Searching for GOD...

[Roses]

You can't prove a negative. Do you even know what "verifiable evidence" is? You never produce any for your assertions.

YAWN. Steve give it a rest please, your constant digs at me are very boring!

[Nearly Sane]

You can't prove a negative. Do you even know what "verifiable evidence" is? You never produce any for your assertions.

Not quite - see link below for issues with that as a blanket claim. Note I think the blogger does a bit of a cheat in the first example since that is really a question as is mentioned about what 'proof' means.

I'm not sure that in a hypothetical such as LR has posted there is a duty to define 'verifiable evidence', and since it was a hypothetical. it isn't an assertion.

http://factmyth.com/factoids/you-cant-prove-a-negative/

[Roses]

I doubt any verifiable evidence will ever be found to prove the existence or non existence of any god. I just wanted Alan to state his reaction if it was proved beyond all shadow of doubt  that no god existed. Not that I was holding my breath for getting a response to my question.

[torridon]

We are consciously aware of the past, but the awareness itself exists in our present state of mindYou appear to be saying that our conscious awareness is just a spectator which perceives what has already been determined by subconscious activity, which as I previously mentioned, would relegate us to being a biological robot driven by natural forces beyond our conscious control...

That's not an argument that the science is wrong, it is merely argumentam ad consequentiam to give it its posh name.  Perception is necessarily the product of the processes that construct it, and that inevitably takes time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Not quite - see link below for issues with that as a blanket claim. Note I think the blogger does a bit of a cheat in the first example since that is really a question as is mentioned about what 'proof' means.

I'm not sure that in a hypothetical such as LR has posted there is a duty to define 'verifiable evidence', and since it was a hypothetical. it isn't an assertion.

http://factmyth.com/factoids/you-cant-prove-a-negative/

Just to add that the author relies on logic, and induction in particular. A typical response from the theist though is that his god (whichever one he happens to subscribe to) is outside "man-made" logic (the "man-made" there being especially weaselly because it assumes a non man-made version unique to his god, so the premise and the conclusion are the same thing) and thus all bets are off. Oddly, as with AB some will nonetheless attempt all sorts of arguments for their god being real, albeit logically hopeless ones. They/he would be on much safer ground just saying something like "God is real and I know that because that's how it feels to me", but then of course the evangelism rationale (such as it is) would be defenestrated.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Just to add that the author relies on logic, and induction in particular. A typical response from the theist though is that his god (whichever one he happens to subscribe to) is outside "man-made" logic (the "man-made" there being especially weaselly because it assumes a non man-made version unique to his god, so the premise and the conclusion are the same thing) and thus all bets are off. Oddly, as with AB some will nonetheless attempt all sorts of arguments for their god being real, albeit logically hopeless ones. They/he would be on much safer ground just saying something like "God is real and I know that because that's how it feels to me", but then of course the evangelism rationale (such as it is) would be defenestrated.

We're back at the problem of definition, as so often. As stated many times I haven't seen a logically consistent and coherent definition of god so I am not even in the place of considering if it can exist. Even in terms of someone saying "God is real and I know that because that's how it feels to me", there needs to be something with a coherent meaning.

Agree about the issue of people talking about 'man made logic', and if they do use that as a justification, they are basically saying that discussion is pointless.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

We're back at the problem of definition, as so often. As stated many times I haven't seen a logically consistent and coherent definition of god so I am not even in the place of considering if it can exist. Even in terms of someone saying "God is real and I know that because that's how it feels to me", there needs to be something with a coherent meaning.

Yes - the sensible response to the claim "god" is ignosticism - "I have no idea what you mean by the term, and nor so far have you offered one". 

Agree about the issue of people talking about 'man made logic', and if they do use that as a justification, they are basically saying that discussion is pointless.

Quite. And yet having painted themselves into that corner, the likes of AB will attempt arguments in logic for "god" (whatever he means by it), will have the mistakes in the logic they attempt explained to them, and then will revert to, "oh well, He's outside man-made logic anyway". It's all a bit rum.

PS I don't know whether you're fan, but I saw Richard Hawley last night in Oxford - he was bloody fantastic.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes - the sensible response to the claim "god" is ignosticism - "I have no idea what you mean by the term, and nor so far have you offered one". 

Quite. And yet having painted themselves into that corner, the likes of AB will attempt arguments in logic for "god" (whatever he means by it), will have the mistakes in the logic they attempt explained to them, and then will revert to, "oh well, He's outside man-made logic anyway". It's all a bit rum.

PS I don't know whether you're fan, but I saw Richard Hawley last night in Oxford - he was bloody fantastic.   

Haven't been to see him for a couple of years but he is excellent.

Digression over.

I suppose it is this thing without a coherent definition exists in mysterious ways. And then we're back at when someone's god is defined with attributes it soon becomes difficult to have any coherent discussion . e.g when the idea of timelessness is linked to time based terms like 'exists'.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Haven't been to see him for a couple of years but he is excellent.

Digression over.

I suppose it is this thing without a coherent definition exists in mysterious ways. And then we're back at when someone's god is defined with attributes it soon becomes difficult to have any coherent discussion . e.g when the idea of timelessness is linked to time based terms like 'exists'.

Yes - as soon as you try to say not only "god is" but also anything about this god the effort collapses because the attributes are logic bound (definition, coherence, consistency etc). That's why I always think deism is easier to defend than theism, but then what use would a god about which nothing can be said be to the likes of AB?   

[Alan Burns]

How would you react if verifiable evidence was discovered, which proved no god was involved in the creation of the universe and life forms?

The act of consciously searching for, analysing and publishing such evidence would in itself provide verifiable evidence for the existence of human free will and hence our spiritual nature.

[Roses]

The act of consciously searching for, analysing and publishing such evidence would in itself provide verifiable evidence for the existence of human free will and hence our spiritual nature.

In your opinion, not mine.

[Outrider]

We are consciously aware of the past, but the awareness itself exists in our present state of mind

The evidence, as I've pointed out before, suggests that this isn't the case.

You appear to be saying that our conscious awareness is just a spectator which perceives what has already been determined by subconscious activity, which as I previously mentioned, would relegate us to being a biological robot driven by natural forces beyond our conscious control.

Yes. You seem to be suggesting this can't be true because you don't like that implication; that's not a valid rejection of the idea, you need to have a reason to think that it's not valid, not merely a distaste for the consequences.

In the case of your computer analogy, the virus was automatically removed  due to the pre programmed functionality of the anti virus software - which can be likened to our body's own immune system which has been programmed over time to remove real viruses.

Right.

Yet after the virus removal we are still free to consciously interact with whatever we perceive on the screen via the facilities provided through the keyboard and the mouse.

No, we aren't.

These are not driven by preprogrammed software, but enacted through the conscious freedom which emanates from within our current state of conscious awareness.

They are entirely driven, it seems, by pre-pogrammed software (our 'personalities' for want of a better expresssion, which are the cumulative result of our inherent traits and our experiences).  You keep claiming this 'conscious freedom', but in the face of evidence to the contrary you've not explained where you think this comes from, how you think it comes into the system.

O.

[Stranger]

The act of consciously searching for, analysing and publishing such evidence would in itself provide verifiable evidence for the existence of human free will and hence our spiritual nature.

Your dishonesty does your faith no favours. As has been pointed out countless times, every single hypothesis and conjecture about how human minds work is an attempt to explain our experiences and capabilities.

It is simply a lie to say that they are evidence for your views.

[Gordon]

The act of consciously searching for, analysing and publishing such evidence would in itself provide verifiable evidence for the existence of human free will and hence our spiritual nature.

Utter pish.

[Alan Burns]

So how does this sealioning thing work exactly Alan? Each time you're caught out (on logic, on evolution, on dishonest referencing etc) you just pretend that it didn't happen and move on the the next mistake? Seems an odd tactic to keep embarrassing yourself on a public forum, and it's clearly doing your cause no good at all (you seem to have invented anti-evangelism whereby you actively dissuade people from thinking your faith beliefs are correct) but who knows, maybe you're some kind of uber atheist under deep cover working assiduously to discredit Christianity? I have to say that, if that is your mission, then you're doing a bang on (if frankly dull) job.

Why such over the top attempt at ridicule?
Are you trying to get rid of me?
I am sorry that I have not had time to answer some of the counter arguments posted, but I do try to give honest replies to major points raised, but when each of my replies often spawn four or more posts it is difficult to keep up.  Saying that, I am very grateful for all the feedback I receive, most of which is constructive and thought provoking.  If I do neglect to reply to a post which you think deserves an answer, please prompt me and I will do my best.

[Roses]

Alan you are on a hiding to nothing, you are never going to convince the non believers on this forum to see it your way. As I have suggested before, please take part in some of secular threads, it would be really interesting to know your POV on them.

[Stranger]

I am sorry that I have not had time to answer some of the counter arguments posted...

It quite obviously isn't a matter of time, Alan. You seem to have endless time to constantly repeat "points" and "arguments" that have been addressed many, many, many times before, for all the world as if nobody had ever replied to them.

If I do neglect to reply to a post which you think deserves an answer, please prompt me and I will do my best.

We were (yet again) discussing the "present" and you not only ignored much of what I said, it then got to my post #36648 and you stopped responding - and before long you were going on about "the present" again as if the exchange had never taken place. It's not like this is the first time, the first subject, or that I'm the only person you do this to...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Why such over the top attempt at ridicule?

It’s not – it’s a description of your behaviour here.

Are you trying to get rid of me?

No. I’m trying to get you to be honest, so far with no success.

I am sorry that I have not had time to answer some of the counter arguments posted, but I do try to give honest replies to major points raised, but when each of my replies often spawn four or more posts it is difficult to keep up.  Saying that, I am very grateful for all the feedback I receive, most of which is constructive and thought provoking.  If I do neglect to reply to a post which you think deserves an answer, please prompt me and I will do my best.

But when you get something badly wrong (as you so often do) and have it corrected, why then so consistently ignore the corrections and then repeat exactly the same mistakes later on? I explained to you for example your problem when you think the unlikelihood of evolution producing you is evidence for a god that you’d have to show too that “you” was a god’s plan to start with, so your premise and your conclusion are the same thing. And that’s called circular reasoning, which is wrongheadedness 101.   

[torridon]

The act of consciously searching for, analysing and publishing such evidence would in itself provide verifiable evidence for the existence of human free will and hence our spiritual nature.

That provides nothing of the sort, and the fact that you can write still be writing such stuff only reveals that even after all this time, you still have not understood this issue. That people do what they want to do is not contentious, it is entirely consistent with a deterministic account of the nature of mind.  What you need to demonstrate for free will is that we can be free of all that.  Acting on our desires is not evidence that we are somehow free of them. If anything, it is evidence of the opposite, that we can never be free of our desires.

[Alan Burns]

You seem to be suggesting this can't be true because you don't like that implication; that's not a valid rejection of the idea, you need to have a reason to think that it's not valid, not merely a distaste for the consequences.

It is not distaste for the consequences - I am questioning the presumption that everything we choose to do, think or say can be predetermined before we are consciously aware of these choices.  I quoted a link recently which cast doubt on the validity of the investigations into brain activity which came up with this presumption.  And I question the ability of nothing but pre determined physically defined material reactions to generate all our thought processes.  I consider my ability to consciously question such presumptions is, in itself, evidence against this presumption of all my thoughts being physically predetermined.

They are entirely driven, it seems, by pre-pogrammed software (our 'personalities' for want of a better expresssion, which are the cumulative result of our inherent traits and our experiences).  You keep claiming this 'conscious freedom', but in the face of evidence to the contrary you've not explained where you think this comes from, how you think it comes into the system.

O.

The analogy to pre programmed software is not fully justified because all computer software is designed by humans.  Any results from the software reflect the conscious intent of the programmer and his/her abilities to drive their own conscious thoughts to achieve their intended goal. This is not evidence of human thought processes being defined outside our conscious awareness.

[Alan Burns]

That provides nothing of the sort, and the fact that you can write still be writing such stuff only reveals that even after all this time, you still have not understood this issue. That people do what they want to do is not contentious, it is entirely consistent with a deterministic account of the nature of mind.  What you need to demonstrate for free will is that we can be free of all that.  Acting on our desires is not evidence that we are somehow free of them. If anything, it is evidence of the opposite, that we can never be free of our desires.

As I have pointed out before, we can't change our desires, but we do have conscious freedom to choose how, when, where or if to indulge those desires.  You will probably claim that we have no control over how we prioritise such a choice, but there we must differ because I know I am exercising my freedom to choose how, when and what to write in this reply to you.

[torridon]

As I have pointed out before, we can't change our desires, but we do have conscious freedom to choose how, when, where or if to indulge those desires.  You will probably claim that we have no control over how we prioritise such a choice, but there we must differ because I know I am exercising my freedom to choose how, when and what to write in this reply to you.

Your usual avoidant self contradictory mantra.  Just saying you have the freedom to resolve the choice does not explain how you resolve choice. You claim to be a programmer, so bring some logic to your thinking now.  How do you resolve the choice of how. when, and where to indulge your desire aside from identifying which possibility you most desire ?

[torridon]

If God chooses to make Himself known by becoming one of us, who am I to suggest He should have done it differently?  Personally I think it works very well.  Would you suggest that because God's chosen method of revelation is not to your liking, it is a valid reason to reject God?

I'm not challenging God and his chosen method of revelation. I'm challenging your claim about it.  Muslims will claim that God's chosen method of revelation is through the Qur'an.  So, there are lots of truth claims out there, and no doubt with many personal testimonies in support of each claim.  And with many claims standing in contradiction of other claims, the conclusion this suggests is that it is not the epistemic truth of the claims that matters so much as the practice of the faith.  Practice of the Catholic faith 'works' for you, where as practice of the Muslim faith 'works' for Gabriella, whereas neither 'works' for me.  This says, that it is people who vary rather than there being some objective God that is out there waiting to be found by some singular correct method of searching.

[Stranger]

As I have pointed out before, we can't change our desires, but we do have conscious freedom to choose how, when, where or if to indulge those desires.  You will probably claim that we have no control over how we prioritise such a choice, but there we must differ because I know I am exercising my freedom to choose how, when and what to write in this reply to you.

   Once again you are demonstrating endless time to pointlessly repeat your evasive, illogical, and apparently thought-free beliefs after, just a few posts ago, claiming that you have not tackled counterarguments due to lack of time.

[Alan Burns]

I'm not challenging God and his chosen method of revelation. I'm challenging your claim about it.  Muslims will claim that God's chosen method of revelation is through the Qur'an.  So, there are lots of truth claims out there, and no doubt with many personal testimonies in support of each claim.  And with many claims standing in contradiction of other claims, the conclusion this suggests is that it is not the epistemic truth of the claims that matters so much as the practice of the faith.  Practice of the Catholic faith 'works' for you, where as practice of the Muslim faith 'works' for Gabriella, whereas neither 'works' for me.  This says, that it is people who vary rather than there being some objective God that is out there waiting to be found by some singular correct method of searching.

The search for truth is evident throughout the history of mankind.  It is a unique human trait not evident anywhere else in the animal kingdom.  It is also evidence of mankind's conscious ability to drive their own thought processes in progressing this search.  Inevitably there will be a great number of conflicting claims from those who think they have discovered the truth, and inevitably nearly all these claims will be false - because there is only one truth.