Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Control needs a conscious source which initiates control.

When you claim that machines have control, the control was initiated in the conscious mind of the maker of the machine.  The machine itself is not the source which initiates control.

All the Oxford English dictionary definitions of control infer a conscious source.

Don't be so utterly daft. Quite apart from the dictionary's use of examples like "the airflow is controlled by a fan" (not the consciousness that put it there) and "the discovery of the gene they believe controls the process that enables us to hear", what controls your heart rate or body temperature? The brain of a dog (or aardvark or whatever) quite clearly controls the movement of its limbs.

Argue for your magic, self-contradictory, impossible idea of "conscious control" all you like but trying to hijack the word 'control' to mean it is dishonest.

But where can a conscious source exist in an endless chain of physically defined reactions?

How can a "conscious source" be logically self-contradictory?

The mention of material elements does not automatically infer fallacy of composition.
And using the word "impossible" does not automatically infer the fallacy of personal incredulity.

Nobody said they did.

[Gordon]

The mention of material elements does not automatically infer fallacy of composition.
And using the word "impossible" does not automatically infer the fallacy of personal incredulity.

To produce a convincing counter argument you need to offer alternative explanations, not just the easy option of calling "fallacy".

Don't be so silly, Alan: I don't need to produce a counter argument at all. All I need do is point out that your own attempts at arguments are fallacious nonsense - which they are - and, as such, are in 'not even wrong' territory.

I suspect that your underlying need for there to be your preferred 'god' is getting in the way of your reasoning.

[Sebastian Toe]

Information is not information until it is perceived.

What perceives this information?
What integrates it into a singular flow of experience?

Your senses sending multiple streams of information to be collated into the central information flow.
That is the perception.
Then this is intigrated into a singular flow of experience.
No non evidenced, non described, logic free, fallacy rich, magical soul required.
Its all between your ears Alan.  

[Alan Burns]

Don't be so silly, Alan: I don't need to produce a counter argument at all. All I need do is point out that your own attempts at arguments are fallacious nonsense - which they are - and, as such, are in 'not even wrong' territory.

I suspect that your underlying need for there to be your preferred 'god' is getting in the way of your reasoning.

There is nothing wrong with my reasoning, Gordon, because it fully explains the reality of our existence and our obvious freedom to control our own thoughts, words and actions.  Without this freedom, how can I possibly be guilty of personal incredulity or assertion?

The alternative arguments being put to me removes any true freedom and replaces it with a physically pre determined scenario over which I can have no personal control.  To achieve control I need to consciously interact with events, not just react to them, but conscious interaction in a physically pre determined system is not logically possible, so we call upon the Goid given power of the human soul to impose our will in this otherwise pre determined world.

[torridon]

There is nothing wrong with my reasoning, Gordon, because it fully explains the reality of our existence and our obvious freedom to control our own thoughts, words and actions.  Without this freedom, how can I possibly be guilty of personal incredulity or assertion?

The alternative arguments being put to me removes any true freedom and replaces it with a physically pre determined scenario over which I can have no personal control.  To achieve control I need to consciously interact with events, not just react to them, but conscious interaction in a physically pre determined system is not logically possible, so we call upon the Goid given power of the human soul to impose our will in this otherwise pre determined world.

There's lots wrong with your reasoning.  The above is not a reasoned argument, it is merely a statement of your beliefs which themselves are not based on reason, but rather on incredulity at what we have actually discovered through evidence and reason.  Incredulity is not an argument. I'd agree your position is in some respects an intuitive one, reflecting our common experience; but it is irrational in many ways, not standing up to any serious scrutiny. The opposing views are offered by people who have taken an interest in deepening their understanding; it is a fairly natural path to be content to live and enjoy in the moment when young, but as we gain maturity we start to want to dig a little beneath the superficial, how it seems. How it seems is that product of mind that has been optimised by millions of years of evolution to best keep us alive at minimum cost; evolution has had no agenda to reveal epistemic truth, that would be of no value to our ancestors.  Now we are coming to understand that underneath how it seems there is a fascinating and rich understory out of which our immediate sensory experience of life is constructed. It is this understory that does ring true to principles of evidence and reason.

[Gordon]

There is nothing wrong with my reasoning, Gordon, because it fully explains the reality of our existence and our obvious freedom to control our own thoughts, words and actions.  Without this freedom, how can I possibly be guilty of personal incredulity or assertion?

The alternative arguments being put to me removes any true freedom and replaces it with a physically pre determined scenario over which I can have no personal control.  To achieve control I need to consciously interact with events, not just react to them, but conscious interaction in a physically pre determined system is not logically possible, so we call upon the Goid given power of the human soul to impose our will in this otherwise pre determined world.

The above is just one example of many that demonstrates your reasoning to be irrational, illogical and riven with various fallacies.

[Stranger]

There is nothing wrong with my reasoning...

Is this a joke? Your 'reasoning' is based of a host of fallacies, contains no valid logic, and its conclusion is self-contradictory and hence impossible.

...because it fully explains the reality of our existence and our obvious freedom to control our own thoughts, words and actions.

Sorry but "it's magic" isn't an explanation of anything - and that's what all your 'explanations' boil down to. And again, you have been unable to resolves the fundamental logical contradiction that make even the magic impossible.

Without this freedom, how can I possibly be guilty of personal incredulity or assertion?

By being a functioning human being.

The alternative arguments being put to me removes any true freedom and replaces it with a physically pre determined scenario over which I can have no personal control.

This amounts to incredulity that the physical brain can produce the freedom we experience.

To achieve control I need to consciously interact with events, not just react to them, but conscious interaction in a physically pre determined system is not logically possible...

Just putting "logically impossible" after a statement based on incredulity doesn't make it a logical argument.

Your proposed idea of "true freedom" on the other hand, is logically impossible because it leads directly to a contradiction. It is a valid logical argument called proof by contradiction. If we assume what you say about 'freedom' and how your non-material soul makes its choices then the statement "conscious choices are made entirely due to pre-existing reasons" has to be both true (to make it free from randomness) and false (to make it not "predetermined") at the same time.

That doesn't prove that there is no soul but it does prove that, even if there is, it can't give you what you call 'true freedom'.

[ekim]

it is a fairly natural path to be content to live and enjoy in the moment when young, but as we gain maturity we start to want to dig a little beneath the superficial, how it seems. How it seems is that product of mind that has been optimised by millions of years of evolution to best keep us alive at minimum cost; evolution has had no agenda to reveal epistemic truth, that would be of no value to our ancestors.  Now we are coming to understand that underneath how it seems there is a fascinating and rich understory out of which our immediate sensory experience of life is constructed. It is this understory that does ring true to principles of evidence and reason.

Yes, that about sums it up.  The 'spiritual' path is, in some respects, the reverse of that.   'Live and enjoy in the moment when young'  is quite similar to 'unless you become as a little child again you will not know the Kingdom of Heaven'.  To do so, the path is often described as a conscious  inward journey beyond that 'fascinating and rich understory ', which like all other stories acts as a distraction, to what is believed to be the source of life and joy.

[Alan Burns]

There's lots wrong with your reasoning.  The above is not a reasoned argument, it is merely a statement of your beliefs which themselves are not based on reason, but rather on incredulity at what we have actually discovered through evidence and reason.  Incredulity is not an argument. I'd agree your position is in some respects an intuitive one, reflecting our common experience; but it is irrational in many ways, not standing up to any serious scrutiny. The opposing views are offered by people who have taken an interest in deepening their understanding; it is a fairly natural path to be content to live and enjoy in the moment when young, but as we gain maturity we start to want to dig a little beneath the superficial, how it seems. How it seems is that product of mind that has been optimised by millions of years of evolution to best keep us alive at minimum cost; evolution has had no agenda to reveal epistemic truth, that would be of no value to our ancestors.  Now we are coming to understand that underneath how it seems there is a fascinating and rich understory out of which our immediate sensory experience of life is constructed. It is this understory that does ring true to principles of evidence and reason.

Can you not foresee the dreadful consequences if societies followed this short sighted view of reality based upon very limited human scientific knowledge?

If we try to use our limited knowledge of science to reject the Christian faith, we also are in danger of rejecting the profound wisdom espoused in the New Testament which has formed the foundation of our Western society.  There will be no concept of sin or evil.  Nothing is right or wrong.  We can do anything we want, because we have no real choices anyway.   Can you not see the dreadful consequences?  Not only will we lose sight of eternal salvation, we will create a living hell on earth.

[torridon]

Can you not foresee the dreadful consequences if societies followed this short sighted view of reality based upon very limited human scientific knowledge?

If we try to use our limited knowledge of science to reject the Christian faith, we also are in danger of rejecting the profound wisdom espoused in the New Testament which has formed the foundation of our Western society.  There will be no concept of sin or evil.  Nothing is right or wrong.  We can do anything we want, because we have no real choices anyway.   Can you not see the dreadful consequences?  Not only will we lose sight of eternal salvation, we will create a living hell on earth.

That is confused, baseless, self-contradictory and irrational.  So much wrongness in such a small space, where to start ?

OK, point 1. I think it is always going to be a better policy to use the best information, the best knowledge, that we have. Just because we never have complete knowledge should not be a reason for ignoring the best information we have to date.

Point 2. It's not essentially about rejecting some or other faith position so much as being true to the evidence.  If a faith claim contradicts evidence and reason then it should be challenged.

Point 3. as for concepts of Sin and Evil, good riddance to them, there is no justification, no evidence for them, and they have done harm and continue to do harm. If we can remove those simplistic blinkers then we can start to see the real reasons underlying dysfunctional behaviours; with understanding comes the possibility of healing and improvement in the future.

Point 4. Salvation is another fantasy belief, given there is no evidential grounds for it.  It is also self contradictory in so far as it might imply a god who claims to be loving but in fact who discriminates against people who try to use the intelligence and integrity that he gave them.

Point 5. I think the fear of a 'living hell' might be somewhat misplaced.  I recall Freud believed the loss of religion would lead to the breakdown of society, but what evidence we have to date suggests the opposite is the case.  Loss of religion leads to humans becoming more humane, the data points to a inverse correlation between levels of religious observance and indicators of societal well being. A society which simply writes off it's wrongdoers as 'evil' is less humane than one that seeks to understand the real reasons leading to harm.

[Alan Burns]

That is confused, baseless, self-contradictory and irrational.  So much wrongness in such a small space, where to start ?

OK, point 1. I think it is always going to be a better policy to use the best information, the best knowledge, that we have. Just because we never have complete knowledge should not be a reason for ignoring the best information we have to date.

Point 2. It's not essentially about rejecting some or other faith position so much as being true to the evidence.  If a faith claim contradicts evidence and reason then it should be challenged.

Point 3. as for concepts of Sin and Evil, good riddance to them, there is no justification, no evidence for them, and they have done harm and continue to do harm. If we can remove those simplistic blinkers then we can start to see the real reasons underlying dysfunctional behaviours; with understanding comes the possibility of healing and improvement in the future.

Point 4. Salvation is another fantasy belief, given there is no evidential grounds for it.  It is also self contradictory in so far as it might imply a god who claims to be loving but in fact who discriminates against people who try to use the intelligence and integrity that he gave them.

Point 5. I think the fear of a 'living hell' might be somewhat misplaced.  I recall Freud believed the loss of religion would lead to the breakdown of society, but what evidence we have to date suggests the opposite is the case.  Loss of religion leads to humans becoming more humane, the data points to a inverse correlation between levels of religious observance and indicators of societal well being. A society which simply writes off it's wrongdoers as 'evil' is less humane than one that seeks to understand the real reasons leading to harm.

I recently heard of a talk on Chris Evan's breakfast show, I believe was given by a self confessed atheist, who said that scientists are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater in rejecting the wisdom contained in the writings of the Christian bible.

Human scientific investigations alone will not discover wisdom.  Neither will they discover the truth which is beyond all human understanding.

[Maeght]

I recently heard of a talk on Chris Evan's breakfast show, I believe was given by a self confessed atheist, who said that scientists are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater in rejecting the wisdom contained in the writings of the Christian bible.

Human scientific investigations alone will not discover wisdom.  Neither will they discover the truth which is beyond all human understanding.

How is science rejecting wisdom in the Bible exactly?

[Stranger]

Can you not foresee the dreadful consequences if societies followed this short sighted view of reality based upon very limited human scientific knowledge?

No, and I see you've abandoned the pretend logic and are now blatantly resorting to an appeal to consequences.

If we try to use our limited knowledge of science to reject the Christian faith...

Unless your faith makes testable predictions, science isn't able to reject it - that isn't what's going on. You are making claims that have no supporting evidence and, more impotently, are logically impossible.

You keep on claiming to have evidence and logic to support your view but all your attempts to provide either have been absurd. Your biggest problem is logic, not science. Why should anybody take something seriously if there is no evidence and no reasoned argument, especially if it is obviously self-contradictory?

...we also are in danger of rejecting the profound wisdom espoused in the New Testament which has formed the foundation of our Western society.  There will be no concept of sin or evil.  Nothing is right or wrong.  We can do anything we want, because we have no real choices anyway.   Can you not see the dreadful consequences?  Not only will we lose sight of eternal salvation, we will create a living hell on earth.

Based on the twin absurdities that you can get any sort of coherent moral guidance from the bible and that if people don't believe in some god, they will behave badly.

Human scientific investigations alone will not discover wisdom.

I don't recall anybody claiming that it would.

Neither will they discover the truth which is beyond all human understanding.

If it's beyond beyond all human understanding it really isn't going to be much use to us, is it?

[torridon]

I recently heard of a talk on Chris Evan's breakfast show, I believe was given by a self confessed atheist, who said that scientists are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater in rejecting the wisdom contained in the writings of the Christian bible.

Human scientific investigations alone will not discover wisdom.  Neither will they discover the truth which is beyond all human understanding.

I don't think we are talking about a wholesale rejection of everything biblical; there is much of beauty and wisdom in the pages of the Bible; some of the Psalms, the Sermon on the Mount spring to mind. Beauty and wisdom are not everything though, we also have knowledge, and the disciplined nature of methodical observation and investigation lead to better knowledge.

[SusanDoris]

Can you not foresee the dreadful consequences if societies followed this short sighted view of reality based upon very limited human scientific knowledge?

If we try to use our limited knowledge of science to reject the Christian faith, we also are in danger of rejecting the profound wisdom espoused in the New Testament which has formed the foundation of our Western society.  There will be no concept of sin or evil.  Nothing is right or wrong.  We can do anything we want, because we have no real choices anyway.   Can you not see the dreadful consequences?  Not only will we lose sight of eternal salvation, we will create a living hell on earth.

Well, you and those with a similarly limited view might well be creating some sort of hell on earth with your closed, dogma-filled minds, but those of us who understand and greatly value what science has done,  what it has helped us with and what is likely to be continuing improved medical care for the children of the future - including your grandchild of course - will be free of such straitjackets. And yes we will appreciate the mistakes that science wil make along the way too. We do not expect them to perform magical miracles.

[SusanDoris]

I recently heard of a talk on Chris Evan's breakfast show, I believe was given by a self confessed atheist, who said that scientists are in danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater in rejecting the wisdom contained in the writings of the Christian bible.

I'm glad I did not hear such rubbish from anyone, and in particular an atheist.

Human scientific investigations alone will not discover wisdom.  Neither will they discover the truth which is beyond all human understanding.

That is such an irrational, daft statement. If it is 'beyond 'all human understanding' then it is never going to be known, let alone understood is it, especially since there is zero evidence of its ever existing in the first place.

[Gordon]

Can you not foresee the dreadful consequences if societies followed this short sighted view of reality based upon very limited human scientific knowledge?

If we try to use our limited knowledge of science to reject the Christian faith, we also are in danger of rejecting the profound wisdom espoused in the New Testament which has formed the foundation of our Western society.  There will be no concept of sin or evil.  Nothing is right or wrong.  We can do anything we want, because we have no real choices anyway.   Can you not see the dreadful consequences?  Not only will we lose sight of eternal salvation, we will create a living hell on earth.

Rarely have we seen a fallacious argumentum ad consequentium so clearly offered, and where the fallacy is in essence being admitted by the arguer.

Magnificently hopeless, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

Well, you and those with a similarly limited view might well be creating some sort of hell on earth with your closed, dogma-filled minds, but those of us who understand and greatly value what science has done,  what it has helped us with and what is likely to be continuing improved medical care for the children of the future - including your grandchild of course - will be free of such straitjackets. And yes we will appreciate the mistakes that science wil make along the way too. We do not expect them to perform magical miracles.

Yes, we have benefited in many ways from what has been discovered through human scientific investigations.  Investigations made possible by our unique gift of the freedom to consciously drive our own thought processes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, you and those with a similarly limited view might well be creating some sort of hell on earth with your closed, dogma-filled minds, but those of us who understand and greatly value what science has done,  what it has helped us with and what is likely to be continuing improved medical care for the children of the future - including your grandchild of course - will be free of such straitjackets. And yes we will appreciate the mistakes that science wil make along the way too. We do not expect them to perform magical miracles.

Where are you Nearly Sane and why are you not accusing Susan Doris of Greatly valuing Nuclear weapons, climate change, poison gas etc.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Rarely have we seen a fallacious argumentum ad consequentium so clearly offered, and where the fallacy is in essence being admitted by the arguer.

Magnificently hopeless, Alan.

Says the author of this magnificent bullshit!

[Gordon]

Says the author of this magnificent bullshit!

So you're back: so, are you now going to tell us the details of these 'properties of truth' you mentioned?

I presume, from your comment, that you still know nothing of logical fallacies - you should take a look at the posts of Alan's I was commenting on since it is a superb example: textbook stuff!

[Alan Burns]

Rarely have we seen a fallacious argumentum ad consequentium so clearly offered, and where the fallacy is in essence being admitted by the arguer.

Magnificently hopeless, Alan.

Gordon,
If you re read the post I made, you should realise that it falls into this documented category of exception to argumentum ad consequentium

Exception: If it is understood by both parties that an argument is not being made, rather it is a warning based on possibilities, and the person issuing the warning acknowledges it is not evidence for the claim, then there is no fallacy.  The problem is virtually every such warning has an implied argument, so it is very debatable what is fallacious or not.

[Gordon]

Gordon,
If you re read the post I made, you should realise that it falls into this documented category of exception to argumentum ad consequentium

Exception: If it is understood by both parties that an argument is not being made, rather it is a warning based on possibilities, and the person issuing the warning acknowledges it is not evidence for the claim, then there is no fallacy.  The problem is virtually every such warning has an implied argument, so it is very debatable what is fallacious or not.

I suggest you re-read it yourself, Alan: your post is fallacious.

As for your 'exception' - I don't agree that you weren't making an argument but what you offered was a textbook argumentum ad consequentium: that if we reject the Christian faith terrible things will happen as a consequence. Since you also mention that we would 'lose sight of eternal salvation' then I'd say you were most certainly arguing in favour of Christianity.

I get that you don't understand fallacies very well, since if you did you wouldn't keep using them.

[Alan Burns]

I suggest you re-read it yourself, Alan: your post is fallacious.

As for your 'exception' - I don't agree that you weren't making an argument but what you offered was a textbook argumentum ad consequentium: that if we reject the Christian faith terrible things will happen as a consequence. Since you also mention that we would 'lose sight of eternal salvation' then I'd say you were most certainly arguing in favour of Christianity.

I get that you don't understand fallacies very well, since if you did you wouldn't keep using them.

My post was illustrating possible consequences.
It was not intended as a proof of anything.

You may disagree with my version of the consequences, but that is a matter of personal opinion.
Nothing to do with fallacy.

[Gordon]

My post was illustrating possible consequences.
It was not intended as a proof of anything.

You may disagree with my version of the consequences, but that is a matter of personal opinion.
Nothing to do with fallacy.

So, we can treat Christianity as just being a matter of opinion then?