Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

 

Maeght,

That's three of you with no idea what he's on about - you, enki and Vlad himself.

 

[Roses]

You ought to be ashamed of this vile comment.

It is true that paedophiles have infiltrated the Roman Catholic church, just as they have infiltrated most other institutions. But this should not detract from the fact that the vast majority of priests dedicate their lives to the service of God and His people.

All very critical comments are justified where the flipping RCC is concerned. The fact that it was known by the hierarchy that some of the priests were abusing children, but nothing was done, just goes to show what an unholy mess it is in. When you add to that all of its other crimes, like the way unmarried mothers have been treated by the church, and forbidding birth control, it is a doctrine which definitely doesn't stand up to scrutiny!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The main evidence is in your own existence - a creative being with freedom to choose and to consciously manipulate the forces of nature, made in the image of its creator.

That's not evidence at all - it's just a story you tell yourself to support a faith belief you happen to have. Evidence is the facts or cogent reasoning that indicates whether or not a belief is valid. You have neither facts nor cogent reasoning to support your claim of evidence, so it fails.   

[Alan Burns]

It's just logic - it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PHYSICAL.

You seem to be obsessed with trying to deny that your deduced logic has anything to do with the concept of physical.

Where does this logic come from?
It is deduced from physical activity in your brain which in your opinion is entirely driven by physical reactions to what is perceived through your physical senses in observing the physical behaviour of material elements and how they react to previous physical events.  The logic you espouse is entirely dependent on physically derived observations of physical activities.  So how can you possibly justify your claim that this logic has nothing to do with the physical?

May I point out that in order to deduce any form of logic, you need the ability to contemplate what you perceive through your senses.  Your logical deductions presume that this contemplation is entirely predetermined before you are consciously aware of it, so it is difficult to envisage how any consciously driven contemplation can be compatible with this logic.

The logic you use presumes that every event must have a prior cause, and each prior cause must itself have a prior cause.  Such logic is presumably based upon observations of physical events and their causes over time.  But it is not entirely supported by science because there are quantum events which have no discernable prior cause.

Also there is the question of time itself.

Time as we know it is related to the physical properties of our universe.  Einstein's theory of relativity shows that time slows down for an object as it travels faster, leading to the conclusion that time slows to a standstill for material approaching the edge of a black hole.  So I am not sure how applicable your logic would be inside a black hole.

You cannot presume that your logical deductions have nothing to do with physical.  And you cannot presume that the concept of time as we know it can be applicable to things which are non physical, such as the human soul.  You need to broaden your horizons to realise that your logical deductions are not as universal as you presume.

[Gordon]

And you cannot presume that the concept of time as we know it can be applicable to things which are non physical, such as the human soul.

I hope you realise, Alan, that this is an example of begging the question: you seem incapable of saying anything that isn't fallacious (except when it is incoherent).

[Sebastian Toe]

And you cannot presume that the concept of time as we know it can be applicable to things which are non physical, such as the human soul.  You need to broaden your horizons to realise that your logical deductions are not as universal as you presume.

As you are the one who claims to have/be a soul existing in a timeless realm. Describe to us what that is like.
Should be simple enough surely?

[torridon]

..

The logic you use presumes that every event must have a prior cause, and each prior cause must itself have a prior cause.  Such logic is presumably based upon observations of physical events and their causes over time.  But it is not entirely supported by science because there are quantum events which have no discernable prior cause.

We don't make that assumption, it has been repeatedly said that we cannot rule out randomness in nature.  No one denies that if an event is not caused by something then it is random.  This is what uncaused means. 

Logic does not just apply to physical things, it is an abstract principal.  If you take two apples and get another two apples you will have four apples;  but also if you have two plans for bringing down the government and then think up another two plans for bringing down the government, guess what, you will have four plans for bringing down the government.  Logic does not just apply to 'physical' things.  Your concept that human choices can be free of determinism without being random is just such a case in point.  It is an illogical position, impossible, inconceivable, wrong and your logicdodging efforts fool no one but yourself.  All you are doing is manifesting that your concept of soul is inherently illogical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No point. Every time I've done it in the past you've lied, misrepresented, prevaricated, avoided, redefined, dissembled and generally done everything you can to seek attention but never to engage honestly. Why would I invite to to do it again?
   

I don't know what you are worried about as you get to point out what is wrong with the previous post. This seems the latest in a string of refusals to do more than just declare something wrong.

What worries me is that the apparent people here who say they do not understand my arguments might miraculously be in full agreement with your alleged demolition (even though they have confessed to not knowing what the original argument was.)

Worse still, I feel we are operating in the context that for some your mere disapproval is enough.


So, Have another shot.


My contention is that God Aversion or as I called it (God Dodging)

is evidenced as follows.


There are atheists who publicise their God Aversion
 Krauss and Nagel admit to not wanting a universe with a God.


That the version of God who garners most aversion and rejection as evidenced by the share of proportion of posts is the version of God who seemingly demands the deepest most personal commitment and the one offered as the least way out there and more with us in his incarnation.


My conclusion is that your claim that the notion that there is God aversion is Deeply idiotic is, IMHO, incorrect.

[Alan Burns]

We don't make that assumption, it has been repeatedly said that we cannot rule out randomness in nature.  No one denies that if an event is not caused by something then it is random.  This is what uncaused means. 

Logic does not just apply to physical things, it is an abstract principal.  If you take two apples and get another two apples you will have four apples;  but also if you have two plans for bringing down the government and then think up another two plans for bringing down the government, guess what, you will have four plans for bringing down the government.  Logic does not just apply to 'physical' things.  Your concept that human choices can be free of determinism without being random is just such a case in point.  It is an illogical position, impossible, inconceivable, wrong and your logicdodging efforts fool no one but yourself.  All you are doing is manifesting that your concept of soul is inherently illogical.

If there is no discernable prior cause, it does not mean that an event is random.

I have never claimed human will is free of determinism.  Just that it is not predetermined by physical cause and effect. 

[Roses]

AB I see that evil piece of scum Pell has been sent down for six years, the Judge did say that he might die in prison, which would be the best outcome, having had a very hard time first, I hope. The vile RCC has not removed his cardinalship or kicked him out of the church as they should have done. They must think the sky fairy enjoys watching his own sexual abusing children.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don't know what you are worried about as you get to point out what is wrong with the previous post. This seems the latest in a string of refusals to do more than just declare something wrong.

What worries me is that the apparent people here who say they do not understand my arguments might miraculously be in full agreement with your alleged demolition (even though they have confessed to not knowing what the original argument was.)

Worse still, I feel we are operating in the context that for some your mere disapproval is enough.


So, Have another shot.


My contention is that God Aversion or as I called it (God Dodging)

is evidenced as follows.


There are atheists who publicise their God Aversion
 Krauss and Nagel admit to not wanting a universe with a God.


That the version of God who garners most aversion and rejection as evidenced by the share of proportion of posts is the version of God who seemingly demands the deepest most personal commitment and the one offered as the least way out there and more with us in his incarnation.


My conclusion is that your claim that the notion that there is God aversion is Deeply idiotic is, IMHO, incorrect.

Concluding that it would be a bad thing if one of the various supposed gods was real has nothing whatever to do with finding the arguments attempted for that god to be false. I’d think both that if Godzilla was real it would be a bad thing and that arguments made for the existence of Godzilla would be false. So presumably would you. In other words, you cannot "dodge" something you've been given no good reason to think to be real in the first place. 

You know this already though because it’s been explained to you many times, only for you to lie, prevaricate, dissemble etc in reply or just to run away until the heat dies down. Change your behaviour and bring some honesty and engagement to this mb and people will talk to you; keep trolling and you’ll continue to be ignored.

Your choice.       

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Concluding that it would be a bad thing if one of the various supposed gods was real has nothing whatever to do with finding the arguments attempted for that god to be false. I’d think both that if Godzilla was real it would be a bad thing and that arguments made for the existence of Godzilla would be false. So presumably would you. In other words, you cannot "dodge" something you've been given no good reason to think to be real in the first place. 

You know this already though because it’s been explained to you many times, only for you to lie, prevaricate, dissemble etc in reply or just to run away until the heat dies down. Change your behaviour and bring some honesty and engagement to this mb and people will talk to you; keep trolling and you’ll continue to be ignored.

Your choice.     

I see no evidence of any corresponding Godzilla aversion and certainly not anywhere near the level of God aversion and especially God the trinity aversion which is writ large and loud in the statistics of this forum.


There is obviously an impulse beyond or beneath reason that drives people to show their God aversion.


If there was just reason involved I might doubt God Dodging myself but who says that people who don't want God (God Aversion) act purely reasonably or are purely motivated by reason.


IMHO you are holding an unfeasible rose tinted and not fully human view of your fellows.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Concluding that it would be a bad thing if one of the various supposed gods was real has nothing whatever to do with finding the arguments attempted for that god to be false. I’d think both that if Godzilla was real it would be a bad thing and that arguments made for the existence of Godzilla would be false. So presumably would you. In other words, you cannot "dodge" something you've been given no good reason to think to be real in the first place. 

You know this already though because it’s been explained to you many times, only for you to lie, prevaricate, dissemble etc in reply or just to run away until the heat dies down. Change your behaviour and bring some honesty and engagement to this mb and people will talk to you; keep trolling and you’ll continue to be ignored.

Your choice.     

Seems a clear cut confusion of reason and atheism here and also between intellectually believing there is a God and wanting there to be a God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Me:

You know this already though because it’s been explained to you many times, only for you to lie, prevaricate, dissemble etc in reply or just to run away until the heat dies down. Change your behaviour and bring some honesty and engagement to this mb and people will talk to you; keep trolling and you’ll continue to be ignored.

Your choice.

You:

I see no evidence of any corresponding Godzilla aversion and certainly not anywhere near the level of God aversion and especially God the trinity aversion which is writ large and loud in the statistics of this forum.


There is obviously an impulse beyond or beneath reason that drives people to show their God aversion.


If there was just reason involved I might doubt God Dodging myself but who says that people who don't want God (God Aversion) act purely reasonably or are purely motivated by reason.


IMHO you are holding an unfeasible rose tinted and not fully human view of your fellows.

And choose you did.

Have a nice life.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Me:

You:

And choose you did.

Have a nice life.

A very tiny proportion of which will be taken up by the search for those anti leprechaun and anti Godzilla sites and folks who don't want a universe with Godzilla or ''The little people'' ……..that your posts logically suggest exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

                                                                                                                    THE POINT

                                                                                                                            Whoosh

                                                                                               





                                                                                                                               Vlad

[torridon]

If there is no discernable prior cause, it does not mean that an event is random.

I have never claimed human will is free of determinism.  Just that it is not predetermined by physical cause and effect.

Illogical;  as already pointed out cause and effect is a principal of logic, it makes no difference whether the causal events are 'physical' or whatever.  If you agree that human will is not 'free of determinism' then you are agreeing with me, there is no free will, all our desires and hence choices are consequences of prior events.

[Alan Burns]

Illogical;  as already pointed out cause and effect is a principal of logic, it makes no difference whether the causal events are 'physical' or whatever.  If you agree that human will is not 'free of determinism' then you are agreeing with me, there is no free will, all our desires and hence choices are consequences of prior events.

But as I have previously pointed out, there can be no controlling factor over physical chains of cause and effect because we have no control over the laws the laws of physics. So there can be no definitive causal event within a chain of physical cause and effect.  Such logic would mean that every letter I am currently typing was entirely and unavoidably predetermined since the beginning of time.

The logical principal of cause and effect is derived from observations of physical activity of material elements.

But it is not universal, because we have quantum events with no discernable prior case.
And there is the Big Bang starting event with no discernable prior cause.

Can you presume that the Big Bang was random because it has no discernable prior cause?
Can you presume that every indeterminate quantum event is random because they have no discernable prior cause?

Current scientific knowledge cannot be used to back up any conclusion that human activity is driven entirely by uncontrollable physical reactions or random events.  There is scope for presuming some events can have a cause emanating from something other than uncontrollable physical reactions to previous events.  And this presumption would bring true feasibility to such concepts as choice, manipulation, control or deliberation emanating from the conscious power of human freewill instead of the alternative presumption that they are all an illusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Jeez but you can pack a lot of wrong into relatively few words…

But as I have previously pointed out,…

Not that you care about logic, but that’s the fallacy of begging the question. By “point out” what you actually mean is “assert”. 

…there can be no controlling factor over physical chains of cause and effect because we have no control over the laws the laws of physics.

At one level of abstraction, that’s right. So?

So there can be no definitive causal event within a chain of physical cause and effect.

That’s called the fallacy of the non sequitur. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise (again, not that you care about the logical mistakes to repeat endlessly).

Such logic would mean that every letter I am currently typing was entirely and unavoidably predetermined since the beginning of time.

It’s “determined”, not “predetermined” for the reason you’ve been given countless times and continue to ignore, and at least above the level of quantum randomness (if there is such a thing as “true” randomness) that’s right. So?

The logical principal of cause and effect is derived from observations of physical activity of material elements.

No, it’s “derived” from sound reasoning, confirmed by observation. So?

But it is not universal, because we have quantum events with no discernable prior case.

Yes we do. So far as we can tell, that’s when classical cause and effect breaks down though that understanding may change over time. As you said yourself though in a rare moment of lucidity, “no” and “no discernible” are not necessarily the same thing.

And there is the Big Bang starting event with no discernable prior cause.

That’s probably false – see cosmic microwave background for more information.

Can you presume that the Big Bang was random because it has no discernable prior cause?

No-one presumes that.

Can you presume that every indeterminate quantum event is random because they have no discernable prior cause?

Quantum field events are “assumed” to be random because they do not follow the standard model of cause and effect. Whether they eventually will be found to be “true” random though is currently unknowable. So?

Current scientific knowledge cannot be used to back up any conclusion that human activity is driven entirely by uncontrollable physical reactions or random events.

Absent any other coherent explanation yes it can, but remember that that “uncontrollable” applies at a level of abstraction more profound than the one you seem to be able to grasp of only what’s immediately apparent to you.

There is scope for presuming some events can have a cause emanating from something other than uncontrollable physical reactions to previous events.

Only if you invoke magic, in which case you can presume anything you like as it’s all gibberish.

And this presumption would bring true feasibility to such concepts as choice, manipulation, control or deliberation emanating from the conscious power of human freewill instead of the alternative presumption that they are all an illusion.

Utter bollocks as you know full well because your mistake has been explained to you so many times, even though you continue thoroughly dishonestly to ignore the explanation. Events occur either randomly or because of prior causes. It’s binary. There is no third option. Your way out of that is to assert a “non-material” and claim that logic and evidence don’t hold in this Magicland, but that fails abjectly as a proposition even before it gets its trousers off because you can tell us nothing whatever about this supposed non-material that would indicate that it exists at all.

Epic fail 0/10. See me.

On second thoughts though…

[torridon]

But as I have previously pointed out, there can be no controlling factor over physical chains of cause and effect because we have no control over the laws the laws of physics. So there can be no definitive causal event within a chain of physical cause and effect.  Such logic would mean that every letter I am currently typing was entirely and unavoidably predetermined since the beginning of time.

The logical principal of cause and effect is derived from observations of physical activity of material elements.

But it is not universal, because we have quantum events with no discernable prior case.
And there is the Big Bang starting event with no discernable prior cause.

Can you presume that the Big Bang was random because it has no discernable prior cause?
Can you presume that every indeterminate quantum event is random because they have no discernable prior cause?

Current scientific knowledge cannot be used to back up any conclusion that human activity is driven entirely by uncontrollable physical reactions or random events.  There is scope for presuming some events can have a cause emanating from something other than uncontrollable physical reactions to previous events.  And this presumption would bring true feasibility to such concepts as choice, manipulation, control or deliberation emanating from the conscious power of human freewill instead of the alternative presumption that they are all an illusion.

There seems no end in sight to your chronic confusion over these concepts.  The principal of determinism is a principal of logic.  Whether the universe is completely deterministic is another matter.  Within a fully deterministic system there can be no free will because that is what determinism means and in your previous post your were accepting of determinism.  now in this post you are arguing that the universe may not be fully deterministic, which is a straw man, because nobody here has argued that it is.  All we can say with confidence is that is appears to be fully deterministic, at least from the level of atomic matter up but we cannot rule out the possibility of some randomness or unknown factors.  But just because we do not know everything does not licence us to play head games with logic.  Any event that occurs is either a consequential outcome or it isn't, it is a binary question with only one of two possible answers, yes or no.  if it isn't a consequence of something else then it is random by definition.  Whether the causal event is physical or immaterial or fast or blue or bigger than a stream train makes no difference to the binariness of the question, the ensuing event is either a deterministic consequence or a random event.  Your insistence that 'will' constitutes some third possible answer to a yes or no question is just irrational, it is incredulity where there could be principled thinking and understanding.  It is not possible to conceive of an event which is not a consequence without being random because that is what 'not a consequence' means.

[Gordon]

But as I have previously pointed out, there can be no controlling factor over physical chains of cause and effect because we have no control over the laws the laws of physics. So there can be no definitive causal event within a chain of physical cause and effect.  Such logic would mean that every letter I am currently typing was entirely and unavoidably predetermined since the beginning of time.

The logical principal of cause and effect is derived from observations of physical activity of material elements.

But it is not universal, because we have quantum events with no discernable prior case.
And there is the Big Bang starting event with no discernable prior cause.

Can you presume that the Big Bang was random because it has no discernable prior cause?
Can you presume that every indeterminate quantum event is random because they have no discernable prior cause?

Current scientific knowledge cannot be used to back up any conclusion that human activity is driven entirely by uncontrollable physical reactions or random events.  There is scope for presuming some events can have a cause emanating from something other than uncontrollable physical reactions to previous events.  And this presumption would bring true feasibility to such concepts as choice, manipulation, control or deliberation emanating from the conscious power of human freewill instead of the alternative presumption that they are all an illusion.

More theobabble: for getting through the day purposes we live in a deterministic universe, and while we have a degree of freedom to act we don't have free will as you propose it since what you propose is illogical. The irony is, of course, that all your illogical wittering is an attempt to create a gap into which you can insert 'magic'.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Jeez but you can pack a lot of wrong into relatively few words…

Not that you care about logic, but that’s the fallacy of begging the question. By “point out” what you actually mean is “assert”. 

At one level of abstraction, that’s right. So?

That’s called the fallacy of the non sequitur. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise (again, not that you care about the logical mistakes to repeat endlessly).

It’s “determined”, not “predetermined” for the reason you’ve been given countless times and continue to ignore, and at least above the level of quantum randomness (if there is such a thing as “true” randomness) that’s right. So?

No, it’s “derived” from sound reasoning, confirmed by observation. So?

Yes we do. So far as we can tell, that’s when classical cause and effect breaks down though that understanding may change over time. As you said yourself though in a rare moment of lucidity, “no” and “no discernible” are not necessarily the same thing.

That’s probably false – see cosmic microwave background for more information.

No-one presumes that.

Quantum field events are “assumed” to be random because they do not follow the standard model of cause and effect. Whether they eventually will be found to be “true” random though is currently unknowable. So?

Absent any other coherent explanation yes it can, but remember that that “uncontrollable” applies at a level of abstraction more profound than the one you seem to be able to grasp of only what’s immediately apparent to you.

Only if you invoke magic, in which case you can presume anything you like as it’s all gibberish.

Utter bollocks as you know full well because your mistake has been explained to you so many times, even though you continue thoroughly dishonestly to ignore the explanation. Events occur either randomly or because of prior causes. It’s binary. There is no third option. Your way out of that is to assert a “non-material” and claim that logic and evidence don’t hold in this Magicland, but that fails abjectly as a proposition even before it gets its trousers off because you can tell us nothing whatever about this supposed non-material that would indicate that it exists at all.

Truly amazing!

You must be really proud of the valiant effort made by your subconscious brain activity to try to justify the absurd notion that all your thoughts are entirely predetermined before you think them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Truly amazing!

You must be really proud of the valiant effort made by your subconscious brain activity to try to justify the absurd notion that all your thoughts are entirely predetermined before you think them.

Continued avoidance of the reasoning that undoes you noted. Your incredulity is not a rebuttal.

Why are you so dishonest do you think - is that your character anyway, or does protecting your religious convictions at all costs force you to behave that way? In either case it's not a good look, it really isn't. 

[Gordon]

Truly amazing!

You must be really proud of the valiant effort made by your subconscious brain activity to try to justify the absurd notion that all your thoughts are entirely predetermined before you think them.

You really don't get it, do you!

Your thinking is determined (not 'predetermined) by both your capacity to think and any matters that are occupying your thoughts: an obvious example is your use of language as you mull. Here's a thought experiment to try: have a go at thinking a random thought that doesn't flow from any existing knowledge you have, doesn't require familiar language and terminology, doesn't involve your personal traits or any events in the history of your experiences, or is isolated from any prevailing circumstances.

I've tried - and I've come to the view that anything I think about involves mental antecedents, circumstances and probably personal biases I'm not fully aware of. Even trying to have a go at not thinking anything at all seems to involve thoughts about trying not to think anything.

Face it Alan: we are both biological robots adrift in a deterministic universe, and while we may have a degree of freedom to act we are never wholly free from a wide range of influences and antecedents - which is just as well, since if it were otherwise we'd be living chaotic lives.   

[SusanDoris]

Truly amazing!

You must be really proud of the valiant effort made by your subconscious brain activity to try to justify the absurd notion that all your thoughts are entirely predetermined before you think them.

And it is really desperately seriously worrying that you stil seemm to imagine that those of us who understand that the system is binary, either determined or random, think that each letter typed here was pre-determined, sitting waiting, from time iimmemorial, i.e. since the universe began and before that,  in a slot in March 2019 A.D. to be discovered by those of us on this message board.

If you do not agree with that, specify clearly and logically - with proper accepted logic, not your weird variety - why.
In my strongly held opinion, it will be another breach of good manners if you come up with another of your meaningless assertions, or if you fail to respond with a cogent argument, especially when so many take the trouble to respond to you.
 

.