Searching for GOD...

[Sassy]

Sassy,

That’s not “the” truth it’s just your personal truth, and moreover how on earth would you know whether or not Susan’s beliefs have been “put to the test”?

Did you mean to imply that another poster here has "a dead conscience”? Given your antipathy so, say, equal marriage some might say that the charge fits you better than those on whom you would presume to hang it.

What makes you think that Susan (or anyone else for that matter) would not care "if God exists or not”? If one or many gods did exist, that would I’d have thought be something to care about. The problem though is that, so far at least, no-one has been able to construct a cogent argument to indicate that such things do exist.

What makes you think that, as a theist, you can know that either?

All atheism requires if the rationality to find that assertions and arguments made for “God” are epistemically hopeless. Find an argument that isn’t hopeless though and I’ll be first in line to sign up. For all I (or you) know, Susan might be tap dancing next to me too.

Conscience would be an argument from consequences, hearts are muscles, and it’s the minds of some of us at least that allow us to conclude that woo merchants like yourself have it wrong.   

R U Susan?

No so buzz off..

[torridon]

But the question I was raising was about our ability to guide our own thoughts.  You seem to be suggesting that it is mostly or all done sub consciously.

When I was doing research for my PhD, I wanted to develop a new method of performing optimum minimum cost designs for certain types of structural steelwork.  I consciously thought of the goal I wished to achieve, then I did some research to find out what had already been done in this field, then I deliberately formulated a method which I implemented and tested.  Throughout this whole process I was constantly guiding my own thoughts in order to achieve a specific goal.

And the solution I came up with was a discrete combinatorial backtrack programming algorithm with a two tier search.

I agree that is under normal circumstances a fair portrayal of a mind at work and it is only if we seek to understand the workings of mind with greater subtlety that a radically different picture emerges. Since Freud we have come to see that the vast majority of mind is subconscious at any given moment - all our hopes and fears and intentions reside there, only occasionally coming into conscious focus as and when.  That desire to achieve a goal was there in subconscious mind; that intention to find out what had already been done formed in subconscious mind before you became consciously aware of it. When we are focussing on a task the interplay between levels of mind is so subtle and swift that we are not aware that considerable neurological activity is going on to create that feeling of there being a 'me' forming intentions and taking decisions.  The 'I' that guides the thoughts is itself a construction of mind, it is not a fundamental, it is a product of considerable preconscious processing that collates and synchronises and refines information flows into a seeming unitary whole; understanding this goes against our intuitions I agree and we cannot help but live in this 'me' that is constructed by mind, that is the seat of our sense of being and doing and acting.  If this is hard to believe, just consider what happens when we go to sleep - all that sense of agency, of ownership of decision making, of personhood, that all disappears when consciousness disappears, so I think the science that suggests this view of mind is absolutely on the right lines. 'Me' , in phenomenological terms, must be a construction of mind, a product and aspect of the processes of consciousness rather than the driver of them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

R U Susan?

No so buzz off..

You don't understand how an open message board works. If you don't want others to comment, don't post here.

By the way, as you've shown precious little sign of it so far here when do you plan to start contributing to this "compassionate world" of your tagline?   

[Alan Burns]

I agree that is under normal circumstances a fair portrayal of a mind at work and it is only if we seek to understand the workings of mind with greater subtlety that a radically different picture emerges. Since Freud we have come to see that the vast majority of mind is subconscious at any given moment - all our hopes and fears and intentions reside there, only occasionally coming into conscious focus as and when.  That desire to achieve a goal was there in subconscious mind; that intention to find out what had already been done formed in subconscious mind before you became consciously aware of it. When we are focussing on a task the interplay between levels of mind is so subtle and swift that we are not aware that considerable neurological activity is going on to create that feeling of there being a 'me' forming intentions and taking decisions.  The 'I' that guides the thoughts is itself a construction of mind, it is not a fundamental, it is a product of considerable preconscious processing that collates and synchronises and refines information flows into a seeming unitary whole; understanding this goes against our intuitions I agree and we cannot help but live in this 'me' that is constructed by mind, that is the seat of our sense of being and doing and acting.  If this is hard to believe, just consider what happens when we go to sleep - all that sense of agency, of ownership of decision making, of personhood, that all disappears when consciousness disappears, so I think the science that suggests this view of mind is absolutely on the right lines. 'Me' , in phenomenological terms, must be a construction of mind, a product and aspect of the processes of consciousness rather than the driver of them.

You seem to be trying very hard to explain the unexplainable.  As we have no physical definition of what conscious awareness is, there will be obvious difficulty in trying to show that it is not the driving force behind our conscious thoughts and actions.  To suggest that the entire processes involved in my PhD studies were all driven by my subconscious is equivalent to saying black is white.  I can assure you that I, my conscious self, was the driving force.  And it is not possible to define this driving force using physically deterministic events which are the unavoidable consequences of previous physical events.  We have the power to control our thoughts and actions, and no amount of technical jargon can change this obvious truth.

[Rhiannon]

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

Have you answered this, Alan?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You appear to be getting a worrying addiction to fallacy labels.
It may be advisable to seek some help.

You don't understand the significance of the issue. Logically false arguments are always wrong arguments. When you attempt them, whether or not the outcome you'd like to demonstrate is correct the argument you think leads to it cannot do that job. All that's necessary in response therefore is identify the fallacy.

What actually happens is that you and Vlad both generally attempt one or several fallacies whenever you attempt an argument, myself and others identify them, and you just ignore the issue as if it hadn't happened. You differ only inasmuch as your approach is usually to talk about something else, whereas Vlad resorts to insult. Either way though, it's still a form of dishonesty.   

[Alan Burns]

Have you answered this, Alan?

I can't answer this without being judgemental.  God is the final judge.

[Shaker]

Ah, the ultimate shirking of responsibility.

[Rhiannon]

I can't answer this without being judgemental.  God is the final judge.

So in other words you do think that God judges harshly those who don't bear witness to him.

How much choice in the matter do you really think you have when you 'consciously' choose to do so then?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You don't understand the significance of the issue. Logically false arguments are always wrong arguments. When you attempt them, whether or not the outcome you'd like to demonstrate is correct the argument you think leads to it cannot do that job. All that's necessary in response therefore is identify the fallacy.

What actually happens is that you and Vlad both generally attempt one or several fallacies whenever you attempt an argument, myself and others identify them, and you just ignore the issue as if it hadn't happened. You differ only inasmuch as your approach is usually to talk about something else, whereas Vlad resorts to insult. Either way though, it's still a form of dishonesty.   

As I have previously said, the allegations of fallacy sometimes boil down to a difference of opinion, or sometimes a misunderstanding.  I do not have time to fully engage in the logic behind my posts.  In some cases it would require the full chapter of a book to fully explain my thoughts, so in my brevity there will be opportunities to pick fault.  So I try to offer ideas and food for thought which I hope others will ponder over rather than just pick fault in order to defend their own corner.

[Alan Burns]

So in other words you do think that God judges harshly those who don't bear witness to him.

How much choice in the matter do you really think you have when you 'consciously' choose to do so then?

I try to follow what God calls me to do.  I use prayer to discern His will.  I do not assume to know what He is calling others to do.

[Rhiannon]

I try to follow what God calls me to do.  I use prayer to discern His will.  I do not assume to know what He is calling others to do.

So not a choice at all then.

[Shaker]

As I have previously said, the allegations of fallacy sometimes boil down to a difference of opinion, or sometimes a misunderstanding.

Wrong! Fallacies are not matters of opinion but of poor reasoning. Logic has rules, and that means they can be followed or broken, as in the case of fallacies. Now, another day and on another thread we can have an interesting discussion if you wish as to where logic comes from - whether, like mathematics, you take a Platonic or an instrumentalist view. That's a separate issue though; the point is that logic has rules and you violate them in just about every post you make.

You really don't absorb anything at all on here, do you? What passes for your mind is closed to reason and logic tighter than a duck's arsehole under water.

I do not have time to fully engage in the logic behind my posts.  In some cases it would require the full chapter of a book to fully explain my thoughts, so in my brevity there will be opportunities to pick fault.  So I try to offer ideas and food for thought which I hope others will ponder over rather than just pick fault in order to defend their own corner.

Well that's been a dismal failure all round, hasn't it?

[Gordon]

As I have previously said, the allegations of fallacy sometimes boil down to a difference of opinion

Wrong - opinion is irrelevant.

or sometimes a misunderstanding.

Correct: problem is though that any misunderstandings are those of the person committing the fallacy - in this case you.

I do not have time to fully engage in the logic behind my posts.

It won't take any time at all, Alan, for obvious reasons.

In some cases it would require the full chapter of a book to fully explain my thoughts, so in my brevity there will be opportunities to pick fault.  So I try to offer ideas and food for thought which I hope others will ponder over rather than just pick fault in order to defend their own corner.

The issue isn't your brevity, Alan, but your reasoning (or rather lack of reasoning). Moreover, highlighting the deficiencies in your arguments says nothing about my 'corner' (since I'm not sure I have one).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I have previously said, the allegations of fallacy sometimes boil down to a difference of opinion, or sometimes a misunderstanding.

You did say it before, and (as I explained at the time) you were wrong about that then too. Many logical fallacies are codified – you can look them up. Very often your arguments correlate precisely to those codified definitions (argumentum ad consequentiam, circular reasoning etc). This means that they are wrong arguments. Not a difference of opinion, not a misunderstanding – just flat wrong.

I do not have time to fully engage in the logic behind my posts.  In some cases it would require the full chapter of a book to fully explain my thoughts, so in my brevity there will be opportunities to pick fault.  So I try to offer ideas and food for thought which I hope others will ponder over rather than just pick fault in order to defend their own corner.

The only person you’re fooling here is yourself. No-one’s asking you to “fully engage in the logic behind” your posts. What you’re actually being asked is to understand when the logic you attempt is flat wrong, and then not to repeat the mistake. This should actually do you a favour – once you finally managed to junk all the bad arguments, the field will be clear for you finally to attempt some good ones. Why would you not welcome that?

Imagine if I posted “2+2=5” and you pulled me up on it. Imagine then if I said we had “a difference of opinion” and that I didn’t have time to “engage fully in the logic behind my posts”. What would you make of my assertion if I did that? Wold I have offered you "food for thought"? Why not?

This in essence is what you just attempted.

[torridon]

You seem to be trying very hard to explain the unexplainable.  As we have no physical definition of what conscious awareness is, there will be obvious difficulty in trying to show that it is not the driving force behind our conscious thoughts and actions.  To suggest that the entire processes involved in my PhD studies were all driven by my subconscious is equivalent to saying black is white.  I can assure you that I, my conscious self, was the driving force.  And it is not possible to define this driving force using physically deterministic events which are the unavoidable consequences of previous physical events.  We have the power to control our thoughts and actions, and no amount of technical jargon can change this obvious truth.

And you are trying to avoid engaging with the subtler insights that have accrued from research.  Yes, conscious awareness is not fully understood, but hang on, your notion of soul has zero definition, zero evidence and zero rationale, so out of the two approaches, the one based on evidence and reason stands head and shoulders above all else for anyone wanting to understand the truth of the matter, difficult though it may be, not intuitive though it may be. 

Understanding personhood does not come easy as we take it for granted and always have done so.  I think the evolution of humanity is a landmark step in the evolution of life on Earth and most people, when asked what is the defining characteristics that mark humans out from other species come up with answers like, sense of humour, religion, advanced cognitive abilities, love of music, sociability, and whilst these are all true to a degree, they miss the profoundest insight of all, the one overarching step change that characterises us as being different from other apes is personhood; it is the evolution from upright ape to person that is a most remarkable achievement for evolution but that cannot just appear out of nowhere as if by magic, there is a complex under-the-hood neurobiological phenomenon at work that we all habitually take for granted, and research into the cognitive sciences is gradually yielding insight into how those processes work to produce the phenomenology of personhood, of self, of identity.

[Shaker]

AB,

You did say it before, and (as I explained at the time) you were wrong about that then too. Many logical fallacies are codified – you can look them up. Very often your arguments correlate precisely to those codified definitions (argumentum ad consequentiam, circular reasoning etc). This means that they are wrong arguments. Not a difference of opinion, not a misunderstanding – just flat wrong.

In BurnsWorld relativism seems to reign supreme when it comes to logic - nobody is right, nobody is wrong, it's all just opinion and every opinion is every bit as good as every other.

An interesting position for a Catholic, to say the least.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You did say it before, and (as I explained at the time) you were wrong about that then too. Many logical fallacies are codified – you can look them up. Very often your arguments correlate precisely to those codified definitions (argumentum ad consequentiam, circular reasoning etc). This means that they are wrong arguments. Not a difference of opinion, not a misunderstanding – just flat wrong.

The only person you’re fooling here is yourself. No-one’s asking you to “fully engage in the logic behind” your posts. What you’re actually being asked is to understand when the logic you attempt is flat wrong, and then not to repeat the mistake. This should actually do you a favour – once you finally managed to junk all the bad arguments, the field will be clear for you finally to attempt some good ones. Why would you not welcome that?

Imagine if I posted “2+2=5” and you pulled me up on it. Imagine then if I said we had “a difference of opinion” and that I didn’t have time to “engage fully in the logic behind my posts”. What would you make of my assertion if I did that? Wold I have offered you "food for thought"? Why not?

This in essence is what you just attempted.

If you can give me an example of me saying the equivalent of 2+2=5 I will show you why you are wrong in your interpretation.

[Shaker]

If you can give me an example of me saying the equivalent of 2+2=5 [...]

Every time you've committed a logical fallacy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If you can give me an example of me saying the equivalent of 2+2=5 I will show you why you are wrong in your interpretation.

Seriously?

Seriously seriously though?

You've committed and been corrected on logical fallacies hundreds of times, and not once so far as I recall have you ever responded honestly to having them pointed out. How many times for example have you told us that if we function deterministically, then we would just be "mindless robots" (argumentum ad consequentiam), or that lots of people "yearning" for "God" validates the conjecture "God" (argumentum ad populum), or that you Alan can't imagine how something occurs naturally, therefore it must be supernatural (argument from personal incredulity) etc and (wearily) etc?

Seriously, how many times have you tried these and the rest of the menagerie of wrong arguments on which you depend? Do you really not see that you've never yet managed to put together an argument that isn't wrong?

How do I know this? Because if you had done that I'd have been forced to engage with it rather than just tick it off the list of codified fallacies. 

And that's why I ask the question you keep running away from, namely: Do you think a bad argument somehow becomes a good one when you happen to like its outcome?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

How can stating the obvious, say, you are acting like a twat, be fallacious?
On the other hand, put me down for another number two you great W****r.

Fallacies thirteen and two respectively.



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)

Fallacy 13: The appeal to self-evident truth (that turns out to be no such thing)

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Seriously?

Seriously seriously though?

You've committed and been corrected on logical fallacies hundreds of times, and not once so far as I recall have you ever responded honestly to having them pointed out. How many times for example have you told us that if we function deterministically, then we would just be "mindless robots" (argumentum ad consequentiam),

It depends upon whether you can show that the uncontrolled deterministic nature of particle physics is capable of generating and controlling human thoughts.  Bearing in mind that correlation does not prove causation.

or that lots of people "yearning" for "God" validates the conjecture "God" (argumentum ad populum),

The question here is whether the blind evolutionary process alone is capable of creating the spiritual awareness evident in the history of the human race (and not evident in any other species).

or that you Alan can't imagine how something occurs naturally, therefore it must be supernatural (argument from personal incredulity)

If there is no natural explanation, the conjecture that it could be supernatural is not exactly a 2+2=5  analogy.  And we have the difference of opinion as to whether an emergent property based on material reactions can generate a single entity of conscious awareness which perceives the state of many brain cells.

Seriously, how many times have you tried these and the rest of the menagerie of wrong arguments on which you depend? Do you really not see that you've never yet managed to put together an argument that isn't wrong?

As shown above, these arguments cannot simply be labelled as wrong.  They do boil down to differences of opinion.  You need to put forward alternative logical arguments and not just claim "fallacy" as the trump card.

[Shaker]

As shown above, these arguments cannot simply be labelled as wrong.

Yes, actually, they can.

They do boil down to differences of opinion

No, they do not. '2 + 2 = 5'  is not an opinion or as they say Stateside these days an alternative fact; it is plainly and simply wrong. A logical fallacy is a failure of logic that doesn't depend on somebody's opinion about it.

You need to put forward alternative logical arguments and not just claim "fallacy" as the trump card.

And there's the hat trick of wrongitude. Nobody has to put forward a damned thing - if your would-be arguments are wrong, they're simply wrong. That's it.

Tell me: do you have some sort of issue with reading comprehension? You act as though you do - appearing utterly incapable of taking anything in and simply repeating parrot fashion the same old nonsense skinned, boned and gutted ages ago. If there's a problem of some kind in this area, you need to say so.

[Alan Burns]

Yes, actually, they can.
No, they do not. '2 + 2 = 5'  is not an opinion or as they say Stateside these days an alternative fact; it is plainly and simply wrong. A logical fallacy is a failure of logic that doesn't depend on somebody's opinion about it.
And there's the hat trick of wrongitude. Nobody has to put forward a damned thing - if your would-be arguments are wrong, they're simply wrong. That's it.

Tell me: do you have some sort of issue with reading comprehension? You act as though you do - appearing utterly incapable of taking anything in and simply repeating parrot fashion the same old nonsense skinned, boned and gutted ages ago. If there's a problem of some kind in this area, you need to say so.

I have offered reasons why my arguments can't be simply labelled as wrong.
You seem to have ignored these and just repeated an assertion that they are wrong

[Shaker]

I have offered reasons why my arguments can't be simply labelled as wrong.

Your reasons like your arguments are themselves wrong. For one example out of many, you keep robotically repeating that the soundness of an argument is merely a matter of opinion, when this is no more the case than 2 + 2 = 5 being wrong is merely opinion.

You seem to have ignored these and just repeated an assertion that they are wrong

I haven't ignored them - they have been refuted. Very different.

Since you're in relativist mode, do you consider the following statement:

2 + 2 = 5 is wrong

to be 'an assertion'?