Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It is self-perpetuating

But is that how time works?Is the universe and time included in it not the result of entropy going from maximum order to disorder with heat death along the way? Again, you need to postulate a mechanism

- the reality of 'state A' inevitably and unavoidable leads to 'state B' and so on. Which, to a certain way of thinking, makes that nature somehow the 'necessary' element, but you appear to be irreparably attached to the idea that the 'necessary' can't be in any way divisible, for reasons that I'm not sure I've seen explained.

Perhaps, or perhaps not. It might be that mathematical spaces exists within it.

O.

Nature is the Necessary element then. So “nature” is the necessary entity. The trouble is the contingency of natural things. If the necessary being had parts there would be the question”Why parts?”The reason being beyond and independent of the parts. Parts also give rise to the question of primacy of parts and even necessity of certain parts.

The answer or answers have to be independent of the parts themselves.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

I was trying to clarify how you were using the word "want". Are you asserting that anything we think or believe demonstrates that we had a desire/ want to think or believe it?

No, I’m telling you that AB’s behaviour here re just ignoring the falsifications of his multiple reasoning mistakes and then repeating the same mistakes to justify his faith belief indicates to me that his emotional investment in those beliefs – ie, his “want” – causes him to behave in ways he wouldn’t accept if I tried the same tactic to justify my assertions about leprechauns.

I wouldn't conclude anything about what you wanted because I can't see how you have demonstrated what you want in the above leprechaun scenario.

Why can’t you see that?

How does any of the above tell me that you want to believe in leprechauns? You have only demonstrated that either you do believe in leprechauns (regardless of whether you want to or not) or that you are pretending to believe in leprechauns.

It tells you that because my behaviour in respect of that belief alone indicates an a priori desire to protect my “want” no matter how incompetent my justifying reasoning. If AB had no inkling of reason or rhetorical argument at all and so went through life justifying all his beliefs with the same shit arguments you might have a point but, so far as I can tell at least, instead he’d actually rely on sound reasoning if I tried to sell him a bridge but nonetheless jettison the same reasoning when he wants to protect his faith claims.     

AB first said he thinks he can't choose his beliefs, which presumably means he thinks the rest of us can't choose our beliefs either. But he is now saying consciously controlling his thoughts will lead to him forming a belief - so he seems to be saying he is in control of how his beliefs are formed. I look forward to AB listing what he consciously thought that led to him forming his belief. I can then consciously think the same thoughts he consciously thought and presumably that means I will end up believing what he believes. Will report back on whether it worked once AB lists the consciously controlled thoughts I need to think in order to end up holding his belief.

AB’s efforts here are a dog’s breakfast of inconsistency, poor reasoning and incoherence. You should take up with him the various mistakes you’ve identified here – my advice to you though is that you don’t look forward with much optimism to a cogent reply.     

[Outrider]

Well, yes that could be clumsiness on my part what I mean to say is, “There is a reason why the universe would be a timeloop rather than a time line, there would be a reason why there are a fixed number of events, although I grant you are saying that those reasons might be internal. I am not presuming an external element, an internal, independent, necessary element would satisfy the demands just as well.

OK, I'm still not sure I'm in full agreement that there's a 'reason' for one rather than the other. There might be, but surely the idea that it's the 'necessary' thing means that it doesn't have a cause? By definition, then, isn't that saying there is no 'reason', it is the thing at the bottom that simply is?

It cannot though by definition be found in anything contingent since you cannot be contingent and the necessary entity just like you cannot be a square circle or  black and white at the same time.

That's presuming our understanding of contingency is adequate, which given we've evolved to think in a very narrow set of circumstances and we are considering possibilities that unfathomably beyond those restrictions we can't be definitive on that, I don't think (I'll continue this lower on the idea of time).

In terms of consciousness that is a fearful gun jump on your parts since necessary entities are viewed by you as a doorway to God imho.... more to follow

I don't see necessary entities as anything, I'm not sure I see them as viable as a concept. What I do see is that 'necessary' is often a step on a pathway to 'therefore God'.

But is that how time works?

Time is something internal to this universe, so far as we can tell. Given that, presumably, any understanding we're searching for includes the inception of this universe as one of those contingent steps - certainly that's how I've been looking at this - then whether or not that's how time works isn't really relevant.

Is the universe and time included in it not the result of entropy going from maximum order to disorder with heat death along the way?

Within the universe entropy appears to be tending in one direction, with localised disruptions to that. Outside of the universe, given (as above) that time is a universal element, I'm not sure that concepts like entropy which rely on the notion of change make any sense.

Again, you need to postulate a mechanism

I think  you're mistaking what's happening here - I'm not proposing this as the answer, I'm pointing out that it's a technical possibility and therefore undermines the notion that we have to get to some static, necessary, independent unit. This is not my solution, this is an argument against other claims. When it comes to an explanation for reality, I'm not sure that I have one that makes sense to me - I keep coming back to feeling like the only thing that makes sense is an infinite chain of causitive mechanisms.

Nature is the Necessary element then. So “nature” is the necessary entity.

I'd be more inclined to say 'reality', I think - nature comes with opportunities for misinterpretation. But that does lead to the slightly tautological reality is the necessary element for everything we can currently see.

The trouble is the contingency of natural things. If the necessary being had parts there would be the question”Why parts?”

Except that in the loop model 'why' doesn't makes sense. Wherever you are in the loop, the next step is inevitable - there are causes, but there aren't reasons. How makes sense; why doesn't.

The reason being beyond and independent of the parts.

Why does there have to be a 'reason'? And if there were, why would it have to be external to that? You are implicitly rejecting the notion, and then using that rejection to provide arguments against the notion.

Parts also give rise to the question of primacy of parts and even necessity of certain parts.

It could lead to the question of whether there is a primacy of parts, but it doesn't require that there be one. Each of the 'parts' is reality, just in a different configuration, a different manifestation. Maybe if we made it a 'trinity' you'd find it more comfortable to accept a notion of one thing that is also three 

The answer or answers have to be independent of the parts themselves.

If you are going to assume that, then you have to apply that to, say 'God' as well - if everything has to have an external reason, then you are rejecting the notion of a necessary thing in the first place. It's always going to be dependent on something else.

O.

[ekim]

we can influence our subconscious beliefs and these beliefs may be based on subconscious wants / desires...... but as far as I am aware we cannot pinpoint what causes a particular desire or want to form in order for us to stop that desire forming.

Perhaps the driving forces of desire are pleasure or pain.  I want what gives me pleasure and I want to avoid what gives me pain.  Indoctrination often feeds upon this e.g. to avoid Hell and gain Heaven you must follow certain laws;  to avoid political disintegration and retain unitive power you must wage war against an enemy which threatens it.  Repetitious rituals, slogans and behaviour can re enforce the associated desires to the extent that a belief can be seen as an unquestionable truth.  If it spreads, mass mind and flock-think can take over.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

No, I’m telling you that AB’s behaviour here re just ignoring the falsifications of his multiple reasoning mistakes and then repeating the same mistakes to justify his faith belief indicates to me that his emotional investment in those beliefs – ie, his “want” – causes him to behave in ways he wouldn’t accept if I tried the same tactic to justify my assertions about leprechauns.
Why can’t you see that?

It tells you that because my behaviour in respect of that belief alone indicates an a priori desire to protect my “want” no matter how incompetent my justifying reasoning. If AB had no inkling of reason or rhetorical argument at all and so went through life justifying all his beliefs with the same shit arguments you might have a point but, so far as I can tell at least, instead he’d actually rely on sound reasoning if I tried to sell him a bridge but nonetheless jettison the same reasoning when he wants to protect his faith claims.     

AB’s efforts here are a dog’s breakfast of inconsistency, poor reasoning and incoherence. You should take up with him the various mistakes you’ve identified here – my advice to you though is that you don’t look forward with much optimism to a cogent reply.   

Belief in anything highly abstract and subjective like the supernatural or moral values or concepts such as honour or duty would entail an emotional investment to hold onto the belief because there is no objective method to examine or verify the concept.

It sounds more plausible that the belief comes first rather than you reason your way to the belief. Any 'reasoning' is simply an analysis of why a person persists with/ is invested in the belief, as well as a way to try to get others to share the belief  or think like us or at least understand us, because building and maintaining shared outlooks was necessary for society to collaborate.

As society increasingly focuses on individual freedom there is less requirement for us to have a shared outlook. So it doesn't matter if you believe in AB's god or he believes in your leprechaun - his reasoning sounds to like his analysis of why he persists in his belief.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Perhaps the driving forces of desire are pleasure or pain.  I want what gives me pleasure and I want to avoid what gives me pain.

Ok - and we recognise from experience that we usually have to tolerate some pain to get pleasure. There are different degrees of pleasure and pain and different tolerance levels to pain so people subconsciously and consciously calculate how much pain for them is worth the pleasure they hope will follow?

Indoctrination often feeds upon this e.g. to avoid Hell and gain Heaven you must follow certain laws;  to avoid political disintegration and retain unitive power you must wage war against an enemy which threatens it.  Repetitious rituals, slogans and behaviour can re enforce the associated desires to the extent that a belief can be seen as an unquestionable truth.  If it spreads, mass mind and flock-think can take over.

I think heaven would need a hell for the concept of heaven to work. Presumably therefore we have the option of being exposed to these concepts/ metaphors and influences without becoming indoctrinated?  I think we are constantly being subjected to attempts to influence us (not sure if that should be classes as attempts to indoctrinate us) by being part of a society - to me religion and religious slogans and rituals are just ways of counteracting non-religious slogans, rituals, attempts at indoctrination and influence from society on me and vice versa.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Belief in anything highly abstract and subjective like the supernatural or moral values or concepts such as honour or duty would entail an emotional investment to hold onto the belief because there is no objective method to examine or verify the concept.

But the problem here is that AB thinks he does have an “objective method to examine or verify the concept”: logical argument. When his attempts at it turn to dust though he just ignores the problem and repeats the same wrong arguments over and over again as if nothing had happened. If that isn’t someone believing only what he wants to believe, then what is? 

It sounds more plausible that the belief comes first rather than you reason your way to the belief.

This makes no sense. I might have ten possible beliefs in anything at all before breakfast, but reason is what’s needed to justify them – or to discard them.   

Any 'reasoning' is simply an analysis of why a person persists with/ is invested in the belief, as well as a way to try to get others to share the belief  or think like us or at least understand us, because building and maintaining shared outlooks was necessary for society to collaborate.

No, the first role of reasoning is to enable the person whose guess could solidify into a belief to decide for himself whether or not he’s justified in believing it. As a subsequent and separate matter other people can then examine his reasoning to determine whether they too find his beliefs to be justified – which is when AB’s efforts always fall apart. At that stage though he just ignores the falsifications he’s given, hence the conclusion that he’s determined to believe only what he wants to believe notwithstanding his assertion to the contrary.     

As society increasingly focuses on individual freedom there is less requirement for us to have a shared outlook. So it doesn't matter if you believe in AB's god or he believes in your leprechaun - his reasoning sounds to like his analysis of why he persists in his belief.

Some of us think that distinguishing the true from the not true matters though. AB’s reasoning is wrong for objectively verifiable reasons, not because we happen to have different subjective opinions on the matter.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

But the problem here is that AB thinks he does have an “objective method to examine or verify the concept”: logical argument. When his attempts at it turn to dust though he just ignores the problem and repeats the same wrong arguments over and over again as if nothing had happened. If that isn’t someone believing only what he wants to believe, then what is?

Or it is someone who holds a belief based on subjective experiences/ nature/ nurture, who is emotionally connected and invested in that belief, and who thinks he can convince others with different nature/ nurture/ experiences to believe as he does.

If by using the word "want" you are suggesting that AB is choosing to believe or implying he has a choice of believing or not believing, I disagree. 

This makes no sense. I might have ten possible beliefs in anything at all before breakfast, but reason is what’s needed to justify them – or to discard them.

Again you seem to be saying that you can choose to discard a belief.

What could be happening is that your conscious brain identifies a belief held in your subconscious and analyses the belief and it might reason that the belief is fantastical or unprovable but nevertheless the belief persists and you are emotionally invested in it. People like AB might use reasoning to try to persuade others to conceptualise and emotionally invest in the same belief, which doesn't work IMO. If someone believes it is because they have a subconscious desire to based on nature/ nurture rather than their choosing to believe.

No, the first role of reasoning is to enable the person whose guess could solidify into a belief to decide for himself whether or not he’s justified in believing it. As a subsequent and separate matter other people can then examine his reasoning to determine whether they too find his beliefs to be justified – which is when AB’s efforts always fall apart. At that stage though he just ignores the falsifications he’s given, hence the conclusion that he’s determined to believe only what he wants to believe notwithstanding his assertion to the contrary.

How are you defining "justified" in the context of someone continuing to believe in something that cannot be objectively verified. Clearly people have reasons to continue to believe what they believe, even if they cannot convince anyone else to think those are good reasons to believe it too.       

Some of us think that distinguishing the true from the not true matters though. AB’s reasoning is wrong for objectively verifiable reasons, not because we happen to have different subjective opinions on the matter.

Ok. God is a concept that has no methodology to distinguish whether it is truth or fiction, therefore AB's reasoning is not going to make God objectively true - hence he holds a faith position. When you say he wants to believe it, I don't think he has a choice about what he wants. He just believes it.

[Alan Burns]

AB first said he thinks he can't choose his beliefs, which presumably means he thinks the rest of us can't choose our beliefs either. But he is now saying consciously controlling his thoughts will lead to him forming a belief - so he seems to be saying he is in control of how his beliefs are formed. I look forward to AB listing what he consciously thought that led to him forming his belief. I can then consciously think the same thoughts he consciously thought and presumably that means I will end up believing what he believes. Will report back on whether it worked once AB lists the consciously controlled thoughts I need to think in order to end up holding his belief.

All I am saying is that in order to discern what is true, we must have conscious control of the thought processes needed to contemplate the available evidence and apply logic in order to arrive at verifiable conclusions.  The conclusions may not be what we want to believe, but we have no choice because the truth exists beyond our conscious self - it is there to be discovered, not chosen.  Former atheists have related such experiences - such as CS Lewis who describes in his book, "Surprised by Joy", how he was a most reluctant Christian who was dragged kicking and screaming into the faith through his own thought processes to eventually discover the Joy of knowing God in the form of Jesus Christ.

[Nearly Sane]

All I am saying is that in order to discern what is true, we must have conscious control of the thought processes needed to contemplate the available evidence and apply logic in order to arrive at verifiable conclusions.  The conclusions may not be what we want to believe, but we have no choice because the truth exists beyond our conscious self - it is there to be discovered, not chosen.  Former atheists have related such experiences - such as CS Lewis who describes in his book, Surprised by Joy, how he was a most reluctant Christian who was dragged kicking and screaming into the faith through his own thought processes to eventually discover the Joy of knowing God in the form of Jesus Christ.

So what you are saying is that your belief and Lewis's belief have the same validity as a claim to truth as my non belief.

[Alan Burns]

So what you are saying is that your belief and Lewis's belief have the same validity as a claim to truth as my non belief.

I do not deny other peoples sincerity in what they believe to be true, but in relation to God there can only be one truth.
I believe I have discovered the truth in the form of Jesus Christ.
You appear to believe that there is no such God.
We cannot both be right - time will tell if one of us is right.

[torridon]

All I am saying is that in order to discern what is true, we must have conscious control of the thought processes needed to contemplate the available evidence and apply logic in order to arrive at verifiable conclusions.  The conclusions may not be what we want to believe, but we have no choice because the truth exists beyond our conscious self - it is there to be discovered, not chosen...

Which is broadly speaking of an argument in favour of the value of science over faith.  Take note.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Or it is someone who holds a belief based on subjective experiences/ nature/ nurture, who is emotionally connected and invested in that belief, and who thinks he can convince others with different nature/ nurture/ experiences to believe as he does.

No. If that was the case he could just say so. He doesn’t do that though. What he actually does is to try to persuade people that he’s right and that they should agree with him for reasons.

And those reasons are always wrong.   

If by using the word "want" you are suggesting that AB is choosing to believe or implying he has a choice of believing or not believing, I disagree.

Close. What I’m saying that is that his want/need/emotional conviction/whatever for his god is so strong that he’ll exchange crap reasons for sound ones to justify that belief.   

Again you seem to be saying that you can choose to discard a belief.

If more robust reasoning than that you relied on for your previous belief comes to your attention, yes:

“When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?”

(John Maynard Keynes)

What could be happening is that your conscious brain identifies a belief held in your subconscious and analyses the belief and it might reason that the belief is fantastical or unprovable but nevertheless the belief persists and you are emotionally invested in it.

Yes. It’s called cognitive dissonance.

People like AB might use reasoning to try to persuade others to conceptualise and emotionally invest in the same belief, which doesn't work IMO. If someone believes it is because they have a subconscious desire to based on nature/ nurture rather than their choosing to believe.

It’s worse than that. AB uses reasoning (albeit incompetently) to persuade himself that his faith beliefs are true. He’s told us so several times only recently here. 

How are you defining "justified" in the context of someone continuing to believe in something that cannot be objectively verified. Clearly people have reasons to continue to believe what they believe, even if they cannot convince anyone else to think those are good reasons to believe it too.

You’re not paying attention. Again: AB thinks his beliefs can be objectively verified. He tries to do it too – have a look at the list of (all fallacious) arguments he posted recently for this exact purpose. Objective reasoning is objective reasoning though – it cannot be sound when you use it to justify something to yourself but false when you use it to justify the same belief to someone else. The reasoning is either sound or not sound, regardless of who’s using it.             

Ok. God is a concept that has no methodology to distinguish whether it is truth or fiction,…

Tell AB that. His problem with it I suspect though is that at some dim level he’ll also grasp that the same is true of leprechauns – ie, that my claim of objective truth about leprechauns thus becomes the epistemic equivalent of his claim about god (which it is by the way ) or yours about Allah – ie, they’re all white noise.
 

…therefore AB's reasoning is not going to make God objectively true - hence he holds a faith position. When you say he wants to believe it, I don't think he has a choice about what he wants. He just believes it.

I know – but that’s precisely what he denies. He tells us over and over again that reasoning leads him to his belief “god”, when it’s plainly the other way around – only that a priori belief causes him to twist objective reasoning until it breaks.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All I am saying is that in order to discern what is true, we must have conscious control of the thought processes needed to contemplate the available evidence and apply logic in order to arrive at verifiable conclusions.

Bullshit for the reasons you've been given and still refuse to address.

The conclusions may not be what we want to believe, but we have no choice because the truth exists beyond our conscious self - it is there to be discovered, not chosen.

Truth can only be an expression of our ability to discern it. It's not an "out there" property of the universe to be discovered like a planet or gravity. Unless you want to claim omniscience too, your "The" prefix is overreaching.   

Former atheists have related such experiences - such as CS Lewis who describes in his book, "Surprised by Joy", how he was a most reluctant Christian who was dragged kicking and screaming into the faith through his own thought processes to eventually discover the Joy of knowing God in the form of Jesus Christ.

And you think his "thought processes" weren't as false as yours why exactly? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not deny other peoples sincerity in what they believe to be true, but in relation to God there can only be one truth.

So you assert. I still don't know what you mean by it though.

I believe I have discovered the truth in the form of Jesus Christ.

And I believe I have found the truth in the form of leprechauns. So what though?

You appear to believe that there is no such God.

No, he (I think) and I (for sure) believe that, so far at least, you've produced no sound reasoning to demonstrate that there is such a god. That's a very different position to your straw man version of it.

We cannot both be right - time will tell if one of us is right.

Yes we can be. I could be right that your justifying reasons for your claim "god" are wrong, but there could still be a god nonetheless just as a matter of dumb luck even though all your reasoning for it is wrong. The same is true for leprechauns though, so that doesn't help you much.

This basis logic thing really still perplexes you doesn't it.

[Nearly Sane]

I do not deny other peoples sincerity in what they believe to be true, but in relation to God there can only be one truth.
I believe I have discovered the truth in the form of Jesus Christ.
You appear to believe that there is no such God.
We cannot both be right - time will tell if one of us is right.

No, because you have specifically denied multipke times people's sincerity on this thread when they have stated  their beliefs. Are you apologising for that?

And I have no belief there is a god,  and I Have no choice in that lack of belief, then why might there be a judgement, which you think there is, based on that?


And just to help you out, a lack of belief is not a disbelief. And that's been explained to you multiple times on this thread. Can you confirm that you understand the difference? And why did you present it as if you didn't in your post?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, because you have specifically denied multipke times people's sincerity on this thread when they have stated  their beliefs. Are you apologising for that?

Just to note that this is one of Vlad's favourites too with his "goddodging" BS. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Just to note that this is one of Vlad's favourites too with his "goddodging" BS.

Given I was replying to Alan Burns, why are you talking about Vlad?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Given I was replying to Alan Burns, why are you talking about Vlad?

Because I was just noting that he tries the same tactic too.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Because I was just noting that he tries the same tactic too.

But Vlad says what he says. Talk to him about that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

But Vlad says what he says. Talk to him about that.

Why? I was just referencing that AB isn't the only one who seems convinced that people who don't agree with him aren't acting in good faith. There's nothing wrong with that that I can see.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Why? I was just referencing that AB isn't the only one who seems convinced that people who don't agree with him aren't acting in good faith. There's nothing wrong with that that I can see.

What's the import if you are correct?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

What's the import if you are correct?

Does there have to be one? Which forum rule is that? 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I do not deny other peoples sincerity in what they believe to be true, but in relation to God there can only be one truth.

How do you know there can only one truth? What is preventing multiple truths?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

All I am saying is that in order to discern what is true, we must have conscious control of the thought processes needed to contemplate the available evidence and apply logic in order to arrive at verifiable conclusions. 

So this is an argument to back up your claim that we have conscious control of our thoughts?

By 'control' I assume you mean we consciously think about/ contemplate/ analyse/ research/ retrieve relevant information? We think. I also assume you mean we can exert this kind of 'control' over some thoughts but not others?