Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Before then, the second coming of Jesus will have occurred and those who chose Him as their Saviour will be in heaven.

Makes no sense; a god that is good would do the best for everyone regardless.  A god that is good but that also practices partisanship, cronyism and arbitrary discrimination is a self contradiction, an oxymoron.  As with many other things, you seem deeply confused about this.

[torridon]

Because the only alternative is a driverless biological machine under the sole control of nothing but the pre determined laws of nature.  And the concepts of such things as purpose, meaning or destiny would not exist within the deterministic functionality of a material brain. We came into existence for much, much more than this.  Does the fact that we can conceive such thoughts not conflict with your materialistic scenario?

There is no reason to suppose there is something magic about thoughts; they are entirely natural.  Likewise nothing supernatural about 'purpose'; open your eyes to the fact that there is nothing magical or mystical about such things, they are all phenomena of nature. A wolf following a herd of bison has a purpose in mind, to identify and bring down one of them.  It doesn't need a wolf soul in order to have purpose.

All these notions of souls and gods are just traditional working concepts to stand in and help people makes sense of their experience of life, and perhaps for most people for most of the time, they are good enough to run with. There are limits to the usefulness of simplistic models though, a more perceptive enquiry requires their dismissal in order for a deeper understanding to emerge.  In his Almagest, Ptolemy came up with a mathematically rigorous description of the movement of the planets; this was good enough for two thousand years, but when we invented telescopes and started to notice small discrepancies in observations that didn't quite fit Ptolemy's geocentric scheme, it has to be abandoned altogether.  Copernicus's heliocentric model, although less intuitive, less simple, described reality more faithfully.

The same principle applies with traditional notions of souls and gods.  Good enough, so long as you don't enquire deeply into the nature of our experience.  For those of us interested in such things, like Copernicus rejecting Ptolemy, we have to abandon simplistic models in order to build an understanding that is more truthful and faithful to observation.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Makes no sense; a god that is good would do the best for everyone regardless.  A god that is good but that also practices partisanship, cronyism and arbitrary discrimination is a self contradiction, an oxymoron.  As with many other things, you seem deeply confused about this.

I don’t know about the different Christian views on this but my interpretation from a Muslim perspective is that a god that is just would require accountability for intentions and actions, and being just is more good than not being just.

 I don’t think there is a view that there is something good about everyone being rewarded equally regardless of their intentions or actions.

[Alan Burns]

There is no reason to suppose there is something magic about thoughts; they are entirely natural.

You can't possibly assume this because there is no physical definition for what comprises a conscious thought.

Likewise nothing supernatural about 'purpose'; open your eyes to the fact that there is nothing magical or mystical about such things, they are all phenomena of nature. A wolf following a herd of bison has a purpose in mind, to identify and bring down one of them.  It doesn't need a wolf soul in order to have purpose.

The concept of purpose only exists in our conscious perception.

[Rhiannon]

I don’t know about the different Christian views on this but my interpretation from a Muslim perspective is that a god that is just would require accountability for intentions and actions, and being just is more good than not being just.

 I don’t think there is a view that there is something good about everyone being rewarded equally regardless of their intentions or actions.

From the Christian perspective it is belief in God and acceptance of Christ that saves. What you have done in life is secondary to that. All sin is sin (from fancying your neighbour to murdering children) but Jesus redeems all sin for those who believe.

I’m not sure what you are taught about the nature of God but Christians are taught that God is all-loving, merciful and just which is why this doesn’t sit well with non believers, and indeed many believers. For example, some (universalists) believe that God’s love is so powerful that even the most evil person is turned good by it when confronted by it at the time of judgement, therefore meaning that all are saved. The judgement itself is seen as the punishment. Others believe that good people get into heaven regardless of their beliefs. But the Bible is quite clear - only acceptance of Jesus saves.

[torridon]

You can't possibly assume this because there is no physical definition for what comprises a conscious thought.The concept of purpose only exists in our conscious perception.

Wrong Alan.  Purpose has nothing to do with perception.  Purpose is higher cognitive function, not perception.  No creature would survive without perception.  All creatures have varying levels of cognitive functioning.  Intentionality in the wolf may not be so rich and varied as in humans but clearly when a wolf is following the herd hoping to bring one down it is exhibiting intentionality at its own level of cognition.  There is no reason to doubt this.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

From the Christian perspective it is belief in God and acceptance of Christ that saves. What you have done in life is secondary to that. All sin is sin (from fancying your neighbour to murdering children) but Jesus redeems all sin for those who believe.

I’m not sure what you are taught about the nature of God but Christians are taught that God is all-loving, merciful and just which is why this doesn’t sit well with non believers, and indeed many believers. For example, some (universalists) believe that God’s love is so powerful that even the most evil person is turned good by it when confronted by it at the time of judgement, therefore meaning that all are saved. The judgement itself is seen as the punishment. Others believe that good people get into heaven regardless of their beliefs. But the Bible is quite clear - only acceptance of Jesus saves.

Presumably that is acceptance of Jesus as god - unless of course the Christian is a non-Trinitarian?

Traditionally Allah is described as having 99 attributes - one of these is Al-Wadud, which can be translated as all-loving but the Quran qualifies this by verses that say Allah loves those who have belief and do good, or who display other intentions/behaviour such as being remorseful, righteous, just, patient, or who trust in God.

Ar-Raheem is believed to be another of the 99 attributes - it means the merciful. And Al-Ghaffar is translated as the forgiving and Al-`Adl is the just.

As far as I can tell the actual judgement part is unknowable but is believed to be just, on the basis that you believe Allah is just. There are translations of what are believed to be sayings of Prophet Mohamed that an atom’s worth of good or an atom’s weight of faith in a person will be taken into account in the judgement.

[ippy]

With thanks to B R, Rob and Seb T, refreshing to know that I'm not the only one.

Keep licking the steam__________

Regards to all ippy

[Alan Burns]

Wrong Alan.  Purpose has nothing to do with perception.  Purpose is higher cognitive function, not perception.  No creature would survive without perception.  All creatures have varying levels of cognitive functioning.  Intentionality in the wolf may not be so rich and varied as in humans but clearly when a wolf is following the herd hoping to bring one down it is exhibiting intentionality at its own level of cognition.  There is no reason to doubt this.

You continue to try to justify your views by quoting other life forms, but have you considered the point of view that any life must be derived from something supernatural rather than natural?  This universe began with no forms of life or conscious awareness, and it will end in a lifeless state.  There is no remit for natural forces to generate life.  And our knowledge of how basic material elements and random forces interact would lead to a logical conclusion that this universe could produce nothing but entropy if left to naturally occurring events.

[Sebastian Toe]

There is no remit for natural forces to generate life. 

There is no remit for natural forces to not generate life.

[SteveH]

Because the only alternative is a driverless biological machine under the soul control of nothing but the pre determined laws of nature.  And the concepts of such things as purpose, meaning or destiny would not exist within the deterministic functionality of a material brain. We came into existence for much, much more than this.  Does the fact that we can conceive such thoughts not conflict with your materialistic scenario?

Argumentum ad consequentium, Alan.

I don't think so. If I understand Alan correctly, he is saying that purpose, meaning and destiny self-evidently exist, so the materialistic scenario is inadequate.

[Robbie]

Yes,that's how I read it.

[Alan Burns]

I don’t know about the different Christian views on this but my interpretation from a Muslim perspective is that a god that is just would require accountability for intentions and actions, and being just is more good than not being just.

 I don’t think there is a view that there is something good about everyone being rewarded equally regardless of their intentions or actions.

I fully agree, Gabriella.  Our earthly life would have no meaning or purpose if there was nothing to aim for or achieve.  And I would not like to share heaven with souls who do not wish to be there.

[Gordon]

Argumentum ad consequentium, Alan.
I don't think so. If I understand Alan correctly, he is saying that purpose, meaning and destiny self-evidently exist, so the materialistic scenario is inadequate.

Seems to me that Alan is saying that he doesn't like the consequences of determinism, which he portrays with his usual hyperbole: 'Because the only alternative is a driverless biological machine under the soul [sic] control of nothing but the pre determined laws of nature., since it doesn't involve the divine element he's so personally committed to.     

[Alan Burns]

Seems to me that Alan is saying that he doesn't like the consequences of determinism, which he portrays with his usual hyperbole: 'Because the only alternative is a driverless biological machine under the soul [sic] control of nothing but the pre determined laws of nature., since it doesn't involve the divine element he's so personally committed to.   

I do not think you fully understand the consequences of physical determinism, Gordon, because it effectively removes any aspect of "personal" and implies that everything is controlled by the unavoidable physical consequences to previous events.  Perhaps it is yourself who does not like the consequences of whatever comprises "you" having freedom to make conscious choices.

[Gordon]

I do not think you fully understand the consequences of physical determinism, Gordon, because it effectively removes any aspect of "personal" and implies that everything is controlled by the unavoidable physical consequences to previous events.

As I said, you are using an argumentum ad consequentium.

Perhaps it is yourself who does not like the consequences of whatever comprises "you" having freedom to make conscious choices.

Not really, since I'm not actually arguing for anything here: I'm just critiquing your approach.

[torridon]

You continue to try to justify your views by quoting other life forms, but have you considered the point of view that any life must be derived from something supernatural rather than natural?  This universe began with no forms of life or conscious awareness, and it will end in a lifeless state.  There is no remit for natural forces to generate life.  And our knowledge of how basic material elements and random forces interact would lead to a logical conclusion that this universe could produce nothing but entropy if left to naturally occurring events.

I'm beginning to think you are just a troll, just asking the same questions over and over again as if they haven't been covered before suggests you are either trolling or you just never bother to read what is written.  Either way is a manifestation of ignorant attitudes.  For the last time, hopefully, the second law of thermodynamics is not the only law of nature. Lets say that again, the second law of thermodynamics is not the only law of nature.  If it were, there would be nothing but hydrogen, but we now know there are dozens of more complex elements in the periodic table giving scope for interactions and configurations of near endless complexity and diversity.  Quantum fields give rise to space and time and matter in the form of fundamental particles, which in turn gives rise to the phenomena of chemistry, chemical evolution over time gives rise to complex carbon rich biochemistry which leads eventually to biology and wolves using conscious perception to identify prey.  All this happens against the entropy gradient, yes, but the entropy gradient is a slow background process and there is time for pockets of complexity to arise and disappear in the short term.

[torridon]

I do not think you fully understand the consequences of physical determinism, Gordon, because it effectively removes any aspect of "personal" and implies that everything is controlled by the unavoidable physical consequences to previous events.  Perhaps it is yourself who does not like the consequences of whatever comprises "you" having freedom to make conscious choices.

You're trolling here again. Stranger alone must have explained to you a hundred times why this is wrong.  There is no physical determinism, there is determinism, the 'physical' adds nothing of value.  It just means, broadly speaking, that things happen for a reason, not just physical things, just things happen for a reason, events have consequences, things are interconnected. 

Also, as Stranger also pointed out a hundred times, determinism does not rule out 'personal'.  My sense of being me is entirely consistent with the understanding that there are reasons why I am the way I am and that is not something to deplore; the alternative would be that there are no reasons why I am personally the way I am and if this were the case, nothing would have any meaning, everything would be random, having no reason.

[Alan Burns]

You're trolling here again. Stranger alone must have explained to you a hundred times why this is wrong.  There is no physical determinism, there is determinism, the 'physical' adds nothing of value.  It just means, broadly speaking, that things happen for a reason, not just physical things, just things happen for a reason, events have consequences, things are interconnected. 

Also, as Stranger also pointed out a hundred times, determinism does not rule out 'personal'.  My sense of being me is entirely consistent with the understanding that there are reasons why I am the way I am and that is not something to deplore; the alternative would be that there are no reasons why I am personally the way I am and if this were the case, nothing would have any meaning, everything would be random, having no reason.

And I have pointed out numerous times to stranger that there is a fundamental difference between physically determined events and spiritually determined events.  Both yourself and stranger refuse to accept that there can be a difference and insist that spiritual determinism must follow the same "cause and effect" rules as physical determinism.  But in this I am quite certain that you do not comprehend the nature of human will, which emanates from our real time conscious awareness, not from the endless chains of past events.  No doubt you will continue to be under the illusion that everything we do, think and say is absolutely pre determined, but this is not the reality we live in. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

I don't think so. If I understand Alan correctly, he is saying that purpose, meaning and destiny self-evidently exist, so the materialistic scenario is inadequate.

No, he attempted a bog standard, common-or-garden argumentum ad consequentiam – one of his favourite fallacies. That he also made a mistake about what those consequences would supposedly be is a separate, and subsidiary matter.

The argumentum ad consequentiam structure is, “If X then Y, therefore X is wrong” when Y is an outcome the proponent doesn’t like. Hence AB’s: “Because the only alternative is a driverless biological machine under the sole control of nothing but the pre determined laws of nature”. He doesn’t like this (supposed) outcome, so (in his head) the proposition (ie, determinism) can’t be true.

He then proceeds to misinform us about what those consequences would be (“And the concepts of such things as purpose, meaning or destiny would not exist within the deterministic functionality of a material brain”) which is palpably nonsense, but its nonsensicality is a secondary and subsidiary matter to the basic argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy he attempted.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And I have pointed out numerous times to stranger that there is a fundamental difference between physically determined events and spiritually determined events.

Wrong again. You haven’t “pointed out” at all, you’ve asserted. If you want to discuss “spiritually determined events” as you call them, then you have all your work ahead of your first to define what you mean by the term and second to demonstrate that they exist at all.

Both yourself and stranger refuse to accept that there can be a difference and insist that spiritual determinism must follow the same "cause and effect" rules as physical determinism.

That’s completely untrue. So far as I’m aware, they (and I) don’t consider your notion of “spiritually determined events” as anything other than white noise. Rightly so until you actually manage to define and demonstrate their existence at all. Only if you could ever do that would questions about cause and effect be relevant and yes, you would then have to come up with something more substantive than "it's magic innit" to explain away the cause and effect vs random problem. 

But in this I am quite certain…

Oh dear…

… that you do not comprehend the nature of human will, which emanates from our real time conscious awareness, not from the endless chains of past events.  No doubt you will continue to be under the illusion that everything we do, think and say is absolutely pre determined, but this is not the reality we live in.

Then your certainty is almost certainly misplaced as you’ve just thrown assertions of personal faith at the reasoning that falsifies your attempts at argument. Sadly (for you) however assertions of personal faith convictions are epistemically worthless, so by relying on them you exit yourself necessarily from any meaningful discussion here.

[torridon]

And I have pointed out numerous times to stranger that there is a fundamental difference between physically determined events and spiritually determined events.  Both yourself and stranger refuse to accept that there can be a difference and insist that spiritual determinism must follow the same "cause and effect" rules as physical determinism.  But in this I am quite certain that you do not comprehend the nature of human will, which emanates from our real time conscious awareness, not from the endless chains of past events.  No doubt you will continue to be under the illusion that everything we do, think and say is absolutely pre determined, but this is not the reality we live in.

More of your obdurate nonsense.  There is no such thing as 'spiritual determinism' you are just making stuff up.  So this spiritual determinism is a form of determinism that isn't, errm, well, deterministic is it ?  By playing such word and concept games you only fool yourself.  No doubt if you don't like that fact that two plus two adds up to four, you will just invent 'spiritual arithmetic' in which two plus two can conveniently add up to anything you bloody well like.  You cannot go around inventing fatuous facts and nonsense principles out of thin air just to suit your agenda.  Better surely, to look at life squarely, and deal with it honestly, try to understand it honestly without recourse to such endless head games.

[Alan Burns]

I'm beginning to think you are just a troll, just asking the same questions over and over again as if they haven't been covered before suggests you are either trolling or you just never bother to read what is written.  Either way is a manifestation of ignorant attitudes.  For the last time, hopefully, the second law of thermodynamics is not the only law of nature. Lets say that again, the second law of thermodynamics is not the only law of nature.  If it were, there would be nothing but hydrogen, but we now know there are dozens of more complex elements in the periodic table giving scope for interactions and configurations of near endless complexity and diversity.  Quantum fields give rise to space and time and matter in the form of fundamental particles, which in turn gives rise to the phenomena of chemistry, chemical evolution over time gives rise to complex carbon rich biochemistry which leads eventually to biology and wolves using conscious perception to identify prey.  All this happens against the entropy gradient, yes, but the entropy gradient is a slow background process and there is time for pockets of complexity to arise and disappear in the short term.

I perceive two types of complexity.  There is the naturally produced complexity which we see in chemical compounds which is prevalent throughout the known universe and which have no specific functionality in its own right.  And there is the very specific complexity which we see in the life forms on this earth.  I know you will claim that both types of complexity are naturally produced, but I look upon the latter as an amazing example of God's creative power which has nurtured life into existence over many millions of years.

[Alan Burns]

More of your obdurate nonsense.  There is no such thing as 'spiritual determinism' you are just making stuff up.  So this spiritual determinism is a form of determinism that isn't, errm, well, deterministic is it ?  By playing such word and concept games you only fool yourself.  No doubt if you don't like that fact that two plus two adds up to four, you will just invent 'spiritual arithmetic' in which two plus two can conveniently add up to anything you bloody well like.  You cannot go around inventing fatuous facts and nonsense principles out of thin air just to suit your agenda.  Better surely, to look at life squarely, and deal with it honestly, try to understand it honestly without recourse to such endless head games.

What I am saying is that our conscious choices are determined (not pre determined) by our conscious will.  This is the reality which I and presumably the vast majority of the human population perceive.  If our choices are entirely pre determined by past events, they are not choices, but unavoidable reactions.  I know you keep insisting that this is what the available scientific evidence points to, but it does not reflect reality.  If you look at the evidence of human behaviour throughout history, it all points to the truth that we are free to make conscious choices which are not entirely pre determined by past events.  To try to deny this truth in order to fit in with limited human scientific knowledge is short sighted and dangerous, because it effectively exonerates any personal wrong doing by allowing anyone to claim that their actions could not possibly have been avoided.  The only feasible explanation for our freedom to make conscious choices lies in the power of our God given soul to interact with our physical brains to facilitate real choice rather than pre determined reaction.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I perceive two types of complexity.  There is the naturally produced complexity which we see in chemical compounds which is prevalent throughout the known universe and which have no specific functionality in its own right.  And there is the very specific complexity which we see in the life forms on this earth.  I know you will claim that both types of complexity are naturally produced, but I look upon the latter as an amazing example of God's creative power which has nurtured life into existence over many millions of years.

Torri doesn’t “claim” it Alan, the evidence does. And what you “look upon” is just another assertion of your personal faith belief – fine for you if you’re persuaded by that sort of thing, but epistemically worthless for anyone else. 

What I am saying is that our conscious choices are determined (not pre determined) by our conscious will.  This is the reality which I and presumably the vast majority of the human population perceive.

Perhaps the vast majority of the human population does perceive that but it’s still nonsense for reasons that have been explained to you countless times and that you either ignore or misrepresent in response.

Oh, and you’ve just tried the ad pop fallacy again. Why?

If…

…And now you’re about to collapse into the argmentum ad consequentiam fallacy again, probably reinforced with a gross misstatement of what the consequences would be in any case.

…our choices are entirely pre determined by past events, they are not choices, but unavoidable reactions.

Bingo!

I know you keep insisting that this is what the available scientific evidence points to, but it does not reflect reality.

At what point should we conclude that you’re actively lying now do you suppose Alan? It may not reflect your reality, but it sure reflects a reality built on much stronger foundations than your personal incredulity and attendant assertions, namely reason and evidence.
 

If you look at the evidence of human behaviour throughout history, it all points to the truth that we are free to make conscious choices which are not entirely pre determined by past events.

It points to an apparent truth Alan, but there’s a deeper underlying truth if only you’d open your eyes and mind to see it.

To try to deny this truth in order to fit in with limited human scientific knowledge…

Ooh, the fallacy of pejorative language. Been a while since you tried that one. So what makes you think your faith-based “knowledge” is less “limited” than the knowledge obtained from reason and evidence exactly?

…is short sighted and dangerous…

Such a pity you have no grasp of irony.

…because it effectively exonerates any personal wrong doing by allowing anyone to claim that their actions could not possibly have been avoided.

And now the argumentum ad consequentiam underpinned by a false statement of the undesirable consequence again. Do you not at least have some different very bad arguments to bring to the table, just for light relief after the endless repetition of your favourite half dozen or so?   

The only feasible explanation for our freedom to make conscious choices lies in the power of our God given soul to interact with our physical brains to facilitate real choice rather than pre determined reaction.

Spectacular bollocks. Again. If you seriously think that the “only feasible explanation” is a personal faith claim for which you have no definition, no explanation, no reasoned argument and no evidence of any kind then you’re even more lost to “the truth” as you put it than I suspected.

And that's very, very lost indeed.