Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

You'd be  fool to do that, especially since you seem to be conflating CS Lewis's literary abilities (though his Narnia stuff isn't my taste) with his arguments in favour of Christianity.

Lewis was one of the greatest scholars of English Literature and I am certain he could recognise a fallacy when he sees one.  Were he alive today I am sure he could point out the faults within your fallacy detector.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Well if such a great writer as CS Lewis gets accused of using logical fallacies I consider myself in good company. 

The weasel word there is "accused". It's not just that you're accused of relying on logical fallacies, but rather that you do rely on logical fallacies.

Do you not recognise them, or do you understand them but just don't care as if in some unexplained way they cease to be invalid when you like the results they happen to produce nonetheless?

[floo]

Go back to sleep, Floo.

You have no understanding about God or the bible but your own. So far off the mark you couldn't score a goal if the net was side to side on a football pitch and you were on a penalty shoot out spot.

There is no offense but it is true. People in the world face real difficulties and you don't and never have.
When you have really studied the bible and Christianity, the true nature of God then come back because even your thinking could be corrected, simply by you actually studying what is KNOWN about Christianity.

Sass, and you understand it all do you? You interpret the Bible in your own way just like everyone else does. You could be way off the mark to as there is no evidence from on high to support god's existence.

[Robbie]

  The truth of these things is out there.
What channels do you watch on tv?

BBC ,ITV, occasionally Ch4 &More4, Drama.
Any recommendations?

[Gordon]

Lewis was one of the greatest scholars of English Literature and I am certain he could recognise a fallacy when he sees one.  Were he alive today I am sure he could point out the faults within your fallacy detector.

Clearly he had problems in his reasoning when it came to Christianity: a bit like yourself.

[floo]

Great scholars only have theories NOT actual knowledge about matters appertaining to the Bible, like the existence of god, for instance.

[ippy]

I do not pretend to know how God made me as a conscious, free thinking, creative being, but I do know that man made attempts to explain how we came into existence without God fall far short of this reality.

How and what method or methods did you use to confirm this conclusion of yours?

Going by your words in this particular post of yours, you say, "how we came into existence without God fall far short of this reality", isn't really an explanation of how you've arrived at this conclusion, it's an assertion that puts you back to your previous assertions, it's your unsupported assertions I'm asking you about, you seem to be unable to answer a straight question and yes I do understand your responses, I use the word responses because that's all they are they don't amount to answers.

ippy 

[wigginhall]

Lewis was one of the greatest scholars of English Literature and I am certain he could recognise a fallacy when he sees one.  Were he alive today I am sure he could point out the faults within your fallacy detector.

Actually, I think that Lewis  has often been criticized for poor reasoning.   The most famous example is probably the 'liar, lunatic, Lord' trilemma, which seems to present false dichotomies.   Also, see his frequent assertion that evolution could not produce reason in humans.   I have to admit I have never understood this one, but maybe it's like AB's claim that material particles cannot produce consciousness.

Although, this wasn't an original argument, it had been produced previously, famously by Balfour (the Prime Minister). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_reason

[Nearly Sane]

I think Lewis is quite seductive for believers' searching for the a rationalist approach but he always seems to me to desperately being covering his emotional belief with a mere patina of reason, that is neither consistent or coherent. It depends on a combination of an intellectualised god of the gaps, with the strawman that we see so often on here where a philosophical naturalism is assumed by the non acceptance of supernatural claims. 

[wigginhall]

I think Lewis is quite seductive for believers' searching for the a rationalist approach but he always seems to me to desperately being covering his emotional belief with a mere patina of reason, that is neither consistent or coherent. It depends on a combination of an intellectualised god of the gaps, with the strawman that we see so often on here where a philosophical naturalism is assumed by the non acceptance of supernatural claims.

Nice summary.  Yes, Lewis seems  to equate empiricism, in the sense of using the senses to discover stuff, with a philosophical belief in naturalism.   His arguments against evolution seem to suggest that animals can't trust their senses, because they have no way of knowing that they're reliable.  Well, trial and error comes to mind. 

[SusanDoris]

And where does this thirst for knowledge emanate from?  No other animals have it.  And it would not appear to give any immediate survival advantage - indeed it could hinder our survival by wasting our valuable time.  If our conscious free will is an illusion, what drives our willingness to engage?

Your posts are getting more and more bizarre.

[ippy]

Your posts are getting more and more bizarre.

Not that bizarre really, if you think anything you don't understand or can't explain, godidit.

Very simplistic but that's about as good a summing up of A B's posts as any of us are likely to get from source.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

An interesting snippet from Wiggs recent link:

J. B. S. Haldane, who appeals to a similar line of reasoning in his 1927 book, Possible Worlds: "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

An interesting snippet from Wiggs recent link:

J. B. S. Haldane, who appeals to a similar line of reasoning in his 1927 book, Possible Worlds: "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

The weasel word there being "true". The obvious way out is to respond: "But they are as true as the "motions of atoms in your brain" are capable of determining truth. Insofar as any other possible truths are concerned, there are no alternative means of investigating such claims."

[Nearly Sane]

An interesting snippet from Wiggs recent link:

J. B. S. Haldane, who appeals to a similar line of reasoning in his 1927 book, Possible Worlds: "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

Ah dear JBS, a man who disagreed vehemently with Lewis but you won"t cite the disagreements as authority, will you?

Here, I think, brilliant as he was in many ways, he makes a mistake in the use of the word 'true'. Indeed at base he has just expressed the problem of hard solipsism. But then given that you continually ignore that, Alan, hardly surprising that you might quote mine on it.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

The weasel word there being "true". The obvious way out is to respond: "But they are as true as the "motions of atoms in your brain" are capable of determining truth. Insofar as any other possible truths are concerned, there are no alternative means of investigating such claims."

But how can we determine truth if we have no conscious control over the internal workings of our brain?

[torridon]

But how can we determine truth if we have no conscious control over the internal workings of our brain?

How could a soul determine truth ?

If there is something controlling a brain, what is the point of having a brain ?

[Nearly Sane]

But how can we determine truth if we have no conscious control over the internal workings of our brain?

But then to control that we would need to control the control etc etc. Your 'logic' again introduces an inifinite regress.

[Alan Burns]

How could a soul determine truth ?

If there is something controlling a brain, what is the point of having a brain ?

I can't see how uncontrollable deterministic reactions in a physical brain can determine anything but a forgone conclusion.

To have the power to consciously determine something, you need conscious interaction with the physical brain.  And the source of this conscious interaction is ...?

[Nearly Sane]

I can't see how uncontrollable deterministic reactions in a physical brain can determine anything but a forgone conclusion.

To have the power to consciously determine something, you need conscious interaction with the physical brain.  And the source of this conscious interaction is ...?

And you haven't been able to give any logically coherent description of free, so until you do you still are talking meaningless nonsense.

And indeed having conscious interaction with something as you described it created an inifinite regress unless you special plead in which case your statement about conscious interaction is rejected.

[Alan Burns]

But then to control that we would need to control the control etc etc. Your 'logic' again introduces an inifinite regress.

You seriously underestimate the power of the human soul.  It does not need a controller - it is the controller.

[Nearly Sane]

You seriously underestimate the power of the human soul.  It does not need a controller - it is the controller.

Repeating logical incoherent statements, as you do, here is merely a repetition of your logical incoherence. As well as being circular. Once again, you appear not to actually read the posts you are replying to but trot out non sequiturs.

[BeRational]

You seriously underestimate the power of the human soul.  It does not need a controller - it is the controller.

You underestimate the power of the brain to construct a feeling of self and consciousness.

You often say you cannot understand how a brain can do this.

THAT IS FINE.

I suspect no one can at the moment.

What is not fine, is to just make something up, which is all you are doing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But how can we determine truth if we have no conscious control over the internal workings of our brain?

"Homunculus Fallacy
 
(also known as: homunculus argument, infinite regress)

Description: An argument that accounts for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain, which results in an infinite regress.

Logical Form:

Phenomenon X needs to be explained.
Reason Y is given.
Reason Y depends on phenomenon X.
Example #1:

Bert: How do eyes project an image to your brain?
Ernie: Think of it as a little guy in your brain watching the movie projected by your eyes.
Bert: Ok, but what is happening in the little guy in your head’s brain?
Ernie: Well, think of it as a little guy in his brain watching a movie...
Explanation: This fallacy creates an endless loop that actually explains nothing.  It is fallacious reasoning to accept an explanation that creates this kind of endless loop that lacks any explanatory value.

Example #2:

Dicky: So how do you think life began?
Ralphie: Simple.  Aliens from another planet seeded this planet with life billions of years ago.
Dicky: OK, but how did that alien life form begin?
Ralphie: Simple.  Aliens from another planet seeded that planet with life.
Explanation: This fallacy can be tricky because maybe it is true that aliens are responsible for spreading life, so the answers might be technically right, but the question implied is how life ultimately began, which this form of reasoning will not answer.

Exception: There might be some exceptions that rely on high-level epistemology having to do with a large enough loop and validating feedback.  The important question to ask is, does the explanation have any value and is the question being answered or deflected?

References:

Tulving, E. (2000). Memory, Consciousness, and the Brain: The Tallinn Conference. Psychology Press.

(https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/104/Homunculus-Fallacy)"

As you've just ignored the questions I asked you, I'll try again:

1. Do you know what the term "logical fallacy" means?

2. Why do you rely on logical fallacies for your arguments: are you committing them unwittingly, or do you think they somehow become valid when they lead to conclusions you happen to like?

[wigginhall]

An interesting snippet from Wiggs recent link:

J. B. S. Haldane, who appeals to a similar line of reasoning in his 1927 book, Possible Worlds: "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

This argument seems to lead to ultra-skepticism, not only about humans but also animals.   For example, if you take an animal such as the leech, it relies on sensitive sensory equipment to indicate possible food sources (blood), possible dangers, places of safety, potential mates, and so on.

But these sensory organs and the nervous system which coordinates the information, are made up of atoms, I assume. 

So how can they be reliable?   

The argument seems to amalgamate the fallacy of composition, and arguments from ignorance and incredulity.  On top of that, it is quote-mined.   Bingo!