Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Len, you are very good at deducing some form of logical explanation for things that have already happened.

Have you ever tried to see things the other way round? -
For example imagine you are an observer of the universe when it began.  You see this cloud of burning gas, the formation of stars which then explode, the debris then speading to orbit round other stars.  Then amid all this chaos, something quite remarkable starts to happen on the cooling crust of a tiny speck of molten rock ....

It's called "physics" Alan and yes, it is remarkable. Why though insert something you call "god" into the mix too?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

So it wasn't uncreated and it wasn't created......oh no .....you are building up to a courtiers reply aren't you.

Blimey, a flat-earther still clinging to the cosmological argument like a man clinging to a plutonium parachute.

Just to put you out of your personal grief here the argument actually begins, "everything that had a beginning...." etc.

Knock yourself out trying to demonstrate that the observable universe did have a beginning. A Nobel prize awaits if you do manage it by the way...

[Leonard James]

Len, you are very good at deducing some form of logical explanation for things that have already happened.

Have you ever tried to see things the other way round? -
For example imagine you are an observer of the universe when it began.  You see this cloud of burning gas, the formation of stars which then explode, the debris then speading to orbit round other stars.  Then amid all this chaos, something quite remarkable starts to happen on the cooling crust of a tiny speck of molten rock ....

As the rock cools the elements which constitute it interact with one another according to their chemical properties, and also to the cosmic rays which are bombarding them.

The result was a mass of interacting stodge with millions of electrochemical reactions going on at the same time.

Finally, one of the complicated molecules being produced formed in such a way as to be able to reproduce copies of itself, and "life" began.

I think there is every reason to believe that it (or something like it) has happened in other parts of this vast universe.

No external force was needed to cause it to happen.

[Enki]

It seems to me their is a further problem. Even though all information could end up being perceived as some kind of unity, that could be done by an unconscious processor.....I believe it's termed as a Chinese box. In other words are you properly distinguishing  between intelligence and consciousness

It was Alan who actually suggested the binding problem of consciousness, so perhaps your ideas are better directed towards him. However, for my own part, no, I don't think so. To experience consciousness, one must first be aware of something by bringing all the disparate parts together inside the brain, to give them a focus, so to speak. This does not solve the problem of consciousness, but it seems to be a necessary step in the process. To be aware of something doesn't necessarily suggest intelligence, as it seems that a vast range of the animal kingdom have that capability. That is, of course, not to say that even the binding problem has been solved. There are many hypotheses, as I have already suggested, many of which will no doubt be rejected but it is such a growth area of neuroscience that perhaps that particular problem will eventually be solved. 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Knock yourself out trying to demonstrate that the observable universe did have a beginning. A Nobel prize awaits if you manage it by the way...

Yeah!! damn scientists, sticking their oar in, it's a bang, no it not a bang, well it's a bang but not your common or garden bang, kind of a bang in a vacuum, oh well that explains it then, it actually came from nothing, well how can something come from nothing, nothing in a vacuum is nothing, well sort of nothing, oh right you are, then there is the no God involved theory, I wonder if God has copyright lawyers, he spends six days hard graft and what thanks does he get, you are out of the picture God, no wonder we have the theory that God has left the building, I would be pretty cheesed off if someone tried to claim my masterpiece, wonder if God is thinking, next time no humans, just elephants, dolphins and monkey's and if I see a bloody monkey trying to walk upright, I will kneecap the bugger

Bloody scientists, they should have stuck with Aristotle or was it Plato,

The one thing I know for sure is that I know nothing

or words to that effect.

Gonnagle.

[Sassy]

Frequently you can, actually.


Yes there are - lots of them.
Seems to be a rather hit and miss affair given the number of people who do seek God with passionate sincerity and find zilch.

You are, of course, teetering on the edge of the No True Scotsman fallacy here, as expected.
How would you know what's fair to say about me? That's right, you don't.I would have to be furnished with some convincing reason that there's anything to know in the first instance. I'm still waiting.

Until the rest of post is showing we cannot make replies because we have to keep going back to the original post separately because some idiots obeyed the less and dicarded the many. Sorry shaker till the rest of the post show we cannot answer it does not show the post replying to above anymore.

[Shaker]

Just click on my name in blue at the head of your post, the bit that you quoted.

[ippy]

Dear Leonard,

No argument from me old son and I have already had this discussion with ProfDavey, which is why I was trying to explain to Blue about wiping the slate clean, the theory/hypothesis regarding us as born believers ( not born God believers ) is relatively new, I think it has been doing the rounds for about 15 years ( in science, a mere blip ).

I know that children get the idea of God from adults, you, me, we got the Christian idea, you have come to the concussion that it does not work, me, I find it works everyday ( my Christianity, not Vlads, or Alans, not decrying Vlad or Alans faith, faith is a very personal thing ).

But this new science or hypothesis makes perfect sense to me, we can only guess at what a baby goes through in the womb, but one scientist likens being born, taken from the womb, it is tens times more frightening than throwing yourself out of an aeroplane ( I am quoting from memory, I may not have it exactly right ).

What does that experience do to us, well guess work again, but that baby needs something, a reassurance, where does it find it, a big God like creature, the mother.

Of course this says nothing about God, but I think it says, natural born believers.

Gonnagle.

More like the natural born gullible Gonners.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Blimey, a flat-earther still clinging to the cosmological argument like a man clinging to a plutonium parachute.

Just to put you out of your personal grief here the argument actually begins, "everything that had a beginning...." etc.

Knock yourself out trying to demonstrate that the observable universe did have a beginning. A Nobel prize awaits if you do manage it by the way...

Bilgeside

As usual you are converting my maybes into fundamentalist, brook no argument, pronouncements.....now I'm not saying that should come with some kind of admission into a therapeutic institutions but that help is probably available for your condition.

Now....The point is Shaker is saying that the universe isn't caused and it isn't uncaused.
He must be alluding therefore to a third way. I just want to know what it is.

On balance I think the evidence is that it did have a beginning although theism has worked perfectly well during the Hoyle steady state hypothesis because there is always the question why something and not nothing.

So there we have it.

The real problem for people like yourself is for the universe to be uncaused would require nature to have abandoned naturalism's dependence on cause and effect. People like yourself would have to concoct a supernatural explanation for the universe namely uncausedness.

Also if you can apply the quality of being uncaused to one thing you cannot disallow it for say, a God.
That suits your detractors Bilgeside because it gets rid of a load of Dawkinsian arguments like....who created God.

Indeed whatever third way to explain the universe Shaker comes up with.....That could equally apply to God.

Finally for you to eliminate causation AND noncausation you would have to shuffle like Outrider shuffled and even someone above your intellectual payscale like him ended up turdpolishing.....he couldn't quite convince that he wasn't actually arguing for uncreated matter.

Any way, Ladies and Gentlemen....I present to you....The Hillside cosmological shuffle...TAKE IT BLUE!

[Enki]

Dear Blue,

Yeah!! damn scientists, sticking their oar in, it's a bang, no it not a bang, well it's a bang but not your common or garden bang, kind of a bang in a vacuum, oh well that explains it then, it actually came from nothing, well how can something come from nothing, nothing in a vacuum is nothing, well sort of nothing, oh right you are, then there is the no God involved theory, I wonder if God has copyright lawyers, he spends six days hard graft and what thanks does he get, you are out of the picture God, no wonder we have the theory that God has left the building, I would be pretty cheesed off if someone tried to claim my masterpiece, wonder if God is thinking, next time no humans, just elephants, dolphins and monkey's and if I see a bloody monkey trying to walk upright, I will kneecap the bugger

Bloody scientists, they should have stuck with Aristotle or was it Plato,
 or words to that effect.

Gonnagle.

What an excellent post, Gonners. Loved it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It was Alan who actually suggested the binding problem of consciousness, so perhaps your ideas are better directed towards him. However, for my own part, no, I don't think so. To experience consciousness, one must first be aware of something by bringing all the disparate parts together inside the brain, to give them a focus, so to speak. This does not solve the problem of consciousness, but it seems to be a necessary step in the process. To be aware of something doesn't necessarily suggest intelligence, as it seems that a vast range of the animal kingdom have that capability. That is, of course, not to say that even the binding problem has been solved. There are many hypotheses, as I have already suggested, many of which will no doubt be rejected but it is such a growth area of neuroscience that perhaps that particular problem will eventually be solved.

Sound points, thanks for bringing this up. The issue of information collation is worth bringing up. My own point of interest is that the brain is often portrayed IMHO as incompetent. such collation I would say demands precision and accuracy.

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

More like the natural born gullible Gonners.

Yep! old son, all of us, but here's a theory for you, a little hypothesis, a little hpothesisette, if we start from the conjecture that we all are born believers, how does that explain atheism, my little hypothesis, all atheists were dropped on their heads at birth, we could work on it together, think of the fame, Nobel prizes, we would certainly be in line for a Templeton

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

enki wrote:

For what reason should I accept your view rather than say we do not yet understand what consciousness is ? I find your vague idea of a soul unnecessary, unevidenced and deeply unsatisfying. For me, you aren't exactly cooking on gas. Of course you are welcome to your views, but I see no reason to change my own views unless I see actual evidence that this soul exists.

Good post, enki.  It seems ironic that AB argues that there is no definition of a centre of consciousness, but then presents us with an idea of the soul - which of course, he cannot define, except in very vague terms.  I would think research in neurology is going to produce more interesting results in the coming years, than vague assertions about the soul. 

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

Yep! old son, all of us, but here's a theory for you, a little hypothesis, a little hpothesisette, if we start from the conjecture that we all are born believers, how does that explain atheism, my little hypothesis, all atheists were dropped on their heads at birth, we could work on it together, think of the fame, Nobel prizes, we would certainly be in line for a Templeton

Gonnagle.

I would agree we are all born believers, it's the why where we differ, ever heard of evolution Gonners? Certain warnings from adults for survival purposes would need to be believed without question when very young, bit obvious innit, it's been explained ad nauseam on the forum, don't tell me you're the only person that's not seen this rather obvious explanation.

ippy 

   

[Enki]

enki wrote:

Good post, enki.  It seems ironic that AB argues that there is no definition of a centre of consciousness, but then presents us with an idea of the soul - which of course, he cannot define, except in very vague terms.  I would think research in neurology is going to produce more interesting results in the coming years, than vague assertions about the soul.

Thanks Wiggs. And, as far as your last sentence goes, I do hope so. Mind you, it will probably happen after I'm dead and gone.   Even so, I'm one of those who say I certainly live in interesting times.

[wigginhall]

Thanks Wiggs. And, as far as your last sentence goes, I do hope so. Mind you, it will probably happen after I'm dead and gone.   Even so, I'm one of those who say I certainly live in interesting times.

Definitely.  I used to do research in a stroke clinic, which helped people recover from strokes.  And one of the big issues was speech and language, and of course, it was known a long time ago, that damage in different parts of the brain would produce different speech and language defects.   For example, some people lose grammar, and others lose vocabulary, and you could predict which.

Anyway, I think this kind of research is powering away in different areas of human consciousness.  Even the notion of a 'centre' can be connected with traditional ideas about the ego, and so on. 

[floo]

Definitely.  I used to do research in a stroke clinic, which helped people recover from strokes.  And one of the big issues was speech and language, and of course, it was known a long time ago, that damage in different parts of the brain would produce different speech and language defects.   For example, some people lose grammar, and others lose vocabulary, and you could predict which.

Anyway, I think this kind of research is powering away in different areas of human consciousness.  Even the notion of a 'centre' can be connected with traditional ideas about the ego, and so on.

Since my husband had his subarachnoid haemorrhage nine years ago, his speech is affected. What he intends to say and what he actually says are sometimes very different. This frustrates him greatly as he was highly articulate heretofore.

[Enki]

Definitely.  I used to do research in a stroke clinic, which helped people recover from strokes.  And one of the big issues was speech and language, and of course, it was known a long time ago, that damage in different parts of the brain would produce different speech and language defects.   For example, some people lose grammar, and others lose vocabulary, and you could predict which.

Anyway, I think this kind of research is powering away in different areas of human consciousness.  Even the notion of a 'centre' can be connected with traditional ideas about the ego, and so on.

Agreed.

My brother in law, who is my age, and whom we see every week, has cerebral palsy. I think that it was actually by considering the brain damage that he suffered, that many years ago I became fascinated by this hugely complex organ that we call the brain. When my wife started nursing in the 1960s so little was known. She was a part of one of the first neurological units in the country at that time. An example of their early techniques was connecting electrodes to the brain in order to cure, or at least alleviate the symptoms of Parkinson's Disease. The trouble was, she tells me, is that it was purely hit and hope because so little was then known about the brain's detailed structure. We have come a long way since then, but we have such an enormous way still to go.

Sorry for the deviation from the subject of the thread.

[jeremyp]

Now....The point is Shaker is saying that the universe isn't caused and it isn't uncaused.

No he isn't. That was merely your incorrect inference to his responses to your posts.

He must be alluding therefore to a third way. I just want to know what it is.

I hate to disappoint you but I'm pretty sure Shaker doesn't have a third way.

If you go back and look at your posts, you'll see that he did not deny that the Universe is caused and he did not deny that the Universe is uncaused, he only denied your attempts at putting words into his mouth.

Why don't you ask him directly if the Universe is caused or uncaused and I'm pretty sure I know what response you will get and it will be totally consistent with the other response you have had so far.

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

Evil lotion, another area where scientists have stuck their oar in, I was quite happy in my little Adam and Eve world, but no, that Darwin bloke comes along and starts a whole new ball game, we are descended from monkeys, no wait, apes, no, no haud the bus, ape like ( or is it monkey like ) then I am told, ( just when I am getting a handle on the whole situation ) seen the T shirt, wee monkey rising up to be human, no not exactly descended, more like cousins ( that bit is very plausible, some of my cousins are Orange Order, that lot have just dropped out of the tree ) then we are told about the missing link, what bloody missing link, do we have missing link or not ( I sometimes feel it is a conspiracy, the scientific community are out to get me ) and it goes on, Dinosaurs with feathers, or the one that really flips my lid, some aquatic mammals came out of the sea, grew legs, then said bugger this for a game of soldiers and returned to the sea

That Darwin bloke ( no , actually lets not stop at Darwin ) the whole scientific community are on drugs, just wish they would share them with us less educated

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

enki - I don't think it is a deviation, since AB has brought up his dissatisfaction with ideas about consciousness, and prefers his ideas about the soul.

Another area of research is into dementia, which is showing how our representations of the self, of others, of time, memory, and so on, can begin to disintegrate, via brain damage.

Another interesting area is to do with selective representation.   For example, when an animal walks down a path, the amount of information coming in is huge - from the environment, its own body, and so on.  And this applies to humans as well.   Anyway, the idea of selective representation is that to avoid overload, the brain is able to construct 'naive' representations, which simplify reality for us.  One example is colour.

This stuff seems very exciting to me, and I wonder what AB has to offer in return, in relation to the soul?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No he isn't. That was merely your incorrect inference to his responses to your posts.

I hate to disappoint you but I'm pretty sure Shaker doesn't have a third way.

If you go back and look at your posts, you'll see that he did not deny that the Universe is caused and he did not deny that the Universe is uncaused, he only denied your attempts at putting words into his mouth.

Why don't you ask him directly if the Universe is caused or uncaused and I'm pretty sure I know what response you will get and it will be totally consistent with the other response you have had so far.

Yes I'm sure it would be an antitheists ''I don't know but whatever it is it wasn't God'' type response.

Shaker usually responds and hasn't......I think he knows he would have to get into a shuffle.

[jeremyp]

Yes I'm sure it would be an antitheists ''I don't know but whatever it is it wasn't God'' type response.

Shaker usually responds and hasn't......I think he knows he would have to get into a shuffle.

Still putting words into his mouth, I see.

[wigginhall]

There are arguments for both uncaused and caused, aren't there?  The obvious argument for uncaused is that the singularity is not an event, not in time, and therefore notions of causation are moot, since normal physics has collapsed.  There are also arguments for an infinite universe, with no cause.   However, no doubt this will continue!

[Alan Burns]

As the rock cools the elements which constitute it interact with one another according to their chemical properties, and also to the cosmic rays which are bombarding them.

The result was a mass of interacting stodge with millions of electrochemical reactions going on at the same time.

Finally, one of the complicated molecules being produced formed in such a way as to be able to reproduce copies of itself, and "life" began.

I think there is every reason to believe that it (or something like it) has happened in other parts of this vast universe.

No external force was needed to cause it to happen.

But didn't God do a great job in manipulating these natural forces to bring us into existence, giving us awareness and free will in the process.