Searching for GOD...

[Dicky Underpants]

Rare but sometimes shown in extreme Calvinism, if god determines everything and I believe in him, and am saved I cannot sin. See Confessions of a Justified Sinner.

A book everyone on this forum should read, if they haven't already done so (I was predetermined to say that   )

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes. A model that doesn't need god and still works has an absence of necessity. It's not necessarily the correct model, but currently it's the only one with a reliable methodology and any supporting evidence.

1: The clue is in the word model Rider
2: You yourself were unable to dispel God from possibly being the provider of the universe and are therefore in no better position than anybody else who has tried.
3: You can only claim absence if you have absolutely established your model and as you admit......you haven't.
4.You seem to be mistaking philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism. The method has nothing to say about anything except matter energy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Splendid, on the nail post.

Not really..... he can only claim absence of necessity if he is sure his model is correct and then admits it isn't . He wants his cake and eat it and is ultimately taking the piss...............out of you it seems, Len.

His methodology is science and as we all know the laws of physics break down the nearer we get to the singularity of the Big Bang which I believe even Hillside admits is outside of time and space.

[Outrider]

1: The clue is in the word model Rider

Clue to what?

2: You yourself were unable to dispel God from possibly being the provider of the universe and are therefore in no better position than anybody else who has tried.

I don't need to 'dispel God' until gods have been justified - so far they haven't, so I can merely discount them until and unless something comes along that either justifies the claim or requires them for the model to work.

3: You can only claim absence if you have absolutely established your model and as you admit......you haven't.

If I were claiming absence that would be relevant, but as I wasn't... I was claiming the absence of a need for god in the model.

4.You seem to be mistaking philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism. The method has nothing to say about anything except matter energy.

You seem to be continuously failing to recall the numerous times I've pointed out that one is a practical application of the other. You seem to be continuously failing to appreciate that the validation of the former comes from the success of the latter in the manifest failure of any other methodology to validate anything.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be continuously failing to recall the numerous times I've pointed out that one is a practical application of the other.

Philosophical materialism has no practical applications. Methodological materialism was used by theists long before atheists were a twinkle in the first atheists ball bag.

[Outrider]

Philosophical materialism has no practical applications.

I fail to see how methodological materialism's presumption that there is nothing beyond the measurable material is anything other than the practical application of the philosophy that there is nothing in existences beyond the material.

Methodological materialism was used by theists long before atheists were a twinkle in the first atheists ball bag.

Given that there were atheists before anyone invented any gods, I fail to see how that could be the case. Regardless of which, it matters not whether it's being applied by theists, atheists or the dreaded Anti-Theist Scourge^TM, the fact is that it works, which is more than can be said for anything else.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I fail to see how methodological materialism's presumption that there is nothing beyond the measurable material

Methodological materialism has no presumption since it is a methodology. Philosophies are presumptions but not methodologies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

the fact is that it works, which is more than can be said for anything else.

yes aand a good methodological materialist would ask how it works..........answer: with zero recourse to philosophical materialism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

It's only a mistake in the sense of casting one's pearls before swine.

Probably just as well that you keep kidding yourself this way – if ever you developed the wit or honesty to grasp where you go so horribly wrong with your philosophical materialism schtick you’d find yourself like Wylie E. Coyote from the Roadrunner cartoons, charging off the cliff and only later looking down and realising that there’s nothing beneath you.

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE….

…pfff

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Probably just as well that you keep kidding yourself this way – if ever you developed the wit or honesty to grasp where you go so horribly wrong with your philosophical materialism schtick you’d find yourself like Wylie E. Coyote from the Roadrunner cartoons, charging off the cliff and only later looking down and realising that there’s nothing beneath you.

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE….

…pfff

The nothing you refer to is in fact the gulf between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism.
To get from A to B requires a step of faith as everybody not on Toontown AKA religionethics forum will tell you.

[Leonard James]

Vlunderer,

Probably just as well that you keep kidding yourself this way – if ever you developed the wit or honesty to grasp where you go so horribly wrong with your philosophical materialism schtick you’d find yourself like Wylie E. Coyote from the Roadrunner cartoons, charging off the cliff and only later looking down and realising that there’s nothing beneath you.

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE….

…pfff

The gullible are fooled into seeing an imaginary bridge over the gap.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

The nothing you refer to is in fact the gulf between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism.
To get from A to B requires a step of faith as everybody not on Toontown AKA religionethics forum will tell you.

Yes it does, but only in VladWorld (concessions for the terminally bewildered) where you so fundamentally re-define these terms to suit your purpose that you may as well argue that cheese is ideal for making motorway bridges because of its well-known tensile strength.

Presumably the cognitive dissonance you'd experience if ever you finally grasped what these terms actually mean is such that your head would explode, but there it is nonetheless - as I said, probably best just to keep kidding yourself therefore even when it comes at the price of wrecking what little credibility you had left.   

[Alan Burns]

Yes - emergence is a well-known property in all sorts of areas of study, and the idea of consciousness (or "mind") as an emergent property of our brains shows every sign of being the correct explanation. Whether we'll ever understand how exactly it works is moot, but for now it makes sense to go where the evidence provisionally at least leads. Sadly "soul" is what scientists call "not even wrong" - it lacks definition, testable means of verification etc.   

Just a few further thoughts on the fascinating subject of perception.

The property of emergence is perceived by an outside observer.  For example the pattern of a snowflake is recognised by the perception of a conscious observer, but outside this observation, the snowflake just exists as ice crystals.  Similarly in a swooping flock of birds, the formation can only be perceived from outside the flock.

At any moment in time, a human being has conscious awareness defined by the properties of many discrete brain cells.  The data within these cells can generate reactions, or it can be transferred, but in the material model it can't be converged into a single entity.  The data can only exist as the discrete properties of many molecular elements.  There is no feasible material mechanism to consolidate this information into a single entity of perception.

So for the emergent properties of our brain cells to be perceived, we need to look beyond the limitations of material science.

[Alan Burns]

You don't know how other species of animals perceive things, you are making assumptions!

I did not mention animals, but I agree that we do not know how other species perceive things.

[Alan Burns]

You mentioned birds!

Only in relation to the outside observation of a flock of birds.  Please do not confuse this with the individual perception of each bird!

[torridon]

At any moment in time, a human being has conscious awareness defined by the properties of many discrete brain cells.  The data within these cells can generate reactions, or it can be transferred, but in the material model it can't be converged into a single entity.  The data can only exist as the discrete properties of many molecular elements.  There is no feasible material mechanism to consolidate this information into a single entity of perception.

What is your justification for that assertion ?  You've got two eyes and yet the twin streams of retinal information are seamlessly integrated into a single stream of visual experience. This integration happens all the time, it is what brains do.  If you think brains can't do that, and a soul must be required, then all sighted creatures must have souls.

So for the emergent properties of our brain cells to be perceived, we need to look beyond the limitations of material science.

No we don't.

[Outrider]

The nothing you refer to is in fact the gulf between methodological materialism and philosophical materialism.
To get from A to B requires a step of faith as everybody not on Toontown AKA religionethics forum will tell you.

To stand at B, though, and realise that A is the only thing in sight is a deduction that requires no faith whatsoever...

O.

[wigginhall]

Now that is a wacky idea, that the brain can't integrate information.   Eh?  Where does that come from?  The brain is full of integrating systems - for example, speech and language.   But, as torridon says, this is also true of all animals. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The property of emergence is perceived by an outside observer.

Emergence exists as a phenomenon. Sometimes there are sentient creatures around to label the emergent properties they see.

The point though is that those creatures - us for example - are themselves emergent properties of simpler component parts. It's turtles all the way up in other words, and you cannot just arbitrarily decide that at some point in the chain something must be non-material because that happens to suit your religious beliefs.   

Seriously, can I recommend a book that'll help you out of your confusion? Try Stephen Johnson's "Emergence" - it's an excellent read, written for the non-specialist and it explains much better than I can where you keep going wrong here.   

[Outrider]

The property of emergence is perceived by an outside observer.  For example the pattern of a snowflake is recognised by the perception of a conscious observer, but outside this observation, the snowflake just exists as ice crystals.

The pattern is still there, in the ice crystals - it's part of the definition of 'crystal'. The pattern is in all of the snowflakes that go unobserved.

Similarly in a swooping flock of birds, the formation can only be perceived from outside the flock.

That particular perception of the pattern, but the individual birds operate on their own pattern, orienting their position relative to the bird in front, that's how they manage to co-ordinate their movements so well.

At any moment in time, a human being has conscious awareness defined by the properties of many discrete brain cells.  The data within these cells can generate reactions, or it can be transferred, but in the material model it can't be converged into a single entity.

Why not? According to the current model, it is integrated into a single entity - the awareness of the individual.

The data can only exist as the discrete properties of many molecular elements.  There is no feasible material mechanism to consolidate this information into a single entity of perception.

I'm not sure I get what you're suggesting - our subjective experience of 'awareness' appears as an integrated expression, even though it's comprised of multiple interacting elements, just as a computer programme operates as a single system even though it's comprised of multiple interacting components (both at the physically within the hardware and at the information level in the modular programme).

So for the emergent properties of our brain cells to be perceived, we need to look beyond the limitations of material science.

Why do we? The possible fact that we can't currently explain awareness in no way means that awareness is therefore beyond science. We haven't finished science yet, and even if we knew everything it was possible to know about science that doesn't mean that there aren't some purely material things that are unknowable.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Incidentally, I see that you just ignored R8365 where I took the time to explain where'd you'd gone off the rails re logical fallacies.

Oh well.

[wigginhall]

AB is sticking to his favourite gap, into which he can insert God - that science can't explain how awareness is produced by neurons.   So what?  There are tons of gaps in knowledge - for example, gravity is still not fully explained.   Why doesn't AB argue that God makes the apple fall?   

The great irony is that he can't explain awareness either - OK, he can cite the soul, but how does that operate?  Answer came there none.   When it's something spiritual, it's all mystery and silence, in other words, ignorance. 

[Shaker]

Bravo wiggles.

(Talking about gravity, I heard the other day that it's now looking quite likely that gravitational waves have been detected, which would if true strengthen General Relativity even further. I might mosey on down to the Science board and post a link or two).

[wigginhall]

Bravo wiggles.

(Talking about gravity, I heard the other day that it's now looking quite likely that gravitational waves have been detected, which would if true strengthen General Relativity even further. I might mosey on down to the Science board and post a link or two).

Well, it might be interesting if AB was producing a hypothesis about awareness which contributed to knowledge, could be tested, and so on.  But he always ends up in total vagueness, well it's just what the soul does.  Eh?  As the saying goes, it's not even wrong. 

[Alan Burns]

Now that is a wacky idea, that the brain can't integrate information.   Eh?  Where does that come from?  The brain is full of integrating systems - for example, speech and language.   But, as torridon says, this is also true of all animals.

Of course our brains can integrate information, just as computers can.  The problem comes with defining how we can be aware of the processes of integration.