Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

You're still not getting it.
To say there is no reason to believe religions like Islam and Christianity would not arise again is stupid, wishful thinking not based in reason

No Vlad: it is you who isn't 'getting it'. Nobody is saying that religions wouldn't* emerge and persist in some form but that were the details of specific religions to be forgotten. Remember this is a thought experiment and any new emergent religions wouldn't re-create the same details that the likes of the Christian Bible contains currently, for the obvious reason that these are grounded in antiquity and that if there were no Bible then there would be no record of the biblical character known as 'Jesus'

*Edited: originally was 'would' but should have been 'wouldn't'.

However, if chemistry had to be tackled again from first principles the same conclusions would be reached albeit that some of the current conventions might differ (such as how chemical elements were named). 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No Vlad: it is you who isn't 'getting it'. Nobody is saying that religions would emerge and persist in some form but that were the details of specific religions to be forgotten. Remember this is a thought experiment and any new emergent religions wouldn't re-create the same details that the likes of the Christian Bible contains currently, for the obvious reason that these are grounded in antiquity and that if there were no Bible then there would be no record of the biblical character known as 'Jesus'

However, if chemistry had to be tackled again from first principles the same conclusions would be reached albeit that some of the current conventions might differ (such as how chemical elements were named).

A New Scientist report sheds doubt on weather revelations and conventions in science are always inevitable.

You have no way of knowing whether certain religious tropes are inevitable or not. End of.

You have subscribed to a myth.

further it just shows that your ilk finds some thought experiments convenient and others not.

Hillside has belted out the thought experiment schtick. But there is no evidence of any working out.

It's a good job  the majority users of IMV are just after antitheist w**kfodder and the assertions don't have to endure close inspection.

[bluehillside Retd.]

A New Scientist report sheds doubt on weather revelations and conventions in science are always inevitable.

You have no way of knowing whether certain religious tropes are inevitable or not. End of.

You have subscribed to a myth.

further it just shows that your ilk finds some thought experiments convenient and others not.

Hillside has belted out the thought experiment schtick. But there is no evidence of any working out.

It's a good job  the majority users of IMV are just after antitheist w**kfodder and the assertions don't have to endure close inspection.

Ah the unedifying sight of an mb poster getting found out and spitting the dummy in response.

Oh well, given his form here I guess we had no right to expect something better. 

[SteveH]

No, it is you that does not have the logic to support your idea of conscious awareness emerging from material reactions alone.  You claim that all the evidence points to this, but you ignore the evidence of your own existence - evidence of your own ability to make conscious choices, to create, to manipulate, to perceive meaning and purpose in things.  You comprise far more than material reactions can ever define.  Emergent properties are nothing more than an externally observed complexity or functionality to which we give a label.  Internally they are just individual material elements reacting to previous events.  Nothing more.

He's got a point, y'know. If our consciousness is merely an emergent property of chemical and electrical reactions in our brains, which evolved as survival mechanisms, which may well have a survival motive in deceiving us,we have no reason to trust the reasoning that led us to that conclusion.

[Nearly Sane]

He's got a point, y'know. If our consciousness is merely an emergent property of chemical and electrical reactions in our brains, which evolved as survival mechanisms, which may well have a survival motive in deceiving us,we have no reason to trust the reasoning that led us to that conclusion.

That's the going nuclear approach though, If we take that then there is no reason to believe anything. If you don't take something as axiomatic then you are left with nothing. Alan is then just stating that his own perceptions are meaningless,

[Gordon]

A New Scientist report sheds doubt on weather revelations and conventions in science are always inevitable.

But 'weather' (sic) forecasting is more reliable these days anyway (what with all those sciency satellites whizzing around).

You have no way of knowing whether certain religious tropes are inevitable or not. End of.

You still aren't getting it: if, for the sake of argument, there was no Christian Bible then whatever religious tropes did appear wouldn't contain the same details as does 'Christianity'. An obvious example of this are the religions of the South American cultures that emerged independently over the same time period as Christianity was ruling the roosted in Europe - and yet the Aztecs never mentioned Jesus.   

You have subscribed to a myth.

I'd have though that observation better fitted your own position.

further it just shows that your ilk finds some thought experiments convenient and others not.

Hillside has belted out the thought experiment schtick. But there is no evidence of any working out.

So you don't 'get' thought experiments - I think we know that now.

It's a good job  the majority users of IMV are just after antitheist w**kfodder and the assertions don't have to endure close inspection.

I think perhaps you should take your own advice, Vlad, so that in future you can recognise very obvious thought experiments instead of confusing them with claims.

[Alan Burns]

FFS have you seriously got such a bad memory - or are you just being shamelessly dishonest?

Yes, I know the difference but yet again you are running away from the point. If absolutely everything that influences a choice (including the nature of whatever is making the choice) does not (when taken together) fully determine it, there is nothing left to base the remaining choice on - so that remaining choice can only be random.

Not having any random elements means determined.

For the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with random but everything to do with our power to consciously choose.  A conscious choice is not absolutely pre determined - it is determined by our power to make consciously driven choices, after contemplating any influencing factors.  Or it can be done without contemplating influencing factors, because we have the freedom to ignore them if we so wish and just choose to do something because we want to do it.

[Alan Burns]

ience books would be created again with exactly the same conclusions and formulae.
E would still equal MC squared no matter who comes up with it.

And God would still be our Creator, no matter what anyone comes up with.

[torridon]

For the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with random but everything to do with our power to consciously choose.  A conscious choice is not absolutely pre determined - it is determined by our power to make consciously driven choices, after contemplating any influencing factors.  Or it can be done without contemplating influencing factors, because we have the freedom to ignore them if we so wish and just choose to do something because we want to do it.

and whichever option we go for will be by definition the course that we most wanted to follow. We don't get to choose our wants, remember ?

[torridon]

And God would still be our Creator, no matter what anyone comes up with.

and that is just unevidenced assertion.  You really need to do better than that.

[Alan Burns]

Whichever factor is the most influential in the making of a choice, is the determining factor.  If there is no determinant, then it is a random outcome.  This is really very simple.

But in our power to make conscious choices, we have the freedom to deliberately ignore any influencing factors and just go ahead an do something because we want to do it, and it is certainly nothing to do with random.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

He's got a point, y'know. If our consciousness is merely an emergent property of chemical and electrical reactions in our brains, which evolved as survival mechanisms, which may well have a survival motive in deceiving us,we have no reason to trust the reasoning that led us to that conclusion.

No he hasn’t. NS has got there before me, but he’s only got a point if you go nuclear. You might for example say that all the evidence points to women giving birth to babies, but that doesn’t mean that hypnotising stork theory isn’t just as valid. Trouble is though, treating any possible truth as equally valid with any other possible truth collapses immediately into nihilism. 2+2=4? Sure. 2+2=5? Yeah, why not? etc – is just incoherent. That’s why we take certain truth statements to be probabilistically true and proceed on that basis.

The irony of that by the way is that it’s AB himself who insist that his truths are categorically true – he’s proud of his closed mind, telling us repeatedly that no amount of reason or evidence could ever cause him to change it. It’s quite chilling really, but there it is nonetheless.       

[Alan Burns]

and whichever option we go for will be by definition the course that we most wanted to follow. We don't get to choose our wants, remember ?

It is your own assertion that we do not get to choose what we want, presumably driven by your assumption that everything which happens is pre determined by chains of physical cause and effect.

My ability to consciously choose what I want to do is demonstrably real, and can't be ascribed entirely to the inevitable consequences of physical chains of cause and effect.

[Stranger]

For the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with random but everything to do with our power to consciously choose.  A conscious choice is not absolutely pre determined - it is determined by our power to make consciously driven choices...

And for the umpteenth you've completely ignored the logic. Just saying "determined by our power to make consciously driven choices" is just sidestepping the issue of how and why the choice was made.

...after contemplating any influencing factors.  Or it can be done without contemplating influencing factors, because we have the freedom to ignore them if we so wish and just choose to do something because we want to do it.

But if you've contemplated all the influencing factors - including your own impulses and inclinations to ignore the obvious factors - then there can be nothing left to base any remaining choice on, so it must be random.

But in our power to make conscious choices, we have the freedom to deliberately ignore any influencing factors and just go ahead an do something because we want to do it, and it is certainly nothing to do with random.

But why do you want to do it? Either it's for a reason (in which case it's an influencing factor after all) or it's for no reason at all (in which case it can only be random).

[torridon]

But in our power to make conscious choices, we have the freedom to deliberately ignore any influencing factors and just go ahead an do something because we want to do it, and it is certainly nothing to do with random.

Makes no difference. The choice to ignore is still a choice, subject to the same underlying insight, that we do not choose our wants.  If what we really wanted to do was ignore, then that was the uppermost desire at the time and we do not choose our desires or the intensity thereof.  We act on them.

[Stranger]

It is your own assertion that we do not get to choose what we want, presumably driven by your assumption that everything which happens is pre determined by chains of physical cause and effect.

Of course you can't choose what you want. How would you make the choice - based on what you want to want? Then how would you make that choice - based on what you want to want to want?

Are you getting the problem here?

My ability to consciously choose what I want to do is demonstrably real...

Yes - you choose what you want to do by weighing up what you want most.

[Gordon]

But in our power to make conscious choices, we have the freedom to deliberately ignore any influencing factors and just go ahead an do something because we want to do it, and it is certainly nothing to do with random.

Then this 'want' is an influencing factor that precedes any act of choosing and, as such, your choice is determined - even if you prefer to pretend that it wasn't.

[torridon]

It is your own assertion that we do not get to choose what we want, presumably driven by your assumption that everything which happens is pre determined by chains of physical cause and effect.

Not really, that is my personal experience of life.  Have you ever wanted something that you don't want ? Have you ever believed something you don't believe.  Such things are just not possible.  Life is just not like that.

[floo]

And God would still be our Creator, no matter what anyone comes up with.

EVIDENCE?

[SteveH]

EVIDENCE?

As I've pointed out twice now, you regularly post "imo" posts without a shred of evidence or argument ("imo" is not an argument), so it's pretty rich of you to demand them from others.

[floo]

As I've pointed out twice now, you regularly post "imo" posts without a shred of evidence or argument ("imo" is not an argument), so it's pretty rich of you to demand them from others.

YAWN!!!!! Where the sky fairy is concerned there is NO evidence to support its existence, so I am quite right in asking AB for it.

[Alan Burns]

But why do you want to do it?

BECAUSE I WANT TO

[Alan Burns]

Yes - you choose what you want to do by weighing up what you want most.

And what drives this weighing up?

[torridon]

BECAUSE I WANT TO

Bolding is no substitute for thinking things through Alan.  There must a reason why a desire forms, otherwise it is random.

[Nearly Sane]

BECAUSE I WANT TO

'Argument' by bold, font size, and paraphrasing Billie Piper! Novel combination with the addition of Billie.