Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Occam’s razor doesn’t work against me it works against those who say there is no necessity...

Except that you can't explain how any 'necessary entity' can possibly be its own explanation or what the contradiction would be if it didn't exist.

Like Alan's endless silly phrases like "conscious control of our own thought processes", it's just gibberish. It has no logical meaning.

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan
American philosopher Thomas Nagel has explored this topic extensively and concludes: "consciousness and subjective experience cannot, at least with the contemporary understanding of physicalism, be satisfactorily explained with the concepts of physics."

Quote from: Stranger
FALLACY: Argument from ignorance.

You are accusing one of the world's top philosophers of ignorance.
If there is a fallacy for trying to hide your own ignorance behind false accusations of fallacy you are guilty.

[Gordon]

You are accusing one of the world's top philosophers of ignorance.
If there is a fallacy for trying to hide your own ignorance behind false accusations of fallacy you are guilty.

Maybe, Alan, you need to reflect more on what you quoted. Nagel mentions 'contemporary understanding (of physics)', and that does not mean 'cannot ever be understood (using physics)', as much as you'd like it to. Moreover, from what you quoted anyway, he does not go on to say anything like 'therefore God'.

I can't see that what Nagel said helps your case.

[Stranger]

You are accusing one of the world's top philosophers of ignorance.
If there is a fallacy for trying to hide your own ignorance behind false accusations of fallacy you are guilty.

Astounding. You actually don't even understand what the fallacy of an 'argument from ignorance' is. You seriously need to get yourself an education in critical thinking and logic.

An argument from ignorance does not mean that the person making it is ignorant, it means that they are using our (human) ignorance to try to argue either that something is true because we can't show that it's false, or false because we can't show it's true.

I have no idea at all if Thomas Nagel himself was using an argument from ignorance because all you quoted was him saying that consciousness and subjective experience has no current explanation. However, the clear implication from you for a long time has been that because we can't explain it, it must be god-magic, which is an argument from ignorance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gordon,

Maybe, Alan, you need to reflect more on what you quoted. Nagel mentions 'contemporary understanding (of physics)', and that does not mean 'cannot ever be understood (using physics)', as much as you'd like it to. Moreover, from what you quoted anyway, he does not go on to say anything like 'therefore God'.

Just to note that the first seven words of that were sufficient 

I can't see that what Nagel said helps your case.

It doesn't.

[Alan Burns]

Maybe, Alan, you need to reflect more on what you quoted. Nagel mentions 'contemporary understanding (of physics)', and that does not mean 'cannot ever be understood (using physics)', as much as you'd like it to. Moreover, from what you quoted anyway, he does not go on to say anything like 'therefore God'.

I can't see that what Nagel said helps your case.

All I was pointing out was that Nagel was casting doubt on the ability of physical theory to explain human conscious awareness.  Of course he did not conclude "therefore God" because he is a declared atheist.  In his doubts I hope he does come to see the truth behind his existence.

[Gordon]

All I was pointing out was that Nagel was casting doubt on the ability of physical theory to explain human conscious awareness.  Of course he did not conclude "therefore God" because he is a declared atheist.  In his doubts hope he does come to see the truth behind his existence.

Which he qualified by referring to 'contemporary understanding', which implies that he understood that this 'understanding' was subject to review should further information come to hand.

You are clutching at a non-existent straw.

[jeremyp]

You do God a disservice in presuming the universe, nature and yourself came into existence from nothing.

He'd have to exist for that to be true.

If he did exist, I'm sure he'd understand better than you that creating a Universe without leaving any evidence that he did it makes my position a reasonable one.

[Alan Burns]

He'd have to exist for that to be true.

If he did exist, I'm sure he'd understand better than you that creating a Universe without leaving any evidence that he did it makes my position a reasonable one.

Not sure what you would expect as evidence of God's creation.
I presume you believe that advances in scientific knowledge can show there is no need for God.
But discovering how things work can't be used to deny the need for the one who made them work.

[jeremyp]

Not sure what you would expect as evidence of God's creation.

I would expect that we wouldn't have been able to find natural explanations for so much of what goes on in the Universe.

I presume you believe that advances in scientific knowledge can show there is no need for God.
But discovering how things work can't be used to deny the need for the one who made them work.

It can be if how things work turns out to be a completely natural process with no need for intelligent intervention, which id what always happens when we start investigating the Universe.

[Gordon]

Not sure what you would expect as evidence of God's creation.

I'd expect nothing: what would supernatural evidence even look like anyway?

I presume you believe that advances in scientific knowledge can show there is no need for God.

Unless 'God' is a naturalistic phenomenon it isn't science-apt: so your point is, well, pointless.

But discovering how things work can't be used to deny the need for the one who made them work.

I'm often amazed how you so effortless pack fallacies into a single sentence: here we have a nod to the dear old NPF along with a dash of Begging the Question. If there is a reasonable provisional and naturalistic explanation for something that, as far as is known, comprehensively outlines the mechanisms involved, then any notions of supernatural agents are irrelevant.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Not sure what you would expect as evidence of God's creation.

Isn’t that as much your problem as me not being sure of what you’d expect as evidence for leprechauns would be my problem?

I presume you believe that advances in scientific knowledge can show there is no need for God.

No, it’s basic logic that does that. The only way science alone could do it is if it attained omniscience, which seems unlikely.
 

But discovering how things work can't be used to deny the need for the one who made them work.

There's no such “need”, or at least none that you’ve been able to demonstrate with cogent reasoning.

[Stranger]

All I was pointing out was that Nagel was casting doubt on the ability of physical theory to explain human conscious awareness.

All he actually pointed out was the lack of an explanation to date. Also noted that you completely ignored the fact that this has highlighted your own appalling ignorance of critical thinking and the avoidance of fallacies (stupid mistakes in logic)...

I presume you believe that advances in scientific knowledge can show there is no need for God.
But discovering how things work can't be used to deny the need for the one who made them work.

FALLACY: Argument by assertion.

It doesn't really matter what science discovers, or what remains a mystery, this 'need' for a creator is just blind faith, because goddidit explains nothing and only leads to an infinite regress if we apply the same flawed 'reasoning' that you used to suggest the 'need' in the first place. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that you can't explain how any 'necessary entity' can possibly be its own explanation or what the contradiction would be if it didn't exist.

Once again with feeling.
It is it's own explanation because literally nothing else can be and without it there can be no contingency.

[Stranger]

Once again with feeling.
It is it's own explanation because literally nothing else can be and without it there can be no contingency.

Once again, this doesn't explain anything. Specifically, it doesn't explain your continued objections to the whole universe (space-time) just existing for no other reason than it does.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again, this doesn't explain anything. Specifically, it doesn't explain your continued objections to the whole universe (space-time) just existing for no other reason than it does.

If space time is a single entity without parts(that is known as monism), It could exist because there is no external reason to prevent or cause it, it could be necessary. But unfortunately it is a composite. We also have the issue of change and complexity both of which cannot describe a non composite non contingent.

[Stranger]

If space time is a single entity without parts(that is known as monism), It could exist because there is no external reason to prevent or cause it, it could be necessary. But unfortunately it is a composite. We also have the issue of change and complexity both of which cannot describe a non composite non contingent.

Nothing in what you said before: "It is it's [sic] own explanation because literally nothing else can be and without it there can be no contingency.", actually specifies that it cannot be 'a composite', nor does it say anything about complexity or change (not that the whole space-time and its contents actually does change).

Basically you have never explained how anything can logically be its own explanation, you just keep on making up bullshit about it...

[torridon]

Not sure what you would expect as evidence of God's creation.
I presume you believe that advances in scientific knowledge can show there is no need for God.
But discovering how things work can't be used to deny the need for the one who made them work.

That's just a moving of the goal posts from 'how the universe works' to 'how the universe creating being works'.  Bringing God into an explanation is just a way to terminate further enquiry. It might make you feel warm and fluffy, but no advances in knowledge accrue from going down that dead end 'Goddidit' route.

[torridon]

All I was pointing out was that Nagel was casting doubt on the ability of physical theory to explain human conscious awareness.  Of course he did not conclude "therefore God" because he is a declared atheist.  In his doubts I hope he does come to see the truth behind his existence.

If God created this 'truth' in the first place, why would he/she he hide it 'behind' something.  Obscuring the truth is not consistent with other claims that God is loving etc. A truthful being would facilitate the truth, not hide it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nothing in what you said before: "It is it's [sic] own explanation because literally nothing else can be and without it there can be no contingency.", actually specifies that it cannot be 'a composite', nor does it say anything about complexity or change (not that the whole space-time and its contents actually does change).

Basically you have never explained how anything can logically be its own explanation, you just keep on making up bullshit about it...

It seems from what you’ve been saying that by reason you mean external reason. The onus is therefore on you to explain why only external reasons are valid.

However you also seem to be hedging in order for the universe to exist without needing an external reason.

The two positions are contradictory

We know that things exist. You suggest, in one interpretation that the universe is a single entity in which case it may exist for the internal reason that there is nothing external to dictate it’s existence or lack of it thereoff.

The trouble is the opposite is observed the universe is not a single entity and there are entities whose existence is dictated to by external reasons. So we are left with two questions what is responsible for contingency? And why everything must have an external reason.

So, have the universe as a single entity and consider whether logic, science, and reason can work in it.

[Stranger]

It seems from what you’ve been saying that by reason you mean external reason. The onus is therefore on you to explain why only external reasons are valid.

What are you on about? How does that relate to anything I said?

I'm trying to get you to explain the logic that applies to what you call a 'necessary entity' and how, exactly it can be its own reason. So far you haven't said anything that distinguishes it from a reasonless brute fact or that explains all the other constraints you keep on coming up with, like not being a composite or changing.

However you also seem to be hedging in order for the universe to exist without needing an external reason.

No Vlad, all I'm doing is pointing out the glaring great holes in what you have said.

Your only recent attempt to explain was "It is its own explanation because literally nothing else can be and without it there can be no contingency.".

When I pointed out that the entire universe could be described by that, you rushed to move the goalposts and started wittering about composites and change. So, let's try again: how exactly is it possible for something to be its own reason for existence, and what logical contradiction would result if it didn't exist or was different?

[Alan Burns]

Like Alan's endless silly phrases like "conscious control of our own thought processes", it's just gibberish. It has no logical meaning.

So if it is not your conscious self which has control - what is the ultimate source which determines and directs your thoughts?
If you deem it to be just a consequence of uncontrollable physically determined reactions in a material brain, what is there to determine and judge the correctness of your thoughts?

[Alan Burns]

You seriously need to get yourself an education in critical thinking and logic.

You have yet to give a feasible explanation for how critical thinking and logic can be achieved without having conscious control of the thought processes needed to perform the mental gymnastics involved.

[Sebastian Toe]

You have yet to give a feasible explanation for how critical thinking and logic can be achieved without having conscious control of the thought processes needed to perform the mental gymnastics involved.

Alan...still waiting on your feasible explanation of how your soul works!
Specifically but not exclusively,  how exactly can an immaterial entity (soul) interact with matter (physical body).

[Gonnagle]

Alan...still waiting on your feasible explanation of how your soul works!
Specifically but not exclusively,  how exactly can an immaterial entity (soul) interact with matter (physical body).

Dear Seb toe,

The concept of "soul history" explores the evolution of ideas about the soul, its nature, and its relationship to the body and afterlife, across various cultures and philosophical/religious traditions.
Here's a deeper look at the history of the soul:
Ancient Beliefs:
Ancient Egyptians:
Believed in the "ka" (vital essence) which needed sustenance after death, and the "ba" (personality) which could travel to the afterlife.
Ancient Greeks:
Philosophers like Plato and Socrates theorized about the soul's immortality and its existence before and after death, with Plato suggesting the soul has three parts: reason, spirit, and appetite.
Ancient Romans:
Adopted many Greek philosophical ideas about the soul, including the concept of an immortal soul.
Neanderthals:
Evidence suggests they buried their dead with personal objects and ritual markings, indicating a possible belief in an afterlife and thus, possibly, a soul.
Religious Traditions:
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam:
These Abrahamic religions share the belief in a soul that is created by God and infused into the body, with varying beliefs about the soul's fate after death.
Hinduism and Buddhism:
These Eastern religions emphasize the concept of reincarnation and the soul's journey through cycles of birth, death, and rebirth, with the goal of achieving enlightenment or liberation.
Philosophical Perspectives:
Plato:
Argued that the soul is eternal and immortal, existing before and after the physical body.
Aristotle:
Proposed that the soul is the form or essence of the body, and that different types of souls exist for different living things.
Epicureans:
Believed that souls were composed of atoms, similar to the physical body, and that death meant the end of consciousness.
Modern Interpretations:
Psychology and Neuroscience:
While not directly studying the soul, these fields explore the mind, consciousness, and the relationship between the body and the brain, which can be seen as related to the concept of the soul.
Cultural and Musical Interpretations:
In some contexts, "soul" can refer to a person's essence, emotions, or cultural identity, as seen in the context of soul music.

Well I asked Socrates but he sounded a bit to Christian like for me, Immortal soul indeed, how dare he, then I asked a wee guy called Carl Jung.

Jung's model of the psyche is a complex and multifaceted framework that emphasizes the importance of both conscious and unconscious processes in shaping human personality and behavior, with the ultimate goal of achieving wholeness and self-realization through individuation.

But then Jung liked us Christians,

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1963/01/jungs-view-of-christianity/658592/

I have pointed out many times that, as in the past, so in the future the wrong we have done, thought, or intended will wreak its vengeance on our souls.


Souls Dr Jung, behave 

So then I thought, souls, Atheists souls, Atheists, well who popped into my head one of the Four Horse asses of the Apocalypse, Mr Dennett step forward.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/27/daniel-dennetts-science-of-the-soul

Lovely man, the article says he likes a wee rousing Hymn or two.

So Seb old boy who is right, Socrates, Jung or Dennett or maybe they all are

To end, absolutely nothing to do with souls

“Darwin’s dangerous idea,” Dennett writes, is that Bach’s music, Christianity, human culture, the human mind, and Homo sapiens “all exist as fruits of a single tree, the Tree of Life,” which “created itself, not in a miraculous, instantaneous whoosh, but slowly, slowly.” He asks, “Is this Tree of Life a God one could worship? Pray to? Fear? Probably not.” But, he says, it is “greater than anything any of us will ever conceive of in detail worthy of its detail. . . . I could not pray to it, but I can stand in affirmation of its magnificence. This world is sacred.”


This World is sacred, WHAT!! God Bless you Mr Dennett, sorry, sorry, goodness bless you Mr Dennett.

Gonnagle.