Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

I believe in the power of prayer.
So I will pray for your conversion, Susan.

I'll talk to a doorknob.

Expect the same result.

[Sebastian Toe]

Come up with one and we would have to see.

Would you believe an explanation for something which you know is impossible?

[Sebastian Toe]

I believe in the power of prayer.
So I will pray for your conversion, Susan.

And if Susan does not want to be converted.....?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Would you believe an explanation for something which you know is impossible?

I suppose not.
 However I see alan's statements more as commentary on the faith of antitheists here to resort to ''you put enough matter together then you get intelligence and then do a bit of fiddle faddle with intelligence and then bob's your uncle you've got consciousness!''

[BeRational]

I suppose not.
 However I see alan's statements more as commentary on the faith of antitheists here to resort to ''you put enough matter together then you get intelligence and then do a bit of fiddle faddle with intelligence and then bob's your uncle you've got consciousness!''

I do not have faith.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I do not have faith.

Maybe.....but I have noticed a bit of fiddle faddle.

[Stranger]

How can I be terrified by something which I know is impossible?

If you're not afraid, why do you keep ignoring or evading the logic that shows that choices can't be non-deterministic ("pre determined" as you seem to want to call it) and non-random? See #29963 and #29948 as well as multiple other instances earlier in the thread.

[SusanDoris]

I believe in the power of prayer.
So I will pray for your conversion, Susan.

did you give yourself a pat on the back for thinking up what I can only assume you think to be a clever reply?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I suppose not.
 However I see alan's statements more as commentary on the faith of antitheists here to resort to ''you put enough matter together then you get intelligence and then do a bit of fiddle faddle with intelligence and then bob's your uncle you've got consciousness!''

Such faith, especially when basic observations(*1) from Physics and Chemistry falsify it.

(*1) observations available to anyone on the planet. No degree needed and no need to wait millions of years! 

[BeRational]

Maybe.....but I have noticed a bit of fiddle faddle.

Not sure what that is, so I assume I do not have that either.

I do not think anyone should ever have faith.

Faith in the sense of believing something without sufficient evidence. To do so is crazy.

[torridon]

Such faith, especially when basic observations(*1) from Physics and Chemistry falsify it.

(*1) observations available to anyone on the planet. No degree needed and no need to wait millions of years! 

NPF

[Stranger]

Such faith, especially when basic observations(*1) from Physics and Chemistry falsify it.

(*1) observations available to anyone on the planet. No degree needed and no need to wait millions of years! 

Such as....?

[Shaker]

I was just wondering that too ...

[Stranger]

However I see alan's statements more as commentary on the faith of antitheists here to resort to ''you put enough matter together then you get intelligence and then do a bit of fiddle faddle with intelligence and then bob's your uncle you've got consciousness!''

Firstly there is no faith needed to think that consciousness is most probably produced by brains - the evidence is plentiful even if we don't know exactly how it works.

Secondly, Alan is not only insisting in a non-physical explanation for consciousness, he's insisting that it is able to do the logically impossible and make choices in a non-deterministic way without involving randomness.

Thirdly, he is doing so using a large collection of obvious fallacies while insisting he is using logic and employing obvious evasion when the logic that undoes his position gets too obvious for him.

So no, it's not a "commentary on on the faith of antitheists".

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

NPF

on the contrary, it just means that you are holding to a hypothesis that doesn't stand up to scrutiny by your own scientific standards, e.g. is falsifiable.

On the one hand, you want to hold to a hypothesis that should be falsifiable, yet when something comes along that invalidates it, the best you can come up with is the NPF?

[SusanDoris]

I was just wondering that too ...

My first thought too! He'll probably run away again though... ...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly there is no faith needed to think that consciousness is most probably produced by brains - the evidence is plentiful even if we don't know exactly how it works.

So then all you have to do is come up with a satisfactory explanation for consciousness rather than a) explain it away b) make logical leaps based on materialist philosophy.

[Stranger]

on the contrary, it just means that you are holding to a hypothesis that doesn't stand up to scrutiny by your own scientific standards, e.g. is falsifiable.

You just said it had been falsified by "basic observations from Physics and Chemistry" - it can't be unfalsifiable and falsified. What is the hypothesis you are referring to?

On the one hand, you want to hold to a hypothesis that should be falsifiable, yet when something comes along that invalidates it, the best you can come up with is the NPF?

What has come up that invalidates what?

[Stranger]

So then all you have to do is come up with a satisfactory explanation for consciousness...

Why?

...rather than a) explain it away b) make logical leaps based on materialist philosophy.

Where have I done either?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Such as....?

I was just wondering that too ...

The pertinent post again:

However I see alan's statements more as commentary on the faith of antitheists here to resort to ''you put enough matter together then you get intelligence and then do a bit of fiddle faddle with intelligence and then bob's your uncle you've got consciousness!''

The problem some here will always have is how to get something from nothing?

On the subject of intelligence from non-intelligence/consciousness from non-consciousness, the ability to do so isn't inherent within the system (Biology). It doesn't come at an expense of another part of the system (Chemistry/Physics). It doesn't come about by any kind of work being done, or external input (Physics). Therefore what you are proposing violates at least three areas, if you are going to hold to natural causes being responsible, because what is being proposed is not consistent with what can be observed, demonstrated or proved.

[BeRational]

The pertinent post again:
The problem some here will always have is how to get something from nothing?

On the subject of intelligence from non-intelligence/consciousness from non-consciousness, the ability to do so isn't inherent within the system (Biology). It doesn't come at an expense of another part of the system (Chemistry/Physics). It doesn't come about by any kind of work being done, or external input (Physics). Therefore what you are proposing violates at least three areas, if you are going to hold to natural causes being responsible, because what is being proposed is not consistent with what can be observed, demonstrated or proved.

Is your god intelligent?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why?

Because that is the nature of discovery. If you think it's not possible or desireable to explain consciousness that's fine and you follow the mystery line. Otherwise an explanation which is adequate is in order.

[Alan Burns]

And if Susan does not want to be converted.....?

It is her choice.
We all have free will.

[BeRational]

It is her choice.
We all have free will.

Did god tell you to post that answer?

If not, can you ask him what he would like you to post, because if your god does exist, he will probably not like what you have posted to date!

[Stranger]

On the subject of intelligence from non-intelligence/consciousness from non-consciousness, the ability to do so isn't inherent within the system (Biology). It doesn't come at an expense of another part of the system (Chemistry/Physics). It doesn't come about by any kind of work being done, or external input (Physics). Therefore what you are proposing violates at least three areas, if you are going to hold to natural causes being responsible, because what is being proposed is not consistent with what can be observed, demonstrated or proved.

Scientifically illiterate gobbledygook.

The conclusion that brains produce consciousness is a direct result of observation. The rest of what you said is too confused to comment on - it's not even wrong, just devoid of meaning.