Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

There is no physical explanation for how we implement these choices, so they must have their origins in the non physical - the conscious will of the human soul.

Monday June 5th 2017: 10:30:

Burns ballsup #1: negative proof fallacy.

Burns ballsup #2: excluded middle fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'God' is inherently illogical, or at least by most conceptions of what that means.  Adding 'god' into any argument is a sure fire way to render it null and void.

Another argument where the second part of the statement contradicts the first and the last part contradicts the second part.
Another antitheist attempt to put forward a statement with added ''hedge'' just for safety.

[savillerow]

Msg 18525 AB "be a witness to the truth of gods existence" One of us needs a good talking too.

[floo]

I consciously choose to be a witness to the truth of God's existence.

You are not a witness to god's existence, you have never seen it, felt it or heard it in the flesh. You might believe it exists, but that is all.

[Rhiannon]

I consciously choose to be a witness to the truth of God's existence.  I could choose to opt for an easy life and say nothing about my faith.  The choice is mine.

How do you think your god feels about those who do not bear witness to their faith and to his reality?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't think any Christians here proceed from having methodically conjured God like any arse New Atheist conjurs their position in any case.

BING! Straw man fallacy.

BING! Judgmental language fallacy.

Although postulating God is perfectly reasonable…

BING! Straw man fallacy. AB is doing a lot more than “postulating”.

Hillsides straw clutching assertion that somehow modern physics has shown God to be unreasonable.

BING! Judgmental language fallacy.

BING! Straw man fallacy. Bluehillside has never said any such thing. 

Ontology trumps methodology i'm afraid because methodology does not actually produce philosophical naturalism.

BING! Straw man fallacy.

BING! Misuse or terminology fallacy.

Also we need to watch false claims of argumentum ad consequentium.

BING! False fallacy fallacy. “If the universe is deterministic, then we’d just be robots, therefore the universe isn’t deterministic” is precisely an argumentum ad consequentiam.

A desperate, desperate effort Fallacy Boy, even by your standards.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I consciously choose to be a witness to the truth of God's existence.

You are not a witness to god's existence, you have never seen it, felt it or heard it in the flesh. You might believe it exists, but that is all.

Thank you for your OPINION.

[Alan Burns]

Can you suggest any reason at all for someone possessed of a working intellect not to find this stuff ludicrous?
 

If we are all just emergent properties derived entirely from the unavoidable consequences of physical events, there can be so such thing as "finding", since this implies some form of guiding thoughts rather than experiencing inevitable reactions.  Can you guide your own thoughts?  If so what is it that guides them?

[BeRational]

If we are all just emergent properties derived entirely from the unavoidable consequences of physical events, there can be so such thing as "finding", since this implies some form of guiding thoughts rather than experiencing inevitable reactions.  Can you guide your own thoughts?  If so what is it that guides them?

The conscious brain.

[torridon]

The conscious will of the human soul is not random.

Neither is it the unavoidable consequence to previous physical events.

These are not merely assertions, but statements of truth which should be blindingly obvious to every human being on this planet.  You imply that our conscious awareness merely spectates upon events over which it has no control.  Were the actions of the London terrorists just unavoidable consequences to events which could not possibly be averted?  Or were they the result of three people succumbing to the evil temptation that being killed in a holy war was a shortcut to heaven?

I consciously choose to be a witness to the truth of God's existence.  I could choose to opt for an easy life and say nothing about my faith.  The choice is mine.

We all have the choice between right and wrong, good and evil, love and hate.  There is no physical explanation for how we implement these choices, so they must have their origins in the non physical - the conscious will of the human soul.

If 'conscious will of the human soul' is not random then it is part of the chain of cause and effect.

If a 'choice' is made for absolutely no reason whatsoever, then it is not really a choice, it is a random event.  To be a meaningful choice it must be a response to something prior, it must be address the need that it is born of. Whether it is 'physical' or not is totally irrelevant, that is just a red herring.  The mechanisms by which will is formed might not be fully understood, but by throwing 'soul' in there you are injecting something with no explanation, no rationale and no evidence whatsoever as a means to understand something hard. This is a total fail, especially given that your beliefs about souls arbitrarily exclude all non human animals, so you are left with no explanation for how will and choice operate in that robin deciding where to build its nest or that rabbit deciding where to dig its burrow. The base emotions that give rise to the context in which choice is made are common to all higher mammals and your mantra that other animals 'just react' fails to grasp the fact this is still the operation of will in other creatures albeit with perhaps a reduced level of cognitive insight.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

BING! Straw man fallacy.

BING! Judgmental language fallacy.

BING! Straw man fallacy. AB is doing a lot more than “postulating”.

BING! Judgmental language fallacy.

BING! Straw man fallacy. Bluehillside has never said any such thing. 

BING! Straw man fallacy.

BING! Misuse or terminology fallacy.

BING! False fallacy fallacy. “If the universe is deterministic, then we’d just be robots, therefore the universe isn’t deterministic” is precisely an argumentum ad consequentiam.

A desperate, desperate effort Fallacy Boy, even by your standards.

A basic misunderstanding of where Christians are coming from. Christians do not proceed from argument to God since there is a gap between any methodology and experience or philosophical conclusion. I realise that may be too much for you to entertain.

Secondly not everything I write is a defence of everything Alan writes.

I think you and Torrid Don overstretch current knowledge and methodology on the question of consciousness.
ALSO ARE YOU NOT CONSCIOUS THAT SCIENCE IS DE FACTO REDUCTIONIST HENCE THE USE OF THE WORDS SUCH AS STEPS,STAGES AND MODELS?

Statements such as ''reduction from what''.... are just Slick Spinning.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The conscious will of the human soul is not random.

Then it’s deterministic.

Neither is it the unavoidable consequence to previous physical events.

Then it’s random.

These are not merely assertions…

Absent a coherent definition, a cogent argument or evidence of any kind that’s exactly what they are.

…but statements of truth…

In the absence of a coherent definition, a cogent argument or evidence of any kind, the only “truth” here is your personal truth.

…which should be blindingly obvious to every human being on this planet.

In the absence of a coherent definition, a cogent argument or evidence of any kind, no it isn’t.

You imply that our conscious awareness merely spectates upon events over which it has no control.  Were the actions of the London terrorists just unavoidable consequences to events which could not possibly be averted?  Or were they the result of three people succumbing to the evil temptation that being killed in a holy war was a shortcut to heaven?

That’s a false binary, and torri explained to you perfectly clearly the role of intelligence.

I consciously choose to be a witness to the truth of God's existence.

Again, that’s a “truth” only for you AB and it will remain so until and unless you can finally manage to offer some cogent reasoning for it.

I could choose to opt for an easy life and say nothing about my faith.  The choice is mine.

Which says nothing to your choice and methods being wrong nonetheless.

We all have the choice between right and wrong, good and evil, love and hate.  There is no physical explanation for how we implement these choices…

Actually there’s a lot of explanation, albeit incomplete. By contrast, you tell us that you have no explanation of any kind for your conjecture “soul”.

..so they must have their origins in the non physical…

That’s a major league non-sequitur.

First, you have no means to demonstrate even that there is a non-physical.

Second, there’s no “so” about it. The absence of an explanation (or of a complete one) tells you nothing whatever about an alternative conjecture you happen to favour but that is itself entirely unexplained. 

- the conscious will of the human soul.

And the big finish of the undefined, wrongly argued and un-evidenced conjecture.

Give it up Alan. Seriously, you’re just embarrassing yourself now.

[Shaker]

Just remembered something re: bluehillside's question to AB. Firstly the egregious Burns asks for people to say exactly why his pseudo-arguments are fallacious:

So rather than just accuse me of fallacy, please indicate in detail why my argument is deemed to be fallacious. (Sat. 3rd June 10:25)

but then claims that he already knows what constitutes a fallacy, therefore saying that he wants others to explain to him terms that he professes to know already:

Of course I know what they [technical terms for logical fallacies] mean. (Sun. 4th June 16:58)

Surely shome mishtake.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

A basic misunderstanding of where Christians are coming from.

BING! Straw man fallacy. I made no comment on where “Christians are coming from”. What I actually did was to show you where your arguments were false.

Christians do not proceed from argument to God since there is a gap between any methodology and experience or philosophical conclusion. I realise that may be too much for you to entertain.

Then why do you suppose that AB and others are trying precisely to “proceed from argument to God” for the rest of us, albeit quite spectacularly incompetently?

And if not for cogent argument, why then should anyone take the claims of Christians more seriously than those of any other un-argued faith, or indeed more seriously than just guessing? Indeed, absent cogent argument why would Christians themselves take their causal attribution “God” more seriously than all the multiplicity of alternative explanations for their "experiences"?

To be fair to you, so far as I recall you’ve never bothered even to attempt an argument for “God”, preferring as you do unqualified assertion and lying about the arguments and positions you don’t like. 

Secondly not everything I write is a defence of everything Alan writes.

BING! Straw man fallacy. No-one suggested that it was.

I think you and Torrid Don overstretch current knowledge and methodology on the question of consciousness.

BING! Argument by assertion fallacy. What is it that you think torri and I have “overstretched”?

ALSO ARE YOU NOT CONSCIOUS THAT SCIENCE IS DE FACTO REDUCTIONIST HENCE THE USE OF THE WORDS SUCH AS STEPS,STAGES AND MODELS?

BING! Misuse of terms fallacy. Science proceeds on the assumption of naturalism because that’s all it’s methods and tools can engage with. It cannot though be “reductionist” unless there’s demonstrably something to reduce from.   

Statements such as ''reduction from what''.... are just Slick Spinning.

BING! Judgmental language fallacy. “Reduced from what?” merely points out correctly that you’ve yet to show something that’s been reduced from. The only way you could at least try to make the charge stick would be to attempt (yet another) of your straw men by claiming science to assert the non-natural not to exist, albeit that in fact science is merely indifferent to such claims.     

Oh well.

[Alan Burns]

If 'conscious will of the human soul' is not random then it is part of the chain of cause and effect.

If a 'choice' is made for absolutely no reason whatsoever, then it is not really a choice, it is a random event.  To be a meaningful choice it must be a response to something prior, it must be address the need that it is born of. Whether it is 'physical' or not is totally irrelevant, that is just a red herring.  The mechanisms by which will is formed might not be fully understood, but by throwing 'soul' in there you are injecting something with no explanation, no rationale and no evidence whatsoever as a means to understand something hard. This is a total fail, especially given that your beliefs about souls arbitrarily exclude all non human animals, so you are left with no explanation for how will and choice operate in that robin deciding where to build its nest or that rabbit deciding where to dig its burrow. The base emotions that give rise to the context in which choice is made are common to all higher mammals and your mantra that other animals 'just react' fails to grasp the fact this is still the operation of will in other creatures albeit with perhaps a reduced level of cognitive insight.

I have never claimed that a conscious choice does not have a reason.  My claim is that whatever drives our conscious choice is not restricted to the unavoidable consequences of previous physical events.  We have the freedom to guide our thoughts and consciously choose our actions.  In trying to deny this freedom, are you not demonstrating your ability to consciously choose to deny something?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

BING! Straw man fallacy. I made no comment on where “Christians are coming from”. What I actually did was to show you where your arguments were false.

Dear Bing

You assumed I was defending Alan on a specific quote that is why I had to put you straight.

Why do you keep mentioning Bing? are you Cross be any chance? or is it because your argument is just a heap of waste?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Dear Fallacy Boy,

Dear Bing

You assumed I was defending Alan on a specific quote that is why I had to put you straight.

BING! Straw man fallacy. I did no such thing. What you actually said was, “Secondly not everything I write is a defence of everything Alan writes.”

I merely pointed out that I’ve not said that “everything” you write is a defence of AB.

Why do you keep mentioning Bing? are you Cross be any chance? or is it because your argument is just a heap of waste?

It’s an App I’ve installed, called “FallacyBoy”. Every time a post contains a fallacious argument it rings a bell. Trouble is, whenever you post the damn thing goes off like a fire engine in a hurry   

[torridon]

I have never claimed that a conscious choice does not have a reason.  My claim is that whatever drives our conscious choice is not restricted to the unavoidable consequences of previous physical events.  We have the freedom to guide our thoughts and consciously choose our actions.  In trying to deny this freedom, are you not demonstrating your ability to consciously choose to deny something?

In which you are denying the relevant science, which reveals that (1) we don't 'guide' our thoughts, rather thoughts happen to us, and (2), choices are not made consciously, but rather, the choice is made before our consciousness becomes aware of it. I know this sounds counter intuitive, but it does make sense if you bother to consider it.  To 'guide' your thoughts would require you to think about a thought before you thought it.  To make a choice in conscious mind implies a consciousness-first paradigm, implying that all the preconscious processing that is required to construct conscious experience somehow comes after it has already finished constructing it. Neither of these suggestions make any sense.

It is deeper levels of mind where choice takes place and the making of a choice is the playing out of cause and effect through the inconceivable complexity of neural networks all of which obey the deterministic laws of biology.  There is no 'you' that can interfere with the synaptic state of neural assemblies such that 'you' ends up having different desires.  What you want at any moment is the current state of those neural assemblies and there is no override.  We've already pointed out to you innumerable times, that you cannot suddenly want something that you don't want, and even if that were possible, then it would only be because you wanted to want something that you didn't want. This would clearly be nonsense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Fallacy Boy,

BING! Straw man fallacy. I did no such thing. What you actually said was, “Secondly not everything I write is a defence of everything Alan writes.”

I merely pointed out that I’ve not said that “everything” you write is a defence of AB.

It’s an App I’ve installed, called “FallacyBoy”. Every time a post contains a fallacious argument it rings a bell. Trouble is, whenever you post the damn thing goes off like a fire engine in a hurry 

Bing wrote:
It’s an App I’ve installed, called “FallacyBoy”.

It’s an CRApp I’ve installed, called “FallacyBoy”.........There you go Bing, I've corrected it for you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

[Bing wrote:

It’s an App I’ve installed, called “FallacyBoy”.

It’s  CRAp I’ve installed, called “FallacyBoy”.........There you go Bing, I've corrected it for you.

BING! The false correction fallacy.

Curiously you and AB share an approach here. Whenever you lurch into a logical fallacy and you’re called on it, neither of you will engage with the problem. For the most part each of you just ignores it and talks about something else instead, though he’s more given to overt irrationalism (a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy because it “excludes “God”” apparently), whereas you tend to descend into misrepresentation and abuse as a tactic. 

This slipperiness I find to be downright dishonest, but maybe it’s a necessary consequence of the cognitive dissonance you have to maintain. Do you for example lie as readily in other areas of your life, or only when the certainties of your faith run up against the realities that undo them?

[wigginhall]

I have never claimed that a conscious choice does not have a reason.  My claim is that whatever drives our conscious choice is not restricted to the unavoidable consequences of previous physical events.  We have the freedom to guide our thoughts and consciously choose our actions.  In trying to deny this freedom, are you not demonstrating your ability to consciously choose to deny something?

Are you really saying that you control your thoughts?   That sounds more like some claim by a yoga expert.   I find that thoughts arrive, not chosen by me.   

[floo]

Are you really saying that you control your thoughts?   That sounds more like some claim by a yoga expert.   I find that thoughts arrive, not chosen by me.

Same here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Are you really saying that you control your thoughts?   That sounds more like some claim by a yoga expert.   I find that thoughts arrive, not chosen by me.

I think that what he's asserting is that the "homunculus in my head" conjecture he calls "soul" controls his thoughts, though what this soul consists of, how it works, whether it functions deterministically or randomly, why it in turn doesn't need another homunculus in its head etc is all it seems a big ol' mystery. Having conjured it up though, he seems to rely on it to back fit a faux rational path to "God".

[Nearly Sane]

I have never claimed that a conscious choice does not have a reason.  My claim is that whatever drives our conscious choice is not restricted to the unavoidable consequences of previous physical events.  We have the freedom to guide our thoughts and consciously choose our actions.  In trying to deny this freedom, are you not demonstrating your ability to consciously choose to deny something?

Alan, asked you about this multiple times before which you have ignored, how doyou control your thoughts without thinking, which would mean you have to think about your control, but then that would mean you would need to think about thinking about your thinking which would mean....So please expkain , rather than not answer yet again, how you avoid this being an infinite regress.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

,

BING! The false correction fallacy.

LOL.