Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

Yes, exactly.   Science thrives on not knowing, because there is the new field to be investigated, whether it's gravity or black holes.    I think also that theists like Alan are proud of not knowing anything about cognitive science and neuroscience, then they can dismiss it. 

[wigginhall]

I can answer that, no it doesn't.

Everyone is still asking Alan for evidence - there is none, nothing tangible.  He knows he can't prove it, everyone else knows too. Faith is about personal experience but it's in our heads, we can't show it.

This thread goes on and on, round and round, saying the same things over and over again. Fun I suppose.

I just noticed this.  Well, you are right, but I think the counter-arguments to Alan brings up very interesting stuff about the nature of reality, consciousness, the brain, and how humans investigate stuff.    Of course, we could say that many things are spooky, as people used to.   Did you know that the sun is pulled across the sky by a chariot every day? 

https://tinyurl.com/yddykvxp

[Maeght]

I can answer that, no it doesn't.

Everyone is still asking Alan for evidence - there is none, nothing tangible.  He knows he can't prove it, everyone else knows too. Faith is about personal experience but it's in our heads, we can't show it.

This thread goes on and on, round and round, saying the same things over and over again. Fun I suppose.

if Alan accepted that then the thread would stop but he doesn't, he asserts things as facts which aren't and suggests there is evidence and that those with no belief are ignoring that evidence. That is why people continue to question and response to him.

[Enki]

Nice to see the high priest of incredulity given an airing again (Lewis) - mechanical minds and mindless atoms!   I wonder why there is never a supernatural solution to these issues?  Here we are -  the mind and consciousness and thinking are all explained supernaturally by a magical mystery tour of sweet FA.

I agree. Lewis didn't exactly stand out as a particularly open or progressive thinker, but rather as a person bound by the limitations of his own prejudices, as witnessed by his attitude to women and homosexual behaviour.

[wigginhall]

I think Lewis was a good writer, and he can therefore give polish to some very dodgy arguments.   What is amazing is that they are still trotted out regularly, for example, the above paragraph which is full of incredulity.     How can mindless atoms possibly form consciousness - type of thing.   As I said, the irony is that no supernatural solution is forthcoming - but how could there be?

[floo]

There are lots of questions to which we do not know the answer,
but our freedom to conceive of these questions and ask them does give an insight into to our spiritual nature.

Of course there are a lot of questions to which we don't as yet know the answers, but we may discover them in the future.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, exactly.   Science thrives on not knowing, because there is the new field to be investigated, whether it's gravity or black holes.    I think also that theists like Alan are proud of not knowing anything about cognitive science and neuroscience, then they can dismiss it.

I thought science thrives on the desire to know. You sound as though you are trying to sanctify the unknown or at least some mystical activity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course there are a lot of questions to which we don't as yet know the answers, but we may discover them in the future.

Nobody can argue with that. However Dennett's explanation of consciousness, "consciousness explained" has been criticised for its dismissal of consciousness itself and is referred to as "Consciousness explained away".
In cases like these thre is no work to discover answers only dismissing questions to fit what is already known........Which doesn't sound like any intellectual endeavour worth its salt.

[wigginhall]

I thought science thrives on the desire to know. You sound as though you are trying to sanctify the unknown or at least some mystical activity.

How is it mystical?  Science pushes on in areas where there is a lack of knowledge.   You can see this in relation to something like star formation, which has made massive strides.   

I don't think there is a guarantee about this.  Some things may remain inexplicable, but that still does't lead to God, unless you've already started with that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How is it mystical?  Science pushes on in areas where there is a lack of knowledge.   You can see this in relation to something like star formation, which has made massive strides.   

I don't think there is a guarantee about this.  Some things may remain inexplicable, but that still does't lead to God, unless you've already started with that.

It leads to that for which science may not have an answer to. Practically that does lead people to God......If not God then to philosophical naturalism.

So far both must be content to not being amenable to demonstration by science.
However God could make himself known whereas philosophical naturalism is by way of a "punt".

[wigginhall]

Well, I think Alan relies on a mixture of incredulity, God of the gaps, the fallacy of composition, and pure assertion.   Good going.

[ippy]

The most fundamental argument comes from a much more gifted person than I am:

If (as many atheists claim) the world really boils down to a complex set of chemical and physical processes then love, beauty, meaning and even truth itself are merely illusions of a mechanical mind: “If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.”

All the people you refer to as atheists claim Alan, is, if the world doesn't boil down to a complex set of chemical and physical processes, then where is all of this verifiable evidence of yours that could possibly point to anything else, only you seem to be either very reluctant or to shy to present any other such evidence based ideas of your own?

There are plenty of the contributors to this marathon thread that would find this evidence you claim to have absolutely fascinating, me included so come on Alan, let's have it?

All of the very necessary good and kind wishes to you Alan, ippy.

[ippy]

It leads to that for which science may not have an answer to. Practically that does lead people to God......If not God then to philosophical naturalism.

So far both must be content to not being amenable to demonstration by science.
However God could make himself known whereas philosophical naturalism is by way of a "punt".

Your post hints believer to me, I, of course, could be wrong, say I'm not wrong in this case, it never ceases to surprise me the lengths  people go to, to justify believing in, well, anything.

Good old Duggie's quote, 'Isn't it enough to enjoy a beautiful garden without having to think there are fairies at the bottom of it'?

Regards ippy.

[SusanDoris]

Once again, I am going to say that I think it is discourteous and a breach of good manners for  AB to withhold from the rest of us the clear evidence he claims to have about the God he believes exists. Why does he think said God would not want us to benefit from such evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your post hints believer to me, I, of course, could be wrong, say I'm not wrong in this case, it never ceases to surprise me the lengths  people go to, to justify believing in.

More religion on the BBC apparently since they realised the NSS were talking shite about the extravagent levels of religious broadcasting.

[ippy]

More religion on the BBC apparently since they realised the NSS were talking shite about the extravagent levels of religious broadcasting.

Trouble is P F , there's so much religious privilege it becomes almost invisible because of where it has become a kind of accepted norm, naturally accepted by those most involved.

It's also no small wonder why people like yourself don't want to see the evidence of just how much privilege the religions have, after all religion is well on it's way out, on a downward spiral here in the U K, it looks to me the BBC thinks that its job is to fight back and increase the amount of its religious output as as a counter to the national interest in religion continuing to decrease year on year.

Regards ippy

[wigginhall]

I was looking again at the Lewis paragraph which Alan cited - here it is again.

If (as many atheists claim) the world really boils down to a complex set of chemical and physical processes then love, beauty, meaning and even truth itself are merely illusions of a mechanical mind: “If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.”

Lewis isn't saying that brains can't generate experiences - which is something sometimes said by theists, along the lines that physical things can't produce mental things.   

He is saying that these experiences are illlusions and meaningless.   Actually, you don't need to mention love and beauty, since this argument would apply to any experience, e.g. the taste of chocolate.

I actually don't get this.   Why is an experience an illusion, because it's produced by a physical organ (brain)?   And why is it meaningless?  If the brain generates the taste of chocolate, it's perfectly capable of generating its importance to me, whether big or small.   

So I don't even get the force of Lewis's argument.  The stuff about the flux of atoms is wacky, since nobody believes that my chocolate experience occurs when the atoms in my brain start tasting of chocolate, do they?

[Gordon]

So I don't even get the force of Lewis's argument.  The stuff about the flux of atoms is wacky, since nobody believes that my chocolate experience occurs when the atoms in my brain start tasting of chocolate, do they?

Aside from incredulity, Lewis falls into the fallacy of composition with apparent ease. It is quite ironic that he mentions the likes of 'beauty' since he seems to be saying, in effect, that since the atoms that make up our brains can't appreciate, say, music then we can't appreciate music.

Utterly daft of course, but mysteriously compelling for the credulous.

[Alan Burns]

And who is this gifted person?

They seem, like you, to be a fallacy fan.

Update: just checked and it is CS Lewis: gifted no doubt in some aspects but highly credulous in others. Why you are in thrall to this guy is perplexing.

My admiration for Lewis comes from the discovery that he had very similar thoughts to myself about the true nature of our existence.  To me (and Lewis) it is not just a matter of personal incredulity, but an objective impossibility.

The profound gift we have for exploring and discovering the truth behind our existence deserves far more that the dead end conclusion that we are all just a consequence of the meaningless flux of atoms.

[wigginhall]

But the flux of atoms, as you put it, is clearly not meaningless.   In the brain, they form neural pathways, which probably help generate experiences.   These are seen as meaningful by humans.

[Enki]

Including incidentally the sound of the wind in the trees, which Lewis obviously finds to be devoid of meaning but which I can find full of significance on occasions.

[Gordon]

My admiration for Lewis comes from the discovery that he had very similar thoughts to myself about the true nature of our existence.  To me (and Lewis) it is not just a matter of personal incredulity, but an objective impossibility.

No doubt this is why you are susceptible to the same fallacies as Lewis.

The profound gift we have for exploring and discovering the truth behind our existence deserves far more that the dead end conclusion that we are all just a consequence of the meaningless flux of atoms.

With a dash of reification added to the usual mix of incredulity and ignorance.

[wigginhall]

Including incidentally the sound of the wind in the trees, which Lewis obviously finds to be devoid of meaning but which I can find full of significance on occasions.

Very good point.  At my advanced age, I often prefer the sound of the wind to my own thoughts.   

[Alan Burns]

But the flux of atoms, as you put it, is clearly not meaningless.   In the brain, they form neural pathways, which probably help generate experiences.   These are seen as meaningful by humans.

But what is it that perceives ?

[Alan Burns]

Including incidentally the sound of the wind in the trees, which Lewis obviously finds to be devoid of meaning but which I can find full of significance on occasions.

Only because you can perceive it