Searching for GOD...

[Brownie]

Thanks for that information, Alan.
I didn't know about the Ampleforth seminars but I couldn't have travelled all that way on a regular basis anyway.

We did carry on going to the charismatic group once a week after the Life course had finished and some people attended for years.   Most tried to find a church near to them that was known to be charismatic in 'flavour'.  A regular top up was needed.

It definitely fulfilled a need in me at that time.

I did go to the New Dawn conference in Walsingham but I have to say I found it all a bit much and it was after that my interest waned.

Interesting though, the singing was absolutely beautiful.

[Alan Burns]

(moved from Universalism because it was going off topic)

AB,

    IBut nothing actually emerges.  Emergence is just a perceived complexity or functionality as seen from outside.

    Conscious awareness requires a recipient of information which is impossible to define in material terms.

This kind of response is exactly why I said you need to understand something of emergence before replying. What emerges is consciousness - there is no "outside" and no "recipient". It's consciousness that you perceives itself as "you". The Cartesian split you're attempting has long been abandoned by thinkers and more recently by the findings of neuroscience - you might as well be saying over and over, "but it's Thor who causes thunder" while ignoring the evidence all around you to the contrary.

You seem to have a huge mental block about this - presumably because you've built on the mistake the edifice of a religious belief you find to be comforting. There are though theists who understand this better than you who don't rely on conjectures about a separate "I" but who still believe in their various gods. All I can say is that, if you really find the thought of "God" to be comforting, you don't have to cling to your profound misunderstanding of the facts to keep it.

You are correct in your assumption that Christian faith does not hinge solely on the conjecture about a separate "I".  God has made Himself known to me so many times and in so many different ways that no amount of human scientific endeavour could ever change this.

I am simply trying to make you realise that you are much, much more than an uncontrolled emission from deterministic chemical activity in your physical brain.  You have the power to control, manipulate, create, contemplate, love, be loved, and to choose your destiny.  Can you not see that none of these aspects of your reality can exist in a world driven entirely by natural deterministic events which can have no purpose or aim?

[Stranger]

You have the power to control, manipulate, create, contemplate, love, be loved, and to choose your destiny.  Can you not see that none of these aspects of your reality can exist in a world driven entirely by natural deterministic events which can have no purpose or aim?

Can you not see that this is an empty, blind faith assertion on your part?

You do not know how any of these characteristics arise and you do not know the totality of what can be achieved in the physical universe (nobody does). Your claim is ridiculous.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You are correct in your assumption that Christian faith does not hinge solely on the conjecture about a separate "I".  God has made Himself known to me so many times and in so many different ways that no amount of human scientific endeavour could ever change this.

Just think for a moment about what you said there: ”…no amount of human scientific endeavour could ever change this”.

So if, say, one day a machine is invented that shows your faith beliefs to be wrong you’d just ignore that and cling to the beliefs nonetheless?

The poverty of your arguments for “God” suggests to me strongly that you’re just guessing, and therefore that you’re very much more likely to be wrong than to be right. Nonetheless, even if you did have some logic or evidence to support you, on what possible basis would you even try to argue that either couldn’t be superseded by a different understanding at some future date?

I see that your tagline is, “The truth will set you free”. The irony of that will be lost on you, but I find it breathtaking.

I am simply trying to make you realise that you are much, much more than an uncontrolled emission from deterministic chemical activity in your physical brain.  You have the power to control, manipulate, create, contemplate, love, be loved, and to choose your destiny.

You cannot make someone “realise” something without providing a cogent argument that suggests you’re right. So far though all we have from you is assertion, and worse yet assertion that in general flatly contradicts the evidence we do have.

How do you think that helps you?

Can you not see that none of these aspects of your reality can exist in a world driven entirely by natural deterministic events which can have no purpose or aim?

Can you not see that your need for “purpose or aim” is only an expression of your wishful thinking because you find the alternative less appealing, and moreover that there are versions of these things within a deterministic universe in any case because that’s the model we appear to inhabit regardless of the deeper reality? 

Coda: Incidentally, here's a link to this week's "The Infinite Monkey Cage" that explains why doubt and uncertainty are so important to unravelling truths, and why certainty like yours is anathema to it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08bzcd1

[SusanDoris]

It was definitely a good programme today.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

    Billions of human beings would disagree.

That's called the argumentum ad populum, yet another of the various logical fallacies you commit. 

It also incidentally gives you the problem that many of those billions don't believe in your god at all. If you really want to go the route of truth as a popularity contest though, shouldn't you convert to Islam before it's too late?

The point I was making was that, contrary to what is implied by some posters on this forum, it is a perfectly natural human trait for people to be aware that God exists.  The difficulty comes in trying to discern the man made attempts to discover God from God's own revelations.

[Stranger]

The point I was making was that, contrary to what is implied by some posters on this forum, it is a perfectly natural human trait for people to be aware that God exists.

People are prone to baseless superstitions of many kinds.

The difficulty comes in trying to discern the man made attempts to discover God from God's own revelations.

Why would a real god not make itself obvious...?

[Gordon]

The point I was making was that, contrary to what is implied by some posters on this forum, it is a perfectly natural human trait for people to be aware that God exists.

The how come some of us aren't: are we unnatural?

[Shaker]

The point I was making was that, contrary to what is implied by some posters on this forum, it is a perfectly natural human trait for people to be aware that God exists.

'Believe in' rather than 'be aware of'. And then of course there's the appeal to nature fallacy ...

'The difficulty comes in trying to discern the man made attempts to discover God from God's own revelations.

...and that's the begging the question fallacy.

Crikey, they really are coming thick and fast today.

As ippy asked on another thread: are you genuinely not aware that you churn out one fallacy after another, or do you know but simply don't care?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The point I was making was that, contrary to what is implied by some posters on this forum, it is a perfectly natural human trait for people to be aware that God exists.  The difficulty comes in trying to discern the man made attempts to discover God from God's own revelations.

No, that’s not the difficulty at all. It’s not that “people are aware that God exists”, but rather it’s, “we are a pattern and explanation-seeking species for good evolutionary reasons, and for many beliefs in gods fulfil that need. That though says nothing about the likelihood of the existence of any of those gods”.

Start there, and worry about “discerning” something only when you’ve been able to demonstrate a god in the first place.

[Alan Burns]

I see that your tagline is, “The truth will set you free”. The irony of that will be lost on you, but I find it breathtaking.

You could not be more wrong!

Take away the human soul and what are you left with?
A universe in which every event is an inevitable consequence of a previous event.
Any concept of freedom in this scenario has to be classified as an illusion, even thoughts, beliefs and non-beliefs are driven by physical events which are just reactions to previous events with no possibility control, choice or manipulation.

Only the free will of the human soul can set you truly free.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You could not be more wrong!

Take away the human soul and what are you left with?

Wearily…you can’t start a discussion about the consequences of taking away “the human soul” until and unless – finally – you manage to demonstrate that such a thing exists at all.

A universe in which every event is an inevitable consequence of a previous event.

Yes. So?

Any concept of freedom in this scenario has to be classified as an illusion, even thoughts, beliefs and non-beliefs are driven by physical events which are just reactions to previous events with no possibility control, choice or manipulation.

Again, so? I’m not sure I’d use “illusion” here – for practical purposes we operate as if our will is ”free” – but essentially the underlying reality seems to be unfathomably long chains of cause and effect.   

What you’re attempting here is yet another logical fallacy – the argumentum ad consequentiam. Whether or not you happen to like the implications of the evidence says nothing whatever about whether that evidence is robust. 

Only the free will of the human soul can set you truly free.

Oh dear. As you’ve had explained to you countless times now that you have no argument of any kind to validate your version of “free” will and nor to validate the notion you call “soul”, why do you keep ignoring that in favour of repeating your mistakes?

Oh, and I see that you’ve cherry picked your reply again. Is that honest behaviour in your view? 

[torridon]

You could not be more wrong!

Take away the human soul and what are you left with?
A universe in which every event is an inevitable consequence of a previous event.
Any concept of freedom in this scenario has to be classified as an illusion, even thoughts, beliefs and non-beliefs are driven by physical events which are just reactions to previous events with no possibility control, choice or manipulation.

Only the free will of the human soul can set you truly free.

True freedom would be meaningless; trust me, you would not want it. What we do have is a limited apparent freedom, a degree of apparent autonomy, that is the best of both worlds. We feel free, and that is what matters.

[Alan Burns]

Again, so? I’m not sure I’d use “illusion” here – for practical purposes we operate as if our will is ”free” – but essentially the underlying reality seems to be unfathomably long chains of cause and effect.   

As I said, the truth will set you free.
Free from the uncontrollable shackles of scientifically defined determinism.

[Alan Burns]

True freedom would be meaningless; trust me, you would not want it. What we do have is a limited apparent freedom, a degree of apparent autonomy, that is the best of both worlds. We feel free, and that is what matters.

So you are content to be a biological robot driven entirely by deterministic events over which you have no control or choice?

But what if we do have the freedom to choose, and what does this imply?  And what if there is purpose and meaning to our existence?

[Shaker]

Being long on what ifs never amounts to much.

Oh, and since you appear to have missed it:

As ippy asked on another thread: are you genuinely not aware that you churn out one fallacy after another, or do you know but simply don't care?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I said, the truth will set you free.

And as I said, all your efforts here so far suggest very strongly that you don't know "the truth" at all.

Free from the uncontrollable shackles of scientifically defined determinism.

And again, while you may find this notion desirable, desirability has nothing to say to the truth of the matter. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So you are content to be a biological robot driven entirely by deterministic events over which you have no control or choice?

So are you content to have to breath air? After all, wouldn't it be nice if we could breathe underwater too and go for lovely long swims.

So, according to your logic, as I find the prospect of being amphibious desirable, does that mean that I am in fact amphibious?

[Shaker]

Are you going to say 'appeal to consequences fallacy', or shall I?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

Are you going to say 'appeal to consequences fallacy', or shall I?

I already have, back in Reply 14263. Predictably though, he just ignored it and repeated the fallacy. Odd.

[Shaker]

Ah, so you did. E & O all my own 

[Stranger]

Take away the human soul and what are you left with?
A universe in which every event is an inevitable consequence of a previous event.
Any concept of freedom in this scenario has to be classified as an illusion, even thoughts, beliefs and non-beliefs are driven by physical events which are just reactions to previous events with no possibility control, choice or manipulation.

    Meaningless word salad again.

As you have previously admitted, you have no idea what the "freedom" you describe actually means. You can't say how having a 'soul' changes anything at all about how 'free' we are.

If within this 'soul' of which you speak, each event is not an inevitable consequence of a previous events, then how does it arrive at its decisions? If a decision is not determined by something, then it is random. How does randomness make us any more free?

In any event, both determinism and randomness (or at least pseudo-randomness) are both available in the physical universe, so your 'soul' is totally superfluous.

You seem completely unable to grasp the logic involved, despite this:-

I admit that I do not know how conscious awareness and free will can work in the spiritual sense...

[torridon]

So you are content to be a biological robot driven entirely by deterministic events over which you have no control or choice?

But what if we do have the freedom to choose, and what does this imply?  And what if there is purpose and meaning to our existence?

What we have is the best there could be; we have apparent freedom of choice.  Total freedom would be meaningless and undesirable, that would be a chaotic world. What we are doing when we make a choice is expressing our preference, but we don't choose what our preferences are, and this is why our choices are not ultimately totally free. A choice that was not informed by a preference would be a meaningless choice, hence a world of chaos.

[Alan Burns]

In any event, both determinism and randomness (or at least pseudo-randomness) are both available in the physical universe, so your 'soul' is totally superfluous.

The ability to choose has nothing to do with randomness.
You need to asses what it is that actually invokes a conscious choice.

Many scientists will claim that an apparent choice has already been made sub consciously before we become aware of making the choice.  And according to this logic, your choice on whether to believe this or not will already have been made without you knowing!

The alternative scenario is that whatever gives us conscious awareness can also interact with our physical brain to invoke whatever is needed to implement a conscious choice. 

I maintain that I (my conscious self) has the freedom to choose, which implies that I am not controlled by the reactions to deterministic events.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The ability to choose has nothing to do with randomness.
You need to asses what it is that actually invokes a conscious choice.

Consciousness - which is an emergent property of the physical "you".

Many scientists will claim that an apparent choice has already been made sub consciously before we become aware of making the choice.  And according to this logic, your choice on whether to believe this or not will already have been made without you knowing!

The alternative scenario is that whatever gives us conscious awareness can also interact with our physical brain to invoke whatever is needed to implement a conscious choice. 

I maintain that I (my conscious self) has the freedom to choose, which implies that I am not controlled by the reactions to deterministic events.

You can "maintain" anything you like. What you keep ignoring though is that you have no evidence whatever for your conjecture, and the evidence we do have flatly contradicts it. Why then maintain it?

Try really, really hard to focus here and not just to ignore the question: what relationship do you think there is between desiring something to be true and it being true?

And when you realise that there is none, perhaps you'd like to think about dropping the appeal to consequences you keep attempting?