Searching for GOD...

[Roses]

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.

Which you think you have, but have no convincing evidence to prove that to be the case.

[Alan Burns]

  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.

But I have answered your counter arguments.  The fact that you choose to dismiss these answers as drivel or word salad is frustrating to say the least, and your choice of words does nothing to support the flawed logic you espouse.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The search for truth is evident throughout the history of mankind.

Sort of, but ok…

It is a unique human trait not evident anywhere else in the animal kingdom.

So is nail varnish. Lots of other species have unique traits too. So?

It is also evidence of mankind's conscious ability to drive their own thought processes in progressing this search.

More dishonesty. As you’ve had that stupidity falsified countless times now, why just repeat it as if nothing had been explained to you?

Inevitably there will be a great number of conflicting claims from those who think they have discovered the truth…

Those who claim to know “the” truth tend to be the religious of various persuasions, and yes their claims often conflict.
 

…and inevitably nearly all these claims will be false –

Almost certainly, yes – that’s because faith claims are epistemically guesses, and axiomatically guesses are by magnitudes more likely to be wrong than to be right.
 

…because there is only one truth.

Which is a just such one faith claim. This’ll be above your reasoning pay grade, but the problem with claiming there to be “one” truth (let alone to know what it is) is that there’s no way to eliminate the possibility of another truth that falsifies the one you think to be the final one. The only truths we can discern are those our intellects are capable of discerning, and it’s solipsistic just to assume that we have the intellects to know with no possibility of being wrong what absolute and final truths might be. 

[Nearly Sane]

But I have answered your counter arguments.  The fact that you choose to dismiss these answers as drivel or word salad is frustrating to say the least, and your choice of words does nothing to support the flawed logic you espouse.

You wear a shiny skin and a funny hat
 The almighty animal trainer, let's it go at that
 You bark ever so slightly at the trainer's gun
 With you whiskers melting in the noon-day sun

 You flip and you flop under the big white top
 Where the long-legged ring mistress starts and stops
 But you know, after all, the act is wearing thin
 As the crowd grow uneasy and the boos begin

But you balance your world on the tip of your nose
 You're a sea lion with a ball at the carnival

[Roses]

But I have answered your counter arguments.  The fact that you choose to dismiss these answers as drivel or word salad is frustrating to say the least, and your choice of words does nothing to support the flawed logic you espouse.

Alan, it is your logic which appears to be flawed as you have never come up with any convincing argument, imo.

[Alan Burns]

Which is a just such one faith claim. This’ll be above your reasoning pay grade, but the problem with claiming there to be “one” truth (let alone to know what it is) is that there’s no way to eliminate the possibility of another truth that falsifies the one you think to be the final one. The only truths we can discern are those our intellects are capable of discerning, and it’s solipsistic just to assume that we have the intellects to know with no possibility of being wrong what absolute and final truths might be.

Can you think why the human race has aquired this unique ability to consciously search for the truth behind their existence?  Could it be just an unintended consequence of the evolutionary process to aid survival of our human race, or could it have an intended purpose to aid the salvation of our human soul?

[Alan Burns]

More dishonesty. As you’ve had that stupidity falsified countless times now, why just repeat it as if nothing had been explained to you?

But the supposed explanation which falsifies my ability to consciously choose would mean that these words I am typing are just a natural consequence of physical reactions beyond my control.  How can I be personally accused of deliberate dishonesty if I have no conscious choice over what I write?  Your explanation does not make sense.

[Stranger]

But I have answered your counter arguments.

No you haven't - you can't even be honest about that! You've provided "answers", I (and others) have countered the answers and then you've just gone back to the start with the same silly assertions and contradictions. So round and round we go - with you never answering the actual points put to you.

The fact that you choose to dismiss these answers as drivel or word salad is frustrating to say the least, and your choice of words does nothing to support the flawed logic you espouse.

It is a fact you haven't defined "the present" in any way that is logically self-consistent and meaningful - therefore it means nothing at all in the context of the logic of choice making.

Also you have never countered this "flawed logic" or been able to point to a flaw - you just keep asserting that it's flawed.

[Roses]

Can you think why the human race has aquired this unique ability to consciously search for the truth behind their existence? Could it be just an unintended consequence of the evolutionary process to aid survival of our human race, or could it have an intended purpose to aid the salvation of our human soul?

Much more likely part of the evolutionary process, nothing to do with a 'soul', which I don't believe exists in the way you look upon that term.

[Gordon]

Can you think why the human race has aquired this unique ability to consciously search for the truth behind their existence?

If you change your 'why' to 'how' then a provisional explanation (in the form of the TofE) awaits you - 'why' is an incoherent question if it is used to imply purpose.

Could it be just an unintended consequence of the evolutionary process to aid survival of our human race

In essence, yes (and ignoring your usual flowery hyperbole).

or could it have an intended purpose to aid the salvation of our human soul?

As things stands no, because there are no good reasons to think so, and since the stance you adopt in saying this is built on fallacious reasoning and incoherent claims.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Can you think why the human race has aquired this unique ability to consciously search for the truth behind their existence?

Yes – it’s the outcome of being a pattern- and explanation-seeking species. In evolutionary terms deciding that the rustling in the grass could be a tiger so we’d better run away started us on the journey to sending satellites into space and finding cures for diseases. 

Could it be just an unintended consequence of the evolutionary process to aid survival of our human race…

That’s what all the reasoning and evidence indicates, yes.

…or could it have an intended purpose to aid the salvation of our human soul?

Leaving aside all the definitional problems this white noise has yes it could be, but only in the trivial sense that anything else could be too – turtles all the way down included. I opt for the reason and evidence-based explanation, you go for incoherent and fundamentally contradictory blind faith instead. Oddly though, you reject the same approach when it really matters – for example if you were ill you’d (presumably) reject my “…or could it be that hopping backwards in small circles before an effigy of Colin the Leprechaun will cure you?”.

Your answer would be something like “yes it could be a cure, but I’ll stick with reason and evidence-based medicine thanks”. Why would you take different approaches in each case though?       

But the supposed explanation which falsifies my ability to consciously choose would mean that these words I am typing are just a natural consequence of physical reactions beyond my control.  How can I be personally accused of deliberate dishonesty if I have no conscious choice over what I write?  Your explanation does not make sense.

For exactly the reason that's been explained to you ten bajillion times already and that you just ignore in favour of repeating the same stupidity over and over again. The experience of posting on an mb creates a level of reality that functions perfectly well for day-to-day purposes. When you actually think about it though (well, not you obviously) you realise that a deeper, richer, more logically robust explanation must apply. Just breaking the logic because you don’t like it and inserting magic to get you off the hook of incoherence that puts you on is hopeless (whether you brand that magic “soul” or anything else).   

[torridon]

Can you think why the human race has aquired this unique ability to consciously search for the truth behind their existence?  Could it be just an unintended consequence of the evolutionary process to aid survival of our human race, or could it have an intended purpose to aid the salvation of our human soul?

A God that was concerned with the salvation of the human soul would not go hiding such important information in the first place.  It would be equally evident to all without fear or favour.

[Alan Burns]

For exactly the reason that's been explained to you ten bajillion times already and that you just ignore in favour of repeating the same stupidity over and over again. The experience of posting on an mb creates a level of reality that functions perfectly well for day-to-day purposes. When you actually think about it though ….

But to actually think about it requires me to have the power to initiate whatever it takes to invoke the act of thinking and guide those thoughts to reach a conclusion.  Can you not see the problem here?  The reason you keep quoting to be a result of your conscious thought would deem that your ability to arrive at this conclusion is "just the way it seems", and the level of reality you have thought about is just an experience devoid of any apparent freedom.  Meanwhile I consciously think about it and reach the obvious conclusion that my ability to guide my thoughts cannot be derived from the uncontrollable reactions of material particles.

[Stranger]

Meanwhile I consciously think about it and reach the obvious conclusion that my ability to guide my thoughts cannot be derived from the uncontrollable reactions of material particles.

On the contrary, the one thing you're obviously not doing is thinking about it. If you were thinking about it, you would at least be able to see the logical contradiction and have a way of at least trying to refute it. You would also be able to see that the problem is logical and has nothing to do with the "reactions of material particles". One would also hope that you wouldn't have to resort to argument by emotive language ("uncontrollable") rather than sound reasoning.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But to actually think about it requires me to have the power to initiate whatever it takes to invoke the act of thinking and guide those thoughts to reach a conclusion.  Can you not see the problem here?  The reason you keep quoting to be a result of your conscious thought would deem that your ability to arrive at this conclusion is "just the way it seems", and the level of reality you have thought about is just an experience devoid of any apparent freedom.  Meanwhile I consciously think about it and reach the obvious conclusion that my ability to guide my thoughts cannot be derived from the uncontrollable reactions of material particles.

FFS. Thinking is an experiential phenomenon - for all the world it feels as though there's independent agency at work so we accept that as a workaday explanation for the phenomenon. Indeed that was thought to be the correct model up until about the 1700s when people like Bishop Berkely began to question the underlying assumptions and realised that thinking in the "present" was logically impossible.

I have no idea whether goldfish think but let's assume that they do, and that their entire understanding of the universe is what they see from their bowls. Now imagine that I (who happen to be fluent in goldfish speak) turn up and explain to a goldfish that his reality is just one reality, but that actually there's a much richer, more logically robust one underneath it if only he'd grasp it. Now imagine that this goldfish (who sadly is as hard of thinking as you) replied with something like, "but can you not see the problem here..." and continued to repeat over and over again that what he perceived from his bowl must be all of reality.

Still with me? Good. You are that goldfish. You insist that the way consciousness feels to you as an experience must be all of what consciousness is, obtusely unaware of the actual problem - namely that necessarily your experience of consciousness cannot be the explanation for it. That's not to say that the experience of thinking and of conversing on an mb isn't a perfectly useful one at one level of abstraction, but it is to say that your reliance on a folkloric belief that that's all there is at play is profoundly wrongheaded.

All that said, as we both know you'll just ignore the argument that undoes you and repeat the same ontology of the goldfish I've just wasted my time again haven't I.

Have another fish.                 

[SusanDoris]

AB

Well, your smug, self-satisfied dishonest drivel continues. Fortunately, in betweenall your posts there are rational and intelligently written ones which people like me read with interest and thereby increase our understanding of the world.

[Nearly Sane]

Still with me? Good. You are that goldfish. You insist that the way consciousness feels to you as an experience must be all of what consciousness is, obtusely unaware of the actual problem - namely that necessarily your experience of consciousness cannot be the explanation for it. That's not to say that the experience of thinking and of conversing on an mb isn't a perfectly useful one at one level of abstraction, but it is to say that your reliance on a folkloric belief that that's all there is at play is profoundly wrongheaded.

All that said, as we both know you'll just ignore the argument that undoes you and repeat the same ontology of the goldfish I've just wasted my time again haven't I.

Have another fish.                 

Cannibalism!

[Alan Burns]

AB,

FFS. Thinking is an experiential phenomenon - for all the world it feels as though there's independent agency at work so we accept that as a workaday explanation for the phenomenon. Indeed that was thought to be the correct model up until about the 1700s when people like Bishop Berkely began to question the underlying assumptions and realised that thinking in the "present" was logically impossible.

I have no idea whether goldfish think but let's assume that they do, and that their entire understanding of the universe is what they see from their bowls. Now imagine that I (who happen to be fluent in goldfish speak) turn up and explain to a goldfish that his reality is just one reality, but that actually there's a much richer, more logically robust one underneath it if only he'd grasp it. Now imagine that this goldfish (who sadly is as hard of thinking as you) replied with something like, "but can you not see the problem here..." and continued to repeat over and over again that what he perceived from his bowl must be all of reality.

Still with me? Good. You are that goldfish. You insist that the way consciousness feels to you as an experience must be all of what consciousness is, obtusely unaware of the actual problem - namely that necessarily your experience of consciousness cannot be the explanation for it. That's not to say that the experience of thinking and of conversing on an mb isn't a perfectly useful one at one level of abstraction, but it is to say that your reliance on a folkloric belief that that's all there is at play is profoundly wrongheaded.

All that said, as we both know you'll just ignore the argument that undoes you and repeat the same ontology of the goldfish I've just wasted my time again haven't I.

Have another fish.                 

experiential phenomenon 
Sorry, but the more you try to explain how our conscious thought processes are just an experience beyond the personal control of our conscious awareness, the more evidence you provide for the fact that your conclusion can make no logical sense.  You are just digging yourself into a bigger hole.  Where did the example of the goldfish emanate from?  Was it just an inevitable subconscious reaction?  It obviously comes from you and whatever your conscious awareness has thought and deliberately chosen to write.  No other explanation is feasible.

(and goldfish do not think - they react)

[Roses]

experiential[/i] phenomenon
Sorry, but the more you try to explain how our conscious thought processes are just an experience beyond the personal control of our conscious awareness, the more evidence you provide for the fact that your conclusion can make no logical sense.  You are just digging yourself into a bigger hole.  Where did the example of the goldfish emanate from?  Was it just an inevitable subconscious reaction?  It obviously comes from you and whatever your conscious awareness has thought and deliberately chosen to write.  No other explanation is feasible.

(and goldfish do not think - they react)

And you know that for a fact do you? One could suggest you react instead of think, when others don't see it your way.

[Stranger]

Sorry, but the more you try to explain how our conscious thought processes are just an experience beyond the personal control of our conscious awareness, the more evidence you provide for the fact that your conclusion can make no logical sense.

Sorry, but you are lying again. Everybody is offering explanations for what we can do and what we experience. It is the height of dishonesty to claim that those things are evidence for your own explanation of them.

It is also totally absurd to claim that there even can be (even in principle) evidence for your own view unless you address the fact that, as it stands, it is self-contradictory and therefore impossible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

experiential[/i] phenomenon
Sorry, but the more you try to explain how our conscious thought processes are just an experience beyond the personal control of our conscious awareness, the more evidence you provide for the fact that your conclusion can make no logical sense.  You are just digging yourself into a bigger hole.  Where did the example of the goldfish emanate from?  Was it just an inevitable subconscious reaction?  It obviously comes from you and whatever your conscious awareness has thought and deliberately chosen to write.  No other explanation is feasible.

(and goldfish do not think - they react)

I really can't tell whether you're just sealioning or you actually have the reasoning ability of someone with no critical faculties at all. All I can suggest is that you try to read, comprehend and respond to what's actually being explained to you – something you've shown no sign of doing so far. If nonetheless you persist in asserting a lucid, coherent and logically robust explanation to be "more evidence" for an incoherent and logically impossible one then you seem to me to be locked into a world of mistake and wrongheadedness.

I'm sorry that you lighted on a disastrously wrong idea all those years ago and are now so heavily invested in it that denial is a preferable option to being honest enough to engage with its flaws, but until you ever at least try a little honesty there's not much those of us with reason and evidence on our side can do to help you. As Christopher Hitchens famously used to say, someone who hasn't reasoned his way into a position cannot be reasoned out of it - a truism you exemplify.         

[Alan Burns]

Sorry, but you are lying again. Everybody is offering explanations for what we can do and what we experience. It is the height of dishonesty to claim that those things are evidence for your own explanation of them.

It is also totally absurd to claim that there even can be (even in principle) evidence for your own view unless you address the fact that, as it stands, it is self-contradictory and therefore impossible.

All I am doing is pointing to substantial evidence of our conscious ability to drive our own thoughts.  How can this possibly be construed as lying?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I really can't tell whether you're just sealioning or you actually have the reasoning ability of someone with no critical faculties at all. All I can suggest is that you try to read, comprehend and respond to what's actually being explained to you – something you've shown no sign of doing so far. If nonetheless you persist in asserting a lucid, coherent and logically robust explanation to be "more evidence" for an incoherent and logically impossible one then you seem to me to be locked into a world of mistake and wrongheadedness.

I'm sorry that you lighted on a disastrously wrong idea all those years ago and are now so heavily invested in it that denial is a preferable option to being honest enough to engage with its flaws, but until you ever at least try a little honesty there's not much those of us with reason and evidence on our side can do to help you. As Christopher Hitchens famously used to say, someone who hasn't reasoned his way into a position cannot be reasoned out of it - a truism you exemplify.       

No one can reason their way into any position if they did not have the conscious freedom to do so.

And where did your sealion idea emanate from?  Was it another inevitable reaction bubbling up from your subconscious brain activity?

[Stranger]

All I am doing is pointing to substantial evidence of our conscious ability to drive our own thoughts.  How can this possibly construed as lying?

FFS did you even read what I said, let alone give it any of your "conscious awareness"?

Yet again: Everybody involved in this discussion knows what humans experience and knows what humans are capable of. What is under discussion is explanations of how those things come about. You cannot claim that the things everybody is offering explanations for are evidence for your explanation. Good grief, this isn't difficult!

It is doubly dishonest when you cannot resolve a blatant contradiction in your own proposed explanation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All I am doing is pointing to substantial evidence of our conscious ability to drive our own thoughts.  How can this possibly construed as lying?

It's a form of lying because when people explain to you why this claim is evidence-denying and logically impossible you just ignore the explanation and repeat the same mistake over and over again.