Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

That's poor analogy, to claim a brain is 'hard-wired'. Your desktop computer may be a fixed thing in terms of hardware but an organic brain certainly is not; it grows, particularly during developmental stages making new neurons and synaptic connections all the time, in fact it never ceases to remake itself. That's the whole point of having a brain; a nervous system allows for simple reaction, but a brain gives you plasticity, adaptability.

OK, but if everything in the brain is governed by deterministic events, so will the making of new neurons and synaptic connections, so there is still no method for conscious interaction to "correct" any deterministic errors in the brain's logic.

[Shaker]

I don't see this as trolling in Alan's case. Yes, it can indeed lead to rather unfortunate statements which sometimes seem rather naive or awkwardly expressed, sometimes frustratingly so, but I see his posts, above all, to be genuine, sincere  expressions of his desire to convey his sense of faith to others.

Telling people who have come to a reasoned conclusion about gods that they are under the sway of Satan who is blinding them to "the truth" goes far beyond something naively or awkwardly expressed.

As I see it, the only impetus for him changing his views will come from his own self

The mere possibility of which he flatly, dogmatically and absolutely denies, of course.

[bluehillside Retd.]

enki,

For the record, I think that AB is absolutely sincere(excruciatingly so, to my mind). He tends towards prosletyzing at times, but, as far as I can see, his main impulse is that he is trying to communicate what he sees as the truth as regards his take on his religion. When one has an entirely fixed position which seems to allow no acceptance that contrary views have any real merit, when one's position is firmly based on faith and personal credulity, and when one's aim is purely to enlighten others so that they too can share this wonderful faith and hence have the salvation that it offers, then I can quite see where such a person is coming from. I don't see this as trolling in Alan's case. Yes, it can indeed lead to rather unfortunate statements which sometimes seem rather naive or awkwardly expressed, sometimes frustratingly so, but I see his posts, above all, to be genuine, sincere  expressions of his desire to convey his sense of faith to others.

As I see it, the only impetus for him changing his views will come from his own self, as, I'm sure, he would probably say the same for me.

I agree with the broad sentiment, but the problem is that when in response to someone explaining why 2+2=4 he answers with asserting the answer to be five while simultaneously telling us that finding a clover with five petals is evidence for his claim, that the mathematics for 2+2=4 are only human whereas he has a higher reasoning known only to himself, that he personally can't imagine how the answer could be four and therefore the answer for the rest of us must be five, that... etc then what choice do the rest of us have but to point and laugh?     

[Outrider]

How do you equate the two.

Because they are both 'gods' to which human beings ascribe or ascribed supernatural abilities and achievements.

Of course Thor is a human creation created by the created.

Why 'of course'? If Thor is obviously a human creation, why is the Christian God - on exactly the same lack of any evidence - not a human creation?

It does not change the fact that the creator of humans was not created or made.

You'll have to demonstrate that this is a 'fact' before you can claim so.

Neither does it provide a viable argument on your part.

Actually it does.

Again... the first not a creation of the human mind... the others all have a start date where humans created them.

And your evidence for a date when Thor, Ameratsu, Marduk etc. were created is...? Why do you think that the earliest references to the Christian God - well after references to Marduk, by the way - are not an indication of the creation of that particular myth?

Could be our God does as it says in the book.

If that were the case you'd have evidence to provide to support it.

The others don't do they?

None of them do, yours included.

There is far more personal evidence for the Yahweh than any other god.

Ah, so the fact that more people who follow Yahweh fail to appreciate the irony of their special pleading is somehow not just an argumentum ad populum?

You yourself, on this planet in the otherwise dead void is evidence of the creator.

No, it isn't. It doesn't preclude it, but given that there are a number of claims of the origins of life and the universe, it's not evidence for a creator, and certainly not evidence for claims of a specific one.

You choose not to see it.

Belief's cannot be chosen. I conclude from the available evidence that your claims of a deity are not qualitatively different to anyone else's claims of a deity, and can be dismissed on exactly the same basis that you dismiss the others.

O.

[torridon]

That's poor analogy, to claim a brain is 'hard-wired'. Your desktop computer may be a fixed thing in terms of hardware but an organic brain certainly is not; it grows, particularly during developmental stages making new neurons and synaptic connections all the time, in fact it never ceases to remake itself. That's the whole point of having a brain; a nervous system allows for simple reaction, but a brain gives you plasticity, adaptability.

OK, but if everything in the brain is governed by deterministic events, so will the making of new neurons and synaptic connections, so there is still no method for conscious interaction to "correct" any deterministic errors in the brain's logic.

Eerm, yes, it doesn't really make much sense to talk of 'errors' and 'corrections' in that way.  If I feel depressed for instance, I cannot identify a bunch of synapses and fix them and so feel better. In physiological terms a brain is an outgrowth of the central nervous system; in conceptual terms it adds value to the nervous system by providing an ongoing learning mechanism that facilitates a greater range of sophistication and nuance to the simple response set inherent in a nervous system. Having said that, it is still all based on a largely deterministic biological mechanism.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sane,

One of the many roles in the computing world I have filled is as a business analyst. I think we may even need to take a step back from working on the assumptions here. I think we don't have a clear problem statement. Alan sees the whole thing from a position of seeing a wonderful solution to a problem that isn't agreed by the people he is talking to as a problem. It's similar to Gonzo and his why question. If you see a "why' as meaningful it is very hard to understand that others don't and to phrase anything in those terms.

The why question and trying to explain why it is a valid question, to my mind many see it as me trying to equate why with God ( I probably am ) but I still think you can ask why with no God in the picture.

I listened to this TED talk yesterday.

http://www.ted.com/talks/harry_cliff_have_we_reached_the_end_of_physics?language=en

A scientist asking, why is there something rather than nothing.

This is the essential problem: the universe is far, far too interesting. Relativity and quantum mechanics appear to suggest that the universe should be a boring place. It should be dark, lethal and lifeless. But when we look around us, we see we live in a universe full of interesting stuff, full of stars, planets, trees, squirrels. The question is, ultimately, why does all this interesting stuff exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? This contradiction is the most pressing problem in fundamental physics, and in the next few years, we may find out whether we'll ever be able to solve it.

Why is a very valid question, me and Stephen Hawking can't both be wrong, well can we!

Gonnagle.

[Outrider]

God allowed man to fall because he gave him free will and he told the end from the beginning...

Free will is a nonsensical concept, as has been highlighted before.

He already knew and he knew all that would happen before it did. Do read the bible then you can answer your own questions and make informed decisions, choices and replies to posts about God and Christianity.

I've read the Bible - it still makes no sense. If God created humanity such that 'falling' was an option, why are we punished for falling? Why are we to be punished for someone else, long before our birth's, falling? If falling is bad, why make us with the capacity to fall? If Adam and Eve were created ignorant of right and wrong, how can we be punished for God's failure to secure them from the curiosity God instilled in them?

O.

[wigginhall]

OK, but if everything in the brain is governed by deterministic events, so will the making of new neurons and synaptic connections, so there is still no method for conscious interaction to "correct" any deterministic errors in the brain's logic.

Torridon mentioned the word 'plasticity' and there is abundant evidence of neuroplasticity, contrary to AB's weird ideas about a pre-determined mechanistic process.  See also Outrider's excellent reply above.

The most famous example of plasticity is to do with taxi-drivers, who acquire the 'knowledge', and show changes to brain structure.

But there are many other areas of plasticity, for example, as I mentioned earlier, I used to work in a stroke clinic, and here many people are able to recover from strokes, and relearn stuff.

An interesting example is echolocation, which humans are able to learn.   Well, humans as a species are not 'wired' for echolocation, but are still able to develop an ability. 

There is some exciting research now in childhood trauma, which seems to affect the brain, and the question is, can this damage be changed by new experiences?   I think the jury is still out.

So the brain is not a mechanistic pre-programmed machine.   It learns, adapts, re-organizes, and so on.

[Nearly Sane]

Dear Sane,

The why question and trying to explain why it is a valid question, to my mind many see it as me trying to equate why with God ( I probably am ) but I still think you can ask why with no God in the picture.

I listened to this TED talk yesterday.

http://www.ted.com/talks/harry_cliff_have_we_reached_the_end_of_physics?language=en

A scientist asking, why is there something rather than nothing.

Why is a very valid question, me and Stephen Hawking can't both be wrong, well can we!

Gonnagle.

This illustrates one of the problems of language. Hawking's why has a different meaning in that it has no context of purpose. Your why does.

[Outrider]

I guess the truth is you have no idea what is assertion and what is reality.

The point is not the use to others but the fact it is a fact...

Assertion is not the opposite of truth, it's a counterpoint to a conclusion or deduction.

You can assert something that is reality (bananas are sometimes green), you can assert something that is not reality (bananas are sometimes blue) - the fact that you are asserting does not mean that you are wrong, it just means that we have no means to determine whether you are right or wrong.

Hence your assertion that the existence of God is a fact cannot be used to determine if, in fact, God's existence is a fact or not.

O.

[Enki]

Telling people who have come to a reasoned conclusion about gods that they are under the sway of Satan who is blinding them to "the truth" goes far beyond something naively or awkwardly expressed.
The mere possibility of which he flatly, dogmatically and absolutely denies, of course.

Hi Shakes,

I would say that the idea of a 'Satan' blinding us to the 'truths' that AB expresses is an extremely naive and simple way of dealing with those, like myself, who hold considered and reasoned arguments. I would suggest it shows an absence of reasoned thought on his part. I would also agree, that as a corollary to that, his view also incorporates a danger of allowing a particularly pernicious attitude to develop, as can be seen throughout the history of Christianity.

As regards your second point, I agree wholeheartedly. I'm sure, like me, you have met or conversed with many such people in your life. The only recourse, as far as I can see, is to carry on responding with considered, rational and challenging arguments.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Outrider,

Free will is a nonsensical concept, as has been highlighted before.

Show me the post, for me the jury is still out, no one on this thread has shown me it is dead in the water.

Here is a scientist saying we do have some measure of free will.

http://bigthink.com/videos/why-physics-ends-the-free-will-debate

Heisenberg then comes along and proposes the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and says: ”Nonsense. There is uncertainty. You don’t know where the electron is. It could be here, here or many places simultaneously.” This of course Einstein hated because he said God doesn’t play dice with the universe. Well hey, get used to it. Einstein was wrong. God does play dice. Every time we look at an electron it moves. There is uncertainty with regards to the position of the electron.

So what does that mean for free will? It means in some sense we do have some kind of free will. No one can determine your future events given your past history. There is always the wildcard. There is always the possibility of uncertainty in whatever we do.

Gonnagle.

[Leonard James]

Dear Outrider,

Show me the post, for me the jury is still out, no one on this thread has shown me it is dead in the water.


Gonnagle.

I am with you on this one, Gonners, because no matter what previous events are inclining you to behave in a certain way you can always choose not to ... if only to demonstrate that you have free will.

[Aruntraveller]

I am with you on this one, Gonners, because no matter what previous events are inclining you to behave in a certain way you can always choose not to ... if only to demonstrate that you have free will.

Yes but I think perhaps posters are talking at cross purposes here.

The free will as a concept with reference to God granting free will to us all is the thing that I think is being called a nonsensical concept - the day to day free will of whether I should now eat a sausage roll or not, is, to my mind, a completely different matter.

[torridon]

Dear Outrider,

Show me the post, for me the jury is still out, no one on this thread has shown me it is dead in the water.

Here is a scientist saying we do have some measure of free will.

http://bigthink.com/videos/why-physics-ends-the-free-will-debate

Heisenberg then comes along and proposes the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and says: ”Nonsense. There is uncertainty. You don’t know where the electron is. It could be here, here or many places simultaneously.” This of course Einstein hated because he said God doesn’t play dice with the universe. Well hey, get used to it. Einstein was wrong. God does play dice. Every time we look at an electron it moves. There is uncertainty with regards to the position of the electron.

So what does that mean for free will? It means in some sense we do have some kind of free will. No one can determine your future events given your past history. There is always the wildcard. There is always the possibility of uncertainty in whatever we do

Gonnagle.

Uncertainty is not will.

We are not sure if there is genuine randomness in quantum events; if there is then we can say goodbye to the deterministic model of the universe but that does not validate the idea of free will.  Will is purposeful; any randomness would ruin purpose.

[ippy]

How do you equate the two. Of course Thor is a human creation created by the created. It does not change the fact that the creator of humans was not created or made. Neither does it provide a viable argument on your part.



Again... the first not a creation of the human mind... the others all have a start date where humans created them.


Could be our God does as it says in the book. The others don't do they?
There is far more personal evidence for the Yahweh than any other god.

You yourself, on this planet in the otherwise dead void is evidence of the creator. You choose not to see it. Now that is something totally different.

6

ippy

[ippy]

God allowed man to fall because he gave him free will and he told the end from the beginning...
He already knew and he knew all that would happen before it did. Do read the bible then you can answer your own questions and make informed decisions, choices and replies to posts about God and Christianity.

5

ippy

[Gonnagle]

Dear Leonard,

I am with you on this one, Gonners, because no matter what previous events are inclining you to behave in a certain way you can always choose not to ... if only to demonstrate that you have free will.

I had you in mind as I was typing that post, we are both not convinced by the arguments.

Gonnagle.

[Leonard James]

Yes but I think perhaps posters are talking at cross purposes here.

The free will as a concept with reference to God granting free will to us all is the thing that I think is being called a nonsensical concept - the day to day free will of whether I should now eat a sausage roll or not, is, to my mind, a completely different matter.

Hi Trent,

I'm afraid I'm lost on this one. As far as I am concerned, free will (the ability to choose one action in preference to another), was a naturally evolved trait conferring survival advantage.

The nonsense about  "God" giving it to us was dreamed up by religious nuts.

[torridon]

Dear Leonard,

I had you in mind as I was typing that post, we are both not convinced by the arguments.

Gonnagle.

Belief in free will is one of those intuitions, like belief in God.  Doesn't really stand up to scrutiny if you think it through though.

[Nearly Sane]

The question of free will is a claim that has to be argued for. It's the old burden of proof thing.

As to Michio Kaku's position, that seems to indicate that we could not predict what will happen not that there is in any classical sense free will. I think t man's a genius but his writing here is badly phrased and doesn't really consider the issues

[Leonard James]

Belief in free will is one of those intuitions, like belief in God.  Doesn't really stand up to scrutiny if you think it through though.

 

There is right thinking and wrong thinking!

[Aruntraveller]

Hi Trent,

I'm afraid I'm lost on this one. As far as I am concerned, free will (the ability to choose one action in preference to another), was a naturally evolved trait conferring survival advantage.

The nonsense about  "God" giving it to us was dreamed up by religious nuts.

I am not disagreeing - I just think that people were talking about two different concepts of free will and getting mixed up. The 'God granting free will' theory makes no sense to me.

[Alan Burns]

OK, but if everything in the brain is governed by deterministic events, so will the making of new neurons and synaptic connections, so there is still no method for conscious interaction to "correct" any deterministic errors in the brain's logic.

Eerm, yes, it doesn't really make much sense to talk of 'errors' and 'corrections' in that way.  If I feel depressed for instance, I cannot identify a bunch of synapses and fix them and so feel better. In physiological terms a brain is an outgrowth of the central nervous system; in conceptual terms it adds value to the nervous system by providing an ongoing learning mechanism that facilitates a greater range of sophistication and nuance to the simple response set inherent in a nervous system. Having said that, it is still all based on a largely deterministic biological mechanism.

The "errors" I was indicating were possible errors in objective logical deductions.  And I was questioning how we can arrive at such deductions by a purely deterministic process relying solely on the neural connections in our brain - without the ability for our conscious awareness to interact and correct.

[Nearly Sane]

There is right thinking and wrong thinking!

Alan and Sassy's argument for their god is precisely the same as you use for free will - personal experience.