Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

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.

He has done. It's his "soul" wot does it, and the infinite regression problem goes away because it's "non-physical" so, you know, magic. Or a "mystery". Or something.

And what gives him this remarkable insight? Simple: a laptop isn't self-aware is it?

There you go then – case closed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

FB,

LOL

Glad you approve.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

FB,

Glad you approve.

Bing! ''The laughing with you not at you'' fallacy.

[ekim]

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.

Yes, thoughts do come and go, as do emotions, dreams and nightmares.  Perhaps Alan means guiding his thinking towards, say, Christian scripture and away from, say, philosophy.  It doesn't make it free though but, in this case, more likely conditioned and bound by religion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

This'll be lost on you, but I wrote a couple of posts back: "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..."

Your next two eructations in response were:

LOL

and

Bing! ''The laughing with you not at you'' fallacy.

QED

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, thoughts do come and go, as do emotions, dreams and nightmares.  Perhaps Alan means guiding his thinking towards, say, Christian scripture and away from, say, philosophy.  It doesn't make it free though but, in this case, more likely conditioned and bound by religion.

Again though 'guiding' is surely a thought? In which case wouldn't that need to be guided? Etc etc...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

This'll be lost on you, but I wrote a couple of posts back: "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..."

Your next two eructations in response were:
 and

QED

Which logical fallacies which haven't either been made up or misused are they then Bing?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Which logical fallacies which haven't either been made up or misused are they then Bing?

Yours, or those used here by theists in general?

You tend to begin and and with the straw man as your catch-all fallacy. You also have a fondness for begging the question, circular reasoning, the divine fallacy, proof by assertion, the ad hom, the moralistic fallacy, the red herring, special pleading, and wishful thinking,

Don't feel bad about this though – lots of theists rely on these (and other) fallacies too. What you should feel bad about however is your dishonesty in failing ever to address the problem.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

Yours, or those used here by theists in general?

You tend to begin and and with the straw man as your catch-all fallacy. You also have a fondness for begging the question, circular reasoning, the divine fallacy, proof by assertion, the ad hom, the moralistic fallacy, the red herring, special pleading, and wishful thinking,

....and when was this?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

....and when was this?

When did you first join the old BBC Board? The timeline is from that date until today.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

When did you first join the old BBC Board?

Don't you know? Don't you have a timeline?
Give us any fallacy from 2007.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Don't you know? Don't you have a timeline?
Give us any fallacy from 2007.

It's a rare post from you that doesn't contain at least one fallacy, generally the straw man but there's a whole suite of sub-routine fallacies you deploy when you don't fancy using that one (and often when you do). I've corrected you on them, what, 1,000 time perhaps? 10,000 maybe? Who can possibly say?

You've responded to these corrections openly and honestly - hang on, let me just tot up the times... give me a mo...just a sec...

...oh yeah, that's it: zero times.

And now, after all your countless lies and evasions you have the front to ask for a specific citation?

Seriously?

Seriously seriously?

Yeah right. Tell you what, you pick any post of yours you like when you've just ignored the rebuttal or falsification that's been handed to you and use that as your reference point. You have a huge selection available, so it shouldn't be a problem for you.

Deal? OK then.
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

It's a rare post from you that doesn't contain at least one fallacy, generally the straw man but there's a whole suite of sub-routine fallacies you deploy when you don't fancy using that one (and often when you do). I've corrected you on them, what, 1,000 time perhaps? 10,000 maybe? Who can possibly say?

You've responded to these corrections openly and honestly - hang on, let me just tot up the times... give me a mo...just a sec...

...oh yeah, that's it: zero times.

And now, after all your countless lies and evasions you have the front to ask for a specific citation?

Seriously?

Seriously seriously?

Yeah right. Tell you what, you pick any post of yours you like when you've just ignored the rebuttal or falsification that's been handed to you and use that as your reference point. You have a huge selection available, so it shouldn't be a problem for you.

Deal? OK then.
 

Your ability to lampoon yourself Blue is just one of the things I like about you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

FB,

Your ability to lampoon yourself Blue is just one of the things I like about you.

Avoidance noted.

QED

[ekim]

Again though 'guiding' is surely a thought? In which case wouldn't that need to be guided? Etc etc...

I was trying to give Alan some leeway by using 'thinking' as a process rather than as a more consolidated thought form.  He is then able to direct his thinking towards a nebulous God rather than have it bound by logical considerations within a philosophical framework.  Much to a number of people's annoyance he seems to be mixing the two.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

So I've listed some of your favourites below. Whenever you attempt them envisage the sing-song voice of the Post Office announcer saying, "Counter number 6 please", only it'll be me saying "Fallacy number 6" etc instead.

Should save a lot of time.

Fallacy 1: The straw man

Fallacy 2: The ad hominem/abusive terms fallacy

Fallacy 3: Judgmental language

Fallacy 4: Circular reasoning

Fallacy 5: The moralistic fallacy (“ought from an is”)

Fallacy 6: Negative proof fallacy

Fallacy 7: The tu quoque

Fallacy 8: Argumentum ad consequentiam

Fallacy 9: Argumentum ad populum

Fallacy 10: Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Fallacy 11: Argumentum from incredulity

Fallacy 12: Vacuous truth fallacy (argument from irrelevance)

[Alan Burns]

In which you are denying the relevant science, which reveals that (1) we don't 'guide' our thoughts, rather thoughts happen to us,

So when I am solving a complex crossword, the solution just happens to pop up in my brain?

[Nearly Sane]

I was trying to give Alan some leeway by using 'thinking' as a process rather than as a more consolidated thought form.  He is then able to direct his thinking towards a nebulous God rather than have it bound by logical considerations within a philosophical framework.  Much to a number of people's annoyance he seems to be mixing the two.

But the 'leeway' makes no sense since it's a decision which must be a consolidated thought form. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fallacy Boy,

So I've listed some of your favourites below. Whenever you attempt them envisage the sing-song voice of the Post Office announcer saying, "Counter number 6 please", only it'll be me saying "Fallacy number 6" etc instead.

Should save a lot of time.

Fallacy 1: The straw man

Fallacy 2: The ad hominem/abusive terms fallacy

Fallacy 3: Judgmental language

Fallacy 4: Circular reasoning

Fallacy 5: The moralistic fallacy (“ought from an is”)

Fallacy 6: Negative proof fallacy

Fallacy 7: The tu quoque

Fallacy 8: Argumentum ad consequentiam

Fallacy 9: Argumentum ad populum

Fallacy 10: Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Fallacy 11: Argumentum from incredulity

Fallacy 12: Vacuous truth fallacy (argument from irrelevance)

You got the wrong list

here's the right one.

Loaf
Milk
Cake
Nesquik
'The God Delusion'
Sausages
Deep Heat
Cherry and Passion Fruit Tic Tacs
Worming Tablets

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

You got the wrong list

here's the right one.

Loaf
Milk
Cake
Nesquik
'The God Delusion'
Sausages
Deep Heat
Cherry and Passion Fruit Tic Tacs
Worming Tablets

Fallacy number tweeelve!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So when I am solving a complex crossword, the solution just happens to pop up in my brain?

If your conjecture is that there's a "perceiving" you that reads, "Pretty girl in crimson rose [8]", and then a separate homunculus in your brain that whispers in your ear, "Rebelled" then yes. "Just happens" and "pop" though are judgmental terms that significantly underestimate the complexity of the processes involved.

[ekim]

But the 'leeway' makes no sense since it's a decision which must be a consolidated thought form.

The end result may be a thought form but in the example I gave he has the choice of presenting a religious thought or a philosophical thought.  It is unlikely to be free though as the former might be motivated by love and the latter by the desire to bore the pants off everybody.

[Nearly Sane]

The end result may be a thought form but in the example I gave he has the choice of presenting a religious thought or a philosophical thought.  It is unlikely to be free though as the former might be motivated by love and the latter by the desire to bore the pants off everybody.

Surely a thought is equal to a thought form.

[ekim]

Surely a thought is equal to a thought form.

I'm not sure what you mean by equal, but thought forms can be called ideas, concepts, models and have varying degrees of complexity or be a simple image like a jam sandwich.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I'm not sure what you mean by equal, but thought forms can be called ideas, concepts, models and have varying degrees of complexity or be a simple image like a jam sandwich.

Jam sandwiches soak up casserole [7]