Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

I think what Sriram is suggesting goes beyond the logical framework you mention of 'either....or' and moves to the frame work of 'both....and' i.e. it is both determined and random.  It is determined by a superior intelligence but appears random to a lowly observer.  It becomes more a question of awareness and ignorance.  Yes it does rule out the possibility of free will just as Alan's argument seems to rule out the possibility of 'all is determined by God's will'.  From the Jesus perspective the 'logic' becomes a decision to either follow the desires of 'self' determination or the determination of God.

And since no one has stated that we know everything that might affect us, and since the position is one about the logic and not kniwkedfe, is as already covered, irrelevant to that part of the argument.

[ekim]

And since no one has stated that we know everything that might affect us, and since the position is one about the logic and not kniwkedfe, is as already covered, irrelevant to that part of the argument.

It may be irrelevant to that part of the argument but could be relevant to the topic ''Searching for God".  It is said that God is all knowing,  not all logical.  After all God works in mysterious ways. 

[Nearly Sane]

It may be irrelevant to that part of the argument but could be relevant to the topic ''Searching for God".  It is said that God is all knowing,  not all logical.  After all God works in mysterious ways. 

In what way might it be relevant, since no one has said that determinism is indicative of no god?

[ekim]

In what way might it be relevant, since no one has said that determinism is indicative of no god?

Exactly, this thread has drifted into repetitive cycles of argument about free will and determinism that the original topic has been lost sight of.  If, as suggested, it become more a question of awareness (knowing) and ignorance (not knowing), then how to know God would be relevant to ''Searching for God".

[Nearly Sane]

Exactly, this thread has drifted into repetitive cycles of argument about free will and determinism that the original topic has been lost sight of.  If, as suggested, it become more a question of awareness (knowing) and ignorance (not knowing), then how to know God would be relevant to ''Searching for God".

Except that is nothing to do with Sriram's point in determinism vs random as far as I can see.

[Alan Burns]

In what way might it be relevant, since no one has said that determinism is indicative of no god?

The relevance is that anything which can't be possibly derived from the scientifically defined rules of cause and effect, such as human free will, is evidence for the existence of a means of interaction which is not restricted to uncontrollable, physically defined reactions to previous physical events, but driven by something non physical (ie spiritual) - such as the conscious will of our God given human soul.

[BeRational]

The relevance is that anything which can't be possibly derived from the scientifically defined rules of cause and effect, such as human free will, is evidence for the existence of a means of interaction which is not restricted to uncontrollable, physically defined reactions to previous physical events, but driven by something non physical (ie spiritual) - such as the conscious will of our God given human soul.

How did you confirm that they cannot possibly be derived?
Is this just the ignorance fallacy?

[torridon]

The relevance is that anything which can't be possibly derived from the scientifically defined rules of cause and effect, such as human free will, is evidence for the existence of a means of interaction which is not restricted to uncontrollable, physically defined reactions to previous physical events, but driven by something non physical (ie spiritual) - such as the conscious will of our God given human soul.

Human will is entirely consistent with the principle of cause and effect, this has been explained numerous times on this thread.  I have given various real world examples to illustrate the point, the most recent one in reply #29564 here :

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg738206#msg738206

There is no justification for your assertion that will cannot be derived from cause and effect.  Will, particularly in humans, might be complex, it might be subtle, but it is not magic.  It too plays by the rules of reality.

[Sriram]

Human will is entirely consistent with the principle of cause and effect, this has been explained numerous times on this thread.  I have given various real world examples to illustrate the point, the most recent one in reply #29564 here :

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg738206#msg738206

There is no justification for your assertion that will cannot be derived from cause and effect.  Will, particularly in humans, might be complex, it might be subtle, but it is not magic.  It too plays by the rules of reality.

What do you mean by Magic?  And what are the rules of reality? You think we know and understand all the rules of reality?

[torridon]

What do you mean by Magic?  And what are the rules of reality? You think we know and understand all the rules of reality?

We don't understand all the rules of reality, granted, but that should not licence us to espouse positions that are inherently illogical.  Alan's idea of free will is inherently illogical.

[Sriram]

We don't understand all the rules of reality, granted, but that should not licence us to espouse positions that are inherently illogical.  Alan's idea of free will is inherently illogical.

Logic is the only tool we have but that does not mean the world has to limit itself to our logic.  We use certain microscopes to see certain aspects of reality but that does not mean what we cannot see through microscopes cannot exist. 

Logic is inherently limiting. What is logical about parallel universes existing inches away from us but still being inaccessible to us?  Our logic has to change to fit reality not the other way around.

[Alan Burns]

Human will is entirely consistent with the principle of cause and effect, this has been explained numerous times on this thread.  I have given various real world examples to illustrate the point, the most recent one in reply #29564 here :

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg738206#msg738206

There is no justification for your assertion that will cannot be derived from cause and effect.  Will, particularly in humans, might be complex, it might be subtle, but it is not magic.  It too plays by the rules of reality.

The justification comprises the fact that I have freedom to consciously choose my thoughts words and deeds.  A freedom which can not be derived from within the physically defined rules of material science.  A freedom which no amount of convoluted technical jargon can take away.  A freedom which allows me to consciously choose every letter I type on this keyboard.  A freedom which defines the reality of my existence, because it illuminates the reality of my soul, the source of all that am.

[Maeght]

The justification comprises the fact that I have freedom to consciously choose my thoughts words and deeds.  A freedom which can not be derived from within the physically defined rules of material science.  A freedom which no amount of convoluted technical jargon can take away.  A freedom which allows me to consciously choose every letter I type on this keyboard.  A freedom which defines the reality of my existence.

Well you would say that wouldn't you.

[Alan Burns]

Well you would say that wouldn't you.

Yes, because I have the freedom to say it (and think it).

[Maeght]

Yes, because I have the freedom to say it (and think it).

You believe.

[Alan Burns]

Logic is the only tool we have but that does not mean the world has to limit itself to our logic.  We use certain microscopes to see certain aspects of reality but that does not mean what we cannot see through microscopes cannot exist. 

Logic is inherently limiting. What is logical about parallel universes existing inches away from us but still being inaccessible to us?  Our logic has to change to fit reality not the other way around.

Quite true, Sriram.

We have discovered some aspects of reality using our intelligence and logic.  We may have some bits of the jigsaw of reality in place, but we do not know how many missing pieces there are, and we certainly do not have enough to imagine what the finished picture is like.  So we should have the courage to look beyond the limitations of human scientific discovery and not dismiss the possibility of divine revelation in perceiving the truth behind the reality of our existence.

[Shaker]

Quite true, Sriram.

We have discovered some aspects of reality using our intelligence and logic.  We may have some bits of the jigsaw of reality in place, but we do not know how many missing pieces there are

In which case we have no licence for inventing them out of thin air, do we?

So we should have the courage to look beyond the limitations of human scientific discovery and not dismiss the possibility of divine revelation in perceiving the truth behind the reality of our existence.

There's nothing courageous about irrationalism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which case we have no licence for inventing them out of thin air, do we?
There's nothing courageous about irrationalism.

Tell on

[ippy]

Well you would say that wouldn't you.

I'm pretty sure Douglas Adams had Alan or anyone else like him in mind Maeght, when he wrote these quotes, the first one was as follows:

“Religion... has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever... If someone votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I must [not] move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'I respect that'... Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.”

And there's another quote as follows too: 

Religion has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy really what it means, 'here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not why not?' because you're not!

Fancy our Duggie managed to get inside Alan's head, fancy that both of them directly applicable to him whether he's got someone inside his head at the wheels or not.

Regards ippy

[torridon]

Logic is the only tool we have but that does not mean the world has to limit itself to our logic.  We use certain microscopes to see certain aspects of reality but that does not mean what we cannot see through microscopes cannot exist. 

Logic is inherently limiting. What is logical about parallel universes existing inches away from us but still being inaccessible to us?  Our logic has to change to fit reality not the other way around.

That is very flawed thinking.  It only because things make sense that we accept them (provisionally) as being true.  Logic is not some arbitrary limiter, it is a form of rigour, of discipline, that we can use to protect us from believing stupid or incorrect things.  We all accept two plus two to be equal to four, but we don't abandon international trade and commerce because just possibly one day we might discover some previously hidden realms of reality that would falsify our arithmetic.

[torridon]

The justification comprises the fact that I have freedom to consciously choose my thoughts words and deeds.  A freedom which can not be derived from within the physically defined rules of material science.  A freedom which no amount of convoluted technical jargon can take away.  A freedom which allows me to consciously choose every letter I type on this keyboard.  A freedom which defines the reality of my existence, because it illuminates the reality of my soul, the source of all that am.

Yes but that 'freedom' is deterministic in nature as has been pointed out so many times. We do not have the freedom to choose our desires or to choose our beliefs.  That is not how mind works, and I have taken the trouble to illustrate the point with real world examples if you could only be bothered to read and engage with them.  The functioning of human will is entirely consistent with the principle of cause and effect, this has been explained numerous times on this thread; for instance :

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg738206#msg738206

[Alan Burns]

Yes but that 'freedom' is deterministic in nature as has been pointed out so many times. We do not have the freedom to choose our desires or to choose our beliefs.

But as I have pointed out many times, we do have the freedom to choose how to indulge our desires and the freedom to choose how to honour what we believe in.  And of course our freedom to choose is deterministic - determined by the power of the conscious will of the human soul - not by the uncontrollable consequences derived entirely from the laws of nature determining the physical reactions within our material brains.

[Sriram]

That is very flawed thinking.  It only because things make sense that we accept them (provisionally) as being true.  Logic is not some arbitrary limiter, it is a form of rigour, of discipline, that we can use to protect us from believing stupid or incorrect things.  We all accept two plus two to be equal to four, but we don't abandon international trade and commerce because just possibly one day we might discover some previously hidden realms of reality that would falsify our arithmetic.

You keep saying two plus two equals four is logic.  That is maths. You are making logic sound like some immutable truth.

By definition.....Logic is....

1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation:

3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

Logic is not something out there, a natural law or an integral part of the universe. It is merely our way of understanding things based on our background and knowledge. It is not universal.  Our limitations cannot decide what the universe is. Logic is also dependent on culture and time. What seems logical today need not  be logical tomorrow.

As I said, there is nothing 'logical' about Parallel Universes or about Strings vibrating in eleven dimensions or non local influences between particles across large distances or that we humans seem to be the only living beings in our part of the universe and so on....but these could all be true nevertheless.

[torridon]

But as I have pointed out many times, we do have the freedom to choose how to indulge our desires and the freedom to choose how to honour what we believe in.

No, the same principle applies, you are just not engaging with the concepts involved.  The choice of how to indulge our desires is resolved by identifying the option which has the most appeal and we have no control over how much external things appeal to us.  The choice of how to honour our beliefs is likewise resolved by identifying the option which has the most appeal and we have no control over how much external things appeal to us.  If we could choose how external encounters affected us on what basis could we possibly choose ?  if I stub my toe I don't get to choose whether or not it hurts.  If I look up at the sky, I don't 'decide' to experience it as blue.  Life is not like that, that is not how mind works.  The choice of which piece of fruit to take from the basket is resolved by identifying the one that holds the most appeal and I have no more freedom to force an unappealing item to be appealing than I have to see the sky as green.  This is really not so difficult.

[torridon]

You keep saying two plus two equals four is logic.  That is maths. You are making logic sound like some immutable truth.

By definition.....Logic is....

1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.

2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation:

3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

Logic is not something out there, a natural law or an integral part of the universe. It is merely our way of understanding things based on our background and knowledge. It is not universal.  Our limitations cannot decide what the universe is. Logic is also dependent on culture and time. What seems logical today need not  be logical tomorrow.

As I said, there is nothing 'logical' about Parallel Universes or about Strings vibrating in eleven dimensions or non local influences between particles across large distances or that we humans seem to be the only living beings in our part of the universe and so on....but these could all be true nevertheless.

I think you are mixing up 'logical' with 'intuitive'.  When Aristarchus proposed a heliocentric solar system people would have found it 'illogical', any idiot could look up and see the Sun and all other celestial objects transiting across the sky.  But it wasn't really illogical, it was counter-intuitive. Likewise, it may be that multiverse theory is logical despite it being counter-intuitive to us currently.  To expand our minds, to ditch our mental blocks and grasp the bigger picture, we don't abandon logic, but we do have to be prepared to abandon our intuitions.  There is a difference.