Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

The phrase just implies that all our strings are operated by the unguided, uncontrollable forces of nature.

So?

[wigginhall]

The phrase just implies that all our strings are operated by the unguided, uncontrollable forces of nature.

That still seems to separate humans from nature, as torridon said.   I suppose it gives an insight into theistic attitudes, and particularly the fear and horror of being a natural being.    Far better to be made by a supernatural being, I guess!

[ippy]

I can't believe you can compare yourself to a termite mound!
Can termite mounds think?
Can they choose?
Can they explore the universe?
Can they take over the world?
Can they lie and deceive?
Can they offer love and compassion?
Can they believe (or disbelieve) in God?

Can they write fiction?

Regards ippy

[torridon]

I can't believe you can compare yourself to a termite mound!
Can termite mounds think?
Can they choose?
Can they explore the universe?
Can they take over the world?
Can they lie and deceive?
Can they offer love and compassion?
Can they believe (or disbelieve) in God?

Yes I understand termites haven't begun their own space program yet; and if I were up for some dating, I wouldn't pass up some gorgeous blond for a bit of termite action. But I do accept they are better at building termite mounds than me. We are, in the end, related, just more distantly.  Every human cell in your body, and there are billions of them, every single one testifies to this fundamental truth.  We are cut from the same cloth.

[Stranger]

The phrase just implies that all our strings are operated by the unguided, uncontrollable forces of nature.

Alan, unless you are claiming know all about 'nature' and what it is capable of and all about consciousness and what is required to produce it, your claim that human consciousness cannot be natural is silly, dishonest, or both...

[torridon]

The phrase just implies that all our strings are operated by the unguided, uncontrollable forces of nature.

You didn't grasp the significance of the previous post.  There is ultimately no puppeter and puppets scenario; there is no controller and the controlled.  This is a mindset gifted to us by ancient theism which envisioned our reality as one created by a creator who is separate from its creation, and thousands of years on, people are still having difficulty in excising this way of thinking. There is no separation between us and a creator god, there is no separation of humans from nature; rather humans, along with termites and tree frogs and all else exist in a shared reality and interact in ways which boil down to logic ultimately.  There is nothing separate controlling us, but rather, our actions and choices are the working out of the fundamental principles that underlie all things; our actions and choices are the manifestation of deep logic through the domain of higher biology.  The very notion of 'control' needs to be ditched; it is just a naive anthropomorphism that serves to keep understanding at bay.

[Gordon]

The phrase just implies that all our strings are operated by the unguided, uncontrollable forces of nature.

More or less (since 'strings' is simplistic): it has taken a while for the penny to drop for you, Alan, but you got there in the end.

Feel free to ditch the god/souls nonsense.

[floo]

You didn't grasp the significance of the previous post.  There is ultimately no puppeter and puppets scenario; there is no controller and the controlled.  This is a mindset gifted to us by ancient theism which envisioned our reality as one created by a creator who is separate from its creation, and thousands of years on, people are still having difficulty in excising this way of thinking. There is no separation between us and a creator god, there is no separation of humans from nature; rather humans, along with termites and tree frogs and all else exist in a shared reality and interact in ways which boil down to logic ultimately.  There is nothing separate controlling us, but rather, our actions and choices are the working out of the fundamental principles that underlie all things; our actions and choices are the manifestation of deep logic through the domain of higher biology.  The very notion of 'control' needs to be ditched; it is just a naive anthropomorphism that serves to keep understanding at bay.

That seems to size it up well.

[Alan Burns]

That still seems to separate humans from nature, as torridon said.   I suppose it gives an insight into theistic attitudes, and particularly the fear and horror of being a natural being.    Far better to be made by a supernatural being, I guess!

Not fear, just a logical conclusion that a purposeless, unguided nature alone could not make us as we are.

[Shaker]

Not fear, just a logical conclusion that a purposeless, unguided nature alone could not make us as we are.

... an assertion for which needless to say you haven't a scrap of evidence.

[Maeght]

Not fear, just a logical conclusion that a purposeless, unguided nature alone could not make us as we are.

Based on your beliefs not logic.

[Stranger]

Not fear, just a logical conclusion that a purposeless, unguided nature alone could not make us as we are.

If it's a logical conclusion, you will be able to supply the logic - not just the prejudicial language and personal incredulity (which is all you've managed to date).

[torridon]

Not fear, just a logical conclusion that a purposeless, unguided nature alone could not make us as we are.

That's not logic, that is illogic.

Guided nature is way more problematic than unguided nature - the guiding hand is more difficult to explain than that which requires explanation in the first place. See Mr Ockham and his razor for more details.

All trivial explanations - gods, guiding hands, external controllers, matrix scenarios, these are all false friends imv.  They offer what superficially looks like an easy explanation for things that we can't understand, but in fact they only make things more difficult and they only persist as memes of human mind in so far as we fail to do due diligence in our questioning.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not logic, that is illogic.

Guided nature is way more problematic than unguided nature - the guiding hand is more difficult to explain than that which requires explanation in the first place. See Mr Ockham and his razor for more details.

All trivial explanations - gods, guiding hands, external controllers, matrix scenarios, these are all false friends imv.  They offer what superficially looks like an easy explanation for things that we can't understand, but in fact they only make things more difficult and they only persist as memes of human mind in so far as we fail to do due diligence in our questioning.

Memes? You're taking the piss aren't you?

[Walter]

Memes? You're taking the piss aren't you?

I understand all the words individually BUT  not when arranged in your sentence

[ippy]

Not fear, just a logical conclusion that a purposeless, unguided nature alone could not make us as we are.

Alan, the nonsense you keep coming up with without a shred of evidential support for any of it, we are all able just as you do to assert all sorts of things but you never seem to realise that just because you've asserted something doesn't necessarily turn your assertion into a fact and if any idea is found evidentially to be nonsense it doesn't matter how many still believe it, it's still nonsense, something else you seem to have difficulty getting your head around.

Most buildings like ideas need sound foundations, do I really need to say more?

Regards ippy

[Enki]

Not fear, just a logical conclusion that a purposeless, unguided nature alone could not make us as we are.

You seem to use the word 'logical' here without any thought to its actual meaning. If you think that somehow it adds force to your assertion, I suggest that it doesn't. Anyone can make any number of assertions. Whether an assertion is logical or not does not depend on the assertion itself, or an overwhelming feeling that the assertion must be right, but on the clear and capable reasoning behind it, and, as an adjunct, the absence of logical fallacies.

Unfortunately you seem to score minimally in this respect.

[Sebastian Toe]

Not fear, just a logical conclusion that a purposeless, unguided nature alone could not make us as we are.

That's not logical.

[wigginhall]

Terrific reply from torridon above - the idea of guided nature throws you into piles of dingo poo, for then you have to explain who or what does the guidance, and how they do it.   In fact, most theists tend to ignore that as too difficult, or 'mysterious', or they line up with Tommy Cooper, just like that.   

So AB has this weird argument that complexity in nature is difficult to explain, but supernatural guidance isn't.   Admittedly, he has lashings of incredulity to help him. 

Yes, Ockham again.   The idea of the matrix is interesting, but ultimately pointless, unless you can describe it.

[Alan Burns]

That's not logic, that is illogic.

Guided nature is way more problematic than unguided nature - the guiding hand is more difficult to explain than that which requires explanation in the first place. See Mr Ockham and his razor for more details.

All trivial explanations - gods, guiding hands, external controllers, matrix scenarios, these are all false friends imv.  They offer what superficially looks like an easy explanation for things that we can't understand, but in fact they only make things more difficult and they only persist as memes of human mind in so far as we fail to do due diligence in our questioning.

Just consider for a moment how human creativity works.  It begins as an imaginary concept in the entity of conscious awareness we call the human mind.  Then this concept becomes a material reality through many consciously controlled interactions with the natural material elements to achieve a specific goal.  Our reality comprises a mixture of consciously controlled interactions and deterministically defined reactions.  The fact that human scientific discovery can explain the latter but can't explain the former does not mean that it does not exist.

[Maeght]

Doesn't mean it does either.

[wigginhall]

Strange logic again from AB - the fact that science can't explain X, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.   Eh?   Science can't explain Venusian mermaids - does they mean they exist?

The whole line of argument here is barmy - you start with incredulity - 'I can't believe that complexity can arise in nature without guidance' - then, you posit 'guidance', without any argument or evidence.   This turns into an assertion - God designs nature.   Oh well, you might as well watch Disney cartoons. 

[Shaker]

Strange logic again from AB - the fact that science can't explain X, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.   Eh?   Science can't explain Venusian mermaids - does they mean they exist?

My experience over a good many years tells me that if there's one thing that many a theist loves more than his or her religion, it's the negative proof fallacy - many others of course, but there's something about that one in particular that's like crystal meth.

[Gordon]

Just consider for a moment how human creativity works.  It begins as an imaginary concept in the entity of conscious awareness we call the human mind.

Put more simply - we have biology that does stuff.

The fact that human scientific discovery can explain the latter but can't explain the former does not mean that it does not exist.

I think we need a Society for the Protection of the NPF since you are endangering it through overuse, Alan.

[ippy]

I'm going to draw a couple of million pounds from my bank tomorrow Alan, it's up to them to prove I haven't got more than a couple of million in my account.

Do you want me to let you know how I get on with my bank tomorrow Alan?

Kind regards ippy