Searching for GOD...

[SteveH]

As to the origins of the universe, we don't have enough data to know yet if it had a prior cause or is just one of many universes or maybe is eternal. Likewise, we cannot know if true randomness does exist.  For all practical considerations we will have to live without knowing such things. We can observe however the workings of the universe around us now and we see the principal of adequate determinism applies allowing life to happen and the unidirectional arrow of apparent time gives us a reality in which all our actions today inevitably have future consequences and the present moment is a direct consequence of previous moments.  This is our underlying reality and it applies every bit as much to choices made in a mind as to inanimate systems.  That things happen for a reason indicates that reality is fundamentally logical and we cannot be free of logic, we cannot be free to add 2 and 2 to make 27, such a freedom is illogical, inconceivable; this is the hallmark of the claim of free will, it is ultimately a logic defying self-contradictory absurdity.  So, do we try to think clearly and honestly about things, or do we fill our heads with gratifying absurdities instead ?

We obviously don't have absolute freedom of will, being constrained by fundamental logic, and also only able to make choices appropriate to a human being (we can't choose to fly, or run a 30-second mile), but within those constraints we do have some freedom and can make real choices. It's a bit like "I think, therefore I am", the point of which is that, while I can deny external reality, I can't deny my own mental processes - my present thoughts and sensations - without immediately falling into logical contradiction. Similarly, we know from direct personal experience that we are able to make real choices, and all the silly-clever ratiocination by the deniers on this forum is like trying to prove that 2+2=5 (or indeed 27).

[torridon]

We obviously don't have absolute freedom of will, being constrained by fundamental logic, and also only able to make choices appropriate to a human being (we can't choose to fly, or run a 30-second mile), but within those constraints we do have some freedom and can make real choices. It's a bit like "I think, therefore I am", the point of which is that, while I can deny external reality, I can't deny my own mental processes - my present thoughts and sensations - without immediately falling into logical contradiction. Similarly, we know from direct personal experience that we are able to make real choices, and all the silly-clever ratiocination by the deniers on this forum is like trying to prove that 2+2=5 (or indeed 27).

But you would be denying the fundamental logic of cause and effect if you deny that a choice made is a consequence of prior causes.  Just because a choice 'feels free' is hardly grounds for such a huge claim.

[jjohnjil]

What I said to BHS back in #31749 was "If we are no longer talking about half a jigsaw puzzle allowing you to predict the missing half, then yes I agree that having more parts to an explanation is more helpful to figuring out ways to test for missing parts of the explanation."

Maybe you should have read the relevant posts before jumping in to defend BHS's arguments or you could give the impression of stupidity, which you are clearly not.No it won't unless you can give me some kind of explanation of how that would work rather than just asserting it. If the images on the jigsaw are random there is no predictability of what will emerge on the missing pieces just because you have half the pieces as the half you do have does not determine the picture on the half you don't. I don't know why we're even talking about jigsaw puzzles.
I never argued that. But you are welcome to quote the post where you think I have argued that - I am happy to be convinced by evidence as your assertions just aren't cutting it.

Gabriella,

If I have misunderstood you, then I apologise.  I’ve read some of your posts but admit I haven’t had the patience to wade through most of them. 

I must admire you for defending what you see as posters bullying Alan, I don’t like to see it myself, although all fanatical religionists ask for it sometimes and I’ve been as guilty as anyone from time to time.  Jumping in and defending even the most ridiculous claims he makes though, reduces the credibility of the good arguments you often make.

It’s enough for me to now see that you do say that any evidence is better than none and therefore agree with those who argue that a ‘soul’ is as unevidenced an entity as a goblin or a fairy queen and anyone who claims to know anything about any one of them should provide more than an assertion – if, of course, they wish to be taken seriously.

[Alan Burns]

We are clearly influenced by factors, but we have to resolve a choice somehow; the final resolution of that choice is made by weighing rival factors against each other.

And it is our ability to consciously guide our own thought processes which enables us to weigh up all the influencing factors before consciously invoking our chosen option.  Alternatively we have the option of not bothering with weighing up all the influencing factors and just doing something because we want to do it.  There are no set rules or procedures to follow in making our conscious choices.  We have freedom over what we consider before invoking a conscious choice.  We are in control, not the uncontrollable laws which define the behavior of material reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

So you assert. I need evidence - e.g. if you tell me what theory effectively removes conscious choice we can look for posts where he has routinely dismissed it.

I’m pretty sure you’re trolling now. It was AB who told us that he’d deny “any” theory that “effectively removes” etc. Which theories he thinks do that is something you’d have to take up with him. My point though (as I suspect you well know) is that he takes an a priori position regardless of what “any” theory does or in future could actually tell us.   
 

You didn't correct me. This whole thing started in reply #31648 where you tried to compare the arguments in neuroscience about conscious vs unconscious choices to a jigsaw puzzle. You said "Even though a complete A-Z explanation of consciousness isn’t there we do at least have perhaps a coherent A-M explanation, whereas AB has only A – “it feels that way to me therefore that’s the complete explanation for it”.

To put it another way, which do you think to be the more likely to give you an accurate picture: a 100 piece jig-saw with half the pieces missing, or a 100 piece jig-saw with 99 of the pieces missing? I propose the former (while accepting that I could be wrong); AB asserts the latter (while denying any possibility of being wrong)."

And my response was along the lines that there wasn't enough information to make that claim. A jigsaw puzzle is a picture cut up into pieces. It doesn't need to be a picture of something anyone recognises, it could be abstract with random dots or shapes and the pieces, other than their shape need have no connection to the other pieces in terms of creating a recognisable picture. If you take a 100 or 1000 of those type of jigsaw puzzles you can't calculate a probability that 50% of the pieces will help you figure out what is on the other 50% or if there is a recognisable picture. You made an assumption that the jigsaw puzzle had a recognisable picture and I challenged that assumption.

If we are getting back to talking about the brain processes, which have very little to do with jigsaw puzzles, there is insufficient information - we don't understand a lot about what the brain interacts with and the process of how it makes choices relating to morals or related to decisions where the act or behaviour is perceived to have significant consequences. Neuroscientists and experimental psychologists working on studies about this are suggesting possible theories while stating there is a lot they don't know hence their theories about moral choices or decisions to act are tentative as they are based on brain activity they measured for simple actions such as lifting your finger.

Yes I did correct you. It’s simply axiomatic that probabilistically more information will give you a better shot at identifying new discoveries than will less information. Why? Because knowledge is by and large cumulative – it builds on bridgeheads of knowledge that are already established. This is true of jig-saw puzzles, scientific theories or any other application of discovery of fact.     

You are being hypocritical - you criticised Alan for the same thing, even though so far all you have done is assert that he said anything about deepest truths or reality at the deepest level but have failed, despite me repeatedly asking, to come up with an example of Alan saying anything about deepest truths or realities.

Wrong again, for the reasons I’ve explained to you several times now and you keep misrepresenting. What do you get out of it?

Another vague assertion from you with no evidence. He has also said he doesn't know what the soul is or how it interacts with the brain or how it works and something along the lines of only God has this knowledge or he is telling you how it feels to him. You have repeatedly stated that AB's explanations only go as far as AB claiming "it is magic". Of course that may be your idea of someone stating they know deepest truths or reality - but it doesn't sound very deep to me.

Stop it now. He’s told us frequently that he knows certain things to be true beyond any possibility of being wrong. Telling us that he “hasn’t quite worked out yet the details” about how a soul interacts with a brain for example doesn’t change that absolute certainty about the things he thinks he does know.   

It would help if you could quote exactly what AB is claiming he "knows" and how that translates as claiming to know deepest truths or deepest realities. And more importantly if you can't present any evidence to back any claims you make about what Alan has said about deepest truths or reality, why should your claim be taken seriously just because you really, really, really believe it's what AB meant?

Stop trolling, It’s just dull.   

Up to you if you want to keep trying, or give up - it's your time you're spending and AB is free to post his beliefs on this forum.

He is, albeit that they should in fact be in the faith sharing area as that’s all he has – faith.               

A soul or a leprechaun can be discussed as concepts - people can describe what they think a soul is or what its attributes are and how it relates to the concepts of free will.

https://www.academia.edu/28486811/Five_Philosophers_Theories_on_Free_Will_Plato_Hobbes_Hume_Leibniz_and_Hegel 

They could presumably do the same about leprechauns, if anyone has any thoughts on leprechauns and free will.

They could, but that’s not what AB does. Rather he claims “soul” etc as objective facts about the world, and indeed that we all have one. That means he has to play by the rules of validating such claims, which is where he always falls apart like a cheap suit.   

[Sebastian Toe]

And it is our ability to consciously guide our own thought processes which enables us to weigh up all the influencing factors before consciously invoking our chosen option.  Alternatively we have the option of not bothering with weighing up all the influencing factors and just doing something because we want to do it.  There are no set rules or procedures to follow in making our conscious choices.  We have freedom over what we consider before invoking a conscious choice.  We are in control, not the uncontrollable laws which define the behavior of material reactions.

...which would include someone who believes and states that they are someone they are clearly not (eg Jesus, Napoleon etc).
Correct?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

What I said to BHS back in #31749 was "If we are no longer talking about half a jigsaw puzzle allowing you to predict the missing half, then yes I agree that having more parts to an explanation is more helpful to figuring out ways to test for missing parts of the explanation."

Maybe you should have read the relevant posts before jumping in to defend BHS's arguments or you could give the impression of stupidity, which you are clearly not.

Maybe you should have read the rebuttal of your argument before posting this. Whether jig-saw puzzles or anything else, more information will give a better likelihood of identifying an answer than will less information. That you keep asserting the contrary about jig-saw puzzles in particular of bizarre.
 

No it won't unless you can give me some kind of explanation of how that would work rather than just asserting it. If the images on the jigsaw are random there is no predictability of what will emerge on the missing pieces just because you have half the pieces as the half you do have does not determine the picture on the half you don't. I don't know why we're even talking about jigsaw puzzles.

Because it’s just another example of the same basic principle – that some information is more likely to lead to further information than no information at all. You just ignored the question before, so here it is again: If I give you a thousand jig-saw puzzle boxes each with half the pieces missing and a thousand more with all the pieces missing, which sample set do you think will provide the higher score of correct predictions for the final picture?

Go on, it’s ok. We both know the answer, so you can say it if you’re feeling like bringing some honesty to the table.

I never argued that. But you are welcome to quote the post where you think I have argued that - I am happy to be convinced by evidence as your assertions just aren't cutting it.

And I didn’t suggest that you did. As you know full well, I was referring to what AB does re “soul” etc. 

Why do you misrepresent so much? What do you get out of it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

jj,

If I have misunderstood you, then I apologise.  I’ve read some of your posts but admit I haven’t had the patience to wade through most of them.

You haven’t.   

I must admire you for defending what you see as posters bullying Alan, I don’t like to see it myself, although all fanatical religionists ask for it sometimes and I’ve been as guilty as anyone from time to time.  Jumping in and defending even the most ridiculous claims he makes though, reduces the credibility of the good arguments you often make.

Whether Gabriella ever has good arguments is debatable, but yes – she seems determined to defend to indefensible by ever more obscure and strange reinterpretations and convolutions of what people have said until everyone gives up the attempt at discussion.   

It’s enough for me to now see that you do say that any evidence is better than none and therefore agree with those who argue that a ‘soul’ is as unevidenced an entity as a goblin or a fairy queen and anyone who claims to know anything about any one of them should provide more than an assertion – if, of course, they wish to be taken seriously.

Except for some odd reason she excludes jig-saw puzzles from that paradigm. No idea why though.   

[SteveH]

Gabriella,

If I have misunderstood you, then I apologise.  I’ve read some of your posts but admit I haven’t had the patience to wade through most of them. 

I must admire you for defending what you see as posters bullying Alan, I don’t like to see it myself, although all fanatical religionists ask for it sometimes and I’ve been as guilty as anyone from time to time.  Jumping in and defending even the most ridiculous claims he makes though, reduces the credibility of the good arguments you often make.

Alan doesn't strike me as a fanatical religionist, and some of his opponents do strike me as fanatical anti-religionists: and the constant sarcasm, and finding, or pretending to find, logical fallacies is indeed a form of bullying, to which I've been subjected as well.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Alan doesn't strike me as a fanatical religionist,…

I agree. Obdurate and obtuse, but not fanatical. So far as I can tell he wouldn’t kill someone for his beliefs for example.

…and some of his opponents do strike me as fanatical anti-religionists:…

Can you think of an example? I can’t.

…and the constant sarcasm,…

I think you’ll find that any sarcasm tends to come as the result of sheer bloody frustration at the refusal ever to deal openly and honestly with the arguments that undo him.

…and finding, or pretending to find, logical fallacies…

What pretending to find? Can you think of an example? I can’t.

…is indeed a form of bullying, to which I've been subjected as well.

No it isn’t and no you haven’t. Receiving arguments you can’t rebut or falsify isn’t the same as being bullied. 

[Alan Burns]

I don't have your faith, dear Alan, dear Alan,
I don't have your faith, dear Alan, your faith.

        Well, I'll fix it, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, dear sceptic,
        Well, I'll fix it, dear sceptic, dear sceptic, I'll fix it.
.......................

A fine example of your profound, creative ability to consciously drive your own thought processes.
Well done!

[Alan Burns]

Oh dear. They’re not “meaningless” at all provided they’re bounded by one relatively superficial layer of reality. Whatever “meaningfulness” goldfish experience is still perfectly meaningful for them without ever knowing what’s under the table. That’s your problem – you’re a goldfish, whereas others of us accept the reasoning and evidence that tells us about different, deeper, richer, "under the table" levels of explanatory knowledge. Why is this so hard for you to understand?     

But our consciously driven choices are just that - a consciously driven choice.
To try to explain it at a deeper level in materialistic terms requires a redefinition of what it actually is.  Therefore the materialistic explanation effectively redefines our consciously driven choice to be an inevitable reaction driven by forces and laws beyond our control.

At some point surely even you should be able to grasp that, “this is how an experience feels to me” is a very, very bad argument for “so this feeling must be the explanation for my experience too". The earth feels flat to me too. So what?     

But the freedom I exercised in posting this reply is not just a feeling.  It is a reality which is verified by the consciously chosen content of my reply.

[Sebastian Toe]

A fine example of your profound, creative ability to consciously drive your own thought processes.
Well done!

An excellent example of your biological brain working as intended.
No need for an unevidenced, completely logic free, magical "soul"..
Well done!

[Alan Burns]

An excellent example of your biological brain working as intended.

But in the materialistic scenario, there can be no such thing as "intended".  For something to be intended, you need a consciously conceived intention.  But such intentions only exist in conscious awareness, and fulfilment of such intentions requires the freedom to consciously drive thought processes and actions to achieve the intended goal.

In this quote, you are highlighting the logical presumption that our brain functionality was the intended goal of a much higher conscious awareness than ours.

[SusanDoris]

But in the materialistic scenario, there can be no such thing as "intended".  For something to be intended, you need a consciously conceived intention.  But such intentions only exist in conscious awareness, and fulfilment of such intentions requires the freedom to consciously drive thought processes and actions to achieve the intended goal.

In this quote, you are highlighting the logical presumption that our brain functionality was the intended goal of a much higher conscious awareness than ours.

The words of yours that I do listen to seem to be getting more and more confused. I do not attempt to make head or tail of any of them.
However, I do learn from the answers given - a pity you do not seem to do so too.

[Sebastian Toe]

But in the materialistic scenario, there can be no such thing as "intended".  For something to be intended, you need a consciously conceived intention.  But such intentions only exist in conscious awareness, and fulfilment of such intentions requires the freedom to consciously drive thought processes and actions to achieve the intended goal.

In this quote, you are highlighting the logical presumption that our brain functionality was the intended goal of a much higher conscious awareness than ours.

Nope. I am nerely highlighting the fact that your biological brain is capable of thought, reason, emotion, choice to name but a few.
Your post confirms that.
No, logic free, magic requiring, unevidenced, undefined (very important!), "soul" required.

[wigginhall]

"A much higher conscious awareness than ours", why does he have to bring my mother into it?

[Rhiannon]

Alan doesn't strike me as a fanatical religionist, and some of his opponents do strike me as fanatical anti-religionists: and the constant sarcasm, and finding, or pretending to find, logical fallacies is indeed a form of bullying, to which I've been subjected as well.

There's no pretence. It's difficult, if not impossible, to attempt to prove faith without bringing logical fallacies into it. Which is only a problem if you try to prove faith - it isn't about proof, but belief.

I do agree that there are some who are anti religion here who therefore are intolerant of it. I think that the issue that some have with Alan (myself included) is his Jesus-wants-me-for-a-sunbeam attitude whereby God saves him from having a parking ticket but does fuck all about childhood leukaemia.

[Alan Burns]

Nope. I am nerely highlighting the fact that your biological brain is capable of thought, reason, emotion, choice to name but a few.
Your post confirms that.
No, logic free, magic requiring, unevidenced, undefined (very important!), "soul" required.

And your logical brain appears to have chosen not to answer the logical points contained in my post.

You said that the brain works as intended.

But I questioned the source of this intention.

[Sebastian Toe]

And your logical brain appears to have chosen not to answer the logical points contained in my post.

You said that the brain works as intended.

But I questioned the source of this intention.

Well, your magical "soul" appears not to have resolved the non-logical nature that you have created for it.
In addition you have not  provided a coherent "definition" for a  "soul" and by your own evidential standards, e.g. if science can never provide a definition for a materiel version of conciousness, then that in itself rules it out of possible existence.
Therefore, right back attcha for a "soul".

[Alan Burns]

There's no pretence. It's difficult, if not impossible, to attempt to prove faith without bringing logical fallacies into it. Which is only a problem if you try to prove faith - it isn't about proof, but belief.

I do agree that there are some who are anti religion here who therefore are intolerant of it. I think that the issue that some have with Alan (myself included) is his Jesus-wants-me-for-a-sunbeam attitude whereby God saves him from having a parking ticket but does fuck all about childhood leukaemia.

I pray for many things, both trivial and very serious.
Many of my prayers are for other people, in particular concerning the gift of faith and acceptance of this gift, for there can be nothing more important than this.
So I continue to pray, and nothing should be considered to be outside the scope of being prayed for.  Whatever your troubles and concerns, prayer enables God to interact and do things for the good of all.

[ippy]

There's no pretence. It's difficult, if not impossible, to attempt to prove faith without bringing logical fallacies into it. Which is only a problem if you try to prove faith - it isn't about proof, but belief.

I do agree that there are some who are anti religion here who therefore are intolerant of it. I think that the issue that some have with Alan (myself included) is his Jesus-wants-me-for-a-sunbeam attitude whereby God saves him from having a parking ticket but does fuck all about childhood leukaemia.

Really like this one, good one Rhiannon.

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But in the materialistic scenario, there can be no such thing as "intended".  For something to be intended, you need a consciously conceived intention.  But such intentions only exist in conscious awareness, and fulfilment of such intentions requires the freedom to consciously drive thought processes and actions to achieve the intended goal.

In this quote, you are highlighting the logical presumption that our brain functionality was the intended goal of a much higher conscious awareness than ours.

Your reasoning here is hopeless but you're right inasmuch as the term "intended" is misleading. "An excellent example of your biological brain working as it has evolved to work" or similar would have been clearer.
 

[ippy]

I pray for many things, both trivial and very serious.
Many of my prayers are for other people, in particular concerning the gift of faith and acceptance of this gift, for there can be nothing more important than this.
So I continue to pray, and nothing should be considered to be outside the scope of being prayed for.  Whatever your troubles and concerns, prayer enables God to interact and do things for the good of all.

So you think and you still can't find a way to substantiate any of it, if you have please share with all of us because you haven't managed to do so yet.

Commiserations

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I pray for many things, both trivial and very serious.

No doubt, and I avoid stepping on the cracks in the pavement on the way home to ensure there’s a nice chilled bottle of Sauvignon Blanc in the fridge when I get there. No doubt too each of us finds these activities comforting, and they’re harmless enough provided neither of us overreaches into demanding that others think they actually work.

Many of my prayers are for other people, in particular concerning the gift of faith and acceptance of this gift, for there can be nothing more important than this.

Only in your head Alan, only on your head…

So I continue to pray, and nothing should be considered to be outside the scope of being prayed for.  Whatever your troubles and concerns, prayer enables God to interact and do things for the good of all.

So you believe Alan. Rhi’s point though I think was in part about your ever so ‘umble sanctimoniousness, and in part that in the unlikely event that your god actually exists he’d be a right bastard for answering prayers for trivial things while ignoring them for very serious ones. This seems to have gone over your head though.