Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

So there is a philosophical case for the supernatural so a supernatural argument is presumably makeable.

Then make it, but don't forget to include a method so that we can check your workings out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then make it, but don't forget to include a method so that we can check your workings out.

I've made it. see previous post.

[Gordon]

I've made it. see previous post.

Nah - you're usual hand-waving doesn't count.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nah - you're usual hand-waving doesn't count.

I have demonstrated where only something supernatural must occur. i.e. when a condition is inexplicable by materialism or naturalism.(Note, that isn't the same as incredulity in condition that could be explicable materially.
Since you are going beyond materialism you have to explain why you and bluehillside are implying that materialism is the default position. We could also ask what you think it is the default position for. If you are not saying that materialism is the default position then you are acknowledging that a burden of proof falls on materialism.

[Gordon]

I have demonstrated where only something supernatural must occur. i.e. when a condition is inexplicable by materialism or naturalism.(Note, that isn't the same as incredulity in condition that could be explicable materially.
Since you are going beyond materialism you have to explain why you and bluehillside are implying that materialism is the default position. We could also ask what you think it is the default position for. If you are not saying that materialism is the default position then you are acknowledging that a burden of proof falls on materialism.

I'm not, and I doubt BHS is either: this is just you desperately over-reaching again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry , Materialism makes no judgements on the supernatural, does not request proof of the supernatural...but you do.

Er yes, obviously – if someone wants me to take seriously their claims of the supernatural than I ask them to demonstrate those claims to be true. So, presumably, do you (and if you don’t, can I interest you in a house in Brigadoon I have for sale?). That has nothing to do with materialism though – just logic.

And when you do, you are therefore not acting from the materialist position but something different,

When you crash and burn there are no half measures are there. There’s no “materialist position” involved, just a rational one.
 

You then have a burden to justify your position.

Stop digging! My “position” is that I don’t accept any and all claims of the supernatural at face value. Nor (presumably) do you. What’s to justify about that? 

You also seem to have abandoned the notion of material when referring and/or not referring to the concept when using the words, truth, functional etc.

Is there a coherent thought in there somewhere struggling to get out?

Material things should be penetrable to material methods. Universe has been around for ever?, can't penetrate that with materialism, universe popped out of nothing, can't penetrate that with materialism, universe created? Can't penetrate that with materialism.

Why do you think that in principle at least materialistic methods and tools could never address these question?

So there is a philosophical case for the supernatural so a supernatural argument is presumably makeable.

No there isn’t. First because you’d have an epic job to establish a priori both what “the supernatural” would even mean, and then to demonstrate its existence at all; second because you’ve just collapsed again into argument from incredulity/god of the gaps territory. Were the ancient Norse right to make a philosophical case for Thor because the materialistic methods available to them couldn’t explain thunder? Why not?

You really need to give our head a wobble here. Really.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I have demonstrated where only something supernatural must occur. i.e. when a condition is inexplicable by materialism or naturalism.(Note, that isn't the same as incredulity in condition that could be explicable materially.

Actually it’s exactly the same as the argument from personal incredulity/god of the gaps. That the methods and tools of materialism (ie science) often reach a “don’t know” takes you not one jot of a smidgin of a whisker of an iota toward demonstrating “where only something supernatural must occur”. Not even close.   

Since you are going beyond materialism you have to explain why you and bluehillside are implying that materialism is the default position.

It’s the “default position” inasmuch as the only verifiable explanations we have ever found so far for observed phenomena have been materialistic in nature. That’s not to say that conceptually at least there couldn’t be a “supernatural” (whatever that would mean) but it is to say that there are no good reasons so far to think that the supernatural exists.       

We could also ask what you think it is the default position for. If you are not saying that materialism is the default position then you are acknowledging that a burden of proof falls on materialism.

You’ve collapsed into gibberish again here. What are you even trying to say? 

[Alan Burns]

Bluehillside,

This is the question you keep evading (from a previous post):

In the materialist model, how can the fall out from my material reactions be considered somehow inferior to the fall out from another person's reactions?  Who or what can possibly judge what is right without the consciously controlled freedom to think, apply logic and home in to conclusions?

You claim that conscious awareness is an emergent property of the material reactions in our brain.  But whatever emerges from material reactions can have no control over the reactions from which it emerges.  Emergence can only be one way traffic.  You continue to deny that our power to consciously contemplate and draw valid conclusions from what exists in our conscious awareness is evidence of anything supernatural.  You gloss over this problem by stating that we do not know enough about consciousness, but you fail to address the logical impossibility of the consciously controlled interaction needed to draw meaningful conclusions within the materialist model.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This is the question you keep evading (from a previous post):

In the materialist model, how can the fall out from my material reactions be considered somehow inferior to the fall out from another person's reactions?  Who or what can possibly judge what is right without the consciously controlled freedom to think, apply logic and home in to conclusions?

You claim that conscious awareness is an emergent property of the material reactions in our brain.  But whatever emerges from material reactions can have no control over the reactions from which it emerges.  Emergence can only be one way traffic.  You continue to deny that our power to consciously contemplate and draw valid conclusions from what exists in our conscious awareness is evidence of anything supernatural.  You gloss over this problem by stating that we do not know enough about consciousness, but you fail to address the logical impossibility of the consciously controlled interaction needed to draw meaningful conclusions within the materialist model.

Your usual array of misrepresentations, fallacies and unqualified assertions there. Is there any point in answering them yet again, only for you to ignore the answers you’re given yet again?

Tell you what, let’s try this instead:

The scene: Somewhere in Scandinavia, about 1,000 AD.

Eric: “So tell me Sven the Materialist, all that thunder and lightning and stuff. How do you explain that then?” 

Sven: “I have no idea.”

Eric: “Aha! As I assert it therefore to be physically impossible for it to happen naturally, I’ve demonstrated my case for Thor then haven’t I Mr Clever Clogs…”.

Is Eric correct in your opinion?

Why not?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This is the question you keep evading (from a previous post):

And just to rebut that lie…

In the materialist model, how can the fall out from my material reactions be considered somehow inferior to the fall out from another person's reactions?  Who or what can possibly judge what is right without the consciously controlled freedom to think, apply logic and home in to conclusions?

You claim that conscious awareness is an emergent property of the material reactions in our brain.

No I don’t. I “claim” that consciousness as a phenomenon aligns with the explanation of emergence, and that you’ve provided no good reasons to suggest that it doesn’t.

Try to understand this before you misrepresent me again.

But whatever emerges from material reactions can have no control over the reactions from which it emerges.  Emergence can only be one way traffic.

At some level, that’s true – “control” as you think it to be is logically impossible for reasons that have been set out for you countless times. Unless you’re about to slip into the argumentum ad conequentiam fallacy again, so what though? 

You continue to deny that our power to consciously contemplate and draw valid conclusions from what exists in our conscious awareness is evidence of anything supernatural.

No I don’t. I merely explain to you that – so far at least – you’ve never managed to provide a cogent reason to think there’s a “supernatural” entity at play, or for that matter to demonstrate that there even is a "supernatural". 

You gloss over this problem…

As it’s your problem to demonstrate your assertions to be true (which incidentally you always “gloss over” by never addressing it), why on earth are you accusing me of that?

…by stating that we do not know enough about consciousness, but you fail to address the logical impossibility of the consciously controlled interaction needed to draw meaningful conclusions within the materialist model.

I only “fail to address” that in the sense that you’ve never managed to tell us why you think it’s a “logical impossibility”. Just asserting that to be the case isn’t an argument – it’s just an assertion, and until you can justify it there's nothing to address. 

Look – I’ll give you (yet) another chance to prove me wrong about that: WHY do you think it’s a logical impossibility for consciousness to be a single, integrated, emergent property of vastly complex brains consisting of billions of interacting parts that requires no third party “driver” at all?

Go on – surprise me. Finally try at least to answer that without collapsing immediately into unqualified assertions and faith claims, fallacious arguments and evasive silences.   

Good luck with it though!   

[Alan Burns]

Look – I’ll give you (yet) another chance to prove me wrong about that: WHY do you think it’s a logical impossibility for consciousness to be a single, integrated, emergent property of vastly complex brains consisting of billions of interacting parts that requires no third party “driver” at all?

Go on – surprise me. Finally try at least to answer that without collapsing immediately into unqualified assertions and faith claims, fallacious arguments and evasive silences.   

Good luck with it though!   

You seem to presume that extreme complexity in material behaviour can fully explain how the conscious awareness which emerges from material reactions can have influence on the reactions from which it emerges.  Without such power to influence, our conscious awareness can only perceive what has already been determined by past events.  So no possibility of the consciously controlled contemplation needed to arrive at verifiable conclusions.  Yet every post you make shows ample evidence of your own ability to consciously contemplate what you perceive and draw conclusions.

No matter how complex the network of material reactions in a material brain, the end result will always be a reaction determined entirely by the laws of physics.  Laws over which we have no control.  The conscious control needed to contemplate, analyse and draw conclusions can't just be an inevitable reaction to past events.  In the materialist view, we have the absurdity of one set of physically controlled reactions (me) being deemed to be wrong by another set of physically controlled reactions (you).   Can you not see the obvious truth that both you and I are conscious entities, each with our own individual power to think, draw conclusions and seek the truth and purpose behind our existence.

[Outrider]

Material things should be penetrable to material methods.

Yep.

Universe has been around for ever?

Nope. Universe has been around for about 14 ˝ billion years.

can't penetrate that with materialism,

Don't need to try, see above.

universe popped out of nothing, can't penetrate that with materialism,

Nope. See Krauss 'A Universe from Nothing' for at least one possibility, there may well be others.

universe created?

No strong evidence for that.

Can't penetrate that with materialism.

Don't need to, see above.

So there is a philosophical case for the supernatural so a supernatural argument is presumably makeable.

No. 'Materialism' doesn't have an answer at the moment is not the same as 'materialism will never have an answer', and even if you could somehow show that materialism will never have an answer, that's still not any demonstrable that there's a viable 'non-materialist' methodology for determining what is going on, or that the phenomenon itself is not still material. It's merely a grounds for 'I don't know' or perhaps 'we don't know, yet.'

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem to presume that extreme complexity in material behaviour can fully explain how the conscious awareness which emerges from material reactions can have influence on the reactions from which it emerges.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here, but what I actually “presume” – ie, note –  is that:

1. In nature complex phenomena emerge spontaneously from simpler interacting components that separately do not have the characteristics of those phenomena; and

2. You have no argument to exclude consciousness from that model.

Clear now? 

Without such power to influence, our conscious awareness can only perceive what has already been determined by past events.  So no possibility of the consciously controlled contemplation needed to arrive at verifiable conclusions.

Your terminology is all over the place here, but if you’re trying to say that we can’t control what thoughts we have then yes – that’s right.

Yet every post you make shows ample evidence of your own ability to consciously contemplate what you perceive and draw conclusions.

You’re just repeating your muddleheadedness here. My “every post” is just a manifestation of my conscious mind doing its thing – with no need for an invisible man at the controls to do the thinking for me. 

No matter how complex the network of material reactions in a material brain, the end result will always be a reaction determined entirely by the laws of physics. Laws over which we have no control.

Quite possibly, yes. So?

The conscious control needed to contemplate, analyse and draw conclusions can't just be an inevitable reaction to past events.

Why not?

In the materialist view, we have the absurdity of one set of physically controlled reactions (me) being deemed to be wrong by another set of physically controlled reactions (you).

It’s a lot more complex than that, but essentially yes. So?

Can you not see the obvious truth…

Every time you’ve claimed an “obvious truth” previously the claim has turned out to be neither obvious nor true. Let’s see if you do any better this time – perhaps with an actual argument rather than with an unqualified assertion?

…that both you and I are conscious entities, each with our own individual power to think, draw conclusions and seek the truth and purpose behind our existence.

… and no you can’t. Oh well. Yes, each of us are “conscious entities”, and each of us can think etc. The point though is that thinking and drawing conclusions are not as you’d like them to be – indeed cannot be without running into a welter of contradictions – because you cannot grasp the point that the experience of thinking requires no little man at the controls at all.

Look, try to focus here:

1. In the emergent property model there is no need for third party “controller”;

2. There is no evidence at all that there is a third party “controller”; and

3. A third party “controller” would have to have a thinking process of its own, so your notion “soul” would just relocate your objections to the naturalistic answer to the supernatural one.   

So, and yet again (and without resorting again to the non-argument of “obvious truth”): WHY do you think it’s a logical impossibility for consciousness to be a single, integrated, emergent property of vastly complex brains consisting of billions of interacting parts that requires no third party “driver” at all?
     

[BeRational]

You seem to presume that extreme complexity in material behaviour can fully explain how the conscious awareness which emerges from material reactions can have influence on the reactions from which it emerges.  Without such power to influence, our conscious awareness can only perceive what has already been determined by past events.  So no possibility of the consciously controlled contemplation needed to arrive at verifiable conclusions.  Yet every post you make shows ample evidence of your own ability to consciously contemplate what you perceive and draw conclusions.

No matter how complex the network of material reactions in a material brain, the end result will always be a reaction determined entirely by the laws of physics.  Laws over which we have no control.  The conscious control needed to contemplate, analyse and draw conclusions can't just be an inevitable reaction to past events.  In the materialist view, we have the absurdity of one set of physically controlled reactions (me) being deemed to be wrong by another set of physically controlled reactions (you).   Can you not see the obvious truth that both you and I are conscious entities, each with our own individual power to think, draw conclusions and seek the truth and purpose behind our existence.

See an answer from a physicist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY

[bluehillside Retd.]

BR,

See an answer from a physicist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY

Thanks for posting. Wouldn't it be nice to think that AB not only watched it but actually understood it too?

Fat chance right?

[BeRational]

BR,

Thanks for posting. Wouldn't it be nice to think that AB not only watched it but actually understood it too?

Fat chance right?

Indeed, but I do sympathize a little, because it does seem like we have free will, but we don't.

This comes down I think to following the evidence. I may not like the answer, but that's just tough!

I do like her quite direct approach!

I  watched several of her vidoes on Fusion reactors for generating useful power, and now I am less optimistic about it ever coming to fruition in my lifetime, or my childrens.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope. See Krauss 'A Universe from Nothing' for at least one possibility, there may well be others.

Even if we excuse Krauss for redefining the word nothing into 'a something', How can that theory be tested since once you have the universe you cannot repeat that and even if you did, How would you demonstrate that the one universe we have started that way?....and wouldn't that new universe replace our own? And if it was a universe somewhere else then etc, etc.

Not sure an appeal to 'A universe from nothing' is that smart a move these days.

This is from the Scientific American when the world was young and 'A universe from Nothing' was fresh

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Even if we excuse Krauss for redefining the word nothing into 'a something', How can that theory be tested since once you have the universe you cannot repeat that and even if you did, How would you demonstrate that the one universe we have started that way?....and wouldn't that new universe replace our own? And if it was a universe somewhere else then etc, etc.

Not sure an appeal to 'A universe from nothing' is that smart a move these days.

This is from the Scientific American when the world was young and 'A universe from Nothing' was fresh

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/

It's just a hypothesis – one of several that are not demonstrably wrong, but that cannot be shown to be right only. 

Anyway, as you just ran away from the question you were asked here it is again: how did you get from “materialism does not explain X” to “materialism could never explain X”?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It's just a hypothesis – one of several that are not demonstrably wrong, but that cannot be shown to be right only. 

Anyway, as you just ran away from the question you were asked here it is again: how did you get from “materialism does not explain X” to “materialism could never explain X”?

Because where are you going to be to observe the infinitude of the universe Hillside... How can you set up an experiment which demonstrates the universe started...How can you observe the universe popping out of nothing? You can't
Which brings us to God of the Gaps which in your hands assumes that there will always be and has to be a scientific answer. If nothing else that assumes the principle of sufficient reason which atheists on here and your hero Sean M.Carroll have attempted to suspend.

All to a background of you flip flopping between  methodological materialism and philosophical materialism as explained by this Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io4fxdBEApc

[Alan Burns]

So, and yet again (and without resorting again to the non-argument of “obvious truth”): WHY do you think it’s a logical impossibility for consciousness to be a single, integrated, emergent property of vastly complex brains consisting of billions of interacting parts that requires no third party “driver” at all?
   

You keep missing the point.
It is not conscious awareness which I deem to be an impossibility.
It is the demonstrable ability for an entity of conscious awareness to contemplate what they are aware of rather than just react to it.
You demonstrate this ability in every post you consciously compose.
You demonstrate this ability by analysing what I post and finding reasons to disagree (or agree) with what I write.
You seem to suggest that all this can be automated by physically defined reactions - this is what I deem to be impossible.
To have control of what you write, you need an entity which can exert conscious control rather than an entity which is entirely driven by reactions defined by the laws of physics over which we can have no control.

[Gordon]

You keep missing the point.
It is not conscious awareness which I deem to be an impossibility.
It is the demonstrable ability for an entity of conscious awareness to contemplate what they are aware of rather than just react to it.
You demonstrate this ability in every post you consciously compose.
You demonstrate this ability by analysing what I post and finding reasons to disagree (or agree) with what I write.

So brains work: so what? We already know that.

You seem to suggest that all this can be automated by physically defined reactions - this is what I deem to be impossible.

That is your core problem, Alan, hence your chronic incredulity - and anyway I'm not sure you're qualified to go about 'deeming' as you do.

To have control of what you write, you need an entity which can exert conscious control rather than an entity which is entirely driven by reactions defined by the laws of physics over which we can have no control.

You just need to think a bit, Alan, and you have all the biology you need to do that even if you do come to flawed conclusions. Unfortunately for you the 'laws of physics' aren't going to be repealed any time soon just because you don't like the implications.

[Alan Burns]

That is your core problem, Alan, hence your chronic incredulity ....
 

And what is it that you are accusing of chronic incredulity?
Is it the laws of physics which drive the material model of the human brain?
Or is there something within all these physically determined reactions which can take personal accountability for this chronic incredulity?
An incredulous electron perhaps?

[torridon]

You keep missing the point.
It is not conscious awareness which I deem to be an impossibility.
It is the demonstrable ability for an entity of conscious awareness to contemplate what they are aware of rather than just react to it.
You demonstrate this ability in every post you consciously compose.
You demonstrate this ability by analysing what I post and finding reasons to disagree (or agree) with what I write.
You seem to suggest that all this can be automated by physically defined reactions - this is what I deem to be impossible.
To have control of what you write, you need an entity which can exert conscious control rather than an entity which is entirely driven by reactions defined by the laws of physics over which we can have no control.

We cannot control the laws of nature; we cannot control the way our brains function. However, the laws of nature allow for and enable things like contemplation through the evolution of brains.  Rocks do not contemplate, however brains do.  There is no reason to imagine this is impossible.

[Gordon]

And what is it that you are accusing of chronic incredulity?

The biological robot I refer to as Alan Burns: more specifically the chunk of biology inside your skull.

Is it the laws of physics which drive the material model of the human brain?

Most likely.

Or is there something within all these physically determined reactions which can take personal accountability for this chronic incredulity?

Your sense of self is just a consequence of the "physically determined reactions" you refer to, which includes both feelings of "personal accountability" and also, in your case, the erroneous thinking which is exhibited by your chronic personal incredulity and regular descent into your ongoing fallacy-fest.

An incredulous electron perhaps?

QED: the above reads like you have fallen into the fallacy of division yet again.

[Outrider]

Even if we excuse Krauss for redefining the word nothing into 'a something',

Krauss reinterprets nothing, he points out that the original misnomer of 'nothing' is misleading.

How can that theory be tested since once you have the universe you cannot repeat that and even if you did, How would you demonstrate that the one universe we have started that way?....and wouldn't that new universe replace our own? And if it was a universe somewhere else then etc, etc.

It's difficult, that's why it doesn't qualify as conventional science and certainly isn't anything as strong as a scientific theory, but it is 'materiaist' explanation which is what you were asking for.

Not sure an appeal to 'A universe from nothing' is that smart a move these days.

I'm sure you're not, but that's because you want to dissuade people from arguments that actually work that stand against the stance you're adopting.

This is from the Scientific American when the world was young and 'A universe from Nothing' was fresh

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/

So, as I said, it's not rigorous science - that doesn't mean it's wrong, it means it's currently both unproven and, at the moment, beyond our foreseeable capability to test.

All of which, as BHS has pointed out, fails to address the actual point of my post: how does the current lack of a confirmed material explanation in any way validate a claim of supernaturalism?

O.