Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

More warmed over materialism which ignores the Moral argument due to your uses of it making the word and concept instantly redundant.

A fiver to anyone who can work out what this abject nonsense has to do with the post Vlad thought he was answering, namely:

"He may be grasping toward it but it's a straw man in any case - no-one says that his beliefs are wrong because his arguments for them are hopeless, just that we (and he) have no reason to think they're right."

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Essentially the NPF and shifting the burden of proof are related.

Kissing cousins maybe, but to be fair to Susan she didn't say, "prove my contention that he's wrong to be false" (the NPF), but rather she asked him to prove the he was right (shifting the burden of proof).

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Kissing cousins maybe, but to be fair to Susan she didn't say, "prove my contention that he's wrong to be false" (the NPF), but rather she asked him to prove the he was right (shifting the burden of proof).

Do the semantics matter here when it's an obviously fallacious approach?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

A fiver to anyone who can work out what this abject nonsense has to do with the post Vlad thought he was answering, namely:

"He may be grasping toward it but it's a straw man in any case - no-one says that his beliefs are wrong because his arguments for them are hopeless, just that we (and he) have no reason to think they're right."

What's the problem here? Is it with the statement that any of your definitions of the word morality render the idea redundant and therefore you ignore the moral argument?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

A fiver to anyone who can work out what this abject nonsense has to do with the post Vlad thought he was answering, namely:

"He may be grasping toward it but it's a straw man in any case - no-one says that his beliefs are wrong because his arguments for them are hopeless, just that we (and he) have no reason to think they're right."

Or wrong.

[Stranger]

What's the problem here? Is it with the statement that any of your definitions of the word morality render the idea redundant and therefore you ignore the moral argument?

So actually your post had bugger all to do with any of the preceding conversation...

[Nearly Sane]

Or wrong.

And shifting the burden of proof

[SusanDoris]

NS,

Kissing cousins maybe, but to be fair to Susan she didn't say, "prove my contention that he's wrong to be false" (the NPF), but rather she asked him to prove the he was right (shifting the burden of proof).

Thank you for saying!

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Do the semantics matter here when it's an obviously fallacious approach?

You of all people would usually argue that semantics matter a lot I think (and I'd agree), but it matters here only for labelling purposes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What's the problem here? Is it with the statement that any of your definitions of the word morality render the idea redundant and therefore you ignore the moral argument?

The problem is that discussions about materialism and morality (albeit incompetently done) have nothing to do with the point in logic that was being argued (which concerned the use of a straw man). 

[Nearly Sane]

Thank you for saying!

You do realise that bluehillside is saying you used a fallacious approach?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Or wrong.

What's wrong?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

You of all people would usually argue that semantics matter a lot I think (and I'd agree), but it matters here only for labelling purposes.

What is meant by something is indeed important but I think that the NOF and shifting the burden of proof are essentially the same issue just differently expressed, usually dependent on the way earlier statements being replied to are stated. Again doesn't matter, since SD's approach is fallacious.

[Gordon]

I fear I haven't been clear earlier: so to clarify - it is possible for an argument to be fallacious yet the conclusion may well be true: but this 'truth' isn't being demonstrated by force of the argument, where the citing a fallacy is a critique of the argument.

 

[SusanDoris]

You do realise that bluehillside is saying you used a fallacious approach?

At my age, I'm far too old to be concerned about whether I have made a mistake or not!

[ippy]

Aw come on you lot WAKE UP!

You are much more than a few molecules dancing to the deterministic tune of the Devil's secular world.

Rejoice in the free spirit God has given you and give thanks for it! 

Alan you've mentioned some gatherings of your fellow believers that you attend from time to time, could you let me know about where they are and the dates etcetra, only I would like to know so that I can avoid them, it's mainly the ones here in the UK, this year, that I would like to know about.

I'm glad you think you get something out of these meetings of yours, I just hope you have the decency to not involve any very impresionable young children with them.

ippy

[Maeght]

Aw come on you lot WAKE UP!

Fully awake thanks. How about answering the questions being asked.

You are much more than a few molecules dancing to the deterministic tune of the Devil's secular world.

Rejoice in the free spirit God has given you and give thanks for it! 

He asserted ....

[Maeght]

In the particular case mentioned, both are determined.  One is determined by a sudden discharge of an emotional state of anger with very little, if any, conscious choice involved.  The other is determined by the ability to establish a space or time gap between the emotional build up and the response so that a conscious choice can be made.  For some it might be a plotted revenge for others perhaps forgiveness.

How is that to do with what I asked about how do you make a choice between two alternatives please?

[Maeght]

So how come we are capable of doing something which is not logical, just because we want to?  The spirit of free will is driven by a conscious overriding will - not deterministic logic.

Who says deterministic choices should appear to be logical? What determines the choice made by this spirit of free will? You don't seem to be able to answer this question.

[Alan Burns]

Who says deterministic choices should appear to be logical? What determines the choice made by this spirit of free will? You don't seem to be able to answer this question.

Of course we can't fully answer this question because we do not know what comprises the human soul.  We can work out what it does in terms of giving us awareness and free will, but the true nature of the human soul does not come from this deterministic material world.  Our true home will be in heaven.

[ekim]

How is that to do with what I asked about how do you make a choice between two alternatives please?

Sorry if you don't understand my reply.  Perhaps you had better give a specific example of what the alternatives might be and I'll try to be clearer.

[torridon]

Of course we can't fully answer this question because we do not know what comprises the human soul.  We can work out what it does in terms of giving us awareness and free will, but the true nature of the human soul does not come from this deterministic material world.  Our true home will be in heaven.

 .. he asserted, without, as usual, any attempt at justification

[Alan Burns]

.. he asserted, without, as usual, any attempt at justification

The justification lies in our perception of reality and how it fits in with the revelations of the Christian bible, but does not fit in with the secular science which tells us we have no free will.

[torridon]

The justification lies in our perception of reality and how it fits in with the revelations of the Christian bible, but does not fit in with the secular science which tells us we have no free will.

There is no such thing as 'secular' science, there is just science, or knowledge, if you prefer its original meaning. I suppose it not surprising that ancient scriptures would 'fit' with the level of knowledge of the times when they were written; anything other would be remarkable.  However our knowledge base has grown immensely since those times and we have come to understand there are many ways in which how things seem is not always the same as how things actually are.

[Stranger]

Of course we can't fully answer this question because we do not know what comprises the human soul.  We can work out what it does in terms of giving us awareness and free will, but the true nature of the human soul does not come from this deterministic material world.

We can, however, logically work out that it must be deterministic (possibly with some random element). See #14701 for detail.

Our true home will be in heaven.

Unfortunately you have yet to provide a hint of evidence or a jot of logical argument to suggest that this is anything more than an old superstition.