Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Science is itself a product of human perception and free will, so I do not see how it can ever be used to show that they do not exist.

And down in the bowels of the Assertatron, the engineer shouted ' The engines cannae take it, Alan!'

[Outrider]

Science is itself a product of human perception and free will, so I do not see how it can ever be used to show that they do not exist.

Science is a product of human perception, to a degree, yes, but not of free will which you still haven't managed to address. Whilst I can understand the idea that you feel awareness is somehow irreconcilable with 'mere' physical phenomena, I still don't understand how you bypass the intrinsic contradiction in the very concept.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Science is itself a product of human perception and free will, so I do not see how it can ever be used to show that they do not exist.

Science is a product of human perception, to a degree, yes, but not of free will which you still haven't managed to address. Whilst I can understand the idea that you feel awareness is somehow irreconcilable with 'mere' physical phenomena, I still don't understand how you bypass the intrinsic contradiction in the very concept.

O.

Scientific investigation and discoveries are driven by the human will to discover more about their existence.  How could science develop without the guiding will of humans?

[Nearly Sane]

Science is itself a product of human perception and free will, so I do not see how it can ever be used to show that they do not exist.

Science is a product of human perception, to a degree, yes, but not of free will which you still haven't managed to address. Whilst I can understand the idea that you feel awareness is somehow irreconcilable with 'mere' physical phenomena, I still don't understand how you bypass the intrinsic contradiction in the very concept.

O.

Scientific investigation and discoveries are driven by the human will to discover more about their existence.  How could science develop without the guiding will of humans?

Why are you using human will and free will as if they are interchangeable here?

[Outrider]

Science is itself a product of human perception and free will, so I do not see how it can ever be used to show that they do not exist.

Science is a product of human perception, to a degree, yes, but not of free will which you still haven't managed to address. Whilst I can understand the idea that you feel awareness is somehow irreconcilable with 'mere' physical phenomena, I still don't understand how you bypass the intrinsic contradiction in the very concept.

O.

Scientific investigation and discoveries are driven by the human will to discover more about their existence.  How could science develop without the guiding will of humans?

Fair enough, that doesn't make that will free, though.

O.

[Shaker]

Science is itself a product of human perception and free will, so I do not see how it can ever be used to show that they do not exist.

And down in the bowels of the Assertatron, the engineer shouted ' The engines cannae take it, Alan!'

Love it 

[Maeght]

Science is itself a product of human perception and free will, so I do not see how it can ever be used to show that they do not exist.

Science is a product of human perception, to a degree, yes, but not of free will which you still haven't managed to address. Whilst I can understand the idea that you feel awareness is somehow irreconcilable with 'mere' physical phenomena, I still don't understand how you bypass the intrinsic contradiction in the very concept.

O.

Scientific investigation and discoveries are driven by the human will to discover more about their existence.  How could science develop without the guiding will of humans?

Will and free will are not the same thing.

[Alan Burns]

Science is itself a product of human perception and free will, so I do not see how it can ever be used to show that they do not exist.

Science is a product of human perception, to a degree, yes, but not of free will which you still haven't managed to address. Whilst I can understand the idea that you feel awareness is somehow irreconcilable with 'mere' physical phenomena, I still don't understand how you bypass the intrinsic contradiction in the very concept.

O.

Scientific investigation and discoveries are driven by the human will to discover more about their existence.  How could science develop without the guiding will of humans?

Why are you using human will and free will as if they are interchangeable here?

I do not see how "will" could be anything but free.  Will is derived and driven from a conscious entity

[Nearly Sane]

That's part of your problem. Remember you are happy to discount any form of instinct but on any level that is a form of will.

[Sebastian Toe]

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

I have come across the story of Koko before.  I have not seen the documentary, but I must admit that I am a bit sceptical about the conclusions.  Some animals show a remarkable ability in mimicking human behaviour when in the presence of humans, and this mimicking could well be interpreted as posessing some human-like qualities.

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".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

My conception of reality is that I exist and I control my own destiny, and no amount of scientific evidence can change this most basic perception of my existence.

And there we have it: "...no amount of scientific evidence can change this...".

Fine, you can make whatever assertions you wish to make but you have no basis whatever for those who hear them not to think you to be entirely wrong given your indifference to the evidence that contradicts you. Why then bother with the proselytising given that you give the rest of us no choice but to point and laugh when you do it?

I think it's a combination of two things here Blue, your belief set is no good for everybody and perhaps anybody and secondly you don't like it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think it's a combination of two things here Blue, your belief set is no good for everybody and perhaps anybody and secondly you don't like it.

Not really. My "belief set" is merely that, if you want to claim objective truths, then you you need a method of some kind to get you from "discern", "intuit", "just popped into my head" etc subjectivity. You are right inasmuch as the thought that there is a god who concerns himself with giving brain cancer to babies is a hideous one, but whether I like it or not is of no relevance to the hopeless reasoning that you and AB attempt.

[Maeght]

I do not see how "will" could be anything but free.  Will is derived and driven from a conscious entity

Then you haven't been listening to the numerous posts where numerous people have put forward the proposal the  choices/decisions we make are a result of of our nature and nurture and are not made freely but constrained/predetermined by that nature and nurture. Within this alternative proposal will is no more than an expression of the effect of nature and nurture therefore not free.

[Maeght]

It is an interesting scenario, but impossible to enact because we do not have the ability to re create any given moment in time.

That's why its a thought experiment.

With your model of no predermination and free will what do you think would happen if we could enact this scenario.

Have you had a think yet?

[Leonard James]

I have to agree with Alan on this one. For all practical purposes, "I" and my free will are emergent properties of my brain activity ... until/unless evidence is provided to the contrary.

Except he isn't arguing that - he is arguing that they are not emergent and that exists  'I' non emergently as a soul and that is where free will comes from.

Then I think he is mistaken.

[Alan Burns]

I do not see how "will" could be anything but free.  Will is derived and driven from a conscious entity

Then you haven't been listening to the numerous posts where numerous people have put forward the proposal the  choices/decisions we make are a result of of our nature and nurture and are not made freely but constrained/predetermined by that nature and nurture. Within this alternative proposal will is no more than an expression of the effect of nature and nurture therefore not free.

I have read these views, but I have to say that they do not comply with my perception of reality, and I think I can confidently say that the vast majority people would agree with me on this.

[jeremyp]

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

Can you imagine Sherlock Holmes?

[Sassy]

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.

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.

It was NOT Alan who suggest that. If you want to show false indignation then at least get the person who said it and not the person who responded.,

[Sassy]

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

Can you imagine Sherlock Holmes?

You use your feel will to imagine what he looked like. After all only the person who created him will see the reality of his imagination,

[Maeght]

I do not see how "will" could be anything but free.  Will is derived and driven from a conscious entity

Then you haven't been listening to the numerous posts where numerous people have put forward the proposal the  choices/decisions we make are a result of of our nature and nurture and are not made freely but constrained/predetermined by that nature and nurture. Within this alternative proposal will is no more than an expression of the effect of nature and nurture therefore not free.

I have read these views, but I have to say that they do not comply with my perception of reality, and I think I can confidently say that the vast majority people would agree with me on this.

Just because the majority of people think something is right doesn't make it so. You quite rightly describe it as your perception - which also doesn't mean that it is correct either. You are wedded to the idea of freewill for theological reasons and it fits with your perception. No matter what argument or evidence is presented you will stick with this belief. Now, have you got an answer to my thought experiment yet?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do not see how "will" could be anything but free.  Will is derived and driven from a conscious entity

Then you haven't been listening to the numerous posts where numerous people have put forward the proposal the  choices/decisions we make are a result of of our nature and nurture and are not made freely but constrained/predetermined by that nature and nurture. Within this alternative proposal will is no more than an expression of the effect of nature and nurture therefore not free.

I have read these views, but I have to say that they do not comply with my perception of reality, and I think I can confidently say that the vast majority people would agree with me on this.

But perceptions of reality are likely to differ from person to person, especially where matters of religion are concerned.

Yes,but look at it this way, people have trusted in the thinking of Buddha, the sonship of Jesus, the recitation of Mohammed for centuries or millennia.

The commonality of religions i.e. what is commonly held is remarkably persistent in a way in which nothing modern has although people are beginning to dismiss Plato et al in favour of philosophies which refer to the economics of life rather than the nature of being.

In science though there are two developments which some are trying to make 'universal', like religion,(or if you like, make it religious) and that is Darwinianism and scientism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I think it's a combination of two things here Blue, your belief set is no good for everybody and perhaps anybody and secondly you don't like it.

Not really. My "belief set" is merely that, if you want to claim objective truths, then you you need a method of some kind to get you from "discern", "intuit", "just popped into my head" etc subjectivity. You are right inasmuch as the thought that there is a god who concerns himself with giving brain cancer to babies is a hideous one, but whether I like it or not is of no relevance to the hopeless reasoning that you and AB attempt.

Nobody has claimed it in the way you are saying they have claimed it.

I have said frequently and I am sure others have that there is no knock down intellectual argument.

Does this mean that they should remain ever silent about what we all assume looks like a belief? Of course not.

Something else you seem to have wilfully ignored is there is an aspect of personal involvement in religion.

Yours and others continual retreat into mother science is an escape from reaching a position in thinking about religion where personal commitment is involved.

So I think a) nobody is making a claim in the sense you mean it
b) you are not backward in making claims anyway, I can remember at least 3 occasions when you said you had disproved and buried moral realism exhorting everybody to ''move on''.
c) I think people on the religious side are more likely to be on here out of a serious concern about spreading the benefits than those wanting to ''high strut'' the boards of an internet debating
society.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes,but look at it this way, people have trusted in the thinking of Buddha, the sonship of Jesus, the recitation of Mohammed for centuries or millennia.

The commonality of religions i.e. what is commonly held is remarkably persistent in a way in which nothing modern has although people are beginning to dismiss Plato et al in favour of philosophies which refer to the economics of life rather than the nature of being.

There's no "commonality of religions" at all - far from it in fact. What there is though is commonality of the phenomenon of religion, because we're a species that's always sought stories to explain the otherwise inexplicable, to comfort us, to use to control others etc. That says nothing to whether there's a word of empirical truth to any of them, but it does point to our propensity for preferring a conspiracy theory to no theory at all (as Christopher Hitchens used to say).

In science though there are two developments which some are trying to make 'universal', like religion,(or if you like, make it religious) and that is Darwinianism and scientism.

Wrong again. "Science" doesn't do either, though some people might. At most those who practice science will frame discussions about, say, the possibility of alien life along Darwinian lines because the fact of evolution seems likely to be a typical one but that's different from asserting that it's the only possible answer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes,but look at it this way, people have trusted in the thinking of Buddha, the sonship of Jesus, the recitation of Mohammed for centuries or millennia.

The commonality of religions i.e. what is commonly held is remarkably persistent in a way in which nothing modern has although people are beginning to dismiss Plato et al in favour of philosophies which refer to the economics of life rather than the nature of being.

There's no "commonality of religions" at all - far from it in fact. What there is though is commonality of the phenomenon of religion, because we're a species that's always sought stories to explain the otherwise inexplicable, to comfort us, to use to control others etc. That says nothing to whether there's a word of empirical truth to any of them, but it does point to our propensity for preferring a conspiracy theory to no theory at all (as Christopher Hitchens used to say).

In science though there are two developments which some are trying to make 'universal', like religion,(or if you like, make it religious) and that is Darwinianism and scientism.

Wrong again. "Science" doesn't do either, though some people might. At most those who practice science will frame discussions about, say, the possibility of alien life along Darwinian lines because the fact of evolution seems likely to be a typical one but that's different from asserting that it's the only possible answer.

You are absolutely off the mark when you say religions have no internal common beliefs. Particularly worrying when I provided a list of beliefs from three religions which have remained common to each of those religions.

The non cogency of agreed religious belief is a bit of an antitheists myth which I've yet to see the substance of.

This is I move a point of envy for the scientism fraternity whose beliefs are relatively recent and unfortunately probably held by a tiny elite who have mistaken what they do for a living with the way the world is, and a mass of people who remain stubbornly ignorant of science but absolutely believe it will answer all their needs....What could be more traditionally '' organised religious '' than a priestly knowing elite mediating knowledge to an uninformed mass?

In terms of Darwinism we have universal Darwinists such as Dawkins who advocates the Darwinian cosmology of Smolin.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wrong again. "Science" doesn't do either, though some people might. At most those who practice science will frame discussions about, say, the possibility of alien life along Darwinian lines because the fact of evolution seems likely to be a typical one but that's different from asserting that it's the only possible answer.

I wasn't talking about science as such as you well know. Science does not aid your arguments one bit.

I am talking about Scientism. The belief that science meets all our needs and answers all our questions and forms the basis of all arguments.