Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

You mean you have a brain and you can think abstractly - that isn't news, and nor does it imply anything other than good old biology at work.

Biology can explain the mechanical functionality of our brain, but it falls far short of explanation for what drives our conscious thoughts, or what comprises them, or what it is that perceives our thoughts.

[BeRational]

Biology can explain the mechanical functionality of our brain, but it falls far short of explanation for what drives our conscious thoughts, or what comprises them, or what it is that perceives our thoughts.

Then it would be currently unexplained.

That does not justify you making stuff up.

You would then just commit the incredulity fallacy.

[Shaker]

To reject the existence of God requires a belief that there will be a natural Godless explanation for everything.  Hence it is just another belief system.

No it isn't. Your "reasoning" would have an empty glass actually a pint of beer, which means that you demonstrate an utter travesty of rational thought but would be cheap to take out to the pub.

A "natural godless explanation" is what everyone else simply calls "an explanation," since "a supernatural explanation" is a contradiction in terms.

[Gordon]

Biology can explain the mechanical functionality of our brain, but it falls far short of explanation for what drives our conscious thoughts, or what comprises them, or what it is that perceives our thoughts.

As far as is known 'thinking' requires functioning biology, in the absence of which there is no 'thinking': you'll just need to get used to the idea, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

Then it would be currently unexplained.

That does not justify you making stuff up.

You would then just commit the incredulity fallacy.

All I was saying is that just quoting the word, "biology" (as is often done by Gordon) is not a valid explanation for what is responsible for driving and perceiving our human thought processes.

[BeRational]

All I was saying is that just quoting the word, "biology" (as is often done by Gordon) is not a valid explanation for what is responsible for driving and perceiving our human thought processes.

If we do not currently understand how it is done, then that's ALL you can say.

You cannot invent an answer without using a logical fallacy.

Do you understand that?

[Alan Burns]

As far as is known 'thinking' requires functioning biology, in the absence of which there is no 'thinking': you'll just need to get used to the idea, Alan.

Thoughts certainly generate brain activity, but surely you can see that this in itself does not lead to the conclusion that thoughts are brain activity.

[Nearly Sane]

 Atheism isn't a belief system; it's the absence or the rejection of one, namely, theism.
 

Surely theism, that is a belief in a god or gods, isn't a belief system either, though it will likely form part of one?

[Shaker]

Surely theism, that is a belief in a god or gods, isn't a belief system either, though it will likely form part of one?

I'm not seeing the logic here? Theism is the belief that a god/gods exist - regarding this as either a belief system in its own right or part of something wider seems rather sterile logic-chopping; it seems to be saying that a belief isn't a belief.

[torridon]

Thoughts certainly generate brain activity, but surely you can see that this in itself does not lead to the conclusion that thoughts are brain activity.

Of course thoughts are brain activity.  Have we ever discovered any evidence to doubt that ? If we could think without brains there would be no need to have brains. If we could see without eyes, there would be no point in having eyes; if we could hear without ears there would be no point in having ears.  The brain is the organ of thought.

[BeRational]

Thoughts certainly generate brain activity, but surely you can see that this in itself does not lead to the conclusion that thoughts are brain activity.

You can damage the brain, and thereby damage peoples ability to think, so you can demonstrate a link.

But not knowing exactly how it happens, does not allow you to make up an answer.

Do you understand that?

Don't know, is a valid answer.

[Alan Burns]

A "natural godless explanation" is what everyone else simply calls "an explanation," since "a supernatural explanation" is a contradiction in terms.

The fact that there is a natural explanation for how certain things work does not lead to a conclusion that there must be a natural explanation for everything.  Supernatural can be used to describe events which are not pre determined by physical material reactions, but determined by other means outside the otherwise physically pre determined chains of cause and effect.

[BeRational]

The fact that there is a natural explanation for how certain things work does not lead to a conclusion that there must be a natural explanation for everything.  Supernatural can be used to describe events which are not pre determined by physical material reactions, but determined by other means outside the otherwise physically pre determined chains of cause and effect.

The supernatural can explain exactly NOTHING.

When you invoke the supernatural you simply give up and say it was MAGIC.

I can explain anything with magic

[Alan Burns]

Of course thoughts are brain activity.  Have we ever discovered any evidence to doubt that ? If we could think without brains there would be no need to have brains. If we could see without eyes, there would be no point in having eyes; if we could hear without ears there would be no point in having ears.  The brain is the organ of thought.

No - it is a biological machine which we interact with.  We are the driver - not the machine.

[Alan Burns]

The supernatural can explain exactly NOTHING.

When you invoke the supernatural you simply give up and say it was MAGIC.

I can explain anything with magic

Magic is an illusion.
But our abilities to drive our own thoughts and make consciously driven choices are real.

[BeRational]

No - it is a biological machine which we interact with.  We are the driver - not the machine.

It appears to be the same thing.

All the evidence say that 'WE' emerge from all the electrical activity.

You simply do not like that, you cannot understand that (nor can I), but you feel that if you cannot understand how this could be this way, then it's not that way.

That is a logical fallacy, as I think you know.

[Shaker]

Magic is an illusion.
But our abilities to drive our own thoughts and make consciously driven choices are real.

Assertion.

[BeRational]

Magic is an illusion.
But our abilities to drive our own thoughts and make consciously driven choices are real.

The supernatural is magic.

Can you demonstrate the supernatural actually exists, or do you just assert it?

If you cannot demonstrate it, you cannot use it in your argument.

[torridon]

No - it is a biological machine which we interact with.  We are the driver - not the machine.

That's just an assertion without evidence. Fact is, we are one and the same thing.  All the evidence suggests that a 'person' derives from a body.  When the brain dies, so does the person; when the brain is dampened down, as in sleep, so is the person. There is no evidence pointing to an alternative explanation, any such are mere fantasy beliefs.

[Alan Burns]

The supernatural is magic.

Can you demonstrate the supernatural actually exists, or do you just assert it?

If you cannot demonstrate it, you cannot use it in your argument.

My freedom to choose to reply to your post is sufficient evidence of my supernatural ability to make a consciously driven choice.  A natural explanation would require that my response to your post was entirely pre determined by the uncontrollable physically defined reactions in my material brain.

[Gordon]

My freedom to choose to reply to your post is sufficient evidence of my supernatural ability to make a consciously driven choice.

So you're supernatural are you: don't be so daft, Alan.

A natural explanation would require that my response to your post was entirely pre determined by the uncontrollable physically defined reactions in my material brain.

A natural explanation is that brains have the capacity to think (and all that thinking entails) - your problem is that you aren't very good at it whenever this 'God' of yours is the subject.

[BeRational]

My freedom to choose to reply to your post is sufficient evidence of my supernatural ability to make a consciously driven choice.  A natural explanation would require that my response to your post was entirely pre determined by the uncontrollable physically defined reactions in my material brain.

No it absolutely is not.

The problem here is that you do not understand that you are wrong to say that, and that's why you repeat the mistake over and over.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The fact that there is a natural explanation for how certain things work does not lead to a conclusion that there must be a natural explanation for everything.  Supernatural can be used to describe events which are not pre determined by physical material reactions, but determined by other means outside the otherwise physically pre determined chains of cause and effect.

It’s just after dawn, the mist is clearing with the promise of a lovely day to come and our two Viking characters are engaged in conversation…

Eric: So Sven, I hear you’ve been having some success with predicting the weather.

Sven: Yeah, it’s really good actually – I look at the clouds, the tides, the changing seasons and so on and quite often I can figure out more or less what tomorrow’s weather will be.

Eric: Sounds pretty good, but it can’t explain every bit of weather can it? Take thunder for example, what does all that dried seaweed stuff tell you about that then?

Sven: Well, a fair amount as it happens. Certain shapes of clouds, torrential rain and strong winds combined often co-incide with thunderstorms so clearly there's a strong correlation between…

Eric: Yeah yeah, but you don’t actually have every detail of what causes thunder worked out yet do you? DO YOU?!

Sven: Er, no – but it fits within the naturalistic paradigm I’m just expl…

Eric (with fingers in ears): NOT LISTENING! NOT LISTENING! If you don’t know the answer, then it must be Thor then mustn’t it Mr Marty Pants?

Sven: Thor? What do you mean by Thor?

Eric: STILL NOT LISTENING! THOR! THOR! THOR! 

Sven: But Thor is just a word, it’s white noise that explains nothing at all!

Eric: Pah, there you again with your presumption of naturalism. What about my Thor belief then – answer that if you can!

Sven: Er, but isn’t that just the argument from personal incredulity again: “I can’t imagine a natural explanation for something, therefore an unqualified assertion of the
supernatural must be the answer”?

Eric: THOR! THOR! THOR!

Sven: Oh FFS!     

[torridon]

The fact that there is a natural explanation for how certain things work does not lead to a conclusion that there must be a natural explanation for everything.  Supernatural can be used to describe events which are not pre determined by physical material reactions, but determined by other means outside the otherwise physically pre determined chains of cause and effect.

This has been covered before.  We have a word to describe events that are not causally related to prior events.  The word is 'random'.  it is not 'supernatural'.

[Alan Burns]

You can damage the brain, and thereby damage peoples ability to think, so you can demonstrate a link.

Of course if you damage a machine you will affect the functional capability.  But there will still be a driver to exert control  - which will be restricted due to the physical damage.