Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

AB

You do not need more words - you just need enough words to tell us about one piece of objective evidence to back up your woolly assertions.

But if the objective evidence is limited to what has been discovered by human scientific investigation there will inevitably be no substantial evidence of God.  I have offered evidence which goes beyond current scientific knowledge which inevitably gets dismissed due to it not being entirely based on science.

The evidence for our own spiritual nature lies in our ability to consciously compile and present our own arguments and logical reasoning.  If you truly believe that such an ability can be sourced entirely from the uncontrollable deterministic reactions to events in our brain cells, then this will be a personal choice which itself has no scientific basis.  It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is still evidence which you can either accept, reject or ignore.

[Maeght]

You've offered opinion not evidence. Evidence needs to be facts.

[torridon]

But if the objective evidence is limited to what has been discovered by human scientific investigation there will inevitably be no substantial evidence of God.  I have offered evidence which goes beyond current scientific knowledge which inevitably gets dismissed due to it not being entirely based on science.

That's because it is not evidence, it is merely assertion, it is flawed inductive reasoning.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But if the objective evidence is limited to what has been discovered by human scientific investigation...

It isn't. It's limited by requiring a method and a process so as to distinguish it from just guessing about stuff.

And that's your problem.

[torridon]

The evidence for our own spiritual nature lies in our ability to consciously compile and present our own arguments and logical reasoning.
...

And right on queue, a prime example of flawed induction.

Because we can think and argue, therefore God. 

I mean, really ?

[Stranger]

I have offered evidence which goes beyond current scientific knowledge which inevitably gets dismissed due to it not being entirely based on science.

It gets dismissed because it isn't evidence at all - it's just blind faith, empty assertions, personal incredulity, denial of clear logic, and a veritable encyclopaedia of fallacies - oh and a large side helping of dishonest evasion, avoidance, and misrepresentation.

The evidence for our own spiritual nature lies in our ability to consciously compile and present our own arguments and logical reasoning.

Since every single conjecture concerning our consciousness and "free will" that has ever been put forward is consistent with this, trying to claim it as evidence for your view is tantamount to lying.

If you truly believe that such an ability can be sourced entirely from the uncontrollable deterministic reactions to events in our brain cells, then this will be a personal choice which itself has no scientific basis.

That doesn't even make sense.

It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is still evidence which you can either accept, reject or ignore.

No, it isn't evidence because it's consistent with every single conjecture that has ever been put forward regarding consciousness and choice. Please, at least stop being so dishonest.

[Gordon]

I have offered evidence which goes beyond current scientific knowledge which inevitably gets dismissed due to it not being entirely based on science.

Then you need a method other than science: but one that has similar robustness.

The evidence for our own spiritual nature lies in our ability to consciously compile and present our own arguments and logical reasoning.

You seem to be suggesting some kind of 'logical spirituality', which seems like an oxymoron.

If you truly believe that such an ability can be sourced entirely from the uncontrollable deterministic reactions to events in our brain cells, then this will be a personal choice which itself has no scientific basis.

My thinking in respect of any choices I have, or seem to have, or that I make, involve my brain cells and nothing else - 'choices' and brains' are mutually dependent.

It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is still evidence which you can either accept, reject or ignore.

It isn't even evidence, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

My thinking in respect of any choices I have, or seem to have, or that I make, involve my brain cells and nothing else - 'choices' and brains' are mutually dependent.

Your choices are determined by you.  The question to ask yourself is what defines and comprises you?  I know your response will be the physical brain, but where and how do you reside in this collection of sub atomic particles whose behaviour, without any spiritual interaction, is entirely defined by the laws of material science?

[Gordon]

Your choices are determined by you.  The question to ask yourself is what defines and comprises you?  I know your response will be the physical brain, but where and how do you reside in this collection of sub atomic particles whose behaviour, without any spiritual interaction, is entirely defined by the laws of material science?

My brain (with its cells and sub-atomic particles) and 'I' seem to be one and the same: and currently there are no good reasons to think otherwise (but no shortage of bad reasons).

[Alan Burns]

My brain (with its cells and sub-atomic particles) and 'I' seem to be one and the same: and currently there are no good reasons to think otherwise (but no shortage of bad reasons).

The reason to question this is your ability to make conscious choices, because this ability requires something which does not exist in the deterministically controlled activity of physical entities, which can only react.  A reaction is not a consciously driven choice.

[Gordon]

The reason to question this is your ability to make conscious choices, because this ability requires something which does not exist in the deterministically controlled activity of physical entities, which can only react.  A reaction is not a consciously driven choice.

So you claim: but I can't see any good reasons to accept what you say.

[Stranger]

The question to ask yourself is what defines and comprises you?  I know your response will be the physical brain, but where and how do you reside in this collection of sub atomic particles whose behaviour, without any spiritual interaction, is entirely defined by the laws of material science?

The term "spiritual interaction" is devoid of any meaning - it's just equivalent to "magic" or "pixie dust".

The extent to which we can answer the question is utterly irrelevant - since you have no meaningful alternative to what you call "the laws of material science". Oh, except for...

The reason to question this is your ability to make conscious choices, because this ability requires something which does not exist in the deterministically controlled activity of physical entities, which can only react.  A reaction is not a consciously driven choice.

baseless assertions.

[Stranger]

Alan, I'm reminded of about a week ago, when I asked, this

Seriously Alan - again!? Do you have memory problems?

and this

Is it actually your plan to just bore everybody into submission by just 'forgetting' all the answers you've been given every few days and then just regurgitating the same script over and over again?

Now you're just back to the start of your script again, where you tell us that our ability to consciously choose is evidence of god-magic and how it can't be 'defined' by physical reactions.

Seems like you've reset your memory again...   

[torridon]

A reaction is not a consciously driven choice.

And neither is a molecule a mountain; however a mountain comprises millions of molecules, and similarly, a 'conscious choice' emerges from millions of reactions at lower levels.  This understanding is consistent with the evidence from all the relevant branches of science.  Your understanding has no such basis.  You're wrong.

[ippy]

And neither is a molecule a mountain; however a mountain comprises millions of molecules, and similarly, a 'conscious choice' emerges from millions of reactions at lower levels.  This understanding is consistent with the evidence from all the relevant branches of science.  Your understanding has no such basis.  You're wrong.

Couldn't help noticing how many conversions you've gained via your last few posts Alan, yes, very impressive.

Always necessary to wish you well Alan, consider it done, ippy

[Alan Burns]

And neither is a molecule a mountain; however a mountain comprises millions of molecules, and similarly, a 'conscious choice' emerges from millions of reactions at lower levels.  This understanding is consistent with the evidence from all the relevant branches of science.  Your understanding has no such basis.  You're wrong.

And once more, the entity which is "you" demonstrates its freedom to consciously compile detailed reasons to support its chosen point of view, yet fails to realise that the ultimate source of this freedom lies far beyond anything which can be determined from the purposeless, unguided forces of nature alone.

[Stranger]

And once more, the entity which is "you" demonstrates its freedom to consciously compile detailed reasons to support its chosen point of view, yet fails to realise that the ultimate source of this freedom lies far beyond anything which can be determined from the purposeless, unguided forces of nature alone.

Alan asserted - yet again, having 'forgotten' all the previous responses and without the first hint of any evidence or reasoning.

ETA: And in the process avoids actually addressing the point made.

[floo]

And once more, the entity which is "you" demonstrates its freedom to consciously compile detailed reasons to support its chosen point of view, yet fails to realise that the ultimate source of this freedom lies far beyond anything which can be determined from the purposeless, unguided forces of nature alone.

Yet another assertion without evidence to support it!

[Alan Burns]

Alan asserted - yet again, having 'forgotten' all the previous responses and without the first hint of any evidence or reasoning.

No, I have not forgotten the detailed responses to my posts.  They all reinforce my observation that these posters demonstrate a freedom to consciously compile well thought out reasons to confirm their points of view - a freedom which has an ultimate source in "you", a freedom which can't be sourced solely in the physically pre defined reactions in your brain cells.

[Stranger]

No, I have not forgotten the detailed responses to my posts.

You appear to have because we are back to the part of your script where you (dishonestly - for reasons pointed out just a few posts ago) claim that our abilities to think and make choices are evidence for your god-magic nonsense.

Here its is:

They all reinforce my observation that these posters demonstrate a freedom to consciously compile well thought out reasons to confirm their points of view - a freedom which has an ultimate source in "you"...

Rounded off with the same old logic and evidence free assertion:

...a freedom which can't be sourced solely in the physically pre defined reactions in your brain cells.

[torridon]

And once more, the entity which is "you" demonstrates its freedom to consciously compile detailed reasons to support its chosen point of view, yet fails to realise that the ultimate source of this freedom lies far beyond anything which can be determined from the purposeless, unguided forces of nature alone.

What makes you think that ?

[ippy]

No, I have not forgotten the detailed responses to my posts.  They all reinforce my observation that these posters demonstrate a freedom to consciously compile well thought out reasons to confirm their points of view - a freedom which has an ultimate source in "you", a freedom which can't be sourced solely in the physically pre defined reactions in your brain cells.

If anyone confirms an opinion or an assertion with evidence Alan, it's no longer an opinion or a baseless assertion, you know 'a baseless assertion', the ones you're most familiar with/fond of.

Necessarily the kindest of regards to you Alan, ippy.

[Alan Burns]

You appear to have because we are back to the part of your script where you (dishonestly - for reasons pointed out just a few posts ago) claim that our abilities to think and make choices are evidence for your god-magic nonsense.

Well, I fail to see how our abilities to guide our own thoughts and make conscious choices can possibly count as evidence for a physically deterministic universe.

[Alan Burns]

What makes you think that ?

The conscious awareness of my human soul 

[floo]

The conscious awareness of my human soul 

That is your interpretation.