Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Of course there can be no physical description or definition of origin for the desires of the soul, otherwise they would just become part of the naturalist robotic functionality driven by physical chains of cause and effect.  The workings of the human soul are evident, but remain a mystery to our limited knowledge of reality.

Well that is one thing to need to work on, you see we can point to an origin for desires in the body, but there are none such for an origin of the desires for a soul.  All of which means that adding a soul into the explanatory mix in fact adds nothing but confusion. You might observe that a soul wants to supervene over the desire of a body, but you cannot say why.

Neither have you addressed what desires in a body are made of given that bodies are made of particulate matter. Take an ounce of body desire and compare it to an ounce of soul desire, what comparisons can we draw, and how could they interact ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course there can be no physical description or definition of origin for the desires of the soul…

And the same could be said of unicorns. You might also want to reflect a little on your odd notion that the emergence model cannot correlate wth consciousness because the latter isn’t “fully defined”, while at the same time telling us that there’s no definition at all for your conjecture “soul”.

When you have no definition for either, what’s the difference between the term “soul” and the term “8uy0&^)”?

…otherwise they would just become part of the naturalist robotic functionality driven by physical chains of cause and effect.

Perhaps, but they would also cease to become part of the menagerie of white noise terms you parade here. Would that not help you at least get off the blocks?

The workings of the human soul are evident…

Only in your head AB, only in you head. As by “soul” though you seem to mean something like, “a guess I happen to like that fills a gap created by my ignorance of the available evidence and by my personal incredulity that a naturalistic explanation could ever be possible” then only in your head is where it must remain.

…but remain a mystery to our limited knowledge of reality.

Ah, the old “it’s a mystery” ploy trotted out whenever the incoherence of the terminology and that utter lack of cogency for its logic is pointed out. You've realised that some aspects of consciousness are unexplained, so you think that positing something else entirely unexplained will answer that question. There's an old story about a chap who decided to create a painting with everything in the world in it. When he finished he stepped back to admire his work, only to realise that he'd forgotten to include himself doing the painting. Quickly he remedied the problem by adding a self-portrait, then stepped back to admire his work.

Imagine though his horror when he realised that he'd forgotten to paint himself painting himself into the picture! Quickly he fixed that, only to realise that he hadn't painted himself painting himself painting himself... and so on and so on. Eventually the poor chap went mad withe effort.

Is any of this ringing any bells for you? If it isn't, remind me to tell you about leprechauns some time – they’re a mystery too you know.

PS Not sure whether I’ve asked you this before but:

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE TERM “LOGICAL FALLACIES” MEANS?
Just a quick “yes” or “no” would be fine thanks.

[Gordon]

Of course there can be no physical description or definition of origin for the desires of the soul, otherwise they would just become part of the naturalist robotic functionality driven by physical chains of cause and effect.  The workings of the human soul are evident, but remain a mystery to our limited knowledge of reality.

I see that both torri and bhs have already answered this so I'll limit myself, for the sake of brevity, to noting this the effort of yours is as fine an example of unreconstructed bollocks as I've ever read.

[Alan Burns]

AB,
 There's an old story about a chap who decided to create a painting with everything in the world in it. When he finished he stepped back to admire his work, only to realise that he'd forgotten to include himself doing the painting. Quickly he remedied the problem by adding a self-portrait, then stepped back to admire his work.

Imagine though his horror when he realised that he'd forgotten to paint himself painting himself into the picture! Quickly he fixed that, only to realise that he hadn't painted himself painting himself painting himself... and so on and so on. Eventually the poor chap went mad with the effort.

You only need one conscious perceiver to perceive, and you only need one conscious driver to drive.  And as you aptly illustrate, neither can be defined in material terms.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You only need one conscious perceiver to perceive, and you only need one conscious driver to drive.  And as you aptly illustrate, neither can be defined in material terms.

But of course you have no argument of any kind to support the notion that your "conscious perceiver" and your "conscious driver" cannot be the same thing. Deciding that consciousness cannot be self-awareness because it's not "fully defined" and then plugging the faux gap with an answer ("soul") for which you tell us you have no definition of any kind is hopeless thinking.

I notice by the way that, as ever, you have just ignored the various falsifications and rebuttals that undid you.

I notice too that you seem to have forgotten to tell us whether or not you know what the term "logical fallacy" means.

Why is that? What are you so afraid of?

[torridon]

You only need one conscious perceiver to perceive, and you only need one conscious driver to drive.  And as you aptly illustrate, neither can be defined in material terms.

although you seem to be advocating two wanters, a body that has wants and a soul that has wants and although it might be difficult to see how particles of matter can want, there is no explanation at all for a soul or for the nature and derivation of its wants.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

although you seem to be advocating two wanters, a body that has wants and a soul that has wants and although it might be difficult to see how particles of matter can want, there is no explanation at all for a soul or for the nature and derivation of its wants.

What would the body want from, say, some cool Jazz?
You seem to be introducing some Kooky Lamarkism.
Why does your body masochistically wish to deprive itself of any of the great religions. What does your spleen have against say, The Buddha?

[Ricky Spanish]

To help AB figure out Logical Fallacies: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

[Shaker]

To help AB figure out Logical Fallacies: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

I think by now we can take it as read that AB either doesn't understand what a logical fallacy is and therefore what makes his "arguments" so dire (he won't even answer a question to this effect posed many times by bluehillside), or he knows but simply doesn't care that he produces the cognitive and intellectual equivalent of a car crash almost every time he puts his fingers to the keys.

This exact same scenario has been played out before with a poster now no longer here. It can surely only be either ignorance or indifference (and therefore potentially with a good dollop of arrogance) that allows people not merely to make such elementary blunders but to go on making them time after time after time despite being informed that they are in error. I think it may have been Nearly Sane who once demurred at my explanation, implying that I was actually committing or very close to committing a fallacy of my own, namely the excluded middle (i.e. there may be other explanations I'm not taking into account); however, when wrong, when the wrongness has been explained to you and you breezily carry on being wrong again and again and again in all the same ways, then if there is an explanation other than ignorance of logical fallacies or arrogant indifference to them, I should very much like to hear it.

[Nearly Sane]

I think by now we can take it as read that AB either doesn't understand what a logical fallacy is and therefore what makes his "arguments" so dire (he won't even answer a question to this effect posed many times by bluehillside), or he knows but simply doesn't care that he produces the cognitive and intellectual equivalent of a car crash almost every time he puts his fingers to the keys.

This exact same scenario has been played out before with a poster now no longer here. It can surely only be either ignorance or indifference (and therefore potentially with a good dollop of arrogance) that allows people not merely to make such elementary blunders but to go on making them time after time after time despite being informed that they are in error. I think it may have been Nearly Sane who once demurred at my explanation, implying that I was actually committing or very close to committing a fallacy of my own, namely the excluded middle (i.e. there may be other explanations I'm not taking into account); however, when wrong, when the wrongness has been explained to you and you breezily carry on being wrong again and again and again in all the same ways, then if there is an explanation other than ignorance of logical fallacies or arrogant indifference to them, I should very much like to hear it.

Yep, that was probably me. I speculated on what seems to me a more satisfactory explanation here

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=13903.0.

[ekim]

although you seem to be advocating two wanters, a body that has wants and a soul that has wants and although it might be difficult to see how particles of matter can want, there is no explanation at all for a soul or for the nature and derivation of its wants.

That would be based upon Alan's belief system.  The soul's 'wants' are God and Heaven and the body wants physical survival and its associated possessions.  The soul's derivation is from the divine, from which it has 'fallen' and to which it seeks to return and bind with.  The word 'religion' meant 'rebind'.  So the choice is God or Mammon.

[Alan Burns]

To help AB figure out Logical Fallacies: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

I have already answered the accusation of fallacy several times on this thread.  In most cases it boils down to a difference of opinion rather than a fallacy, but just labelling my arguments as fallacy seems to be the easier option.

For example, whenever I suggest that something is improbable or even impossible, I immediately get accused of personal incredulity, but the actual probability or possibility of something occurring is not a personal thing, but something which can be discussed in detail. 

So rather than just accuse me of fallacy, please indicate in detail why my argument is deemed to be fallacious, and if possible offer an alternative non fallacious argument. (And Gordon, just claiming it is down to biology does not really explain much!)

[Shaker]

I have already answered the accusation of fallacy several times on this thread.  In most cases it boils down to a difference of opinion rather than a fallacy, but just labelling my arguments as fallacy seems to be the easier option.

And here, as ever, the petulant arrogance kicks in.

It suits your purposes, of course, to claim that the correct identification of logical fallacies is merely a matter of opinion. No it isn't. Preferring dark chocolate over milk chocolate is an opinion. Liking X Factor is an opinion. Reading the Mirror over another newspaper is an opinion. Logical fallacies are not matters of opinion; they are failures in logic and breakdowns of clear thinking. The short version: you have no logic and can't think clearly, but rather than admit this you play the relativist card (hypocritically, since you wouldn't invoke it in any other area) and wave it all away as opinion, specifically, your opinion being as good as, as informed as, everyone else's. It isn't. When you are in the wrong, others will point out this fact. I suggest that you deal with it, because the constant fallaciousness, painful illogic and question-dodging are wearing in the extreme.

So rather than just accuse me of fallacy, please indicate in detail why my argument is deemed to be fallacious

Why bother? This has been done innumerable times already to absolutely no discernible effect whatever.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have already answered the accusation of fallacy several times on this thread.

You have done no such thing. The answer to the first part (“Do you know what the term “logical fallacy” means?) is either a “yes” or a “no”. You have provided neither.

The answer to the second part (“If you do know, does your reliance on them imply that you think a bad argument somehow becomes a good one when you like its outcome?”) you’ve just ignored completely.

In most cases it boils down to a difference of opinion rather than a fallacy, but just labelling my arguments as fallacy seems to be the easier option.

In no cases does it do that. When your arguments correlate precisely to the structure of a logical fallacy, then they are logically fallacious. There’s no “opinion” involved. Thus when you claim validity because lots of people agree with you, or because of the consequences if you’re right (or I'm wrong), or because you cannot imagine an alternative explanation, or because you think your perceptions are more reliable than evidence, or because of the unlikeliness of the universe being just right for you to exist, or because…etc and wearily etc these things are all logical fallacies.

And the problem with that is that logically fallacious arguments are always wrong arguments.

For example, whenever I suggest that something is improbable or even impossible, I immediately get accused of personal incredulity, but the actual probability or possibility of something occurring is not a personal thing, but something which can be discussed in detail.

Improbable and impossible are not the same thing. For the former, everything is improbable – a randomly dealt deck of cards for example. It’s in the nature of truth that it’s probabilistic. What you then do though is to inject an alternative explanation (typically, “God”) with no method of any kind to explain why it’s more probable than the real world improbable option.

“Impossible” on the other hand is something you assert a lot but cannot know to be the case. You rely on your knowledge of computers for example to assert that no future computer, however complex, could ever become self-aware. This is like asserting that computers could never construct spreadsheets based on your knowledge of the abacus. That is, you have no basis at all to assert “impossible” and, even if you did, you’d still have no argument at all to insert your explanation “God” rather than, say, my explanation “pixies”. Or, if both of us were honest, "don't know".

So rather than just accuse me of fallacy, please indicate in detail why my argument is deemed to be fallacious…

I just did. Your attempts at arguments are almost invariably fallacious. Once you grasp the concept and its various forms, you’ll realise that.

…,and if possible offer an alternative non fallacious argument.

And that’s (yet) another fallacy just there, in this case the shifting of the burden of proof. It’s not for anyone else to offer non-fallacious arguments in response to your claims. Rather all that’s necessary is to show them to be false – a trivially simple thing to do. If you think you have arguments for “God”, “soul” etc that are non-fallacious though, then it’s for you to bring them to the table.
 

(And Gordon, just claiming it is down to biology does not really explain much!)

Actually biology explains an awful lot. The point though is that, even if you found some of its conclusion to be unsatisfactory, that would tell you nothing whatever about the quality of your arguments for alternatives.

Why not then just start at the beginning and finally answer the question, “Do you know what the term “logical fallacies” means?”

If the answer is “no” some of us can help you on your way. If it’s a “yes”, then we can move on to why you rely on them so heavily to support your beliefs.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

bluehillside #18,420

Thank you.

Sorry I missed this, and no thanks necessary. Hope the tap dancing is keeping you sparky 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And here, as ever, the petulant arrogance kicks in.

It suits your purposes, of course, to claim that the correct identification of logical fallacies is merely a matter of opinion. No it isn't. Preferring dark chocolate over milk chocolate is an opinion. Liking X Factor is an opinion. Reading the Mirror over another newspaper is an opinion. Logical fallacies are not matters of opinion; they are failures in logic and breakdowns of clear thinking. The short version: you have no logic and can't think clearly, but rather than admit this you play the relativist card (hypocritically, since you wouldn't invoke it in any other area) and wave it all away as opinion, specifically, your opinion being as good as, as informed as, everyone else's. It isn't. When you are in the wrong, others will point out this fact. I suggest that you deal with it, because the constant fallaciousness, painful illogic and question-dodging are wearing in the extreme.

Why bother? This has been done innumerable times already to absolutely no discernible effect whatever.

AB They polish their own fallacies and handwaiving.

It doesn't matter to me if we are totally physical after all Dust to Dust etc. and the resurrection et al but they can no more disprove soul anymore than they can prove their own fundamental position. Which is not methodological naturalism. They do not have the answer to the hard problem of consciousness and they are reductionist mechanistic dinosaurs.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

AB They polish their own fallacies and handwaiving.

“Handwaiving”? Meaning, “not requiring hands” perhaps?

Anyways, let’s see who relies on logical fallacies shall we?

It doesn't matter to me if we are totally physical after all Dust to Dust etc. and the resurrection et al but they can no more disprove soul…

BING! Fallacy 1: the negative proof fallacy.

…anymore than they can prove their own fundamental position. Which is not methodological naturalism.

BING! Fallacy 2: the straw man. No-one claims “proofs”, least of all those who point to the findings of science.

Which is not methodological naturalism.

BING! Fallacy 3: Methodological naturalism does not purport to entail proofs - it just proceeds on the assumption "natural".

They do not have the answer to the hard problem of consciousness…

BING! Fallacy 4: The red herring. No-one says otherwise, but the absence of an answer does not validate an alternative claim.

…and they are reductionist mechanistic dinosaurs.

BING! Fallacy 5: The judgmental language fallacy, coupled with the failure to grasp that to be “reductionist” you have to demonstrate something that’s been reduced from.

As you seem to be the expert polisher here, perhaps you'd pop round in a bit to give my car a nice turtle wax?

[Gordon]

I have already answered the accusation of fallacy several times on this thread.  In most cases it boils down to a difference of opinion rather than a fallacy, but just labelling my arguments as fallacy seems to be the easier option.

Wrong: but since you clearly can't tell the difference between fallacies and opinions I'm not surprised.

For example, whenever I suggest that something is improbable or even impossible, I immediately get accused of personal incredulity, but the actual probability or possibility of something occurring is not a personal thing, but something which can be discussed in detail.

Then you need a method on which to base your claims of something being probable or possible: and you haven't.   

So rather than just accuse me of fallacy, please indicate in detail why my argument is deemed to be fallacious, and if possible offer an alternative non fallacious argument.

Nope: Butter-knife of the Spirit tried that nonsense: if you offer a fallacious argument all that need be done by way of response is reject your failed argument.

(And Gordon, just claiming it is down to biology does not really explain much!)

Actually it explains a great deal!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The negative proof fallacy is saying that ''You cannot disprove a soul therefore souls must exist'' I am not arguing that here and had hoped that the statement that I'm OK with people being totally physical would be a flag up for the stuck record antitheist numpty.

Of course you were. “…but they can no more disprove soul…” is not a claim anyone makes in any case (any more than they claim to disprove unicorns), and if you didn’t think the absence of a disproof was relevant to the likelihood of "soul's" existence then you were making no point at all.

I was obviously wrong on that.

And on everything else.

Judgmental language fallacy....You are making that up…

Wrong again:

“Judgmental language is a subset of red herring fallacies. It employs insulting, compromising or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.”

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

…and would pack it away with the drop of a hat when it is pointed out to you that the vast percentage of antitheist published guff is judgmental language vis Antitheist poster boy Christopher Hitchins.

BING! Fallacy 6: The tu quoque (with some further Fallacy 5 judgmental language thrown in for good measure).

I noticed by the way that you just ignored the other examples of fallacious thinking you tried and that have undone you.

Could you get a move on please – that car won’t polish itself you know…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

“Judgmental language is a subset of red herring fallacies. It employs insulting, compromising or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgment.”

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

Here's what Wikipedia itself says about the entry on ''Judgmental Language''

''This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009) )''

Sorry Hillside but I suspect this is another manufactured fallacy...like the Courtiers Reply...or as Ed Feser calls it '' The Myers Shuffle''. Essentially meaningless bollocks.

Try again by all means.

[Shaker]

BING! Fallacy 1: the negative proof fallacy.

There's no Hope for that one 

As you seem to be the expert polisher here, perhaps you'd pop round in a bit to give my car a nice turtle wax?

Alas, in the field of polishing our Vlad is more familiar with turdle wax 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's no Hope for that one 
Alas, in the field of polishing our Vlad is more familiar with turdle wax 

And you guys are very familiar with Turtles heads
fnar fnar snork.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Here's what Wikipedia itself says about the entry on ''Judgmental Language''

''This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009) )''

Wow – you’re rely on a crash and burn roll today aren’t you.

First, what you actually said was: “Judgmental language fallacy....You are making that up…” remember?

I then gave you a citation. That means that I wasn’t making it up. You might not like the citation, you might disagree with it, you might anything, but the fact remains that I didn’t make it up.

You were wrong.

Second, the citation just says that it could be "improved" and not that it’s wrong. Lots of citations from lots of sources could be improved, but that doesn’t invalidate them.

Third, the judgmental language fallacy is also in the Wiki entry for “List of fallacies” under the sub-heading “Red herring arguments” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies). Self-evidently judgmental or pejorative language (your frequent use of “antitheist” when what you actually mean is “atheist” for example) is irrelevant to the force of an argument

Sorry Hillside but I suspect this is another manufactured fallacy...like the Courtiers Reply...or as Ed Feser calls it '' The Myers Shuffle''. Essentially meaningless bollocks.

If Feser says that then he’s as wrong as you are. Absence of knowledge about the arcane detail of a supernatural claim is irrelevant to the underlying force of the argument for the claim in the first place, just as your use of judgmental language is irrelevant to the force of the argument that undoes you. 

Try again by all means.

Why flog a dead horse? You’ve unravelled like a cheap suit yet again – I see no point in starting again from the other arm.

Oh, and I see that you’re in standard Vlad dishonesty mode of just ignoring all the rebuttals that undo you in favour of the one you can think defend but which as it turns out collapses n a heap too.

You crashed, you burned. Move on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wow – you’re rely on a crash and burn roll today aren’t you.

First, what you actually said was: “Judgmental language fallacy....You are making that up…” remember?

I then gave you a citation. That means that I wasn’t making it up. You might not like the citation, you might disagree with it, you might anything, but the fact remains that I didn’t make it up.

You were wrong.

Second, the citation just says that it could be "improved" and not that it’s wrong. Lots of citations from lots of sources could be improved, but that doesn’t invalidate them.

Third, the judgmental language fallacy is also in the Wiki entry for “List of fallacies” under the sub-heading “Red herring arguments” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies). Self-evidently judgmental or pejorative language (your frequent use of “antitheist” when what you actually mean is “atheist” for example) is irrelevant to the force of an argument

If Feser says that then he’s as wrong as you are. Absence of knowledge about the arcane detail of a supernatural claim is irrelevant to the underlying force of the argument for the claim in the first place, just as your use of judgmental language is irrelevant to the force of the argument that undoes you. 

Why flog a dead horse? You’ve unravelled like a cheap suit yet again – I see no point in starting again from the other arm.

Oh, and I see that you’re in standard Vlad dishonesty mode of just ignoring all the rebuttals that undo you in favour of the one you can think defend but which as it turns out collapses n a heap too.

You crashed, you burned. Move on.

You cited something that has no citations and on the strength of that declare me guilty of a fallacy. There is no such thing as a judgmental language fallacy since nothing is being or attempted to be established by a judgmental tone.

In your desperation for a handy fallacy you obviously went to a dodgy source.

Your confusion between atheist and antitheist is suspect too as you are suggesting there cannot be such a thing as an antitheist. That is patent nonsense. Antitheists do what they do and there is nothing fallacious about declaring what it is they do or are.

[Shaker]

Your confusion between atheist and antitheist is suspect too as you are suggesting there cannot be such a thing as an antitheist. That is patent nonsense. Antitheists do what they do and there is nothing fallacious about declaring what it is they do or are.

Sometimes you have to wonder what happens in a person's brain in between their reading it and responding to it, so bizarrely wide of the mark is the reply. Bluey said no such thing in any way, shape or form. He wrote:

Self-evidently judgmental or pejorative language (your frequent use of “antitheist” when what you actually mean is “atheist” for example)

Point out to me which part of that reads to you as "suggesting there cannot be such a thing as an antitheist".