Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

   

I already have. Many times. You could try the same fallacies again and I could falsify them again if you like, but as you just ignore it, lie about it or misrepresent it when I do what would be the point?

Nope, what's the matter Hillside? Have you lost your capacity to falsify theist claims? If you have the ability show us here and now. Get to it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Nope, what's the matter Hillside? Have you lost your capacity to falsify theist claims? If you have the ability show us here and now. Get to it.

You seem to have forgotten that I've learned from the house troll that the attempt would be met immediately with "ah, but they're not my arguments" and, in the unlikely event you ever did attempt an argument of your own, you'd revert to type when it was falsified and just ignore, lie about or misrepresent the falsification. From memory you're a Poundland William Lane Craig, and his arguments have been dismantled here countless times. What you get from your behaviour is anyone's guess, but I have no expectation that you'll have a sudden rush of honesty and change it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You seem to have forgotten that I've learned from the house troll that the attempt would be met immediately with "ah, but they're not my arguments" and, in the unlikely event you ever did attempt an argument of your own, you'd revert to type when it was falsified and just ignore, lie about or misrepresent the falsification. From memory you're a Poundland William Lane Craig, and his arguments have been dismantled here countless times. What you get from your behaviour is anyone's guess, but I have no expectation that you'll have a sudden rush of honesty and change it.

I can only recall you saying there were viable alternatives to William Craig's argument for how nature came about and then you only provided arguments with nature already in place.

Even if those arguments hadn't been non sequitur. How could they possibly have 'falsified' Lane Craig's argument?

And even if Lane Craigs argument could be 'falsified'. Lane Craig's argument isn't 'All theistic argument'.

[Stranger]

I can only recall you saying there were viable alternatives to William Craig's argument for how nature came about and then you only provided arguments with nature already in place.

If you're referring to the Kalam cosmological argument, it's premises are both highly questionable, if not absolutely falsified, so the whole thing is worthless as an argument (even before we get to the later stages about the supposed cause, which are comical).

And even if Lane Craigs argument could be 'falsified'. Lane Craig's argument isn't 'All theistic argument'.

No - there may be a perfectly valid argument out there for some god or other but I've not seen it and it would be very odd if it weren't well known, if it existed....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you're referring to the Kalam cosmological argument, it's premises are both highly questionable, if not absolutely falsified, so the whole thing is worthless as an argument (even before we get to the later stages about the supposed cause, which are comical).

No - there may be a perfectly valid argument out there for some god or other but I've not seen it and it would be very odd if it weren't well known, if it existed....

Since it is well established that God is scientifically unfalsifiable. We have to settle I think for arguments for theism which are reasonable. The Kalam I would maintain, is and of course argument from contingency is, as is argument from fine tuning come to that. You don't have to be established scientifically to be a reasonable argument. I think we all know that and having lost that argument we then find die hard atheists introducing the idea of ''Good reason''.

[Outrider]

Since it is well established that God is scientifically unfalsifiable.

Or verifiable.  Which means, given that you're the claimant, you've got to find some other system to validate the claim or it can be dismissed.

We have to settle I think for arguments for theism which are reasonable.

We don't.  I think we can just settle for 'it's all been a bit of a farce, why don't we give up this fairy tale and start trying to extricate ourselves from the mess this religion nonsense has left us in?'

The Kalam I would maintain, is and of course argument from contingency is, as is argument from fine tuning come to that.

The Kalam, at its best, is special pleading written large - reality can't be infinite or uncaused, because nothing except God because... um... God.

Argument from contingency is just a variation, saying that reality can't be the infinite thing upon which everything is contingent, because reasons, but God can because magic.

The argument from fine tuning is dependent upon somehow establishing that something in reality is planned, but given that it's an argument to try to establish the planner it becomes a circular argument.

You don't have to be established scientifically to be a reasonable argument.

No, but you do need to avoid some fairly glaring logical fallacies and errors - these arguments don't.

I think we all know that and having lost that argument we then find die hard atheists introducing the idea of ''Good reason''.

If we get to that point we might, in theory, but as we're not there yet...

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Since it is well established that God is scientifically unfalsifiable. We have to settle I think for arguments for theism which are reasonable. The Kalam I would maintain, is and of course argument from contingency is, as is argument from fine tuning come to that. You don't have to be established scientifically to be a reasonable argument. I think we all know that and having lost that argument we then find die hard atheists introducing the idea of ''Good reason''.

None of those arguments are reasonable for reasons that have been explained to you many times. That you ignore, lie about or misrepresent those reasons doesn't change that.   

[Sebastian Toe]

That is one of the Devil's tactics to draw us away from God.

I'm curious, how does he do that?

[Stranger]

Since it is well established that God is scientifically unfalsifiable.

There is no universally accepted definition of "God", so you need to be more precise. Some versions of "God" can indeed be scientifically falsified, some (many) not.

We have to settle I think for arguments for theism which are reasonable.

No we don't. It's up to theists to provide something compelling enough to be taken seriously.

The Kalam I would maintain, is...

No it isn't because its premises are both wrong according to current science (QFT and GR) and the latter stages are absurd.

...and of course argument from contingency is...

Still waiting for you to post this one.

...as is argument from fine tuning come to that.

A creator represents an even more "fine tuned" reality. Like so many "arguments" for god it just moves a perceived problem from the universe to the god and then fails to ask the same question about it. Just special pleading.

You don't have to be established scientifically to be a reasonable argument.

No, but it does have to actually be reasonable. That is, not based on false or questionable premises and not riddled with fallacies.

I think we all know that and having lost that argument we then find die hard atheists introducing the idea of ''Good reason''.

Who's lost "that argument" and when did that happen? This atheist is still waiting for anything remotely like a reasonable argument.

[Alan Burns]

Then you haven't been reading this thread.  I've lost count of the times such things have been explained to you.  it is only because our thoughts derive from those 'chains' that they are meaningful.  Were that not the case, then our thoughts would be random.

Explanations which rely entirely on output resulting from nothing but physically defined chain reactions explain nothing about how a valid conclusion can ever be reached, or how a process of logical deduction can be started, or about what determines effective control the process of logical deduction.  What defines "meaningful" within physical chains of reactions?

[Gordon]

Explanations which rely entirely on output resulting from nothing but physically defined chain reactions explain nothing about how a valid conclusion can ever be reached, or how a process of logical deduction can be started, or about what determines effective control the process of logical deduction.  What defines "meaningful" within physical chains of reactions?

That there are these 'physical chains of reactions' of course: that is what the evidence to date suggests and that you don't like this is just tough but, and unfortunately for you, in this regard it seems you have nothing to declare but your incredulity.

[Stranger]

Explanations which rely entirely on output resulting from nothing but physically defined chain reactions explain nothing about how a valid conclusion can ever be reached, or how a process of logical deduction can be started, or about what determines effective control the process of logical deduction.  What defines "meaningful" within physical chains of reactions?

More breathtaking hypocrisy from the person proposing logically impossible magic as an "explanation".

What's more, you're simply wrong. Chains of cause and effect in a brain that has evolved to survive by gathering and processing information about the environment, do explain all those things. What on earth do you think the problem is? Nobody says we have a complete understanding of the human mind but it's a great deal better than your self-contradictory fairy tales supported by nothing but empty assertions, incredulity, and endless supply of fallacies.

Still waiting for the first hint of the logic you said you had, or the basic human honesty to admit you can't produce it...

[Alan Burns]

That there are these 'physical chains of reactions' of course: that is what the evidence to date suggests and that you don't like this is just tough but, and unfortunately for you, in this regard it seems you have nothing to declare but your incredulity.

I do not deny that physical reactions are involved.  What I am pointing out is the logical impossibility of uncontrolled physical reactions alone being able to initiate logical investigation, have effective control of thought processes and draw verifiable conclusions.

[torridon]

Explanations which rely entirely on output resulting from nothing but physically defined chain reactions explain nothing about how a valid conclusion can ever be reached, or how a process of logical deduction can be started, or about what determines effective control the process of logical deduction.  What defines "meaningful" within physical chains of reactions?

'Meaning' is difficult to define with precision. I'd say it concerns pattern recognition with an emotional charge.  Do the following words have meaning for you ?

da, deși merg prin valea morții...

Probably not, I guess, however, how about the following ?

yea though I walk through the valley of death...

The first sentence is the Romanian equivalent of the scripture that you are familiar with and given you don't speak Romanian (I guess) it would be meaning-less to you. The English version has meaning for you because recognition stirs an emotional recall. Likewise the bleating of a new born lamb has meaning for its mother that can recognise its call from amongst dozens of other near identical lambs - she recognises the call and has an emotional response.  Such things are only possible because the workings of mind are consistent with the more general flow of cause and effect.  Were there some sort of fundamental disconnect, as in being 'free' of cause and effect, there could be no meaning; a world with free will would be literally meaning-less.

[torridon]

I do not deny that physical reactions are involved.  What I am pointing out is the logical impossibility of uncontrolled physical reactions alone being able to initiate logical investigation, have effective control of thought processes and draw verifiable conclusions.

Unsupported assertion alert.  All the evidence suggests that thought processes do in fact emerge from those 'uncontrolled physical reactions'.  It might be a challenge to understand all that, but clearly it is not impossible because it happens and it is ubiquitous.  If you are going to claim it impossible then you need to justify that, otherwise, we can safely ignore it.

[Stranger]

I do not deny that physical reactions are involved.  What I am pointing out is the logical impossibility of uncontrolled physical reactions alone being able to initiate logical investigation, have effective control of thought processes and draw verifiable conclusions.

You can't just assert that something is logically impossible. You need to show your working.

Where is your actual logic?

[SteveH]

1.609 pages of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual shite, and no-one has yet changed anyone else's mind! One begins to wonder if there's any point to this thread...

[Outrider]

I do not deny that physical reactions are involved.  What I am pointing out is the logical impossibility of uncontrolled physical reactions alone being able to initiate logical investigation, have effective control of thought processes and draw verifiable conclusions.

No, you keep reiterating your belief that this could not have arisen entirely through physical processes, but you have never established any logical explanation for why you believe that.  At the same time, the logical flaw in your conception of something that is at one and the same time not deterministic but also not random still hasn't been resolved.

O.

[Alan Burns]

No, you keep reiterating your belief that this could not have arisen entirely through physical processes, but you have never established any logical explanation for why you believe that.  At the same time, the logical flaw in your conception of something that is at one and the same time not deterministic but also not random still hasn't been resolved.

O.

I am told that conscious awareness is an emergent property of physical reactions.  Emergent properties are determined by physical reactions, and in the physical model there is no mechanism for the emergent property of conscious awareness to have any influence over the reactions from which it emerges.  This reduces the property of conscious awareness to be just a spectator of the consequences to the reactions from which it emerges.

So in this scenario, the emergent property of conscious awareness can give no survival advantage to the physically determined model from which it emerges, which puts into question how or why the property of conscious awareness came into existence within the evolutionary process.

The reality we perceive, however, indicates a much different role for conscious awareness in which there is a two way exchange of information between conscious awareness and the material brain.   For example our ability to consciously invoke and control the thought processes needed to derive and verify logical analyses and draw viable conclusions requires more than just a spectator role.  As indicated above, there is no mechanism in the physical model for conscious awareness to operate this two way exchange of information, leading to a conclusion that in reality, conscious awareness comprises more than just an emergent property of physical reactions.

[ProfessorDavey]

Emergent properties are determined by physical reactions, and in the physical model there is no mechanism for the emergent property of conscious awareness to have any influence over the reactions from which it emerges.

Of course emergent properties can have influence over the reactions from which they emerge. It is call feedback - all sorts of properties involve feedback which often stabilises the response within certain boundaries. Physiological processes almost always have elegant and complex feedback mechanisms - we often call the overall process homeostasis. If these feedback mechanisms weren't occurring in your body right now AB ... you'd be dead.

[Alan Burns]

Of course emergent properties can have influence over the reactions from which they emerge. It is call feedback - all sorts of properties involve feedback which often stabilises the response within certain boundaries. Physiological processes almost always have elegant and complex feedback mechanisms - we often call the overall process homeostasis. If these feedback mechanisms weren't occurring in your body right now AB ... you'd be dead.

An emergent property is not in itself a physical entity, therefore is has no means of physically inducing any feedback to the reactions which produce it.

[torridon]

An emergent property is not in itself a physical entity, therefore is has no means of physically inducing any feedback to the reactions which produce it.

No idea what gives you that idea. The fluidity of water emerges out of the interactions of H2O molecules, which themselves are not wet. Is water not physical ?

[ProfessorDavey]

An emergent property is not in itself a physical entity, therefore is has no means of physically inducing any feedback to the reactions which produce it.

Yes it does - think about blood flow and pressure - these are emergent properties of the complex interaction of the fluid of the blood, the pumping of the heart and the properties of the blood vessels through which the blood flows. None of those individually can generate the emergent property but together they do. But the emergent property itself (blood flow and pressure) is detected and via feedback controls the reactions that produce it (most notably the rate of heart beat and the stiffness of the vessel walls). Feedback occurs.

[Gordon]

An emergent property is not in itself a physical entity, therefore is has no means of physically inducing any feedback to the reactions which produce it.

I see you've fallen into the fallacy of composition yet again.

[Alan Burns]

Yes it does - think about blood flow and pressure - these are emergent properties of the complex interaction of the fluid of the blood, the pumping of the heart and the properties of the blood vessels through which the blood flows. None of those individually can generate the emergent property but together they do. But the emergent property itself (blood flow and pressure) is detected and via feedback controls the reactions that produce it (most notably the rate of heart beat and the stiffness of the vessel walls). Feedback occurs.

The words "blood flow and pressure" are consciously conceived labels describing what is collectively perceived from an external observation.  Internally it is just physical elements reacting with each other.  It is not the consciously conceived labels which produce what you describe as feedback.  What these human labels amount to are terms describing what are simply chains of cause and effect acting in accordance with the laws of physics.  To get any "feedback" there needs to be a means of physical interaction between the perceived entities, not just one way.  In the case of conscious awareness, the concept of it being an emergent property of physical brain activity does not explain how any physical interaction can be generated from what is presumed to be an emergent property and the material reactions generating it.