Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

I can assure you that I am not "clinging on" to the idea that our freedom to think is a reality which can't possibly have a material explanation.

Your inability to provide any other reason suggests otherwise.

My experience on this forum has reinforced this conviction because I have seen no credible reason to doubt the reality of this gift of freedom we all enjoy.

The problem is that you can provide no credible reason for why you believe it in the first place. Since it would be a world-changing revelation that would easily put you in Nobel prize territory if you could provide the "sound logic" that you claimed to have for it, and thus prove it, this inability suggests that it is nothing but blind faith.

It really is quite funny that you try to justify your blind faith in your god with blind faith in your nonsense version of 'freedom'.

So, was the claim of "sound logic" a lie, or did you (or do you still) not understand what it means?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I can assure you that I am not "clinging on" to the idea that our freedom to think is a reality which can't possibly have a material explanation.

Except of course that you’re entirely unable or unwilling to make an argument to justify that claim, despite telling us that you do in fact have the “sound logic” to do so. If you seriously think you have this logic for support, why on earth will you never tell us what it is?

My experience on this forum has reinforced this conviction because I have seen no credible reason to doubt….

It’s only reinforced your mistake because you won’t engage with the arguments that show it to be a mistake, and you “have seen no credible reason” because your blind faith won’t allow you to see the credible reasons. The problem here isn’t the credibility of the reasons that undo you – it’s your ironclad refusal ever to engage with them. 

… the reality of this gift of freedom we all enjoy

   

Only “the reality of this gift of freedom we all enjoy” is just a blind faith claim that’s superficially credible at an experiential level but collapses the moment it’s exposed to the rational analysis you won't ever address. 

[Stranger]

I can assure you that I am not "clinging on" to the idea...

Just to elaborate on this, let's have a look at the objective facts:

• You freely admit that this idea of yours is decades old.
• You have indicated time and time again how important it is to you and even talked of writing a book. Hence you are clearly very invested in its truth.
• You completely ignore it when people point out that your reasoning is littered with logical errors (fallacies).
• Despite 3, you refuse to spend even a fraction of the time you spend here endlessly repeating yourself (and the same fallacies) on going away and learning about the relevant logic and how to avoid said fallacies.

What are we supposed to make of this? If you had true confidence in the idea, what possible disadvantage would there be to learning to produce better arguments for it (4)? Why would you not do that unless you were afraid of finding that your argument doesn't work? Why would you be afraid unless you are, indeed, clinging on?

ETA: It was many years ago now, when I was in the position of being challenged with terms from formal logic that I realised that I didn't know nearly enough about. Unlike you, I decided that there was obviously something there that I needed to know more about, so I could make my arguments better. It really didn't take me all that long, and was actually very rewarding. I really don't understand why anybody would be so reluctant to do the same, unless they felt threatened in some way. Afraid of realising they were wrong or fearing they lacked the ability to learn, for example.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

3. You completely ignore it when people point out that your reasoning is littered with logical errors (fallacies).

And just to elaborate on that, after enough time of committing these fallacies and ignoring the problem when it’s explained to him has passed he then announces that the issue isn’t with his failure to grasp logical argument but rather it’s with logic itself. That is, apparently mere “man-made” logic isn’t up to the job of justifying his various claims and assertions.     

What he doesn’t do though is to propose instead a different method to justify those claims and assertions, and nor does he bother answering when asked why he even attempted his inept efforts at logic when he’s already decided it’s the wrong tool for the job.

Ah well – I guess logic-denying blind faith claims are all we should ever expect from Mr Burns after all... 

[Stranger]

And just to elaborate on that, after enough time of committing these fallacies and ignoring the problem when it’s explained to him has passed he then announces that the issue isn’t with his failure to grasp logical argument but rather it’s with logic itself. That is, apparently mere “man-made” logic isn’t up to the job of justifying his various claims and assertions.     

Good point. It would actually help if he was consistent about it. As I quoted before, in #38202 he quite clearly claimed that his view is based on "sound logic" that he could write many pages about but, despite actually writing many pages, none of them contain any hint of the supposed "sound logic", which, as you say, he sometimes seems to dismiss entirely as man-made.

So Alan, which is it? Are you sticking with the claim of sound logic, in which case, it's about bleedin' time you came out with it, or is logic just man-made and not up to the job and you were mistaken in your previous claim about it?

[Alan Burns]

BlueHillside, Stranger,

Apologies, but I do not have the time to fully elaborate on these two impossibilities:

1) The impossibility for a single entity of awareness to be generated by many discrete material reactions.  The term "emergent property" offers no viable explanation for what comprises conscious awareness or how it is generated.

2) The impossibility for the consciously generated thought processes involved with rational thinking to somehow emerge from nothing but physically controlled "cause and effect" chains of reaction beyond our conscious control. 

You may well accuse me of repeating these arguments yet again, but the answers you offer do not merit the confidence you claim to have in trying to dismiss them.

There are some things which can't be discovered by a mathematical approach to logical processing.  I suggest you read the essay entitled "Fern seed and Elephants" by CS Lewis.

[torridon]

BlueHillside, Stranger,

Apologies, but I do not have the time to fully elaborate on these two impossibilities:

1) The impossibility for a single entity of awareness to be generated by many discrete material reactions.  The term "emergent property" offers no viable explanation for what comprises conscious awareness or how it is generated.

2) The impossibility for the consciously generated thought processes involved with rational thinking to somehow emerge from nothing but physically controlled "cause and effect" chains of reaction beyond our conscious control. 

..

These things are clearly not impossible, per se, as we observe them. All you are doing is expressing your personal incredulity.  We observe emergent properties in many places, and it is often the case that we would not have predicted them from our prior knowledge of the underlying components.  Nobody predicted superconductivity in supercooled metals for instance despite our knowledge of the behaviour of electrons.  But we observe it, even though we don't understand exactly how the emergent properties arise.

[Stranger]

Apologies, but I do not have the time to fully elaborate on these two impossibilities:

Why is it that time is a problem when you're asked something specific or to back up something you unambiguously claimed in the past, and not when you just want to endlessly repeat the same nonsense over and over again...?

1) The impossibility for a single entity of awareness to be generated by many discrete material reactions.  The term "emergent property" offers no viable explanation for what comprises conscious awareness or how it is generated.

2) The impossibility for the consciously generated thought processes involved with rational thinking to somehow emerge from nothing but physically controlled "cause and effect" chains of reaction beyond our conscious control. 

First, these are 'things' are vague to the point of being next to meaningless. Second, ref. 1, the lack of what you consider to be a 'viable' alternative, does not prove impossibility. If you're going to make extraordinary claims about impossibility you will need extraordinary evidence or a proper sound logical argument. Third, to the extent we can read some sort of meaning into these two vague assertion (from other posts you've made), you have nothing but your own blind faith and personal incredulity to even show that they describe real things, let alone back them up.

You may well accuse me of repeating these arguments yet again, but the answers you offer do not merit the confidence you claim to have in trying to dismiss them.

Other explanations that you don't find convincing get nowhere near to proving an impossibility. It's not up to anybody else to provide any explanation at all. If you claim something is impossible, and must be god-magic, then it is entirely your burden of proof.

There are some things which can't be discovered by a mathematical approach to logical processing.

You're making up terms again, what the fuck do you think "mathematical approach to logical processing" means, as opposed to simply "logic"? As has been pointed out to you many times, logic is logic, you can't make up some subset that you can pretend to reject. You either accept logic or you don't.

It really is about time you said whether you stand by your claim of "sound logic" (#38202), which has a precise meaning, or not.

I suggest you read the essay entitled "Fern seed and Elephants" by CS Lewis.

Why? I've read quite a bit of Lewis, and rational thought and logical arguments about his religion really weren't his strong suit. Look at his mind-numbingly stupid trilemma, for example.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

BlueHillside, Stranger,

Apologies, but I do not have the time to fully elaborate on these two impossibilities:

The irony of that statement is that actually producing the “sound logic” you claim to have to justify your various claims and assertions would have taken a fraction of the time it’s taken you endlessly to repeat exactly the same mistakes over and over again.

1) The impossibility for a single entity of awareness to be generated by many discrete material reactions.  The term "emergent property" offers no viable explanation for what comprises conscious awareness or how it is generated.

2) The impossibility for the consciously generated thought processes involved with rational thinking to somehow emerge from nothing but physically controlled "cause and effect" chains of reaction beyond our conscious control.

You may well accuse me of repeating these arguments yet again, but the answers you offer do not merit the confidence you claim to have in trying to dismiss them.

One of the various problems you have here is that you appear to have no understanding of what the term “argument” means in logic. An argument is one or more statements (called premises or propositions) that by a process of deductively valid inferences lead to a justifiable conclusion.

What you do on the other hand is to assert your propositions (1 & 2 above) and stop there. There’s nor reasoning, no deductions, no anything necessary for an argument, yet you wrongly call just your bare propositions “arguments” nonetheless.   

There are some things which can't be discovered by a mathematical approach to logical processing.

This is incoherent. But if you’re trying to say that “a mathematical approach” doesn’t answer everything then that’s right – and no-one claims otherwise. That though does not open the door instead to any un-argued assertions that you happen to find appealing (see also 1 & 2 above).

I suggest you read the essay entitled "Fern seed and Elephants" by CS Lewis.

I haven’t read any Lewis for 40 years or more, but I remember even then finding his arguments to be weak or wrong. If you think he does make an argument worthy of consideration though, why not just tell us here what it is?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

By the way, I just had a quick look for a synopsis of the arguments Lewis attempts in "Fern-seed and Elephants” and found this:

“…see—I feel it in my bones—I know beyond argument—that most of their interpretations are merely impossible . . .”

https://andynaselli.com/c-s-lewis-fern-seed-and-elephants

It seems that you and he are kindred spirits – dismiss a priori anything an actual argument might conclude, and just assert the impossibility of something nonetheless because you “feel it in your bones”.

Can you see any problems with that though for the rest of us?   

Anything?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

By the way, I just had a quick look for a synopsis of the arguments Lewis attempts in "Fern-seed and Elephants” and found this:

“…see—I feel it in my bones—I know beyond argument—that most of their interpretations are merely impossible . . .”

https://andynaselli.com/c-s-lewis-fern-seed-and-elephants

It seems that you and he are kindred spirits – dismiss a priori anything an actual argument might conclude, and just assert the impossibility of something nonetheless because you “feel it in your bones”.

Can you see any problems with that though for the rest of us?   

Anything?

The point Lewis was illustrating was that the explorers were so intent on examining the minutia of the fern seeds beneath their feet (akin to using a mathematical approach to use our limited knowledge to discern the truth about our human minds)  that they failed to see the elephant in front of them (akin to realising that human free will is a reality).

[Stranger]

The point Lewis was illustrating was that the explorers were so intent on examining the minutia of the fern seeds beneath their feet (akin to using a mathematical approach to use our limited knowledge to discern the truth about our human minds)  that they failed to see the elephant in front of them (akin to realising that human free will is a reality).

An analogy is not an argument. You keep on making claims (like "human free will is a reality" - as interpreted by other claims you've made about what you mean by this) without the slightest shred of evidence or merest hint of logical justification.

Your claims = your burden of proof.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The point Lewis was illustrating was that the explorers were so intent on examining the minutia of the fern seeds beneath their feet (akin to using a mathematical approach to use our limited knowledge to discern the truth about our human minds)  that they failed to see the elephant in front of them (akin to realising that human free will is a reality).

First, that’s just an analogy and not a “point” and in any case it misses the actual point, namely how can anyone claim to know something “in their bones” no matter what argument might show them to be wrong about that?

Second, it's bad analogy too because it uses an agreed object (elephants) for its force when a better analogy would be that they (supposedly) failed to see Lewis's claim of, say, pixies. He's trying the fallacy of reification here. 

Third, even if someone does take that position (essentially a blind faith claim) why should anyone else take their claim seriously absent a justifying argument for it?

Oh, and as I went to the trouble of explaining to you where you went wrong when you mis-labelled your propositions as arguments, why have you just ignored the problem?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The point Lewis was illustrating was that the explorers were so intent on examining the minutia of the fern seeds beneath their feet (akin to using a mathematical approach to use our limited knowledge to discern the truth about our human minds)  that they failed to see the elephant in front of them (akin to realising that human free will is a reality).

I think you'll find that the answer, Alan, is Goddodging and a committed atheist will argue positively for absurdities such as infinite regresses, looped causal heirarchies, composite necessities,''I don't know what the answer is but I know it isn't''(finish as applicable) and the like.....

[Stranger]

I think you'll find that the answer, Alan, is Goddodging and a committed atheist will argue positively for absurdities such as infinite regresses, looped causal heirarchies, composite necessities,''I don't know what the answer is but I know it isn't''(finish as applicable) and the like.....

Goddodging!? 

Once again I'm wondering if it's total lack of understanding or blatant dishonesty at work here. You really don't seem to get the difference between pointing out that you have totally failed to make your case for some option and positively supporting some other options, or, for that matter, what most people here mean by 'atheist'.

As far as this discussion goes, how about trying to make the case Alan is, apparently, totally incapable of doing himself, that human minds must involve god-magic and cannot possibly be the result of any physical process (known or unknown)?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think you'll find that the answer, Alan, is Goddodging…

Ooh, back too that lie are you now? Just to remind you, you can’t accuse someone of dodging something unless you’ve established first that there’s a something to be dodged. Try to remember this before trying the same lie again.

If you seriously think otherwise though, how’s your leprechaun-dodging going?

…and a committed atheist will argue…

Oh dear…

…positively for absurdities such as infinite regresses, looped causal heirarchies, composite necessities,''I don't know what the answer is but I know it isn't''(finish as applicable) and the like.....

Is it Vlad’s annual Tell the Biggest Lie I Can Day today or something? Neither “committed atheists” nor anyone else much “argue positively” for these things (and, even if they did, those arguments would stand or fall on their merits, not on whether the person making them happens to be an atheist). Oh, and in any case you seem to have forgotten that as you’re the one asserting that the universe must have been caused by something else, it’s still your job in any case to justify your claim – ie, it’s not the job of “atheists” to make the case for a necessary, contingent or any other kind of universe. You never have grasped the burden of proof fallacy despite your unwitting reliance on it, but just running away when you’re asked to justify your claim does you no credit.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Goddodging!? 

Once again I'm wondering if it's total lack of understanding or blatant dishonesty at work here. You really don't seem to get the difference between pointing out that you have totally failed to make your case for some option and positively supporting some other options, or, for that matter, what most people here mean by 'atheist'.

As far as this discussion goes, how about trying to make the case Alan is, apparently, totally incapable of doing himself, that human minds must involve god-magic and cannot possibly be the result of any physical process (known or unknown)?

The argument from contingency and the principle of sufficient reason go back before my time.
I'm afraid and I have seen nothing to better them. I know you are in dispute with it but if there is an atheist opponent of the PSR who has the mature and developed attitude in his opposition that has to be Sean Carroll and he does not find it as easy to dismiss as you for the reason is that he seems more familiar with it. You however i'm afraid seem to tick the box marked suggesting the PSR has insufficient reasons...forgetting as you do that it's a principle. Also you seem to equate PSR with infinite regress and treating the concept of nothing as if it were the default, that I would suggest is the popping out of nothing conception as favoured by Hume.

If you want a dualistic answer to consciousness. In a static universe consciousness of change is an absurdity .isn't it?.....so the perception of change must be happening in a non static universe isn't it? Secondly how can a static mind become illuded into thinking it is perceiving change?

Ironically it is in the universe you propose that Alan's notion makes more reasonable sense. Certainly it can't be dismissed as actively as you and ''The other'' have a track record of..

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The argument from contingency and the principle of sufficient reason go back before my time.
I'm afraid and I have seen nothing to better them. I know you are in dispute with it but if there is an atheist opponent of the PSR who has the mature and developed attitude in his opposition that has to be Sean Carroll and he does not find it as easy to dismiss as you for the reason is that he seems more familiar with it. You however i'm afraid seem to tick the box marked suggesting the PSR has insufficient reasons...forgetting as you do that it's a principle. Also you seem to equate PSR with infinite regress and treating the concept of nothing as if it were the default, that I would suggest is the popping out of nothing conception as favoured by Hume.

If you want a dualistic answer to consciousness. In a static universe consciousness of change is an absurdity .isn't it?.....so the perception of change must be happening in a non static universe isn't it? Secondly how can a static mind become illuded into thinking it is perceiving change?

Ironically it is in the universe you propose that Alan's notion makes more reasonable sense. Certainly it can't be dismissed as actively as you and ''The other'' have a track record of..

Justify your assertion "the universe must have been caused by something other than itself" without collapsing into fallacies or just running away.

Go!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Ooh, back too that lie are you now? Just to remind you, you can’t accuse someone of dodging something unless you’ve established first that there’s a something to be dodged. Try to remember this before trying the same lie again.

If you seriously think otherwise though, how’s your leprechaun-dodging going?

Oh dear…

Is it Vlad’s annual Tell the Biggest Lie I Can Day today or something? Neither “committed atheists” nor anyone else much “argue positively” for these things (and, even if they did, those arguments would stand or fall on their merits, not on whether the person making them happens to be an atheist). Oh, and in any case you seem to have forgotten that as you’re the one asserting that the universe must have been caused by something else, it’s still your job in any case to justify your claim – ie, it’s not the job of “atheists” to make the case for a necessary, contingent or any other kind of universe. You never have grasped the burden of proof fallacy despite your unwitting reliance on it, but just running away when you’re asked to justify your claim does you no credit.

I didn't ask you guys to try to refute the PSR or propose alternatives to contingency and necessity but you went ahead and did it anyway. It seems a bit daft making it your business to refute it, then say it wasn't your business to.

Can you even claim the default position on half the things you have? I don't think so. Your presence her reminds me of a worn and dog eared card froman old monopoly set marked ''Get out of jail free''.

As for running away not justifying, the response when I did so using the PSR was oh, well the PSR isn't all it's cracked up to be. And the PSR doesn't have sufficient reason. The question why something rather than nothing is the last question you can ask of an ontological argument and the reason for it is the last answer. We don't have to know what the reason is just that it is a something rather than a nothing or no reason,  it cannot fail to be.. And that's the last reason in the question of existence rather than non existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Justify your assertion "the universe must have been caused by something other than itself" without collapsing into fallacies or just running away.

Go!

That isn't my assertion and I have said the universe may include a necessary aspect....but it would need to be non contingent etc.

Cue your nonsense about infinite regressions, composite necessities, looped causal heirarchies etc.

The reason Sagan gave as to why he didn't call himself an atheist is that you could hide God somewhere! apparently.

So Hillside if the universe has a necessary aspect where and what is it?

My contention therefore is that the contingent universe cannot create itself because it is contingent.

Simultaneously sorry and happy to piss on your bonfire. You knew what my position was. You chose to spout bollocks.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I didn't ask you guys to try to refute the PSR or propose alternatives to contingency and necessity but you went ahead and did it anyway. It seems a bit daft making it your business to refute it, then say it wasn't your business to.

More lying. All that’s been said to you is that there are various competing hypotheses on certain big questions, none of which are problem-free. Some or none of them may turn out to be correct, but you have no argument to dismiss them out of hand.

Try to remember this.   

Can you even claim the default position on half the things you have? I don't think so. Your presence her reminds me of a worn and dog eared card froman old monopoly set marked ''Get out of jail free''.

Can I claim materialism as the default position? Yes for the reasons that have been explained to you, and mischaracterising the arguments that undo you as “worn out” etc is just more avoidance.

As for running away not justifying, the response when I did so using the PSR was oh, well the PSR isn't all it's cracked up to be. And the PSR doesn't have sufficient reason. The question why something rather than nothing is the last question you can ask of an ontological argument and the reason for it is the last answer. We don't have to know what the reason is just that it is a something rather than a nothing or no reason,  it cannot fail to be.. And that's the last reason in the question of existence rather than non existence.

You’ve collapsed into gibberish again. Do you even bother to check your alphabet soup eructations before hitting Reply?

Anyway, what you were actually asked to do was to justify your assertion "the universe must have been caused by something other than itself" without collapsing into fallacies or just running away remember?

Again, go!

Good luck with it though.

[Stranger]

The argument from contingency and the principle of sufficient reason go back before my time.

Yes, but it's the way you tell 'um.

I'm afraid and I have seen nothing to better them.

I'm very sad for you.

Also you seem to equate PSR with infinite regress and treating the concept of nothing as if it were the default, that I would suggest is the popping out of nothing conception as favoured by Hume.

Back to the industrial quantities of straw men.

If you want a dualistic answer to consciousness. In a static universe consciousness of change is an absurdity .isn't it?.....so the perception of change must be happening in a non static universe isn't it? Secondly how can a static mind become illuded into thinking it is perceiving change?

Oh dear. The whole concept sails majestically over Vlad's head and off into the sunset.

Ironically it is in the universe you propose that Alan's notion makes more reasonable sense.

Alan's 'notion' doesn't even make coherent sense, regardless of a block universe or any other model of the universe, for that matter.

As I said to Alan: if you're going to make claims, then you have the burden of proof. Alan's 'notion', insofar as it is explicit about anything is that no physical process, known or unknown, in any version of any physical universe, can possibly account for what human minds do (and 'free will' in particular).

If you want to have a go a proving that (or even providing the first smidgen of evidence or rational justification), then please do feel free.

I suggest that you have a quick look back at #44921 before attempting it, to give you some idea of the magnitude of the task.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That isn't my assertion and I have said the universe may include a necessary aspect....but it would need to be non contingent etc.

Yes it is. If you no longer want to assert that the universe must have been caused by something other than itself though, that’s your first cause “argument” for god is dead in the water too. 

Cue your nonsense about infinite regressions, composite necessities, looped causal heirarchies etc.

Stop digging.

The reason Sagan gave as to why he didn't call himself an atheist is that you could hide God somewhere! apparently.

Gibberish.

So Hillside if the universe has a necessary aspect where and what is it?

Burden of proof fallacy (again). It’s not my job to tell you what or where a necessary aspect of the universe might be. You’re the one asserting it to be necessarily caused by something else remember, so it’s your job to justify your claim.

Try to remember this (or at least try to stop lying about it).

My contention therefore is that the contingent universe cannot create itself because it is contingent.

No, your a priori contention is that the universe must be contingent – but you won’t (or can't) tell us why.

Simultaneously sorry and happy to piss on your bonfire. You knew what my position was. You chose to spout bollocks.

   

Such a pity you have no grasp of the meaning of "irony" either.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

B

Vlad,

Yes it is. If you no longer want to assert that the universe must have been caused by something other than itself though, that’s your first cause “argument” for god dead in the water too. 

Stop digging.

Gibberish.

Burden of proof fallacy (again). It’s not my job to tell you what or where a necessary aspect of the universe might be. You’re the one asserting it to be necessarily caused by something else remember, so it’s your job to justify your claim

Try to remember this (or at least to stop lying about it).

No, your a priori contention is that the universe must be contingent – but you won’t (or can't) tell us why.
   

Such a pity you have no grasp of the meaning of "irony" either.

No my contention is that all we see is contingent and all we are predicting to see is contingent and demonstrates no necessity. In other words science deals with contingency

And to throw your obvious error into the mix, I do not propose that God created himself, creating yourself may be as absurd as some of the other stuff you come out with. God necessarily exists. Nothing comes from nothing, since there is something it must have always existed.

So it is down to existence or non existence Hillside. There are undoubtedly things you are looking at which were at one point non existent, everything in fact...unless you can point to something that cannot fail to have existed. Similarly all you can observe may not exist in future, science tells us that.. That is the universe i'm talking about.....The contingent universe...what universe are you talking about?

The argument from contingency nor PSR argue that there need be a first cause as in say, the Kalam Cosmological and is as good for a universe that has been there forever as one that hasn't since God is the answer to why something rather than nothing?

The question remains then what is the reason for the contingent universe? On what is it contingent? Oh it's the contingency of things which is hard for you to get round.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



No, your a priori contention is that the universe must be contingent – but you won’t (or can't) tell us why.
   

How can that be my contention when I concede that the universe could have a necessary aspect? The trouble is that if it is a necessary aspect it  it is not contingent and that is your problem since you propose a universe as defined by science and physics