Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

No amount of wrongheaded reasoning will take away my God given freedom.

Back in blind contradiction and foot-stamping, I see. It still puzzles me what you think you're achieving and why you seem so afraid of learning about logical arguments and the avoidance of fallacies, so you might have a better chance of constructing more convincing arguments. Well, just constructing arguments worthy of the name, would be a start.

If you'd just spent a fraction of the time you've spent here pointlessly repeating yourself, actually learning these things, you should have had the time to become an expert by now.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I could reel off all the circumstances which lead me to believe that I have had miraculous answers to prayer, but I have no  doubt that you and others will endeavour to write them all off as coincidences or delusions.

Actually write them off just as poor reasoning. Surprising things happen all the time – both welcome and unwelcome. That’s what you’d expect to see in an indifferent, god-less universe. Your mistake in thinking is to select just the welcome ones and to impute therefore a purposive god. If you really had any interest at all in making a case for answered prayers, you’d have to show a higher incidence of the good outcomes when people pray than when they don’t.

No-one has been able to show that, but by all means give it a try if you wish to.
     

I did look at them - they express different viewpoints to mine, but the did not convince me that I am wrong.

Given that they explained your survivorship bias to you, why not?

Do you now understand what survivorship bias is at least, even if you can't see why it undoes you?

I found the performance by Tim Minchin quite nauseating.

Not as nauseating as I found the queasily dishonest videos you posted I bet, but each to his own…

I see you once again demonstrating what appears to be your consciously driven efforts to think up hypothetical scenarios to demonstrate how wrong my views are, but despite your considerable efforts I am afraid you still have not convinced me that I am wrong.

Why do you always scuttle back to the same mind-bending fucking idiocy every time you’re shown an actual argument that falsifies you rather than try at least to engage with the argument itself?

If the argument hasn’t convinced you that you’re wrong then explain why not – if I said 2+2=5, you took the trouble to explain why I was wrong about that and I replied “I am afraid you still have not convinced me that I am wrong” what would you make of my intellectual cowardice and dishonesty? 

Your problem isn’t that you’re not convinced by arguments (after all, you routinely just ignore them as here) it’s that you don’t want to be convinced by arguments, which is why you just stick your fingers in your ears instead. 

No amount of wrongheaded reasoning will take away my God given freedom.

But it should when your grounds for thinking you have “God given freedom” at all are themselves the wrongheaded reasoning. Even at some dimly aware level you should be able to grasp this, at least conceptually.   

[Alan Burns]

Well, just constructing arguments worthy of the name, would be a start.

Constructing valid arguments of any sort requires the ability to consciously control the thought processes needed to formulate and verify the argument.  BlueHillside claims that such processing must occur in subconscious brain activity before it enters your conscious awareness - do you agree?

[Stranger]

Constructing valid arguments of any sort requires the ability to consciously control the thought processes needed to formulate and verify the argument.

You must have typed pretty much these exact words hundreds of times on here by now. What's the point? The answers are exactly the same as all the other times you've raised this miserable excuse for an argument.

Why won't you say what you think you're achieving by all this pointless repetition and why are you're (apparently) so afraid of spending some time instead on learning about logical reasoning and avoiding fallacies, so you can do better?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Constructing valid arguments of any sort requires the ability to consciously control the thought processes needed to formulate and verify the argument.  BlueHillside claims that such processing must occur in subconscious brain activity before it enters your conscious awareness - do you agree?

You’ve been corrected on this countless times here so why on earth do you return to exactly the same mantra over and over again like a demented speak your weight machine?

You use “if you can make any argument at all, then I’m right” as a nuclear weapon to lay waste to anything that undoes you. As soon as someone explains to you why you’re wrong the very fact of doing that to your mind means you must be right. Game over. Nothing to see here. Sayonara. Goodnight Vienna.

Your epic mistake though is your continued failure to grasp that it’s the arguments themselves that falsify that claim. There need be no “conscious control” in the sense you envisage, and indeed that would be logically impossible in any case. You therefore have to address that before you can move to your mantra. As things stand though, the mantra can be dismissed out of hand because you won’t (or can’t) address the a priori falsification of it.   

[Alan Burns]

Do you now understand what survivorship bias is at least, even if you can't see why it undoes you?

You are making a presumption that my claims for answered prayer must be false and you are trying to use the concept of survivorship bias to explain them away - without knowing any details about the circumstances of my experiences.  To claim it "undoes me" is vastly presumptuous.

There is not enough capacity in this forum to go into detail about how every major stage in my life has been enhanced beyond my expectations through the power of prayer - it could fill a book.  Just one recent example of praying for other people - a close friend of ours was diagnosed with liver cancer in October 2021 and given a few weeks to live.  My wife and I prayed for a miracle.  Our friend is now enjoying a full lifestyle after the damaged liver somehow regenerated and she is currently thinking about becoming a Christian.  Yes - I know that coincidences do occur and I am fully aware that not all prayers get such a miraculous answer, but I have faith in the power of prayer - all prayers get answered and they allow God's amazing power to come into our lives.

[Alan Burns]

Your epic mistake though is your continued failure to grasp that it’s the arguments themselves that falsify that claim. There need be no “conscious control” in the sense you envisage, and indeed that would be logically impossible in any case.

The point I am making and will continue to make is that conscious control of thought processes is essential to form valid arguments.  Your scenario seem to be proposing is that these so called arguments can somehow fall out of our of physically driven subconscious brain activity without the need of conscious control - so they become just inevitable uncontrollable reactions to past events which enter your conscious awareness.  I fully agree that conscious control is a logical impossibility in the materialistic, time related cause and effect model - I realised this over fifty years ago.  But I do have conscious control of my thoughts which gives me the ability to analyse what I perceive and draw verifiable, consciously driven conclusions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You are making a presumption that my claims for answered prayer must be false…

No, I’m using reason to conclude that your reasons for thinking your prayers have been answered are wrong. It could (theoretically at least) still be the case that they have been answered and that your belief about that is correct just as a matter of dumb luck, but the justifications you attempt for the claim are wrong for the reasons you’ve been given.

Try to understand the difference between what’s actually been explained to you and your straw man version of it: it’s important.   

… and you are trying to use the concept of survivorship bias to explain them away –

No, I use survivorship bias to demonstrate the construction of your argument. Try to understand this. 

…without knowing any details about the circumstances of my experiences.

The “details about the circumstances of my experiences” are irrelevant. What is relevant is your reasoning for thinking they indicate answered prayers, which is false.

To claim it "undoes me" is vastly presumptuous.

No it isn’t – see above.

There is not enough capacity in this forum to go into detail about how every major stage in my life has been enhanced beyond my expectations through the power of prayer - it could fill a book.  Just one recent example of praying for other people - a close friend of ours was diagnosed with liver cancer in October 2021 and given a few weeks to live.  My wife and I prayed for a miracle.  Our friend is now enjoying a full lifestyle after the damaged liver somehow regenerated and she is currently thinking about becoming a Christian.  Yes - I know that coincidences do occur and I am fully aware that not all prayers get such a miraculous answer, but I have faith in the power of prayer - all prayers get answered and they allow God's amazing power to come into our lives.

I'm pleased for your friend. What survivorship bias explains though is that if you had, say, a thousand such cancer sufferers and you prayed for all of them most would still not survive. Worse yet, if 500 were prayed for and the other 500 were not prayed for the number of survivors from each set would be exactly the same.   

Can you see where you’re going wrong here? Not only does survivorship bias (ie, counting the hits and ignoring the misses) undo you, so does your reliance on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy – you’ve just assumed that a recovery following prayer means the prayer must have caused the recovery.     

I have no idea whether you’ll understand any of this (though your record here suggest that you won’t) so here’s a shorthand version for you: the plural of anecdote isn’t evidence.

Can you see it now? 

[Alan Burns]

You must have typed pretty much these exact words hundreds of times on here by now. What's the point? The answers are exactly the same as all the other times you've raised this miserable excuse for an argument.

Why won't you say what you think you're achieving by all this pointless repetition and why are you're (apparently) so afraid of spending some time instead on learning about logical reasoning and avoiding fallacies, so you can do better?

You appear to be suggesting that I make a conscious act of willpower to learn more about the logical reasoning which will apparently convince me that I am unable to choose to make such a conscious act of will. 

[Stranger]

You are making a presumption that my claims for answered prayer must be false...

I dunno, Alan, even though I'm pretty used to your nonsense, sometimes what you say still leaves me scrambling around on the carpet looking for my lower jaw. It's not a case of presuming the opposite (that your claim is untrue) but pointing out that you have provided not one, single, solitary objective reason to think that it is true. You've basically spent several posts telling us that your belief is completely impervious to any actual objective facts, topping it off with, if all else fails, then there's the (entirely unevidenced) afterlife in which it can all be put right regardless.

It would be utterly hilarious if it weren't so sad.

Just one recent example of praying for other people - a close friend of ours was diagnosed with liver cancer in October 2021 and given a few weeks to live.  My wife and I prayed for a miracle.  Our friend is now enjoying a full lifestyle after the damaged liver somehow regenerated and she is currently thinking about becoming a Christian.  Yes - I know that coincidences do occur and I am fully aware that not all prayers get such a miraculous answer, but I have faith in the power of prayer - all prayers get answered and they allow God's amazing power to come into our lives.

While I'm glad for your friend, here again, even you seem to be vaguely aware that your example provides no evidence because many people who are prayed for don't get better and many who aren't prayed for, do, and then just say, basically, that that doesn't bother you a bit because you'll go on believing regardless. It's just mindless blind faith.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The point I am making and will continue to make is that conscious control of thought processes is essential to form valid arguments.

Wrong.

Your scenario seem to be proposing is that these so called arguments can somehow fall out of our of physically driven subconscious brain activity without the need of conscious control - so they become just inevitable uncontrollable reactions to past events which enter your conscious awareness.

Wrong.

I fully agree that conscious control is a logical impossibility in the materialistic, time related cause and effect model - I realised this over fifty years ago.  But I do have conscious control of my thoughts which gives me the ability to analyse what I perceive and draw verifiable, consciously driven conclusions.

Wrong.

I could tell you yet again why you’re wrong, but as you keep sticking your fingers in your ears and keep repeating exactly the same mistakes above I see no point in doing so. If ever though you feel like screwing up your courage, taking your fingers out of your ears and actually addressing the falsifying arguments you’re given they’re still here waiting for you.   

[Stranger]

You appear to be suggesting that I make a conscious act of willpower to learn more about the logical reasoning which will apparently convince me that I am unable to choose to make such a conscious act of will. 

There you go again, not answering the question and resorting to the mindless repetition of the same nonsense you've used endless times before (begging the question fallacy, yet again).

It's not like I even suggested that you learning logic would convince you that you were wrong about free will, I suggested that it might help you put forward better arguments for what you believe (as well as giving everyone a break from your tedious, mindless, thought-free repetition). Do try to have at least a little intellectual honesty.

[Sebastian Toe]

but I have faith in the power of prayer - all prayers get answered and they allow God's amazing power to come into our lives.

All prayers get answered.......how?

[Stranger]

All prayers get answered.......how?

That's an easy one: the answer is always either yes, no, or wait. That way you can go on believing it despite anything at all that might happen afterwards.

[Gordon]

- all prayers get answered and they allow God's amazing power to come into our lives.

This morning I had my bi-monthly call with the specialist oncology nurse at the Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre to discuss my progress - oddly, she never suggested that getting someone to pray for me would be useful.

[Stranger]

...conscious control of thought processes...

As and aside, I can't help feeling that there should be a specific term for this kind of bullshit, i.e. something that's clearly intended to be seen as having a simple and intuitive meaning - and might even, at first glance, seem like it does - but as soon as you start to give it a moment's thought, it instantly collapses into a jumbled heap of self-contradiction, circularity, and/or infinite regress.

[Nearly Sane]

As and aside, I can't help feeling that there should be a specific term for this kind of bullshit, i.e. something that's clearly intended to be seen as having a simple and intuitive meaning - and might even, at first glance, seem like it does - but as soon as you start to give it a moment's thought, it instantly collapses into a jumbled heap of self-contradiction, circularity, and/or infinite regress.

Isn't that related to a deepity? Perhaps a 'Shallowness'?

[Alan Burns]

There you go again, not answering the question and resorting to the mindless repetition of the same nonsense you've used endless times before (begging the question fallacy, yet again).

It's not like I even suggested that you learning logic would convince you that you were wrong about free will, I suggested that it might help you put forward better arguments for what you believe (as well as giving everyone a break from your tedious, mindless, thought-free repetition). Do try to have at least a little intellectual honesty.

All logic is derived from what we perceive from our sensory organs coupled with the ability to contemplate what we perceive in order to recognise order and behaviour in what we see and make predictions which can be verified in some way.  All this processing is done in the human mind.  If my memory is correct, the logic you postulated some time ago concerned a change of state being derived entirely from previous states.  This logic fits well with things we observe in nature, but there are problems when we try to apply it to such things as quantum indeterminacy where there is no perceived cause for a quantum event.  There is also a problem when you try to apply this logic to what needs to take place in the human mind in order to conceive of this logic.  If every state of the human mind is defined by previous states, there is no possibility for the conscious contemplation and manipulation of thought processes needed to formulate and verify the logic being discovered, since we can have no control over the previous states of mind which are deemed to define the current state.  The only means of applying the conscious control needed to formulate our conception of logic must come from a state not from the past, but from the present.  Our ability to contemplate reality and draw conclusions from it is entirely derived from our conscious awareness which exists in the present, defines the present and can be acted upon in the present - the ever present state of the human soul.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All logic is derived from what we perceive from our sensory organs coupled with the ability to contemplate what we perceive in order to recognise order and behaviour in what we see and make predictions which can be verified in some way.

Sort of, but ok…

All this processing is done in the human mind.

Actually by the "human mind" rather than in it, but again ok…   

If my memory is correct, the logic you postulated some time ago concerned a change of state being derived entirely from previous states.  This logic fits well with things we observe in nature, but there are problems when we try to apply it to such things as quantum indeterminacy where there is no perceived cause for a quantum event.

Whether events at the quantum level are “truly” random is at present unknown, but in any case this doesn’t help you because you could ask exactly the same question about your speculation “soul”.

There is also a problem when you try to apply this logic to what needs to take place on in the human mind in order to conceive of this logic.  If…

Oh-oh - why do I sense another argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy coming any minute now?....

…every state of the human mind is defined by previous states, there is no possibility for the conscious contemplation and manipulation of thought processes needed to formulate and verify the logic being discovered, since we can have no control over the previous states of mind which are deemed to define the current state.

…and whammo! there it is, coupled with an entirely spurious set of assertions about “manipulation of thought processes” and similarly incoherent junk reasoning.   

The only means of applying the conscious control needed to formulate our conception of logic must come from a state not from the past, but from the present.

There is no “conscious control needed to formulate our conception of logic”,  and as you really should know by now there is no “present” either inasmuch as any process requires time between the event and the process.   

Our ability to contemplate reality and draw conclusions from it is entirely derived from our conscious awareness which exists in the present,…

No it doesn’t.

…defines the present…

No it doesn’t.

…and can be acted upon in the present -…

No it can’t.

… the ever present state of the human soul.

That’s just a repetition of your previous blind faith claim that’s inherently beset by intractable contradictions, and for which there’s no need or evidence whatsoever.

Apart from all that though… 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

PS Can you see now why you were wrong to claim the credit for your friend's recovery from cancer?

[Stranger]

All logic is derived from what we perceive from our sensory organs coupled with the ability to contemplate what we perceive in order to recognise order and behaviour in what we see and make predictions which can be verified in some way.  All this processing is done in the human mind.  If my memory is correct, the logic you postulated some time ago concerned a change of state being derived entirely from previous states.  This logic fits well with things we observe in nature, but there are problems when we try to apply it to such things as quantum indeterminacy where there is no perceived cause for a quantum event.  There is also a problem when you try to apply this logic to what needs to take place on in the human mind in order to conceive of this logic.  If every state of the human mind is defined by previous states, there is no possibility for the conscious contemplation and manipulation of thought processes needed to formulate and verify the logic being discovered, since we can have no control over the previous states of mind which are deemed to define the current state.  The only means of applying the conscious control needed to formulate our conception of logic must come from a state not from the past, but from the present.  Our ability to contemplate reality and draw conclusions from it is entirely derived from our conscious awareness which exists in the present, defines the present and can be acted upon in the present - the ever present state of the human soul.

Not only have you completely ignored what I said but your recollection of my argument is deeply flawed, and the 'argument' you present here is just hand-waving, fallacy-ridden bullshit, with a generous side-helping of meaningless gibberish, for reasons that have been explained to you multiple times before (not only by me) and you've just ignored.

I have no intention of explaining it all over again, because you appear to lack the basic ability to either produce a logically coherent argument or respond to logical criticisms of what you do produce. All you do is endlessly repeat the same meaningless bullshit (as you have just done here).

If you took some time out from the pointless activity of endless thought-free repetition, and spent some of it learning something, there might be some hope of getting somewhere, but I can see not the slightest hint that you've changed your attitude one iota or made any attempt at all to learn anything. You can't even remember the most basic details the argument I (and others) repeated so very many times and endlessly and painstaking explained again and again. Just like before, your post could have been written years ago, with pretty much exactly the same phrases. It seems as if you've taken on board and considered exactly nothing from all the times people have explained to you why this doesn't make sense.

Unless you're prepared to open your mind a bit and be ready to learn something, there is as much point in me addressing your 'argument' again as trying to have an debate with a broken record.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

PS Can you see now why you were wrong to claim the credit for your friend's recovery from cancer?

It is God who can claim credit - not me

[Sebastian Toe]

It is God who can claim credit - not me

So if you had not prayed for her, she would have been cured anyway?

[Alan Burns]

As and aside, I can't help feeling that there should be a specific term for this kind of bullshit, i.e. something that's clearly intended to be seen as having a simple and intuitive meaning - and might even, at first glance, seem like it does - but as soon as you start to give it a moment's thought, it instantly collapses into a jumbled heap of self-contradiction, circularity, and/or infinite regress.

Why can't you see that your consciously driven ability to "give it a moment's thought" undoes your reasoning?

[Stranger]

Why can't you see that your consciously driven ability to "give it a moment's thought" undoes your reasoning?

No. Apparently you're completely incapable of putting together a coherent explanation as to why you think it might, let alone an argument that would convince anybody else with the slightest grasp of critical thinking. As I was pointing out, even the phrases you rely on so heavily, like "conscious control of thought processes", don't make any sense by themselves, so even if you wrapped then up in a proper logical structure, it would still be gibberish.