Searching for GOD...

[Aruntraveller]

I don't normally wish to blow my own trumpet, but your comments are driving me to it.
I have a measured IQ of 173.
I am a member of Mensa.
I have a first class honours degree.
I am a Doctor of Philosophy
I posess four awards for outstanding academic achievement.

I would hope that I do have at least a rudimentary grasp of logic.

All that intelligence that you possess and you can't use a dictionary or spell checker.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, it seems you managed to miss the entire point of my previous post. I was making the point that much of our experience is illusory in quality and we can either live with said illusions or we can try to understand them. If you don't like bums on seats as an example then take two apples out of the fruit basket and try to make them touch each other, simples, yes ?, but of course any science teacher will tell you otherwise if you are up for a deeper understanding. If you watched any of the Eagleman programs on the brain then you will already know the first take home message is this - that the reality we all experience moment to moment, day to day, our reality is all illusion in a sense, it is all fabrication of mind, and the illusion of free will being part of that is all part of the working of human mind. Our will cannot be free, it must serve a purpose and no servant is ever free.

My understanding of free will is we are not automata.
The problem ....for you is to prove that we are.Part of that problem is that we could do all we do automatically without awareness. Your second problem is if illusion, what sophisticated piece of kit is being illuded?

Good luck.

[Alan Burns]

But then if you could blow your own trumpet, I suspect you wouldn't be on the forum, but would be off blowing that trumpet of your's.

I am on this forum to help save souls.  If I was here for self promotion I would have left long ago.

[Alan Burns]

Well, it seems you managed to miss the entire point of my previous post. I was making the point that much of our experience is illusory in quality and we can either live with said illusions or we can try to understand them. If you don't like bums on seats as an example then take two apples out of the fruit basket and try to make them touch each other, simples, yes ?, but of course any science teacher will tell you otherwise if you are up for a deeper understanding. If you watched any of the Eagleman programs on the brain then you will already know the first take home message is this - that the reality we all experience moment to moment, day to day, our reality is all illusion in a sense, it is all fabrication of mind, and the illusion of free will being part of that is all part of the working of human mind. Our will cannot be free, it must serve a purpose and no servant is ever free.

Everything must have a cause, so in this context I agree that our will cannot be free from cause.  But can the cause be induced from something which is not constrained by the deterministic rules of science?  This is the big question.

[BeRational]

I don't normally wish to blow my own trumpet, but your comments are driving me to it.
I have a measured IQ of 173.
I am a member of Mensa.
I have a first class honours degree.
I am a Doctor of Philosophy
I posess four awards for outstanding academic achievement.

I would hope that I do have at least a rudimentary grasp of logic.

For some reason I don't believe you.

Your ability to reason is obviously poor.
I find it highly  unlikely that you have a high IQ.

[torridon]

My understanding of free will is we are not automata.
The problem ....for you is to prove that we are.Part of that problem is that we could do all we do automatically without awareness. Your second problem is if illusion, what sophisticated piece of kit is being illuded?

The burden of proof lies with those who claim free will exists.  Physics has discovered no primal force of nature called 'will' but the philosophical claim of free will implies that, in essence. As humans, we have an enormous degree of apparent freedom of choice, but there are no grounds to suppose that we are so free as to be free of the laws of nature or free of the paradigm of cause and effect.

[torridon]

Everything must have a cause, so in this context I agree that our will cannot be free from cause.  But can the cause be induced from something which is not constrained by the deterministic rules of science?  This is the big question.

I'd take that as a slight change in your position, you having previously argued that human will can be free of cause.  We cannot say that nature is deterministic, but we can observe that cause and effect holds good at the level of biology and if that were not true we would not be here to recognise the fact.

No human can ever be fully morally responsible for his choices because we are the product of forces not of our choosing. In the extreme cases like a psychopath, his dysfunctional choices are informed largely by the DNA he inherited from his parents and his parents neither can be held responsible for the DNA they too inherited. The same underlying principle applies to everyone, we are formed by ongoing interaction with the cosmos and the preferences we have that underpin the choices we make result from our individual formative paths through life. In other words, none of us chooses what preferences to have any more than we choose what DNA to inherit or what sort of childhood to have. The notion of total moral responsibility thus carries within it an implication of infinite regress of responsibility.

[Gordon]

Everything must have a cause,

So the cause of your God is?

so in this context I agree that our will cannot be free from cause.

So not really 'free' then.

But can the cause be induced from something which is not constrained by the deterministic rules of science?

Not without just making up fallacious stuff, which is what is seemingly the case when you, Alan, try to refer to 'something which is not constrained by the deterministic rules of science'.

This is the big question.

Only if it is also a valid question, which it seems not to be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So the cause of your God is?

The answer to that is a) We don't know or b) God is uncaused.......In other words, exactly the same as the universe.

STPOYB.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I don't normally wish to blow my own trumpet, but your comments are driving me to it.
I have a measured IQ of 173.
I am a member of Mensa.
I have a first class honours degree.
I am a Doctor of Philosophy
I posess four awards for outstanding academic achievement.

I would hope that I do have at least a rudimentary grasp of logic.

Normally I'd take comments like this at face value, but in this case the contrast between these claims and your inability to apply even the most rudimentary of logic when you try to argue your case suggests strongly that something is - to say the least - amiss.

Take philosophy, in which you claim to have a doctorate. Philosophy is fundamentally built on logic and reason, yet your attempts at either would embarrass a ten-year-old. A few posts ago for example you decided that, as science couldn't yet explain consciousness, it's necessary to look elsewhere for the explanation. This is desperately poor reasoning for the reasons I explained and that - as ever - you have ignored (science does already explain quite a bit about consciousness; when science can't explain something people don't just abandon it, they do more of it to look for an answer; if you want to look elsewhere nonetheless, then you need a method of some kind to test your claims).

How then would it even be possible to obtain a doctorate when - presumably - someone who can argue cogently and coherently - would have marked your thesis? And while we're about it a mark of someone as intellectually capable as you claim to be is that they don't just ignore the rebuttals that don't suit them - rather they engage with the arguments and propose counter-arguments of their own.

Nope, just deal with it. You're possessed of the reasoning ability of a child, you've lighted on an explanatory narrative for the world that makes sense to you even though it flatly contradicts the available evidence and has no supporting evidence of its own, and now you've panicked and gone all porky pie on us in the (vain) hope that an argument from authority will impress us: "Old Alan cannot make an argument of any kind, buy hey - he has a doctorate so he must be right all along then".

Doesn't wash though.

Why not start instead at the beginning; do you even know what "logical fallacy" means?

As the answer appears to be "no", why not just ask - there are people here who will help you you know.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

Normally I'd take comments like this at face value, but in this case the contrast between these claims and your inability to apply even the most rudimentary of logic when you try to argue your case suggests strongly that something is - to say the least - amiss.

Take philosophy, in which you claim to have a doctorate. Philosophy is fundamentally built on logic and reason, yet your attempts at either would embarrass a ten-year-old. A few posts ago for example you decided that, as science couldn't yet explain consciousness,     

That's true though isn't it?

[Shaker]

I am on this forum to help save souls.  If I was here for self promotion I would have left long ago.

How do you think the soul thing is panning out?

Anybody 'saved' yet?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am on this forum to help save souls.

If that were true, why would you not at least try to make a decent job of it then? Just asserting your conjectures to be facts will persuade only the very young or the credulous. If you really think there to be "souls" to be "saved" and that it's your mission to do it, why not finally attempt some arguments for these things that aren't broken?

That's your problem you see: "Because I say so" isn't an argument at all, however much you wish it otherwise.   

[Alan Burns]

For some reason I don't believe you.

Your ability to reason is obviously poor.
I find it highly  unlikely that you have a high IQ.

The editor of Mensa magazine would not agree with you since he published a major article of mine entitled "Soul Searching" in September 2013.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

Normally I'd take comments like this at face value, but in this case the contrast between these claims and your inability to apply even the most rudimentary of logic when you try to argue your case suggests strongly that something is - to say the least - amiss.

Take philosophy, in which you claim to have a doctorate. Philosophy is fundamentally built on logic and reason, yet your attempts at either would embarrass a ten-year-old. A few posts ago for example you decided that, as science couldn't yet explain consciousness, it's necessary to look elsewhere for the explanation. This is desperately poor reasoning for the reasons I explained and that - as ever - you have ignored (science does already explain quite a bit about consciousness;   

The last phrase you use is scientism though isn't it Blue. Consciousness will eventually have to be something which is measurable for science to have cracked it.

perhaps you can tell us what that will look like......in other words Hillside, on what is your faith that science will eventually 'get' consciousness based on?

[bluehillside Retd.]

FD,

The last phrase you use is scientism though isn't it Blue. Consciousness will eventually have to be something which is measurable for science to have cracked it.

perhaps you can tell us what that will look like......in other words Hillside, on what is your faith that science will eventually 'get' consciousness based on?

No.

Look, I have a wife, various kids and a rabbit to feed. I really don't have the inclination to add a troll to that list so if you don't mind I'll leave you to your bludgeoning nihilism and dishonesty. I may from time-to-time tell you you're wrong, but I see no reason to provide any more arguments to tell you why given that - to my knowledge - you've never once deigned to answer a question that's been asked of you. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The editor of Mensa magazine would not agree with you since he published a major article of mine entitled "Soul Searching" in September 2013.

Well, I just tried the "Article Search" bar on the Mensa website and there's no sign of it.

Do you have a link please?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

I found this.

http://www.amazon.ca/Letters-Friends-Coming-miracle-existence-ebook/dp/B00KDESUU0

Gonnagle.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Well, I just tried the "Article Search" bar on the Mensa website and there's no sign of it.

Do you have a link please?

Mensa magazine was not published online when my article was published.  I can send you a photocopy if you give me an email address. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

Normally I'd take comments like this at face value, but in this case the contrast between these claims and your inability to apply even the most rudimentary of logic when you try to argue your case suggests strongly that something is - to say the least - amiss.

Take philosophy, in which you claim to have a doctorate. Philosophy is fundamentally built on logic and reason,     

Yes but your house of cards always falls because your logic and reason have their foundations built on your philosophy which, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, is suspect.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Mensa magazine was not published online when my article was published.  I can send you a photocopy if you give me an email address.

And they haven't bothered uploading articles onto their website despite having an "Article Search" toolbar then?

Thanks for the offer, but you'll have seen that Gonners has kindly posted a link to your kindle book. I looked at the first page or two, but it's so full of straw men, logical mistakes, non sequiturs etc that I gave up (and "comprised of" is a tautology by the way). 

Start at the beginning - try to grasp at least what "logical fallacy" means, and then work from there.

[bluehillside Retd.]

FD,

Yes but your house of cards always falls because your logic and reason have their foundations built on your philosophy which, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, is suspect.

Wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

FD,

No.

Look, I have a wife, various kids and a rabbit to feed.

Feed the rabbit lettuce......stop feeding us shit.....there's a good chap.

[Gonnagle]

Dear John,

Not going to ask you on the Prayer thread, but what the hell is a career atheist!!

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear John,

Not going to ask you on the Prayer thread, but what the hell is a career atheist!!

Gonnagle.

Sir Terry is on the celebrity atheist weblist.