Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

It's not about refusal to accept something; what we do is follow the evidence.  If we find evidence for something then people will start to investigate it. With no evidence to investigate, how can we talk about refusing to accept it ? Makes no sense.  Do you refuse to accept that there might be an alien civilisation living in the Earth's core ?

Quite so. My primary issue with the AB though was that having told him expressly that I accept the possibility of anything he then told me that I'd said the opposite of that - ie that I'd denied the possibility of something. If instead he'd told me that I'd denied the probability of something - eg, his or any other god - he'd have been quite right, for the reason you just set out. Either he's deliberately misrepresenting or the difference between possible and probable has him foxed. I don't know which it is though.     

[Alan Burns]

torri,

Quite so. My primary issue with the AB though was that having told him expressly that I accept the possibility of anything he then told me that I'd said the opposite of that - ie that I'd denied the possibility of something. If instead he'd told me that I'd denied the probability of something - eg, his or any other god - he'd have been quite right, for the reason you just set out. Either he's deliberately misrepresenting or the difference between possible and probable has him foxed. I don't know which it is though.     

I think I owe you an apology for not fully acknowledging your personal admittance to other possibilities.

It is just the impression I get from reading your posts is that it is the logic on which you base your replies which presumes that everything is entirely material based without any possibility of supernatural events occurring which are not part of the physically determined "cause and effect" chains of events of an entirely material universe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I think I owe you an apology for not fully acknowledging your personal admittance to other possibilities.

It’s not that you didn’t “fully acknowledge” it but that you claimed I’d said the opposite of what I actually said. Thank you nonetheless.

It is just the impression I get from reading your posts is that it is the logic on which you base your replies which presumes that everything is entirely material based without any possibility of supernatural events occurring which are not part of the physically determined "cause and effect" chains of events of an entirely material universe.

Given that I expressly (and repeatedly) say very clearly that you can’t disprove any speculation that's framed to be outside the scope of falsification (gods, leprechauns, whatever) I can’t see why you’d have that impression at all.   

Nonetheless this does nothing to address your problem – namely finding a path from something being possible to it being probable. I have that path for the material, but you have all your work ahead of you still if you want your claims of a “supernatural” to be taken seriously.

[BeRational]

I think I owe you an apology for not fully acknowledging your personal admittance to other possibilities.

It is just the impression I get from reading your posts is that it is the logic on which you base your replies which presumes that everything is entirely material based without any possibility of supernatural events occurring which are not part of the physically determined "cause and effect" chains of events of an entirely material universe.

Logic of course is logic. There is no personal logic.

The supernatural could exist and be doing stuff. The time to believe that though, is when there is evidence that that is the case.
You seem to invoke it like magic, to explain any problem you find difficult to understand, or you do not like the answer to.

What would you say if I had a supernatural message that God does not exist?

When my magic answer does not match your preferred magic answer, what do we do?

[Alan Burns]

It's not about refusal to accept something; what we do is follow the evidence.  If we find evidence for something then people will start to investigate it. With no evidence to investigate, how can we talk about refusing to accept it ? Makes no sense.  Do you refuse to accept that there might be an alien civilisation living in the Earth's core ?

But as I have said previously, if you only use evidence based upon observation of the behaviour of material elements, you are bound to end up with a materialistic conclusion.

Hence you appear to dismiss the evidence of the existence of human free will by concluding that it can't possibly exist in a material environment.

And the suggestion that freewill can't exist in a spiritual context is nonsense.  I postulate that the human soul is what determines our will and interacts with our material brain to implement it.  To suggest that a spiritual act of will is predetermined by something else just reduces the conscious will of the human soul to another mechanistic entity in the endless "cause and effect" scenarios based upon materialistic behaviour.  The conscious awareness of the human soul is influenced by past events, but not controlled by them.

[BeRational]

But as I have said previously, if you only use evidence based upon observation of the behaviour of material elements, you are bound to end up with a materialistic conclusion.

Hence you appear to dismiss the evidence of the existence of human free will by concluding that it can't possibly exist in a material environment.

And the suggestion that freewill can't exist in a spiritual context is nonsense.  I postulate that the human soul is what determines our will and interacts with our material brain to implement it.  To suggest that a spiritual act of will is predetermined by something else just reduces the conscious will of the human soul to another mechanistic entity in the endless "cause and effect" scenarios based upon materialistic behaviour.  The conscious awareness of the human soul is influenced by past events, but not controlled by them.

My supernatural guide says you are wrong, and that the human mind is totally material in nature.

Does that settle it for you?

[Gordon]

But as I have said previously, if you only use evidence based upon observation of the behaviour of material elements, you are bound to end up with a materialistic conclusion.

Hence you appear to dismiss the evidence of the existence of human free will by concluding that it can't possibly exist in a material environment.

Stuff and nonsense, Alan: there is no evidence that isn't naturalistic since there is no method whereby evidence that is non-naturalistic can be obtained and critiqued. Since any conclusions must flow from the evidence, and since evidence is naturalistic, then evidence-based conclusions are as well - until you guys produce and alternative methodology suited to supernatural claims.

And the suggestion that freewill can't exist in a spiritual context is nonsense.

How can anyone know what a 'spiritual context' is since there is no method to investigate it?

I postulate that the human soul is what determines our will and interacts with our material brain to implement it.  To suggest that a spiritual act of will is predetermined by something else just reduces the conscious will of the human soul to another mechanistic entity in the endless "cause and effect" scenarios based upon materialistic behaviour.  The conscious awareness of the human soul is influenced by past events, but not controlled by them.

This is you making stuff up, using your usual range of fallacies, in order to contive a gap for you 'God' to inhabit.

[Alan Burns]

Logic of course is logic. There is no personal logic.

Logical conclusions are based upon a set of initial parameters.

If these initial parameters are flawed or incomplete, so will the logical conclusions be.

[torridon]

But as I have said previously, if you only use evidence based upon observation of the behaviour of material elements, you are bound to end up with a materialistic conclusion.

Hence you appear to dismiss the evidence of the existence of human free will by concluding that it can't possibly exist in a material environment.

And the suggestion that freewill can't exist in a spiritual context is nonsense.  I postulate that the human soul is what determines our will and interacts with our material brain to implement it.  To suggest that a spiritual act of will is predetermined by something else just reduces the conscious will of the human soul to another mechanistic entity in the endless "cause and effect" scenarios based upon materialistic behaviour.  The conscious awareness of the human soul is influenced by past events, but not controlled by them.

You can postulate and speculate as much as you want, but for it to be taken seriously your idea has to make sense and there has to be some evidential justification for it.  You have neither of these things.  Your concept of free will is inherently flawed, and just claiming it is 'non-material' or 'spiritual' is not going to turn something invalid or illogical into something logical.  That's just a sleight of hand where there could be honest engagement.

[BeRational]

Logical conclusions are based upon a set of initial parameters.

If these initial parameters are flawed or incomplete, so will the logical conclusions be.

Indeed.

Have you shown that they are flawed?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But as I have said previously, if you only use evidence based upon observation of the behaviour of material elements, you are bound to end up with a materialistic conclusion.

And as has been explained to you many times by way of a rebuttal to that error in thinking, the issue isn’t that evidence is based on observation of the material at all. Rather it’s that, if you want to claim evidence based on something else, then to be evidence at all it has to be distinguishable from just guessing. And so far at least you and the leprechaunist alike haven’t proposed any means to do that.

Hence you appear to dismiss the evidence of the existence of human free will by concluding that it can't possibly exist in a material environment.

No, I suggest that it can’t exist at all as you posit it to be because of the determined vs random barrier. So far at least your only attempt at a response to that is essentially “it’s magic”, but that’s epistemically worthless for reasons that should be obvious to you.

And the suggestion that freewill can't exist in a spiritual context is nonsense.

Surely you’d have to define “spiritual” and then demonstrate its existence in the first place before overreaching into claims like that wouldn’t you?

I postulate that the human soul is what determines our will and interacts with our material brain to implement it.

And I postulate that Kevin the leprechaun is a fan of early Frank Zappa. See that’s the problem when each of us just asserts something to be true with no means to investigate our claims – they’re epistemically the same regardless of what their objects happen to be. 

To suggest that a spiritual act of will is predetermined by something else just reduces the conscious will of the human soul to another mechanistic entity in the endless "cause and effect" scenarios based upon materialistic behaviour.

FFS! Could you at least bother looking up “argumentum ad consequentiam” before you commit this fallacy yet again? There’s no “just” about it – whether you happen or not to like the idea of determinism has no effect on the reasoning that leads to it.

The conscious awareness of the human soul is influenced by past events, but not controlled by them.

So how would it work even conceptually then – or is “it’s magic” and therefore even basic logic needn’t apply really all you have to offer?

[Alan Burns]

You can postulate and speculate as much as you want, but for it to be taken seriously your idea has to make sense and there has to be some evidential justification for it.  You have neither of these things.  Your concept of free will is inherently flawed, and just claiming it is 'non-material' or 'spiritual' is not going to turn something invalid or illogical into something logical.  That's just a sleight of hand where there could be honest engagement.

I have been accused many times of posting conclusions which are based upon my wish to support my Christian faith.

No - my conclusions are entirely based upon the reality we live in.  I can't possibly believe in any conclusion which claims that my apparent freewill is just an illusion and that it is "just the way it seems".  This is based upon reality - not faith.

My freewill is real and entirely demonstrable, so it is simply not possible for me to accept a material based scenario which denies it exists.  Hence I will continue to proffer the existence of human freewill as substantial evidence for the existence of the human soul.

[torridon]

I have been accused many times of posting conclusions which are based upon my wish to support my Christian faith.

No - my conclusions are entirely based upon the reality we live in.  I can't possibly believe in any conclusion which claims that my apparent freewill is just an illusion and that it is "just the way it seems".  This is based upon reality - not faith.

My freewill is real and entirely demonstrable, so it is simply not possible for me to accept a material based scenario which denies it exists.  Hence I will continue to proffer the existence of human freewill as substantial evidence for the existence of the human soul.

Read carefully now - it is not a 'material based scenario' which denies it exists, it is logic that is your problem.  It is nothing to do with material, it is nothing to do with matter, it is nothing to do with 'physical' or 'spiritual'.  These are but red herrings.  Your problem is with logic - any event (whether it is a choice or not) is either deterministic or it isn't deterministic, in which case it is random.  This is simple logic.  If you claim that choices are not random then you are saying that choices are deterministic, ie they must then be fundamentally a consequence of prior causal events.  Simply claiming they are made 'spiritually' does not eliminate this fundamental truth.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have been accused many times of posting conclusions which are based upon my wish to support my Christian faith.

Correctly so. That you (proudly) tell us that nothing could ever falsify your faith means you’ve long since given the game away on that one. That you can convince yourself that it’s the other way around is part of your problem.   

No - my conclusions are entirely based upon the reality we live in.  I can't possibly believe in any conclusion which claims that my apparent freewill is just an illusion and that it is "just the way it seems".  This is based upon reality - not faith.

No, it’s precisely based on faith because the reality you perceive is a superficial one – sufficient for functional purposes but unable to see beneath the bonnet without the application of reason and evidence. I’ve explained this to you already though, so why do I have to do it again?

My freewill is real and entirely demonstrable,…

And logically incoherent. That’s your problem, and a magic man at the controls doesn’t solve it – it just relocates it to the magic man.

…  so it is simply not possible for me to accept a material based scenario which denies it exists.

It’s not possible only because nothing – absolutely nothing – can be allowed to undermine the edifice of religious belief you’ve nurtured for decades. You’re terrified by the idea that an incoming tide of reason that removes even one grain from your sandcastle would quickly wash away the rest too. That’s why it can’t be allowed to happen.

Hence I will continue to proffer the existence of human freewill as substantial evidence for the existence of the human soul.

You can proffer if it you like, but until and unless you finally address the problems that beset it you’ll continue to be ignored or worse when you do.

[Alan Burns]

Correctly so. That you (proudly) tell us that nothing could ever falsify your faith means you’ve long since given the game away on that one. That you can convince yourself that it’s the other way around is part of your problem.   

The certainty about my spiritual nature began almost 50 years ago when I came to realise that my freewill could not be derived from a material brain.  Since unlocking this key, my faith has gone from strength to strength in many other ways which are not dependent upon this fundamental discovery.

No, it’s precisely based on faith because the reality you perceive is a superficial one – sufficient for functional purposes but unable to see beneath the bonnet without the application of reason and evidence. I’ve explained this to you already though, so why do I have to do it again?

You claim my perception of freewill is superficial, but the evidence for this claim lies in a presumption that my perception is entirely defined by physical brain activity alone.  However the evidence for the reality of my freewill surely lies in every action I consciously invoke - hence my postings on this thread.  Can you honestly claim that every post I make is entirely driven by nothing but physically predetermined reactions to previous events in my brain?  Yes - I know you will just write this off as personal incredulity, but how can it be personal if it is entirely driven by naturally occurring physical reactions?

And logically incoherent. That’s your problem, and a magic man at the controls doesn’t solve it – it just relocates it to the magic man.

This assertion just presumes that the freewill of my human soul must be driven by something else.  Can you not understand the concept of will, and that it is the instigator of an act of will, not just a mechanism driven by something else?

It’s not possible only because nothing – absolutely nothing – can be allowed to undermine the edifice of religious belief you’ve nurtured for decades. You’re terrified by the idea that an incoming tide of reason that removes even one grain from your sandcastle would quickly wash away the rest too. That’s why it can’t be allowed to happen.

I have not come across any convincing evidence that I do not have the gift of freewill.  To believe in your materialistic scenario would mean that I have to accept that my perception of freewill is an illusion.  I cannot do this because I know beyond doubt that I have the consciously driven power to choose rather than just react.  This is driven by my perception of reality - not my Christian faith.

You can proffer if it you like, but until and unless you finally address the problems that beset it you’ll continue to be ignored or worse when you do.

I would say that the problems lie with your materialistic views that contradict a fundamental aspect of humanity which is evidenced throughout human history.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The certainty about my spiritual nature began almost 50 years ago when I came to realise that my freewill could not be derived from a material brain.  Since unlocking this key, my faith has gone from strength to strength in many other ways which are not dependent upon this fundamental discovery.

Exactly! Look at what you just said:

- “The certainty”. Can you not see that certainty – about anything – is the enemy or understanding because it excludes a priori even the possibility of being wrong if more robust thinking and evidence becomes available? You accuse others here of being locked in to certainty (wrongly as it happens - that there could be no possibility of a “supernatural” for example) yet in your own words you tell us that locked in problem is actualy yours.

- “my spiritual nature”. What “spiritual nature”? What do you even mean by “spiritual” other than that you feel some things very deeply, just as the rest of us do?

- “almost 50 years ago”. Just as I suggested then – you’ve been cherishing your faith beliefs for so long that even contemplating the idea that they could be wholly mistaken would be too painful for you, hence your relentless obduracy here. 

- “when I came to realise…”. No Alan. What you did was come to believe – a very different matter.

- “my freewill could not be derived from a material brain”. Even 50 years ago this position was long outdated, but now you have logic and neuroscience ranged against you too. And yet you bet your personal realisation against all that reason and evidence. Why?

- “which are not dependent upon this fundamental discovery”. It’s a fundamental mistake Alan, not a “discovery” as you’d know if only you’d allow yourself to pull up the blinds even a little. You may or may may have good different reasons for believing as you do, but the one we’re about here isn’t one of them.

You claim my perception of freewill is superficial…

Yes, because it’s intuitive. That’s how it feels to you, therefore (for you) that’s the explanation for it. The trouble though is that our initial, intuitive, instinctive explanations for the phenomena we experience are very often wrong, and there’s no reason for this not to be just one such more case however deep your feelings about it. 

…,but the evidence for this claim lies in a presumption that my perception is entirely defined by physical brain activity alone.  However the evidence for the reality of my freewill surely lies in every action I consciously invoke - hence my postings on this thread.  Can you honestly claim that every post I make is entirely driven by nothing but physically predetermined reactions to previous events in my brain?  Yes - I know you will just write this off as personal incredulity, but how can it be personal if it is entirely driven by naturally occurring physical reactions?

You’ve had this explained to you, what – 100 time maybe? 200 perhaps? Why then ask for it to be explained again only for you to ignore the explanation? Yes, reason and evidence tell us that at a deeper substrate of reality “free” will cannot be free in the sense you intuit it to be, but as a functional lived experience it feels that way nonetheless. Why is this so difficult for you?   

This assertion just presumes that the freewill of my human soul must be driven by something.  Can you not understand the concept of will, and that it is the instigator of an act of will, not just a mechanism driven by something else?

Can you not understand that exiting your little man at the controls from simple logic by telling us it mysteriously doesn’t apply to him is simply incoherent? If you want to posit that with a straight face, then you set the rationale bar so low that I can populate the field you've thereby created with anything else that’s pops into my head too. How does that help you?

I have not come across any convincing evidence that I do not have the gift of freewill.

Yes you have. Your just refuse point blank to engage with it though.

To believe in your materialistic scenario would mean that I have to accept that my perception of freewill is an illusion.

Effectively yes. And?

I cannot do this because I know beyond doubt that I have the consciously driven power to choose rather than just react.  This is driven by my perception of reality - not my Christian faith.

And you know too (or should do by now) that our “perception of reality” is one of the least reliable tools we have to understand reality at anything but the level of the superficial. That’s why we’ve developed methods and tools to allow us to look much deeper than our ancestors could. Why then cling so doggedly to one of the least reliable means of investigation available to you? 

I would say that the problems lie with your materialistic views that contradict a fundamental aspect of humanity which is evidenced throughout human history.

I know you would. You’d still be wrong though – for the same reason that someone else might complain that modern meteorology contradicts his “aspect of humanity” that thunder is caused by Thor. How does that help you though? 

[Alan Burns]

Dear Blue,

Yet despite all your detailed arguments to the contrary, I still have the freedom to contradict you and tell you are wrong, and the very act of consciously choosing to do this emanates from what exactly?

[Gordon]

\

Dear Blue,

Yet despite all your convoluted arguments to the contrary, I still have the freedom to contradict you and tell you are wrong, and the very act of consciously choosing to do this emanates from what exactly?

All the evidence to date points to it being your brain, Alan: no brains = no thoughts, feelings or choices about anything.

[BeRational]

Dear Blue,

Yet despite all your detailed arguments to the contrary, I still have the freedom to contradict you and tell you are wrong, and the very act of consciously choosing to do this emanates from what exactly?

You are describing what it feels like.
We know what if feels like so no need to repeat it as it is not evidence for a soul.
A wall feels solid, the sky looks blue, neither are true.

[Alan Burns]

\
All the evidence to date points to it being your brain, Alan: no brains = no thoughts, feelings or choices about anything.

If you remove the material apparatus, the soul will no longer have a means of perception or interaction with this material world.

I see no scientific definition for what constitutes a thought, feeling or conscious choice in material terms.  The presumption that our awareness is just an emergent property of material elements is evidently derived from the assumption that there is nothing else but material properties in a human brain.   The big question of what comprises a thought in material terms still remains.

[Alan Burns]

You are describing what it feels like.
We know what if feels like so no need to repeat it as it is not evidence for a soul.
A wall feels solid, the sky looks blue, neither are true.

But it does not just feel like I am choosing to contradict him - I am contradicting him!

[Gordon]

If you remove the material apparatus, the soul will no longer have a means of perception or interaction with this material world.

A super example of begging the question, Alan: hence your sentence is meaningless.

I see no scientific definition for what constitutes a thought, feeling or conscious choice in material terms.

Then you haven't looked well enough since I think you'll find that neurologists (and other scientists) looking at thoughts, feelings and consciousness would 'define' these as being brain activity.

The presumption that our awareness is just an emergent property of material elements is evidently derived from the assumption that there is nothing else but material properties in a human brain.

There is nothing in the brain but 'material elements', which includes of course the various forms of how information is processed.

The big question of what comprises a thought in material terms still remains.

It's biology, Alan, even if the details aren't fully known, and as far as I know the various scientists studying the brain aren't looking for anything other than natural explanations. A bigger question is why you persist in thinking there is something affecting brains that isn't natural since you have no basis in logic or method to demonstrate this 'soul' thing is a serious proposition.

 

[Gordon]

But it does not just feel like I am choosing to contradict him - I am contradicting him!

It just feels that way and only means that you can think using your functioning brain and act on what you think - so what! I've just put the kettle on because I want to make coffee - so what!   

[SteveH]

You are describing what it feels like.
We know what if feels like so no need to repeat it as it is not evidence for a soul.
A wall feels solid, the sky looks blue, neither are true.

Of course they're bloody well true. Yes, I know a wall is mostly empty space, but it is solid in the normal sense of the word, because it's hard and impenetrable. The air lets through more of the blue than any other oart of the spectrum, therefore the sky looks blue. As George Orwell once said, "some beliefs are so silly only an intellectual could hold them". This is a classic example of what he called "silly-cleverness".

[BeRational]

Of course they're bloody well true. Yes, I know a wall is mostly empty space, but it is solid in the normal sense of the word, because it's hard and impenetrable. The air lets through more of the blue than any other oart of the spectrum, therefore the sky looks blue. As George Orwell once said, "some beliefs are so silly only an intellectual could hold them". This is a classic example of what he called "silly-cleverness".

They are not solid.

The sky is not blue.

It just seems that way to us.

How solid is the entire Earth to a neutrino?