Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

I have been doing this for the last three years, but as I indicated in my post, the abundant evidence has been deliberately dismissed, ignored or ridiculed by those who appear not to wish to find God, but instead seek to find reasons not to believe in Him.

Don't be silly.

I asked a couple of times, without success, for you to explain your claim that 'souls' are from another dimension and that they interact with our brain in this dimension: so this works how, exactly?

[Sebastian Toe]

Don't be silly.

I asked a couple of times, without success, for you to explain your claim that 'souls' are from another dimension and that they interact with our brain in this dimension: so this works how, exactly?

Timeless dimension,  don't forget that, it's important!

[Stranger]

I have been doing this for the last three years, but as I indicated in my post, the abundant evidence...

Where is this "abundant evidence"? I've never seen you post any actual evidence at all.

You keep on basically lying (which isn't a great advert for your faith) by claiming that our experience and abilities are evidence for your particular 'explanation' of them, but apart from that, nothing but assertions, fallacies, and self-contradictory claims.

...has been deliberately dismissed, ignored or ridiculed by those who appear not to wish to find God, but instead seek to find reasons not to believe in Him.

I'm sure it's really comforting for you to believe that, but it's a laughable distortion of what is going on. I have no interest in finding reasons not to believe in any gods. I have never seen a credible reason to take any of them seriously - least of all in your posts, which tell me that your faith requires you to believe in logical impossibilities and do anything but face up to the arguments that show this to be the case.

[torridon]

For those who truly wish to discover the truth about their existence, there is abundant evidence for God and for our own spiritual nature.  But for those who not wish to seek God, our God given freedom to drive our own thought processes will enable them to think of reasons to dismiss or ignore or even ridicule this evidence.  If you wish to seek the truth, you will not discover it in the minutia of human scientific investigation - you would be looking in the wrong place.  I am reminded once more of an essay by CS Lewis entitled "Fern seed and elephants", in which Lewis illustrates the futility of explorers who are so intent on examining the seed beneath the ferns that they do not see the elephant in front of them.

If you had any real evidence, you'd have published it already, put it in the public domain so that others can see and assess the data.  What you are calling evidence is is more like desparate contortions of your own mental processes, such as humans being able to make meaningful choices on a basis that is free of meaningful bases.  Such things are not evidence of anything except your own irrational thinking.  To convince others you need to have real data, and explanatory models that make sense.

[Alan Burns]

Abundant evidence?  Children raped by Catholic priests, well, God told the priests not to kill them.

Yes, there is abundant evidence for evil too.
But please do not presume that all Catholic priests are evil.  Many have simply dedicated their lives to the service of God and His people.

[Alan Burns]

What you are calling evidence is is more like desperate contortions of your own mental processes, such as humans being able to make meaningful choices on a basis that is free of meaningful bases. 

No
Evidence abounds which shows that humans can make meaningful choices on a basis which is not entirely predetermined by past events.

[SusanDoris]

No
Evidence abounds which shows that humans can make meaningful choices on a basis which is not entirely predetermined by past events.

Do you pride yourself on this phrase, 'evidence abounds'? If so, it is an entirely false pride, since the phrase has zero meaning, unless you can back it up with an objective, 99.99recurring% factual piece of proper EVIDENCE.

[Stranger]

No
Evidence abounds which shows that humans can make meaningful choices on a basis which is not entirely predetermined by past events.

Yet again: where is this evidence?

(And no, Alan, people's experience and abilities are not evidence of your assertion.)

[wigginhall]

Well, the abundant evidence turns out to be something that Alan believes.   

[Alan Burns]

Yet again: where is this evidence?

In every post on this forum

[Stranger]

Well, the abundant evidence turns out to be something that Alan believes.

Yes, we've gone beyond baseless assertions about the reality of this self-contradictory notion of freedom into the realm of baseless assertions that there is abundant evidence to support the former baseless and contradictory assertions.

(baseless assertions)²

[Stranger]

Yet again: where is this evidence?

(And no, Alan, people's experience and abilities are not evidence of your assertion.)

[emphasis added]

Yet again: where is this evidence?

In every post on this forum

Yet again: claiming that our experience and abilities are evidence for your 'explanation' of them is dishonest. Every single explanation that people have put forward is an attempt to explain them, so claiming them as evidence of only yours is, in effect, a barefaced lie.

Once again we see fundamental dishonesty coupled with repeatedly ignoring people who point it out. If you think what I said above is wrong, why haven't you said why you think it's wrong? I've said it often enough...

[Stranger]

In every post on this forum

This is exactly like you've come up with a new theory of gravity and when people ask you why they should believe your theory, rather than another, you say "there is abundant evidence for it", so they ask, "where is this evidence?", and you say "well, if you drop something, it falls to the ground." and they say "but every theory of gravity predicts that" and you totally ignore it and go on repeating that your theory must be true because things fall to the ground...


...except it's even worse than that because your "theory of gravity" is logically impossible.

[Gordon]

In every post on this forum

That's utter bollocks, Alan: and if you weren't blinded by your bespoke version of Christianity you'd cringe at your own contributions here (such as they are).

Hopefully, whatever it is that you've caught a dose of isn't infectious.

[SusanDoris]

That's utter bollocks, Alan: and if you weren't blinded by your bespoke version of Christianity you'd cringe at your own contributions here (such as they are).

Hopefully, whatever it is that you've caught a dose of isn't infectious.

Decidedly seconded.

[Sebastian Toe]

I am sorry that you seem to have a very limited view of Christians and what they believe.

I witness to these fundamental beliefs which are common to every one of the hundreds of Christians I have met and conversed with:

The existence of the human soul and its immortality.

Ezekiel 18:4
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

[jeremyp]

Demolish the chinese room experiment.

OK, but first you tell me what your understanding of the Chinese Room thought experiment is and why you think it refutes a materialistic explanation of consciousness.

[jeremyp]

No
Evidence abounds which shows that humans can make meaningful choices on a basis which is not entirely predetermined by past events.

Surely a choice can't be meaningful unless it is based on past events. If you make a choice without any of the information you have impinging on it, then it is just a random choice, not meaningful at all.

[torridon]

In every post on this forum

Blind assertion.

Every post on this forum was written by a poster who wanted to write it; this is entirely consistent with a deterministic account of human volition.  Show me a post that was written 'free' of what they wanted to write.  You won't find a single one,

[torridon]

For those who truly wish to discover the truth about their existence, there is abundant evidence for God and for our own spiritual nature.... 

If the evidence is there, then is should be visible to all, not just those with a bias wishing to see it.  Those truly wishing to discover the truth will arm themselves with the principals of critical thinking; the history of science clearly demonstrates our appetite for self deception.  In research we routinely now adopt strategies such as randomised double blind trials exactly because we wish to know the truth and we understand the danger that we merely end up with results that reflect our hopes and prejudices rather than actual reality.  And yet very few people bring such principals into their own day to day thinking.  The internet, which could have been such a positive force for information, is turning into a vehicle for people to spread conspiracy theories and fake news. People will readily believe something that they already want to believe; putting in the hard yards and doing the maths is never the easy option.  Yet we do ourselves a disservice in the long run by buying into fake news and simplistic beliefs. We do not change reality by such strategies, it will come back to bite us one day, and we are better if we can learn to face reality earlier rather than putting it off ad infinitum.

[ekim]

For those who truly wish to discover the truth about their existence, there is abundant evidence for God and for our own spiritual nature.  But for those who not wish to seek God, our God given freedom to drive our own thought processes will enable them to think of reasons to dismiss or ignore or even ridicule this evidence.  If you wish to seek the truth, you will not discover it in the minutia of human scientific investigation - you would be looking in the wrong place. 

So, at last we are back to the subject of this topic 'Searching for God' and from above it appears that you accept that this is predetermined by a desire or wish to discover its truth.  It seems from what you say that those who do not have this desire, do not have the freedom to search.  Your mission then, if you choose to accept it, is to generate that determining factor or desire in others and then to provide the method and the direction for looking in the right place.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

the history of science clearly demonstrates our appetite for self deception.

It is not just the history of science that demonstrates out appetite for self deception though.


Nor does knowledge of the use of science represent an infallible guard against self deception, despite the pleadings of the likes of Lawrence Krauss who above all other antitheist scientists declared that science makes one more moral and that it leads to leaving no room for stuff like misogyny.


Also how much morality surrounded the development of ''the super'' otherwise known as the H Bomb. Maximum science....Maximum morality? I think not.


Science then is revealed as a tool......In the hands frankly of something a bit greater than science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

OK, but first you tell me what your understanding of the Chinese Room thought experiment is and why you think it refutes a materialistic explanation of consciousness.

I don't think I ever said the Chinese room experiment refutes a materialist explanation of consciousness. If there is a materialist explanation nobody has it yet although some wave a possible materialist solution as the final answer.


What I have always said is there is no present partial materialist explanation which explains qualia and no answer to the argument that all biological functions could be carried out by unconscious systems without awareness.


You mention that the purpose of consciousness is that it provides reflection/analysis to inform further action. But that could be done by a completely unconscious mechanism.


Therefore consciousness is not yet adequately explained in evolutionary terms without introducing a seemingly unnecessary entity which is awareness or consciousness.


The incompleteness of a scientific explanation, the apparent resistence of consciousness to an evolutionary explanation means that the materialist argument is not secure, either in the sense of Searle who awaits a fully scientific explanation or Chalmers who states there will never be one.


You introduced the Chinese box thought experiment.


Not only should you demolish the Chinese box idea on your own promise but also add why it's demolition actually establishes the materialist argument for consciousness.

[jeremyp]

I don't think I ever said the Chinese room experiment refutes a materialist explanation of consciousness. If there is a materialist explanation nobody has it yet although some wave a possible materialist solution as the final answer.

What do you think it does say about consciousness then? Why did John Searle invent it? Why did you bring him up in relation to a post about the physical nature of consciousness?

You mention that the purpose of consciousness is that it provides reflection/analysis to inform further action.

No I didn't. I speculated that it could be a byproduct of a mechanism for providing analysis and reflection. Please look up the word "speculated" in a dictionary - I'm not asserting anything.

Not only should you demolish the Chinese box idea on your own promise but also add why it's demolition actually establishes the materialist argument for consciousness.

No, the reason I asked you to give your understanding is that it is pointless for me to demolish something if you don't agree with me what that something means.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Perhaps I should feel flattered that you have once more taken the time

Don’t be. Identifying your dishonest evasions and falsifying the few arguments you do attempt isn’t flattering.

to try to pull apart and refute…

There’s no “try to” about it – they are “pulled apart” and refuted, and your continued avoidance of the falsifications you’re given doesn’t change that.   

… all the points I make…

There are no “all the points I make”: there’s just fingers-in-the-ears “I’m not listening” and repetition of the mindless idiocy of “it’s magic”. Mindless idiocy isn’t “a point” of any kind.

…but in this very detailed response you offer yet more evidence for your substantial abilities to freely think up ways to point out where I am apparently going wrong.

A repeated piece of deep stupidity you’ve had corrected perhaps 100 times or more but that you regurgitate endlessly like a speak your weight machine.

And it is all explained by this quote from your post:

functioning only as if it had ultimate agency

Here once more we have this wonder word "agency" which is used to apparently explain all we need to know about how our material brains can perceive and consciously interact whilst being driven by nothing but predefined reactions to past events.

No we don’t. What it actually explains is that there’s no causal relationship between feeling as if we have ultimate agency and actually having ultimate agency, not least because your non-deterministic/non-random concept is impossible.

Thanks, but I will continue to stick with "soul" to  define what I am.

Translation: “I neither know nor care about the logic that falsifies my efforts at validating my incoherent, irrational and logically impossible faith beliefs – I’m just going to keep asserting them no matter how idiotic doing so makes me appear.”

You have no business whatever posting on a discussion board when you proudly tell us that you will never actually discuss anything. In short, your terror of the consequences if you behaved honestly here means you never will. You’re just wasting people’s time.