Searching for GOD...

[SteveH]

if there were any evidence for a god then it would already be part of the synthesis of scientific knowledge.  And given you've spent the last three years on this board arguing against the science, amongst other things, I doubt the sincerity of your claim that you see nothing in science to contradict your faith.

Whatever God is, God is not an object in the universe, like you, me, this computer, or Australia. You are making a category mistake.

[Gordon]

What I have done is to illustrate that these scientific findings do not constitute evidence which can be used to deny the existence of God or our own spiritual souls.

Leaving aside your wandering towards both the dear-old NPF and begging the question (quite a feat in just one sentence), along with your misrepresentation the scope of science, you'd be better employed providing some substantive evidence for 'God/souls'.

[Alan Burns]

As far as I can see, Alan, you regard the tenets of your faith as being a priori to everything else: so you start from 'God' and you simply refuse to, or are unable to, acknowledge anything that you think of as a threat to your personal faith. Unfortunately for you the result is that you create a mix of unreasonable denial, on the one hand, and on the other you contrive a mix of illogical incoherence, such as your take on 'freedom'.

My knowledge of God is certainly at the forefront of my conscious awareness.  And this knowledge helps me to see the profound truths and meanings behind our existence, and how we can use our spiritual gift of freewill for the good of all, rather than be in denial of it.

[BeRational]

Whatever God is, God is not an object in the universe, like you, me, this computer, or Australia. You are making a category mistake.

How can you demonstrate this thing then?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have not argued against science.

That much at least is true – you’d need to know something about it if you were to argue against it.

I do not deny any scientific findings.

But that’s not true – you’ve told us expressly that you’d deny any scientific theory that “effectively removes” your various faith beliefs. Which theory you think would do that removing is a matter for you though. 

What I have done is to illustrate that these scientific findings do not constitute evidence which can be used to deny the existence of God or our own spiritual souls.

You haven’t “done” that at all because it’s not something anyone claims in the first place. This is called the negative proof fallacy. That science does not “deny” something – gods, leprechauns and Jack Frost alike – is just a function of those conjectures being framed as non-investigable. That though tells you nothing at all about the likelihood of their existence. 

[Enki]

I have not argued against science.
I do not deny any scientific findings.
What I have done is to illustrate that these scientific findings do not constitute evidence which can be used to deny the existence of God or our own spiritual souls.

What you actually said was that 'The evidence for God and our personal spirituality goes far deeper than anything science can discover.'(in post 32269).

So what is this 'evidence' then? It can't be personal/subjective evidence because that can immediately be discounted by other contrary personal/subjective evidence.

Science does not deny the existence of God or of souls because it would need at least some evidence for their existence before it can become involved. Presently there is none.

So I await with interest this evidence that you say you have?

[Stranger]

What I have done is to illustrate that these scientific findings do not constitute evidence which can be used to deny the existence of God or our own spiritual souls.

I don't think anybody claimed that they did. Remember, however, that scientific findings do not constitute evidence which can be used to deny the existence of the invisible pink unicorn, either.

If by what you have done, you mean your posts here, that is inaccurate; you haven't done that (it never needed doing), instead you have made ridiculous claims that you have evidence and a "logical analysis" that supports your self-contradictory ideas about souls. You've then, when challenged, done anything but actually face up to and engage with the counterarguments. It's almost as if you are afraid to think about them...

[torridon]

Whatever God is, God is not an object in the universe, like you, me, this computer, or Australia. You are making a category mistake.

Yes, I'd agree with that;  I was refuting Alan's claim that there was such evidence.

[torridon]

I have not argued against science.
I do not deny any scientific findings.
..

You've forgotten the innumerable times you've denied the findings regarding consciousness lag, then ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Whatever God is,…

That “is” is overreaching (“reification”), especially in a conversation about whether or not there are any good reasons to think there to be a god at all. What you meant there was something like, “Whatever my belief about a god is…”

God is not an object in the universe, like you, me, this computer, or Australia.

That’s called the fallacy of assertion. Just asserting something to be the case tells you nothing about whether it actually is the case.

You are making a category mistake.

No he isn’t. The claim was that there is “evidence” for a god. That’s the category - evidence. Whether you choose to posit a god as material or immaterial, if the word “evidence” is to mean anything other than “personal belief” then there has to be an objective method of some kind to investigate it.   

[SteveH]

Steve H,

That “is” is overreaching (“reification”), especially in a conversation about whether or not there are any good reasons to think there to be a god at all. What you meant there was something like, “Whatever my belief about a god is…”

I intended the words "assumong there is a God", or some such, to be understood. I think most people would have realised that.

That’s called the fallacy of assertion. Just asserting something to be the case tells you nothing about whether it actually is the case.

I think God is what I said by definition. If I said "a circle is round", you wouldn't accuse me of the fallacy of assertion.

No he isn’t. The claim was that there is “evidence” for a god. That’s the category - evidence. Whether you choose to posit a god as material or immaterial, if the word “evidence” is to mean anything other than “personal belief” then there has to be an objective method of some kind to investigate it.

Yes, he was, because he was assuming that God is an object in the universe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

I intended the words "assumong there is a God", or some such, to be understood. I think most people would have realised that.

There was no “some such”. What you actually said was, “Whatever God is, God is not…” etc.

I think God is what I said by definition. If I said "a circle is round", you wouldn't accuse me of the fallacy of assertion.

No I wouldn’t, but that’s a category error (a real one this time). “Circle” is universally and objectively defined as “round”. “God” on the other hand has pretty much as many meanings as there are people who believe in such things. Asserting what your personal (belief about a) god is doesn’t thereby make it an universal and objective truth.

Yes, he was, because he was assuming that God is an object in the universe.

Again, no he wasn’t – you can assume anything you like, but if you want to claim evidence for it then you need some way to demonstrate that it is evidence rather than just a really strongly held feeling. That incidentally is where AB always falls apart – all he has is strong feelings about things, but no evidence for them at all (or at least none he’s prepared to share here).

[Alan Burns]

You've forgotten the innumerable times you've denied the findings regarding consciousness lag, then ?

I have never denied the findings regarding consciousness lag.
What I have denied is that these findings can be used to show that a conscious choice is made before we become aware of it.
As I have previous indicated, I believe the soul exists in a spiritual dimension which is not part our material universe, and can initiate whatever actions are required within the time line of our physical brain activity in order to implement our conscious choice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have never denied the findings regarding consciousness lag.
What I have denied is that these findings can be used to show that a conscious choice is made before we become aware of it.
As I have previous indicated, I believe the soul exists in a spiritual dimension which is not part our material universe, and can initiate whatever actions are required within the time line of our physical brain activity in order to implement our conscious choice.

You can of course believe anything you like, however un-argued, un-evidenced and irrational. What you don’t get to do though is to claim to have evidence for it – or at least to have presented some of it.

[Stranger]

As I have previous indicated, I believe the soul exists in a spiritual dimension which is not part our material universe, and can initiate whatever actions are required within the time line of our physical brain activity in order to implement our conscious choice.

The soul is magic and can magically produce any evidence that you may find that contradicts Alan's assertions by using its magic to magically make them happen while Alan's assertions can magically be true regardless... magically.... by using magic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

The soul is magic and can magically produce any evidence that you may find that contradicts Alan's assertions by using its magic to magically make them happen while Alan's assertions can magically be true regardless... magically.... by using magic.

That's pretty much the beginning and the end of it: "Science doesn't provide enough of an answer for me, so I'll junk what it does have and claim magic instead". It's prehistoric (literally) as an approach to knowledge, and to see it persist here is odd. 

[Gordon]

As I have previous indicated, I believe the soul exists in a spiritual dimension which is not part our material universe, and can initiate whatever actions are required within the time line of our physical brain activity in order to implement our conscious choice.

Made up nonsense that is in the same ballpark as pretty much all fantastical fiction.

[Sebastian Toe]

I have never denied the findings regarding consciousness lag.
What I have denied is that these findings can be used to show that a conscious choice is made before we become aware of it.
As I have previous indicated, I believe the soul exists in a spiritual dimension which is not part our material universe, and can initiate whatever actions are required within the time line of our physical brain activity in order to implement our conscious choice.

So, what exactly is conciouness lag then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, what exactly is conciouness lag then?

Is it the time taken for feeling funny to wear off?

[Sebastian Toe]

Is it the time taken for feeling funny to wear off?

Maybe it is the time taken between you saying that you are going to leave this forum (again) and then changing your mind?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe it is the time taken between you saying that you are going to leave this forum (again) and then changing your mind?

Ooh look, a bee.

[Sebastian Toe]

Ooh look, a bee.

Are you bumbling your way out?

[torridon]

I have never denied the findings regarding consciousness lag.
What I have denied is that these findings can be used to show that a conscious choice is made before we become aware of it.
As I have previous indicated, I believe the soul exists in a spiritual dimension which is not part our material universe, and can initiate whatever actions are required within the time line of our physical brain activity in order to implement our conscious choice.

It looks like you are struggling to find a way to justify the doublethink here.  You equate our conscious awareness with a spiritual soul and you insist our conscious awareness (soul) specifically lives in the present, so I don't see how you can simultaneously accept the finding from research that reveals our conscious awareness lives in the past.  You cannot have it both ways.

[Alan Burns]

It looks like you are struggling to find a way to justify the doublethink here.  You equate our conscious awareness with a spiritual soul and you insist our conscious awareness (soul) specifically lives in the present, so I don't see how you can simultaneously accept the finding from research that reveals our conscious awareness lives in the past.  You cannot have it both ways.

I was just offering a possible explanation for the reality of our freedom to choose.
There may be other explanations.

The conclusion you suggest - that we are not aware of our conscious choices until after they are made - is not compatible with the reality of our demonstrable freedom to choose.  If we have no conscious control of our choices, it would render this entire discussion to be meaningless.

[Sebastian Toe]

I was just offering a possible explanation for the reality of our freedom to choose.
There may be other explanations.

The conclusion you suggest - that we are not aware of our conscious choices until after they are made - is not compatible with the reality of our demonstrable freedom to choose.  If we have no conscious control of our choices, it would render this entire discussion to be meaningless.

So, is there or is there not, as research suggests, such a thing as conciousness lag?