Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

The evidence lies in our basic perception of reality.

What evidence, specifically, and using which method is this evidence identified/categorised/measured etc.

Do we have the will power to drive our own conscious decisions, or are we totally shackled by the deterministic laws of science over which we have no control?

This is just unsupported conjecture: you start with a question based on a link between 'will-power' and 'conscious decisions', which you then ignore answer-wise before posing another question that you leave hanging - you seem to be kite-flying.

Again your personal incredulity is getting in the way. 

[Leonard James]

The evidence lies in our basic perception of reality. 

Unfortunately, Alan, your perception of reality has been warped by religious teaching, which induces you to misinterpret reality.

[torridon]

I am simply trying to highlight the difference between interaction and reaction.  In a purely scientific sense I can see no difference because everything is defined by events and consequences (reactions) to events.  The deterministic rules of science will dictate that all events are consequences to previous events, with possible exceptions in the quantum field of science which show that some events can occur spontaneously without any discernible cause.  What I am implying is that the intelligently controlled interaction between us is not driven by reactions which are entirely controlled by the laws of science.  Which leads to the possibility that our perceived interaction could be driven by quantum events which derive from something outside the deterministic rules of science.

Trouble is, you are trying to reconcile very different things here. On the one hand you have 'quantum events' which you note 'can occur spontaneously without any discernible cause' and on the other you have 'intelligently controlled interaction'.  I don't see how you can claim something intelligent and controlled derives from something random and spontaneous, one is the opposite of the other.  Randomness is the enemy of will and intentionality, randomness is the shit that hits the fan.

By trying to squeeze your belief system into small knowledge gaps you clog those gaps up and fail to see the real story that they could be telling us; in this case, it might be that some measure of indeterminacy in an overarchingly deterministic world is a source of limited creativity and diversity.  We don't know if true randomness exists or not, but supposing it does, at the level of choices made by a brain that might translate into a measure of unpredictability, which would benefit a prey animal as its behaviours would confound its predators, and for an adaptive species it would help it to adapt to and exploit new niches

So, any quantum indeterminacy might give us spontaneity and creativity, but it is not a suitable home to locate free will, it would be an enemy of will and control. Will is best understood as an emotional state resulting from prior experience.  If my desire is to eat a hamburger it is because I am hungry, there is always a because involved in the nature of will, the notion of will being free of any because would be pointless.

[Alan Burns]

I don't see how you can claim something intelligent and controlled derives from something random and spontaneous, one is the opposite of the other.  Randomness is the enemy of will and intentionality, randomness is the shit that hits the fan.

I did not say that quantum events are random, just that they can occur with no discernible cause.

If all quantum events were truly random, the stability we perceive at the atomic level would not exist.  Atomic properties are dependent on the probability of specific quantum events occurring at the right time and place.  This quandary gave rise to Einstein's famous quote: "God does not play dice".

So quantum events cannot be truly random despite having no discernible cause, which gives support to the possibility that there is a window through which events can be purposefully induced with no physical cause. 

[Gordon]

So quantum events cannot be truly random despite having no discernible cause, which gives support to the possibility that there is a window through which events can be purposefully induced with no physical cause.

No it doesn't - it just means that any cause has yet to be discerned, so 'we don't know' is a perfectly acceptable holding position.

So your are again flying the kite of the answer you'd prefer to be true: which is, if I'm catching your drift right, that 'God' intervenes via quantum events. Sounds like the plot of an episode of the Twilight Zone.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The evidence lies in our basic perception of reality.  Do we have the will power to drive our own conscious decisions, or are we totally shackled by the deterministic laws of science over which we have no control?

The latter, only "shackled" is an unnecessarily pejorative term. Consciousness "feels" like our decision-making is somehow outside of the material world, whereas all the available evidence suggests otherwise. That you happen to believe in something you call "God" and so have to create a narrative for which there's no evidence whatever but into which "He" can fit is just special pleading.     

[Alan Burns]

Unfortunately, Alan, your perception of reality has been warped by religious teaching, which induces you to misinterpret reality.

Unfortunately, Len, it is your perception of reality which has been warped by the limited scientific knowledge discovered by humans.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Unfortunately, Len, it is your perception of reality which has been warped by the limited scientific knowledge discovered by humans.

Weirdly for you there's a least a germ of accuracy in there inasmuch as Len's (and your and my) reality is to a significant degree modelled by the findings of science - that's why all three of us take medicines when we're ill rather than burn sage leaves, take a 'plane to go on holiday rather than flap our arms optimistically etc. Where you go completely off the rails though is to imply that there's another agency called "God" that creates a different reality beyond rational enquiry but to which you just happen to have privileged access nonetheless. 

[torridon]

The evidence lies in our basic perception of reality.  Do we have the will power to drive our own conscious decisions, or are we totally shackled by the deterministic laws of science over which we have no control?

We are products of nature, and so it makes no real sense to talk of being 'shackled' by nature. I am a living thing but I don't complain about being 'shackled' to life.  It is only because there are laws of nature that we can be here to talk about it. A lawless, or free, world, would be incomprehensible chaos out of which no meaning or patterns could emerge.

[torridon]

Unfortunately, Len, it is your perception of reality which has been warped by the limited scientific knowledge discovered by humans.

That sounds like a regressive argument for a return to ignorance. If you get your Tardis powered up and go and sample life in 13th century Britain you would find the place fully inhabited by believers in God but no way would you want to remain in that situation.  Our better knowledge and understanding gives us a better quality of life currently but that also means we have increasingly to learn to live with the deeper and perhaps less comfortable existential insight which gradually replaces the naïve backdrop against which earlier peoples lived their lives. We cannot unlearn what we have learned and neither can we choose to stop being curious in some forlorn hope of a return to a lost innocence. We are become mightily sentient creatures and we have to learn to live with our sentience.

[Leonard James]

Unfortunately, Len, it is your perception of reality which has been warped by the limited scientific knowledge discovered by humans.

My perception of reality is firmly based on actual phenomena and facts that science has investigated and explained.

Yours is based on the "God" you have read about, for which there is a complete absence of evidence.

[Alan Burns]

That sounds like a regressive argument for a return to ignorance. If you get your Tardis powered up and go and sample life in 13th century Britain you would find the place fully inhabited by believers in God but no way would you want to remain in that situation.  Our better knowledge and understanding gives us a better quality of life currently but that also means we have increasingly to learn to live with the deeper and perhaps less comfortable existential insight which gradually replaces the naïve backdrop against which earlier peoples lived their lives. We cannot unlearn what we have learned and neither can we choose to stop being curious in some forlorn hope of a return to a lost innocence. We are become mightily sentient creatures and we have to learn to live with our sentience.

Modern science has certainly helped to make some of life's chores easier, but the writers of the book of Psalms display a much closer insight into the reality of God's existence than today's "enlightened" scientists.  Knowledge does not necessarily equate to wisdom.

[Gordon]

Modern science has certainly helped to make some of life's chores easier, but the writers of the book of Psalms display a much closer insight into the reality of God's existence than today's "enlightened" scientists.  Knowledge does not necessarily equate to wisdom.

Today's 'enlightened' scientists don't study God using science - so you are misrepresenting them, as well as committing the reification fallacy by treating ' God's existence' as a fact.

I get that your are a fan of Psalms: so what? There is no shortage of literature people consider to be profound in some way, which is of course their subjective opinion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Unfortunately, Alan, your perception of reality has been warped by religious teaching, which induces you to misinterpret reality.

The only thing that Alan warps is your atheism. How is that warping reality?

[Jack Knave]

Evidence certainly shows that evil exists, but this will be a consequence of God's ability to give the gift of free will to the entities of conscious awareness he creates, without which we would just be nature's puppets.

Except that as that freewill was given, and therefore created, by your God, and had the subsequent effect of evil then that freewill had inherent in it the capacity for evil and must have come from the God who created it in the first place.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Modern science has certainly helped to make some of life's chores easier...

That's hugely to underestimate what "modern science" has actually done, but ok...

...but the writers of the book of Psalms display a much closer insight into the reality of God's existence than today's "enlightened" scientists.

And you know:

1. That there is a "God" at all; and

2. That the writers of the Psalms knew the first thing about "Him"

how exactly?

Knowledge does not necessarily equate to wisdom.

Well, first you'll need to tell us what you mean by "wisdom" - philosophy maybe? - and then perhaps you can turn your attention to why anyone should think you to have one iota of it, especially as it seems to be important for this supposed wisdom that you build it on an ever-growing platform of very bad arguments.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The only thing that Alan warps is your atheism. How is that warping reality?

It's not warping Alan's reality at all, but it has nothing whatever to say to the consensus about what "reality" actually means when mediated through intersubjective experience. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It's not warping Alan's reality at all, but it has nothing whatever to say to the consensus about what "reality" actually means when mediated through intersubjective experience.

Words are flowing out like endless dross in hillsides universe and shimmer shamanically Ji guru deva ooooomm nothing's going to change his world, Nothing's going change his world.

Sorry.......what are you on about?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Words are flowing out like endless dross in hillsides universe and shimmer shamanically Ji guru deva ooooomm nothing's going to change his world, Nothing's going change his world.

Sorry.......what are you on about?

I don't know how to make it even simpler for you. Sorry. Perhaps if you read a book or something?

[Alan Burns]

Looking back on these posts, some people seem to be under the impression that my faith totally depends on the logic I put forward in my arguments.  But this logic is not the source - my faith goes much deeper than mere words can express and I am very much aware that my words alone have not been enough to facilitate some people's search for God.

My own impression is that it is some non-believers who cling on to the delusion that they do not have the power to control, manipulate or have freedom to make conscious choices.  Because if they concede to these attributes, they would have to admit that there is something other than the deterministic rules of science which is responsible for their thoughts, words or deeds.

So what does it take for these people to open up their minds to the reality of their existence and begin their search for God?

Having found God, I see things is such a different light which gives true purpose and meaning to everything I perceive.  Without this faith, everything would seem to be so trivial with no real purpose and everything leading to ultimate oblivion.  I believe that the human attribute to conceive of meaning and purpose must come from the soul, being a God given gift which can ultimately enable us to reach the fulfilment of life which God intends for us all.

[BeRational]

Alan

So it's true because it gives you purpose?

This sounds like a logical fallacy to me.

If it's true, you need to be able to demonstrate that is is true, not just endlessly assert that it is true.
Otherwise, by default is should not be accepted.#

I, and many others here are just taking the default position of not believing stuff until it can be demonstrated to be true or likely true.

 How these propositions make you feel are not a compelling argument, and fail.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Looking back on these posts, some people seem to be under the impression that my faith totally depends on the logic I put forward in my arguments.

But that "logic" is palpably, demonstrably false. Rather than your faith being not "totally" based on it you'd be on much safer ground either finding logic that isn't broken or abandoning the attempt and basing it on something else.     

But this logic is not the source - my faith goes much deeper than mere words can express and I am very much aware that my words alone have not been enough to facilitate some people's search for God.

No doubt your faith is much deeper, but that "my" is important. Your faith is yours alone - a subjective opinion on the matter, just as many others have subjective beliefs in many other supernatural entities too. Provided you don't overreach into thinking that your personal faith has anything to say to objective truths for the rest of us it's no-one's business but your own.   

My own impression is that it is some non-believers who cling on to the delusion that they do not have the power to control, manipulate or have freedom to make conscious choices.  Because if they concede to these attributes, they would have to admit that there is something other than the deterministic rules of science which is responsible for their thoughts, words or deeds.

"They" would but, so far at least, you've provided no reason whatever to suggest that the feeling of "manipulation", "free" will etc is "delusional". As all the available evidence tells us that these things are naturalistic outcomes of cause and effect why should anyone take seriously your assertions to the contrary?

So what does it take for these people to open up their minds to the reality of their existence and begin their search for God?

That's your reality, AB, not "the" reality. What would it take for you to open up your mind to my reality of leprechauns?

Having found God...

That's "formed the opinion that I have found God" (you just committed the fallacy of reification) but ok...

...I see things is such a different light which gives true purpose and meaning to everything I perceive.  Without this faith, everything would seem to be so trivial with no real purpose and everything leading to ultimate oblivion.

That's called the argumentum ad consequentiam - a basic mistake in reasoning. That you happen not to like the consequences of something says nothing at all about whether it's true. 

I believe that the human attribute to conceive of meaning and purpose must come from the soul, being a God given gift which can ultimately enable us to reach the fulfilment of life which God intends for us all.

And I believe that there are tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri that won't eat muesli on Tuesdays. Why should anyone else take either of our personal faith beliefs seriously do you think?

[Maeght]

My own impression is that it is some non-believers who cling on to the delusion that they do not have the power to control, manipulate or have freedom to make conscious choices.  Because if they concede to these attributes, they would have to admit that there is something other than the deterministic rules of science which is responsible for their thoughts, words or deeds.

Nope.

[ekim]

So what does it take for these people to open up their minds to the reality of their existence and begin their search for God?

One of the things it might take is a clear description of what it is they are searching for.  As you claim to have found God, you should be in a position to either provide such a description so that others can recognise when they have done so, and/or describe a clear method for arriving at that conclusion.  If not, you will appear no better than a 'blind leader of the blind'.

[Alan Burns]

One of the things it might take is a clear description of what it is they are searching for.  As you claim to have found God, you should be in a position to either provide such a description so that others can recognise when they have done so, and/or describe a clear method for arriving at that conclusion.  If not, you will appear no better than a 'blind leader of the blind'.

Simply put, God is the ultimate source of all existence, but of course our human intellect alone could never imagine or deduce what the nature of this source is.  The only way we could know anything about this source is if it made itself known to its creation.  The essential step in making itself known would be to endow this creation with some form of conscious perception, and give it the ability yearn for knowledge of its creator. 

So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
Luke 11:9–10