Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

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.

I am disputing the postulated logic which denies the reality that we have freedom of choice.

[Stranger]

I am disputing the postulated logic which denies the reality that we have freedom of choice.

Firstly, it doesn't dispute that you have freedom to choose and secondly, you're not disputing it, you're ignoring it - that was my point. You never even try to say what's wrong with it.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

You just said it had been falsified by "basic observations from Physics and Chemistry"

Indeed.

it can't be unfalsifiable and falsified.

If someone has a hypothesis, it should be falsifiable. However when the things that falsify it are thrown out using philosophical arguments such as the NPF, argument from incredulity, etc., then the net affect is that the hypothesis is to all intents and purposes, unfalsifable.

Another example of the above is the kind of atheism implemented by some on this forum. It is not merely an absence of belief, otherwise those holding such views (particularly those who have clocked up years posting on forums) would be able to state what would falsify (i.e. change) their position. It, on the one hand wants to maintain a positive stance, while giving the appearance of being something completely different.

What is the hypothesis you are referring to?

That consciousness can come from non-consciousness (or intelligence from non-intelligence)

[Shaker]

Scientifically illiterate gobbledygook.

It was never going to be otherwise, let's face it.

[Stranger]

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.

It's been worked on. You're implication was that you wanted me to explain it now instead of doing the other stuff you falsely accused me of.

[torridon]

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.

So everything was created by an invisible being with special powers and he created things unintelligent and unconscious so that he therefore had to use his powers to elicit intelligence from unintelligence and consciousness from unconsciousness ?  All the while we also have to not ask questions as to where this invisible being got its intelligence and its consciousness from.

Rather you than me, mate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

The trouble is are the observations of consciousness or the parts of the brain that do all functions prior to a person being conscious of them?....something frequently suggested here.

[torridon]

Indeed.
If someone has a hypothesis, it should be falsifiable. However when the things that falsify it are thrown out using philosophical arguments such as the NPF, argument from incredulity, etc., then the net affect is that the hypothesis is to all intents and purposes, unfalsifable.

Another example of the above is the kind of atheism implemented by some on this forum. It is not merely an absence of belief, otherwise those holding such views (particularly those who have clocked up years posting on forums) would be able to state what would falsify (i.e. change) their position. It, on the one hand wants to maintain a positive stance, while giving the appearance of being something completely different.
That consciousness can come from non-consciousness (or intelligence from non-intelligence)

Back to front thinking.  The claim of God is the positive claim that needs justification.  It's not up to people who don't share that belief to justify why they don't share it.  Show some convincing evidence for your claim is all that is required.

[Stranger]

If someone has a hypothesis, it should be falsifiable. However when the things that falsify it are thrown out using philosophical arguments such as the NPF, argument from incredulity, etc., then the net affect is that the hypothesis is to all intents and purposes, unfalsifable.

This refers to things that haven't happened and is anyway a non-sequitur.

Another example of the above is the kind of atheism implemented by some on this forum. It is not merely an absence of belief, otherwise those holding such views (particularly those who have clocked up years posting on forums) would be able to state what would falsify (i.e. change) their position. It, on the one hand wants to maintain a positive stance, while giving the appearance of being something completely different.

Are you capable of writing anything coherent? Atheism is not believing in any gods or disbelieving in them. I can only speak for myself - I have no belief in any gods because I've never been given a good reason to take any of them seriously. I cannot 100% rule out god(s) and my position would change if somebody presented such a reason.

That consciousness can come from non-consciousness (or intelligence from non-intelligence)

That isn't a scientific hypothesis. It's a conclusion based on the evidence that is available (that consciousness is produced by brains) and the total lack of evidence for anything else being involved.

[torridon]

I am disputing the postulated logic which denies the reality that we have freedom of choice.

Your claims of reality are incoherent and self contradictory, unfortunately.  Logic : 1, Burns : 0

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Back to front thinking.  The claim of God is the positive claim that needs justification.  It's not up to people who don't share that belief to justify why they don't share it.  Show some convincing evidence for your claim is all that is required.

No, any positive assertion needs justification.

You automatically have a position. That of non acceptance of the religious position.

What is it which grants your position a superiority to the religious position?

[torridon]

No, any positive assertion needs justification.

You automatically have a position. That of non acceptance of the religious position.

What is it which grants your position a superiority to the religious position?

That's nonsense.  We need reasons to believe things, not reasons to not believe.  There are an infinite number of things I don't believe in, do you expect me to justify them ?  Could be here a while ....

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

All the while we also have to not ask questions as to where this invisible being got its intelligence and its consciousness from.

What makes you think that you can't ask the question?

Incidentally, the question does assume that the intelligence and consciousness must have come from somewhere, hence why you get a regression problem.

What I don't understand is why regressions appear to be a problem on one side (despite there being at least one solution), yet on the science side, there are a plethora of them, yet no-one appears duly unconcerned???

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's nonsense.  We need reasons to believe things, not reasons to not believe.  There are an infinite number of things I don't believe in, do you expect me to justify them ?  Could be here a while ....

I don't think it is nonsense. Your position is that you do not see why you should believe. Why should your position therefore have superiority over the alternative?


So yes please justify your non beliefs.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

No, any positive assertion needs justification.

Precisely!!

[Stranger]

What I don't understand is why regressions appear to be a problem on one side (despite there being at least one solution), yet on the science side, there are a plethora of them...

Such as...?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's nonsense.  We need reasons to believe things, not reasons to not believe.  There are an infinite number of things I don't believe in, do you expect me to justify them ?  Could be here a while ....

Do you believe the above? Then explain your reasoning.

[BeRational]

Do you believe the above? Then explain your reasoning.

Do you believe in sadfasdfqwer890?

If not please explain why not.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Such as...?

Having a designer God is seen as creating an infinite regression, because one then has to explain where God came from, then were that which cause God came from, ... . There is an assumption in the premise here and there is a solution to the dilemma as proposed; one usually deemed unsatisfactory.

On the science side: If you keep regressing back, you ultimately have nothing causing something. If that were possible, you could have no conservation of energy / momentum, etc (Physics). You would not see a gain in a part of a system being compensated by a loss elsewhere (Physics and Chemistry). Life begets life (biology) and in the case of a seed, the potential for life is in the seed, produced by a plant which grew from a seed, produced by a plant which grew from a seed, ...

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Do you believe in sadfasdfqwer890?

If not please explain why not.

To what extent are you prepared to provide some detail about sadfasdfqwer890?

[Stranger]

On the science side: If you keep regressing back, you ultimately have nothing causing something.

Who told you that?

If that were possible, you could have no conservation of energy / momentum, etc (Physics).

Non-sequitur. The conservation laws are due to symmetries that exist over space (momentum) and time (energy).

You would not see a gain in a part of a system being compensated by a loss elsewhere (Physics and Chemistry). Life begets life (biology) and in the case of a seed, the potential for life is in the seed, produced by a plant which grew from a seed, produced by a plant which grew from a seed, ...

Now you've descended into gobbledygook again.

[BeRational]

To what extent are you prepared to provide some detail about sadfasdfqwer890?

Hang on, I have an infinite number of these things to ask.

Before I give you any details of it, are you justified in not accepting my claim that it exists?

[Gordon]

Precisely!!

Super: so you can justify these 'properties of truth' you were telling us about (and conveniently forgot to explain when you were asked to).

[torridon]

I don't think it is nonsense. Your position is that you do not see why you should believe. Why should your position therefore have superiority over the alternative?

So yes please justify your non beliefs.

Already explained that, we cannot justify not having been convinced of things that we have not been convinced of.  For something to convince me, there has to be a something doing the convincing. Are you convinced there were no finches nesting in the Croatian city of Sibenik during March 1873 ? We cannot make such negative claims; what we do do, is to make positive claims where we have justification for them.

[SusanDoris]

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.

I was considering listening to SotS's post again, but I'm so pleased I read yours first before doing so!!