Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

It seems to me Alan has created his own personal narrative so as to allow him to feel that his particular take on Christian faith is rational, hence the (mis)use of 'sciency' terms: but he is ploughing a lone furrow here, since as far as I can see neither professional science nor mainstream theology are, respectively, either considering hypotheses involving 'souls' or looking at neuroscience to confirm theological claims.

Having built this edifice I suspect Alan (a bit like YEC's) will rationalise any criticisms away, since if not then his ring-fenced faith is at risk.   

[Alan Burns]

It seems to me Alan has created his own personal narrative so as to allow him to feel that his particular take on Christian faith is rational, hence the (mis)use of 'sciency' terms: but he is ploughing a lone furrow here, since as far as I can see neither professional science nor mainstream theology are, respectively, either considering hypothesis involving 'souls' or looking at neuroscience to confirm theological claims.

Having built this edifice I suspect Alan (a bit like YEC's) will rationalise any criticisms away, since if not then his ring-fenced faith is at risk.

I have simply pointed out that our conscious free will is evidence for the human soul.  Christian teaching says that it will be the soul called to account when the physical body dies.  Our destiny depends on how we have used the gift of conscious free will enabled by the human soul.  This is mainstream Christian theology.

[torridon]

I have simply pointed out that our conscious free will is evidence for the human soul.  Christian teaching says that it will be the soul called to account when the physical body dies.  Our destiny depends on how we have used the gift of conscious free will enabled by the human soul.  This is mainstream Christian theology.

That is not really evidence, it is more theological interpretation.  As for real evidence in the modern sense, there is none.

[SusanDoris]

I have simply pointed out that our conscious free will is evidence for the human soul.  Christian teaching says that it will be the soul called to account when the physical body dies.  Our destiny depends on how we have used the gift of conscious free will enabled by the human soul.  This is mainstream Christian theology.

And up comes the word'theology' again. Cite one FACT that theologists know about God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  As for real evidence in the modern sense,

yeah....modern sense Ha Ha.

[Gordon]

I have simply pointed out that our conscious free will is evidence for the human soul.  Christian teaching says that it will be the soul called to account when the physical body dies.  Our destiny depends on how we have used the gift of conscious free will enabled by the human soul.  This is mainstream Christian theology.

It may well be mainstream Christian theology, and if so it is a theology that is entirely dependent on fallacies such as those you've employed in the post quoted above.

[Stranger]

I have simply pointed out that our conscious free will is evidence for the human soul.

Is this a joke?

You can't even define what you mean by 'soul' and you cannot say why it can produce consciousness and 'free will' while something physical cannot. You haven't even defined 'free will'.

Your arguments have been vague and/or circular and you have avoided or totally misunderstood the substantive objections to them.

[torridon]

yeah....modern sense Ha Ha.

Perhaps you'd prefer to live in olden times with lower standards of scrutiny; but you'd find you'd have to put up with much lower standards of health care, life expectancy etc.  Also internet connections speeds were really dirt poor back in the Elizabethan.

[Alan Burns]

Perhaps you'd prefer to live in olden times with lower standards of scrutiny; but you'd find you'd have to put up with much lower standards of health care, life expectancy etc.  Also internet connections speeds were really dirt poor back in the Elizabethan.

In his riches, man lacks wisdom - Psalm 49

[Alan Burns]

Is this a joke?

You can't even define what you mean by 'soul' and you cannot say why it can produce consciousness and 'free will' while something physical cannot. You haven't even defined 'free will'.

Your arguments have been vague and/or circular and you have avoided or totally misunderstood the substantive objections to them.

And you seem to misunderstand how our conscious free will can be used to enter Heaven.  You have the freedom to choose to accept Jesus as your saviour.

[Alan Burns]

Some,

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?

You too seem to misunderstand how the soul is the source of conscious free will.  The biological machine of our body just needs one conscious driver.  And you have been given the freedom to drive it wherever you want.

[Stranger]

And you seem to misunderstand how our conscious free will can be used to enter Heaven.  You have the freedom to choose to accept Jesus as your saviour.

You too seem to misunderstand how the soul is the source of conscious free will.  The biological machine of our body just needs one conscious driver.  And you have been given the freedom to drive it wherever you want.

Have you given up completely with the pretend evidence and reasoning approach, then...?

[torridon]

And you seem to misunderstand how our conscious free will can be used to enter Heaven.  You have the freedom to choose to accept Jesus as your saviour.

Yet another evidence free baseless assertion from the master of circularity 

[floo]

There is a lot of talk about fake news at the moment. I think the Bible could have started the trend!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You too seem to misunderstand how the soul is the source of conscious free will.

You’re hugely overreaching here by accusing someone of misunderstanding an assertion that’s just (yet another) example of the fallacy of reification.

For reasons that have been explained to you at length but that you continue to ignore, your first task should be to demonstrate that there is a “soul” at all. I’d suggest that you start with a coherent definition, then find some logic for it in principle, then find some evidence for it.

Until and unless you can do any of that you’re just crying in the wind. 

The biological machine of our body just needs one conscious driver.

That may or may not be the case, but effectively we already have one – it’s called the prefrontal cortex.

And you have been given the freedom to drive it wherever you want.

Say what now? So in the fantastical contradictory world of ABism we have a mystery “driver”, only we get to drive that driver?

Who’s this “we” then (yet another little man at the controls maybe?) and what would be the purpose of this driver be when we get to drive it rather than the other way around?

You’ve really gone off the deep end this time old son.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

Have you given up completely with the pretend evidence and reasoning approach, then...?

I think he has. Now he's had every effort at using reason ransacked, dhansaked and thrown against a wall* he's retreated to, "well it's theology innit" as if that should somehow mean very bad thinking should be given special respect.

Weird stuff, and slightly chilling when you see someone so lost to reason this close up.

* John Cooper Clarke

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All we see here is some disturbed people bleating that somebody is not demonstrating reason when there is not much record of them using it themselves.

Sticking a metaphorical post it note on one's forehead with the words reason, logic, science etc and asking 'what am I?' doesn't make one reasonable, logical etc.

The lack of someone willing to state and restate what their reasons are, what their philosophies are is a sign of moral cowardice and one of the reasons I no longer take many seriously or wish to contribute at former levels.

Many of you would get something out of stepping back before Internet machoness engulfs.

IMHO.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

All we see here is some disturbed people bleating that somebody is not demonstrating reason when there is not much record of them using it themselves.

Sticking a metaphorical post it note on one's forehead with the words reason, logic, science etc and asking 'what am I?' doesn't make one reasonable, logical etc.

The lack of someone willing to state and restate what their reasons are, what their philosophies are is a sign of moral cowardice and one of the reasons I no longer take many seriously or wish to contribute at former levels.

Many of you would get something out of stepping back before Internet machoness engulfs.

IMHO.

Oh blimey, he’s back.

What’s actually happening is that someone is attempting to use reason to validate his religious claims, and that reasoning is being falsified. Nothing more, nothing less.

His options now are either to try to return with some reasoning that isn’t broken, or to abandon the attempt entirely and instead stick with assertions that rest on his personal faith.

If he does the former, his thinking can be addressed and falsified again or not as the case may be.

If he does the latter that’ll be no-one’s business but his own, but he’ll have abandoned any claim to his beliefs therefore being true for anyone else.

Any news by the way on why a bad argument becomes a good one when you change the object from leprechauns to “God”, or have you abandoned ship on that one now too?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Oh blimey, he’s back.

What’s actually happening is that someone is attempting to use reason to validate his religious claims, and that reasoning is being falsified. Nothing more, nothing less.

His options now are either to try to return with some reasoning that isn’t broken, or to abandon the attempt entirely and instead stick with assertions that rest on his personal faith.

If he does the former, his thinking can be addressed and falsified again or not as the case may be.

If he does the latter that’ll be no-one’s business but his own, but he’ll have abandoned any claim to his beliefs therefore being true for anyone else.

Any news by the way on why a bad argument becomes a good one when you change the object from leprechauns to “God”, or have you abandoned ship on that one now too?

Yes we know the mechanics and the procedure about how you would go about it. Hillside.
Do you have a paywall or something before you actually propose something reasonable or say something logical?
In as much as they are related a bad argument for a Leprechaun is a bad argument for anything you could substitute the word Leprechaun with, or do you disagree with that?
And finally your accusation of going nuclear. Going nuclear is when a New Atheist suffers a reduction to basics of his own arguments and is an expression of his indignation of having been hoist etc.

As I think that settles everything, I shall have a potter about ''dans le jardin.''

[Sebastian Toe]

  Christian teaching says that it will be the soul called to account when the physical body dies. 

Account for what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes we know the mechanics and the procedure about how you would go about it. Hillside.

Then why post stupid comments about “disturbed” people if you know that’s what’s actually happening?

Do you have a paywall or something before you actually propose something reasonable or say something logical?

No, you just post it. After all these years of not doing that, why not try it?
 

In as much as they are related a bad argument for a Leprechaun is a bad argument for anything you could substitute the word Leprechaun with, or do you disagree with that?

Why would I as it’s my argument? As you’ve now grasped it though, do you comprehend that it’s still a bad argument when the conclusion is “God”?

And finally…

“Finally”? Any chance of a firstly or a secondly to precede it?

…your accusation of going nuclear. Going nuclear is when a New Atheist suffers a reduction to basics of his own arguments and is an expression of his indignation of having been hoist etc.

No, it’s when people like you have their efforts undone and respond with, “well as it’s all axioms anyway even if I am guessing about God then so are you about gravity”. It’s wrong for reasons that have been explained to you many times, but that you lie about or ignore.

As I think that settles everything, I shall have a potter about ''dans le jardin.''

Yes – it settles that you continue to be hopelessly out of your depth.

[Maeght]

You too seem to misunderstand how the soul is the source of conscious free will.  The biological machine of our body just needs one conscious driver.  And you have been given the freedom to drive it wherever you want.

You seem to have missed out an important bit, surely this should have read

You too seem to misunderstand my belief that the soul is the source of conscious free will.  I believe the biological machine of our body just needs one conscious driver.  And I believe you have been given the freedom to drive it wherever you want.

Hope that helps.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then why post stupid comments about “disturbed” people if you know that’s what’s actually happening?

No, you just post it. After all these years of not doing that, why not try it?
 
Why would I as it’s my argument? As you’ve now grasped it though, do you comprehend that it’s still a bad argument when the conclusion is “God”?

You got me out of the garden so you could specially plead God?
Any relationship of God to Leprechauns apart from they are both unfalsifiable?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it’s when people like you have their efforts undone and respond with, “well as it’s all axioms anyway even if I am guessing about God then so are you about gravity”.

Complete red herring and straw man because I have never said that.
More handwaving on your part.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You got me out of the garden so you could specially plead God?

No – the special pleading for "God" is yours, not mine remember?

Any relationship of God to Leprechauns apart from they are both unfalsifiable?

This is exceptionally dim even by your standards. It’s not that there’s a “relationship” between them, it’s that arguments that are bad stay bad regardless of which of those outcomes they produce.

Why is such a simple point so difficult for you?

Complete red herring and straw man because I have never said that.

More handwaving on your part.

Your entire schtick relies on it, only you don’t understand what you’re doing. It’s a simple enough formula: you make up new meanings for terms like “materialism” such that they must be claimed to be universally true; then you argue that that straw man is not something that’s demonstrable; then you say, “OK, even if I’m guessing about “God” then so are you about materialism etc".

You’re so invested in the dishonesty that you’ll never back out of it, but a dishonesty it is nonetheless.