Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

Thanks Len you've just to confessed to atheism being a licence for ignorance.

Read me any way you like, but atheism is just disbelief in gods. Get used to it! 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Len,

I may not be as erudite as many, but I sure ain't foolish. Sorry to contradict your lordship.

Don't sweat it my friend - Trollboy has forgotten to factor in time. If we pitched up on a planet with organic life at the same stage Earth was a billion years ago that life would be even less intelligent then Trollboy is now(!), and similarly who's to say how much more evolved/intelligent than us super advanced aliens would be if they landed in Trafalgar Square tomorrow?
 
Oh, and he still has no idea what "category error" actually means either by the way.

[Leonard James]

Hi Len,

Don't sweat it my friend - Trollboy has forgotten to factor in time. If we pitched up on a planet with organic life at the same stage Earth was a billion years ago that life would be even less intelligent then Trollboy is now(!), and similarly who's to say how much more evolved/intelligent than us super advanced aliens would be if they landed in Trafalgar Square tomorrow?
 
Oh, and he still has no idea what "category error" actually means either by the way.

As long as his wittering on keeps him happy, it's no skin off my nose, Blue. I've lived too long to worry about insults from childish minds. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Len,

Don't sweat it my friend - Trollboy has forgotten to factor in time. If we pitched up on a planet with organic life at the same stage Earth was a billion years ago that life would be even less intelligent then Trollboy is now(!),

Yes but you are now introducing the idea that evolution has a direction and a timetable. Non intelligence to intelligence or worse non consciousness to consciousness. Evolution could for example move us from intelligence to antitheism.

[floo]

Yes but you are now introducing the idea that evolution has a direction and a timetable. Non intelligence to intelligence or worse non consciousness to consciousness. Evolution could for example move us from intelligence to antitheism.

Oh you poor thing your posts get more and more confused.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

Oh you poor thing your posts get more and more confused.

Indeed they do, and as my rule these days is only to reply to Trollboy when he doesn't lie about what I've said he'll have to figure out for himself where he's gone off the rails again.

Ah well.

[Leonard James]

Floo,

Indeed they do, and as my rule these days is only to reply to Trollboy when he doesn't lie about what I've said he'll have to figure out for himself where he's gone off the rails again.

Ah well.

I'm afraid his ability to figure things out is near zero. If I believed in spooks I would say he is possessed by one! 

[Alan Burns]

Quote

    I have often accused of personal incredulity on this thread.

    But have you stopped to think just what is it that is being accused?

    Is it a group of electrons whose behaviour patterns have been pre determined by "cause and effect" chains since the beginning of time?

    Or is it the spiritual self awareness within the human body of Alan Burns?

Can we have more options please Alan

There are no other options.

Either all brain activity is entirely pre determined by physical events driven by cause and effect chains dating back to the beginning of time, or there is something which can purposefully intervene with an event originating from outside these chains of cause and effect.

So which option is the most likely cause of my personal incredulity?

[Gordon]

Can we have more options please Alan

There are no other options.

Either all brain activity is entirely pre determined by physical events driven by cause and effect chains dating back to the beginning of time, or there is something which can purposefully intervene with an event originating from outside these chains of cause and effect.

So which option is the most likely cause of my personal incredulity?

The latter, obviously.

[Stranger]

Either all brain activity is entirely pre determined by physical events driven by cause and effect chains dating back to the beginning of time, or there is something which can purposefully intervene with an event originating from outside these chains of cause and effect.

Here you go again, confusing the physical with the logical. Logically, there can only be cause and effect or randomness. Fantasising about something non-physical doesn't magically free you from logical consistency.

If something intervenes from outside the physical chain of cause and effect, then it has to be either random or part of a different chain of cause and effect.

[Alan Burns]

If something intervenes from outside the physical chain of cause and effect, then it has to be either random or part of a different chain of cause and effect.

Well my personal incredulity state was not brought about by anything random, so if anything did intervene from outside this physical chain of cause and effect, then it must be non physical (by your logic).

[Stranger]

If something intervenes from outside the physical chain of cause and effect, then it has to be either random or part of a different chain of cause and effect.

Well my personal incredulity state was not brought about by anything random, so if anything did intervene from outside this physical chain of cause and effect, then it must be non physical (by your logic).

I can see no evidence in this 'answer' that you even bothered to read my post.

There can only be cause and effect (deterministic) and random processes involved in your decision making: physical or non-physical makes not a jot of difference to that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alan,

Well my personal incredulity state was not brought about by anything random, so if anything did intervene from outside this physical chain of cause and effect, then it must be non physical (by your logic).

No doubt your personal incredulity does tell you that, and that's your problem:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

Not only are your arguments fallacious you're now actually telling us which fallacies you're committing just to save time.

[torridon]

Either all brain activity is entirely pre determined by physical events driven by cause and effect chains dating back to the beginning of time, or there is something which can purposefully intervene with an event originating from outside these chains of cause and effect.

Where would that purpose come from ?  The mere claim that a will is purposeful marks it as being a product of cause and effect. If something is purposeful then it is done for a reason.  All events are either a consequence of prior events or they are not (in which case they are random events ).  'Freedom' from a material basis is not the same as freedom from logic.

[torridon]

Well my personal incredulity state was not brought about by anything random, so if anything did intervene from outside this physical chain of cause and effect, then it must be non physical (by your logic).

There are no grounds to suppose your incredulity owes to something that intervened from outside the 'physical' chain of cause and effect.  Added to which, whether that something might be physical or not is neither here nor there.

Baseless assertion.

[Alan Burns]

Where would that purpose come from ?  The mere claim that a will is purposeful marks it as being a product of cause and effect. If something is purposeful then it is done for a reason. 

How can purpose exist in a world entirely driven by deterministic events where everything just happens as a consequence to previous events?  Purpose is a property of conscious awareness and is achieved as a target by conscious intervention.

[torridon]

Where would that purpose come from ?  The mere claim that a will is purposeful marks it as being a product of cause and effect. If something is purposeful then it is done for a reason.

How can purpose exist in a world entirely driven by deterministic events where everything just happens as a consequence to previous events?  Purpose is a property of conscious awareness and is achieved as a target by conscious intervention.

Yet any purposefulness is a consequence of cause and effect as I outlined in the previous post.  In our world of cause and effect we form a sense of purpose or intentionality for a reason, and that reason is the cause and purpose becomes the effect. Thus for example if I'm unhappy with my current job, I might form a purpose to seek a change of career.  The effect (intention of job change) derives from the cause (unhappiness with my current job).  Any purpose not part of the chain of cause and effect would be random and therefore not a purpose at all, just a random occurrence.

[wigginhall]

Yes, it's ironic that AB puts forward an idea of purposefulness, as if it contradicts our sense of cause and effect, whereas in fact, as torridon keeps saying, it can only flow from cause and effect.   To intend something is to aim to bring about an effect, which is its purpose.

Also, the idea of intervening, which AB uses,  indicates cause and effect, since if X intervenes in a situation, its with the intention again of creating an effect. 

Well, AB is trying to say that there is a non-physical purpose, and a non-physical intervention, but he is no nearer demonstrating this. 

[Alan Burns]

How can purpose exist in a world entirely driven by deterministic events where everything just happens as a consequence to previous events?  Purpose is a property of conscious awareness and is achieved as a target by conscious intervention.


Yet any purposefulness is a consequence of cause and effect as I outlined in the previous post.  In our world of cause and effect we form a sense of purpose or intentionality for a reason, and that reason is the cause and purpose becomes the effect. Thus for example if I'm unhappy with my current job, I might form a purpose to seek a change of career.  The effect (intention of job change) derives from the cause (unhappiness with my current job).  Any purpose not part of the chain of cause and effect would be random and therefore not a purpose at all, just a random occurrence.

It all depends on the nature of our conscious awareness.  You are implying that everything is automated by the deterministic events of cause and effect, which seems to reduce our conscious awareness to being just a spectator over events which are already pre determined.

[ekim]

How can purpose exist in a world entirely driven by deterministic events where everything just happens as a consequence to previous events?  Purpose is a property of conscious awareness and is achieved as a target by conscious intervention.


Yet any purposefulness is a consequence of cause and effect as I outlined in the previous post.  In our world of cause and effect we form a sense of purpose or intentionality for a reason, and that reason is the cause and purpose becomes the effect. Thus for example if I'm unhappy with my current job, I might form a purpose to seek a change of career.  The effect (intention of job change) derives from the cause (unhappiness with my current job).  Any purpose not part of the chain of cause and effect would be random and therefore not a purpose at all, just a random occurrence.

I think Alan is drifting away from the Jesus example.  It was not about Jesus employing wilful intervention in a desire to escape his feared fate, it was more about consciously confronting the events as they occur with equanimity.   Any forthcoming events, he saw as God's will....  Thy will be done, not my will be done.  To allow this meant that he had to be conscious of the emotional drives which threatened to impose his 'self' will towards 'self' preservation.

[Stranger]

It all depends on the nature of our conscious awareness.  You are implying that everything is automated by the deterministic events of cause and effect, which seems to reduce our conscious awareness to being just a spectator over events which are already pre determined.

Where did this spectator come from!? You don't seem to have grasped the problem at all.

The point is (yet again) that our conscious awareness has to work somehow; there is some process that is conscious awareness. Whether that process takes place in the brain or in your "soul", it can only consist of deterministic or random elements. There are no other logical alternatives.

You can argue all day that you can't see how our consciousness and "free will" can be produced like that (and neither can I) but there simply isn't another option. Adding a soul doesn't help.

[torridon]

It all depends on the nature of our conscious awareness.  You are implying that everything is automated by the deterministic events of cause and effect, which seems to reduce our conscious awareness to being just a spectator over events which are already pre determined.

I'd dispute 'pre-determined', we cannot rule out random events; but that notwithstanding, that our conscious awareness is effectively a spectator over events which have already happened is consistent with current research.  Conscious awareness is a massively sophisticated phenomenon of nature and it doesn't happen by magic and cannot happen instantaneously; latest estimates suggest it takes around 400 milliseconds to construct conscious awareness. So when we get punched on the nose, or when we make a decision, 'we' only discover that half a second later.  Note I put 'we' in inverted commas as this relates to the idea of the illusion of self.

[Alan Burns]

I'd dispute 'pre-determined', we cannot rule out random events; but that notwithstanding, that our conscious awareness is effectively a spectator over events which have already happened is consistent with current research.  Conscious awareness is a massively sophisticated phenomenon of nature and it doesn't happen by magic and cannot happen instantaneously; latest estimates suggest it takes around 400 milliseconds to construct conscious awareness. So when we get punched on the nose, or when we make a decision, 'we' only discover that half a second later.  Note I put 'we' in inverted commas as this relates to the idea of the illusion of self.

But if conscious awareness only spectates over what has already happened, one has to ask the obvious question of why do we have this incredible ability of conscious awareness and perception of choice.

My own take on this is that it is that my conscious awareness is the real me which has the ability to perceive and make conscious decisions which trigger the physical response in our brains needed to implement these choices.   I am fully aware that current science seems to invalidate this scenario because of the timing of events.  But current science only has perception of about 6% of the content of our universe, the rest being categorised as dark matter or dark energy, which could well include the spiritual entity of the human soul.  So my belief in the soul's ability to facilitate conscious awareness and choice is based upon my perception of reality rather than limited scientific evidence.

[Leonard James]

I'd dispute 'pre-determined', we cannot rule out random events; but that notwithstanding, that our conscious awareness is effectively a spectator over events which have already happened is consistent with current research.  Conscious awareness is a massively sophisticated phenomenon of nature and it doesn't happen by magic and cannot happen instantaneously; latest estimates suggest it takes around 400 milliseconds to construct conscious awareness. So when we get punched on the nose, or when we make a decision, 'we' only discover that half a second later.  Note I put 'we' in inverted commas as this relates to the idea of the illusion of self.

I don't see why it has to be an illusion. The fact that our sub-conscious assesses a situation and decides on an action before we are aware of it does not alter the fact that it is our individual subconscious ... i.e., it is as much ourself as our conscious awareness. The only difference that I can see is that our conscious self can override it if we decide so.

[torridon]

I don't see why it has to be an illusion. The fact that our sub-conscious assesses a situation and decides on an action before we are aware of it does not alter the fact that it is our individual subconscious ... i.e., it is as much ourself as our conscious awareness. The only difference that I can see is that our conscious self can override it if we decide so.

I think it is illusory in the sense that we have an intuitive feeling of a person being inside us having experience and having control, Cartesian dualism if you like, but there is no scientific support for such an entity inside us; perhaps it is closer to truth to recognise that it is just a class of feeling, like many other feelings, and is a phenomenological construct of a waking mind, an artefact, a cerebral projection cleverly contrived to feel like 'me'.