Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Because sources of deliberation do not exist in the physically predetermined scenario where there can be nothing but inevitable reactions.

Baseless assertion.

[Stranger]

Their "badness" as you put it always boils down though to naturalism, physicalism and empiricism" circular arguments all.

Nonsense.

[Sebastian Toe]

But an entirely material brain does not do the conscious "seeing" that you are advocating, because material elements can only produce reactions to previous events.

'Conscious seeing' is explained by the perception of the emergent property, consciousness, reflecting on that which took place milliseconds previously in the biological brain.
No magic soul required.

The "seeing" involves a consciously driven thought process

No it doesn't, see above.

- not just inevitable reactions.

Old-hat, bot-reply. Are you really a person?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nonsense.

All right then show us aso called demolition that does not depend on naturalism, physicalism or empiricism......or ridicule.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of these -isms are required to spot hopelessly bad arguments.

Feel free to demonstrate.

[Enki]

That rather suggests that you rejected all arguments for God  or you have reached some point in the argument where you rejected God without feeling you needed to listen to further argument.

No, I simply haven't found any argument for God to be convincing. I am always open to new or convincing arguments of course. That is why I asked you to give me one. The fact that you haven't even bothered seems to support the idea that you are unable to. The offer still stands though.

This does interest me because this rejection is on the grounds of materialism or naturalism or scientism usually and any attempt to pin the causes of personal atheism down ends up in an expression of  agnosticism.

The thing is though that naturalism, empiricism and science arent interested in the areas that religion is and assigns precious little interest to anyhing like a self or guilt or ecstacy, value etc.

Not sure how you get to this because I haven't mentioned materialism or scientism or naturalism. Do you find it frustrating that a person can be an atheist without asserting that there is no god then? A pity, I suppose, but that's the way it is for me, whether you like it or not.

Science is concerned with explanations of the natural world. When it comes to emotions such as' guilt, ectasy, value' then science will try to explain them in relation to the natural world. I have no problem with that at all.

The idea of things like 'self,, guilt, ecstasy. value etc,' are from my personal point of view huge subjects each of which would, at the very least, require separate threads. For instance the sense of self would involve both the soft and hard problems of consciousness. I think in a previous reply you will find I have already given some of my thoughts on guilt and morality in general.

Eliminating all those things must be a real crutch and comfort for you.

Why should I seek to eliminate science and empiricism(leaving aside naturalism) when I see them as a really important way of understanding the world? I don't think in terms of crutches and comforts so that is lost on me. If you do, you have my sympathy.

[Alan Burns]

'Conscious seeing' is explained by the perception of the emergent property, consciousness, reflecting on that which took place milliseconds previously in the biological brain.

But using the label "emergent property" is not an explanation of consciousness or how it works or how it is driven.  In a material brain, there can be nothing but predefined physical reactions to events.

What drives the "reflection" process?

[Stranger]

All right then show us aso called demolition that does not depend on naturalism, physicalism or empiricism......or ridicule.

Feel free to demonstrate.

What arguments for god do you think require any of these -isms to counter?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, I simply haven't found any argument for God to be convincing. I am always open to new or convincing arguments of course. That is why I asked you to give me one. The fact that you haven't even bothered seems to support the idea that you are unable to. The offer still stands though.

Not sure how you get to this because I haven't mentioned materialism or scientism or naturalism. Do you find it frustrating that a person can be an atheist without asserting that there is no god then? A pity, I suppose, but that's the way it is for me, whether you like it or not.

Science is concerned with explanations of the natural world. When it comes to emotions such as' guilt, ectasy, value' then science will try to explain them in relation to the natural world. I have no problem with that at all.

The idea of things like 'self, sense, guilt, ecstacy. value etc,' are from my personal point of view huge subjects each of which would, at the very least, require separate threads. For instance the sense of self would involve both the soft and hard problems of consciousness. I think in a previous reply you will find I have already given some of my thoughts on guilt and morality in general.

Why should I seek to eliminate science and empiricism(leaving aside naturalism) when I see them as a really important way of understanding the world? I don't think in terms of crutches and comforts so that is lost on me. If you do, you have my sympathy.

You seem to be avoiding the answer which completes your statement I find God unconvincing.
Why do you find it unconvincing. What is it which is more convincing?

It has to be of course "God free" famously known by its better known title....Naturalism.

[Stranger]

But using the label "emergent property" is not an explanation of consciousness or how it works or how it is driven.

Jaw-dropping double standards (again). Your nonsense has no explanation of consciousness or how it works or how it is driven and it's self-contradictory.

In a material brain, there can be nothing but predefined physical reactions to events.

And for anything that isn't physical, there can only be reactions to the past or randomness, too.

What drives the "reflection" process?

Your brain.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What arguments for god do you think require any of these -isms to counter?

Nicely dodged the force is shtrong in you. From now on you shall be known as Darth.....evader.

[Alan Burns]

And for anything that isn't physical, there can only be reactions to the past or randomness, too.

For someone who does not acknowledge the existence of anything non physical, you profess to know a lot about it and how it works.   

[Stranger]

Nicely dodged...

Likewise. Why do you never actually want to post an argument for god?

If you want an example, look at the nonsense Alan is posting. It doesn't require any of the -isms you are obsessed with to see through it, it is wrong because it's self-contradictory, has zero supporting evidence, and all his supposed arguments are fallacy-ridden nonsense.

[Stranger]

For someone who does not acknowledge the existence of anything non physical, you profess to know a lot about it and how it works.   

And round and round and round the Alan-bot goes...

For what seems like the ten thousandth time: I'm just assuming it is logically self-consistent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

If you want an example, look at the nonsense Alan is posting. It doesn't require any of the -isms you are obsessed with to see through it, it is wrong because it's self-contradictory, has zero supporting evidence, and all his supposed arguments are fallacy-ridden nonsense.

Yeah, but apart from all that though...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Likewise. Why do you never actually want to post an argument for god?

If you want an example, look at the nonsense Alan is posting. It doesn't require any of the -isms you are obsessed with to see through it, it is wrong because it's self-contradictory, has zero supporting evidence, and all his supposed arguments are fallacy-ridden nonsense.

Why is it you think im having Alan Burns argument?
What is it wìth you and having different arguments and going of on tangents? Butterfly mind?

[Stranger]

Why is it you think im having Alan Burns argument?
What is it wìth you and having different arguments and going of on tangents? Butterfly mind?

Pots and kettles spring to mind.

We were talking about arguments for god(s) not needing your list of -isms to dismiss them. You declined to post your own, so I pointed to Alan's as an example.

Do try to keep track of the conversation.

[Enki]

You seem to be avoiding the answer which completes your statement I find God unconvincing.
Why do you find it unconvincing. What is it which is more convincing?

And you seem to be avoiding giving me any reason to be convinced. If you would like to suggest any argument for the existence of God that you find convincing, I will tell you whether I agree with you or not, and give my reasons.

It has to be of course "God free" famously known by its better known title....Naturalism.

For the record I have no interest in philosophical naturalism whatever but you seem to have a penchant for deciding what people's views are without actually listening to them. That would be your problem, not mine.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you seem to be avoiding giving me any reason to be convinced. If you would like to suggest any argument for the existence of God that you find convincing, I will tell you whether I agree with you or not, and give my reasons.

For the record I have no interest in philosophical naturalism whatever but you seem to have a penchant for deciding what people's views are without actually listening to them. That would be your problem, not mine.

Reasons for abandoning naturalism?
Circular argument.
Not established by methodological naturalism and thus incoherent.
Needs either to be eternal or to have popped out of nothing to exist but naturalism refuses to assign these qualities to anything and is thus incoherent.

To which one might add that it postulates that everything is derived but nothing appears to be the source of derivation.

[torridon]

I must admit, Torri, it is a mystery to me how you can possibly come up with all these carefully chosen words and believe they are all just predetermined from nothing but the physically controlled electro chemical activity from material elements.

I'm guessing that is because you aren't bothering to read and digest and understand what is being said.  In one ear and out the other, it seems.  You won't make any progress in understanding life until you put that effort to engage in.

[Stranger]

Reasons for abandoning naturalism?

Abandoning (or never adopting) naturalism is not the same thing as believing in a god.

Why won't you post a convincing argument for god, if you think there is one?

Not established by methodological naturalism and thus incoherent.

Non sequitur.

Needs either to be eternal or to have popped out of nothing to exist but naturalism refuses to assign these qualities to anything and is thus incoherent.

Still drivel.

[Gordon]

Since you once quite bluntly told me you only posted to point out fallacy not offer explanation I will move swiftly on to say

Pointing out that a fallacy has been used requires no further explanation: the fallacy over-rides whatever point was being argued.

I find the same with naturalism which asks us to both accept a universe which either is eternal or popped out of nothing and yet forbids us to assign those two qualities to well nigh everything.

Is that what naturalism entails, or is it just you working through your stockpile of straw?

I find nothing so monumentally incoherent in theism.

That would be because you are a theist, Vlad.

[torridon]

But the answers you provide totally fail to explain the ultimate source of my freedom to compose this reply.  It is not just an "experience" of apparent freedom.  It is real, demonstrable freedom which you refuse to acknowledge by trying to label it as a logical impossibility.  And in your conscious attempt to do this you aptly demonstrate the reality of what you deem to be impossible.

Your concept of freedom is not demonstrable at all, not least because it is conceptually incoherent, so you can no more demonstrate that than you could demonstrate a square circle or a four sided triangle.  Even if it were not an incoherent claim, to demonstrate that you could have made a meaningful choice that was different from the one made without being random you would need to be able to go back in time, and we cannot do that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

In one ear and out the other, it seems.

You're about 32,000 ft too low.

[Alan Burns]

I'm guessing that is because you aren't bothering to read and digest and understand what is being said.  In one ear and out the other, it seems.  You won't make any progress in understanding life until you put that effort to engage in.

But to put even more effort to try to understand your logic would require freedom to consciously make this effort, and such freedom to act would contradict the logic you try to propose with your carefully chosen words.

And I do fully understand what you are saying, but it all falls apart when I contemplate the impossibility that all my thoughts words and actions could be predetermined by events beyond the control of my conscious awareness.  My thoughts are more than mere information flow, they comprise perception of information and the ability to consciously manipulate and interact with it.