Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What is it i'm supposed to be 'personal increduling'?

The risk of an answer you don’t like. If you genuinely have an interest in a science question there’s a place for that on this mb (Science and Technology). Broadly, you’d receive one of three types of answer:

1. Here’s a very well supported answer, so in science it’s called a theory.

2. There’s not enough explanatory power for the possible answer to be deemed a theory but there are various hypotheses that fit the available data and that may in due course provide a more robust answer.

3. Don’t know.

None of these answers though would have anything whatever to do with religious belief, let alone with Christian belief specifically – which is where you’ve posted your questions. That's how the argument from personal incredulity "works" though - it relies on its unspoken premise that, if science doesn't have the answer, then (insert name of religious belief here) must in some unexplained way have more credence than would otherwise be the case.

Hillside what possible suggestion do you have that I cannot believe or have believed in?

New Atheists are as definitionally excluded from permission to accuse people of argument from incredulity as people who live in glasshouses are from throwing stones.

I assume that there was a thought in your head when you typed that, but I cannot even guess what it might have been.

Perhaps try again in coherent English?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The risk of an answer you don’t like. If you genuinely have an interest in a science question there’s a place for that on this mb (Science and Technology). Broadly, you’d receive one of three types of answer:

1. Here’s a very well supported answer, so in science it’s called a theory.

2. There’s not enough explanatory power for the possible answer to be deemed a theory but there are various hypotheses that fit the available data and that may in due course provide a more robust answer.

3. Don’t know.

None of these answers though would have anything whatever to do with religious belief, let alone with Christian belief specifically – which is where you’ve posted your questions. That's how the argument from personal incredulity "works" though - it relies on its unspoken premise that, if science doesn't have the answer, then (insert name of religious belief here) must in some unexplained way have more credence than would otherwise be the case.

I assume that there was a thought in your head when you typed that, but I cannot even guess what it might have been.

Perhaps try again in coherent English?

Hillside. There is nothing so far that has been offered by way of science which I have felt has been at all threatening to theism. How can there be?
What you and all your little wizards have assailed us with is scienTISM.

What to call those adhering? scientismatists is a bit unwieldy, they can't be called scientists since some aren't and scientism isn't and because they aren't as collectively pushy about their scientism as some I could mention it seems unfair to use my preferred title.....ScienTITS.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside. There is nothing so far that has been offered by way of science which I have felt has been at all threatening to theism. How can there be?

There can’t (theism is “not even wrong” for the purposes of science, though it's always good to see the NPF return zombie like from its shallow grave) – but that has nothing to do with what’s been said here, and moreover it begs the question of why you asked science questions on the Christianity board.

What you and all your little wizards have assailed us with is scienTISM.

No it isn’t – it’s neither the correct meaning of that term (putting undue weight on the findings of science) nor your personal re-definition of it (“science either does or will explain everything”). All you’ve actually been “assailed” with is some logic that’s passed you by.

What to call those adhering?

“Adhering” to what?

…scientismatists is a bit unwieldy, they can't be called scientists since some aren't and scientism isn't and because they aren't as collectively pushy about their scientism as some I could mention it seems unfair to use my preferred title.....ScienTITS.

Total evasion of the actual point noted. Why not man up and finally respond to what’s actually said to you rather than endlessly duck and dive in the hope that no-one notices?
 
I explained to you the argument from personal incredulity fallacy, and why it doesn’t help you at all. Why have you just ignored that?

[Outrider]

But science doesn't do God......... amongst other things. The presumption when asking the question why God is therefore that God is caused and effected which is not the God of the philosophers or Christians.......But there is conceivably a theology to be had for a God like that ....although that wouldn't actually be the God of the etc......

No, science doesn't do god, because god is, scientifically, and untestable hypothesis. Which means you'd need another methodology - philosophy is typically rolled out. The presumption isn't cause and effect when asking 'why god', the presumption is cause and effect when asking science anything.

You want a god that doesn't conform to science, you need another methodology for demonstrating at and, as has repeatedly been pointed out, there doesn't appear to be one.

O.

[Outrider]

It doesn't get around the question why an eternal chain of cause and effect and not nothing.

Which still doesn't explain in what fashion you think 'why' is a valid comment here. In an infinite chain you aren't looking for an ultimate cause, you're only looking for an increasingly long sequence of 'what was the cause before that?'

O.

[Outrider]

That's interesting. Where did that region come from? and what is the connection between that region and this universe? Why did the rules of physics change in that region to make new rules possible?........sounds like another miracle.

What do you mean by 'miracle'? Sufficiently advanced science appears as magic, after all. I'm not suggesting that the rules of physics did change - they don't change between sub-atomic activity and macroscopic activity, they are just of different levels of significance at different scales. Why does that region have to come from somewhere, maybe it's infinite? Maybe not, but we don't have any information on it to be able to start to make claims.

O.

[ippy]

Sass I can't see an answer from you to my post 13969, I wondered if you may have mised it?

ippy

[Alan Burns]

If there wasn't more to nature, there would be no such thing as science.

True, because the concept of science would not exist if we did not have the gift of conscious awareness provided though the nature of our human souls.

[Nearly Sane]

True, because the concept of science would not exist if we did not have the gift of conscious awareness provided by though the nature of our human souls.

He asserted, yet again, with no justification

[Shaker]

He asserted, yet again, with no justification

Yup, the well is dry.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

He asserted, yet again, with no justification

Perhaps "Alan Burns" is actually an algorithm such that whenever its arguments are falsified it just repeats "soul" in the hope that everyone just gives up and walks away.

Yes, that's it - definitely an algorithm.

[Alan Burns]

NS,

Perhaps "Alan Burns" is actually an algorithm such that whenever its arguments are falsified it just repeats "soul" in the hope that everyone just gives up and walks away.

Yes, that's it - definitely an algorithm.

In the absence of any scientific explanation for what constitutes conscious awareness, am I not at liberty to use the word "soul" as meaning: "that which provides conscious awareness"?

The entire volume of human knowledge is derived totally from conscious awareness, yet this knowledge does not include the nature of conscious awareness itself.

[Shaker]

In the absence of any scientific explanation for what constitutes conscious awareness, am I not at liberty to use the word "soul" as meaning: "that which provides conscious awareness"?

Since you appear to want something to plug a current gap in knowledge why don't you call it "fnarblimklo" for all the difference it makes, without the traditional associations of a non-material and eternal something-or-other?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In the absence of any scientific explanation for what constitutes conscious awareness, am I not at liberty to use the word "soul" as meaning: "that which provides conscious awareness"?

First, there is already a great deal of "scientific explanation" for consciousness, albeit that the picture is far from complete.

Second though, even if that was not the case then still you wouldn't be at liberty just to pop "soul" into the gap as if it had any explanatory power whatever. Your argument here is identical to that of the Viking asking whether he was at liberty to use the word "Thor" in the absence of a scientific explanation for thunder.

The entire volume of human knowledge is derived totally from conscious awareness, yet this knowledge does not include the nature of conscious awareness itself.

That's not true, and even if it was just making up words and calling them the explanation for the gap in knowledge is epistemically hopeless.

[Gordon]

In the absence of any scientific explanation for what constitutes conscious awareness, am I not at liberty to use the word "soul" as meaning: "that which provides conscious awareness"?

I think a better term would be 'brain', and while consciousness isn't yet fully understood I'd envisage that investigation will focus on how our biology works. Dropping in 'soul' doesn't add anything unless you've some method in mind regarding how to investigate this 'soul'. It also looks, from your definition, that you are begging the question again. 
 

The entire volume of human knowledge is derived totally from conscious awareness, yet this knowledge does not include the nature of conscious awareness itself.

That depends on how you define 'conscious awareness', and I suspect you are defining it so that it provides an artificial soul' shaped gap for you to exploit: which is a glaringly obvious tactic.

[Nearly Sane]

In the absence of any scientific explanation for what constitutes conscious awareness, am I not at liberty to use the word "soul" as meaning: "that which provides conscious awareness"?

The entire volume of human knowledge is derived totally from conscious awareness, yet this knowledge does not include the nature of conscious awareness itself.

because you are bringing in other conclusions with the word which are not justified. In that it's an attempt to bring in those connotations without doing the work, it strikes me that you nay have to confess to lying next time you go to confession.

[Maeght]

In the absence of any scientific explanation for what constitutes conscious awareness, am I not at liberty to use the word "soul" as meaning: "that which provides conscious awareness"?

The entire volume of human knowledge is derived totally from conscious awareness, yet this knowledge does not include the nature of conscious awareness itself.

I haven't been reading all this thread (heard so much of it before!) but thought I'd comment on this. It seems to me that in the passed you have said that the soul is consciousness (or conscious awareness) but now are saying it is what provides conscious awareness - which is different. Is that a fair observation Alan?

[Brownie]

You mean, rather soulless?

[torridon]

In the absence of any scientific explanation for what constitutes conscious awareness, am I not at liberty to use the word "soul" as meaning: "that which provides conscious awareness"?

Just substituting the word 'soul' for conscious awareness in itself is no big deal.  However you aren't doing a simple word substitution; your concept of soul goes way beyond mere awareness and you can't just sneak all that in without justification.

[Alan Burns]

I think a better term would be 'brain', and while consciousness isn't yet fully understood I'd envisage that investigation will focus on how our biology works. Dropping in 'soul' doesn't add anything unless you've some method in mind regarding how to investigate this 'soul'. It also looks, from your definition, that you are begging the question again. 
 
That depends on how you define 'conscious awareness', and I suspect you are defining it so that it provides an artificial soul' shaped gap for you to exploit: which is a glaringly obvious tactic.

You seem to be under the impression that I am using dubious tactics to pull the wool over people's eyes in order to promote something which is not true.

But you could not be more wrong.

I am simply trying to illustrate what to me is the blindingly obvious truth that we have conscious awareness and free will which will never be explained by the deterministic chemical activity in our physical brains.  And this is not the prop on which my Christian faith depends, because I am in a deep relationship with God which no amount of scientific theory can ever take away.  What I am trying to do is to remove one of the props which many of my atheist friends use to deny God's existence, which is the assumption that science can or will explain everything without the need for God.

[Gordon]

You seem to be under the impression that I am using dubious tactics to pull the wool over people's eyes in order to promote something which is not true.

Not 'pulling the wool', Alan, since your god of the gaps approach is far too obvious to be subtle.

I am simply trying to illustrate what to me is the blindingly obvious truth that we have conscious awareness and free will which will never be explained by the deterministic chemical activity in our physical brains.

Which is a fallacious argument from personal incredulity.

And this is not the prop on which my Christian faith depends, because I am in a deep relationship with God which no amount of scientific theory can ever take away.

Which is a mix of the fallacies of reification and special pleading.

What I am trying to do is to remove one of the props which many of my atheist friends use to deny God's existence, which is the assumption that science can or will explain everything without the need for God.

Which is a straw-man, as well as more personal incredulity.

[Sassy]

Simply saying something is true is not evidence. Accusing people of being silly, whining and liars is personalising  things.

Another red herring... LIARS...No one called anyone a liar. But I suppose you needed something to draw the post from the truth.
The truth is you SAY you want the proof and the truth is you won't look for it, because you don't want proof which proves you are wrong.
The statement I made is truth but the LIARS is something NOT IN MY POST. So did you accuse someone of lying?
The post of mine  remains factual doesn't it.

[Sassy]

Sass, what is it you don't understand about assertions made by anybody not just you, any assertion made needs to have evidence of some kind otherwise it's of no value.

I could go to my bank and try to draw a couple of million quid, what do you think the first thing they would ask of me would be? If I said "oh yes I've got about 42 million in my account in total", (an assertion), really Sass, what do you think the next question they would address to me would be?

1) The bank would take my word?

2) The bank would ask me where are these millions you say that you have?

It's just the same when you keep on asserting all the time and never have been able to back up any of your assertions with verifiable evidence of any kind.

ippy

P S, Seriously Sass, which question first?

What is it you don't understand between fact and assertions. THE FACTS ARE people are being healed. The fact is things happen in Andrew Wommack ministry because of God. THE FACT AND TRUTH is none of you want any fact or truth which shows you wrong so you just search for it. But most importantly you believe like the Ostrich you can stick your head in the sand and no one will notice. The days over for the stupid excuses. Either go and get the proof for yourself or admit it... you won't look because you choose not to believe or accept anything that can and would change that status.

[Nearly Sane]

Another red herring... LIARS...No one called anyone a liar. But I suppose you needed something to draw the post from the truth.
The truth is you SAY you want the proof and the truth is you won't look for it, because you don't want proof which proves you are wrong.
The statement I made is truth but the LIARS is something NOT IN MY POST. So did you accuse someone of lying?
The post of mine  remains factual doesn't it.

No, it doesn't and in saying people are deliberately hiding from the truth is calling them LIARS. Saying people don't want to look for the truth is saying that are LIARS.

[floo]

What is it you don't understand between fact and assertions. THE FACTS ARE people are being healed. The fact is things happen in Andrew Wommack ministry because of God. THE FACT AND TRUTH is none of you want any fact or truth which shows you wrong so you just search for it. But most importantly you believe like the Ostrich you can stick your head in the sand and no one will notice. The days over for the stupid excuses. Either go and get the proof for yourself or admit it... you won't look because you choose not to believe or accept anything that can and would change that status.

You state as fact things which are only assertions. Faith healers are noted for their scammery!