Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Can you provide any "definition of what comprises and defines the property of conscious belief"?

Seriously Alan, after all the previous discussion, are you still peddling the blatant lie that it's being 'material' that makes understanding conciousness difficult? Doesn't your god have something to say about 'bearing false witness'?

Not sure Alan is lying here. He seems to genuinely not understand the issue despite many attempts to explain.

[floo]

Just to note this is a classic argument from ignorance.

Meaning?

[Nearly Sane]

Meaning?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Stranger]

Not sure Alan is lying here. He seems to genuinely not understand the issue despite many attempts to explain.

Perhaps, but having admitted that he cannot explain consciousness, even in 'spiritual' terms:

I admit that I do not know how conscious awareness and free will can work in the spiritual sense...

his continued use of the implication that it can't be 'material' because nobody can explain it in those terms is either dishonest or involves a truly staggering amount of doublethink...

[Nearly Sane]

Perhaps, but having admitted that he cannot explain consciousness, even in 'spiritual' terms:

his continued use of the implication that it can't be 'material' because nobody can explain it in those terms is either dishonest or involves a truly staggering amount of doublethink...

And worse it is not explained in terms of something he agrees he also doesn't have an explanation for I.e. 'spiritual' but he seems unable to see the issue.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Not sure Alan is lying here. He seems to genuinely not understand the issue despite many attempts to explain.

We've been here before, but not understanding or choosing not to understand? I don't know either way, but when someone posts the equivalent of 2+2=5, has the error explained, then ignores the explanation and just repeats "2+2=5" at what point should one infer intentionality?

If just once for example he said something like, "OK, I've considered your argument and my counter-argument to it is..." then at least there'd be a dialogue and thus the possibility of an exchange of ideas. AB though never does that - he has no interest in discussing anything, but rather will only proselytise by repeating the same errors over and over again.

How then should anyone process that?   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

We've been here before, but not understanding or choosing not to understand? I don't know either way, but when someone posts the equivalent of 2+2=5, has the error explained, then ignores the explanation and just repeats "2+2=5" at what point should one infer intentionality?

If just once for example he said something like, "OK, I've considered your argument and my counter-argument to it is..." then at least there'd be a dialogue and thus the possibility of an exchange of ideas. AB though never does that - he has no interest in discussing anything, but rather will only proselytise by repeating the same errors over and over again.

How then should anyone process that?

Does it matter - you want to claim that he's deliberately denying it, and at the same time accept that he just repeats himself? By your approach you would be lying to say he is lying.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Does it matter - you want to claim that he's deliberately denying it, and at the same time accept that he just repeats himself? By your approach you would be lying to say he is lying.

Possibly you mis-read my post. I didn't want to claim anything - I merely described what he does and asked a question about how anyone should process that.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Possibly you mis-read my post. I didn't want to claim anything - I merely described what he does and asked a question about how anyone should process that.

As a default. without evidence, don't assume he's lying - which is the point I made.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

As a default. without evidence, don't assume he's lying - which is the point I made.

I didn't - which is the point I made.

[ekim]

NS,
I merely described what he does and asked a question about how anyone should process that.

You could try treating it as you would an addiction.  How would you process that?

[Shaker]

You could try treating it as you would an addiction.  How would you process that?

It certainly comes across as one. And all addictions to anything by definition operate on the basis of emotional 'strokes'.

However, since AB's woeful arguments continually fall on deaf ears and their howling errors are consistently pointed out, one has to wonder what strokes he's getting, exactly.

[ekim]

It certainly comes across as one. And all addictions to anything by definition operate on the basis of emotional 'strokes'.

However, since AB's woeful arguments continually fall on deaf ears and their howling errors are consistently pointed out, one has to wonder what strokes he's getting, exactly.

One is the beneficial feeling he gets from his religious practice, another is indicated by this quote..  'to spread the good news of salvation'.

[Shaker]

One is the beneficial feeling he gets from his religious practice

Without question, but that's a private matter outwith this forum. That's what he does in private life, not here.

another is indicated by this quote..  'to spread the good news of salvation'.

Yes, that's his stated aim for being here, by his own admission.

But at risk of repeating myself (and as I've asked him directly many a time), how's that panning out for him? The arguments he deploys are abysmal, shot through with fallacies which people point out to him with all the patience and forbearance that they can muster. He's here to sell a message, but nobody's buying. Therefore, why the persistence?

[Alan Burns]

NS,

We've been here before, but not understanding or choosing not to understand? I don't know either way, but when someone posts the equivalent of 2+2=5, has the error explained, then ignores the explanation and just repeats "2+2=5" at what point should one infer intentionality?

If just once for example he said something like, "OK, I've considered your argument and my counter-argument to it is..." then at least there'd be a dialogue and thus the possibility of an exchange of ideas. AB though never does that - he has no interest in discussing anything, but rather will only proselytise by repeating the same errors over and over again.

How then should anyone process that?

Sorry but I have never said the equivalent of 2+2=5.  You can't presume that unguided evolution can produce the incredible complexity of life unless you can show that every event in the process was truly random, which is simply not possible.  All we can deal with is realistic probabilities of such things happening without guidance, which ultimately boils down to personal opinions as to what is probable and what is improbable.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry but I have never said the equivalent of 2+2=5.  You can't presume that unguided evolution can produce the incredible complexity of life unless you can show that every event in the process was truly random, which is simply not possible.  All we can deal with is realistic probabilities of such things happening without guidance, which ultimately boils down to personal opinions as to what is probable and what is improbable.

And probabilistic estimates are a naturalistic approach - unless you want to give the supernaturalistic methodology that I've asked you for many times but you haven't provided?

[Shaker]

Sorry but I have never said the equivalent of 2+2=5.

This is you committing some logical fallacy (which you do a great deal) and then simply denying that it's a fallacy because you don't want to think of yourself as wrong, isn't it?

[Rhiannon]

Without question, but that's a private matter outwith this forum. That's what he does in private life, not here.
Yes, that's his stated aim for being here, by his own admission.

But at risk of repeating myself (and as I've asked him directly many a time), how's that panning out for him? The arguments he deploys are abysmal, shot through with fallacies which people point out to him with all the patience and forbearance that they can muster. He's here to sell a message, but nobody's buying. Therefore, why the persistence?

I think he gets the warm and fuzzies here, don't you? This debate is a part of his experience of faith.

[Shaker]

I think he gets the warm and fuzzies here, don't you? This debate is a part of his experience of faith.

One word would have sufficed: masochism.

[ekim]

Without question, but that's a private matter outwith this forum. That's what he does in private life, not here.
Yes, that's his stated aim for being here, by his own admission.

But at risk of repeating myself (and as I've asked him directly many a time), how's that panning out for him? The arguments he deploys are abysmal, shot through with fallacies which people point out to him with all the patience and forbearance that they can muster. He's here to sell a message, but nobody's buying. Therefore, why the persistence?

I don't know how that is panning out for him but many of those who proselytise are strengthened by expressions like 'casting pearls before swine', 'seeds falling on stony ground', 'turning the other cheek', in the face of criticism.

[Walter]

One word would have sufficed: masochism.

yep, the greater  the protestations and ridicule , the stronger his belief becomes . It's self fulfilling .

[Shaker]

I don't know how that is panning out for him but many of those who proselytise are strengthened by expressions like 'casting pearls before swine', 'seeds falling on stony ground', 'turning the other cheek', in the face of criticism.

I was just about to add that. His book tells him he's blessed whenever he's reviled and/or persecuted. It's a positive feedback loop (as Walter has just pointed out).

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know how that is panning out for him but many of those who proselytise are strengthened by expressions like 'casting pearls before swine', 'seeds falling on stony ground', 'turning the other cheek', in the face of criticism.

Because they like to try and despise those who don't agree with them? Seems a bit odd as a proselytising message.

[Shaker]

Because they like to try and despise those who don't agree with them? Seems a bit odd as a proselytising message.

Ah yes - the "naturally stupid", wasn't it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Sorry but I have never said the equivalent of 2+2=5.

That’s exactly what you do. Over and over and over again.

You’ve been told many times for example that complaining that a phenomenon isn’t “fully defined” (whatever that means) tells you absolutely nothing about an alternative conjecture you may have. There are countless things that aren’t fully explained – that’s why people do science, to find out the answers to those questions – but you cannot just assume that gap n knowledge opens the door to an explanation for with there’s no method of investigation of any kind.

You can't presume that unguided evolution can produce the incredible complexity of life…

And that’s another fallacy, called the straw man. No-one assumes that at all. Rather they deduce it based on the overwhelming evidence that implies it. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

…unless you can show that every event in the process was truly random, which is simply not possible.

And that “unless” is another fallacy, called a non sequitur. Do I really need to explain to you why that is again?

Really though?

All we can deal with is realistic probabilities of such things happening without guidance, which ultimately boils down to personal opinions as to what is probable and what is improbable.

Wrong again. The probability of evolutionary theory being correct relies on the evidence for it (which is overwhelming). How would you propose to calculate the probabilities of “God” or “soul” for comparison purposes?