Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

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.

Yes and no - the computer, ultimately, is always doing exactly what it is asked to do. The errors come from the fact that humans don't communicate precisely - the 'logic' of human speech is imperfect, and it's the translation of that into formal logic that is the breakdown. The computer does not misinterpret the programme created, the programme initially created is a misinterpretation of the requirements.

The human brain is hardwired from the start.  There is no way we can alter the neural networks of our brains.

No, it's not. We create active links and destroy unused links throughout our lives.

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.

No, as explained above. Further, you are presuming that changes to understanding can only come from the creation of links rather than, say, the activation of links, the formation of sequences of links or the destruction of links, all of which change the 'logic' of the collection of neurons.

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.

Again, no. The brain has a surplus of connections between neurons at birth, and over time these links are deactivated, activated or severed entirely as the brain develops.

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

I'm trying, I think I get where you're coming from - I'm not in the group that thinks you're trolling, you have a point of view and you're bringing it here to open it up for discussion, thank you for that.

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

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.   
 

I do understand what you are saying.  And I admit that I am sometimes not very good at putting my point across, which is why I keep having another go.  The logic behind God's existence is perfectly clear in my head.  I just wish I was able to put it into words more clearly.  Also I would like to thank you and other posters for the constructive feedback and interesting exchanges.

[Nearly Sane]

Helping people to see the truth is not insulting them.

I know you aren't doing it deliberately but often your approach reads as a series of insults, and I know you think you are pushing what you see as truth. It seems to be built in to the One True Wayism approach.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do understand what you are saying.  And I admit that I am sometimes not very good at putting my point across, which is why I keep having another go.  The logic behind God's existence is perfectly clear in my head.  I just wish I was able to put it into words more clearly.  Also I would like to thank you and other posters for the constructive feedback and interesting exchanges.

You're misunderstanding the problem. It's not that you aren't very good at expressing yourself, but rather that the things you do express are wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Take the fallacies on which your position relies for example - specifically, look at the argument from personal incredulity you use often. When you tell us that you cannot imagine how something works all that tells us is that you cannot imagine how something works; it says nothing whatever to the validity or otherwise of the factual claim you make to fill the gap in your imagination. Other people though often can "imagine" these things - indeed they study them, test their hypotheses with experiments, publish their results and have them peer reviewed etc.

And so it goes. Each time you attempt an argument that's logically false, then the argument fails. And where that leaves you is with your personal faith - nothing more, nothing less.

And the problem with personal faith is that it is personal. Your personal faith beliefs are personal to you; the followers of Allah's personal faith beliefs are personal to her; the believer in Odin's faith beliefs are personal to him etc. None of you though has a means to build a bridge from your personal beliefs to objective facts for the rest of us. Assert "God" all you wish (and no doubt sincerely "in your head") but you may as well be asserting "Allah" or "Odin" for all the epistemic value it has for the rest of us.

If nothing else, if you do genuinely think your god to be a fact for the rest of us too and you want anyone else to agree with you why would you not at least attempt to make your case without relying on various fallacious arguments? Sweep those away and, if you do have anything left other than expressions of your personal faith, then bring that to the table. 

[Maeght]

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.

You believe that, I don't. To post what you said is insulting - I see you have ignored the 'shallow logic' reference by the way.

[Maeght]

I do understand what you are saying.  And I admit that I am sometimes not very good at putting my point across, which is why I keep having another go.  The logic behind God's existence is perfectly clear in my head.  I just wish I was able to put it into words more clearly.  Also I would like to thank you and other posters for the constructive feedback and interesting exchanges.

This is the sort of comments politicians make when they aren't popular in polls etc. They think they are not getting their message across properly  and that if they do everyone will agree rather than realising that people do understand the message but just don't agree with it. We do all know what you are saying Alan.

[BeRational]

I do understand what you are saying.  And I admit that I am sometimes not very good at putting my point across, which is why I keep having another go.  The logic behind God's existence is perfectly clear in my head.  I just wish I was able to put it into words more clearly.  Also I would like to thank you and other posters for the constructive feedback and interesting exchanges.

Perhaps a way to progress would be to not try to put everything down in one go, as something you post at the start may have issues meaning that anything later in your post that relies on it, is uselss.

Perhaps start with some assumptions, and see if they are accepted.
If someone can find an issue with an assumption that is valid, then you need to address this and not simply repeat it.

Do this piece by piece to break the problem down. As a systems designer like me you will be used to breaking massive (too difficult to handle problems) into smaller manageable bits, before assembling.

[Shaker]

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.

I honestly think that you really haven't a clue as to what's wrong with that sentence.

[Shaker]

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

Yes it does, actually - it points out how, where and why you are wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

As an aside, there seems to be a number of people on the board who earn their loaf in the area of computing. Is this a simply  factor of the numbers who do, or is there some more interesting factor?

[BeRational]

As an aside, there seems to be a number of people on the board who earn their loaf in the area of computing. Is this a simply  factor of the numbers who do, or is there some more interesting factor?

Not sure. I work from home and have a couple of screens. One for work and one for work/looking on here.

I look more than I post due to time.

[Shaker]

I do understand what you are saying.  And I admit that I am sometimes not very good at putting my point across, which is why I keep having another go.  The logic behind God's existence is perfectly clear in my head.  I just wish I was able to put it into words more clearly. 

I would say that you already do explain yourself pretty clearly; you're just wrong, clearly wrong. As several people have pointed out, Alan, it's not that case that if only you could find the right combination of magic words that the scales would fall from the eyes of every atheist and we would fall to our knees saying "Alan was right all along!" It's because we don't believe a word you say, and that's usually on the basis that you have nothing whatever to offer but assertions of personal belief - great for you no doubt and that's fine, but not binding on anyone else -, woeful arguments easier to shred than junk mail and really quite whopping logical fallacies of one kind or another.

There's nothing especially wrong with the delivery of the content as such; it's the content which is a load of cobblers.

[Leonard James]

The logic behind God's existence is perfectly clear in my head.  I just wish I was able to put it into words more clearly.

Let's sort out that logic point by point, Alan.

First point. Coincidence.

Tell me any single experience in your life which you can't attribute to coincidence, and consider it evidence for God's existence.

[torridon]

From the Science Daily article:.......

********

"We have gathered a body of evidence that suggests that religion is a common fact of human nature across different societies. This suggests that attempts to suppress religion are likely to be short-lived as human thought seems to be rooted to religious concepts, such as the existence of supernatural agents or gods, and the possibility of an afterlife or pre-life.'"

********

I think its blindingly obvious that humans have evolved tendencies and biases that predispose many towards supernatural beliefs.  Godchecker lists over 4000 gods to date and there are doubtless many more unlisted.  We still live with dozens of cognitive biases resulting from ancient selection pressures even though our modern lives no longer resemble our formative palaeolithic conditions. But although our intuitions are still with us and will inform our instinctive tendencies for the foreseeable future, it is also part of being human that we can examine our instincts, put them to the test, and reject instinctive responses in favour of a more considered understanding.  'Instinctive' does not equate to 'correct'.

[Sassy]

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

How do you equate the two. Of course Thor is a human creation created by the created. It does not change the fact that the creator of humans was not created or made. Neither does it provide a viable argument on your part.

As a Christian you - presumably - dispute the claims of all the gods except the Christian depiction of one.

Again... the first not a creation of the human mind... the others all have a start date where humans created them.

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?

Could be our God does as it says in the book. The others don't do they?
There is far more personal evidence for the Yahweh than any other god.

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.

You yourself, on this planet in the otherwise dead void is evidence of the creator. You choose not to see it. Now that is something totally different.

[Shaker]

How do you equate the two. Of course Thor is a human creation created by the created. It does not change the fact that the creator of humans was not created or made.

I see you're driving the Assertatron today.

There is far more personal evidence for the Yahweh than any other god.

Which is of precisely zero use to anybody else.

[Sassy]

I see your comprehension hasn't improved.

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

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

O.

God allowed man to fall because he gave him free will and he told the end from the beginning...
He already knew and he knew all that would happen before it did. Do read the bible then you can answer your own questions and make informed decisions, choices and replies to posts about God and Christianity.

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps a way to progress would be to not try to put everything down in one go, as something you post at the start may have issues meaning that anything later in your post that relies on it, is uselss.

Perhaps start with some assumptions, and see if they are accepted.
If someone can find an issue with an assumption that is valid, then you need to address this and not simply repeat it.

Do this piece by piece to break the problem down. As a systems designer like me you will be used to breaking massive (too difficult to handle problems) into smaller manageable bits, before assembling.

One of the many roles in the computing world I have filled is as a business analyst. I think we may even need to take a step back from working on the assumptions here. I think we don't have a clear problem statement. Alan sees the whole thing from a position of seeing a wonderful solution to a problem that isn't agreed by the people he is talking to as a problem. It's similar to Gonzo and his why question. If you see a "why' as meaningful it is very hard to understand that others don't and to phrase anything in those terms.

[Sassy]

I see you're driving the Assertatron today.
Which is of precisely zero use to anybody else.

I guess the truth is you have no idea what is assertion and what is reality.

The point is not the use to others but the fact it is a fact...

Be careful when crossing the road the truth may collide with you and knock your over.

[Aruntraveller]

God allowed man to fall because he gave him free will and he told the end from the beginning...
He already knew and he knew all that would happen before it did. Do read the bible then you can answer your own questions and make informed decisions, choices and replies to posts about God and Christianity.

So even though God knew all that would follow from his/her actions he/she still went ahead and allowed (your word) all the suffering that supposedly followed from the Fall.

Wow - nice guy/guyess.

Your ability to post complete and utter nonsense never fails to entertain.

[torridon]

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.

That's poor analogy, to claim a brain is 'hard-wired'. Your desktop computer may be a fixed thing in terms of hardware but an organic brain certainly is not; it grows, particularly during developmental stages making new neurons and synaptic connections all the time, in fact it never ceases to remake itself. That's the whole point of having a brain; a nervous system allows for simple reaction, but a brain gives you plasticity, adaptability.

[Shaker]

I guess the truth is you have no idea what is assertion and what is reality.

Yes, a pretty good grasp, thanks. An assertion is a bald statement laid down posing as a fact but with precisely zero supporting evidence. Such as almost every item of drivel you rock up with. ("It does not change the fact that the creator of humans was not created or made ... God allowed man to fall because he gave him free will" being prime examples).

[Enki]

For the record, I think that AB is absolutely sincere(excruciatingly so, to my mind). He tends towards prosletyzing at times, but, as far as I can see, his main impulse is that he is trying to communicate what he sees as the truth as regards his take on his religion. When one has an entirely fixed position which seems to allow no acceptance that contrary views have any real merit, when one's position is firmly based on faith and personal credulity, and when one's aim is purely to enlighten others so that they too can share this wonderful faith and hence have the salvation that it offers, then I can quite see where such a person is coming from. I don't see this as trolling in Alan's case. Yes, it can indeed lead to rather unfortunate statements which sometimes seem rather naive or awkwardly expressed, sometimes frustratingly so, but I see his posts, above all, to be genuine, sincere  expressions of his desire to convey his sense of faith to others.

As I see it, the only impetus for him changing his views will come from his own self, as, I'm sure, he would probably say the same for me.

[Maeght]

How do you equate the two. Of course Thor is a human creation created by the created. It does not change the fact that the creator of humans was not created or made. Neither does it provide a viable argument on your part.

Do you really not see that to someone who has no believe in God that they equate - that the idea of God is created by humans just as much as the idea of Thor is?

[Maeght]

For the record, I think that AB is absolutely sincere(excruciatingly so, to my mind). He tends towards prosletyzing at times, but, as far as I can see, his main impulse is that he is trying to communicate what he sees as the truth as regards his take on his religion. When one has an entirely fixed position which seems to allow no acceptance that contrary views have any real merit, when one's position is firmly based on faith and personal credulity, and when one's aim is purely to enlighten others so that they too can share this wonderful faith and hence have the salvation that it offers, then I can quite see where such a person is coming from. I don't see this as trolling in Alan's case. Yes, it can indeed lead to rather unfortunate statements which sometimes seem rather naive or awkwardly expressed, sometimes frustratingly so, but I see his posts, above all, to be genuine, sincere  expressions of his desire to convey his sense of faith to others.

As I see it, the only impetus for him changing his views will come from his own self, as, I'm sure, he would probably say the same for me.

Absolutely agree. Which is why I have stopped discussing his posts as it is pointless.