Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

They may be explicable but not in terms applicable to the previous level of organisation. Something you have already agreed to.
For example wetness is not applicable to x number of molecules but is applicable to the next level of organisation which is Y molecules. Novelty is therefore introduced into the system.

You're getting closer. Emergent properties are still "explicable" "in terms applicable to the previous level of organisation", but the point is that the "previous level" (or its components) do not themselves have the characteristics of the emergent property. Possibly your confusion stems from your misunderstanding of the term "explicable". It just means, "able to be accounted for or understood". An ant colony for example is able to be accounted for or understood by reference to the behaviour of the ants of which it consists.

This is completely at odds with reductionism.

As you've shown no sign so far of understanding what "reductionism" actually means it's not possible to discuss that with you. For what it's worth though, no it isn't.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You're getting closer.

We're all getting closer Hillside. If you think you are there then you are not doing science right.
You though are a bit further away encumbered as you are by a doctrinaire antediluvian reductionism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Me:

As you've shown no sign so far of understanding what "reductionism" actually means it's not possible to discuss that with you. For what it's worth though, no it isn't.

You:

We're all getting closer Hillside. If you think you are there then you are not doing science right.
You though are a bit further away encumbered as you are by a doctrinaire antediluvian reductionism.

QED

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Wrong.

As you just ignore the evidence that explains why you're wrong though, I see little point in repeating it. Let's just hope you don't get to persuade young people with your wilful nonsense.

Your hope that I do not share my faith with young people fills me with sadness.

Last Saturday we celebrated the baptism of our new grandson, Charlie.  Over eighty of our family and friends joined in to celebrate this joyful occasion of what I hope will be the beginning of Charlie's journey in faith to discover God's love in his life.  There is one close family member who refused to come because he says he does not do Christenings, and I have had similar exchanges with him about Christian faith as I have with you.  So sadly he insists on doing his "Bah Humbug" thing and missing out on such a happy, joyful event because he too can't see through the false barriers many people put up.

On Sunday, the gospel reading told the story of Thomas the apostle who, when confronted with the risen Christ, found he no longer needed the clinical proof he had earlier demanded, but simply proclaimed "My Lord, and my God".

So to all the doubting Thomas's out there I hope they will one day find God by simply inviting Him into their lives, and then be able to proclaim themselves, "My Lord and my God".

[floo]

I am of the opinion children should make up their minds about religion, which is only a matter of belief not fact.

[Nearly Sane]

I am of the opinion children should make up their minds about religion, which is only a matter of belief not fact.

Should they make they own minds up about how to behave which is also a matter of belief?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your hope that I do not share my faith with young people fills me with sadness.

Your attempt to share with young people your irrationalism and science denial fills me with even more sadness than your own.

Last Saturday we celebrated the baptism of our new grandson, Charlie.  Over eighty of our family and friends joined in to celebrate this joyful occasion of what I hope will be the beginning of Charlie's journey in faith to discover God's love in his life.  There is one close family member who refused to come because he says he does not do Christenings, and I have had similar exchanges with him about Christian faith as I have with you.  So sadly he insists on doing his "Bah Humbug" thing and missing out on such a happy, joyful event because he too can't see through the false barriers many people put up.

You don’t have to believe in iron age woo to enjoy a family occasion.

On Sunday, the gospel reading told the story of Thomas the apostle who, when confronted with the risen Christ, found he no longer needed the clinical proof he had earlier demanded, but simply proclaimed "My Lord, and my God".

Yes, lots of people over the millennia have had episodes they’ve attributed to all sorts of gods, djinns and hobgoblins. This chap doesn’t sound particularly exceptional in that respect.   

So to all the doubting Thomas's out there I hope they will one day find God by simply inviting Him into their lives, and then be able to proclaim themselves, "My Lord and my God".

I’m sure you do hope that. Me, I hope your precious Charlie is given the love, support and time he'll need to develop his critical faculties and to find a way in life that makes him happy. I wish him well.

[Alan Burns]

I am of the opinion children should make up their minds about religion, which is only a matter of belief not fact.

I too firmly believe that children be allowed to make up their own minds concerning religious faith.  It is the reason we have the gift of free will, because God wants people to be able to freely choose to accept Him as their saviour.

[SusanDoris]

bluehillside #17058

Much agree, but reading AB's post is a bit like hitting an impenetrable barrier of cottonwool I think. With the sadness I feel to think that a child is already signed up for belief could easily tend towards anger, but even the slightest such feeling is wasted energy! So I just sigh and hope that the child has access to the friend/relative who stayed away from the christening and is allowed to hear his views.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I too firmly believe that children be allowed to make up their own minds concerning religious faith.

It's more that they should be allowed to develop critical faculties of their own free from authority figures claiming as facts things they cannot know to be facts. Claims like this one:
 

It is the reason we have the gift of free will, because God wants people to be able to freely choose Him as their saviour.

If you can find someone capable of doing it by all means support young Charlie being taught how to think. If you insist on telling him what to think with claims like the above though, then you'll do him a disservice.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It's more that they should be allowed to develop critical faculties of their own free from authority figures claiming as facts things they cannot know to be facts. Claims like this one:
 
If you can find someone capable of doing it by all means support young Charlie being taught how to think. If you insist on telling him what to think with claims like the above though, then you'll do him a disservice.

Charlie can think for himself, because he is not just an emergent property driven entirely by the uncontrolled deterministic events in his material body.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Charlie can think for himself, because he is not just an emergent property driven entirely be the uncontrolled deterministic events in his material body.

Actually he is, as are we all (though the pejorative "just" isn't necessary there). The point though is that you'll risk significantly impairing his ability to think if you keep making claims of personal faith masquerading as facts. It's too late for you - at least have the decency not to do it to him.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Actually he is, as are we all (though the pejorative "just" isn't necessary there). The point though is that you'll risk significantly impairing his ability to think if you keep making claims of personal faith masquerading as facts. It's too late for you - at least have the decency not to do it to him.

But you, yourself, have just claimed as a fact that Charlie, and all of us, are just emergent properties of deterministic events.

That you cannot see the obvious flaw in this claim is in itself evidence that your views are not driven by deterministic events, but by your own will to latch on to the false evidence denying your ability to  have free choice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But you, yourself, have just claimed as a fact that Charlie, and all of us, are just emergent properties of deterministic events.

Again, there's no “just” and a I merely reminded you where the available logic and evidence lead. If you want to deny that without troubling to falsify it and replace it with an irrational and evidence-free conjecture of your own that’s your affair, but you’ll do him a disservice if you call that conjecture a fact.

That you cannot see the obvious flaw in this claim…

You haven’t identified a flaw, obvious or otherwise.

…is in itself evidence that your views are not driven by deterministic events,…

(Wearily) it’s no such thing. The underlying reality of determinism and the way thinking feels like "free" will are just at odds with each other is all. You might not like that (clearly you don’t) but your dislike does not give you licence to make up pretend facts that suit you better. 

…but by your own will to latch on to the false evidence denying your ability to  have free choice.

I’ve posted before links to the evidence for consciousness being an emergent property of brains. If you think it’s false, then you need to explain why it’s false. Just asserting it to be so though takes you nowhere, and makes you look foolish.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Again, there's no “just” and a I merely reminded you where the available logic and evidence lead. If you want to deny that without troubling to falsify it and replace it with a conjecture of your own that’s your affair, but you’ll do him a disservice if you call that conjecture a fact.

You haven’t identified a flaw, obvious or otherwise.

(Wearily) it’s no such thing. The underlying reality of determinism and the way thinking feels like "free" will are just at odds with each other is all. You might not like that (clearly you don’t) but your dislike does not give you licence to make up pretend facts that suit you better. 

I’ve posted before links to the evidence for consciousness being an emergent property of brains. If you think it’s false, then you need to explain why it’s false. Just asserting it to be so though takes you nowhere, and makes you look foolish.

But it is you who look foolish in claiming as a fact that determinism drives us and the way we think and feel is illusionary.  I am claiming that the way we think and feel points to a reality which is not deterministic but derives from a source not bound by materialistic events.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But it is you who look foolish in claiming as a fact that determinism drives us and the way we think and feel is illusionary.

You're very confused. What I "claim" is what the evidence tells us. If ever the evidence changes, then I'll change my mind. You on the other hand just pretend that the evidence that undoes you doesn't exist, and then assert a conjecture of your own that's both deeply irrational and not supported by evidence of any kind.

Which one of us do you think looks foolish here exactly?

I am claiming that the way we think and feel points to a reality which is not deterministic but derives from a source not bound by materialistic events.

I know you are. That's the claim that's deeply irrational and not supported by evidence of any kind I referred to.

What does that say about you do you think?

[floo]

I think it is illogical to claim the less than credible god of the Bible exists, when there is no evidence to support its existence. Yes an intelligent designer may possibly have created the universe, but one would still have to explain how the ID came into being.

[BeRational]

But it is you who look foolish in claiming as a fact that determinism drives us and the way we think and feel is illusionary.  I am claiming that the way we think and feel points to a reality which is not deterministic but derives from a source not bound by materialistic events.

Alan it is YOU that is making claims. Blue is telling you where the current evidence leads, so it's not just a claim.
You do not like where the evidence leads, so you just bury your head in the sand.

Please do NOT tell Charlie that a god exists. Tell him by all means that you think he does but NOT that god is a fact.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You're very confused. What I "claim" is what the evidence tells us. If ever the evidence changes, then I'll change my mind. You on the other hand just pretend that the evidence that undoes you doesn't exist, and then assert a conjecture of your own that's both deeply irrational and not supported by evidence of any kind.

Which one of us do you think looks foolish here exactly?

I know you are. That's the claim that's deeply irrational and not supported by evidence of any kind I referred to.

What does that say about you do you think?

It shows that I am not blinkered by trying to match my perceived reality with the limited human scientific discoveries to date.  And my ability to think this way is ample evidence that I am able to drive my own thoughts and that I am not deterministically driven by events beyond my control.

[Alan Burns]

Alan it is YOU that is making claims. Blue is telling you where the current evidence leads, so it's not just a claim.
You do not like where the evidence leads, so you just bury your head in the sand.

Please do NOT tell Charlie that a god exists. Tell him by all means that you think he does but NOT that god is a fact.

But the reality is that I do know God.
People have the freedom to agree or disagree with what I perceive to be the truth, but for me to imply that I only think He exists would not be honest.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It shows that I am not blinkered by trying to match my perceived reality with the limited human scientific discoveries to date.

You seem actually to be proud of denying the logic and evidence that undoes you without bothering to falsify it. I find that quite chilling.

Do you genuinely not understand that in many areas of human experience "perceived reality" and evidence-based reality contradict each other? Your perceived reality when you're descending in a decelerating lift for example is that you're stationary and the lift is pushing upwards against the soles of your feet. The actual reality though is different. Why then would you privilege your perceptions about anything over the evidence that falsifies them?

The only blinkers here my friend are in other words your own.

And my ability to think this way is ample evidence that I am able to drive my own thoughts and that I am not deterministically driven by events beyond my control.

Actually what it really is is "ample evidence" that your reasoning ability is limited, and quite possibly damaged by your conviction that your faith beliefs are unassailable regardless of the evidence that undoes them.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the reality is that I do know God.

No it isn't. That's just your reality.

People have the freedom to agree or disagree with what I perceive to be the truth...

It's actually falsifying your claims and assertions with logic more cogent than your own.

...but for me to imply that I only think He exists would not be honest.

No, it's dishonest. What would be honest would be actually to engage with the logic and evidence that undoes you rather than just assert it to be wrong. Unless you can do that, then you do "only think He exists". 

[torridon]

Your hope that I do not share my faith with young people fills me with sadness.

Last Saturday we celebrated the baptism of our new grandson, Charlie.  Over eighty of our family and friends joined in to celebrate this joyful occasion of what I hope will be the beginning of Charlie's journey in faith to discover God's love in his life.  There is one close family member who refused to come because he says he does not do Christenings, and I have had similar exchanges with him about Christian faith as I have with you.  So sadly he insists on doing his "Bah Humbug" thing and missing out on such a happy, joyful event because he too can't see through the false barriers many people put up.

Likewise there would be muslims that are filled with sadness that you do not share their faith. When a baby is born the muslim tradition is that the father whispers 'God is great, there is no God but Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. Come to prayer' into the new-born's right ear so that these are the first words he/she hears. And at about a week the baby's head is shaved to symbolise that he is now a servant of Allah.

Such rituals are a way of building an identity into the new person, instituting ways of being and thinking which can and often do last a lifetime. Such cultural practices have always been the norm, indeed it would have been considered a dereliction of parental duty to not do these things until recently.  The downsides are that the newborn is given a culturally narrowed identity that he is not capable of asking for and quite probably not capable of shaking off in later life. And this also amounts to barriers between communities and in an increasingly globalised and integrated world do we really want more barriers ?

[wigginhall]

It shows that I am not blinkered by trying to match my perceived reality with the limited human scientific discoveries to date.  And my ability to think this way is ample evidence that I am able to drive my own thoughts and that I am not deterministically driven by events beyond my control.

But, as blue has pointed out, 'perceived reality' is a very poor guide to discoveries about nature.   Humans used to 'perceive' that we are at the centre of the universe, that the earth is flat, and stars are holes in a dark curtain, and objects are solid, and so on and so on.   Are you really going to go along with naive realism?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No it isn't. That's just your reality.

It's actually falsifying your claims and assertions with logic more cogent than your own.

No, it's dishonest. What would be honest would be actually to engage with the logic and evidence that undoes you rather than just assert it to be wrong. Unless you can do that, then you do "only think He exists".

But the logic and evidence I see points overwhelmingly to the truth of God's existence.  The conclusions you draw do not make any sense to me.  Your faith in the capabilities of emergent properties derived only from material reactions seems incredibly optimistic.

And if we are both just emergence from material reactions, why does your emergence conflict so much with mine?  And why should your be right and mine be wrong???