Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

What lies beyond material science does not compete with the logic derived from material science - it complements it by providing the conscious perception and wilful interaction needed to fully investigate our material world.

That's not answering the question, yet again.  All you are doing here is giving your beliefs about this other realm.  Let's try again, if there is some other realm of reality that is beyond investigation, how can you justify believing that it exists ?  This time without evasion, please.

[Alan Burns]

That's not answering the question, yet again.  All you are doing here is giving your beliefs about this other realm.  Let's try again, if there is some other realm of reality that is beyond investigation, how can you justify believing that it exists ?  This time without evasion, please.

Because the physical deterministic realm of this universe does not (and never will) explain the reality within me.  So I have embraced what I sincerely believe to be the divine revelations of the Christian Gospels which does explain the reality within me.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sorry Blue ''tense, strain and follow through'' Hillside.....I don't know what you mean.

Such a pity that you have no idea what "irony" means.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Crashes and…

Because the physical deterministic realm of this universe does not (and never will) explain the reality within me.

And you think that remarkable but entirely unqualified claim to be true because what exactly?

So…

That’s called the fallacy of the non sequitur. Since your premise fails, there is no “so”.

… I have embraced what I sincerely believe to be the divine revelations of the Christian Gospels which does explain the reality within me.

But only to you. Your personal faith beliefs are however epistemically worthless for anyone else. That you try to bridge the gap with some very bad arguments and lots of avoidance doesn’t help you either.

[Gordon]

Because the physical deterministic realm of this universe does not (and never will) explain the reality within me.  So I have embraced what I sincerely believe to be the divine revelations of the Christian Gospels which does explain the reality within me.

Then I suspect you've redefined 'reality' so that it fits what you'd really like to be the case.

[ippy]

Because the physical deterministic realm of this universe does not (and never will) explain the reality within me.  So I have embraced what I sincerely believe to be the divine revelations of the Christian Gospels which does explain the reality within me.

How do you know that it's a reality within you, answer: you can't know and don't know; however I can see you chose believe these improbable ideas are within you, even without the support of any credible evidence.

I still blame those that have done this to you but even then they were probably indoctrinated into indoctrinating their offspring, so typical of most religions I'll bet you'll be indoctrinating your own offspring in the same way if you haven't already done so.

ippy

[torridon]

Because the physical deterministic realm of this universe does not (and never will) explain the reality within me.  So I have embraced what I sincerely believe to be the divine revelations of the Christian Gospels which does explain the reality within me.

Ererm excuse me, but that is not evidence, that is incredulity.  Learn this, incredulity is not evidence.  Evidence is something that stands up to empirical testing, it is something that other people can then repeat to check.  Your personal incredulity is not evidence, it is merely a shortcoming in your personal cognitive capacities.  I cannot really understand how gravity can bend time, but I don't go around using my lack of understanding as justification for some entire other realm of reality unknown to science. I accept my shortcomings and try to work on them.  So, if that is the best you can offer by way of justification I'm afraid you have nothing really.  Nothing, zilch, nada

[torridon]

I have never ridiculed or disputed any of the scientific discoveries made by mankind. ...

I don't know how you have the gall to make that claim; this thread alone is littered with your endless repeated denials of science, from abiogenesis, to mainstream evolutionary biology, to neuroscience and cognitive science.  I suggest you reconsider and retract that comment lest I be tempted to trawl through and post a few dozen examples up.

[Alan Burns]

I don't know how you have the gall to make that claim; this thread alone is littered with your endless repeated denials of science, from abiogenesis, to mainstream evolutionary biology, to neuroscience and cognitive science.  I suggest you reconsider and retract that comment lest I be tempted to trawl through and post a few dozen examples up.

Abiogenesis, mainstream evolutionary biology, neuroscience and cognitive science all contain unprovable presumptions about how they alone can explain the existence of life as we know it.  One of the key considerations is the question of whether divine guidance from the power of God's will was involved.  Mankind has provided substantial evidence that intelligently guided creative powers can and do exist in this universe.

[Nearly Sane]

Abiogenesis, mainstream evolutionary biology, neuroscience and cognitive science all contain unprovable presumptions about how they alone can explain the existence of life as we know it.  One of the key considerations is the question of whether divine guidance from the power of God's will was involved.  Mankind has provided substantial evidence that intelligently guided creative powers can and do exist in this universe.

Why are you misrepresenting  science? It would appear that you don't understand what methodological naturalism means despite it being covered many times on here. Is this just more of you nor reading posts, not making any effort to understand, trotting out misrepresentations of what has benn said yet again? What is the point in writing posts if you just ignore them as you have done continually?
oh and your usual begging the question assuming the existence of a thing called a 'god' that you have not been able to give a logically coherent definition to.

[Shaker]

"Crash and" Burns has got onto science? Hold your horses chaps - I'm making a brew for this one. Give me ten minutes or so then carry on.

[Gordon]

Abiogenesis, mainstream evolutionary biology, neuroscience and cognitive science all contain unprovable presumptions about how they alone can explain the existence of life as we know it.

That is flagrant misrepresentation (and a fallacious argument from ignorance). Ironic too from the man who bleats 'soul' at every opportunity.

One of the key considerations is the question of whether divine guidance from the power of God's will was involved.

Without some form of method to assess this divine guidance then your 'question' is simply incoherent.

Mankind has provided substantial evidence that intelligently guided creative powers can and do exist in this universe.

Nope: having previously redefined the term 'reality' to suit your own purposes you're now doing the same with 'evidence'. I'd be confident that this 'evidence' of yours, should you ever present any, will be exposed as yet another farrago of fallacious falsehoods.

[Sebastian Toe]

The main function of the brain is to provide a window into this physical world for the human soul.  Without the window, the soul will no longer be capable of wilful interaction or conscious perception.

...and when you die and your brain is a lump of rotten matter, what conscious perception will you have then?
Without your physical brain with its physical memories i.e. that what makes and defines you as you, what then?

[Shaker]

...and when you die and your brain is a lump of rotten matter, what conscious perception will you have then?
Without your physical brain with its physical memories i.e. that what makes and defines you as you, what then?

"... and then a miracle occurs ..."

[torridon]

Abiogenesis, mainstream evolutionary biology, neuroscience and cognitive science all contain unprovable presumptions about how they alone can explain the existence of life as we know it.  One of the key considerations is the question of whether divine guidance from the power of God's will was involved.  Mankind has provided substantial evidence that intelligently guided creative powers can and do exist in this universe.

I see others have already pulled you up on misrepresenting science again so I won't repeat that.  Notwithstanding that, the above does not constitute an apology nor a retraction of your plainly spurious previous claim.  It is an excuse for it, an attempt at justification. I suggest you man up, apologise for persistent misrepresentation and retract; then we might see some light in your tunnel.

[Alan Burns]

Ererm excuse me, but that is not evidence, that is incredulity. ......

But it is not personal incredulity, it is based on the logical impossibility for any purely material entity to achieve conscious awareness.   Conscious perception requires an single entity of awareness which can't be defined in material terms.

[torridon]

But it is not personal incredulity, it is based on the logical impossibility for any purely material entity to achieve conscious awareness.   Conscious perception requires an single entity of awareness which can't be defined in material terms.

Again that is not an apology; you seek to mislead other posters and then indulge all your usual tactical evasions hoping to cover your tracks, in this case, with just a bare restatement of your personal incredulity.  If you had read and understood any of the posts on this thread you would know by now what you are claiming is wrong or at least in conflict with the relevant science which you consistently deny denying.

[Gordon]

But it is not personal incredulity, it is based on the logical impossibility for any purely material entity to achieve conscious awareness.   Conscious perception requires an single entity of awareness which can't be defined in material terms.

The irony being that in denying personal incredulity you indulge in yet more personal incredulity, from which flows your penchant for fallacies.

Your particular approach to faith has you lost to reason: which is not a good situation for you to be in.

[Maeght]

But it is not personal incredulity, it is based on the logical impossibility for any purely material entity to achieve conscious awareness.   Conscious perception requires an single entity of awareness which can't be defined in material terms.

This is an expression of your personal incredulity. You might want to dress it up as logic but it isn't.

[floo]

Because the physical deterministic realm of this universe does not (and never will) explain the reality within me.  So I have embraced what I sincerely believe to be the divine revelations of the Christian Gospels which does explain the reality within me.

Just because you can't accept it, doesn't mean your perception is correct.

[Alan Burns]

I see others have already pulled you up on misrepresenting science again so I won't repeat that.  Notwithstanding that, the above does not constitute an apology nor a retraction of your plainly spurious previous claim.  It is an excuse for it, an attempt at justification. I suggest you man up, apologise for persistent misrepresentation and retract; then we might see some light in your tunnel.

I can't apologise for or retract something which I sincerely believe to be true.

Please consider this illustration of my logic:

Imagine that a microscopic, but highly intelligent alien race came to this earth.  They come across an automated car production line.  They will correctly observe that every event occurring in the car production line has a natural observable cause.  They would see human beings as just a collection of material elements all reacting to natural forces.  They may discover other production lines producing other types of vehicle, similarly driven by natural forces acting on material elements.  They may discover historical evidence of previous production lines used to produce vehicles which no longer exist.  What will not be apparent is that every event in the production line was intelligently controlled and manipulated to produce a previously conceived specific goal.

Human scientific discovery also fails to see the bigger picture behind the apparently naturally occurring events which brought life into existence.  And the life on this earth is far more complex than any man made vehicle.  Can you honestly assume that all the countless billions of apparently naturally occurring but specific events needed to bring us into existence all just happened by chance?

[Shaker]

By chance?

I thought you said you were well up on science, Alan?

Don't tell me we have to go right back to the Noddy version and give you evolution 101?

[Sebastian Toe]

I can't apologise for or retract something which I sincerely believe to be true.

Please consider this illustration of my logic:

Imagine that a microscopic, but highly intelligent alien race came to this earth.  They come across an automated car production line.  They will correctly observe that every event occurring in the car production line has a natural observable cause.  They would see human beings as just a collection of material elements all reacting to natural forces.  They may discover other production lines producing other types of vehicle, similarly driven by natural forces acting on material elements.  They may discover historical evidence of previous production lines used to produce vehicles which no longer exist.  What will not be apparent is that every event in the production line was intelligently controlled and manipulated to produce a previously conceived specific goal.

Human scientific discovery also fails to see the bigger picture behind the apparently naturally occurring events which brought life into existence.  And the life on this earth is far more complex than any man made vehicle.  Can you honestly assume that all the countless billions of apparently naturally occurring but specific events needed to bring us into existence all just happened by chance?

Do those aliens have souls?

[Alan Burns]

By chance?

I thought you said you were well up on science, Alan?

Don't tell me we have to go right back to the Noddy version and give you evolution 101?

Can you assume that all beneficial mutations were chance events?
Can you assume that any beneficial mutation was a chance event?

[Shaker]

Can you assume that all beneficial mutations were chance events?
Can you assume that any beneficial mutation was a chance event?

Unlike you we don't have to assume - that's what the evidence says. That's how evolution works - (genetic) chance and (environmental) necessity, as Jacques Monod put it.