Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

My PhD was awarded for research into optimum methods of computer aided design.

The full title of my thesis was "Computer Aided Optimum Design of Structural Steelwork".

So despite the title of my degree, it was not directly related to philosophy.
However it did require a great deal of logic.

So with your high IQ can you answer the questions Blue hillside posed to you or not?

You seem to just ignore questions that are too difficult and someone with such a high IQ would easily answer them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not sure you need a high IQ to get a doctorate.

Not if it's in a non mathematical subject like theology for example.

I hear they give them out like sweets.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My PhD was awarded for research into optimum methods of computer aided design.

The full title of my thesis was "Computer Aided Optimum Design of Structural Steelwork".

So despite the title of my degree, it was not directly related to philosophy.
However it did require a great deal of logic.

Then if you know something of logic WHY IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT'S HOLY DON'T YOU TRY TO USE IT WHEN YOU WANT TO ARGUE YOUR POSITION HERE?!?!?!?!?

Good grief!

Don't misunderstand me here - no-one's accusing you of the pathological dishonesty of a Vlad, but when the arguments you do attempt are so catastrophically logically wrong why on earth would you persist with them?

Seriously.

[Nearly Sane]

I remain unconvinced.

The big concern is the lack of sound reasoning whilst maintaining an IQ of over 170?

In addition never answering rebuttals to his assertions and poor logic.

I have a low opinion of IQ and people who talk about their's being high. Some of the dumbest people I have ever met had high iqs.

[Shaker]

Bluey: Not that I aim to put words into his mouth but since he seems reluctant to engage I can only speculate, but since Alan reguarly says that his worldview is based squarely and solely on faith, it could well be that he simply doesn't perceive the need that the rest of us have for his beliefs to be logical and to conform to evidence and reason. I quite like the idea of having as many true and as few false beliefs about the world as I can possibly manage, but that's just me.

[Shaker]

I have a low opinion of IQ and people who talk about their's being high. Some of the dumbest people I have ever met had high iqs.

Hmmm, I know exactly what you mean.

I don't watch the programme but I wandered past the telly last night while The Voice was on - a young female contestant was saying that she was a member of Mensa with an IQ of 20,000 or whatever it was. It did remind of that saying (by whoever it was) that anybody inclined to brag about being a member of that organisation should for that very reason be banned from it for life.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

Then if you know something of logic WHY IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT'S HOLY DON'T YOU TRY TO USE IT WHEN YOU WANT TO ARGUE YOUR POSITION HERE?!?!?!?!?

Good grief!

Don't misunderstand me here - no-one's accusing you of the pathological dishonesty of a Vlad, but when the arguments you do attempt are so catastrophically logically wrong why on earth would you persist with them?

Seriously.

Care to demonstrate dishonesty Hillslide?
 Haven't you already accused AB of dishonesty on this thread?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Shakes,

Bluey: Not that I aim to put words into his mouth but since he seems reluctant to engage I can only speculate, but since Alan reguarly says that his worldview is based squarely and solely on faith, it could well be that he simply doesn't perceive the need that the rest of us have for his beliefs to be logical and to conform to evidence and reason. I quite like the idea of having as many true and as few false beliefs about the world as I can possibly manage, but that's just me.

Quite possibly, but he also seems to think he's on a mission to "save souls" or some such. If he really wants to do that, then as a matter of tactics if nothing else why wouldn't he want to suggest some reasons for the potentially saved not to think him to be entirely wrong about that?

[Rhiannon]

Bluey: Not that I aim to put words into his mouth but since he seems reluctant to engage I can only speculate, but since Alan reguarly says that his worldview is based squarely and solely on faith, it could well be that he simply doesn't perceive the need that the rest of us have for his beliefs to be logical and to conform to evidence and reason. I quite like the idea of having as many true and as few false beliefs about the world as I can possibly manage, but that's just me.

Yes, if faith is real to you then it's possible to compartmentalise. I once had a theology tutor who made Rowan Williams look a bit dim, yet both of them believe absolutely in the Virgin birth.

[Shaker]

Yes, if faith is real to you then it's possible to compartmentalise. I once had a theology tutor who made Rowan Williams look a bit dim, yet both of them believe absolutely in the Virgin birth.

As an actual, literal, historical event like the Battle of Waterloo, I assume you mean? And not a symbol or metaphor of something else.

[Rhiannon]

As an actual, literal, historical event like the Battle of Waterloo, I assume you mean? And not a symbol or metaphor of something else.

Williams is a liberal Catholic so I'm pretty certain he does. My tutor, definitely.

For the life of me I can't remember what it was but he told me he'd become convinced of the reality of the virgin birth whilst listening to a piece of classical music.

[Shaker]

Williams is a liberal Catholic so I'm pretty certain he does. My tutor, definitely.

For the life of me I can't remember what it was but he told me he'd become convinced of the reality of the virgin birth whilst listening to a piece of classical music.

As a music (of all kinds) nut myself I should be absolutely understanding of and sympathetic to the idea that music at its best bypasses the critical intellect and goes straight to the emotions, but not to the extent of it inducing assent to the, to say the very least, utterly implausible. Fascinating subject, though.

[torridon]

Judging by the feedback I would say that my efforts have come to nothing and I should just give up trying.

But in prayer, I perceive God is still wanting me to carry on.

If I were god whispering in your ear I'd be advising you that a change of tack is required. We are not ten year olds in Sunday school here, we respond to evidence and reasoned argument.  You need to make a compelling case for all the elements of your framework, such as souls and heaven and devils.  Assertion just isn't going to cut it.  If you can't make a compelling case then you might have to face up the fact that your thinking is wrong, and start over again.

[Sassy]

What is it that makes you want to spatter this place with your personal brand of venom, Sass?

I leave the VENOM to you to spatter... Satan, very good at accusing others falsely.
Which if you look at the posts you are the one really insulting and attacking myself. The difference between you and I is I tell the truth and that can offend. Whilst you hate the truth and so become offended.

As I said... leave the venom for you to spatter. The truth may offend you and you get annoyed but that is for you to deal with.
Personally, I have a clear conscience. You attack but nothing really to offer up other than words which really show you alone have the problem. A problem with truth.

I thought Alan told us when he got here that his qualifications were to do with computers. Did I imagine that?

Casting dispersions on others...what did Alan do to deserve your insinuation he was a liar?...

When it comes to empathy and compassion, I'm not expecting or seeing a lot. But that's not uncommon here.

Nice dig at all the members of the forum subtle nonetheless still an insult.

I think few of us expect much from you, Vlad. And you are so very good at fulfilling that.

Dig at Vlad...

Ever heard the expression?  "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." Most of us reply to content of post.
But you make personal digs and insult others. Even make people doubt the honesty and integrity of others. Satan a good teacher and as you can see... I have just been telling the truth...

I am not the only one you do it to... Even the forum as whole can be insulted as your posts quoted show.

There has been no personal axe grind. I have just told the truth as it has been made to appear.
Do you deny what has been shown in your quotes? Why else would you write it?
It looks like you feel the need to find fault and insult the members of the forum.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Then if you know something of logic WHY IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT'S HOLY DON'T YOU TRY TO USE IT WHEN YOU WANT TO ARGUE YOUR POSITION HERE?!?!?!?!?

Good grief!

Don't misunderstand me here - no-one's accusing you of the pathological dishonesty of a Vlad, but when the arguments you do attempt are so catastrophically logically wrong why on earth would you persist with them?

Seriously.

If my logic is as bad as you claim, then this indicates how miraculous my academic achievements were.
(or is this yet another logical fallacy  )

[Sassy]

Like the rest of your attempts at posting here that's almost, but not quite, entirely unlike comprehensible English.

Your so far back in the closet of denial you are in Narnia, SHakes.

You just keep pretending.... we all can see you cannot answer and so make up excuses... The fact others do answer suggests it is your inability to read English than fault on my part to write it...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If my logic is as bad as you claim, then this indicates how miraculous my academic achievements were.
(or is this yet another logical fallacy  )

Yes it is. You're effectively arguing that, because you were capable of deploying logical argument in one circumstance, then the arguments you attempt in a different arena must be good too.

This fails on several levels, but the most obvious is that the arguments you attempt here stand or fall on their merits. They do not suddenly become sound because you tell us you were able to be logical elsewhere. What happens here is that you rely on various logical errors - both formal and informal - to support you.

It gets worse. At first we'd just tell you when you used an argument from consequences, an argument from authority etc so that you could at least retract and try something else.

You just ignored this and carried on regardless.

Second therefore some of us took the time to explain what the terms "argument from consequences", "argument from authority" etc mean, again so you could at least retract and try something else.

You just ignored this and carried on regardless.

Third therefore, I even went to far as to ask whether you understood what the term "logical fallacy" means, and offered to explain it to you, again so you could at least retract and try something else.

You just ignored this and carried on regardless.

What then is there left but to point and laugh when you pitch up here yet again with the same mistakes?

   


 

[BeRational]

If my logic is as bad as you claim, then this indicates how miraculous my academic achievements were.
(or is this yet another logical fallacy  )

Claimed achievements.

And yet again, rather than answer the specific questions posed to you, you continue with the "I am ever so clever" line.

[floo]

If my logic is as bad as you claim, then this indicates how miraculous my academic achievements were.
(or is this yet another logical fallacy  )

If your logic is as good as you claim it to be, how come you can believe the less than credible things in the Bible to be true, when logic would deem them to be false?

[Maeght]

Your so far back in the closet of denial you are in Narnia, SHakes.

You just keep pretending.... we all can see you cannot answer and so make up excuses

What's with the 'all' Sassy? Trying to suggest that everyone else agrees with your view of other people's posts is a common ploy of yours. Your posts generally are difficult to understand and take some working out in order to respond.

Cue the attempt to belittle my postings .....

[Nearly Sane]

Claimed achievements.

Whether Alan has a CAD Ph.D, an IQ of a billion and seven, and a gold Blue Peter badge is irrelevant to his arguments, as is whether he has lied about being the runner up in the Horse of the Year Show in 1971.


Rather than waste time calling him a liar about an irrelevance, just point out that the claim is irrelevant

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Whether Alan has a CAD Ph.D, an IQ of a billion and seven, and a gold Blue Peter badge is irrelevant to his arguments, as is whether he has lied about being the runner up in the Horse of the Year Show in 1971.

Rather than waste time calling him a liar about an irrelevance, just point out that the claim is irrelevant

I have. Ironically, his pointing to his PhD is as you say itself (yet another) piece of fallacious reasoning (the red herring fallacy or the appeal to irrelevance). Be nice if he would finally give us an, "ah, I see what you mean now" but so far at least he's shown no sign of being able to process the issue at all.

I live in hope though...

[Alan Burns]

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.

Sorry if I have mislead you on earlier posts, but I have always maintained (or tried to!) that our free will is free from deterministic causes.  The fact that I can think of a word or action, and then implement it, implies that the source of our apparent free will is linked to our conscious awareness.  If we were not able to think of a word or action, I do not believe we could say the word or implement the action.   Our awareness not only perceives, but thinks!  So we really need to define what comprises a "conscious thought" in order to understand our perception of free will.  Is a conscious thought comprised soleley of the electrical state of many brain cells, or is it the interpretation of the electrical state of our brain cells.  If it is the latter, the question then is: what is it that interprets the electrical state of our brain cells?

[floo]

Your so far back in the closet of denial you are in Narnia, SHakes.

You just keep pretending.... we all can see you cannot answer and so make up excuses... The fact others do answer suggests it is your inability to read English than fault on my part to write it...

Your posts don't usually make sense, and it is your use of the English language which is at fault much of the time!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Sorry if I have mislead you on earlier posts, but I have always maintained (or tried to!) that our free will is free from deterministic causes.

Yes, that is your personal belief on the matter.

The fact that I can think of a word or action, and then implement it, implies that the source of our apparent free will is linked to our conscious awareness.  If we were not able to think of a word or action, I do not believe we could say the word or implement the action.   Our awareness not only perceives, but thinks!

OK-ish so far...

So we really need to define what comprises a "conscious thought" in order to understand our perception of free will.  Is a conscious thought comprised soleley of the electrical state of many brain cells, or is it the interpretation of the electrical state of our brain cells.  If it is the latter, the question then is: what is it that interprets the electrical state of our brain cells?

No it isn't. I don't know what you mean by "electrical state of many brain cells" but you need to consider the following:

1. The human brain is the most complex thing we know of, comprising as it does trillions of neural connections.

2. We know that many comparatively simple systems produce complex behaviours thorough a process called "emergence", and moreover that it requires no blueprint, no design, no top down anything to occur. Prima facie there's no reason in principle to think that a very complex system like the brain could not produce a very complex property like consciousness. 

3. We know too that pretty much everything we observe in nature is the result of a chain of causes and effects (I'm leaving aside the world of the quantum here). To break that fundamental property requires the introduction of a whole new paradigm that in some way would function outside of that model. To do that you'd have a huge task to identify the responsible agency, to provide a method to test your conjectures, and to validate the claim. So far, all you have though is the white noise of "god", "soul", "devil" etc.   

4. Neuroscience is telling us more and more about the nature of consciousness. The picture is far from complete, but all the evidence points to a material explanation for it. What argument would you propose to make and what evidence would you bring forward to invalidate that?

5. While it may suit your religious belief to assert into existence a little man at the controls you call a "soul" who in some way is not himself subject to cause and effect but who also does not need another little man at his controls to function, your thinking is entirely circular: "god therefore soul/soul therefore god" etc.

Apart from that though...