Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

Alan, given your views on animals not having feelings or consciousness what do you make of this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35204936

He'll wave it aside somehow and come back with something along the lines of, in essence, "Yes but God/free will ..."

It's really astoundingly ignorant in its witless anthropocentrism (theism relies on that) but positively and actively despicable - it was the Cartesian idea that all animals (not humans - I mean duh, obviously) are mere automata acting on a push-and-pull reactive basis without sentience which helped to foster the human-centric, human-first attitude which has caused so much animal suffering and misery at the hands of one other kind of animal in particular in the modern world.

[wigginhall]

Very good critique by blue of the cosmological argument, which has to fiddle about with uncaused/caused and actually ignores scientific developments.

But there is another traditional critique, which looks at the first bit, 'whatever begins to exist has a cause ...', and argues that nothing actually begins to exist.   Thus if you take a table, it is made from a tree, the tree came from a seed, plus loads of sunshine, rain, nutrition, the sunshine comes from a star, which was formed billions of years ago ... And so on, and so on.

Energy and matter go through changes in form, errm, that's it.   Cue AB, who will say, isn't it wonderful how God does all this!  Don't be daft, it's the blue Venusian magic jellyfish which does it, cos it told me all about it. 

[Shaker]

Very good critique by blue of the cosmological argument, which has to fiddle about with uncaused/caused and actually ignores scientific developments.

But there is another traditional critique, which looks at the first bit, 'whatever begins to exist has a cause ...', and argues that nothing actually begins to exist.   Thus if you take a table, it is made from a tree, the tree came from a seed, plus loads of sunshine, rain, nutrition, the sunshine comes from a star, which was formed billions of years ago ... And so on, and so on.

Energy and matter go through changes in form, errm, that's it.   Cue AB, who will say, isn't it wonderful how God does all this!  Don't be daft, it's the blue Venusian magic jellyfish which does it, cos it told me all about it.

While not often deployed, Wiggy has a lovely snippy way with him when he pulls it out of the drawer 

[Enki]

enki - I don't think it is a deviation, since AB has brought up his dissatisfaction with ideas about consciousness, and prefers his ideas about the soul.

Another area of research is into dementia, which is showing how our representations of the self, of others, of time, memory, and so on, can begin to disintegrate, via brain damage.

Another interesting area is to do with selective representation.   For example, when an animal walks down a path, the amount of information coming in is huge - from the environment, its own body, and so on.  And this applies to humans as well.   Anyway, the idea of selective representation is that to avoid overload, the brain is able to construct 'naive' representations, which simplify reality for us.  One example is colour.

This stuff seems very exciting to me, and I wonder what AB has to offer in return, in relation to the soul?

I agree. I don't know that AB has any arguments that develop his idea of a soul, at least none so far that I can relate to.

I also find fascinating the idea that the brain can absorb, for instance, the details of a picture without actually being conscious of it. Yet when we are able to focus on, say, one aspect of said picture, we become aware or conscious of it. It seems that the neural firing related to the visual field is the same in both cases. Recent research suggests that when we are not aware the firing is intermittent or asynchronous, but when we become aware the nerve firing becomes synchronous and is more likely to affect the EM field, which seems to react by pulling together ion channels in disparate parts of the brain. Jim Al-Khalili describes it in this way:

The findings suggest that the brain's own EM field, generated by nerve firing, also influences nerve firing, providing a kind of self-referencing loop that many theorists argue is an essential component of consciousness.

Obviously research is at such an early stage that such conjectures, or, indeed, hypotheses, can be easily challenged but I do find this whole area of scientific research to be quite exhilarating.

I also find interesting the fact that when performing lots of different tasks(eg. walking, dancing, driving) it is possible to perform these tasks on automatic pilot, but using meaningful language in a conversation, conscious awareness seems to be part and parcel of it.

[Alan Burns]

Alan, given your views on animals not having feelings or consciousness what do you make of this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35204936

But can these animals, (or any other species), contemplate the concept of eternity, or infinity? 

[Shaker]

But can these animals, (or any other species), contemplate the concept of eternity, or infinity? 

Can you emit sound at over 100,000 Hertz for echolocation?

[BeRational]

But can these animals, (or any other species), contemplate the concept of eternity, or infinity? 

I don't know.

Can you?

[Rhiannon]

But can these animals, (or any other species), contemplate the concept of eternity, or infinity? 

And so the forum echoes to the sound of moving goalposts once more.

[Shaker]

We do know that he can dodge a question put to him as though it never even existed.

[ippy]

Very good critique by blue of the cosmological argument, which has to fiddle about with uncaused/caused and actually ignores scientific developments.

But there is another traditional critique, which looks at the first bit, 'whatever begins to exist has a cause ...', and argues that nothing actually begins to exist.   Thus if you take a table, it is made from a tree, the tree came from a seed, plus loads of sunshine, rain, nutrition, the sunshine comes from a star, which was formed billions of years ago ... And so on, and so on.

Energy and matter go through changes in form, errm, that's it.   Cue AB, who will say, isn't it wonderful how God does all this!  Don't be daft, it's the blue Venusian magic jellyfish which does it, cos it told me all about it.

Wiggi, now this "blue Venusian magic jellyfish"?

ippy

[ekim]

Can you emit sound at over 100,000 Hertz for echolocation?

My next door neighbour can.  It's usually the day after he has eaten a dozen Brussels sprouts.

[floo]

My next door neighbour can.  It's usually the day after he has eaten a dozen Brussels sprouts.

Maybe his emissions could be harnessed as a power source!

[wigginhall]

Another interesting objection to the cosmological argument, is that we don't know if universes have causes.  This is because while things inside the universe tend to follow physical laws, and therefore fit quite nicely into spacetime stuff, and hence causation, we don't know if universes would be the same, because they are not inside the universe.

This is quite a strange criticism, but rather a pretty one.  The universe is everything, but does everything follow the same rules as the things inside it?   I don't think anyone has a clue.   (Fallacy of composition is raising its ugly head, maybe). 

I'm afraid that the secrets of the blue magic jellyfish are reserved to a few initiates, also written down on tablets of jelly, stored in the great Blue Hall of Venusian kings.  But it's all true, and you can't prove that it isn't!

[Alan Burns]

We do know that he can dodge a question put to him as though it never even existed.

I thought I was anwering two questions at once,

[Shaker]

I thought I was anwering two questions at once,

Yes, I'm sure you did.

[Shaker]

Another interesting objection to the cosmological argument, is that we don't know if universes have causes.  This is because while things inside the universe tend to follow physical laws, and therefore fit quite nicely into spacetime stuff, and hence causation, we don't know if universes would be the same, because they are not inside the universe.

This is quite a strange criticism, but rather a pretty one.  The universe is everything, but does everything follow the same rules as the things inside it?   I don't think anyone has a clue.   (Fallacy of composition is raising its ugly head, maybe). 

Exactly what I was about to say 

[Alan Burns]

Another interesting objection to the cosmological argument, is that we don't know if universes have causes.  This is because while things inside the universe tend to follow physical laws, and therefore fit quite nicely into spacetime stuff, and hence causation, we don't know if universes would be the same, because they are not inside the universe.

This is quite a strange criticism, but rather a pretty one.  The universe is everything, but does everything follow the same rules as the things inside it?   I don't think anyone has a clue.   (Fallacy of composition is raising its ugly head, maybe). 

I'm afraid that the secrets of the blue magic jellyfish are reserved to a few initiates, also written down on tablets of jelly, stored in the great Blue Hall of Venusian kings.  But it's all true, and you can't prove that it isn't!

Human attempts to figure this out are pure speculation.  It is totally beyond our comprehension.  If we can't even figure out how human awareness manifests itself in the brain, we do not have much hope with the creation of universes.  So I put my trust in God's revelation.

[Shaker]

Human attempts to figure this out are pure speculation.

There goes my Spetsnaz-approved military grade ironymeter 

It is totally beyond our comprehension.  If we can't even figure out how human awareness manifests itself in the brain, we do not have much hope with the creation of universes.  So I put my trust in God's revelation.

Because that has such a stellar track record of telling us about how the world works, doesn't it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another interesting objection to the cosmological argument, is that we don't know if universes have causes.  This is because while things inside the universe tend to follow physical laws, and therefore fit quite nicely into spacetime stuff, and hence causation, we don't know if universes would be the same, because they are not inside the universe.

This is quite a strange criticism, but rather a pretty one.  The universe is everything, but does everything follow the same rules as the things inside it?   I don't think anyone has a clue.   (Fallacy of composition is raising its ugly head, maybe). 

I'm afraid that the secrets of the blue magic jellyfish are reserved to a few initiates, also written down on tablets of jelly, stored in the great Blue Hall of Venusian kings.  But it's all true, and you can't prove that it isn't!

I thought the inability to apply the rules of the universe to the universe itself was more of a naturalists problem. Particularly vis a vis cause and effect.

I don't think anybodies arguments are foolproof so in that respect the cosmological argument has no more trouble than any other.

Is ''I don't know'' an actual argument anyway?

I get the feeling that you, Hillside and Shaker are dressing it up as not only an argument but a knock down argument!!!

That isn't the point though.

The point is if you begin to allow that normal rules or laws may not apply then you cannot then say that strange things do not or even cannot happen.

If nature is allowed strange properties then I'm afraid to avoid special pleading God has to be allowed them as well.

 

[Shaker]

Is ''I don't know'' an actual argument anyway?

I don't know if 'argument' is quite the right word. It's certainly an honest stance or position which has a humility about the limits of knowledge to it and an unwillingness to make crazy shit up just to plug the holes you might find uncomfortable.

[Gordon]

Human attempts to figure this out are pure speculation.

But thankfully there are those who seek further knowledge through rational investigation: scientists, for example.

It is totally beyond our comprehension.

More work to be done then.

If we can't even figure out how human awareness manifests itself in the brain, we do not have much hope with the creation of universes.

non-sequitur, begging the question, argument from ignorance - you're stuck in fallacy central, Alan.

So I put my trust in God's revelation.

So it seems: the problem is though that this approach of yours has no explanatory value.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't know if 'argument' is quite the right word. It's certainly an honest stance or position which has a humility about the limits of knowledge to it and an unwillingness to make crazy shit up just to plug the holes you might find uncomfortable.

....Maybe. Your still trying to turn it into a knock down argument for a theory you are uncomfortable with. Nobody is saying these ideas are unchallengeable but Hillside has said all arguments for causation by a God are demolished. When pressed on that, the pips start to squeak and what we actually have is not a demolition but a litany of ''I don't knows'' from people like yourself.

At least you haven't taken the ''Don't even go there'' argument suggested by Plastic Bertrand Russell or Dawkins......But then being cleverer than you guys THEY DO realise the arguments against causation are a bit thin.

[Shaker]

....Maybe.

There's no 'maybe' about it. If there was I wouldn't have written it.

Your still trying to turn it into a knock down argument for a theory you are uncomfortable with.

(a) No, I'm not.

(b) 'Theory' is misused.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's no 'maybe' about it. If there was I wouldn't have written it.
(a) No, I'm not.

(b) 'Theory' is misused.

Agree with B it is of course unfalsifiable and is not therefore a scientific theory...............

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

I thought the inability to apply the rules of the universe to the universe itself was more of a naturalists problem. Particularly vis a vis cause and effect.

Nope. All that’s being said is that at a certain point the laws of nature as we currently understand them break down; nothing more, nothing less.

I don't think anybodies arguments are foolproof so in that respect the cosmological argument has no more trouble than any other.

Of course it does – it’s essentially several logical fallacies (depending on which version you opt for) and so it has the same “trouble” that other fallacious arguments have.

Is ''I don't know'' an actual argument anyway?

Actually it’s “you don’t know” and it is an argument inasmuch as it points out that you reach a conclusion (causality) built on a premise you don’t know to be true (ie, the universe having a beginning).

I get the feeling that you, Hillside and Shaker are dressing it up as not only an argument but a knock down argument!!!

It is a “knock down argument” in the sense that it pulls your premise from under you. If you want to persist with your second guess about causality built upon your first guess about a universal beginning, that’s up to you I guess (and that’s before we even get to your third guess about what that cause might be).

That isn't the point though.

The point is if you begin to allow that normal rules or laws may not apply then you cannot then say that strange things do not or even cannot happen.

No-one does say that. Your problem though is to show not that they can happen, but that they do happen – and in a very specific fashion (that you call “god”) to boot.

This burden of proof concept really has got you foxed still hasn’t it. 

If nature is allowed strange properties then I'm afraid to avoid special pleading God has to be allowed them as well.

Nope, nope and nope with chocolate sprinkles on top. “Nature” is “allowed” the possibility of anything – even allowing for what might happen when nature’s laws break down. What you’re doing though isn’t just positing a possibility (albeit an undefined one with no rationale to support it, no means to test or falsify it etc) but you’re also positing a probability – you’re actively trying to argue that your speculation is true.

And that’s a fundamentally different matter.