Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

Assert, re-assert, assert, re-assert, it's the assertation blues, oh momma, I've got the assertation blues, and I can't let go. 

[Maeght]

That's been the case though since the start of this ultra long thread - and will ever remain thus, which is why I dropped out of the 'discussion' long ago. Amazed really that anyone is continuing - obviosly have more stamina than me!

[BeRational]

You are implying that an ability to reason would lead a person to not believe in God, yet there are many very intelligent Christians whose ability to reason does not hinder their faith.

Then they are not using reason alone.

If they were it could be explained so that all agreed.

[ekim]

And many of us have taken time out to explain why this is wrong, on multiple levels, refering to actual science, actual logic and actual evidence. You come across as so fixated on your own rightness that you are incapable of new learning.

That's the nature of conditioning.  You are unlikely to succeed with rationality and logic because Alan's perceived rewards will hold sway over what you have to offer.  Each of you will probably see the other as a lost cause, but carry on as it is a counterweight to proselytising.

[Gordon]

Alan seems to have contrived his own theological narrative, albeit built upon his favourite fallacies mixed in with some 'sciency' terminology, which he now sticks to religiously: thus he also employs an argument from authority where, ironically, he has become his own authority.

[wigginhall]

It's so ironic that Alan keeps saying that science can't explain consciousness, and then puts forward the idea of the soul, which of course, he is not able to describe in any way at all.   Here is a huge gap in his ideas, but that doesn't trouble him.  I am ignorant, therefore God.

[ekim]

Alan seems to have contrived his own theological narrative, albeit built upon his favourite fallacies mixed in with some 'sciency' terminology, which he now sticks to religiously: thus he also employs an argument from authority where, ironically, he has become his own authority.

It's called enthusiasm (en-theos-iasm)... God within you ... which if not properly handled can lead to religious egotism.

[Dicky Underpants]

I would totally agree with your reasoning - if Satan did not exist.

How is it that Satan came to exist (becoming the 'baddy') in a heaven that was apparently perfect (before he - so we are told - got a bit above himself)? And once that happy event occurs,  to which you look forward, when Satan, Death, and Hell are cast into the pit, and God wipes away the tears from the eyes of all the 'saved', and the new heaven and new earth emerge - what is stopping any uppity individual, angelic or otherwise, from stepping out of line again? Is God going to start inserting a few modifications into the 'free-will' scenario?
You see, your unfolding apocalyptic drama really has no ultimate denouement, since its premisses are flawed from the start. You wish to argue for free-will. Satan had free-will. All 'redeemed' souls ought to have free-will. Which then presents us not with a linear drama and its culmination, but a never-ending cycle of the potential to rebel against the status quo, thus invoking Old Nobodaddy's wrath.

[floo]

How is it that Satan came to exist (becoming the 'baddy') in a heaven that was apparently perfect (before he - so we are told - got a bit above himself)? And once that happy event occurs,  to which you look forward, when Satan, Death, and Hell are cast into the pit, and God wipes away the tears from the eyes of all the 'saved', and the new heaven and new earth emerge - what is stopping any uppity individual, angelic or otherwise, from stepping out of line again? Is God going to start inserting a few modifications into the 'free-will' scenario?
You see, your unfolding apocalyptic drama really has no ultimate denouement, since its premisses are flawed from the start. You wish to argue for free-will. Satan had free-will. All 'redeemed' souls ought to have free-will. Which then presents us not with a linear drama and its culmination, but a never-ending cycle of the potential to rebel against the status quo, thus invoking Old Nobodaddy's wrath.

It is stupid nonsense devised by someone with an overactive imagination but no logical input.

[Dicky Underpants]

It is stupid nonsense devised by someone with an overactive imagination but no logical input.

No, the origin of the concept was more worthy than that. Like the idea of the afterlife, when bad people got their come-uppance, and the good were rewarded (which often didn't happen in this life) the idea of Satan as the personification of evil arose from the attempt to explain why, if God is the source of good, there are so many horrors in life. We may now see it as nonsense, but in the terms of the Jewish people just before the time of Christ, it seemed a reasonable explanation in terms of their evolving belief system.
I say "just before the time of Christ", because the ancient Hebrews certainly never viewed Satan in this way (as the personification of evil). Essentially, though, Satan only gets portrayed as such by the time Christianity really gets going (John's gospel is very hot on the subject)

[ippy]

It's so ironic that Alan keeps saying that science can't explain consciousness, and then puts forward the idea of the soul, which of course, he is not able to describe in any way at all.   Here is a huge gap in his ideas, but that doesn't trouble him.  I am ignorant, therefore God.

The man's in a world of his own making, it doesn'really matter that much really, it just seems to be such a wholesale wast of time to me.

ippy

[wigginhall]

No, the origin of the concept was more worthy than that. Like the idea of the afterlife, when bad people got their come-uppance, and the good were rewarded (which often didn't happen in this life) the idea of Satan as the personification of evil arose from the attempt to explain why, if God is the source of good, there are so many horrors in life. We may now see it as nonsense, but in the terms of the Jewish people just before the time of Christ, it seemed a reasonable explanation in terms of their evolving belief system.
I say "just before the time of Christ", because the ancient Hebrews certainly never viewed Satan in this way (as the personification of evil). Essentially, though, Satan only gets portrayed as such by the time Christianity really gets going (John's gospel is very hot on the subject)

Interesting post, Dicky.   It always struck me that Christianity teetered on the brink of dualism, whereby God creates the good, and Satan the bad.   However, of course, that is not allowed in Christianity, it is more like Zoroastrianism, I think.   But if you read AB's posts, they sound very dualist.   God wants us to love him, but alas, Satan comes along and seduces all the atheists.   It does sound very primitive.

[Alan Burns]

This is basically an argument from personal incredulity

No it is not.
It is a logical argument based upon the concept that it is simply impossible for the content of many brain cells to be perceived by a single material entity.  People tend to confuse perception with reaction.  The content of many brain cells can certainly induce a specific reaction, but this is not the same thing as perception.  In the material scenario, the brain works as a complex computer generating reactions to the data provided by our sensory organs.  But what entity can actually perceive all this data?  If this entity is attributed to another group of cells, then it boils down to just another set of reactions with nothing actually perceived.

[wigginhall]

No it is not.
It is a logical argument based upon the concept that it is simply impossible for the content of many brain cells to be perceived by a single material entity.  People tend to confuse perception with reaction.  The content of many brain cells can certainly induce a specific reaction, but this is not the same thing as perception.  In the material scenario, the brain works as a complex computer generating reactions to the data provided by our sensory organs.  But what entity can actually perceive all this data?  If this entity is attributed to another group of cells, then it boils down to just another set of reactions with nothing actually perceived.

I don't recollect anyone saying that perception is by a 'single material entity'.    You are the one arguing that there must be some kind of entity perceiving stuff, so you have set up a straw man, in fact, a whole haystack of them.

[wigginhall]

That's been the case though since the start of this ultra long thread - and will ever remain thus, which is why I dropped out of the 'discussion' long ago. Amazed really that anyone is continuing - obviosly have more stamina than me!

Well, you are right really, but I think it has continued because Alan's naivete has shown the gaping holes in some arguments for theism and Christianity.  Normally, these are obfuscated, and there is lots of 'on the one hand ... on the other hand' stuff.   But Alan just outlines these arguments - the brain can't perceive, therefore the soul, therefore God - so it does bring up many issues about brain, perception, knowledge, the logic of omnipotence, and so on.

[torridon]

No it is not.
It is a logical argument based upon the concept that it is simply impossible for the content of many brain cells to be perceived by a single material entity.  People tend to confuse perception with reaction.  The content of many brain cells can certainly induce a specific reaction, but this is not the same thing as perception.  In the material scenario, the brain works as a complex computer generating reactions to the data provided by our sensory organs.  But what entity can actually perceive all this data?  If this entity is attributed to another group of cells, then it boils down to just another set of reactions with nothing actually perceived.

And yet somehow every vertebrate that has ever lived in the last 500 million years has had some flavour of conscious perception also so if that is what you think a soul is doing then pretty much all creatures have souls, and pretty much all creatures must have massive brain redundancy since the various cortical structures that are involved in the production of consciousness aren't doing it at all, just sitting there trying to fool neuroscientists I suppose.

[wigginhall]

Alan should really be speaking to neuroscientists about his discoveries.   At a stroke, he has solved the problem of consciousness, and really, we will be in his debt for perpetuity for this.   All that stuff about the brain constructing perceptions - stuff and nonsense.   The future is now!

[torridon]

Alan should really be speaking to neuroscientists about his discoveries.   At a stroke, he has solved the problem of consciousness, and really, we will be in his debt for perpetuity for this.   All that stuff about the brain constructing perceptions - stuff and nonsense.   The future is now!

and that's not to mention the taxpayer dollars wasted on consciousness research he could save the world; the EU is funding its Human Brain Project at over a billion euros, and Obama's Brain initiative is funded several times higher than that IIRC. It's really mean of Alan that he won't write to them that they are wasting our hard earned cash.

[Maeght]

Well, you are right really, but I think it has continued because Alan's naivete has shown the gaping holes in some arguments for theism and Christianity.  Normally, these are obfuscated, and there is lots of 'on the one hand ... on the other hand' stuff.   But Alan just outlines these arguments - the brain can't perceive, therefore the soul, therefore God - so it does bring up many issues about brain, perception, knowledge, the logic of omnipotence, and so on.

I agree that there have been some very interesting posts on this thread, so at least Alan has triggered them.

[Stranger]

No it is not.
It is a logical argument based upon the concept that it is simply impossible for the content of many brain cells to be perceived by a single material entity.  People tend to confuse perception with reaction.  The content of many brain cells can certainly induce a specific reaction, but this is not the same thing as perception.  In the material scenario, the brain works as a complex computer generating reactions to the data provided by our sensory organs.  But what entity can actually perceive all this data?  If this entity is attributed to another group of cells, then it boils down to just another set of reactions with nothing actually perceived.

Alan, seriously, read this back! You say it isn't an argument form incredulity and then make a baseless assertion that something is "simply impossible".

Look, it's difficult to understand how consciousness comes about (nobody actually knows for certain yet) but just asserting that it's impossible in the material but becomes possible if you have a non-material soul is nothing but magical story telling.

It is exactly as difficult to understand consciousness if we have a soul as if we don't.

[ippy]

Alan should really be speaking to neuroscientists about his discoveries.   At a stroke, he has solved the problem of consciousness, and really, we will be in his debt for perpetuity for this.   All that stuff about the brain constructing perceptions - stuff and nonsense.   The future is now!

I wonder if a christian neuroscientist will have all of the answers in a revelation before those numbskull neuroscientists that only base their works on scientific methodologies do?

ippy

[Alan Burns]

Alan should really be speaking to neuroscientists about his discoveries.   At a stroke, he has solved the problem of consciousness, and really, we will be in his debt for perpetuity for this.   All that stuff about the brain constructing perceptions - stuff and nonsense.   The future is now!

What I am saying is not new.

German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) describes the impossibility of a material mind being able to perceive:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lei-mind/

CS Lewis describes the impossibility of a conscious decision to be defined only by deterministic molecular activity in his book Miracles.

Modern neuroscience can identify physical brain activity associated with perception and choice, but we are no nearer defining how these activities work.

[Stranger]

What I am saying is not new.

No - the "this is 'ard, it must be magic" cop out has a long history.

Unless you can explain how consciousness works in the non-material (what laws govern this realm etc.) then you are just invoking magic. It's not an argument it's giving up.

Leibniz IIRC thought he had an argument that atoms couldn't exist too...

[Maeght]

What I am saying is not new.

German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) describes the impossibility of a material mind being able to perceive:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lei-mind/

CS Lewis describes the impossibility of a conscious decision to be defined only by deterministic molecular activity in his book Miracles.

Modern neuroscience can identify physical brain activity associated with perception and choice, but we are no nearer defining how these activities work.

So 'support' from a philosopher and author/ lay preacher. Is that the best you can do Alan?

[torridon]

What I am saying is not new.

German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) describes the impossibility of a material mind being able to perceive:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/lei-mind/

CS Lewis describes the impossibility of a conscious decision to be defined only by deterministic molecular activity in his book Miracles.

Modern neuroscience can identify physical brain activity associated with perception and choice, but we are no nearer defining how these activities work.

Here's another new-fangled idea : the Earth is not flat; and another one : the Earth is not the centre of the Universe.  No doubt if you are prepared to go far enough back you will be able to find some intelligent people who believed otherwise.  Our knowledge base is increasing exponentially currently, even 10 years ago is already way out of date in the sciences of the mind.