Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

I can assure you that I take no pleasure in winding people up.
I just try to share what I sincerely believe to be the truth, because that is what God is calling me to do.

Your god is calling you to be a troll and insult people? Why is rhat?

[Alan Burns]

Do you want to try that one again?

OK, just to clarify:

 If logic was just derived from uncontrolled deterministic reactions ....

[Alan Burns]

Your god is calling you to be a troll and insult people? Why is rhat?

Helping people to see the truth is not insulting them.

[Gordon]

For human logic to work, the brain's awareness would need the freedom to judge what is feasible and what is not.

Another daft non-sequitur: what we refer to as 'logic' isn't dependent on our own individual abilities (or lack of) to recognise the principles involved. Some people clearly can't, such as yourself, since you are a walking talking example of pretty much all the various routine fallacies.

I can't conceive how such conscious judgement could take place if our brains merely reacted to events in a deterministic manner without conscious control.

See the bit in bold/italic - this is where another of your regular fallacies kicks-in: the argument from personal incredulity.

If logic was just derived from uncontrolled deterministic reactions, it would not be truly objective because it would be entirely dependent on the fixed reactions of brain cells whether they are "working properly" or not.

So you make up your own fallacious narratives, such as the above, and then use this as your very own home-grown argument from authority: in effect you are your own authority, which is simply grandiose self-indulgence on your part, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

Congratulations, Alan! Your stubborn persistence to believe in the "God" story has everybody jumping to show how wrong you are.

I'm sure it is quite obvious to everybody that no amount of reasoned argument is going to change your mind, and yet we keep doing it!

 

And I should have realised many years ago that no amount of evidence was going to change your mind, Len, but God called me to seek you out again and have another go.
 

[Alan Burns]

Another daft non-sequitur: what we refer to as 'logic' isn't dependent on our own individual abilities (or lack of) to recognise the principles involved. Some people clearly can't, such as yourself, since you are a walking talking example of pretty much all the various routine fallacies.

See the bit in bold/italic - this is where another of your regular fallacies kicks-in: the argument from personal incredulity.

So you make up your own fallacious narratives, such as the above, and then use this as your very own home-grown argument from authority: in effect you are your own authority, which is simply grandiose self-indulgence on your part, Alan.

Gordon,
Simply labelling my points as "non-sequitur" or "personal incredulity" does not offer any alternative explanation.

So can someone explain how the human mind can come to a valid logical conclusion if its activity is totally controlled by deterministic chemical activity which does not allow conscious control of thought processes?

[Outrider]

For human logic to work, the brain's awareness would need the freedom to judge what is feasible and what is not.

I don't see how 'freedom' comes into that - logic is deductive, it's not 'free' at all.

I can't conceive how such conscious judgement could take place if our brains merely reacted to events in a deterministic manner without conscious control.

That's because you still fail to grasp that our conscious thinking is an echo of the automatic processes going on in the background of our minds.

If logic was just derived from uncontrolled deterministic reactions, it would not be truly objective because it would be entirely dependent on the fixed reactions of brain cells whether they are "working properly" or not.

I fail to see how that could be anything other than objective? It would be independent of any character traits or preconceptions of the individual. Objective doesn't mean independent of anything - that's random - it means independent of any individual point of view's influence.

As it is, of course, those preconceptions do impinge on our capacity for reasoning - you seem to be presuming that in the absence of 'free will' everyone would have exactly the same mindset on everything? Am I misreading that?

O.

[Gordon]

Gordon,
Simply labelling my points as "non-sequitur" or "personal incredulity" does not offer any alternative explanation.

Correct - these are critiques of you own arguments and are not intended as alternative arguments, so this comment of yours is yet another non-sequitur.

So can someone explain how the human mind can come to a valid logical conclusion if its activity is totally controlled by deterministic chemical activity which does not allow conscious control of thought processes?

Is this actually the case though, or is this a premise that is yet another of your enthusiastic leaps into an argument from personal incredulity (plus assorted other fallacies).

[Outrider]

So can someone explain how the human mind can come to a valid logical conclusion if its activity is totally controlled by deterministic chemical activity which does not allow conscious control of thought processes?

A computer is governed entirely by deterministic processses - electronic rather than chemical, admittedly - and the entirety of computer programming is applied logic, the architecture of microchips is based on 'logic-gates'.

O.

[Sassy]

Dear Alan,

Ah! manipulating, natural forces, one theory, another is that he created these natural forces, yet another, take some sticky back plastic and a old washing up bottle ( remember to ask your mum if you can use it ) and that is my own personal theory, science complicates stuff when it is all really quite simple, well for God and we are not God, I think I pointed that out a few posts ago, in amongst my rambling, my chuntering, good here, ain't it

Gonnagle.

I think we know, those of us who believe God, that he created all things by the power of his words.
The thing is that mans thinking is so out of line and so fallen they cannot fathom the height or breath of Gods love or the reality in being created at all...

Gonads,

God didn't make use of anything lying around. He created from nothing the lying around bits..

[Sassy]

Dear Alan,

Time, just something to set your watch by.

http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-time-a-man-made-construct

Oh and your big challenge, you forgot vacuum, I think that is important, Gods Holy hoover, or maybe Missus God, does God have a Missus, and am I being sexist.

Gonnagle.

God was not made...

How do you explain the created as opposed to the uncreated?

[Maeght]

Helping people to see the truth is not insulting them.

Posting that people who disagree with your beliefs have shallow logic and are under the influence of the Devil is Alan.

[Sassy]

I can assure you that I take no pleasure in winding people up.
I just try to share what I sincerely believe to be the truth, because that is what God is calling me to do.

He was speaking about himself...
There are no Christian abusive trolls. Why be apologetic or try and excuse yourself. Creating a false premise or foundation to something said which was untrue in the first instance relating to believers?

Our God doesn't make errors and mistakes... Only man since the beginning of time. About God and about who he really is.

Err on the side of caution when people write such posts. Learn when to ignore and watch for the pitfalls. He was not being sincere and neither was his post acceptable in the great concept of things here.

[Sassy]

It's called ego stroking, Alan.

Well Alan,

See how the trap grows bigger... Ego stroking is what they are doing to you.
They want to see you fall flat on your face and that is basically because they have no arguments to win with you.

If you are going to dine with the devil then use 6ft chopsticks to ensure you are at a safe distance from the devils table...

[Alan Burns]

I don't see how 'freedom' comes into that - logic is deductive, it's not 'free' at all.

That's because you still fail to grasp that our conscious thinking is an echo of the automatic processes going on in the background of our minds.

I fail to see how that could be anything other than objective? It would be independent of any character traits or preconceptions of the individual. Objective doesn't mean independent of anything - that's random - it means independent of any individual point of view's influence.

As it is, of course, those preconceptions do impinge on our capacity for reasoning - you seem to be presuming that in the absence of 'free will' everyone would have exactly the same mindset on everything? Am I misreading that?

O.

I will try to explain my point more fully:

As a computer programmer I am aware of the processes involved in getting computers to produce the correct results.  First attempts at setting up the logic within a computer program are invariably wrong.  The initial results are scutinised, errors noted, and the "logic" is corrected - then we have another go, and keep on doing this until we get it right.  There is no way of automating this process - human judgement and conscious correction are essential.

The human brain is hardwired from the start.  There is no way we can alter the neural networks of our brains.  So in the deterministic scenario, the process of arriving at a logical conclusion must be completely automated - ie there is no possibility for corrections driven by conscious awareness.  So in the fully deterministic scenario, we would have to rely on the hope that our brains are prefectly wired up to reach the correct conclusions without need for conscious correction.

Please note that this is a difficult point to get across - I hope you can understand it.

[Sassy]

Your god is calling you to be a troll and insult people? Why is rhat?

Here we have the very proof... No! The trolls are trying to wum the believer by diplomatically insulting the other person. Not clever, not sincere and certainly evident that you are guilty of the very thing you accuse Alan of doing. So now you are uncovered where is the shame? NONE! But at least everyone knows the truth of the trolls and insults. Just think your whole kingdom just fell in on itself.

[Outrider]

I think we know, those of us who believe God, that he created all things by the power of his words.

No, I think you believe, those of you who believe in God, that he created all things by the power of his words - if you 'knew' that, you'd have evidence you could put in front of people. If you don't have objective evidence you can't know, you can only believe. That doesn't make you necessarily wrong about the claim, just about the degree of certainty.

The thing is that mans thinking is so out of line and so fallen they cannot fathom the height or breath of Gods love or the reality in being created at all...

Or, conversely, that the idea of God is so out of kilter with reality that it doesn't manage to fall within the realms of rational thinking, of course.

O.

[Sassy]

Helping people to see the truth is not insulting them.

Will you remove the key from your back. It is becoming painful to read.

[Outrider]

God was not made...

Presumably you think Thor is a human creation? Zeus? Ameratsu Omikami? Marduk? Quetzalcoatl? Allah?

As a Christian you - presumably - dispute the claims of all the gods except the Christian depiction of one. If all of those are human creations, why is it so incomprehensible to you that your god might also be a human creation, given that you have exactly as much evidence for yours as there is for all of the others?

How do you explain the created as opposed to the uncreated?

Why would I presume anything is created in the absence of any evidence of a creator, especially given the perfectly adequate natural explanations for physical phenomena?

O.

[Alan Burns]

Posting that people who disagree with your beliefs have shallow logic and are under the influence of the Devil is Alan.

It is not an insult.  It is a warning, for we are all prone to the Devil's influence whether we are believers or not.

[Outrider]

He was speaking about himself...

I see your comprehension hasn't improved.

There are no Christian abusive trolls.

Well, quite apart from the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy in that, I'd suggest that 'abusive' and 'troll' were unfair in AB's case.

Our God doesn't make errors and mistakes... Only man since the beginning of time. About God and about who he really is.

If God doesn't make errors, why did man 'fall'?

O.

[ippy]

I think we know, those of us who believe God, that he created all things by the power of his words.
The thing is that mans thinking is so out of line and so fallen they cannot fathom the height or breath of Gods love or the reality in being created at all...

Gonads,

God didn't make use of anything lying around. He created from nothing the lying around bits..

4

ippy

[ippy]

God was not made...

How do you explain the created as opposed to the uncreated?

1

ippy

[BeRational]

It is not an insult.  It is a warning, for we are all prone to the Devil's influence whether we are believers or not.

There is no devil, it's all just in your mind.

Who told you these terrible untruths?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

For human logic to work, the brain's awareness would need the freedom to judge what is feasible and what is not.  I can't conceive how such conscious judgement could take place if our brains merely reacted to events in a deterministic manner without conscious control.  If logic was just derived from uncontrolled deterministic reactions, it would not be truly objective because it would be entirely dependent on the fixed reactions of brain cells whether they are "working properly" or not.

Back in R7663 I explained pretty much word-for-word where your thinking is demonstrably wrong. Either you missed it, or the cognitive dissonance you'd experience is such that you cannot allow yourself to address the arguments that undo your position.

As others have noted, your position consists entirely of a series of logical fallacies. That doesn't necessarily mean that your conclusion (ie, "God") is wrong but it does mean that the thinking that gets you there is wrong, and by magnitudes bad reasoning tends to lead to wrong conclusions.

I have to say that I had previously though of you as a sort of polite Vlad - still hopelessly wrong, but not given to the blatant dishonesty, abuse etc whenever the arguments are too hard to deal with. I'm changing my mind on that though - this grotesque nonsense about "the devil", your self-satisfied judgmentalism about others who don't behave as your superstitions tell you to, the absolute refusal ever even to engage with the arguments that show you to be wrong - utterly wrong - seem to me to be quite chilling.