Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Avoidance noted.

Oh yes........ avoidance of what exactly?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The argument that undoes you and that you just ignored. Either you think that a bad argument for leprechauns becomes a good argument when you substitute with 'God' or you don't.

It's your call.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The argument that undoes you and that you just ignored. Either you think that a bad argument for leprechauns becomes a good argument when you substitute with 'God' or you don't.

It's your call.

No. Isn't it down to you if you think there are bad arguments for leprechauns to show what those argument are.

You already presented one which I never use anyway but that is also a bad argument for materialism, physicalism and any other unfalsifiable. Why, then are you specially pleading God?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It means that you have no idea what “quantum” means. ...

I am well aware that quantum means "smallest possible" and that quantum mechanics gives insights into what happens at sub atomic levels.  It is admittedly a difficult subject to deal with.  Richard Feynman once said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."  One of the main difficulties in understanding how it works is due to the uncertainty principle which is due to events happening at quantum level which are apparently non deterministic, with no apparent cause.  Yet at the atomic level there is demonstrable stability and determinism.  This was something Einstein had trouble getting to grips with when he made his famous statement, "God does not play dice".

I am not trying to show that quantum theory can be used to prove God's existence, but it can be an indication that there is plenty of scope for interaction between physical and non physical.  The non physical being whatever it is that drives quantum events which have no discernable physical cause.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No. Isn't it down to you if you think there are bad arguments for leprechauns to show what those argument are.

Wrong again. It’s simple enough: there are various arguments used to demonstrate “God” whose logical force is unchanged by substituting that outcome for “leprechauns”, or for any other conjecture. Either you accept the force of the argument for any conjecture therefore or you need a reason to make it sound for one conclusion but not for the rest.

If nonetheless you seriously think a bad argument becomes a good argument when you change the outcome to one that suits you better, then by all means tell us why.

You already presented one which I never use anyway…

Actually you have attempted it in the past, and moreover you just asked for an argument, not for the one you happen try the most. That’s what I provided. (This is a bit much from someone whose entire approach here consists of straw men too by the way.)

[/quote]…but that is also a bad argument for materialism, physicalism and any other unfalsifiable. Why, then are you specially pleading God?[/quote]

Categorically wrong as ever because you’re using your personal definitions of these terms again in order to go nuclear. Gravity is demonstrably more "true" as an explanation for apples falling than is invisible pixies pulling them down with tiny strings. There is though no claim here to absolutism – for all either of us know it is pixies doing it – but probabilistically gravity provides the working model until and unless an explanation that better describes the observable phenomena comes along.

However much you throw irrelevancies at it, the logic here remains: if an argument for “God” works equally well for leprechauns, then it’s probably a bad argument.

If you think you can lay a glove on that then – finally – try to do so.         

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not trying to show that quantum theory can be used to prove God's existence, but it can be an indication that there is plenty of scope for interaction between physical and non physical.  The non physical being whatever it is that drives quantum events which have no discernable physical cause.

Which is epistemically the same as me saying that the quantum provides a possible mechanism for unicorns to put happy dreams in our heads. Your issue here isn’t the quantum – rather it’s just assuming the “soul” you think could interact with it.

[ekim]

Which is completely irrelevant to the question. I seriously don't understand why you (and Alan, it would seem) find this basic, basic question so difficult to grasp.   

It's about how we decide to do anything. It's about any decision at all. It isn't about any specific decision and no specific decision can answer the question.

It's really, really simple: are our decisions inevitable, based on all our experience, our initial state (genetics and whatever characteristics a soul might have when god manufactures one) and all the things that are happening at the time, or not? If not, then the only alternative is that there is some random element to them.

It's not that the question is difficult to grasp but the answer, which apparently requires a universal answer if by 'we' you mean everybody on the planet, is unlikely to be 100% certain because I doubt whether anybody is in possession of 100% of the facts.  As regards your 'either experience or random' mantra, I don't think anybody is disputing it.  The reason I replied the way I did was to keep it within the context of the topic 'Searching for God' and in that context, if Alan's experience is that he has found God then his following actions are likely to be determined by the experience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wrong again. It’s simple enough: there are various arguments used to demonstrate “God” whose logical force is unchanged by substituting that outcome for “leprechauns”, or for any other conjecture. Either you accept the force of the argument for any conjecture therefore or you need a reason to make it sound for one conclusion but not for the rest.

If nonetheless you seriously think a bad argument becomes a good argument when you change the outcome to one that suits you better, then by all means tell us why.

Actually you have attempted it in the past, and moreover you just asked for an argument, not for the one you happen try the most. That’s what I provided. (This is a bit much from someone whose entire approach here consists of straw men too by the way.)

…but that is also a bad argument for materialism, physicalism and any other unfalsifiable. Why, then are you specially pleading God?

Categorically wrong as ever because you’re using your personal definitions of these terms again in order to go nuclear. Gravity is demonstrably more "true" as an explanation for apples falling than is invisible pixies pulling them down with tiny strings. There is though no claim here to absolutism – for all either of us know it is pixies doing it – but probabilistically gravity provides the working model until and unless an explanation that better describes the observable phenomena comes along.

However much you throw irrelevancies at it, the logic here remains: if an argument for “God” works equally well for leprechauns, then it’s probably a bad argument.

If you think you can lay a glove on that then – finally – try to do so.         

Hillside. No one as far as I am aware has said that God is true because he is unfalsifiable.
That is i'm afraid only ''true for you' and perhaps trickle-downable to your wee wizards.

Your arguments have been seen through because not only can you substitute 'God' into them you can substitute any unfalsifiable in the place of God.

.....and now that a key feature of Hillsidism has been shown up......my work here is, for the moment, done.

[SqueakyVoice]

Hillside. No one as far as I am aware has said that God is true because he is unfalsifiable.
That is i'm afraid only ''true for you' and perhaps trickle-downable to your wee wizards.

Your arguments have been seen through because not only can you substitute 'God' into them you can substitute any unfalsifiable in the place of God.

.....and now that a key feature of Hillsidism has been shown up......my work here is, for the moment, done.

Good grief. Watching chunsty trying to get the point is like those stories (from the Falklands) about penguins that were so intent on watching planes fly over them that they ended up falling flat on their backs.

"Look! Look! There's the point. Up in the sky! Look look it's going straight over us!" THUD. "Wow. That point was amazing! Look! Another one, another one!" THUD. "They keep going right over our" THUD. "heads!" THUD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good grief. Watching chunsty trying to get the point is like those stories (from the Falklands) about penguins that were so intent on watching planes fly over them that they ended up falling flat on their backs.

"Look! Look! There's the point. Up in the sky! Look look it's going straight over us!" THUD. "Wow. That point was amazing! Look! Another one, another one!" THUD. "They keep going right over our" THUD. "heads!" THUD...

And that Hillside is how you can write a content free ad hominem antitheist post without resorting to the word ''Leprechaun''.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside. No one as far as I am aware has said that God is true because he is unfalsifiable.

Actually lots do – which is why we see the NPF so often here. Either way though, you’ve epically missed the point again here – namely that any argument for “God” that works equally for leprechauns is probably a bad argument. It doesn’t matter what that argument is – the NPF, the argument from consequences, the argument from personal preference, you name it – they all fail the leprechaun test. 

That is i'm afraid only ''true for you' and perhaps trickle-downable to your wee wizards.

The random word generator seems to working well today I see.

Your arguments have been seen through because not only can you substitute 'God' into them you can substitute any unfalsifiable in the place of God.

Um, as you’ve just avoided or lied about them I’m not sure why you think my arguments have been “seen through”, but you’ve just unwittingly made the point for me in any case. When an argument allows you to substitute any unfalsifiable conjecture for the unfalsifiable conjecture “God” should we then accept all of them as true or none of them?

Your only alternative is special pleading for the one conjecture that happens to suit you best, but it’s up to you.

.....and now that a key feature of Hillsidism has been shown up......my work here is, for the moment, done.

Or, more accurately, not even begun.

You have by the way a remarkable facility for shooting yourself in the foot and then claiming your "victory".

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And that Hillside is how you can write a content free ad hominem antitheist post without resorting to the word ''Leprechaun''.

Your are aware that Squeaks is criticising you, not supporting you right?

[Maeght]

our brains are more evolved that is all.

More evolved!?!

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad,

Your are aware that Squeaks is criticising you, not supporting you right?

Err given he describes Squeaky's post as 'a content free ad hominem antitheist post' surely that's obvious?

[Gordon]

Good grief. Watching chunsty trying to get the point is like those stories (from the Falklands) about penguins that were so intent on watching planes fly over them that they ended up falling flat on their backs.

"Look! Look! There's the point. Up in the sky! Look look it's going straight over us!" THUD. "Wow. That point was amazing! Look! Another one, another one!" THUD. "They keep going right over our" THUD. "heads!" THUD...

There are few posts that cause me to laugh out loud: the above is one of those.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Err given he describes Squeaky's post as 'a content free ad hominem antitheist post' surely that's obvious?

Nothing Vlad attempts is obvious, but I take the point.

[Stranger]

It's not that the question is difficult to grasp but the answer, which apparently requires a universal answer if by 'we' you mean everybody on the planet, is unlikely to be 100% certain because I doubt whether anybody is in possession of 100% of the facts.

Again, I don't think you've understood. Of course the question applies to everybody: just as the question "how do you think the human eye focuses light?" or "how do human muscles contract?" would apply to all humans.

As regards your 'either experience or random' mantra, I don't think anybody is disputing it.

Well, it's specifically about determinism because Alan seems to think that determinism (at least in the context of the physical universe) would make 'control' and 'free will' impossible. I'm trying to get him to say how these things would operate with his 'soul' idea - what he thinks would be different.

The reason I replied the way I did was to keep it within the context of the topic 'Searching for God' and in that context, if Alan's experience is that he has found God then his following actions are likely to be determined by the experience.

Which is irrelevant. It isn't (yet again) about deciding why somebody made a specific choice - it's about how choice itself works in the human mind (or soul). Your example is at totally the wrong level of abstraction. Our own (or other people's) perception of how or why we made a choice (any choice) doesn't matter because it's subjective and we simply don't have, and can't possibly have, all the details.

Alan is arguing that genuine choice cannot take place in an entirely deterministic universe and I am trying to point out that postulating a soul doesn't really change anything fundamental - you are still left with either determinism or randomness (just as we are in the physical universe).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

Alan is arguing that genuine choice cannot take place in an entirely deterministic universe and I am trying to point out that postulating a soul doesn't really change anything fundamental - you are still left with either determinism or randomness (just as we are in the physical universe).

In response to which his escape clause seems to be, "Um, well I haven't quite got all the details worked out just yet. Oh is that the time already? Must dash..." etc, by which he actually means, "Um, I have no details of any kind to validate my conjecture". 

[Stranger]

Some,

In response to which his escape clause seems to be, "Um, well I haven't quite got all the details worked out just yet. Oh is that the time already? Must dash..." etc, by which he actually means, "Um, I have no details of any kind to validate my conjecture".

Yes, perhaps muttering "not driven by uncontrolled physical chains of events" on his way out...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

Yes, perhaps muttering "not driven by uncontrolled physical chains of events" on his way out...

...to repair to the Quantum Arms no doubt where his free will can randomly decide whether or not to interact with a pint of Old Determinist and a packet of pork scratchings. 

[Alan Burns]

Alan is arguing that genuine choice cannot take place in an entirely deterministic universe and I am trying to point out that postulating a soul doesn't really change anything fundamental - you are still left with either determinism or randomness (just as we are in the physical universe).

Can you not see the difference between physical determinism, in which our conscious awareness is just a spectator, and spiritual determinism which allows our conscious awareness to interact and take control?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Can you not see the difference between physical determinism, in which our conscious awareness is just a spectator, and spiritual determinism which allows our conscious awareness to interact and take control?

Yes: deterministic conscious awareness as a function of the pre-frontal cortex is the best description of it we have using the available reasoning and evidence, and there’s no “spectator” involved because we are self-aware.

“Spiritual determinism” on the other hand is just something you’ve made up to validate your religious beliefs that has no coherent definition, no logical need to exist at all and no evidence to support it, and thus is entirely lacking in explanatory power. 

[Stranger]

Can you not see the difference between physical determinism, in which our conscious awareness is just a spectator, and spiritual determinism which allows our conscious awareness to interact and take control?

That doesn't make any sense. Determinism doesn't come it different flavours. The question is about how our "conscious awareness" works - is it deterministic or not (which means some randomness)?

Whether it is a physical process or something else doesn't change the options.

Added:-

Look, I understand that you think it's hard to see how the brain can produce consciousness in a deterministic, physical universe and so you want to postulate something from 'outside' that interacts, takes control, and makes the choices.

BUT - can't you see that this doesn't solve the problem, it just relocates it?

We now have this 'soul' and we need to ask the same questions of it as we started off asking about the brain. How does it manage to be conscious? Is what it is doing deterministic or not? If it isn't deterministic then the only other option is randomness and how would that help it to be conscious or make 'free will' choices?

There is simply nothing that has been gained in terms of understanding consciousness or 'free will'. Nothing whatsoever...

[torridon]

Can you not see the difference between physical determinism, in which our conscious awareness is just a spectator, and spiritual determinism which allows our conscious awareness to interact and take control?

Spiritual determinism ?  Whatever next ?

Things are either determined or they aren't.  Conscious awareness is not some special epistemic category that can magically turn illogic into logic.  Conscious awareness is retrospective, anyway, according to the relevant evidence and so is irrelevant to the fundamental logic of the notion of choice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

Added:-

Look, I understand that you think it's hard to see how the brain can produce consciousness in a deterministic, physical universe and so you want to postulate something from 'outside' that interacts, takes control, and makes the choices.

BUT - can't you see that this doesn't solve the problem, it just relocates it?

We now have this 'soul' and we need to ask the same questions of it as we started off asking about the brain. How does it manage to be conscious? Is what it is doing deterministic or not? If it isn't deterministic then the only other option is randomness and how would that help it to be conscious or make 'free will' choices?

There is simply nothing that has been gained in terms of understanding consciousness or 'free will'. Nothing whatsoever...

This is pretty much what some of us have been saying to him all along, albeit that he just ignores the problem. Having pouffed into existence a little man at the controls he calls “soul”, the same question would apply to that "soul”: does it function deterministically, or does it just fire off its orders at random?

It’s even worse that that in a way. If AB seriously thinks that this “soul” is making the decisions, then we can look at those decisions to see whether we act reasonably consistently or randomly – loving twiglets one minute, hating them the next etc. As clearly there is a degree of consistency in our behaviour, that would suggest that this “soul”  is acting consistently too, which would suggest that it would be drawing on previous experience and so itself has the illusion of “free” will while functioning on the basis of cause and effect.

Perhaps AB will respond by telling us that, in that case, there must be another little man at his controls or something. What could possibly go wrong with that I wonder?