Searching for GOD...

[Christine]

Christine did not ask for a statement of your personal faith; she asked you to respond to specific points made by Thomas Paine which you sidestepped rather than addressed.  With such a natural penchant for evasiveness, have you considered a career in politics ?

Thank you.  I can't quote Alan's reply myself, it seems to have dropped off my page.

Thomas Paine:

"It has been the practice of all Christian commentators on the Bible, and of all Christian priests and preachers, to impose the Bible on the world as a mass of truth and as the word of God; they have disputed and wrangled and anathematized each other about the supposed meaning of particular parts and passages therein; one has said and insisted that such a passage meant such a thing; another that it meant directly the contrary; and a third, that it meant neither one nor the other but something different from both; and this they call understanding the Bible."

He goes on to say that the barbaric acts described in the Old Testament (that's what he means when he says Bible) attributed to God or claimed to be carried out at his command, should give you a clue that the book is nothing to do with God.  "To believe, therefore, the Bible to be true, we must unbelieve all our belief in the moral justice of God... to read the Bible without horror, we must undo everything that is tender, sympathizing and benevolent in the heart of man."

I'm really hoping for a response to Paine's actual points.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Christine,

I'm really hoping for a response to Paine's actual points.

AB will never respond to the actual points that are put to him. He has to protect his faith beliefs by just repeating the same logically impossible, magic-based mantra over and over again so as to avoid any scrutiny or criticism of his assertions - he's the Boris Johnson of this mb. 

[Christine]

Christine,

AB will never respond to the actual points that are put to him. He has to protect his faith beliefs by just repeating the same logically impossible, magic-based mantra over and over again so as to avoid any scrutiny or criticism of his assertions - he's the Boris Johnson of this mb. 

Bit harsh on Alan, that, comparing him to our PM.

I gave The Age Of Reason to a Christian friend of the lovely Anglican variety and when I asked her what she thought of it she said she felt sorry for Thomas Paine! That was it, otherwise total refusal to engage.  The arguments seem sound and convincing to me and the failure of any Christian to address them, let alone refute them (as far as I am aware) makes me think they're just too convincing to be contemplated. 

Can you think of arguments to counter Paine's points?  I do wonder sometimes if it's confirmation bias on my part, in that I don't really want them undermined, but if that's the case why have no Bible believers given the refutations?

[Roses]

Bit harsh on Alan, that, comparing him to our PM.

I agree.

[Alan Burns]

Thank you.  I can't quote Alan's reply myself, it seems to have dropped off my page.

Thomas Paine:

"It has been the practice of all Christian commentators on the Bible, and of all Christian priests and preachers, to impose the Bible on the world as a mass of truth and as the word of God; they have disputed and wrangled and anathematized each other about the supposed meaning of particular parts and passages therein; one has said and insisted that such a passage meant such a thing; another that it meant directly the contrary; and a third, that it meant neither one nor the other but something different from both; and this they call understanding the Bible."

He goes on to say that the barbaric acts described in the Old Testament (that's what he means when he says Bible) attributed to God or claimed to be carried out at his command, should give you a clue that the book is nothing to do with God.  "To believe, therefore, the Bible to be true, we must unbelieve all our belief in the moral justice of God... to read the Bible without horror, we must undo everything that is tender, sympathizing and benevolent in the heart of man."

I'm really hoping for a response to Paine's actual points.

I agree with Paine that there are many interpretations of the bible.  Many people have misinterpreted it to suite their own personal bias rather than engage in an honest, prayerful attempt to discover the truth behind the writings.  I have participated in many bible studies in which people share their personal interpretations and experiences in a very positive way, rather than arguing to defend their own corner, and these have been a rich source for deepening my Christian faith.  If you wish to find fault with the bible and with Christianity in general I am sure you will succeed, but if you genuinely search for the truth behind the bible you may discover the most valuable, precious gift that life can offer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I agree with Paine that there are many interpretations of the bible.  Many people have misinterpreted it to suite their own personal bias rather than engage in an honest, prayerful attempt to discover the truth behind the writings.  I have participated in many bible studies in which people share their personal interpretations and experiences in a very positive way, rather than arguing to defend their own corner, and these have been a rich source for deepening my Christian faith.  If you wish to find fault with the bible and with Christianity in general I am sure you will succeed, but if you genuinely search for the truth behind the bible you may discover the most valuable, precious gift that life can offer.

All very lovely no doubt for those who like that kind of thing, but it has absolutely bugger all to do with your false claims about the relationship between science and your faith belief "god". 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

All very lovely no doubt for those who like that kind of thing, but it has absolutely bugger all to do with your false claims about the relationship between science and your faith belief "god".

But it is not about lovely feelings, Blue.  All my posts are about searching for and discovering the truth, which you will find when you discover God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sadly Alan so far at least what you call “the truth” has consisted only of incoherent, unqualified assertions of your personal faith beliefs. The evidence- and reason-denying evasions you resort to to maintain them doesn’t help you much either.

Perhaps if you tried a little honesty instead?

[Walter]

Sadly Alan so far at least what you call “the truth” has consisted only of incoherent, unqualified assertions of your personal faith beliefs. The evidence- and reason-denying evasions you resort to to maintain them doesn’t help you much either.

Perhaps if you tried a little honesty instead?

blue

the bible is 100% accurate ……..when thrown at close range .

[Alan Burns]

Sadly Alan so far at least what you call “the truth” has consisted only of incoherent, unqualified assertions of your personal faith beliefs. The evidence- and reason-denying evasions you resort to to maintain them doesn’t help you much either.

Perhaps if you tried a little honesty instead?

Perhaps you could try a more honest approach yourself, Blue, and admit to the reality that you have freedom to consciously choose the words you write, instead of trying to convince yourself that they are just the inevitable result which emerges from your subconscious brain activity.  It is a freedom which this material world cannot give because it is God's greatest gift to us  - and which enables us to choose our own destiny.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Perhaps you could try a more honest approach yourself, Blue, and admit to the reality that you have freedom to consciously choose the words you write, instead of trying to convince yourself that they are just the inevitable result which emerges from your subconscious brain activity.  It is a freedom which this material world cannot give because it is God's greatest gift to us  - and which enables us to choose our own destiny.

So just to be clear, here we have someone who ducks and dives to avoid every difficult question, who use pejorative and inaccurate language whenever he can, who repeats endlessly exactly the same dead-from-the-neck-up mantra of his faith belief about “free” will despite having its logical impossibility explained to him countless times without reply, and who thinks “it’s magic” is a better explanation for certain observable phenomena than all the accumulated evidence we have assembled over decades of diligent research and peer-reviewed publication telling someone else to be honest because he doesn’t just accept at face value your unqualified assertions.

Really?

Seriously though?

Didn’t Jesus supposedly say something about not bearing false witness? Do you think this same Jesus would be proud of you for your behaviour here?

[torridon]

Perhaps you could try a more honest approach yourself, Blue, and admit to the reality that you have freedom to consciously choose the words you write, instead of trying to convince yourself that they are just the inevitable result which emerges from your subconscious brain activity.  It is a freedom which this material world cannot give because it is God's greatest gift to us  - and which enables us to choose our own destiny.

No one is trying to 'convince' themselves,  it is merely that some of us better understand how mind works.  All conscious experience emerges from preconscious mind states and that inevitably takes some time; to claim that our thoughts happen instantaneously in real time would imply faster-than-light neural processing which is an absolute no-no.  Our thoughts are really quite slow in terms of basic physics; a recent estimate concluded that artificial intelligent agents of the future would be able to think 10,000 times faster than humans.  You don't have any evidence to support your assertions, all you have is incredulity and that is not an argument.  Do you really think a flat-earther would convince people who know better that the Earth is indeed flat because it feels flat, because that is our 'common experience'.  That is pretty much all your case amounts to.

[Stranger]

Perhaps you could try a more honest approach yourself, Blue, and admit to the reality that you have freedom to consciously choose the words you write, instead of trying to convince yourself that they are just the inevitable result which emerges from your subconscious brain activity.

What blue and torridon already said.

I'll just add that this isn't even what honest introspection will tell you. How do you choose words? You don't consciously sift through every possible sequence of words to find something that is appropriate. What happens is that different phrases occur to you. Where did they come from? You may hold them in your (conscious) mind for a while and think they aren't quite right, then another way to express it may occur to you - where from? How many times do you think of a better way of saying something after posting? Where did that come from?

Even when doing complex tasks, much of the work obviously takes place subconsciously.

And no matter how much the conscious mind is or isn't involved, your version of "freedom" is still self-contradictory, and so impossible.

It is a freedom which this material world cannot give because it is God's greatest gift to us  - and which enables us to choose our own destiny.

This kind of trite statement of unadulterated blind faith, is more off-putting than convincing.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

So just to be clear, here we have someone who ducks and dives to avoid every difficult question, who use pejorative and inaccurate language whenever he can, who repeats endlessly exactly the same dead-from-the-neck-up mantra of his faith belief about “free” will despite having its logical impossibility explained to him countless times without reply, and who thinks “it’s magic” is a better explanation for certain observable phenomena than all the accumulated evidence we have assembled over decades of diligent research and peer-reviewed publication telling someone else to be honest because he doesn’t just accept at face value your unqualified assertions.

Really?

Seriously though?

Didn’t Jesus supposedly say something about not bearing false witness? Do you think this same Jesus would be proud of you for your behaviour here?

Not to bear false witness is one of God's commandments dating from Moses in the old testament.  The commandment implies that we have the freedom to bear false witness if we so wish, and this is a confirmation from God that we have freedom to choose.

You are implying that I am committing the sin of bearing false witness by witnessing to the truth that God has given us the freedom to choose to bear false witness.  So yes, I do believe that Jesus would be proud of the fact that I continue to witness to this basic truth which applies to all humanity - whether they believe it or not.

[Roses]

Not bear false witness is one of God's commandments dating from Moses in the old testament.  The commandment implies that we have the freedom to bear false witness if we so wish, and this is a confirmation from God that we have freedom to choose.

You are implying that I am committing the sin of bearing false witness by witnessing to the truth that God has given us the freedom to choose to bear false witness.  So yes, I do believe that Jesus would be proud of the fact that I continue to witness to this basic truth which applies to all humanity - whether they believe it or not.

There is no evidence god exists let alone anything in the Bible attributed to it like the 10 commandments is factual.

[Alan Burns]

No one is trying to 'convince' themselves,  it is merely that some of us better understand how mind works.  All conscious experience emerges from preconscious mind states and that inevitably takes some time; to claim that our thoughts happen instantaneously in real time would imply faster-than-light neural processing which is an absolute no-no.  Our thoughts are really quite slow in terms of basic physics; a recent estimate concluded that artificial intelligent agents of the future would be able to think 10,000 times faster than humans.  You don't have any evidence to support your assertions, all you have is incredulity and that is not an argument.  Do you really think a flat-earther would convince people who know better that the Earth is indeed flat because it feels flat, because that is our 'common experience'.  That is pretty much all your case amounts to.

It is obvious that the spiritual power of the human soul has the ability to do whatever it takes to implement a conscious act of will within the material brain.  The fact that it can't have a physical explanation is evidence of our spiritual nature. To try to analyse this in purely material terms is impossible, but the evidence behind this reality is quite simple - our freedom to consciously choose what we do think and say is evidenced throughout the history of mankind.

[Roses]

It is obvious that the spiritual power of the human soul has the ability to do whatever it takes to implement a conscious act of will within the material brain.  To try to analyse this in purely material terms is impossible, but the evidence behind this is quite simple - our freedom to consciously choose what we do think and say is evidenced throughout the history of mankind.

That might be obvious to you, but definitely not to me.

[Stranger]

Not bear false witness is one of God's commandments dating from Moses in the old testament.  The commandment implies that we have the freedom to bear false witness if we so wish, and this is a confirmation from God that we have freedom to choose.

You are implying that I am committing the sin of bearing false witness by witnessing to the truth that God has given us the freedom to choose to bear false witness.

There you go again. This is either dishonestly pretending that people are disputing our ability to make choices and do as we wish, or it is dishonestly pretending that said ability is evidence for or corresponds to your own impossible, self-contradictory notion of how that freedom works.

[Outrider]

It is obvious that the spiritual power of the human soul has the ability to do whatever it takes to implement a conscious act of will within the material brain.

It's obvious that gravity is an attractive force between two objects with mass. Unfortunately, that's also not actually true, despite being obvious.  It's obvious that tables are solid objects, but unfortunately that's not true.  The nature of our limited sensory capacity and brains that have evolved to operate at a particular macroscopic and immediate level means that just because something appears obvious and intuitive does not mean that we can presume our instincts are correct.

To try to analyse this in purely material terms is impossible,

You say that, but I'm not struggling at all.  By contrast, feeling the need to try to inject something immaterial into seems superfluous.

but the evidence behind this is quite simple - our freedom to consciously choose what we do think and say is evidenced throughout the history of mankind.

As is the attractive force between objects with mass that appears to keep the planets orbiting the sun, and the moon orbiting the sun...  The appearance of freedom does not automatically equate to the actuality of freedom.  If nothing else, just the definition of something being both 'free' and 'will' is self-contradictory - how then can even the apparently obvious nature of it be reliable.

O.

[Stranger]

It is obvious that the spiritual power of the human soul has the ability to do whatever it takes to implement a conscious act of will within the material brain.

That isn't obvious at all - it is a statement of your faith.

To try to analyse this in purely material terms is impossible...

No, it isn't.

...but the evidence behind this is quite simple - our freedom to consciously choose what we do think and say is evidenced throughout the history of mankind.

Blatant falsehood. Our ability to make choices is simply not evidence of a soul, let alone of your impossible, self-contradictory version.

[Alan Burns]

It's obvious that gravity is an attractive force between two objects with mass. Unfortunately, that's also not actually true, despite being obvious.  It's obvious that tables are solid objects, but unfortunately that's not true.  The nature of our limited sensory capacity and brains that have evolved to operate at a particular macroscopic and immediate level means that just because something appears obvious and intuitive does not mean that we can presume our instincts are correct.

You say that, but I'm not struggling at all.  By contrast, feeling the need to try to inject something immaterial into seems superfluous.

As is the attractive force between objects with mass that appears to keep the planets orbiting the sun, and the moon orbiting the sun...  The appearance of freedom does not automatically equate to the actuality of freedom.  If nothing else, just the definition of something being both 'free' and 'will' is self-contradictory - how then can even the apparently obvious nature of it be reliable.

O.

But it is not just an "appearance of freedom" as you describe it.  It is the reality which enables your freedom to consciously choose every word you write.  A reality which continues to be confirmed in everything we consciously choose to do think or say.

[Outrider]

But it is not just an "appearance of freedom" as you describe it.  It is the reality which enables your freedom to consciously choose every word you write.  A reality which continues to be confirmed in everything we consciously choose to do think or say.

How do you know?  That you believe is, at this point,  not in question, but you aren't claiming that this is merely your belief you are stating that this is fact - how do you know?

The evidence of neurological measurement indicates that what we think of as conscious thought is an aftereffect of other neurological processes - our brains manifest the appearance of freedom after the deterministic activity of our making conclusions has already happened.  Our language hasn't developed, and our language centres haven't evolved, to handle such metaphysical self-referential concepts, so we're stuck trying to use an indeterminate 'I' to cover everything from individual elements of our conscious and sub-conscious minds through to the full four-dimensional, constantly varying reality of our block existence.

Against that understanding which explodes far beyond our limited inherited language to convey - and, therefore, the limitations of conscious understanding which rely on the capacity of that language to determine our cognitive remit - your instinctive 'it's obvious' is not a sufficient justification for the belief, especially in the light of contra-indicatory evidence.

O.

[Alan Burns]

How do you know?  That you believe is, at this point,  not in question, but you aren't claiming that this is merely your belief you are stating that this is fact - how do you know?

The evidence of neurological measurement indicates that what we think of as conscious thought is an aftereffect of other neurological processes - our brains manifest the appearance of freedom after the deterministic activity of our making conclusions has already happened.  Our language hasn't developed, and our language centres haven't evolved, to handle such metaphysical self-referential concepts, so we're stuck trying to use an indeterminate 'I' to cover everything from individual elements of our conscious and sub-conscious minds through to the full four-dimensional, constantly varying reality of our block existence.

Against that understanding which explodes far beyond our limited inherited language to convey - and, therefore, the limitations of conscious understanding which rely on the capacity of that language to determine our cognitive remit - your instinctive 'it's obvious' is not a sufficient justification for the belief, especially in the light of contra-indicatory evidence.

O.

But the most compelling evidence of all lies in the carefully chosen words you use to describe your own analysis of the situation in question.  It is evident that your erudite explanations illustrate your freedom to consciously analyse and draw conclusions - a process which defies the posit that it can be derived entirely from the physically controlled material reactions in your brain cells.  The key to all this lies in our conscious awareness which defines our reality and forms the source of all our deliberate interactions with this world we live in.

[Roses]

When someone is indoctrinated into a particular way of thinking, they might think their thoughts are controlled by them, which isn't actually the case.

[Outrider]

But the most compelling evidence of all lies in the carefully chosen words you use to describe your own analysis of the situation in question.  It is evident that your erudite explanations illustrate your freedom to consciously analyse and draw conclusions - a process which defies the posit that it can be derived entirely from the physically controlled material reactions in your brain cells.

It's evidence of no such thing, it's evidence of the complexity of my brain's structure and capacity.  Why does erudition or the ability to draw conclusions indicate free will?  Amazon's Alexa has a broad vocabulary and can draw conclusions from available data - indeed, can provide unprompted conclusions based upon prior activity - but I suspect you'd hesitate to suggest an Echo had free will?  Erudition is a subjective and quantitative judgement - it's about a degree of complexity and an extent of vocabulary, and yet you're using it to support a qualitative statement: erudition evidences free will - at what level of erudition does free will kick in? How broad a vocabulary suggests free will?

It doesn't defy the post that complex cognitive performance can be entirely materialistic in nature, it defies your belief about that materialistic nature.

The key to all this lies in our conscious awareness which defines our reality and forms the source of all our deliberate interactions with this world we live in.

Our conscious awareness doesn't define our reality, it defines our understanding of our reality. Rather ironically, our reality defines our conscious awareness.  Our reality shows that at least some of our 'deliberate interactions with the world' are internal post-hoc rationalisations of subconscious activities.

Which still doesn't address the oxymoronic nature of the claim 'free will' in the first place, of course.

O.