates that there must be a material explanation which has not yet been found.

Can you see the flaw in this?

Yes – it’s a straw man. Your claim was that a material explanation for consciousness is “impossible”. It’s your job therefore to justify that claim with coherent and cogent argument.

What’s stopping you? 

[Stranger]

The phrase "materialistic explanation" indicates a basic flaw in many of the arguments put forward on this thread.

The phrase itself indicates a presumption that there can be nothing else but material entities from which to produce an explanation, which inevitably leads to the fact that any such explanation will be entirely derived from observed behaviour of material elements.  So even when it is not possible to produce a feasible "material explanation" the initial premiss dictates that there must be a material explanation which has not yet been found.

Can you see the flaw in this?

And today's fallacy is shifting the burden of proof. Your claim was that a materialist explanation was impossible, so it's up to you to show why.

Your "argument" consists of assuming, without any evidence or sound arguments at all, that human "free will" exists in a way that is inherently self-contradictory, so of course it's impossible to have a materialistic explanation, but only because it's impossible full stop.

What's more (and something you keep on ignoring), if you could resolve the self-contradiction, then you still couldn't show that there was no materialistic explanation without claiming to know everything about the material world.

[torridon]

Our choices emanate from our present state of conscious awareness, which exists and acts in the present.  Our conscious awareness defines the present.  It is the only way choices can be invoked - otherwise they are not conscious choices - just reactions.

Ignoring the complication of consciousness lag, surely it is the case that every time a choice is made, it is made in the present moment.  This is just tautological, everything that happens, happens in the present moment. When a stone hits the floor, it does so in its own present moment. When a robin makes a choice of nesting site, it does so in its own present moment.  When I finally make my mind up about which house to buy, that happens in my present moment.  There is nothing unique to human mind, or some alleged 'spiritual entity' in this regard, so why keep claiming a special case that a spiritual entity is 'not subject to the same time dependent cause and effect events'. What is the difference ?

[Enki]

The phrase "materialistic explanation" indicates a basic flaw in many of the arguments put forward on this thread.

The phrase itself indicates a presumption that there can be nothing else but material entities from which to produce an explanation, which inevitably leads to the fact that any such explanation will be entirely derived from observed behaviour of material elements.  So even when it is not possible to produce a feasible "material explanation" the initial premiss dictates that there must be a material explanation which has not yet been found.

Can you see the flaw in this?

That's dishonest, Alan. He didn't say that or presume that at all. The 'flaw' seems to be in you.

[Alan Burns]

Yet again: why can't a conscious choice be a reaction? And it isn't the only way, it isn't even a way at all, because it's nothing but meaningless gibberish.

What is the ultimate causal event of a conscious choice?
If it is deemed to be an inevitable reaction to other inevitable reactions there is no causal event.
Without any definitive causal event, the concept of conscious choice becomes meaningless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What is the ultimate causal event of a conscious choice?
If it is deemed to be an inevitable reaction to other inevitable reactions there is no causal event.
Without any definitive causal event, the concept of conscious choice becomes meaningless.

You've had this wrongheadedness falsified countless times (with the critical thinking and sound reasoning you lack). Just ignoring the falsifications and repeating the same wrongheadedness is wasting everyone's time.

[Alan Burns]

That's dishonest, Alan. He didn't say that or presume that at all. The 'flaw' seems to be in you.

I was talking in general about the view expressed from many posters is that the only admissible evidence in discerning what our conscious awareness is or how it works must come from mankind's scientific investigation of our material world.  Such investigation is inherently limited by what can be perceived with our physical senses and man made instruments.  Hence if the only admissible evidence stems from scientific study of material behaviour, it is inevitable that any conclusions will be limited to materialistic explanations - even when they fail to provide a feasible explanation.

[ProfessorDavey]

What is the ultimate causal event of a conscious choice?

Chemical/physical processes.

If it is deemed to be an inevitable reaction to other inevitable reactions there is no causal event.

The intrinsic random variation may not make it inevitable, but otherwise yes.

Without any definitive causal event, the concept of conscious choice becomes meaningless.

On a macro scale absolutely - but on a micro scale (in other words the significance to an individual) then it is certainly meaningful.

Try this one - the emotions we know as love (or fear etc) are clearly understood in terms of fundamental chemical reactions. So on a macro/fundamental scale it is all just chemistry. But that doesn't alter the importance of that fundamental chemistry to us as individuals (the micro scale).

[Nearly Sane]

I was talking in general about the view expressed from many posters is that the only admissible evidence in discerning what our conscious awareness is or how it works must come from mankind's scientific investigation of our material world.  Such investigation is inherently limited by what can be perceived with our physical senses and man made instruments.  Hence if the only admissible evidence stems from scientific study of material behaviour, it is inevitable that any conclusions will be limited to materialistic explanations - even when they fail to provide a feasible explanation.

Then you need to provide a methodology for your claims. Note you have been asked for this many times.