Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Do you even knowwhat the Dunning-Kruger effect is?
I do know sarcasm when I see it! If I could be arsed, which I can't, I could do a big trawl of various threads and show you dozens of examples of incontrovertibly sarcastic posts.

But that's not your claim. You've put forward a claim that non believers are particularly sarcastic. Now in order to justify such a claim, I would have to do an analysis of what each group said, numerically, and then also get agreement on what amounts to sarcasm.  Since you haven't done this you are just placing a gut instinct as a fact. Your overestimating tour ability to be unbiased, and not putting in the work to show that your claims are justified. Hence Dunning Kruger

[SteveH]

Steve H,

Coda: you seem to think that proselytising on what’s supposed to be a discussion forum is a lesser offence than responding sarcastically to someone who is proselytising on what’s supposed to be a discussion forum.

Why?

Where have I said that?
Sarcasm is acceptable in strictly limited amounts; I use it myself sometimes. It's the non-stop use of it that gets wearying, especially when it hides a refusal to actually come up with any serious counter-arguments, completely derails a thread, and leads to the victim losing his rag, telling the sarcastic poster to do something both immoral and physically impossible, and getting suspended. Yes, the deliberate sabotage of my thread still rankles.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

You’re still missing it.

1. You “said it” when you (repeatedly) criticised the use of sarcasm but ignored the point that there’s little other option when the proselytiser has no interest in discussing anything, least of all the hopelessness of the arguments he attempts to validate his faith assertions.

2. AB has been given “serious counter arguments” a-plenty. He just ignores them though. That’s the problem. I would very much prefer that he at least tried to argue back with cogent reasoning of his own, but he’s entirely unwilling or unable to do so. What then other than the “sarcasm” of “your position is idiotic (for the reasons I have set out many times that you just ignore)” would you suggest?

3. I have no idea what thread you think was derailed, nor why you think that it was derailed. My guess though is that it wasn’t - that your line of argument was rebutted and, instead of addressing the problem, you threw your toys out. If though you want to revisit it, I’ll be happy to engage if you want me to. Your choice.

[Alan Burns]

AB has been given “serious counter arguments” a-plenty. He just ignores them though. That’s the problem. I would very much prefer that he at least tried to argue back with cogent reasoning of his own, but he’s entirely unwilling or unable to do so. What then other than the “sarcasm” of “your position is idiotic (for the reasons I have set out many times that you just ignore)” would you suggest?

But I do not ignore these  “serious counter arguments”.
I repeatedly point out how they totally fail to offer a valid explanation for the reality we all live in.

You may continue to believe that all our chosen thoughts, words and actions are just the inevitable consequence of physically predefined reactions emerging from our material brain, and that our perception of such freedom is "just the way it seems".  A belief which in itself defies any physical definition.

And I will continue to believe that the reality of our consciously driven freedom and creativity is evidence a of a miraculous gift which enables us to consciously interact and manipulate within this otherwise deterministic material universe.  A gift which is a reflection of a divine creator whom I freely choose to worship using His gift of freewill.

And I will continue to believe that every post on this forum is evidence of an imaginative, creative source beyond anything which can emerge from material reactions alone.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But I do not ignore these  “serious counter arguments”.
I repeatedly point out how they totally fail to offer a valid explanation for the reality we all live in.

Yes you do. One of those counter-arguments is that “the reality you live in” is a narrative that makes sense to you provided you don’t think about it but that quickly collapses when you do think about it because of its inherent contradictions.

More specifically, when you attempt an argument that’s logically false and I explain to you why it’s false, you routinely ignore the problem and just repeat the same mistake. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you behave this way?   

You may continue to believe that all our chosen thoughts, words and actions are just the inevitable consequence of physically predefined reactions emerging from our material brain, and that our perception of such freedom is "just the way it seems".  A belief which in itself defies any physical definition.

What I “choose to believe” are the conclusions that the most robust reasoning and evidence I have lead to. You on the other hand junk that because it contradicts a faith position you choose to believe a priori, which is why your proselytising can (and should) safely be ignored. 

And I will continue to believe that the reality of our consciously driven freedom and creativity is evidence a of a miraculous gift which enables us to consciously interact and manipulate within this otherwise deterministic material universe.  A gift which is a reflection of a divine creator whom I freely choose to worship using His gift of freewill.

I know you will, because that’s the kind of nonsense that evidence denial can lead to. The cost though – utter dishonesty – is a matter for you to deal with. 

And I will continue to believe that every post on this forum is evidence of an imaginative, creative source beyond anything which can emerge from material reactions alone.

See above. If you will “continue to believe” something regardless of the reasoning and evidence that falsifies your belief why are you on a discussion forum rather than a “ain’t god wonderful though” proselytising one?

[Stranger]

But I do not ignore these  “serious counter arguments”.

Unless I've missed a post in which you do face up to them, this is plain false.

You have never once (that I've seen) tackled the basic contradiction at the heart of what you believe - namely that you can't have something that isn't entirely determined by what led up to it, unless you introduce randomness.

I repeatedly point out how they totally fail to offer a valid explanation for the reality we all live in.

The hypocrisy is staggering. You can offer no explanation at all. What you say is amounts to "it's magic" and contains a basic, logical contradiction, so it's logically impossible magic.

You may continue to believe that all our chosen thoughts, words and actions are just the inevitable consequence of physically predefined reactions emerging from our material brain, and that our perception of such freedom is "just the way it seems".  A belief which in itself defies any physical definition.

And I will continue to believe that the reality of our consciously driven freedom and creativity is evidence a of a miraculous gift which enables us to consciously interact and manipulate within this otherwise deterministic material universe.  A gift which is a reflection of a divine creator whom I freely choose to worship using His gift of freewill.

And I will continue to believe that every post on this forum is evidence of an imaginative, creative source beyond anything which can emerge from material reactions alone.

A rather pointless, illogical, self-contradictory, and dishonest (in at least two ways) restatement of your blind faith.

[torridon]

You may continue to believe that all our chosen thoughts, words and actions are just the inevitable consequence of physically predefined reactions emerging from our material brain, and that our perception of such freedom is "just the way it seems".

The alternative to our thoughts being consequential (to something), is that they are random.  This is simple undeniable logic that flows directly from the meaning of the words.  Deal with it.

[Alan Burns]

The alternative to our thoughts being consequential (to something), is that they are random.  This is simple undeniable logic that flows directly from the meaning of the words.  Deal with it.

I have dealt with it, which is why I have to conclude that the reality which is "me" comprises far more than can ever result from the physically predefined consequences of material reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have dealt with it, which is why I have to conclude that the reality which is "me" comprises far more than can ever result from the physically predefined consequences of material reactions.

You've never dealt with it.

[Stranger]

I have dealt with it...

That is simply untrue. You have never addressed the simple logic that shows you must be wrong.

...which is why I have to conclude that the reality which is "me" comprises far more than can ever result from the physically predefined consequences of material reactions.

Once again, you dishonestly misrepresent what has been said as being to do with the physical world - it isn't, it's a simple logical necessity; if something isn't entirely due to what precedes it, then, to the extent it isn't, it must be random.

You have never provided anything remotely like a reasoned argument as to why you "have to conclude" your impossible, self-contradictory nonsense.

[Outrider]

I repeatedly point out how they totally fail to offer a valid explanation for the reality we all live in.

'Valid' as in logically coherent, 'valid' as in sufficient or 'valid' as in that convinces you?

You may continue to believe that all our chosen thoughts, words and actions are just the inevitable consequence of physically predefined reactions emerging from our material brain, and that our perception of such freedom is "just the way it seems".  A belief which in itself defies any physical definition.

Quite the opposite, it's a reduction (arguably) to the 'physical definition', its a result of the fact that there's no reliable measurement of anything else involved in the process. You could suggest something else, of course, but then the onus would be on you to show how it affects the system; until then, there's those entirely physical elements which have been shown to be involved, some deduction/supposition about how the physical activity manifests as experience, and no reliable means why which claims of 'spiritual' (for want of a better term) phenomena might be shown to be involved.

And I will continue to believe that the reality of our consciously driven freedom and creativity is evidence a of a miraculous gift which enables us to consciously interact and manipulate within this otherwise deterministic material universe.  A gift which is a reflection of a divine creator whom I freely choose to worship using His gift of freewill.

Of course you will... what other choice have you got?

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Outy - vey nice to see you back,

Quite the opposite, it's a reduction (arguably) to the 'physical definition', its a result of the fact that there's no reliable measurement of anything else involved in the process. You could suggest something else, of course, but then the onus would be on you to show how it affects the system; until then, there's those entirely physical elements which have been shown to be involved, some deduction/supposition about how the physical activity manifests as experience, and no reliable means why which claims of 'spiritual' (for want of a better term) phenomena might be shown to be involved.

Quite so, but this is the foundation of sand on which AB's whole faith rests. He just asserts that consciousness cannot be materialistic in nature, and thereby gives himself the trap door he needs to "therefore it must be non-material, ie "soul"". He'll never tell us why he thinks consciousness can't be material, and when pushed the closest he'll ever come to it is tell us that he knows about PCs and they're not capable of it - apparently oblivious to the colossal increase in processing scale of brains.

It's odd and disingenuous stuff, but there it is nonetheless.   

[Alan Burns]

Quite so, but this is the foundation of sand on which AB's whole faith rests. He just asserts that consciousness cannot be materialistic in nature, and thereby gives himself the trap door he needs to "therefore it must be non-material, ie "soul"". He'll never tell us why he thinks consciousness can't be material, and when pushed the closest he'll ever come to it is tell us that he knows about PCs and they're not capable of it - apparently oblivious to the colossal increase in processing scale of brains.

This reminds me of Richard Dawkin's answer to the question of what distinguishes humans from other animals - "Bigger brains"

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This reminds me of Richard Dawkin's answer to the question of what distinguishes humans from other animals - "Bigger brains"

And?

[Stranger]

This reminds me of Richard Dawkin's answer to the question of what distinguishes humans from other animals - "Bigger brains"

That's about right.

You have produced nothing but blind faith and illogical, self-contradictory assertions to "argue" for anything else...

[Sebastian Toe]

This reminds me of Richard Dawkin's answer to the question of what distinguishes humans from other animals - "Bigger brains"

Every single one of your posts demonstrates the workings of a physical brain producing output based entirey on deterministic principles. No soul required.

[Roses]

Every single one of your posts demonstrates the workings of a physical brain producing output based entirey on deterministic principles. No soul required.

Agreed.

[Alan Burns]

Every single one of your posts demonstrates the workings of a physical brain producing output based entirey on deterministic principles. No soul required.

Every single post on this forum demonstrates the consciously driven freedom inherent in every human being.  A freedom the world cannot give.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Every single post on this forum demonstrates the consciously driven freedom inherent in every human being.  A freedom the world cannot give.

Evidence?

Oh, it's you - faith claim only then. OK, as you were. 

[Sebastian Toe]

Every single post on this forum demonstrates the consciously driven freedom inherent in every human being.  A freedom the world cannot give.

...no soul required.

[Stranger]

Every single post on this forum demonstrates the consciously driven freedom inherent in every human being.

...but not the absurd, self-contradictory, non-deterministic, non-random, impossible magic that you want to explain it with.

A freedom the world cannot give.

It appears that "the world" has given us such freedom as we have. You have never produced the slightest hint of any evidence or logic to support your assertion that there is anything magic about it.

[Outrider]

Every single post on this forum demonstrates the consciously driven freedom inherent in every human being.  A freedom the world cannot give.

Every single post on this forum is merely the inevitable consequence of a complex series of entirely predictable physical processes which demonstrates the absolute determinism inherent in existence.  Freedom is not a part of this reality...

O.

[ippy]

Every single post on this forum demonstrates the consciously driven freedom inherent in every human being.  A freedom the world cannot give.

A B, your freedom of thought ideas are among some of the most successfully indoctrinated freedom of thought ideas/minds I've seen where sadly the victim is unable to express their own thoughts and only capable of quoting from their individual store of indoctrinated ideas, where the ideas are mostly or more usually indoctrinated into the minds of the child victims before reaching the age of reason, pre the ability to challenge age of about seven years.

Commiserations to you A B, ippy

[Alan Burns]

Aside from you begging the question again, Alan, I suspect that you are operating more in the realm of 'Impossibilianism'.

correct -
the absolute impossibility of human self awareness and freedom of thought to be derived entirely from physically pre defined material reactions.

[Stranger]

correct -
the absolute impossibility of human self awareness and freedom of thought to be derived entirely from physically pre defined material reactions.

Except that you have never produced the slightest hint of any evidence or reasoning to support this assertion, and neither have you ever addressed the logical self-contradiction inherent in your own views.