Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB has fooled you too
It's time to take a different approach to him 👍

Is that going to involve dressing up in women's clothing?

[Alan Burns]

then you are a mug , you have been duped , you should be ashamed of yourself .
He is no more than a con man who keeps up his lie for his own personal amusement  . He is laghing at you !

You could not be more wrong Walter.  The reason I keep posting about my faith is a call from God to share the Good News of salvation.  I do feel very sad for anyone who has not yet found God, so I will keep you and others in my prayers.,

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

AB has fooled you too

It's time to take a different approach to him 👍

For what it’s worth, I used to think that AB was lying but I no longer do. Lying would involve deliberate misrepresentation of things the interlocutor said in order to attack his own straw men versions of them – ie, Vladdism. AB on the other hand doesn’t get that far – rather he seems to me to have an exceptionally severe case of cognitive dissonance – however cogently and pellucidly put he just doesn’t see the arguments that undo him when they concern his faith beliefs. That’s why the exchanges with him are the equivalent of:

AB: “Tooth Fairy”!

X: “But all the reasoning and evidence we have points to a different explanation.”

A: “Tooth Fairy!”

X: "But look – here’s CCTV of your Mum putting the 50p under your pillow last night and taking the tooth away."

A: “Tooth Fairy! Mum doing it is absolutely impossible/I can’t imagine a better answer/how would you deny my personal relationship with the Tooth Fairy?” etc

X: “But they’re all logical fallacies, and here’s why…”

AB: “OK, maybe all my arguments for the Tooth Fairy aren’t absolutely watertight, but still… Tooth Fairy!”

X: Your problem isn’t that they’re “not watertight”, it’s that they’re wrong – flat wrong in fact for reasons that have been explained to you many times now.”

AB: “Tooth Fairy!”

And so it goes, forever it seems.

Oddly I suspect that, in a different arena, he would recognise his mistakes. His inordinate fondness for circular reasoning for example (“God planned us all along/The chances of us emerging accidentally are very remote/therefore God planned us all along” etc) would fall away if I were to say to him:

1.Either leprechauns exist or the moon is made of cheese

2.The moon is not made of cheese.

3.Therefore, leprechauns exist

He'd quickly see the problem, yet that’s exactly the construction above he returns to and relies on over and again.

It’s very odd (and not a little chilling I find) but there it is nonetheless.   

[Walter]

Walter,

For what it’s worth, I used to think that AB was lying but I no longer do. Lying would involve deliberate misrepresentation of things the interlocutor said in order to attack his own straw men versions of them – ie, Vladdism. AB on the other hand doesn’t get that far – rather he seems to me to have an exceptionally severe case of cognitive dissonance – however cogently and pellucidly put he just doesn’t see the arguments that undo him when they concern his faith beliefs. That’s why the exchanges with him are the equivalent of:

AB: “Tooth Fairy”!

X: “But all the reasoning and evidence we have points to a different explanation.”

A: “Tooth Fairy!”

X: "But look – here’s CCTV of your Mum putting the 50p under your pillow last night and taking the tooth away."

A: “Tooth Fairy! Mum doing it is absolutely impossible/I can’t imagine a better answer/how would you deny my personal relationship with the Tooth Fairy?” etc

X: “But they’re all logical fallacies, and here’s why…”

AB: “OK, maybe all my arguments for the Tooth Fairy aren’t absolutely watertight, but still… Tooth Fairy!”

X: Your problem isn’t that they’re “not watertight”, it’s that they’re wrong – flat wrong in fact for reasons that have been explained to you many times now.”

AB: “Tooth Fairy!”

And so it goes, forever it seems.

Oddly I suspect that, in a different arena, he would recognise his mistakes. His inordinate fondness for circular reasoning for example (“God planned us all along/The chances of us emerging accidentally are very remote/therefore God planned us all along” etc) would fall away if I were to say to him:

1.Either leprechauns exist or the moon is made of cheese

2.The moon is not made of cheese.

3.Therefore, leprechauns exist

He'd quickly see the problem, yet that’s exactly the construction above he returns to and relies on over and again.

It’s very odd (and not a little chilling I find) but there it is nonetheless.

blue, you make a good case however I don't agree with your conclusion
For  a person to consistently and persistently continue to argue his position without deviation or aceptance of another point of view in light of the vast amount of criticism from many different sources I am proposing he is lying .
He made a decision some time ago to to appear on this board and perhaps others with the aim of attacking atheism for reasons only known to him .
From his responses , which mainly defy reason , it has become obviousely to me , that what started as an experiment in argument has gone out of control and rather than lose face he continues with it becoming even more irrational
It's like a joke gone wrong but he can't stop  He has become the joke and he wallows in the attention he gets
No sane person could actually believe as he does faced with torrent of reason and abuse he gets
He is a liar , he knows he's a lier and he's loving the attention
This thread is feeding his ego  😳

[Nearly Sane]

Nice to see the argument by incredulity getting a work out from Walter

[Maeght]

blue, you make a good case however I don't agree with your conclusion
For  a person to consistently and persistently continue to argue his position without deviation or aceptance of another point of view in light of the vast amount of criticism from many different sources I am proposing he is lying .
He made a decision some time ago to to appear on this board and perhaps others with the aim of attacking atheism for reasons only known to him .
From his responses , which mainly defy reason , it has become obviousely to me , that what started as an experiment in argument has gone out of control and rather than lose face he continues with it becoming even more irrational
It's like a joke gone wrong but he can't stop  He has become the joke and he wallows in the attention he gets
No sane person could actually believe as he does faced with torrent of reason and abuse he gets
He is a liar , he knows he's a lier and he's loving the attention
This thread is feeding his ego  😳

Don't think so.

[Walter]

More incredulity

oh ! I'm sorry , I think he is genuine in his beliefs and how he presents them .

Even more incredulity !

[Nearly Sane]

oh ! I'm sorry , I think he is genuine in his beliefs and how he presents them .

Even more incredulity !

No need to apologise for your lack of evidence. Have some rich tea biscuits.

[Alan Burns]

Walter,

For what it’s worth, I used to think that AB was lying but I no longer do. Lying would involve deliberate misrepresentation of things the interlocutor said in order to attack his own straw men versions of them – ie, Vladdism. AB on the other hand doesn’t get that far – rather he seems to me to have an exceptionally severe case of cognitive dissonance – however cogently and pellucidly put he just doesn’t see the arguments that undo him when they concern his faith beliefs. That’s why the exchanges with him are the equivalent of:

AB: “Tooth Fairy”!

X: “But all the reasoning and evidence we have points to a different explanation.”

A: “Tooth Fairy!”

X: "But look – here’s CCTV of your Mum putting the 50p under your pillow last night and taking the tooth away."

A: “Tooth Fairy! Mum doing it is absolutely impossible/I can’t imagine a better answer/how would you deny my personal relationship with the Tooth Fairy?” etc

X: “But they’re all logical fallacies, and here’s why…”

AB: “OK, maybe all my arguments for the Tooth Fairy aren’t absolutely watertight, but still… Tooth Fairy!”

X: Your problem isn’t that they’re “not watertight”, it’s that they’re wrong – flat wrong in fact for reasons that have been explained to you many times now.”

AB: “Tooth Fairy!”

And so it goes, forever it seems.

Oddly I suspect that, in a different arena, he would recognise his mistakes. His inordinate fondness for circular reasoning for example (“God planned us all along/The chances of us emerging accidentally are very remote/therefore God planned us all along” etc) would fall away if I were to say to him:

1.Either leprechauns exist or the moon is made of cheese

2.The moon is not made of cheese.

3.Therefore, leprechauns exist

He'd quickly see the problem, yet that’s exactly the construction above he returns to and relies on over and again.

It’s very odd (and not a little chilling I find) but there it is nonetheless.

Do you honestly think that all this posting was just an inevitable reaction over which you had no control?  And any illusion of control is "just the way it seems"?

[Walter]

No need to apologise for your lack of evidence. Have some rich tea biscuits.

dont mind if I do
More tea vicar ?

[Alan Burns]

No sane person could actually believe as he does faced with torrent of reason and abuse he gets

I honestly see no reason to doubt my faith from the arguments put on this board.  Indeed, to accept these arguments I would have to sacrifice my God given freedom to do, think and say what I want and try to convince myself that it is all just an illusion!

[Walter]

I honestly see no reason to doubt my faith from the arguments put on this board.  Indeed, to accept these arguments I would have to sacrifice my God given freedom to do, think and say what I want and try to convince myself that it is all just an illusion!

try a bit harder Alan

[torridon]

Do you honestly think that all this posting was just an inevitable reaction over which you had no control?  And any illusion of control is "just the way it seems"?

Broadly speaking, yes.  This is what the evidence suggests.  That feeling of control is just a feeling, like many other feelings, it is part of the way that brains fabricate our experience of life.  That thing inside your skull is essentially a virtual reality headset permanently wired in place, we can never take it off, we can never experience 'reality as it is', we can only ever experience anything at all through that headset. I know this is counterintuitive, but counterintuitive does not equate to incorrect.  If you think about  it, the notion that we can 'control' all the 'uncontrollable reactions' that you like to keep reminding us about, is totally absurd.  In the last second, your brain had a billion such 'uncontrollable reactions'.  These 'uncontrollable reactions' are what constitute your current state of mind, your current thoughts, inclinations etc.  Do tell us, exactly how many of those billion neurochemical reactions did you 'control' or 'alter' ? Can you point to the location of even one such synapse that you altered the ion gradient of, such that you could bring about an altered state of mind ?  Our cherished notions of 'control' and 'freedom' are meaningless at this level; they are feelings that become apparent at a far higher level of emergence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I honestly see no reason to doubt my faith from the arguments put on this board.  Indeed, to accept these arguments I would have to sacrifice my God given freedom to do, think and say what I want and try to convince myself that it is all just an illusion!

Illusion is generally a cop out word for saying that one doesn't know but there is a risk that if one did one might have to change one's mealy reductionist take on things.

For instance something is usually suffering from the illusion(something being illuded) so those who complain of your theory needing a little chap to perceive and that little chap has to have his own little etc. are guilty exactly of what they complain in others, making them the stripiest of humbugs.

[floo]

You could not be more wrong Walter.  The reason I keep posting about my faith is a call from God to share the Good News of salvation.  I do feel very sad for anyone who has not yet found God, so I will keep you and others in my prayers.,

If god is behind your posts AB, you would think it would assist you to make them more credible to others. Or does it enjoy your discomfort when other members challenge you, because you cannot provide any evidence, which stands up to scrutiny?

[Alan Burns]

try a bit harder Alan

Sorry, but I can't do the impossible, no matter how hard I try.

[Alan Burns]

That feeling of control is just a feeling, like many other feelings, it is part of the way that brains fabricate our experience of life. 

But this feeling of control is easily proven to be true by my being able to verifiably act out my pre conceived intentions.  What else can you possibly need to verify that you are in control?  The evidence is clear and totally verifiable - I can literally do what I want, when I want and how I want within the practical constraints of my environment. 

[torridon]

But this feeling of control is easily proven to be true by my being able to verifiably act out my pre conceived intentions.  What else can you possibly need to verify that you are in control?  The evidence is clear and totally verifiable - I can literally do what I want, when I want and how I want within the practical constraints of my environment.

All of which is rendered redundant by the fact that we have no control over what we want in the first place.  We merely act on our desires but we do not choose which desires to have. Ever tried to want something that you do not want ?  If you ever tried to want something that you did not want, that would indicate that you wanted to want something that you did not want.  There is no escaping remorseless logic I'm afraid.

[ekim]

But this feeling of control is easily proven to be true by my being able to verifiably act out my pre conceived intentions.  What else can you possibly need to verify that you are in control?  The evidence is clear and totally verifiable - I can literally do what I want, when I want and how I want within the practical constraints of my environment.

I think what is being said to you though, Alan, is that 'want' is another word for 'desire' and that it is your desires which drive you and which you are not free from e.g. your desire to share your faith.

[Alan Burns]

All of which is rendered redundant by the fact that we have no control over what we want in the first place.  We merely act on our desires but we do not choose which desires to have. Ever tried to want something that you do not want ?  If you ever tried to want something that you did not want, that would indicate that you wanted to want something that you did not want.  There is no escaping remorseless logic I'm afraid.

Can you not see the dreadful consequences of this line of thought?
I was recently reading the text of some of Sir Winston Churchill's speeches in which he recognised the evil of the third reich and the imperative need to oppose it.  In your scenario there can be no such thing as evil, because any concept of evil intent would be just an illusion as there could be no consciously driven intent - just inevitable uncontrollable consequences.  You must face up to the obvious reality that we do have conscious control over our intentions - we can choose what we want.  We can choose between good and evil.

[Alan Burns]

I think what is being said to you though, Alan, is that 'want' is another word for 'desire' and that it is your desires which drive you and which you are not free from e.g. your desire to share your faith.

And the point I keep making is that I have the freedom to consciously choose how, when and where to share my faith.  A freedom that any materialist scenario could never allow.

[floo]

And the point I keep making is that I have the freedom to consciously choose how, when and where to share my faith.  A freedom that any materialist scenario could never allow.

The more you 'share' your faith on this forum the less impact you make, maybe you should consider another forum, a RCC one maybe, where there might be some like minded people.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Do you honestly think that all this posting was just an inevitable reaction over which you had no control?  And any illusion of control is "just the way it seems"?

Your language is pejorative but as that’s where the logic and evidence leads, essentially yes. What do you have other than assertion, wishful thinking and bad arguments to suggest that the evidence and logic is wrong?   

I honestly see no reason to doubt my faith from the arguments put on this board.

I know you don’t – that’s what cognitive dissonance does. To sustain that though, you have to act as though the arguments haven’t been made at all rather than engage with them. The alternative – “OK, now I see your point but I think it’s wrong because…” – can never happen because it’s not what you want to happen. Ironically, as torri keeps explaining (and you keep ignoring), that want is something over which you cannot exercise control, presumably because having lighted on a very bad idea decades ago you’re now so heavily invested in it that at some subconscious level you simply can't allow for a different reality than your own.

That’s why you must slide around the problem instead of engaging with it by deploying a suite of fallacies that are irrelevant – the argument from personal incredulity, the argumentum ad consequentiam, circular reasoning etc.

And when someone really pins you down on any of them (as I did a few posts back re your fondness for circular reasoning), your final refuge is to pull up the drawbridge and to throw assertions over the ramparts – “I really have a relationship with God”, “I pray that one day you will know the truth” etc. Violet Elizabeth Bott style ("I'th twoo I tell you, it'th twoo!").   
   

Indeed, to accept these arguments I would have to sacrifice my God given freedom to do, think and say what I want and try to convince myself that it is all just an illusion!

And right on cue…a mish-mash of an argumentum ad consequentiam (“If X, then Y”) and unqualified assertion (“my God given freedom”).

Sorry, but I can't do the impossible, no matter how hard I try.

But it’s only impossible for you because you cannot allow yourself to process the arguments that undo you. If on the other hand exactly the arguments you attempt for your “God” were attempted by others for different beliefs, then you’d be able to falsify them very quickly. That’s the point of cognitive dissonance – your personal beliefs in one arena are permanently locked in a box so as to preserve them, while your BS antennae (presumably) still work normally in other arenas.   

But this feeling of control is easily proven to be true by my being able to verifiably act out my pre conceived intentions.  What else can you possibly need to verify that you are in control?  The evidence is clear and totally verifiable - I can literally do what I want, when I want and how I want within the practical constraints of my environment.

What you’ve just said is, “this feeling of control is actually real control because it really feels like actual control” – another piece of piece of circular reasoning. 

[torridon]

Can you not see the dreadful consequences of this line of thought?
I was recently reading the text of some of Sir Winston Churchill's speeches in which he recognised the evil of the third reich and the imperative need to oppose it.  In your scenario there can be no such thing as evil, because any concept of evil intent would be just an illusion as there could be no consciously driven intent - just inevitable uncontrollable consequences.  You must face up to the obvious reality that we do have conscious control over our intentions - we can choose what we want.  We can choose between good and evil.

Dreadful is how it might strike people at first glance.  But the consequences of being unhinged from the paradigm of cause and effect would be far far worse.  That things happen for a reason gives us predictability, it gives us the possibility of understanding and it is only by understanding that we can address problems.  Take Churchill's speech on the evils of the Third Reich.  Calling it 'evil', as we commonly do, tends to obscure our understanding of the reasons that underlay the rise in popularity of National Socialism in 1930s Germany.  'Evil', as a thing does not exist; framing it that way is really just lazy thinking when we can't be bothered to dig more deeply.  The choices we all make, and make constantly, are between selfishness and selflessness.  Choosing to see things in simplistic terms when we could invest more effort in understanding is a choice of selfishness over selflessness.

[wigginhall]

Agree with that.   'Evil' is lazy thinking, used by the tabloids.  Curious to see how Christians are going to define it. 

Well, Alan loves his consequences!