Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

Yep. Nothing like a closed mind ...

Actually AB's mind is entirely closed and the key has long since been thrown away - he's quite proud of telling us how closed it is in fact. We sceptics on the other hand value our open minds - if ever someone could manage an argument for "god" that isn't hopeless we'd have no choice but to change our minds on the subject.

Ironic innit?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

The quotes don't help your case, Alan, since while these scientists recognise that knowledge is incomplete it isn't suggested in the quotes that 'souls' are therefore a possibility (since if they had said that I suspect you'd have mentioned it).

This is just more 'god of the gaps' silliness on your part.

Not only factually incorrect, but demonstrates, "We don't know what caused it, but know it wasn't God" silliness on your part. That's a logical contradiction by the way.

Perhaps time to change your worldview to something that is actually falsifiable?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

SotS,

Actually AB's mind is entirely closed and the key has long since been thrown away - he's quite proud of telling us how closed it is in fact. We sceptics on the other hand value our open minds - if ever someone could manage an argument for "god" that isn't hopeless we'd have no choice but to change our minds on the subject.

Which is just an excellent illustration of your approach of asking religious believers to do the equivalent of "swim from A to B, but you are not allowed to use a swimming stroke"

You claim that you have an open mind, but are not prepared to consider that your approach is flawed. As such, you demonstrate exactly the same traits that you are criticizing Alan Burns (& Gabriella) for. Ironic, isn't it?

Your approach, "if ever someone could manage an argument for "god" that isn't hopeless we'd have no choice but to change our minds on the subject" is subjective, not objective. Who defines what hopeless is?

Your approach, "if ever someone could manage an argument for "god" that isn't hopeless we'd have no choice but to change our minds on the subject" is not based on properties of truth. There is no attempt to find the truth (or otherwise) of the matter.

Your approach, "if ever someone could manage an argument for "god" that isn't hopeless we'd have no choice but to change our minds on the subject" can never be met because your entire philosophy assumes natural causes and explanations for any evidence under consideration. Another reason why you have no choice but to request things, while simultaneously denying the person the ability to meet the request.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

You're wrong (again) on all counts.

Not only factually incorrect, but demonstrates, "We don't know what caused it, but know it wasn't God" silliness on your part. That's a logical contradiction by the way.

Actually it’s a double fail on yours.

First if we take the conjecture “god” seriously just for a minute no-one says that in any case, so it’s straw man. That doesn’t help you though – no-one says it about Poseidon or Thor either.

Second, it can’t be “god” epistemically in any case because the proposition isn’t truth apt – it’s just white noise. If you want to win the lottery in other words you have first to buy a ticket, and “the ticket” in this case would be a coherent explanation of the term “god”. Good luck with it though.   

Perhaps time to change your worldview to something that is actually falsifiable?

And he finishes with shifting the burden of proof. You define something in a way that falsification apt rather than just white noise and we’ll falsify it for you. Deal?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

You do know that nowadays the scientific method is a "mashup" as you put it of reason and evidence right?

How so?

It is reasonable that the sun goes round the Earth, but also that the earth goes round the sun because the observed effect is the same but science opts for one and not the other because of evidence.

There may be several reasonable theories only one of which becomes scientific knowledge and therefore Hillside you have been found lacking equating scientific knowledge with your confection of reason and evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SotS,

Which is just an excellent illustration of your approach of asking religious believers to do the equivalent of "swim from A to B, but you are not allowed to use a swimming stroke"

You’ve been schooled on this mistake several times already, so why repeat it? You can “swim” from A to B any way you like. Your problem though is to find a method of doing it that doesn’t work for any other conjecture that comes into someone else's head. If your argument for your “god” works equally for my leprechauns it’s probably a bad argument remember?

You claim that you have an open mind, but are not prepared to consider that your approach is flawed. As such, you demonstrate exactly the same traits that you are criticizing Alan Burns (& Gabriella) for. Ironic, isn't it?

Of course I’ll consider it. So far though, no-one has come up with a reason to think it is flawed. By all means give it a go though.

Your approach, "if ever someone could manage an argument for "god" that isn't hopeless we'd have no choice but to change our minds on the subject" is subjective, not objective. Who defines what hopeless is?

Logic. What do you propose to use instead?

Your approach, "if ever someone could manage an argument for "god" that isn't hopeless we'd have no choice but to change our minds on the subject" is not based on properties of truth. There is no attempt to find the truth (or otherwise) of the matter.

Oh dear. And your definition of “properties of truth” would be what exactly? Why not (finally) tell us that and then we can consider your argument?

Your approach, "if ever someone could manage an argument for "god" that isn't hopeless we'd have no choice but to change our minds on the subject" can never be met because your entire philosophy assumes natural causes and explanations for any evidence under consideration.

Wrong again. Yes, I assume naturalism/materialism axiomatically because – so far at least – that’s the only assumption that’s amenable to testing the claims it makes. If you think you’re the first person ever to come up with a means to test the claim “god” though, by all means share it here.

Another reason why you have no choice but to request things, while simultaneously denying the person the ability to meet the request.

So you’ve crashed and burned again. All I actually ask is exactly the same thing you'd ask if, say I asserted leprechauns to be a truth for you too. You (presumably) would ask for arguments to justify my claim, and you’d reject them when they were false. I merely do exactly the same thing in response to your claim “god”.

It’s not difficult stuff Swordy, it really isn’t.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

How so?

FFS! What the hell do you think the scientific method is if not a combination of reason and evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

FFS! What the hell do you think the scientific method is if not a combination of reason and evidence?

See my addition to previous post we weren't talking about the scientific method...you were talking about scientific knowledge. Bad luck Old Son.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

See my addition to previous post we weren't talking about the scientific method...you were talking about scientific knowledge. Bad luck Old Son.

Jeez, when you crash you crash hard don't you. "Science" means both a method and a body of information. Together they're called "knowledge". Thus I used "scientific knowledge" when detonating AB's god of the gaps effort as a shorthand for "reason + evidence-based". You then went entirely off the deep end by telling me something I knew anyway and irrelevant, namely that what we now call "science" is an amalgam of different historical traditions. You also threw in some stupidities and straw men just for good measure.

God only know where you even think you're going with this but it's weird stuff even by your standards.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Jeez, when you crash you crash hard don't you. "Science" means both a method and a body of information. Together they're called "knowledge". Thus I used "scientific knowledge" when detonating AB's god of the gaps effort as a shorthand for "reason + evidence-based". You then went entirely off the deep end by telling me something I knew anyway and irrelevant, namely that what we now call "science" is an amalgam of different historical traditions. You also threw in some stupidities and straw men just for good measure.

God only know where you even think you're going with this but it's weird stuff even by your standards.

Stop bullshitting.
You were sloppy with your use of language and have suffered humiliation. Live with it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Stop bullshitting.
You were sloppy with your use of language and have suffered humiliation. Live with it.

Oh the irony! The sloppiness here is all yours you melt because you didn't know the difference between "information" (essentially data) and "knowledge" (information plus a method to justify a belief) and then, hilariously, you presumed to "correct" me by using your fundamental ignorance as your weapon of choice.

I thought it a kindness not to point out your humiliation, but as you've brought the term up, well, you know, I suggest you suck it up, lick your wounds and move on.

Nurse! Savlon for Mr Vladdo please! Nurse!!!

[SusanDoris]

Yep. Nothing like a closed mind ...

Do you think you have an open mind? If so, to what ideas would it be open?  would those ideas include any alternative to the god you believe in and, presumably,  believe exists?

By the way, I see that bluehillside has comprehensively responded to your posts.

[torridon]

In your phrase "reaction to perception is not perception" you are illustrating why you are getting the concept of perception wrong.  Our sensory organs do not perceive anything - they just react to light waves or sound waves and transmit this reaction which causes further reaction - it is just "cause and effect" all the way without any perception.  All we see in biology is physical reaction.  You need a conscious entity of awareness to enable perception.

Those are all parts of the overall system of perception, sense organs, cortical structures, consciousness.  As I've pointed out before, perception without consciousness is a thing, it is called subconscious perception.  When you are sleepwalking, that is subconscious perception that allows you to get around.  This is why it is a reasonable assumption that fully conscious perception is the norm throughout all higher animals.  Most creatures depend utterly on perception for their very survival, far more than humans, who can survive debilitating perceptual deficits like blindness, with care.

[Gordon]

Which is just an excellent illustration of your approach of asking religious believers to do the equivalent of "swim from A to B, but you are not allowed to use a swimming stroke"

You claim that you have an open mind, but are not prepared to consider that your approach is flawed. As such, you demonstrate exactly the same traits that you are criticizing Alan Burns (& Gabriella) for. Ironic, isn't it?

Your approach, "if ever someone could manage an argument for "god" that isn't hopeless we'd have no choice but to change our minds on the subject" is subjective, not objective. Who defines what hopeless is?

Your approach, "if ever someone could manage an argument for "god" that isn't hopeless we'd have no choice but to change our minds on the subject" is not based on properties of truth. There is no attempt to find the truth (or otherwise) of the matter.

Your approach, "if ever someone could manage an argument for "god" that isn't hopeless we'd have no choice but to change our minds on the subject" can never be met because your entire philosophy assumes natural causes and explanations for any evidence under consideration. Another reason why you have no choice but to request things, while simultaneously denying the person the ability to meet the request.

Leaving aside the various problems in what you say in the above quote, I'm reminded that I asked you to clarify what these 'properties of truth' are: any chance of a reply? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Oh the irony! The sloppiness here is all yours you melt because you didn't know the difference between "information" (essentially data) and "knowledge" (information plus a method to justify a belief) and then, hilariously, you presumed to "correct" me by using your fundamental ignorance as your weapon of choice.

I thought it a kindness not to point out your humiliation, but as you've brought the term up, well, you know, I suggest you suck it up, lick your wounds and move on.

Nurse! Savlon for Mr Vladdo please! Nurse!!!

Scientific knowledge is knowledge gained after application of the scientific method Hillside. Bad luck Old son.
The application of reason could give an answer completely different to findings.

Hillside crashes and burns. Ha Ha.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

if ever someone could manage an argument for "god" that isn't hopeless we'd have no choice but to change our minds on the subject.

You have more than adequately demonstrated the verbal gymnastics and turdpolishing necessary to oppose the apparent.

A fine example being arguing that an intelligent creator of the universe is not the same as an intelligent creator of the universe and that PZ Myers who patently accuses De Grasse Tyson of an Intelligent design hypothesis of not accusing De Grasse Tyson of an intelligent design hypothesis.

As for this piece of rose tinted sentiment

'' if ever someone could manage an argument for "god" that isn't hopeless we'd have no choice but to change our minds on the subject.''

You must think us naïve to think there aren't folks who argue against even the blindingly obvious in order to get themselves of the hook, protect their own ego's or someone elses or even turdpolish for pleasure or profit.

[Alan Burns]

By the way, I see that bluehillside has comprehensively responded to your posts.

Yes, he will always use the freedom given to him by the power of his human soul to think up ways of denying its existence.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, he will always use the freedom given to him by the power of his human soul to think up ways of denying its existence.

This is you accusing all of those who disagree with the existence of the soul as lying. As I have pointed out you do this sort of thing frequently.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Scientific knowledge is knowledge gained after application of the scientific method Hillside. Bad luck Old son.
The application of reason could give an answer completely different to findings.

Hillside crashes and burns. Ha Ha.

Vladdo claims the equivalent of 2+2=5. Vladdo has his position falsified. Vladdo claims his “victory”. Weird.

Just so you can see (though presumably will never acknowledge) where you’ve gone wrong, “the scientific method” is “the application of reason”, and what it’s applied to is evidence. And what does that produce? Go on, you can say it - it's ok...yes, that's right, it produces knowledge doesn't it.   

What the hell do you think a method is if not a logical procedure - just something you can pick up fully formed like a rock or a buttercup?

Your big mistake here by the way was misreading or misunderstanding where I’d written “scientific knowledge” as if I’d actually said “information”. Your various ensuing mistakes sprang from there.

Good news though – I’ve had an extra large shipment of Savlon brought in for you so, you know, I reckon it’ll only be six months or so no before the pain subsides.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

You have more than adequately demonstrated the verbal gymnastics and turdpolishing necessary to oppose the apparent.

Vladdo starts the fallacy of pejorative language…

A fine example being arguing that an intelligent creator of the universe is not the same as an intelligent creator of the universe and that PZ Myers who patently accuses De Grasse Tyson of an Intelligent design hypothesis of not accusing De Grasse Tyson of an intelligent design hypothesis.

Moves swiftly on to flat out revisionism – presumably hoping that no-one will remember that the exact quotes from each source that invalidate his claim were given to him on various occasions. 

As for this piece of rose tinted sentiment

'' if ever someone could manage an argument for "god" that isn't hopeless we'd have no choice but to change our minds on the subject.''

You must think us naïve to think there aren't folks who argue against even the blindingly obvious in order to get themselves of the hook, protect their own ego's or someone elses or even turdpolish for pleasure or profit.

And finishes with a piece of unknowable irrelevance. There may or may not be such “folks”. What’s actually relevant here though is that such behaviour even if it existed would be unnecessary for atheism when all that is necessary for it is to identify the logical errors in the arguments attempted by theists to validate their faith claims.   

It’s simple enough, even for you I’d have thought.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes, he will always use the freedom given to him by the power of his human soul to think up ways of denying its existence.

Or alternatively, “he” will always use his entirely naturalistic ability to reason to identify that the arguments you attempt to demonstrate this supposed “human soul” in the first place are hopeless, and so there’s no good reason for anyone possessed of a functioning intellect to think it exists at all.

In logic by the way what you did there was to assume your premise – though as you seem to be indifferent to logic while simultaneously attempting very broken versions of it presumably you won’t care about that.

[Alan Burns]

This is you accusing all of those who disagree with the existence of the soul as lying. As I have pointed out you do this sort of thing frequently.

I am just trying to point out the paradox that they have the consciously driven freedom to think of ways to support their chosen point of view, yet in other posts this consciously driven freedom is denied due to the physically pre determined chains of cause and effect which govern the behaviour of the material elements in their brains. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am just trying to point out the paradox that they have the consciously driven freedom to think of ways to support their chosen point of view, yet in other posts this consciously driven freedom is denied due to the physically pre determined chains of cause and effect which govern the behaviour of the material elements in their brains.

That’s not a paradox, it’s just your failure or refusal to understand simple logic.

[Nearly Sane]

I am just trying to point out the paradox that they have the consciously driven freedom to think of ways to support their chosen point of view, yet in other posts this consciously driven freedom is denied due to the physically pre determined chains of cause and effect which govern the behaviour of the material elements in their brains.

This is a non sequitur to you accusing people of lying. You then put a begging the question in by saying people have a consciously driven freedom, a freedom that you have been unable to define in any logical way, and then you use the word 'physical' unnecessarily sine the logic applies rather than any physicalism and your alternative 'spiritual' has not been defined by you in any logically coherent fashion. 

[Alan Burns]

Those are all parts of the overall system of perception, sense organs, cortical structures, consciousness.  As I've pointed out before, perception without consciousness is a thing, it is called subconscious perception.  When you are sleepwalking, that is subconscious perception that allows you to get around.  This is why it is a reasonable assumption that fully conscious perception is the norm throughout all higher animals.  Most creatures depend utterly on perception for their very survival, far more than humans, who can survive debilitating perceptual deficits like blindness, with care.

What you call sub conscious perception can be nothing more that physically induced reactions to sensory data.  And sleepwalking is a good illustration of how biological machines can function without the need for conscious perception.