Searching for GOD...

[BashfulAnthony]

My grasp of English far exceeds yours, as you silly remark typifies. So, Squirm away, as usual.    So what, now you've had time to think of an alternative meaning, does, "Looks like magic, to me," now mean?

That a grasp of English which exceeds mine, is it? Christ 

I adhere to the old maxim of never arguing with an idiot; they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

My Dad's bigger than both of your Dads.

ippy

Talk about grasping at straws!  Answer, man:  what does, "looks like magic, to me," mean, if it does not mean you believe in magic?

By the way, ippy, my dad's the heavyweight champion of our drive.

[Alan Burns]

Sorry, It seems I get carried awaywith my frustration of people seemingly blinded to what I see as the obvious truth.  I confess that I can only see what is real to me, and find it impossible to see any other reality.  (And you may probably say the same thing  )

Well, you could do what everybody else is expected to do if they want a seat at the grown-up table: introduce your terms, define your terms clearly and carefully, and mount cogent, coherent, logical arguments.

But the frustration occurs whenever I mention anything to do with spirituality and it gets labelled in the same category as fairies or leprechauns or magic.  It is not possible to present a case for the reality of our spirituality without being able to mention anything spiritual.  My perception is that some people refuse to even contemplate the fact that they might have a spiritual nature which is not controlled by deterministic chemical activity in the brain.

[Shaker]

But the frustration occurs whenever I mention anything to do with spirituality and it gets labelled in the same category as fairies or leprechauns.

I did a longish post on this very point just a few days ago, directed at Hilda Baker/Vlad. I'll quote it in full:

The problem that you have here is the same problem that everyone has who attempts to mount the same argument and make the same case (case in point: the dreadful Alister McGrath). The problem is that it's a massive exercise in question-begging in the true sense of that phrase, which is to say, assuming the prior truth of the very thing which you're attempting to prove.

Firstly, who decides who shouldn't equate God with this, that or the other? What sort of things shouldn't God be equated with, and who decides this, and on what warrant? Who says, in other words?

Secondly, and more importantly: your invocation of 'degree level studies,' 'deep needs' and so forth are, as I said, monumental examples of question begging. You are trying to impress us with the fact that some people inexplicably decide to study theology to degree level, that the belief in a god meets 'deep needs' (whose? not mine) and that gods are studied in the context of neo-Platonic thought. This is supposed to be some sort of rationale for our taking the concept of a god seriously and lucky black cats not-seriously. Nope, sorry. Doesn't work. You are assuming that your audience is as impressed by the concept of a god as you appear to be. Well, many of us are not, not even remotely. Many of us want to know exactly why we are supposed to give the idea of a god any more head-room than the idea of lucky black cats. You need to make your case, to argue it coherently, cogently and rationally, not just take it as read that God is different just because you say so, which at present is all that you're doing.

Arguments of this kind always fundamentally rely on the same fallacious rhetorical ploys. Firstly, they assume that people will be impressed by antiquity (humans have believed in gods for thousands of years; that's the argumentum ad antiquitatem if you prefer your fallacies comfortably couched in Latin) and secondly that they'll be impressed by sheer numbers (the argumentum ad populum/ad numerum). Sorry, but no. If we are to give the concept of a god, any god, all gods, more credence than the concept of leprechauns and tooth fairies, you're going to have to argue your corner and say precisely and exactly why we should do so, in a way that doesn't depend upon an argumentum ad populum/ad numerum already referred to and which doesn't rely on facts of human psychology (most people are afraid of death; they will tend to believe anything which purports to promise them that in some sense they won't meet total and utter oblivion when they die) which are entirely explicable within a sceptical, rationalist and naturalistic worldview. Lucky black cats do not provide human beings with a narrative story which purports to give objective meaning, value and purpose to their lives; lucky black cats do not purport to provide an ultimate and absolute grounding to morality; lucky black cats do not offer the hope of the continuation of personality/consciousness after death. Gods do. That this is why gods are believed in in far greater numbers than lucky black cats falls well within the remit of human psychology and anthropology and what-have-you, with absolutely no woo required. It is not an argument that gods exist or an argument that we should take the existence of gods seriously. If such arguments even exist - I've never seen one but hey, you might be the first - it's up to you to provide one. The spluttering righteous indignation that seems to overcome some theists when they come across their god being compared to airborne pasta-comprised creatures and the like merely masks a needle-sharp point; the paucity of any reason to take the one seriously (and on the the flimsiest of bases) and not the other.

Simple bald assertion is Alan Burns's job on this forum; you need to demonstrate, not merely assert, why the concept of a god has a coherent definition and should be taken more seriously than lucky black cats, cash-dispensing fairies and garage-dwelling dragons. The idea of gods is as trivial, and remains as trivial, as the other examples I've given until and unless you can mount a sound case otherwise.

Good luck with that; nobody else has ever done it.

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10480.msg532696#msg532696

The gist of the post is that while you may be frustrated to hear God compared to leprechauns and fairies and other mythical beings, you need to demonstrate exactly why the sceptic should consider any gods differently to these things in ways which are not blatantly fallacious - for example, relying on antiquity or sheer numbers, neither of which are a sound basis for such a case. Hiding behind frustration and indignation and "Well look, it's just obvious that God isn't in the same category as fairies" just won't wash; you need to make a case as to why not.

It is not possible to present a case for the reality of our spirituality without being able to mention anything spiritual.

Well that's an exercise in question-begging and therefore useless as an argument. You haven't defined 'spiritual,' either.

[torridon]

Sorry, It seems I get carried awaywith my frustration of people seemingly blinded to what I see as the obvious truth.  I confess that I can only see what is real to me, and find it impossible to see any other reality.  (And you may probably say the same thing  )

Well, you could do what everybody else is expected to do if they want a seat at the grown-up table: introduce your terms, define your terms clearly and carefully, and mount cogent, coherent, logical arguments.

But the frustration occurs whenever I mention anything to do with spirituality and it gets labelled in the same category as fairies or leprechauns or magic.  It is not possible to present a case for the reality of our spirituality without being able to mention anything spiritual.  My perception is that some people refuse to even contemplate the fact that they might have a spiritual nature which is not controlled by deterministic chemical activity in the brain.

Evidence and reason Alan, that is what we resonate to. We don't get that from you; we get assertion, tortured logic, contadictory reasoning, mangled vocabulary, all topped off with a nice dollop of general slipperiness.

[Alan Burns]

Evidence and reason Alan, that is what we resonate to. We don't get that from you; we get assertion, tortured logic, contadictory reasoning, mangled vocabulary, all topped off with a nice dollop of general slipperiness.

But is it reasonable for you to assume that every thought that comes into your head is the unavoidable result of the forces of nature acting on the material within your brain?

Questions for you:
What drives your thoughts?
What perceives your thoughts?
What is a thought?

[wigginhall]

Has Christianity really been reduced to this level of dishonesty and slipperiness and narcissism?   Good grief, what a debacle. 

[floo]

Has Christianity really been reduced to this level of dishonesty and slipperiness and narcissism?   Good grief, what a debacle.

Some Christians on this forum bring the faith into disrepute that is for sure!

[Alan Burns]

Just following on from my last post, coming to terms with the reality of your own spirituality may lead you into discovering the truth that God exists.

[floo]

AB define 'spirituality'?

[torridon]

Evidence and reason Alan, that is what we resonate to. We don't get that from you; we get assertion, tortured logic, contadictory reasoning, mangled vocabulary, all topped off with a nice dollop of general slipperiness.

But is it reasonable for you to assume that every thought that comes into your head is the unavoidable result of the forces of nature acting on the material within your brain?

By and large, yes, I would say. One thought triggers another thought, there is a chain reaction, cause and effect. Sometimes thoughts seem to just pop into our head; I think in those cases the precursor event is too subtle or below the level of our awareness for us to be aware of the cause of the effect but that doesn't mean there isn't one.  You might recall I have posted up thought experiments in the past that help us to understand that our thoughts have origins that might not be obviously discernible, and the reason being that they originate in the depths of subconsciousness.

Questions for you:
What drives your thoughts?
What perceives your thoughts?
What is a thought?

Not easy to answer I agree, but in part that is due to poor definition of what is meant by 'thought'.

What drives ? I would hazard volition - desire, fear, hope etc.

What perceives my thoughts ? I think my thoughts. 'Perception' would imply there is something other than me involved, some sort of secondary observer. I see no mileage in that.

What is a thought ?  how long have you got ? Problem is, there are a variety of neurological phenomena that we might casually call 'thoughts'. It might be a moment of realisation, it might be an idea, it might be a line of reasoning silently verbalised in your head as you do when rehearsing an argument in advance.

I fully accept that it is hard to reconcile ourselves to the fact that the cerebral activity we might see using instrumentation such as an fMRI scanner is the same thing as thoughts, feelings, sensations.  But that is what the evidence suggests is the case and I think it better to try to cross that difficult conceptual bridge rather than fall back on make believe which your position amounts to, given there is no evidence at all for souls and so forth.  Our scientific understanding of these things is proceeeding apace, the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 for instance uses thought control, and we could only build such technology because thoughts are ultimately physiological things which can be measured and weighed like anything else in the material world.

[jeremyp]

But is it reasonable for you to assume that every thought that comes into your head is the unavoidable result of the forces of nature acting on the material within your brain?

Yes

[ippy]

But is it reasonable for you to assume that every thought that comes into your head is the unavoidable result of the forces of nature acting on the material within your brain?

Yes

I like this post of yours J P, it's a good one, simple and good, 

[Alan Burns]

Questions for you:
What drives your thoughts?
What perceives your thoughts?
What is a thought?

Not easy to answer I agree, but in part that is due to poor definition of what is meant by 'thought'.

What drives ? I would hazard volition - desire, fear, hope etc.

What perceives my thoughts ? I think my thoughts. 'Perception' would imply there is something other than me involved, some sort of secondary observer. I see no mileage in that.

What is a thought ?  how long have you got ? Problem is, there are a variety of neurological phenomena that we might casually call 'thoughts'. It might be a moment of realisation, it might be an idea, it might be a line of reasoning silently verbalised in your head as you do when rehearsing an argument in advance.

I fully accept that it is hard to reconcile ourselves to the fact that the cerebral activity we might see using instrumentation such as an fMRI scanner is the same thing as thoughts, feelings, sensations.  But that is what the evidence suggests is the case and I think it better to try to cross that difficult conceptual bridge rather than fall back on make believe which your position amounts to, given there is no evidence at all for souls and so forth.  Our scientific understanding of these things is proceeeding apace, the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 for instance uses thought control, and we could only build such technology because thoughts are ultimately physiological things which can be measured and weighed like anything else in the material world.

So you define yourself as totally defined by the material (atoms and molecules) you are made from.  The problem with this is that every atom and molecule is replaceable, and is replaced several times over throughout your lifetime.  Any material object, such as a painting or a sculpture, can certainly be reproduced to look the same as the original, but it is not the original - it is a copy.  And the only way of discerning that it is a copy is through the observation of an outside observer.  I put it to you that you are not solely comprised of the material in your brain, but that you are an entity (your soul) which perceives what is in your brain.

[Alan Burns]

But is it reasonable for you to assume that every thought that comes into your head is the unavoidable result of the forces of nature acting on the material within your brain?

Yes

I like this post of yours J P, it's a good one, simple and good, 

So you are saying that whatever comprises "You" is nothing but part of a chain reaction of events which began with the start of our universe, and everything that happens to You will be totally pre determined by chemical reactions controlled entirely by the laws of science and nothing else.

Fair enough, nothing I or anyone else can do to change that.

But as for me, I control my own destiny.

[Shaker]

Or rather, you want to believe that you do. Isn't that the truth?

[Maeght]

But is it reasonable for you to assume that every thought that comes into your head is the unavoidable result of the forces of nature acting on the material within your brain?

Yes

I like this post of yours J P, it's a good one, simple and good, 

So you are saying that whatever comprises "You" is nothing but part of a chain reaction of events which began with the start of our universe, and everything that happens to You will be totally pre determined by chemical reactions controlled entirely by the laws of science and nothing else.

Fair enough, nothing I or anyone else can do to change that.

But as for me, I control my own destiny.

But if the 'I' is as the 'you' described above that statement means nothing.

[Alan Burns]

Or rather, you want to believe that you do. Isn't that the truth?

But surely whatever determines my wish to believe this is in your eyes already pre determined, so whatver is making me want to believe is totally beyond my control.

However I perceive something entirely different.  I have the ability to discern what is true, and it is certainly not what you assert.

[Maeght]

Or rather, you want to believe that you do. Isn't that the truth?

But surely whatever determines my wish to believe this is in your eyes already pre determined, so whatver is making me want to believe is totally beyond my control.

However I perceive something entirely different.  I have the ability to discern what is true, and it is certainly not what you assert.

How do you know that?

[Shaker]

Buggeration - beat me to it. Never mind; I'll ask the same question anyway.

How do you know that you have the ability to perceive what is true? By what process or methodology?

[SusanDoris]

That was a really interesting set of new posts to read to start the week.

[torridon]

So you define yourself as totally defined by the material (atoms and molecules) you are made from.  The problem with this is that every atom and molecule is replaceable, and is replaced several times over throughout your lifetime.  Any material object, such as a painting or a sculpture, can certainly be reproduced to look the same as the original, but it is not the original - it is a copy.  And the only way of discerning that it is a copy is through the observation of an outside observer.  I put it to you that you are not solely comprised of the material in your brain, but that you are an entity (your soul) which perceives what is in your brain.

I think a living being in a sense as being rather like a wave crossing the ocean. A wave is not really defined by the seawater it is composed of; we too roll through the cosmos, constantly conscripting new material and leaving behind waste, so attempts to define us in terms of the material we are made of will always fall short.  However your idea of a 'soul' goes much farther than is justified by observation in explaining the nature of the driving force that animates the 'wave'. I would settle for a pattern of energy rippling through the cosmos changing its manifest form as it goes.  A 'soul' is a humungous anthropocentrism way above what the evidence suggests, it runs into all sorts of problems when you try to apply it to other life forms for instance.

[Sriram]

So you define yourself as totally defined by the material (atoms and molecules) you are made from.  The problem with this is that every atom and molecule is replaceable, and is replaced several times over throughout your lifetime.  Any material object, such as a painting or a sculpture, can certainly be reproduced to look the same as the original, but it is not the original - it is a copy.  And the only way of discerning that it is a copy is through the observation of an outside observer.  I put it to you that you are not solely comprised of the material in your brain, but that you are an entity (your soul) which perceives what is in your brain.

I think a living being in a sense as being rather like a wave crossing the ocean. A wave is not really defined by the seawater it is composed of; we too roll through the cosmos, constantly conscripting new material and leaving behind waste, so attempts to define us in terms of the material we are made of will always fall short.  However your idea of a 'soul' goes much farther than is justified by observation in explaining the nature of the driving force that animates the 'wave'. I would settle for a pattern of energy rippling through the cosmos changing its manifest form as it goes.  A 'soul' is a humungous anthropocentrism way above what the evidence suggests, it runs into all sorts of problems when you try to apply it to other life forms for instance.

Well....you have at least come out of the reductionist..'we are nothing but atoms'.. argument. Thank goodness for that!

Now its a 'pattern of energy'  that defines us. So far so good.

[torridon]

I think a living being in a sense as being rather like a wave crossing the ocean. A wave is not really defined by the seawater it is composed of; we too roll through the cosmos, constantly conscripting new material and leaving behind waste, so attempts to define us in terms of the material we are made of will always fall short.  However your idea of a 'soul' goes much farther than is justified by observation in explaining the nature of the driving force that animates the 'wave'. I would settle for a pattern of energy rippling through the cosmos changing its manifest form as it goes.  A 'soul' is a humungous anthropocentrism way above what the evidence suggests, it runs into all sorts of problems when you try to apply it to other life forms for instance.

Well....you have at least come out of the reductionist..'we are nothing but atoms'.. argument. Thank goodness for that!

Now its a 'pattern of energy'  that defines us. So far so good.

You've got a short memory Sriram, I've been arguing this analogy for years already.  That there is energy and matter is not going beyond what science reveals.  If you want to believe there is more than energy and matter then you need to justify that position.

[Alan Burns]

So you define yourself as totally defined by the material (atoms and molecules) you are made from.  The problem with this is that every atom and molecule is replaceable, and is replaced several times over throughout your lifetime.  Any material object, such as a painting or a sculpture, can certainly be reproduced to look the same as the original, but it is not the original - it is a copy.  And the only way of discerning that it is a copy is through the observation of an outside observer.  I put it to you that you are not solely comprised of the material in your brain, but that you are an entity (your soul) which perceives what is in your brain.

I think a living being in a sense as being rather like a wave crossing the ocean. A wave is not really defined by the seawater it is composed of; we too roll through the cosmos, constantly conscripting new material and leaving behind waste, so attempts to define us in terms of the material we are made of will always fall short.  However your idea of a 'soul' goes much farther than is justified by observation in explaining the nature of the driving force that animates the 'wave'. I would settle for a pattern of energy rippling through the cosmos changing its manifest form as it goes.  A 'soul' is a humungous anthropocentrism way above what the evidence suggests, it runs into all sorts of problems when you try to apply it to other life forms for instance.

But a wave can only be perceived as a wave by an outside observer.  The wave does not perceive itself.
And you do not need to have a soul in each animal if they do not posess free will.  You can replace bits of a biological robot without changing its observed behaviour.

[Alan Burns]

AB define 'spirituality'?

I do not know how to define spirituality itself, but I can be sure of its existence by being aware of what it does.
Any event which has a cause from outside the deterministic "cause and effect" chain of events can be said to have a spiritual cause.  Hence by definition, my freewill must have a spiritual cause, otherwise it would not be free will.