Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

The assumption of a common language is based on an assumption of a common perception. You appear not to have the second, so thinking you have the first is simply misconceived. Again as covered previously, if you see the world in a certain way the 'evidence' doesn't change it because  the 'evidence' is seen in the way you perceive evidence.

I might have been tempted to come some way with you on that, but the problem you keep ignoring is AB’s inconsistency. For this to work, his “perception” would have to encompass too selectively using identical logic as good in some cases and bad in others.

Now you might say, “well special pleading and inconsistency being fine is his perception” but then reason and language themselves break down completely and any dialogue becomes impossible. Why wouldn’t the perception 2+2=5 be as valid as the perception 2+2=4?

Any luck in dealing with you the question of how you might change how you perceive things?

Yes – plenty as I explained before. You seem to be using “perception” here in a narrow way, ie “how things feel”. In more common parlance though it means too “understand” and similar – eg, I might “perceive” a tiger coming at me through the grass but then realise it’s just the wind so change that perception into something else. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Nobody is guilty of your rendering of the NPF fallacy namely There is no proof that God isn't. therefore God.
That is just operating in a world of caricatures of your own devising.

First, you’ve shifted ground now from complaining that the falsification of the NPF involves a ridiculous comparison to, “oh well, no-one uses the NPF in any case”.

Second, it is used here in any case. Hope in particular was a big fan, though I agree that since his departure it’s cropped up relatively rarely.

What even how the universe came to be or is. That is inexorably supernatural on account of natural cause and effect.

“How the universe came to be” is a question about process. The NPF concerns the object you posit as having done it, and the bad thinking that that object specifically must be real if it can’t be falsified.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I might have been tempted to come some way with you on that, but the problem you keep ignoring is AB’s inconsistency. For this to work, his “perception” would have to encompass too selectively using identical logic as good in some cases and bad in others.

Now you might say, “well special pleading and inconsistency being fine is his perception” but then reason and language themselves break down completely and any dialogue becomes impossible. Why wouldn’t the perception 2+2=5 be as valid as the perception 2+2=4?

Yes – plenty as I explained before. You seem to be using “perception” here in a narrow way, ie “how things feel”. In more common parlance though it means too “understand” and similar – eg, I might “perceive” a tiger coming at me through the grass but then realise it’s just the wind so change that perception into something else.

That's your perception changing, not you changing your perception. And no I wouldn't say special pleading and inconsistency are alright in AB's perception, I am wondering whether he perceives things in such a way that he doesn't see what you perceive as special pleading and inconsistency. You seem to be taking a position that because he doesn't agree with you he must be lying  in some way, both to himself and to you. That seems bizarre to me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

That's your perception changing, not you changing your perception.

I’m sorry but you’ll need to unpack that if I’m to make sense of it. Inasmuch as there is at least the sensation of a “me” then that me has changed its perception in light of better evidence. That it’s all deterministic cause and effect anyway is for this purpose a different matter – had the new evidence not come to light my perception would still be that it’s a tiger.

And no I wouldn't say special pleading and inconsistency are alright in AB's perception…

Then we agree that about some matters at least we do think we’re right and he’s wrong.

…I am wondering whether he perceives things in such a way that he doesn't see what you perceive as special pleading and inconsistency.

Well, there are two things there – the general and the specific. For the general, ie the conceptual idea of inconsistency, I think he must do. He wouldn’t for example buy five magic beans from me because I promised they were magic, but refuse to buy a lucky rabbit’s foot because I made the same promise. 

As for the specific though, who can say? The only answer I have is cognitive dissonance – he holds in his mind at the same time two opposing ideas that a terrible argument is a terrible argument for some purposes, but a good one for other purposes.   

You seem to be taking a position that because he doesn't agree with you he must be lying  in some way, both to himself and to you. That seems bizarre to me.

I’ve always been at pains to say pretty much the opposite of that. What I actually say is that a bad argument is a bad argument is a bad argument – when he attempts one such, then his reasoning is wrong. It’s not about disagreeing with “me” at all – there doesn’t even need to be a me in the game for this purpose, just codified logical fallacies that he attempts. 

Conversely, if I took AB’s approach and only ever expressed an assertion with no supporting logic at all (“no system however complex could ever be self-aware” etc), he disagreed with it and then I just asserted him to be wrong, then (but only then) you’d be right about that.

[SusanDoris]

brief digression - I know one thing about perceiving - my brain does  that all the time since I can not see anything directly.

[ekim]

The point I have been trying to make is that Alan's description of how he perceives both external stimuli and what it feels like to him to perceive, in effect his self perception, actually seem very different to how I feel it to be. It's not just a case of the external, it is closely about the feeling of being a perceiver. AB seems to self perceive in a much more constant and concrete way than I do and it seems to 'me' that this must have an impact on what you think.

That's why 'I' am suggesting that there isn't any choice in the effect of how an individual experiences perception upon their ideas. As someone with mild synaesthesia, I have tried to explain to people about the almost physical perception of numbers is like, but it's incredibly difficult and that's for what is a very minor difference. As already covered, I find it conceptually almost impossible to conceive how AB does not perceive perception in the larger sense when looking into the eyes of a fellow great ape. His perception seems to me to have a lacuna. Therefore it doesn't seem odd to me that we might come to different conclusions of what is the truth.

Without commenting upon AB, there are many things which can distort perception and it doesn't have to be sensory defects.  You only have to look at what a stage hypnotist can do with suggestion to affect how and what an individual perceives.  The same could probably be said about a religious persuasion despite the fact that there are 'spiritual' practices devoted to clarifying the perceiver.  So the reverse of what you have said could also apply i.e. what you think can have an impact upon what you perceive.   To keep my comment within the context of the topic of this thread, this is possibly what lies behind the saying of Jesus in Matt 7:5 ... i.e. First get your own vision clear then you will be in a position to clarify others.

[Nearly Sane]

Without commenting upon AB, there are many things which can distort perception and it doesn't have to be sensory defects.  You only have to look at what a stage hypnotist can do with suggestion to affect how and what an individual perceives.  The same could probably be said about a religious persuasion despite the fact that there are 'spiritual' practices devoted to clarifying the perceiver.  So the reverse of what you have said could also apply i.e. what you think can have an impact upon what you perceive.   To keep my comment within the context of the topic of this thread, this is possibly what lies behind the saying of Jesus in Matt 7:5 ... i.e. First get your own vision clear then you will be in a position to clarify others.

That's a fair point. Indeed it seems almost impossible to separate what you think and what you perceive. But I feel that there is something more basic here. My synaesthesia doesn't seem to arise as a proces from my thinking.

ETA One thing I should add is that the difference in perception is not something i see as a theist/non theist thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

First, you’ve shifted ground now from complaining that the falsification of the NPF involves a ridiculous comparison to, “oh well, no-one uses the NPF in any case”.

Second, it is used here in any case. Hope in particular was a big fan, though I agree that since his departure it’s cropped up relatively rarely.

“How the universe came to be” is a question about process. The NPF concerns the object you posit as having done it, and the bad thinking that that object specifically must be real if it can’t be falsified.

Yes it could be about process i.e from no nature to nature. You would have to argue how that was 'natural'. But then there is, against evidence the possibility that the universe has always been and you would have to argue how that was 'natural'....and all the time remaining outside special pleading.

I'm arguing that you have an impossible task on your hands and that subsequently how the universe did or didn't come about is ''a supernatural'' claim.

[wigginhall]

Yes it could be about process i.e from no nature to nature. You would have to argue how that was 'natural'. But then there is, against evidence the possibility that the universe has always been and you would have to argue how that was 'natural'....and all the time remaining outside special pleading.

I'm arguing that you have an impossible task on your hands and that subsequently how the universe did or didn't come about is ''a supernatural'' claim.

Well, what is your argument then?

[ekim]

That's a fair point. Indeed it seems almost impossible to separate what you think and what you perceive. But I feel that there is something more basic here. My synaesthesia doesn't seem to arise as a proces from my thinking.

ETA One thing I should add is that the difference in perception is not something i see as a theist/non theist thing.

I don't know what the latest research is on synaesthesia but I vaguely remember that there were people for whom colours had smells, words had tastes, sound produced pictures and it was thought to be as a result of the brain scrambling the senses.  I believe it occurred naturally in 1 in 25,000 people.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know what the latest research is on synaesthesia but I vaguely remember that there were people for whom colours had smells, words had tastes, sound produced pictures and it was thought to be as a result of the brain scrambling the senses.  I believe it occurred naturally in 1 in 25,000 people.

And is part of my perception, in my case numbers have colour, and a physical place that seems to be in front of me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And is part of my perception, in my case numbers have colour, and a physical place that seems to be in front of me.

Yes......... for me a number two has always been brown.

[ippy]

My perception is that it does. My perception is that you don't.

 

ippy

[BeRational]

I don't know what the latest research is on synaesthesia but I vaguely remember that there were people for whom colours had smells, words had tastes, sound produced pictures and it was thought to be as a result of the brain scrambling the senses.  I believe it occurred naturally in 1 in 25,000 people.

I have this as days have colours and numbers have positions

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I’m sorry but you’ll need to unpack that if I’m to make sense of it. Inasmuch as there is at least the sensation of a “me” then that me has changed its perception in light of better evidence. That it’s all deterministic cause and effect anyway is for this purpose a different matter – had the new evidence not come to light my perception would still be that it’s a tiger.

......

Just to note that while there is as ever much good stuff in blue's post, I think that my comments on perception need their own thread since it's wider than AB which I will set up when I have world enough and time

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes it could be about process i.e from no nature to nature. You would have to argue how that was 'natural'. But then there is, against evidence the possibility that the universe has always been and you would have to argue how that was 'natural'....and all the time remaining outside special pleading.

First, that’s a lot of wrong in very few words. What was actually being explained to you was that the object you posited as a cause for the universe (“God”) is not necessarily true because it can’t be falsified. No more, no less.

Second, if you want to posit this “God” nonetheless and attach special properties to “Him” (essentially, magic) then you just add an unnecessary layer of complexity – why not just say that the universe itself is more mysterious than we know and thereby avoid Occam’s razor?

Third, how the Universe “began”, whether it had a beginning at all, whether time itself is linear, looped or something else are all currently “don’t knows”. Just saying “God did it” as an answer that actually tells you nothing at all is precisely the reasoning of the Norse people saying “Thor” when they didn’t know about thunder.

I'm arguing that you have an impossible task on your hands and that subsequently how the universe did or didn't come about is ''a supernatural'' claim.

And the wrong just keeps on coming. There’s nothing “impossible” about a “don’t know”, and who can possibly say what answers may in due course emerge. “Supernatural” just means “not natural” – an incoherent claim, and one for which there’s no rationale whatever when trying to answer difficult questions about the observable universe. “God” in other words is the abnegation of an explanation, not an explanation at all.

Apart from all that though…     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

First, that’s a lot of wrong in very few words. What was actually being explained to you was that the object you posited as a cause for the universe (“God”) is not necessarily true because it can’t be falsified. No more, no less.

Second, if you want to posit this “God” nonetheless and attach special properties to “Him” (essentially, magic) then you just add an unnecessary layer of complexity – why not just say that the universe itself is more mysterious than we know and thereby avoid Occam’s razor?

Third, how the Universe “began”, whether it had a beginning at all, whether time itself is linear, looped or something else are all currently “don’t knows”. Just saying “God did it” as an answer that actually tells you nothing at all is precisely the reasoning of the Norse people saying “Thor” when they didn’t know about thunder.

And the wrong just keeps on coming. There’s nothing “impossible” about a “don’t know”, and who can possibly say what answers may in due course emerge. “Supernatural” just means “not natural” – an incoherent claim, and one for which there’s no rationale whatever when trying to answer difficult questions about the observable universe. “God” in other words is the abnegation of an explanation, not an explanation at all.

Apart from all that though…   

Interesting themes here
1: Falsification. We must resist any temptation to equate not being able to falsify as having falsified or not having yet been falsified.
2: We should be clear on what we define as natural. To me the word is virtually useless...so where that leaves it's derivative phrase supernatural is any bodies business.
3: We certainly don't know how the universe began but we can classify the possibilities.
It is also a known unknown and not the unknown unknown that you are trying to push.
I would put the ''magical thinking'' required by you to keep a reason for the universe at bay as intellectually suspect. Here I am thinking of eternal energy (whither entropy?), the universe as perpetual motion machine, the universe popping out of nothing and just is-ism.
4: Since you have admitted you don't know what is necessary for the universe to exist  why are you clinging to Occam's razor? Yes one can arbitrarily eliminate God but then one has to undo commitment to science and introduce 'magical thinking' and 'mystery' into the universe and justify yourself merely on relief at having ''eliminated'' God.
Science talk by you is reduced to expendable guffage relative to overt antitheism for it's own sake.
5: You seem to demand agnosticism about the universe and yet support the scientific explanation of the universe.

[ippy]

I have this as days have colours and numbers have positions

B R, I recon this could be your soul making your days have colours and giving numbers positions,

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I see that – as ever – you’ve just ignored the rebuttals of your last effort and moved onto something else.

Oh well.

Interesting themes here

1: Falsification. We must resist any temptation to equate not being able to falsify as having falsified or not having yet been falsified.

What “temptation”? “Unfalsifiable” just means unfalsifiable – the point is that no unfalsifiable conjecture is made true because it’s unfalsifiable. No more, no less. 

2: We should be clear on what we define as natural. To me the word is virtually useless...so where that leaves it's derivative phrase supernatural is any bodies business.

It just means “amenable to the natural sciences”. If you want to posit a supernatural though, then you need to come up with a method of your own to test the claim.

3: We certainly don't know how the universe began but we can classify the possibilities.

Some possibilities. Thinking we necessarily know all the possibilities is overreaching.

It is also a known unknown and not the unknown unknown that you are trying to push.

No, it’s the unknown unknown – and I’m “pushing” nothing.

I would put the ''magical thinking'' required by you to keep a reason for the universe at bay as intellectually suspect. Here I am thinking of eternal energy (whither entropy?), the universe as perpetual motion machine, the universe popping out of nothing and just is-ism.

I need no “magical thinking” and I keep nothing “at bay”. “Don’t know” involves neither of these.

4: Since you have admitted : you don't know what is necessary for the universe to exist …

That’s no more an “admission” than saying apples fall downwards is an admission, but ok…

…then why are you clinging to Occam's razor.

Occam’s razor applies because you’re adding another layer of complexity (“God”) and attaching the same answer to questions about it (“don’t know”) as can be attached to the universe without it.

Yes one can arbitrarily eliminate God but then one has to undo commitment to science and introduce magical thinking and mystery into the universe and justify merely on relief at having ''eliminated'' god.

Science provides working and tentative explanatory models for the way the universe appears to be. “God” claims to be the ultimately true answer for the way the universe it.

You’ve made a category error.

Science talk by you is shown to be expendable guffage relative to overt antitheism for it's own sake.

Now you’ve collapsed into gibberish.

5: You seem to demand agnosticism about the universe and yet support the scientific explanation of the universe.

Yes. Why do you think that to be problematic?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I see that – as ever – you’ve just ignored the rebuttals of your last effort and moved onto something else.

Oh well.

What “temptation”? “Unfalsifiable” just means unfalsifiable – the point is that no unfalsifiable conjecture is made true because it’s unfalsifiable. No more, no less. 

It just means “amenable to the natural sciences”. If you want to posit a supernatural though, then you need to come up with a method of your own to test the claim.

Some possibilities. Thinking we necessarily know all the possibilities is overreaching.

No, it’s the unknown unknown – and I’m “pushing” nothing.

I need no “magical thinking” and I keep nothing “at bay”. “Don’t know” involves neither of these.

That’s no more an “admission” than saying apples fall downwards is an admission, but ok…

Occam’s razor applies because you’re adding another layer of complexity (“God”) and attaching the same answer to questions about it (“don’t know”) as can be attached to the universe without it.

Science provides working and tentative explanatory models for the way the universe appears to be. “God” claims to be the ultimately true answer for the way the universe it.

You’ve made a category error.

Now you’ve collapsed into gibberish.

Yes. Why do you think that to be problematic?

I am rebutting your rebuttals pal.
You keep turdpolishing known unknowns into unknown unknowns....your own bit of woo.
Finally you are banking on ignorance of what Occam's razor actually says which is about multiplying entities beyond necessity. and when you eliminate God, magical thinking or ''mystery/nature mysticism''  on your part becomes obvious.

Finally...stop appealing to science because in your hands it is secondary waffle to sheer dogmatic antitheism as evidenced by your magical thnking and mistaking known unknowns for unknown unknowns.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I am rebutting your rebuttals pal.

No, you just avoided them – SVOP (Standard Vlad Operating Procedure).

You keep turdpolishing known unknowns into unknown unknowns....your own bit of woo.

And when you don’t avoid you try insult instead in the hope the problem will go away. And unknown unknown is an unknown unknown – neither you nor I know whether our species even has the imagination to envisage what might be.

Finally…

“Finally”? You have managed a “firstly” yet!

…you are banking on ignorance of what Occam's razor actually says which is about multiplying entities beyond necessity. and when you eliminate God, magical thinking or ''mystery/nature mysticism''  on your part becomes obvious.

Wiggs posted a link to Occam’s razor just recently here. Why not read it to avoid committing howlers like this in future? When the answer to the same questions about the universe and about “God” is the same – ie, “don’t know” – the latter just adds another assumption. "God" isn't “necessary” at all – it’s redundant.

Finally...stop appealing to science because in your hands it is secondary waffle to sheer dogmatic antitheism as evidenced by your magical thnking and mistaking known unknowns for unknown unknowns.

NURSE – HE’S DOING IT AGAIN!

Why do you think posting incoherent gibberish helps you here?

Take a deep breath, try reading what's actually been said and - finally - have a go at replying to that. If nothing else, dropping the paranoid ranting will be better for your health.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, you just avoided them – SVOP (Standard Vlad Operating Procedure).

And when you don’t avoid you try insult instead in the hope the problem will go away. And unknown unknown is an unknown unknown – neither you nor I know whether our species even has the imagination to envisage what might be.

“Finally”? You have managed a “firstly” yet!

Wiggs posted a link to Occam’s razor just recently here. Why not read it to avoid committing howlers like this in future? When the answer to the same questions about the universe and about “God” is the same – ie, “don’t know” – the latter just adds another assumption. "God" isn't “necessary” at all – it’s redundant.

NURSE – HE’S DOING IT AGAIN!

Why do you think posting incoherent gibberish helps you here?

Take a deep breath, try reading what's actually been said and - finally - have a go at replying to that. If nothing else, dropping the paranoid ranting will be better for your health.

Hillside slates AB for woo
Then introduces his own bit of natural mysticism in terms of the magical thinking which must necessarily be attributed to the universe if there is no reason for it's being vis dogmatic agnosticism...we will never know, we must not go there, popping out of nothing or eternal existence, perpetual motion, eternal energy etc.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, you just avoided them – SVOP (Standard Vlad Operating Procedure).

And when you don’t avoid you try insult instead in the hope the problem will go away. And unknown unknown is an unknown unknown – neither you nor I know whether our species even has the imagination to envisage what might be.

A fine example of handwaving woo and appeal to mystery.
We know enough about unknown unknowns to know they are not known unknowns.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Further avoidance noted.

Hillside slates AB for woo

Actually Hillside "slates" the use of bad arguments to validate woo, but the difference will be lost on you.

Then introduces his own bit of natural mysticism in terms of the magical thinking which must necessarily be attributed to the universe if there is no reason for it's being vis dogmatic agnosticism...we will never know, we must not go there, popping out of nothing or eternal existence, perpetual motion, eternal energy etc.

Why do you think lying like this helps you? One hypothesis for the origin of the universe is quantum borrowing (which you mischaracterise as "popping out of nothing"), but there are others. No-one knows though whether any of these hypotheses will ever be validated, whether different hypotheses will be validated, or whether we'll never know with certainty the answers to these deep questions.

Just jumping up and down and claiming that you do know and that the answer is "God" is worse than wrong - it's not even wrong.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A fine example of handwaving woo and appeal to mystery.
We know enough about unknown unknowns to know they are not known unknowns.

Have you any sense of how dull your lying can be?

We know no such thing. How would you propose to eliminate the possibility of phenomena we lack even the imagination to envisage, let alone to investigate?