Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

You said that as if it were a bad thing besides if there is no 'I' you cannot accuse it of begging the fucking question.

Since it's a fallacy then it's a bad argument. And the 'I' assumes way more than can be done with the argument anyway in philosophical terms.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since it's a fallacy then it's a bad argument. And the 'I' assumes way more than can be done with the argument anyway in philosophical terms.

A.

[Sebastian Toe]

Ah that'll be it then. My only involvement is to criticise a couple of people about their understanding of emergence.
My definition of soul is the self.

You will be in disagreement with Mr Burns then as to what makes a soul.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You will be in disagreement with Mr Burns then as to what makes a soul.

I don't reetly know.

[Nearly Sane]

A.

Eh?

[Gordon]

You said that as if it were a bad thing besides if there is no 'I' you cannot accuse it of begging the fucking question.

Don't be silly Vlad - you know very well (or should do by now) that it is the form of the argument that is the issue: whether or not there is an 'I' is a different matter.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly Vlad - you know very well (or should do by now) that it is the form of the argument that is the issue: whether or not there is an 'I' is a different matter.

Arguments don't make themselves. If you are accusing the bad argument of working through him that's commonly known as possession. If it is just that it's a bad argument then how is he any more guilty than you. Who or what then is making the argument? Who is begging the question?

[Gordon]

Arguments don't make themselves.

No shit, Sherlock.

If you are accusing the bad argument of working through him that's commonly known as possession.

No idea what you're on about.

If it is just that it's a bad argument then how is he any more guilty than you.

See previous comment.

Who or what then is making the argument? Who is begging the question?

Might it be Descartes?

My point in noting the 'cogito' earlier, when you compared souls with memes, was to note that since the latter involved the thoughts and ideas of people, which currently only occur in functioning brains, then 'souls' are no more than an idea some people have: biology doing what it does.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Like maths there isn't formulas or equations floating about spatially but they are manifest throughout nature.

No they're not. Force and matter interacting in apparently consistent ways may be, but formulae and equations exist only in the minds and records of species that use them to describe information with symbols. There are no formulae or equations on Alpha Centauri for example (unless there are aliens there that have developed them). You're confusing the description of information with the information itself.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't reetly know.

Yes you do. A meme is a cultural construction - an idea or an action - that passes from person to person. AB's "soul" on the other hand is (apparently) an entity of some sort that hides itself beyond our purview but in some unexplained (and probably unnecessary) way also apparently pulls the levers of "us" in a decision-making capacity.

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan Burns on October 31, 2017, 04:35:29 PM

There is no tangible evidence for the existence of the multiverse other than in human speculation.

Replace 'the multiverse' with 'gods' and you'll have hit the nail on the head - at last.

When you come to know God, you may well consider the evidence for His existence to be truly overwhelming - certainly more than mere speculation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

When you come to know God, you may well consider the evidence for His existence to be truly overwhelming - certainly more than mere speculation.

Just out of interest, do you know what the term "circular reasoning" means and why it's a very bad argument?

When you come to know leprechauns, you may well consider the evidence for their existence to be truly overwhelming - there's rainbows and everything! –certainly more than mere speculation.

Can you see the problem here?

[Shaker]

AB,

Just out of interest, do you know what the term "circular reasoning" means and why it's a very bad argument?

I think I can help you there ...

[SusanDoris]

It is now 16:50 and I have caught up with posts on this thread. Fortunately,  there were plenty of Vlad's posts to scroll past!

This is the first time I have been able to get on to R&E today. It was 'This page can't be displayed' from when I turned on this morning.

[Sebastian Toe]

When you come to know God

How, exactly, does one come to know God?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

How, exactly, does one come to know God?

By looking at the evidence, obviously.

No wait – you have to know God first, then the evidence confirms it.

Oh hang on though, if there's no evidence to start with why would you think there's a god at all?

So it must be evidence first. Yes, that's it...

...or it is? According to AB you have to know this God in the first place, then the evidence all adds up.

But then again...

Oh I dunno - and I'm getting dizzy with all this circularity. Why are you asking anyway dammit?   

[torridon]

Replace 'the multiverse' with 'gods' and you'll have hit the nail on the head - at last.

When you come to know God, you may well consider the evidence for His existence to be truly overwhelming - certainly more than mere speculation.

Exaggeration Alert.

Has NASA found the evidence in favour of god theory 'overwhelming' ? Or SETI ?  How about the Perimiter Institute in Canada ?

If there was any evidence at all, never mind overwhelming evidence, then we'd have a scientific theory of God already.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just out of interest, do you know what the term "circular reasoning" means and why it's a very bad argument?

When you come to know leprechauns, you may well consider the evidence for their existence to be truly overwhelming - there's rainbows and everything! –certainly more than mere speculation.

Can you see the problem here?

But I do not know of anyone who knows leprechauns, and If I did, they would certainly have a mental health problem.  So are you claiming that anyone who claims to know God should be classed as mentally insane? 

[Alan Burns]

Exaggeration Alert.

Has NASA found the evidence in favour of god theory 'overwhelming' ? Or SETI ?  How about the Perimiter Institute in Canada ?

If there was any evidence at all, never mind overwhelming evidence, then we'd have a scientific theory of God already.

But human scientific investigation does not have the ability or scope to investigate or find God.  Science does not define reality.

[Nearly Sane]

But human scientific investigation does not have the ability or scope to investigate or find God.  Science does not define reality.

But you do apparently, and you think it on to say that people who disagree with you are lying.

[floo]

But I do not know of anyone who knows leprechauns, and If I did, they would certainly have a mental health problem.  So are you claiming that anyone who claims to know God should be classed as mentally insane?

There is no more evidence for the existence of god than there is for leprechauns. You certainly haven't come up with anything which could be construed as evidence, however much you wish to believe it to be true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But I do not know of anyone who knows leprechauns, and If I did, they would certainly have a mental health problem.  So are you claiming that anyone who claims to know God should be classed as mentally insane?

Way to miss the point and then to draw a false conclusion old son.

First, why would you assert that someone who believes in leprechauns therefore has mental health problems? Why couldn't he just be genuinely mistaken about that for example?

Second, I was merely applying exactly the "logic" you thinks supports you. If you don't like it, find some better logic.

[Nearly Sane]

But I do not know of anyone who knows leprechauns, and If I did, they would certainly have a mental health problem.  So are you claiming that anyone who claims to know God should be classed as mentally insane?

My aged grandmother believed in the little people. Thank you for telling me she had a mental health problem. I take it you have some qualification in the field? Or were you just making judgements about people in the same way you think anyone who thinks there is no god is lying? Are you meaning to behave this unpleasantly? I mean I know you portray your god as an unpleasant thug but are you trying to follow its path?

[Alan Burns]

How, exactly, does one come to know God?

Well, first you need to stop thinking up reasons not to believe in Him.  Try removing all the false barriers and let Him into your life.  We were made to know God.  If I may quote the first line of my memorised catechism - God made us to know Him, love Him and serve Him.  You may try to write this off as childhood indoctrination, but I can find no reason whatever not to believe it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Well, first you need to stop thinking up reasons not to believe in Him.  Try removing all the false barriers and let Him into your life.  We were made to know God.  If I may quote the first line of my memorised catechism - God made us to know Him, love Him and serve Him.  You may try to write this off as childhood indoctrination, but I can find no reason whatever not to believe it.

How about the reason that there are no cogent reasons to believe it?