Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Quite! They don't need consciousness to cause effects.

It depends upon whether the effects are intended or accidental.

Len, I know you believe in the power for our conscious to control things using our free will, but there are many non believers who will claim that this power to control is just an illusion, and our conscious awareness is merely a spectator on things which are totally controlled by deterministic consequences driven solely by the laws of nature.  The point I am making is that the materialistic scenario allows no possibility of conscious control or manipulation, which implies that every event is unintended, therefore accidental.

[Maeght]

Not accidental but determined by prior events.

You've made your point many times and many times people have said 'Yes, so ...'. It is clear you don't want to accept that view but just making the same point doesn't really get us anywhere.

[Alan Burns]

Not accidental but determined by prior events.

You've made your point many times and many times people have said 'Yes, so ...'. It is clear you don't want to accept that view but just making the same point doesn't really get us anywhere.

Most materialists will agree that every event is determined by prior events, so this has no bearing upon whether an event is accidental or not. Your logic would imply that there is no such thing as an accident.   As I stated earlier, the dictionary definition of accidental refers to something unintended.

Every event has a cause.  If the cause of an event is driven by a conscious intention for that event to take place, then it is not an accident.  But what can drive conscious intentions in the deterministic material world?

[wigginhall]

How does 'unintended' mean 'accidental'?   That means that every time the tide turns, it's an accident, unless you are saying that the tides are controlled by the Big Man Upstairs.   So every day there happen to be a set of accidental tides, which we can predict to within a second.   Hmm. 

[Nearly Sane]

How does 'unintended' mean 'accidental'?   That means that every time the tide turns, it's an accident, unless you are saying that the tides are controlled by the Big Man Upstairs.   So every day there happen to be a set of accidental tides, which we can predict to within a second.   Hmm.

which prompts the classic 'argument' from Bill O'Reilly

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=_fSlJaZrUhs

[wigginhall]

I'm a bit puzzled as to whether AB is saying that if something has a cause, which we can identify, then it's not God-driven.  So if clouds cause rain, than God doesn't.   Is that right?

So the hunt is on for stuff with no identifiable cause (as yet), e.g. consciousness, therefore God. 

Gaps again, I suppose.   Come on, AB, surely within your understanding, God causes the rain?   After all, 'God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust', Mt. 5: 45.

[Maeght]

Most materialists will agree that every event is determined by prior events, so this has no bearing upon whether an event is accidental or not. Your logic would imply that there is no such thing as an accident.

An accident can be considered something which is unintentional - it does not mean it has no cause.

As I stated earlier, the dictionary definition of accidental refers to something unintended.

You actually gave a definition you said was for 'chance' not accidental.

Every event has a cause.

Yes.

If the cause of an event is driven by a conscious intention for that event to take place, then it is not an accident.

Yes.

But what can drive conscious intentions in the deterministic material world?

The brain responds to external stimuli in a way determined by previous event and experiences. How couild it be anything else? How could a decision be made without reference to [revious events and experiences? You will say (because you have said before) that they will to some extent be determined by previous events etc but not fully but this seems to be having your cake and eating it based on how you want things to be.

[Alan Burns]

I'm a bit puzzled as to whether AB is saying that if something has a cause, which we can identify, then it's not God-driven.  So if clouds cause rain, than God doesn't.   Is that right?

Consider root causes.
The cause of my finger pressing a key is muscle stimulation, which traces back to nerve endings, which traces back to some brain cells.  I perceive the root cause of this to be interaction between my conscious will and my physical brain.  Conscious awareness has yet to be defined in scientific terms, so as yet we can't fully define the root cause of my finger hitting the key.

The interaction of human will with our physical universe remains a mystery, but it is real.
As does the interaction of God's will.
So until we can trace back the root cause of such things as rainfall, we can't determine if there was any interaction through God's will.  I do not claim to know how God's will interacts with our universe, but the evidence is all around us.  We are so surrounded by God's creation, but we take it all for granted.

Are light waves meant to illuminate?
Are sound waves meant to be heard?
Is the presence of oxygen and water meant to fuel life?
Is human awareness and free will meant to experience love and being loved?
or are they just unintended accidents?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As does the interaction of God's will.

Screech of brakes, deafening sound of smashing metal and shattering glass, then a few seconds of silence before we hear the rattling of a hub cap spinning to its standstill. Then all is silence.

Shame really - it was all going so well right up the point at which you just slipped in "God" as if that conjecture had been demonstrated, and then went immediately on to tell us about the nature of "the interaction" with it in the hope that no-one had noticed.

Oh well.

[Enki]

Consider root causes.
The cause of my finger pressing a key is muscle stimulation, which traces back to nerve endings, which traces back to some brain cells.  I perceive the root cause of this to be interaction between my conscious will and my physical brain.  Conscious awareness has yet to be defined in scientific terms, so as yet we can't fully define the root cause of my finger hitting the key.

The interaction of human will with our physical universe remains a mystery, but it is real.
As does the interaction of God's will.
So until we can trace back the root cause of such things as rainfall, we can't determine if there was any interaction through God's will.  I do not claim to know how God's will interacts with our universe, but the evidence is all around us.  We are so surrounded by God's creation, but we take it all for granted.

Are light waves meant to illuminate?
Are sound waves meant to be heard?
Is the presence of oxygen and water meant to fuel life?
Is human awareness and free will meant to experience love and being loved?
or are they just unintended accidents?

The interaction of God's will may seem real to you. It doesn't to me.

The evidence that we are surrounded by God's creation may seem real to you. It doesn't to me.

Do I take it all for granted? No.

Just as a matter of interest, the human eye can only register a sub-set of light waves.

The human ear can only register a sub-set of sound waves.

Much more obvious to me is that evolution has developed these senses as a useful survival mechanism.

[wigginhall]

And different animals register different wave-lengths.  I think, for example, that some insects detect ultra-violet, and some snakes detect infra-red.   This seems to demonstrate how evolution makes us of available information, in this case, different wave-lengths.

I suppose it's a pointless argument, as AB will simply say that that is all God's will.   You know, that stuff that is invisible and undetectable, except to special people. 

[wigginhall]

AB wrote:

The interaction of human will with our physical universe remains a mystery, but it is real.
As does the interaction of God's will.
So until we can trace back the root cause of such things as rainfall, we can't determine if there was any interaction through God's will.  I do not claim to know how God's will interacts with our universe, but the evidence is all around us.  We are so surrounded by God's creation, but we take it all for granted.

I'm not sure what a root cause is, as opposed to a cause, but I would think that there is some information about how rain happens.   Pretty complicated as well, involving heating, evaporation, condensation, cloud formation and so on. 

I don't understand how that connects with God's will though.   I suppose you will simply assert this, as usual. 

But the Bible does claim: 'God causes the rain to fall on the just and the unjust'.   Presumably, you accept that.

[torridon]

Are light waves meant to illuminate?
Are sound waves meant to be heard?
Is the presence of oxygen and water meant to fuel life?
Is human awareness and free will meant to experience love and being loved?
or are they just unintended accidents?

Is gravity meant to stop people floating off into space ?
Is thermondynamics meant to stop people burning their tongues on hot coffee ?
or are they just unintended accidents?

I think you are looking down the telescope the wrong way, as usual.  We have adapted to make some use of the information flows available. To imagine this usage represents their entire purpose is anthropocentric thinking; it's all about us, not a pretty sight.

[wigginhall]

Yeah, but we're special, aren't we?  If Jesus wants to stop me burning my mouth on hot coffee, by setting up various laws of thermodynamics, I say, three cheers! 

Well, some honesty from AB: 'I do not claim to know how God's will interacts with our universe'.   

[Alan Burns]

AB wrote:

I'm not sure what a root cause is, as opposed to a cause,

A root cause will only exist if there is some form of wilful interaction occurring in our universe.   Otherwise all causes will just trace back to the Big Bang.

[Maeght]

A root cause will only exist if there is some form of wilful interaction occurring in our universe.   Otherwise all causes will just trace back to the Big Bang.

And?

[wigginhall]

Because baby Jesus is the root.   There is evidence all around you - for example, you don't burn your mouth on hot coffee, and if you do, that the devil in disguise. 

[Maeght]

Indeed.

[Alan Burns]

You know, that stuff that is invisible and undetectable, except to special people.

It may not be directly detectable with our physical senses, but can you not see that the human race has spiritual properties which no animals possess?  It is not just special people who are aware of our spiritual nature, it has been present throughout the history of the human race.  It is what makes us human.  The materialist argument reduces a human being to just a biological puppet entirely controlled by the deterministic events dictated by the laws of science.  We are much more than that.  We are spiritual beings with free will driven by our conscious awareness.

[Nearly Sane]

It may not be directly detectable with our physical senses, but can you not see that the human race has spiritual properties which no animals possess?  It is not just special people who are aware of our spiritual nature, it has been present throughout the history of the human race.  The materialist argument reduces a human being to just a biological puppet entirely controlled by the deterministic events dictated by the laws of science.  We are much more than that.  We are spiritual beings with free will driven by our conscious awareness.

and at the daily how many assertion/fallacies can be used in a single post, Alan Burns comes out swinging. Starts off with a begging the question on spiritual properties, with a side assertion about animals, which ignores that we are animals. Rolls into a combined ad populum and naturalistic fallacy, then exits into an implied ad consequentiam! Finishes with a triple assertion including two more begging the questions.


'well, Jim, I have to say that was a great start by Alan Burns. Not as tight as some posts, but it still packed a lot into the routine! Ideally I think there was an opening for a couple of NPFs there that wouldn't have heightened the overall fallacy rating but he's set a bar for others today'

[torridon]

It may not be directly detectable with our physical senses, but can you not see that the human race has spiritual properties which no animals possess?  It is not just special people who are aware of our spiritual nature, it has been present throughout the history of the human race.  It is what makes us human.  The materialist argument reduces a human being to just a biological puppet entirely controlled by the deterministic events dictated by the laws of science.  We are much more than that.  We are spiritual beings with free will driven by our conscious awareness.

Other animals can do things no human can.  My labrador's sense of smell is perhaps up to a million times more sensitive than mine.  Sharks sense electrical fields by a process of electroception; can you imagine what it is like to be a shark ? Humans have remarkable and distinctive qualities too but I don't see the need to invoke supernatural elements to describe our particular set of characteristics.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

and at the daily how many assertion/fallacies can be used in a single post, Alan Burns comes out swinging. Starts off with a begging the question on spiritual properties, with a side assertion about animals, which ignores that we are animals. Rolls into a combined ad populum and naturalistic fallacy, then exits into an implied ad consequentiam! Finishes with a triple assertion including two more begging the questions.


'well, Jim, I have to say that was a great start by Alan Burns. Not as tight as some posts, but it still packed a lot into the routine! Ideally I think there was an opening for a couple of NPFs there that wouldn't have heightened the overall fallacy rating but he's set a bar for others today'

Very adroitly done 

[Alan Burns]

and at the daily how many assertion/fallacies can be used in a single post, Alan Burns comes out swinging. Starts off with a begging the question on spiritual properties, with a side assertion about animals, which ignores that we are animals. Rolls into a combined ad populum and naturalistic fallacy, then exits into an implied ad consequentiam! Finishes with a triple assertion including two more begging the questions.


'well, Jim, I have to say that was a great start by Alan Burns. Not as tight as some posts, but it still packed a lot into the routine! Ideally I think there was an opening for a couple of NPFs there that wouldn't have heightened the overall fallacy rating but he's set a bar for others today'

By their nature, spiritual properties can't be proven by rigid scientific logic, so because of this, any argument put forward on this subject seems to get labelled as fallacy.  This labelling can't be used to prove that spiritual properties do not exist.  What I am trying to do is to encourage people to realise the limitations of what our physical senses can perceive and look beyond using our spiritual awareness to see the reality behind our own existence.

[Nearly Sane]

By their nature, spiritual properties can't be proven by rigid scientific logic, so because of this, any argument put forward on this subject seems to get labelled as fallacy.  This labelling can't be used to prove that spiritual properties do not exist.  What I am trying to do is to encourage people to realise the limitations of what our physical senses can perceive and try to see beyond and grasp the reality of just what our existence comprises.

And now for Alan's second routine, he gets in that missed NPF from the earlier routine.

[Alan Burns]

Other animals can do things no human can.  My labrador's sense of smell is perhaps up to a million times more sensitive than mine.  Sharks sense electrical fields by a process of electroception; can you imagine what it is like to be a shark ? Humans have remarkable and distinctive qualities too but I don't see the need to invoke supernatural elements to describe our particular set of characteristics.

We do have much in common with animals because we share the same biological machinery.  The difference is that humans have a spiritual soul which interacts with the biological machine.  If you can demonstrate any animal having the ability to believe or disbelieve in God, I will concede that they too have a soul.