Searching for GOD...

[Sassy]

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?

If a believer at all, you would know Christ already paid for the sins of believers so what do you think God will judge believers on?
What harshness have you see God judge with. Is the wages of sin death or harsh judgement?

It doesn't add up does it?

[Sassy]

So not a choice at all then.

Doesn't work does it Rhi,

You make the choice to believe but the works God has prepared for believers are often different.
Do you think you get to choose?

[Robbie]

Quote from: Alan Burns on June 06, 2017, 09:35:08 AM
I can't answer this without being judgemental.  God is the final judge.

That is one of your most cringe-making, smug, Uriah Heep-ish posts.

No it isn't. Christians do believe that God is the final judge, we can't see inside oher people's heads or walk in their shoes. It would be extremely arrogant of any of us to even attempt to!

'Smug'? I remember you using that word before after listening to or watching a Christian on a discussion programme& there was no trace of smugness.

[SusanDoris]

Quote from: Alan Burns on June 06, 2017, 09:35:08 AM
I can't answer this without being judgemental.  God is the final judge.

No it isn't. Christians do believe that God is the final judge, we can't see inside oher people's heads or walk in their shoes. It would be extremely arrogant of any of us to even attempt to!

'Smug'? I remember you using that word before after listening to or watching a Christian on a discussion programme& there was no trace of smugness.
[/quote
Okay, I suppose that might have been a bit OTT! However, I still say there is a certain smugness when believers like AB cushion themselves with this blind faith that God is their protector, that this God loves everybody and wants us to be happy, etc, while at the same time hand-waving away all the other things that this God does not do by saying that it 'works in mysterious ways', or 'we cannot understand' or 'it is not up to us' to tell God what to do, or words to that effect. That is living in a cocoon, a dream world.
If such an unreal view gives a person comfort, well, that is their prerogative, but to think that is objectively true, well, that's definitely not for me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

We are writing messages so I understand how the board works and clearly it has nothing to do with the fact I was replying to something Susan said.
Your not Susan and it had nothing to do with you in any shape or form.

Any post here is something to do with anyone else if they feel like making it so. You don't get to decide who can and cannot comment on your posts.

You call your replies a contribution?

Yes. I try to engage in discussions rather than just cut and paste bits of a book I think to  be "holy".

You should try it - you might learn something.
 

I am not a board participant...

Yes you are. This is a message board. You contribute to it (well, sort of). Therefore you are a "board participant". QED

I am a financial contributer to the causes I believe in.

No doubt. What I was thinking of though was the sour bitterness and resentment of your posts on this mb. None of that betokens compassion.

Now buzz off...

See above. Would Jesus be proud of you do you think?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Fallacy Boy,

Argumentum ad humbug.

It wasn't an argument at all - it was actually a request that you demonstrate the false charge you made.

07.06.17 - the day even your pretence at rationality finally died.

Enjoy your retirement.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Robinson,

No it isn't. Christians do believe that God is the final judge, we can't see inside oher people's heads or walk in their shoes. It would be extremely arrogant of any of us to even attempt to!

Um, isn’t that pretty much what evangelising Christians at least do – presume to know better than others what they should believe and how they should behave, often laced with the menace of what will supposedly happen to them if they don't comply? Children in particular are a soft target for that kind of stuff.

'Smug'? I remember you using that word before after listening to or watching a Christian on a discussion programme& there was no trace of smugness.

Maybe smugness is in the eye of the beholder. My smugness detector tends to go off when I hear a Christian speaker begin with, “You know…” but that’s just me I guess 

[ippy]

"Sin does not exist"

This is the terrifying logic which materialist thinking leads to.  If we pretend that we have no free will, it gives evil doers a licence to do whatever they want, because whatever they do will be seen as an inevitable consequence of the material reactions in their brain.

The reality is that God has given us the knowledge of good and evil, and with it has given us the power to choose by conscious interaction, not just inevitable reaction.

Quite simply Alan, how do you know or how can you or anyone else possibly know?

ippy

[Alan Burns]

AB,


I look forward to it.

To be fair, it may be me who’s misremembering. I thought it was that fallacy, but perhaps it was the correlation/causation one. Either way though, the force of the point remains – namely that a bad argument is a bad argument, regardless of what it happens to be about.

AB,

for example have you told us that if we function deterministically, then we would just be "mindless robots" (argumentum ad consequentiam)

Quote

    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.

No it doesn’t, and you’ve missed the point entirely. Whether that can be shown or not, the argument you attempt for it is false. The argumentum ad consequentiam entails back-fitting the outcome of the argument to its logical soundness. Whether you find the outcome of an argument to be desirable, likely or anything else tells you nothing whatever though about the validity of the structure of the argument.

This is not a matter of opinion or difference of interpretation. It’s just about the logic of the reasoning that leads to the conclusion, which in this case is wrong.

So using this example to elaborate on my apparent fallacy,
In my original post, you imply that I jump from "deterministically driven" to the conclusion of "mindless robots".  And you are correct in saying that this alone is not valid reasoning.  As has been pointed out to me many times, everything we do is driven deterministically, but my conclusions lie in looking to the source of the deterministic events.  In the physical model the cause of an event will be determined by previous physical events, which thus trace back ad infinitum through to the beginning of time.  The big question lies in pondering the feasibility of how chains of pre determined physical events can define the apparent conscious control we perceive.  This is a very big and complex topic.  CS Lewis devotes a major part of his book "Miracles" on discussing this, and as I recall he leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions after presenting the evidence.  My own reasoning lies in the comparison with robots, because in the physically deterministic model there is no means of internally defined control.  Every event is pre determined according to the laws of physics, which are outside the control of any being.  So is our conscious mind deluded into thinking it has control over itself? Or is there something else within the conscious mind which can facilitate control?  If you assume that everything within us must comply with the current human knowledge of scientific discovery, the conclusion will probably be that we are deluded and our apparent control is "just the way it seems".  But my mind concludes that our apparent freedom to choose is real, not an illusion.

[floo]

AB you are entitled to your conclusion, but it doesn't mean it has any validity.

[torridon]

In my original post, you imply that I jump from "deterministically driven" to the conclusion of "mindless robots".  And you are correct in saying that this alone is not valid reasoning.  As has been pointed out to me many times, everything we do is driven deterministically, but my conclusions lie in looking to the source of the deterministic events.  In the physical model the cause of an event will be determined by previous physical events, which thus trace back ad infinitum through to the beginning of time.  The big question lies in pondering the feasibility of how chains of pre determined physical events can define the apparent conscious control we perceive.  This is a very big and complex topic.  CS Lewis devotes a major part of his book "Miracles" on discussing this, and as I recall he leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions after presenting the evidence.  My own reasoning lies in the comparison with robots, because in the physically deterministic model there is no means of internally defined control.  Every event is pre determined according to the laws of physics, which are outside the control of any being.  So is our conscious mind deluded into thinking it has control over itself? Or is there something else within the conscious mind which can facilitate control?  If you assume that everything within us must comply with the current human knowledge of scientific discovery, the conclusion will probably be that we are deluded and our apparent control is "just the way it seems".  But my mind concludes that our apparent freedom to choose is real, not an illusion.

But we have already pointed out, numerous times, that we do not have the freedom to choose what to want; we are stuck with the wants that we have; if we wanted to change what we want, on what basis could we choose what to want other than wanting the new want.  This makes no sense.  This is the tell tale clue, the insight from our inner psyche, that endorses the view from science that although we feel freedom of choice ordinarily, all our doings are ultimately deterministic.  None of us has the power to go back in time to alter the prior events that have led up to the formation of our preferences in the current moment.  Just try wanting something that you do not want, therein lies the rub, therein lies the evidence of determinism operating through minds. We are all products of the past and we cannot change the past.

[wigginhall]

As well as not being able to unwant the wants that we have, we can't unthink the thoughts that we have.    It was Freud who explored inappropriate thoughts and feelings, and this was possibly a landmark in the exploration of the psyche.  It exploded the notion that we are in control.    Slips of the tongue are the obvious manifestation of this, but slips of the mind are probably much more common. 

As has often been said, if AB is in control, or his soul, then try being an atheist.  Try it for, say, 3 weeks, and really mean it.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So using this example to elaborate on my apparent fallacy,

In my original post, you imply that I jump from "deterministically driven" to the conclusion of "mindless robots".  And you are correct in saying that this alone is not valid reasoning.  As has been pointed out to me many times, everything we do is driven deterministically, but my conclusions lie in looking to the source of the deterministic events.  In the physical model the cause of an event will be determined by previous physical events, which thus trace back ad infinitum through to the beginning of time.  The big question lies in pondering the feasibility of how chains of pre determined physical events can define the apparent conscious control we perceive.  This is a very big and complex topic.  CS Lewis devotes a major part of his book "Miracles" on discussing this, and as I recall he leaves the reader to draw their own conclusions after presenting the evidence.  My own reasoning lies in the comparison with robots, because in the physically deterministic model there is no means of internally defined control.  Every event is pre determined according to the laws of physics, which are outside the control of any being.  So is our conscious mind deluded into thinking it has control over itself? Or is there something else within the conscious mind which can facilitate control?  If you assume that everything within us must comply with the current human knowledge of scientific discovery, the conclusion will probably be that we are deluded and our apparent control is "just the way it seems".  But my mind concludes that our apparent freedom to choose is real, not an illusion.

AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

OK, I feel better now. Do you remember that I have explained to you several times now and veeeeery clearly that this issue has nothing to do with the content of a particular claim? That is, the issue is to do with the structure of the argument regardless of what that argument happens to be about.

What you have done here though is plunged straight back into the content of a specific claim, which has no relevance whatever to the point being made.

The argumentum ad consequentiam involves the general principle that the desirability or otherwise of an outcome tells you nothing about the truth or otherwise of its premise. It goes like this:

- If premise P is true, then outcome O will follow

- I don’t like outcome O

- Therefore P is not true

Can you see why that’s a very bad argument? OK then. Now let’s populate that with your example:

- If the premise “deterministic universe” is true, then “free" will would be illusory

- I don’t like the idea that “free” will is illusory

- Therefore the universe isn’t deterministic   

Can you see why it’s still a very bad argument, and thus that your contention isn’t just an “apparent” fallacy?

See, this actually has nothing at all to do with free will, robots or any other content. The fallacy is merely thinking that the desirability or otherwise of any proposition tells you something about its truth.

Surely it’s sunk in now hasn’t it?

Hasn’t it?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

OK, I feel better now. Do you remember that I have explained to you several times now and veeeeery clearly that this issue has nothing to do with the content of a particular claim? That is, the issue is to do with the structure of the argument regardless of what that argument happens to be about.

What you have done here though is plunged straight back into the content of a specific claim, which has no relevance whatever to the point being made.

The argumentum ad consequentiam involves the general principle that the desirability or otherwise of an outcome tells you nothing about the truth or otherwise of its premise. It goes like this:

- If premise P is true, then outcome O will follow

- I don’t like outcome O

- Therefore P is not true

Can you see why that’s a very bad argument? OK then. Now let’s populate that with your example:

- If the premise “deterministic universe” is true, then “free" will would be illusory

- I don’t like the idea that “free” will is illusory

- Therefore the universe isn’t deterministic   

Can you see why it’s still a very bad argument, and thus that your contention isn’t just an “apparent” fallacy?

See, this actually has nothing at all to do with free will, robots or any other content. The fallacy is merely thinking that the desirability or otherwise of any proposition tells you something about its truth.

Surely it’s sunk in now hasn’t it?

Hasn’t it?

But it is not just because I like or desire the conclusion.  I have tried to show that our perception of reality leads us to the conclusion that science has not yet discovered what drives our ability to make consciously driven choices.

[Shaker]

But it is not just because I like or desire the conclusion.  I have tried to show that our perception of reality leads us to the conclusion that science has not yet discovered what drives our ability to make consciously driven choices.

So that stops us at a "Don't know yet", not "Whatever fairytale Polyfilla I happen to prefer that fills the explanatory gap", doesn't it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But it is not just because I like or desire the conclusion.  I have tried to show that our perception of reality leads us to the conclusion that science has not yet discovered what drives our ability to make consciously driven choices.

Oh for…

…all you’ve done here is to swap one fallacy for three others. If you want to junk “I don’t like the sound of “free” will being illusory because that does away with my conjectures about “soul”, therefore the universe isn't deterministic” that’s fine. That means the argumentum ad consequentiam is out of the way, never I hope to darken our door again.

What you have instead now though is an unholy(!) mix of the vacuous truth fallacy, the argument from personal incredulity fallacy and the god of the gaps fallacy.

First, of course science has yet to discover lots of things. That’s why people keep doing it – to discover more. No-one suggests otherwise, so you're right about that but only vacuously so.

Second though, that science doesn’t have the answer to a question tells you nothing about whether it ever will have, and nor, even if it never will, about whether the explanation must therefore be “supernatural”. All you do have is a "don't know"

Third, despite this you cannot just drop into the gap you’ve think you’ve created answers (“God”, “soul”, “spirit”) etc that lack anything that would distinguish them from white noise or from just guessing. If you want to make such claims and expect others to take them seriously, then they must be investigable with an objective method of some kind.

And finally, your reliance on further fallacies here isn’t about a difference of opinion or similar. The arguments you’ve attempted correlate exactly to the way these fallacies are defined and so, again, you have made wrong arguments.

[Alan Burns]

But we have already pointed out, numerous times, that we do not have the freedom to choose what to want; we are stuck with the wants that we have; if we wanted to change what we want, on what basis could we choose what to want other than wanting the new want.  This makes no sense.  This is the tell tale clue, the insight from our inner psyche, that endorses the view from science that although we feel freedom of choice ordinarily, all our doings are ultimately deterministic.  None of us has the power to go back in time to alter the prior events that have led up to the formation of our preferences in the current moment.  Just try wanting something that you do not want, therein lies the rub, therein lies the evidence of determinism operating through minds. We are all products of the past and we cannot change the past.

We are also products of the present, and at any moment in time, our conscious self can formulate many possible wants, and we then have the ability to consciously choose which of our wants to indulge and how to indulge it.   You claim it is all done subconsciously before it enters our awareness, but I doubt you will get any creative artist or writer or performer to concur with this scenario.

[torridon]

We are also products of the present, and at any moment in time, our conscious self can formulate many possible wants, and we then have the ability to consciously choose which of our wants to indulge and how to indulge it.   You claim it is all done subconsciously before it enters our awareness, but I doubt you will get any creative artist or writer or performer to concur with this scenario.

How long is the present moment ?  Would you like to say how long now is ?

Apart from which, you still haven't understood that your logic is circular.

Whatever our preference is in the present moment is a function of what has gone before, and we cannot change what has gone before.

If you find yourself with a number of competing desires in the present moment, one of them will be our preferred choice, but we cannot choose what our preference is; we discover what our preference is, we do not choose it.  Just try preferring some preference that you do not prefer.  This is a circular nonsense. We discover our preference and act on it, we cannot choose our preference.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Oh for…

…all you’ve done here is to swap one fallacy for three others. If you want to junk “I don’t like the sound of “free” will being illusory because that does away with my conjectures about “soul”, therefore the universe isn't deterministic” that’s fine. That means the argumentum ad consequentiam is out of the way, never I hope to darken our door again.

What you have instead now though is an unholy(!) mix of the vacuous truth fallacy, the argument from personal incredulity fallacy and the god of the gaps fallacy.

First, of course science has yet to discover lots of things. That’s why people keep doing it – to discover more. No-one suggests otherwise, so you're right about that but only vacuously so.

Second though, that science doesn’t have the answer to a question tells you nothing about whether it ever will have, and nor, even if it never will, about whether the explanation must therefore be “supernatural”. All you do have is a "don't know"

Third, despite this you cannot just drop into the gap you’ve think you’ve created answers (“God”, “soul”, “spirit”) etc that lack anything that would distinguish them from white noise or from just guessing. If you want to make such claims and expect others to take them seriously, then they must be investigable with an objective method of some kind.

And finally, your reliance on further fallacies here isn’t about a difference of opinion or similar. The arguments you’ve attempted correlate exactly to the way these fallacies are defined and so, again, you have made wrong arguments.

As I have said in the past several times, my aim here is to show the possibility of God's existence and our own spirituality.  I am at liberty to suggest a possible solution to fill in a gap in human knowledge which does not conflict with existing science, but which does concur with human beings' own demonstrable spiritual awareness and with what I believe to be the divine revelations of the Christian Bible.  In this context I do not see how my arguments can be classified as wrong.

[torridon]

As I have said in the past several times, my aim here is to show the possibility of God's existence and our own spirituality.  I am at liberty to suggest a possible solution to fill in a gap in human knowledge which does not conflict with existing science, but which does concur with human beings' own demonstrable spiritual awareness and with what I believe to be the divine revelations of the Christian Bible.  In this context I do not see how my arguments can be classified as wrong.

Arguments that are fallacious, are always wrong Alan 

[Alan Burns]

How long is the present moment ?  Would you like to say how long now is ?

Apart from which, you still haven't understood that your logic is circular.

Whatever our preference is in the present moment is a function of what has gone before, and we cannot change what has gone before.

If you find yourself with a number of competing desires in the present moment, one of them will be our preferred choice, but we cannot choose what our preference is; we discover what our preference is, we do not choose it.  Just try preferring some preference that you do not prefer.  This is a circular nonsense. We discover our preference and act on it, we cannot choose our preference.

I do not dispute that our choice is influenced by past events, but it is not dictated by them.  Our conscious self has the final say.

[wigginhall]

We are also products of the present, and at any moment in time, our conscious self can formulate many possible wants, and we then have the ability to consciously choose which of our wants to indulge and how to indulge it.   You claim it is all done subconsciously before it enters our awareness, but I doubt you will get any creative artist or writer or performer to concur with this scenario.

Well, I used to write books, and I would certainly dispute that last point.   I always found that the topic of a particular book just emerged, I didn't consciously choose it.  Even individual chapters, paragraphs and words just came to me.    I even used to get woken up in the night by whole paragraphs going through my mind, and I would have to get up and write them down.   For me, being creative is a deeply unconscious process.   In fact, I stopped writing, and there is no way I can choose to restart now. 

But I expect that you will ignore or dismiss this, as you do most things, in your utter blindness and ignorance.   

[Shaker]

As I have said in the past several times, my aim here is to show the possibility of God's existence and our own spirituality.  I am at liberty to suggest a possible solution to fill in a gap in human knowledge which does not conflict with existing science, but which does concur with human beings' own demonstrable spiritual awareness and with what I believe to be the divine revelations of the Christian Bible.  In this context I do not see how my arguments can be classified as wrong.

A great proportion of the time they are, to quote Wolfgang Pauli, not even wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I have said in the past several times, my aim here is to show the possibility of God's existence and our own spirituality.

Two problems there:

First, that’s not your aim at all. Rather your am is to assert these things as facts, not just as possibilities.

Second, you’ve just committed the vacuous truth fallacy again. No-one denies that – conceptually at least – anything is possible. (I’m leaving aside for now the definitional problem of your claims being incoherent and so not even possibility apt by the way.) Why then would you bother posting just to tell people that something is possible given that I could do the same thing about, say, leprechauns? 

I am at liberty to suggest a possible solution to fill in a gap in human knowledge which does not conflict with existing science…

You’re doing a lot more than “suggesting” something, and the assertions you do make do "conflict with existing science” – both directly (eg the deterministic vs binary problem) and indirectly (eg having no cogent reason to junk the prevailing model of consciousness as an emergent property). Essentially you rely on an argument from ignorance here – another fallacy. That you don’t know what science tells us already does not give you licence to insist that your alternatives deserve consideration. 

…but which does concur with human beings' own demonstrable spiritual awareness…

There is no such “demonstrable spiritual awareness”. If you seriously think otherwise, then you’d need to start with a coherent definition for “spiritual”.

…and with what I believe to be the divine revelations of the Christian Bible.

The key words there being “I believe”. Your problem though is that that’s all you have – a personal belief. Trying to build a bridge from that to necessary beliefs for others by relying solely on logical fallacies doesn’t change that.

In this context I do not see how my arguments can be classified as wrong.

They’re wrong because they precisely correlate to the accepted models for the way fallacious arguments are structured. And fallacious arguments are always wrong arguments.

And that’s your problem.

[BeRational]

Well, I used to write books, and I would certainly dispute that last point.   I always found that the topic of a particular book just emerged, I didn't consciously choose it.  Even individual chapters, paragraphs and words just came to me.    I even used to get woken up in the night by whole paragraphs going through my mind, and I would have to get up and write them down.   For me, being creative is a deeply unconscious process.   In fact, I stopped writing, and there is no way I can choose to restart now. 

But I expect that you will ignore or dismiss this, as you do most things, in your utter blindness and ignorance.

I had something like that last night. My wife said did you have a good nights sleep, and I had to say "No". While asleep I had been working on an issue for work ,and it was a relief to wake up.

I had as a matter of fact sorted out much of the problem whilst asleep.