Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

Already explained that, we cannot justify 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.

Yes.  My old professor wrote a book called, 'How many children had Lady Macbeth?'  He was taking the piss out of those literary critics, who went into great detail about characters' lives, including stuff that is unknown.  I would guess that there are an infinite number of beliefs I don't have.

But theists have a track record of reversing the burden of proof.   I wonder why.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

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?

Your question cannot be answered until you provide details of sadfasdfqwer890.

[SusanDoris]

Your question cannot be answered until you provide details of sadfasdfqwer890.

By the same token, anyone asking me, for instance, to disprove, say, god, needs to know some facts about it first.

Since to date the number of facts remains at zero, you have a bit of a problem here, you know.

[Alan Burns]

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.

So in a brain under the control of nothing but the physically pre determined behaviour of electro chemical activity, what precisely is the mechanism which would allow the existence of freedom to choose?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

But theists have a track record of reversing the burden of proof.   I wonder why.

There is no reversing the burden of proof going on.

What is happening in reality is that some have decided that certain positions are more extraordinary than others and so the burden of proof always lies with them, whether they are making a positive claim or not. There is no thought given to the counter arguments; whether they are correct or not, or even whether the premise for them are correct or not. When the religious believer challenges the counter argument (it's validity or the premise for it being correct), they are accused of shifting the burden of proof, using the NPF, etc.

So you have posters like Little Roses running around claiming, "There is no evidence of xxx" which is a positive claim that she does not back up.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

By the same token, anyone asking me, for instance, to disprove, say, god, needs to know some facts about it first.

Since to date the number of facts remains at zero, you have a bit of a problem here, you know.

I think you'll find that it is you with the problem...

At the time of writing, this thread is now on its 1202th page!! I think you'll find between this page and the first page, Alan Burns (and probably other Christians who have contributed) have stated many aspects about God and  religious belief.

In contrast, Be Rational hasn't provided a single detail about sadfasdfqwer890. Do you know anything about this entity? You can probably guess what came up when I googled it, lol

Amazing how the analogies used by you guys continue to illustrate the flaws in your reasoning ...

[SusanDoris]

I think you'll find that it is you with the problem...

At the time of writing, this thread is now on its 1202th page!! I think you'll find between this page and the first page, Alan Burns (and probably other Christians who have contributed) have stated many aspects about God and  religious belief.

In contrast, Be Rational hasn't provided a single detail about sadfasdfqwer890. Do you know anything about this entity? You can probably guess what came up when I googled it, lol

Amazing how the analogies used by you guys continue to illustrate the flaws in your reasoning ...

Yes, of course, AB and others have produced thousand of words about aspects of religious belief, but not one single objective FACT about any God has appeared in any post. I've been looking out for one.

[Gordon]

There is no reversing the burden of proof going on.

What is happening in reality is that some have decided that certain positions are more extraordinary than others and so the burden of proof always lies with them, whether they are making a positive claim or not.

Well that is silly old chap: extraordinary positive claims, such as supernatural agency, would require robust and verifiable supporting evidence but negative claims? For example, if I claim that there are no flying kangaroos in the skies above Glasgow right now would you require me to send you a very recent photograph of kangaroo-free skies (and it is a lovely evening here by the way) or would you dismiss the notion as too ridiculous to take seriously? 

There is no thought given to the counter arguments; whether they are correct or not, or even whether the premise for them are correct or not.

Where claims are ridiculous, and accompanied by incoherence and fallacious reasoning, there is no need to offer a counter argument: they can just be dismissed (like flying kangaroos above Glasgow).

When the religious believer challenges the counter argument (it's validity or the premise for it being correct), they are accused of shifting the burden of proof, using the NPF, etc.

You aren't challenging a counter argument: you are just failing to see that your own reasoning is too flawed to be considered an argument in the first place.

Any progress on the 'properties of truth' yet?

So you have posters like Little Roses running around claiming, "There is no evidence of xxx" which is a positive claim that she does not back up.

Is there evidence of flying kangaroos above Glasgow, or are you just going to dismiss the claim that there is because the claim is too ridiculous to be taken seriously?

[Gordon]

I think you'll find that it is you with the problem...

At the time of writing, this thread is now on its 1202th page!! I think you'll find between this page and the first page, Alan Burns (and probably other Christians who have contributed) have stated many aspects about God and  religious belief.

So they have: and none of it stands scrutiny.

In contrast, Be Rational hasn't provided a single detail about sadfasdfqwer890. Do you know anything about this entity? You can probably guess what came up when I googled it, lol

You really are quite a concrete thinker if you were daft enough to google that!

Amazing how the analogies used by you guys continue to illustrate the flaws in your reasoning ...

Call an electrician: my irony meter has exploded.

[Stranger]

So in a brain under the control of nothing but the physically pre determined behaviour of electro chemical activity, what precisely is the mechanism which would allow the existence of freedom to choose?

[Irrelevant words deleted.]

The "mechanism" is that the choice is the direct result of the personality making the choice, the state of mind they are in at the time, and  the circumstances in which it is made. That's the only rational, logically consistent sort of free will that is possible. Your idea of 'freedom' is self-contradictory nonsense.

And once again you have asked another question in order to further ignore the logic I presented. Running scared again! So here it is again.

If every single factor that may affect a choice (including the state of mind of the chooser, all of her nature, nurture, and experience) do not result in only one possible choice, then any remaining choice can have no basis at all, and a choice made for no reason, is random.

How about you at least try to say what you think is wrong with that?

[torridon]

So in a brain under the control of nothing but the physically pre determined behaviour of electro chemical activity, what precisely is the mechanism which would allow the existence of freedom to choose?

The feeling of freedom arises from a context where there might be restraints on our freedom, but there aren't any.  Hence, this is a free country, that's good, right, because there are countries where they don't have free speech, for example.

You cannot be free of yourself though, to claim so is a nonsense.  Neither can you be free of logic, to claim so is a nonsense, and brains  make choices based on principles of logic.  This is the only possible reality; if brains did not observe principles of logic like cause and effect, there would be no choices, no persons, no posters to argue with on messageboards.  Learn to applaud the feeling of freedom that we do have and recognise it for what it is; your incoherent claims would be yield an incomprehensible world without meaning.

[torridon]

There is no reversing the burden of proof going on.

What is happening in reality is that some have decided that certain positions are more extraordinary than others and so the burden of proof always lies with them, whether they are making a positive claim or not. There is no thought given to the counter arguments; whether they are correct or not, or even whether the premise for them are correct or not. When the religious believer challenges the counter argument (it's validity or the premise for it being correct), they are accused of shifting the burden of proof, using the NPF, etc.

So you have posters like Little Roses running around claiming, "There is no evidence of xxx" which is a positive claim that she does not back up.

That's just cheap playing with words, hoping to disguise the shoddiness of the claim that "There is no evidence of xxx" amounts to a positive claim. OK, so it might be a positive claim in a trivial sense; but in the real world, it is the God claim that is a positive claim and therefore requires justification.

Not impressed that you choose to play word games rather than actually present evidential justification; it sends a message that you cannot justify your claims and stoop to word play instead.

[Sebastian Toe]

It is her choice.
We all have free will.

When you prayed for her to convert, how did you think that, prayed for, conversion would come about?

[Alan Burns]

[Irrelevant words deleted.]

The "mechanism" is that the choice is the direct result of the personality making the choice, the state of mind they are in at the time, and  the circumstances in which it is made. That's the only rational, logically consistent sort of free will that is possible. Your idea of 'freedom' is self-contradictory nonsense.

And once again you have asked another question in order to further ignore the logic I presented. Running scared again! So here it is again.

If every single factor that may affect a choice (including the state of mind of the chooser, all of her nature, nurture, and experience) do not result in only one possible choice, then any remaining choice can have no basis at all, and a choice made for no reason, is random.

How about you at least try to say what you think is wrong with that?

The words you deleted were entirely relevant

Far more relevant and precise than your words such as "personality"  or "state of mind".
So I ask again
How can personal choice exist in a material brain entirely under the control of physically pre determined reactions to previous events?

[torridon]

The words you deleted were entirely relevant

Far more relevant and precise than your words such as "personality"  or "state of mind".
So I ask again
How can personal choice exist in a material brain entirely under the control physically pre determined reactions to previous events?

Personal choice reflects the person you have become at the moment of making a choice. We cannot choose to change what we are at the moment of choice because that also would be a choice and therefore a reflection of what we currently are. We are constantly fashioned by our encounters with the wider world.

This understanding provides a basis for explaining the diversity of choices made.  Your account does not, it leaves much as a mystery. Can you explain why some people would want to change sex whilst others do not, some people want to engage with environmental activism whilst others do not, some people want to observe the pillars of Islam whilst others do not.  Your rationale cannot explain the diversity of behaviours we observe.  I think there are reasons for things, you on the other hand are content to 'not go there' and remain in ignorance

[SusanDoris]

When you prayed for her to convert, how did you think that, prayed for, conversion would come about?

That is an interesting question and I await the answer with equal interest!!
I wonder what words he used, and why I was totally unaware of them? 

[Alan Burns]

When you prayed for her to convert, how did you think that, prayed for, conversion would come about?

I leave that in God's hands

But I know that God will not force conversion.
So I pray for the opportunity to convert.

[Stranger]

The words you deleted were entirely relevant

In what way exactly? The 'pre' is simply redundant in the context (and wrong: predetermined is one word) and a deterministic system is a deterministic system no matter what substrate it's implemented on. It's whether our choices are being made by such a system that is the point we are discussing.

You cannot escape the question by pretending that the physical substrate is the constraint - it isn't: it's a logical problem, not a scientific one. You are arguing against logic, not the contraints of the physical universe. Even if I were to concede that a non-physical soul was needed to explain consciousness, the same problem of determinism vs. random would apply to decision making.

Far more relevant and precise than your words such as "personality"  or "state of mind".
So I ask again
How can personal choice exist in a material brain entirely under the control physically pre determined reactions to previous events?

[Irrelevant words deleted again]

I answered that question. What exactly about my answer is confusing you? Do you really not understand personality or state of mind? It's not like I'm using them in any unusual sense.

My description of the decision process actually meant something, whereas your waffle about "god given will of the human soul" with no clue at all about how it works, just boils down to "it's magic". Once again you are applying blatant double standards. You can use meaningless phrases yet you question my use of perfectly well defined English words.

I also note that once again, you are doing anything to avoid addressing the logic I presented that totally undermines your whole position. Here it is again:

If every single factor that may affect a choice (including the state of mind of the chooser, all of her nature, nurture, and experience) do not result in only one possible choice, then any remaining choice can have no basis at all, and a choice made for no reason, is random.

How about you at least try to say what you think is wrong with that?

[SusanDoris]

I leave that in God's hands

But I know that God will not force conversion.
So I pray for the opportunity to convert.

That sounds just so hand-wringingly, cringe-makingly humble in a Uriah Heep-ish sort of way - as far as I'm concerned anyway.

[Alan Burns]

In what way exactly? The 'pre' is simply redundant in the context (and wrong: predetermined is one word) and a deterministic system is a deterministic system no matter what substrate it's implemented on. It's whether our choices are being made by such a system that is the point we are discussing.

The point I am making is that in a physically pre determined system there is no mechanism for choice to exist.

You cannot escape the question by pretending that the physical substrate is the constraint - it isn't: it's a logical problem, not a scientific one. You are arguing against logic, not the contraints of the physical universe. Even if I were to concede that a non-physical soul was needed to explain consciousness, the same problem of determinism vs. random would apply to decision making.

The physically deterministic universe existed long before the human concepts of logic, state of mind or personality came into existence, so from the secular point of view, the physically deterministic universe is the foundation of everything which exists, so everything of this universe must be entirely pre determined by the physically controlled events in this universe.

To facilitate choice in such a system would require deliberate intervention from outside the physically pre determined nature of this material universe.

[Stranger]

The point I am making is that in a physically pre determined system there is no mechanism for choice to exist.

Only if you dishonestly redefined the word "choice" to mean "god-magic intervention". Here in the real world, choices are being made by humans, animals, and machines all the time.

The physically deterministic universe existed long before the human concepts of logic, state of mind or personality came into existence, so from the secular point of view, the physically deterministic universe is the foundation of everything which exists, so everything of this universe must be entirely pre determined by the physically controlled events in this universe.

It is not actually clear if the universe is entirely deterministic. That aside, this would be true in any orderly system at all. Within the physical universe a sophisticated choice making entity (like animals, including humans) would have an initial state, gain experiences, and have a current state of mind. When a choice has to be made those factors, together with the circumstance determine the choice.

If we imagine a non-material soul, exactly the same logic must apply (it would have an initial state, gain experiences, and have a current state of mind. When a choice has to be made those factors, together with the circumstance determine the choice), if it doesn't, you are, by definition, introducing things that happen for no reason, which means random.

Both a material brain and any logically self-consistent, non-material soul you may postulate, must either be deterministic systems or have an element of randomness.

That's why the physical makes no difference to the logic.

To facilitate choice in such a system would require deliberate intervention from outside the physically pre determined nature of this material universe.

Anything that does intervene is subject to the same logic I outlined above. You cannot have a choice being made that is not fully determined by its logical antecedents unless it involves randomness.

And once gain your ran away from addressing the logic:

If every single factor that may affect a choice (including the state of mind of the chooser, all of her nature, nurture, and experience) do not result in only one possible choice, then any remaining choice can have no basis at all, and a choice made for no reason, is random.

How about you at least try to say what you think is wrong with that?

[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 ?

I don't believe in a universe without a God Torridon.

I've put that in to show there really is nothing superior about your position and using your logic to prove it.

[BeRational]

Your question cannot be answered until you provide details of sadfasdfqwer890.

The question to you is "are you justified in  not accepting my assertion that it does exist, until I provide some evidence that you find compelling?"

[torridon]

I don't believe in a universe without a God Torridon.

I've put that in to show there really is nothing superior about your position and using your logic to prove it.

That's just playing word games semantics, using a double negative to obscure the need to justify a position.

If I say "I believe there were finches nesting in the Croatian town of Sibenik during March 1843" then we would be entitled to ask for the justification, the evidence for the claim.

If I say "I do not believe there were no finches nesting in the Croatian town of Sibenik during March 1843" that amounts to the same positive claim and we would still be entitled to ask for the justification, the evidence for the claim.

You fool no one but yourself playing semantic word games.

[Gordon]

To facilitate choice in such a system would require deliberate intervention from outside the physically pre determined nature of this material universe.

You write such sentences so blithely, Alan: they might sound profound to you, when you say things like 'outside the physically pre determined *deterministic* nature of this material universe' but they sound silly to anyone who stops to consider what 'outside' the universe could possibly mean since you seem to think it would involve a breakdown of cause and effect in favour of some kind of ineffable magic.

Isn't there something in your holy book about growing up and leaving childish nonsense behind?

* my addition, and redundant terms struck-through.