Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not being of an eliminating materialist or a material illusionist I'm not committed to morality being a redundant term for mere genetic imperative...I'm fine with something that can't be adequately described by components evolving.

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

So it comes down to you thinking you've established once and for all your definition of emergence.

No it doesn’t.

You would be deluded in that.

As indeed I would be if I actually subscribed to any of the multiple straw men you try to pin on me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Lennox reaffirms the case that Christian faith is evidence based - not blind faith.

It's been a while since I watched it but from memory he "affirms" that only with more blind faith claims – essentially, "the Bible says so so it's true".

That's not a good argument (even though he seems like a nice chap).

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

If morality is subjective, one person's preference for kindness and honesty is no more valid than another person's taste for violence and theft.

Depends what you mean by “valid”, but essentially that’s right. Using that to assert objective morality though would just be an argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.

The fact that morality was a meaningless concept until humans arrived is neither here nor there. Just after the big bang, life was a meaningless concept, but life is objective.

But the point here is that morality only exists if there are people (or aliens who have it too) around to express an opinion on the matter, just as there would be if, say, a sunset on Alpha Centauri was to be considered beautiful rather than just a stream of photons.     

[Alan Burns]

1. Emergence is a well-observed and well-understood phenomenon. I see no particular reason therefore to exempt arbitrarily consciousness from that explanatory model, and nor have you proposed one. 

You claim that conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions.
Emergent properties can have no control over the reactions from which they emerge.

2. “Unavoidable reactions” as you put it from which consciousness emerges would be every bit as capable in principle of reaching opinions about what’s morally right and wrong as they’d be capable of reaching opinions about anything else. Why wouldn’t they be?

So how do the laws of physics acting on material elements achieve morally right or wrong consequences - and how does the laws of physics acting on material elements come to judge such consequence?

3. You’re the one claiming that such a phenomenon is “impossible” but you never justify that claim with an argument. Instead you shift the burden of proof by demanding that others explain to you how it works “precisely”, and when you’re dissatisfied with or incredulous about the answer you make the mistake of leaping straight from that to “therefore impossible” with no logical path at all to get you there. Lots of phenomena that once weren’t understood in materialistic terms are now understood in materialistic terms. That doesn’t mean that before they were understood your assertion now about consciousness of “therefore magic” was correct – it just meant that the only honest answer at the time was a “don’t know”. This shouldn’t be difficulty to understand, even for you.

No amount of "don't know's" can justify the assertion that the unavoidable consequences of physically controlled material reactions can achieve and pass judgement on right or wrong conclusions

4. Yet again, you’ve just ignored your basic a priori problem that all your reasons for believing what you believe are wrong, and you continue to refuse steadfastly to engage with why that’s the case. If you won’t engage with that problem and try at least to rebut the falsifications your given you continue to have no sound reasons to justify your beliefs.

I see nothing which falsifies my belief that our freedom to conscious control our thoughts is essential to achieve verifiable rational thought processes, and that such conscious control is deemed to be a logical impossibility in purely materialistic terms.

Once more with feeling: the incompleteness or absence of a materialistic explanation for an observed phenomenon is NOT a justification for a claim materialistic impossibility.

see above

Now write that down until it sinks in. Have it tattooed across your forehead in reverse like an ambulance sign so you see it every time you look in a mirror of that helps. Will you finally though indicate that you at least understand in principle why this is unarguably the case.
         

The truth sets us free.

(And the more you consciously try to argue for your materialistic case, the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.)

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It's been a while since I watched it but from memory he "affirms" that only with more blind faith claims – essentially, "the Bible says so so it's true".

That's not a good argument (even though he seems like a nice chap).

Lennox does not mention the bible in this clip - you must be recalling a different conversation.

[Gordon]

Lennox reaffirms the case that Christian faith is evidence based - not blind faith.

That sounds like an argument from authority, Alan: on what basis does this chap make this claim?

[Enki]

Lennox reaffirms the case that Christian faith is evidence based - not blind faith.

He does indeed suggest that the Christian faith is evidence based but then proceeds to give not one jot of evidence to support his contention in the clip you linked to. So, all I am left with is his unsupported statement.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Rather than keep trying to engage with your dishonesty and evasiveness just answer the following questions with a simple yes/no:

1. Do you understand the meaning of the sentence below?

2. Do you understand why the sentence below is true?

The incompleteness or absence of a materialistic explanation for an observed phenomenon is NOT a justification for a claim of materialistic impossibility.

[ProfessorDavey]

... but life is objective.

Is it - life is just a term humans have applied to a specific subset of self sustaining complex chemical processes, involving a specific range of organic molecules. Is 'life' objective in a fundamental sense. I'm not sure it really is - we, as humans, consider the distinction we have defined in complex chemical processes as significant because our own 'being' is defined by those self same processes.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Rather than keep trying to engage with your dishonesty and evasiveness just answer the following questions with a simple yes/no:

1. Do you understand the meaning of the sentence below?

2. Do you understand why the sentence below is true?

The incompleteness or absence of a materialistic explanation for an observed phenomenon is NOT a justification for a claim of materialistic impossibility.

Of course I understand
But my contention is the TOTAL impossibility for rational , verified thought processes to just drop out from physically driven brain activity without the need for conscious control of the thought processes involved.

Do you understand that automated reactions beyond your conscious control can never deliver rational thought processes with consciously verified conclusions?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course I understand

So you do understand what the sentence “the incompleteness or absence of a materialistic explanation for an observed phenomenon is NOT a justification for a claim of materialistic impossibility” means, and also why it’s true?

Good, so if that is the case then we should also be agreed that you will never again ask how consciousness works in a materialistic way when asked to justify your assertion that consciousness occurring materially is impossible. Agreed?     

But my contention is the TOTAL impossibility for rational , verified thought processes to just drop out from physically driven brain activity without the need for conscious control of the thought processes involved.

The “just drop out of” is pejorative language (another fallacy, called poisoning the well) but if you’re trying to say something like “it's impossible for consciousness to be a materialistic phenomenon” then fine. All you have to do now, finally, is to produce an argument to justify that claim (while remembering that you’re no longer going to try to shift the burden of proof instead). 

Do you understand that automated reactions beyond your conscious control can never deliver rational thought processes with consciously verified conclusions?

Of course I don’t “understand” that because you’ve never provided an argument to demonstrate that it’s true. Now we’ve finally cleared away your option of resorting to the shifting of the burden of proof shenanigans though, the path is open for you to do so at last.

Good luck with it!   

[Maeght]

Lennox reaffirms the case that Christian faith is evidence based - not blind faith.

So what?

[Alan Burns]

Of course I don’t “understand” that because you’ve never provided an argument to demonstrate that it’s true.

The truth comes from the simple contemplation of what is needed to guide our thought processes via a logical path to reach consciously verified conclusions.

[Nearly Sane]

The truth comes from the simple contemplation of what is needed to guide our thought processes via a logical path to reach consciously verified conclusions.

Infinite regress there, Alan 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Lennox vs Dawkins on the question of Blind Faith

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13GvfTexSoc

Just watched it. Lennox claims his faith isn't blind because it's evidence-based, but doesn't produce any of it (though he does make some basic errors in reasoning in his presentation). Is there a Part 2 where he does produce some evidence?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The truth comes from the simple contemplation of what is needed to guide our thought processes via a logical path to reach consciously verified conclusions.

"Simple contemplation of what is needed" isn't an argument. Where's your argument?   

[torridon]

But my contention is the TOTAL impossibility for rational , verified thought processes to just drop out from physically driven brain activity without the need for conscious control of the thought processes involved.

Where is the evidence that it is 'totally impossible' for rational thinking to emerge from subconscious neurological processes ?  This is merely your personal incredulity at the findings of science, and a measure of the how far behind the curve you are in understanding the workings of mind from a neuroscience perspective.

[Spud]

You are the ones making the claims, so it isn't for me to refute, but for you to justify.

However, a couple of points.

First - the early church leaders making decisions on which texts to incorporate and with to reject in their canon would have no way of verifying any of the claims. Less so even than the authors of the texts themselves - who by the time they were being considered were actually a combination of the original author (we don't know who this is, and likely neither did the early church hence the later 'attributions'), but also all the copyists who through error or directed change altered the original.

So the early church could not verify any of the claims so, like you, were relying on their 'belief'. So it would, I imagine, have been entirely irrelevant to them whether the individual was named or not, the key was the miraculous claim, which aligned with their belief. So why would they reject Mark because he cited a name - this is unverified, but the broader miraculous claim aligned with their 'belief'. No had the author of Mark rejected a miraculous claim, for example by suggesting that the person in question was not actually blind, then likely the text may have been rejected as it failed to align with belief.

So to use BHS's analogy.

The early church would care whether the claim was for a single blue unicorn, or a herd. Nor whether one of the blue unicorns was called Pete. But they would care if text said it wasn't a unicorn but just a horse painted blue with a stick stuck on its nose.

For Mark to identify the blind man and his father must mean that either or both were known to his readers; likewise for Simon of Cyrene, whose sons Mark identifies. If the miracle wasn't genuine, Mark would have been exposing himself as a fraud.

[ProfessorDavey]

For Mark to identify the blind man and his father must mean that either or both were known to his readers;

No it doesn't. Firstly let's nail the disingenuous presumption that this text was written by Mark. We do not know who wrote this text and it was only in about 200CE that this gospel started to be 'attributed' to Mark, without any clear evidence that he actually wrote it. Likewise for the other gospels. All were completely unattributed in authorship for a century at least.

But back to your main point - all this indicates is that the person who wrote this text was aware of a claim or a tradition that the person the text refers was identifiable. And therefore the author quotes a name. That doesn't tell us that the claim or tradition was correct, merely that over decades of hearsay this name became embedded in the oral tradition. But so what if this was a real person and was actually present during Jesus' teaching - this tells us absolutely nothing about the veracity of the miraculous claim.

There is plenty of evidence that Daedalus and Icarus existed - rather more than this chap and arguably rather more in a contemporaneous sense than Jesus. Does their existence mean that we must accept that Daedalus manufactured wings that allowed him and his son to fly? I don't think so - the factual existence of an individual provides no evidence that a miraculous claim associated with that individual is true.

likewise for Simon of Cyrene, whose sons Mark identifies. If the miracle wasn't genuine, Mark would have been exposing himself as a fraud.

But the author of the text attributed much later to Mark would have had no way of verifying the miraculous claims. I have no reason to doubt that he believed the claims (on the basis of hearsay), but that is entirely different from actually having verifiable evidence that the veracity of the claim. And of course his readers (including the early church) have no more ability to verify the claims. So he may well be mistaken in his beliefs, but there is a difference between having a genuine belief that is actually wrong and being fraudulent which requires an individual to know that the thing they are claiming is not true.

Spud - I fully accept you have a genuine belief in the miraculous claims. I and many others here think you are wrong in that belief, but that doesn't make you fraudulent, merely mistaken.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

...If the miracle wasn't genuine, Mark would have been exposing himself as a fraud.

Do you know what a non sequitur is? This one is a doozie.   

[Spud]

No it doesn't. Firstly let's nail the disingenuous presumption that this text was written by Mark. We do not know who wrote this text and it was only in about 200CE that this gospel started to be 'attributed' to Mark, without any clear evidence that he actually wrote it. Likewise for the other gospels. All were completely unattributed in authorship for a century at least.

But back to your main point - all this indicates is that the person who wrote this text was aware of a claim or a tradition that the person the text refers was identifiable. And therefore the author quotes a name. That doesn't tell us that the claim or tradition was correct, merely that over decades of hearsay this name became embedded in the oral tradition. But so what if this was a real person and was actually present during Jesus' teaching - this tells us absolutely nothing about the veracity of the miraculous claim.

There is plenty of evidence that Daedalus and Icarus existed - rather more than this chap and arguably rather more in a contemporaneous sense than Jesus. Does their existence mean that we must accept that Daedalus manufactured wings that allowed him and his son to fly? I don't think so - the factual existence of an individual provides no evidence that a miraculous claim associated with that individual is true.
But the author of the text attributed much later to Mark would have had no way of verifying the miraculous claims. I have no reason to doubt that he believed the claims (on the basis of hearsay), but that is entirely different from actually having verifiable evidence that the veracity of the claim. And of course his readers (including the early church) have no more ability to verify the claims. So he may well be mistaken in his beliefs, but there is a difference between having a genuine belief that is actually wrong and being fraudulent which requires an individual to know that the thing they are claiming is not true.

Spud - I fully accept you have a genuine belief in the miraculous claims. I and many others here think you are wrong in that belief, but that doesn't make you fraudulent, merely mistaken.

Thanks prof
In John 9, Jesus heals a man born blind, and the Pharisees don't believe. So they send for his parents who confirm his identity and previous condition. It wouldn't be impossible for Mark or his readers to verify the healing of Bartimaeus, by contacting either him directly or someone who knew him.

[ProfessorDavey]

Thanks prof
In John 9, Jesus heals a man born blind, and the Pharisees don't believe. So they send for his parents who confirm his identity and previous condition. It wouldn't be impossible for Mark or his readers to verify the healing of Bartimaeus, by contacting either him directly or someone who knew him.

Firstly not sure why you are mixing up the gospels later attributed to Mark and John.

But let's look at the non-sense of your claim.

The gospel later attributed to John is considered to have originally been written around 100CE, so some 70 years after the purported events. But, of course we have no way of knowing whether this section was in the original - indeed the earliest actual text with this claim we have is from at least 100 years later still. So even if this were in the original the author and the readers would need to find people who would need to be at least 80 to have been present and likely to have been able to remember.

But there is another major problem - the text is written in Greek and therefore the author and the early readers would be Greek speakers, those likely present wouldn't speak Greek so there would be a major language issue.

Finally - it is considered likely the text was written in Ephesus - more than 1000 mile journey distance from Palestine.

So effectively in order to verify the claim (even assuming the text is in the original, which we don't know) the author or readers would need to travel over 1000 miles, try to find people who may be 80 or older who don't speak their language. Hmm - not really plausible is it Spud.

[Gordon]

Thanks prof
In John 9, Jesus heals a man born blind, and the Pharisees don't believe. So they send for his parents who confirm his identity and previous condition. It wouldn't be impossible for Mark or his readers to verify the healing of Bartimaeus, by contacting either him directly or someone who knew him.

Equally it wouldn't be impossible that is a made-up story, and given what it refers to (a person blind from birth being 'healed') I'd suggest that this anecdote should be taken with a pinch (or a lorry-load) of salt.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

Firstly not sure why you are mixing up the gospels later attributed to Mark and John.

But let's look at the non-sense of your claim.

The gospel later attributed to John is considered to have originally been written around 100CE, so some 70 years after the purported events. But, of course we have no way of knowing whether this section was in the original - indeed the earliest actual text with this claim we have is from at least 100 years later still. So even if this were in the original the author and the readers would need to find people who would need to be at least 80 to have been present and likely to have been able to remember.

But there is another major problem - the text is written in Greek and therefore the author and the early readers would be Greek speakers, those likely present wouldn't speak Greek so there would be a major language issue.

Finally - it is considered likely the text was written in Ephesus - more than 1000 mile journey distance from Palestine.

So effectively in order to verify the claim (even assuming the text is in the original, which we don't know) the author or readers would need to travel over 1000 miles, try to find people who may be 80 or older who don't speak their language. Hmm - not really plausible is it Spud.

Nice post. There does seem to be an inverse relationship between the extraordinariness of the claim (miracles etc) and the tenuousness and fragility of the evidence for them – which you might think is the opposite of the evidential quality someone would actually want to justify claims of miracles. Confirmation bias is a logic killer sometimes.     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just watched it. Lennox claims his faith isn't blind because it's evidence-based, but doesn't produce any of it (though he does make some basic errors in reasoning in his presentation). Is there a Part 2 where he does produce some evidence?

part 2 just out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcpMUcegeq4