Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

I'm puzzled by Christians like Alan B., as they don't seem to talk about intelligent gravity.  But why not, if you are talking about mutations being caused by God, as otherwise too complex to explain naturalistically.   So is that saying that gravity is not complex, and is not caused by God?   Or gravity is complex, and is still not caused by God?

Gravity is simply one of the laws of nature brought into being by God.  I believe that intelligent intervention occurs in our universe by the power of free will (God's or man's) interacting with the natural laws of nature, not by overriding them.

[Andy]

I'm puzzled by Christians like Alan B., as they don't seem to talk about intelligent gravity.  But why not, if you are talking about mutations being caused by God, as otherwise too complex to explain naturalistically.   So is that saying that gravity is not complex, and is not caused by God?   Or gravity is complex, and is still not caused by God?

Gravity is simply one of the laws of nature brought into being by God.  I believe that intelligent intervention occurs in our universe by the power of free will (God's or man's) interacting with the natural laws of nature, not by overriding them.

So no miracles then.

And you're here:
Simplicity = God
Complexity = God
Contrast = Void
ID argument from complexity = Meaningless

[Alan Burns]

I'm puzzled by Christians like Alan B., as they don't seem to talk about intelligent gravity.  But why not, if you are talking about mutations being caused by God, as otherwise too complex to explain naturalistically.   So is that saying that gravity is not complex, and is not caused by God?   Or gravity is complex, and is still not caused by God?

Gravity is simply one of the laws of nature brought into being by God.  I believe that intelligent intervention occurs in our universe by the power of free will (God's or man's) interacting with the natural laws of nature, not by overriding them.

So no miracles then.

Every act of free will is a miracle because there is no natural explanation for the cause of a free will event.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm puzzled by Christians like Alan B., as they don't seem to talk about intelligent gravity.  But why not, if you are talking about mutations being caused by God, as otherwise too complex to explain naturalistically.   So is that saying that gravity is not complex, and is not caused by God?   Or gravity is complex, and is still not caused by God?

Gravity is simply one of the laws of nature brought into being by God.  I believe that intelligent intervention occurs in our universe by the power of free will (God's or man's) interacting with the natural laws of nature, not by overriding them.

So no miracles then.

Every act of free will is a miracle because there is no natural explanation for the cause of a free will event.

which means the holocaust is a miracle in your world.

[Alan Burns]

I'm puzzled by Christians like Alan B., as they don't seem to talk about intelligent gravity.  But why not, if you are talking about mutations being caused by God, as otherwise too complex to explain naturalistically.   So is that saying that gravity is not complex, and is not caused by God?   Or gravity is complex, and is still not caused by God?

Gravity is simply one of the laws of nature brought into being by God.  I believe that intelligent intervention occurs in our universe by the power of free will (God's or man's) interacting with the natural laws of nature, not by overriding them.

So no miracles then.

Every act of free will is a miracle because there is no natural explanation for the cause of a free will event.

which means the holocaust is a miracle in your world.

I agree.
We usually attribute miracles to God's divine intervention, but God has given humans the power to intervene too using their gift of free will.

[Nearly Sane]

There we are boys and girls, any time you hear someone talk about miracles, you have to remember that along with the resurrection, it includes the murder of 6 million Jewish people.

[Outrider]

My concept of free will is that it is neither deterministic nor random.

Those are the options - either something is dependent upon prior causes, or it is independent of prior causes, there is no third way.

By definition, a free will event has to be invoked by a source which is outside the 'cause and effect' chain of events, otherwise it would not be free will.

Yet that precludes it being will - will is the conscious determination of a conclusion based on available information.

Also, it is certainly not random, otherwise formula 1 racing drivers would soon deminish after deciding when to overtake.

Perhaps, perhaps not. There can be a random element included into a broader 'algorithm' of deterministic thinking.

To fit in with my most basic concept of reality, free will must be invoked by the awareness of the human soul.  Somewhere in our brain there is an interface between our spiritual self and our physical body in order for self awareness to interact with the physical world.

So your justification for the non-sensical concept of free will is to invoke the baseless nonsense of 'souls'... There is no evidence that there is any area of our brain that is an interface with a spiritual self for which there is also no evidence.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Gravity is simply one of the laws of nature brought into being by God.  I believe that intelligent intervention occurs in our universe by the power of free will (God's or man's) interacting with the natural laws of nature, not by overriding them.

Just out of interest, assume for now that we merely have the impression of free will but in fact the decisions we appear to make are just the outcomes of unfathomably long chains of cause and effect - ie, pretty much the consensus of those who actually study and think about the subject. No invisible little man at the controls, no "souls", no "miracles" and none of the panoply of other agencies you have to come up with and retrofit to the observable facts to arrive at your version of events.

How then would the world appear to be different from the one you actually observe?

 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Gravity is simply one of the laws of nature brought into being by God.  I believe that intelligent intervention occurs in our universe by the power of free will (God's or man's) interacting with the natural laws of nature, not by overriding them.

Just out of interest, assume for now that we merely have the impression of free will but in fact the decisions we appear to make are just the outcomes of unfathomably long chains of cause and effect - ie, pretty much the consensus of those who actually study and think about the subject. No invisible little man at the controls, no "souls", no "miracles" and none of the panoply of other agencies you have to come up with and retrofit to the observable facts to arrive at your version of events.

How then would the world appear to be different from the one you actually observe?

To me, the very act of observing breaks the chain of cause and effect, because observing does not comprise simply of a deterministic reaction.  It involves conscious perception which attaches meaning to our sensory inputs, rather than mere reaction.  If cause and effect ruled, I would just react to the pixel patterns in my eyes rather than perceive meaning from them.

[Alan Burns]

The Holocaust was a miracle was it?  Oh for pity's sake Alan, enter the real world for a change, you seem to be on a different planet to the rest of us.

I am not alone in believing that an act of human free will is a miracle.  I came to this conclusion many years ago, but more recently I discovered that CS Lewis came to the same conclusion in his book "Miracles", where he discusses the logic in much more depth.

[Outrider]

To me, the very act of observing breaks the chain of cause and effect, because observing does not comprise simply of a deterministic reaction.  It involves conscious perception which attaches meaning to our sensory inputs, rather than mere reaction.  If cause and effect ruled, I would just react to the pixel patterns in my eyes rather than perceive meaning from them.

Why? In what way is it demonstrated that 'conscious perception' is not deterministic?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

To me, the very act of observing breaks the chain of cause and effect, because observing does not comprise simply of a deterministic reaction.  It involves conscious perception which attaches meaning to our sensory inputs, rather than mere reaction.  If cause and effect ruled, I would just react to the pixel patterns in my eyes rather than perceive meaning from them.

Thats a non sequitur, but the question rather was this: if you merely had the impression of free will as you think it to be (because that's the way it feels to you) but instead consciousness and meaning was just an emergent property of the stuff of which you're made, how would you ever know the difference?

[wigginhall]

I'm puzzled by Christians like Alan B., as they don't seem to talk about intelligent gravity.  But why not, if you are talking about mutations being caused by God, as otherwise too complex to explain naturalistically.   So is that saying that gravity is not complex, and is not caused by God?   Or gravity is complex, and is still not caused by God?

Gravity is simply one of the laws of nature brought into being by God.  I believe that intelligent intervention occurs in our universe by the power of free will (God's or man's) interacting with the natural laws of nature, not by overriding them.

Well, I am repeating what Andy said, but you seem to be saying that simple things are 'brought into being by God', but complex things are too complex to have occurred naturally, so they are also because of divine intervention.

So the whole ID argument about complexity seems to have collapsed, since whether something is simple or complex, you can 'simply' (!) produce one of your empty slogans, 'brought into being by God'.   

Why bother with all the arguments about complexity then? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Wiggs,

Well, I am repeating what Andy said, but you seem to be saying that simple things are 'brought into being by God', but complex things are too complex to have occurred naturally, so they are also because of divine intervention.

So the whole ID argument about complexity seems to have collapsed, since whether something is simple or complex, you can 'simply' (!) produce one of your empty slogans, 'brought into being by God'.   

Why bother with all the arguments about complexity then?

I think it goes something like this: "gravity and other universal laws don't look to hard to me and besides they affect rocks and mouses and daffodils as well as people, so I reckon they must have been popped into existence by a god who left them to run on their own. On the other hand, consciousness and free will look really, really complicated and it stretches my personal incredulity too far to think that they're just emergent properties of the stuff of which I'm made, so I'll give them a special status of something that happens when this god feels like joining in for a bit".

Something like that anyway. How AB would ever propose to distinguish between the appearance of his version of free will and the appearance of free will that requires none of the menagerie of supervening entities he piles on top of it is anyone's guess, but clearly the story makes sense to him in some way. 

[Nearly Sane]

Another miracle

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-34276628

[Nearly Sane]

And another miracle

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-34237707

[Nearly Sane]

And another miracle

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-sports/34274321

[wigginhall]

Hi Wiggs,

Well, I am repeating what Andy said, but you seem to be saying that simple things are 'brought into being by God', but complex things are too complex to have occurred naturally, so they are also because of divine intervention.

So the whole ID argument about complexity seems to have collapsed, since whether something is simple or complex, you can 'simply' (!) produce one of your empty slogans, 'brought into being by God'.   

Why bother with all the arguments about complexity then?

I think it goes something like this: "gravity and other universal laws don't look to hard to me and besides they affect rocks and mouses and daffodils as well as people, so I reckon they must have been popped into existence by a god who left them to run on their own. On the other hand, consciousness and free will look really, really complicated and it stretches my personal incredulity too far to think that they're just emergent properties of the stuff of which I'm made, so I'll give them a special status of something that happens when this god feels like joining in for a bit".

Something like that anyway. How AB would ever propose to distinguish between the appearance of his version of free will and the appearance of free will that requires none of the menagerie of supervening entities he piles on top of it is anyone's guess, but clearly the story makes sense to him in some way.

That's very good, about 'don't look too hard to me'.  Maybe if it turns out that gravity is actually quite complex, it will get shifted into the other category, where God really really busts a gut.

Your second para reminds me of that Wittgenstein story when he (apocryphally), replied to someone saying, well, it looks as if the sun goes round the earth, 'what would it look if the earth went round the sun?'

[Alan Burns]

AB,

To me, the very act of observing breaks the chain of cause and effect, because observing does not comprise simply of a deterministic reaction.  It involves conscious perception which attaches meaning to our sensory inputs, rather than mere reaction.  If cause and effect ruled, I would just react to the pixel patterns in my eyes rather than perceive meaning from them.

Thats a non sequitur, but the question rather was this: if you merely had the impression of free will as you think it to be (because that's the way it feels to you) but instead consciousness and meaning was just an emergent property of the stuff of which you're made, how would you ever know the difference?

I can't bring myself to imagine something which I know does not exist.  There is no way I can imagine myself to be the product of a collection of atomic (or sub atomic) particles.  The only thing which makes any sense is that I perceive and control certain parts of my body, and I exist as a single entity of perception and control.

[Gonnagle]

Dearest Auntie,

Nothing is complex, well except to humans who haven't got the slightest idea, don't believe me, go ask a sparrow, eat, fly, reproduce, simple.

Gonnagle.

[Maeght]

I can't bring myself to imagine something which I know does not exist.

Surely you can if you have free will.

[Sebastian Toe]

It is only nonsensical when you try to analyse it from a materialistic point of view.  My free will is self evident from my most basic concept of reality.  My self awareness (which can't be defined in material terms) is what drives my free will.  If free will did not exist, there would be no need for self awareness - we could just exist as the survival machines produced from the natural selection process.  Self awareness and free will are inextricably linked and they are the most compelling evidence we have for the existence of the human soul.

Self awareness is a measure of intelligence in the animal kingdom.

Yet most living species on the planet do not possess it. Of the hundreds of animals tested so far, only 10 animals (to date) have been proven to have any measurable degree of self awareness. These are:

    Humans
    Orangutans
    Chimpanzees
    Gorillas
    Bottlenose Dolphins
    Elephants
    Orcas
    Bonobos
    Rhesus Macaques
    European Magpies

Koko is famously known as the "talking" gorilla, recognizing more than 1,000 words in American Sign Language and 2,000 words in spoken English.

Born in 1971 in San Francisco Zoo, Koko is the subject of a groundbreaking science experiment to determine the true intelligence of gorillas. Although she can’t vocalize like a human, she can understand spoken words and communicate her thoughts and feelings with hand signals.

Her trainer, Dr Francine Patterson, has also seen her invent new signs of her own - like the combination of signs for "finger-bracelet" to describe a ring. Koko even demonstrated that she feels emotions much like a human being. She once asked if she could have a cat and chose out a gray male Manx as her pet, which she cared for as a baby. Later that year, the cat escaped and was hit by a car. When Patterson explained the cat had gone, Koko signed "bad-sad-bad" and "frown-cry-frown-sad". After that, Koko the gorilla was able to pick out two new kittens which became her surrogate babies.

Today, Koko is 42 years old and describes herself as a "fine-gorilla-person", amazing her friends and caregivers with her intelligence and emotional depth. Her astonishing story is revealed in the documentary Koko: A Talking Gorilla.

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/10-animals-with-self-awareness.html

[Alan Burns]

To me, the very act of observing breaks the chain of cause and effect, because observing does not comprise simply of a deterministic reaction.  It involves conscious perception which attaches meaning to our sensory inputs, rather than mere reaction.  If cause and effect ruled, I would just react to the pixel patterns in my eyes rather than perceive meaning from them.

Why? In what way is it demonstrated that 'conscious perception' is not deterministic?

The deterministic aproach to conscious perception fails when it comes to apply meaning to what is perceived.  Our sensory organs send messages to lots of brain cells which then demonstrate some form of chemical activity, but then what?  Everything in this scenario is just individual sub atomic particles reacting to their immediate neighbours.  If we were just biological robots, the chemical activity in the brain cells would then lead to reactions in the form of body movements, but at no stage in the process would "meaning" be perceived.  Everything would be generated by cause and effect.

[Maeght]

To me, the very act of observing breaks the chain of cause and effect, because observing does not comprise simply of a deterministic reaction.  It involves conscious perception which attaches meaning to our sensory inputs, rather than mere reaction.  If cause and effect ruled, I would just react to the pixel patterns in my eyes rather than perceive meaning from them.

Why? In what way is it demonstrated that 'conscious perception' is not deterministic?

The deterministic aproach to conscious perception fails when it comes to apply meaning to what is perceived.  Our sensory organs send messages to lots of brain cells which then demonstrate some form of chemical activity, but then what?  Everything in this scenario is just individual sub atomic particles reacting to their immediate neighbours.  If we were just biological robots, the chemical activity in the brain cells would then lead to reactions in the form of body movements, but at no stage in the process would "meaning" be perceived.  Everything would be generated by cause and effect.

That is what you want to believe, but I don't think that is a fact!

Its not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I can't bring myself to imagine something which I know does not exist.  There is no way I can imagine myself to be the product of a collection of atomic (or sub atomic) particles.  The only thing which makes any sense is that I perceive and control certain parts of my body, and I exist as a single entity of perception and control.

You know no such thing. By your own admission, you just lack the imagination or knowledge to understand what's actually happening.

That's a logical fallacy called the "argument from personal incredulity", and it's as old as the hills. To takes Wigg's example, you're a bit like the pre-Copernican who'd have said, "there's no way the earth could be going round the sun because the only thing that makes sense to me is that it's the other way around".