Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

... which derives from biochemistry which derives from atomic matter ...

Just looking at this bit of your logical sequence,
There is no logical reason why biochemistry should be produced naturally from atomic matter.  If there was, we could use this logical process to create life.  The point I was making is that outside this little microcosm of life on our planet, there is no logical reason why the random forces of this universe should produce anything but increasing lifeless chaos.

[Alan Burns]

First, all that was necessary was that much simpler life than us came about. Evolution did the rest.

But human creativity started with something fairly simple, then developed ever more complex creations by manipulating natural elements using their conscious free will to achieve specific goals.  So something less complex becomes more complex through intelligent interaction from something even more complex.  The bible says we are made in God's image, so it is logical to assume that human creativity is a reflection of God's creativity.

[Gordon]

The bible says we are made in God's image, so it is logical to assume that human creativity is a reflection of God's creativity.

The bible may say that, Alan, but it isn't logical to assume that what the bible says here is in any sense authoritative, especially bearing in mind the knowledge limitations of those times compared with now - time perhaps you stopped taking the bible too literally.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But it is a poor analogy because there is a very logical reason why the puddle fits the hole.

No, it's a good analogy because there's just as logical a reason to think that we've evolved to fit our environment - it's called evidence.

That's the point of the analogy - that assuming we're the end game that was intended all along is a basic reference point error.

[Alan Burns]

The bible may say that, Alan, but it isn't logical to assume that what the bible says here is in any sense authoritative, especially bearing in mind the knowledge limitations of those times compared with now - time perhaps you stopped taking the bible too literally.

But I find no logical reason to contradict the message of the New Testament.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But human creativity started with something fairly simple, then developed ever more complex creations by manipulating natural elements using their conscious free will to achieve specific goals.

I’ve no idea what you mean by “human creativity” here, but if you mean something like “consciousness” then that evolved but not by manipulating anything. Rather our predecessors' genes adapted in response to environmental pressures.

So something less complex becomes more complex through intelligent interaction from something even more complex.

Spectacular nonsense. A virus for example that wiped out lots of a species but not enough for those with a natural immunity not to survive and breed doesn’t have to be “more complex” than the species at all.

The bible says we are made in God's image, so it is logical to assume that human creativity is a reflection of God's creativity.

See if you can work out for yourself where you went wrong there. I’ll give you a clue – it’s in the connective, “so”.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But I find no logical reason to contradict the message of the New Testament.

Depends what you mean by "message' but if you mean, "claims of fact" then you're not looking hard enough.

[Alan Burns]

That's actually why it's a good analogy.

But the big question is: Did we evolve to fit our environment by natural unguided forces, or were we designed to fit it by meticulous manipulation of natural forces?  The puddle analogy fails to help.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the big question is: Did we evolve to fit our environment by natural unguided forces, or were we designed to fit it by meticulous manipulation of natural forces?

That's not a big question at all, nor even a small one - and nor has it been for some 150 years. The evidence for the former is so overwhelming that there is no question.

The puddle analogy fails to help.

Only because you don't understand it. The puddle analogy helps a lot to remind us that the reference point error can have disastrous consequences.

[Alan Burns]

I’ve no idea what you mean by “human creativity” here, but if you mean something like “consciousness” then that evolved but not by manipulating anything. Rather our predecessors adapted in response to environmental pressures.

But we have no idea how consciousness could have evolved because there is no physical definition of what it is.  Even Dawkins admits that subjective consciousness is the greatest challenge to biologists (see The Selfish Gene).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But we have no idea how consciousness could have evolved because there is no physical definition of what it is.

Why do you keep repeating this mistake despite being corrected on it?

We have a robust idea of how consciousness evolved because it fits exactly with the models of evolution and of emergence that we do have. It’s not necessary at all to "define" it fully for that to be the case, and if you do want to deny the explanation we do have you’ll need an awful lot more that some personal incredulity and a lot of wishful thinking.

Worse yet, even if you could come up with a reason to disqualify a naturalistic explanation, still you’d have all your work ahead of you to provide a meaningful alternative with logic, evidence and investigability to support it. “Magic” (or as you call it, “God”) offers none of those things.   

Even Dawkins admits that subjective consciousness is the greatest challenge to biologists (see The Selfish Gene).

Yes, in terms of unravelling how it works it probably is. Not for one moment though does he suggest that it hasn’t evolved along with the rest of our systems.

To imply otherwise is dishonest.

[torridon]

Just looking at this bit of your logical sequence,
There is no logical reason why biochemistry should be produced naturally from atomic matter.  If there was, we could use this logical process to create life.  The point I was making is that outside this little microcosm of life on our planet, there is no logical reason why the random forces of this universe should produce anything but increasing lifeless chaos.

Just because we don't yet understand all the pathways between chemistry and biology doesn't mean they don't exist or warrant us to imagine there must be some magic intervention in the gap

https://i1.wp.com/avionod.wordpress.com/files/2009/04/then-a-miracle-happens.gif

I ate some salt yesterday, now that salt is incorporated into proteins which are incorporated into cells which are part of me.  It happens, and it illustrates the fact that complex things (eg proteins) derive from simpler things (eg salt) so to go looking for an ultimate origin of all things we need to look for something that cannot be further reduced or deconstructed. 

[torridon]

But we have no idea how consciousness could have evolved because there is no physical definition of what it is.  Even Dawkins admits that subjective consciousness is the greatest challenge to biologists (see The Selfish Gene).

Not correct to say we have no ideas how it evolved. Evidence suggests it evolved in invertebrates in the PreCambrian as organisms developed increasingly complex nervous systems; the earliest forms of consciousness predated the development of complex external sense organs and this reminds us that the base nature of consciousness is an affect state that indicates the overall internal state of a complex organism.  It may have evolved at different times in other lines, it may be an example of convergent evolution - the more complexity a species achieves, the more sophisticated the quality of its awareness is.

[Stranger]

But we have no idea how consciousness could have evolved because there is no physical definition of what it is.  Even Dawkins admits that subjective consciousness is the greatest challenge to biologists (see The Selfish Gene).

Once again you are trying to conclude something from a lack of full understanding (of consciousness, in this case). This is the logical fallacy known as argument from ignorance. You keep on trying to claim that consciousness cannot be the result of a physical system from the fact that we don't know exactly how it would work.

It's logically invalid and if you care about honesty, you really need to acknowledge that and stop using it.

It's also worth noting that the remark from The Selfish Gene comes after a section about how simulation (of parts of the world) would be a good survival trait and hence something that we might expect to see as a result of evolution. The full quote follows.

The evolution of the capacity to simulate seems to have culminated in subjective consciousness. Why this should have happened is, to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology. There is no reason to suppose that electronic computers are conscious when they simulate, although we have to admit that in the future they may become so. Perhaps consciousness arises when the brain's simulation of the world becomes so complete that it must include a model of itself.

There is also a lengthy endnote about this passage in the 30th Anniversary Edition that refers other ideas about consciousness (Dennett among others).

[Rhiannon]

But I find no logical reason to contradict the message of the New Testament.

Because it contradicts itself might be a good place to start.

[Gordon]

But I find no logical reason to contradict the message of the New Testament.

That would be because you aren't thinking about it logically; if you were you'd have a credible answer to the question I've often asked here about how you've meaningfully excluded the risk of mistakes, exaggeration or lies in the NT details.   

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Ssword of the Spirit

May I offer some advice? I have learnt quite a lot about philosophy since members here first posted on the BBC R/E boards, but I do not attempt to use such knowledge unless I am quite clear about whether it is appropriate to use it in a post. I recommend this to you to avoid having errors pointed out to you.

Thank you for your advice SusanDoris. Take care.

[ippy]

Alan, you keep telling us that, in various ways, that this god thingy idea of yours really does exist but you've been unable to tell anybody how or what rational/logical reasoning you've been through that has enabled you/yourself to take on this decision that something you refer to as god, really does exist.

I know there will be no need to wait for you to tell us all about it if you do obtain definitive proof of it's existence, because unfortunately for us, we'd never hear the end of it.

In theory if you pray for long enough and this god, as you call it, really is there, what do you think the odds are that you might get an answer?

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

Alan, you keep telling us that, in various ways, that this god thingy idea of yours really does exist but you've been unable to tell anybody how or what rational/logical reasoning you've been through that has enabled you/yourself to take on this decision that something you refer to as god, really does exist.

I know there will be no need to wait for you to tell us all about it if you do obtain definitive proof of it's existence, because unfortunately for us, we'd never hear the end of it.

In theory if you pray for long enough and this god, as you call it, really is there, what do you think the odds are that you might get an answer?

Just to note two further problems AB's given himself by asserting that the naturalistic explanation we have for consciousness is "impossible".

First, there are many phenomena that are not fully defined (fluid dynamics for example) for which we have naturalistic explanations to which he raises no objection at all. What I wonder is it about consciousness that magically exempts it from the class of phenomena that are incompletely defined but robustly explained?

Second, he wants to play the "not fully defined" card to exempt naturalism and to replace it with "God" - a claim for which there's no coherent or cogent definition of any kind, let alone one that's investigable. The "not fully defined" argument is a bad one in any case, but it would be catastrophic for his alternative.

[ippy]

ipster,

Just to note two further problems AB's given himself by asserting that the naturalistic explanation we have for consciousness is "impossible".

First, there are many phenomena that are not fully defined (fluid dynamics for example) for which we have naturalistic explanations to which he raises no objection at all. What I wonder is it about consciousness that magically exempts it from the class of phenomena that are incompletely defined but robustly explained?

Second, he wants to play the "not fully defined" card to exempt naturalism and to replace it with "God" - a claim for which there's no definition of any kind, let alone one that's investigable. The "not fully defined" argument is a bad one in any case, but it would be catastrophic for his alternative.

In my opinion he's either a determined mega delusional or one of those, them there, things listed in the forum's rulebook that we are banned from saying.

I don't have any problems with people like Alan other than they get in the way at Christmas time in our town's shopping arcade; what does really get to me is when you see their poor vulnerable young children, other than the social aspect, being dragged around with them at their, silly and pointless gatherings, other than that you delude away to your hearts content Alan.   

ippy

[SqueakyVoice]

This seems to apply just as much to souls as it does to ghosts.

http://www.sciencealert.com/a-physicist-just-explained-why-the-large-hadron-collider-disproves-the-existence-of-ghosts

"If we want some sort of pattern that carries information about our living cells to persist, then we must specify precisely what medium carries that pattern, and how it interacts with the matter particles out of which our bodies are made," Cox, from the University of Manchester,explained in a recent episode of BBC's The Infinite Monkey Cage.

"We must, in other words, invent an extension to the Standard Model of Particle Physics that has escaped detection at the Large Hadron Collider. That's almost inconceivable at the energy scales typical of the particle interactions in our bodies."

...

"I would say if there's some kind of substance that's driving our bodies, making my arms move and legs move, then it must interact with the particles out of which our bodies are made," says Cox.

"And seeing as we've made high precision measurements of the ways that particles interact, then my assertion is that there can be no such thing as an energy source that's driving our bodies."

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

AB,

A genuine question.

How do you think your mission to bring people to God, or at least be open to the possibility of God is going?

The more you go on the more I feel moved from my neutral position of "I don't believe there is a God because there is no evidence that I would consider evidence that your God exists".

to one of:

If there is  a God that wants to have a relationship with me and sending AB to this forum is the best a multi-Omni God could do to convince me then I consider that to be evidence against said God, because the arguments are hopeless and could never convince me.


How do you feel about this? After all your efforts I now consider your God (i,e, as described by you) to be less probable than before you started!
 

[SusanDoris]

Seconded.

[Nearly Sane]

Seconded.

I have suggested to Alan a couple of times in this thread that he go and pray to his god for better arguments. I can only presume he either didn't or it wasn't nearly as successful a prayer as when he found his contact lens.

[floo]

If a god exists, I wonder what its take is on the imaginative way humans have constructed its personality?