Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Alan,

Here's a gift for you. I found this a while back and thought of you but didn't get round to posting it. It's a complete book you can download on critical thinking (logic): Critical Thinking (PDF). Basically this is the sort of thing you need to know if you're ever going to be taken seriously when you claim to have logic on your side. There is quite a bit on informal fallacies (chapters 6 and 7), which are the ones you tend to fall into, largely because you've never come close enough to presenting anything remotely like logic to have trouble with formal fallacies. You might want to dive into how logical arguments are actually structured: deductive arguments are covered in chapter 8 (categorical logic) and chapter 9 (truth-functional logic), and inductive arguments are covered in chapter 10.

It's not actually that people can't make a logical case without studying this sort of thing but very few have the necessary aptitude (and you're definitely not one of them) and, even if they do, it's very difficult to avoid some of the pitfalls if you haven't studied the subject - especially if you have strong opinions or beliefs regarding the matter at hand.

Happy reading (if you dare), and you're welcome.

[Alan Burns]

Once again, Alan runs away from actually addressing the logical argument.

Here's an example (one of many):-

It's a formalised system of thought, like mathematics (aspects of it can be considered as part of mathematics). It has rules that have been worked out over millennia.

Along the way, many invalid ways of arguing have also been identified, these are called "fallacies", of which you seem to have employed a sizeable subset on this this very thread. The fact that you seem not to care about this suggests that either have no idea about logic and are confusing "sound logic" with "what Alan Burns happens to think is believable", you think you understand it (perhaps because you studied programming) but don't, or you're just not paying any attention at all to this conversation and are using it just to repeat your daft script because you think you're "witnessing".

As for "sound" logic, after you made the above comment, I pointed you at this article: Validity and Soundness, not that you seem to have taken the slightest bit of notice.

What makes the consequences of my magic soul inferior to the consequences of your magic soul?

What conceivable difference would the self-contradictory ability of being able to have done differently without randomness make to the process of logical (or otherwise) thought and the validity of what emerges from it?

We both believe that things happen due to a cause.
The basic difference is in the nature and origin of the cause.
The reality is that we have the conscious power to generate a cause, rather than be a reaction to a cause.

[Nearly Sane]

We both believe that things happen due to a cause.
The basic difference is in the nature and origin of the cause.
The reality is that we have the conscious power to generate a cause, rather than be a reaction to a cause.

But what would cause the 'generation' of a cause? And how would it not be caused?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I honestly can't recall what I said in relation to sound logic.

I can – you said you had some that would justify your various claims and assertions. Since then though you’ve been asked for it countless times but have never produced it.

However, you seem to claim that everything I say about the concept of free will to be illogical, whilst in my mind it is perfectly logical.

But only in your mind. Fortunately though the point of logic is that it replaces subjective opinion with objectively reasoned conclusions. All you have is the former, and any logical analysis of it tells us that you’re wrong.
 

So what defines "sound logic"?

Reason and argument that is clearly stated, relevant, and consistent that accords with basic tenets of validity such that when tested against the observable world produces predictable and verifiable results. Thus the logic that implies that germs can cause disease for example can be tested in real world (ie laboratory) conditions. Attempts at logic that are not clearly stated, relevant, and consistent are called fallacies. Fallacies are what you do.

Let us start by considering the concept of logic,

Why?

Where does it exist?
What comprises logic?
Is it just a pattern of neurological activity?
How does it emerge from material reactions in the brain?
What determines logic?

Oh OK – so having told us that you have sound logic to justify your claims and assertions, now you’ve been rumbled about that you’ve resiled from it and instead you’re challenging the concept of logic itself. Doesn’t work though does it because, in all other areas of life apart from your faith beliefs, you rely on that same logic to navigate the world. Thus if I said, say, “give me all you money and I’ll invest it for you in pork belly futures and I know that’s a sure fire thing because Mars is in the seventh house of Caprisun” you’d have no trouble spotting that the logic I was trying (“because” etc) is fallacious. All that’s happening here is the same thing back at you: when you try arguments to validate your beliefs, the rest of us can with equal facility identify why those arguments are false. QED

If logic is determined by the inevitable consequences to past events, what makes it "sound"?

I’ve just told you. What makes it sound is that it’s clearly stated, relevant, and consistent such that when tested against the observable world it produces predictable and verifiable results. Notwithstanding, if you now want to abandon logic what method would you propose instead to investigate your claims and assertions such that they can be distinguished from just guessing?

What makes the consequences of my material brain reactions inferior to your material brain reactions?

Well, you asked for it – frankly it’s because you’re either not very bright or not very honest. A more charitable answer perhaps would be that your inferior reasoning is a mix of genetic and environmental factors. Who can say for sure though?

[Stranger]

The reality is that we have the conscious power to generate a cause, rather than be a reaction to a cause.

That is not reality, it's just your own self-contradictory assertion based on nothing but incredulity and wishful thinking.

To the extent that this "conscious power"'s generation of a cause is not itself caused (a reaction), it must be for no reason at all, and is therefore random.

And I note that yet again, you ran away from addressing any of the points I made and didn't answer any of my questions.

[torridon]

We both believe that things happen due to a cause.
The basic difference is in the nature and origin of the cause.
The reality is that we have the conscious power to generate a cause, rather than be a reaction to a cause.

So if humans can just 'generate a cause' out of the blue for no reason, that 'cause' would just be a random event.  So you cannot then claim that human will is 'certainly not random'.  It's that old logic problem, or rather, your lack of it.  Your claims make no sense.

[Outrider]

We both believe that things happen due to a cause.

Excellent.

The basic difference is in the nature and origin of the cause.

Not really, the basic difference was that you seemed to want something that was an effect without a cause.

The reality is that we have the conscious power to generate a cause, rather than be a reaction to a cause.

Any that conscious power is an effect which has a cause, and so on back and back...

O.

[Alan Burns]

Alan,

Here's a gift for you. I found this a while back and thought of you but didn't get round to posting it. It's a complete book you can download on critical thinking (logic): Critical Thinking (PDF). Basically this is the sort of thing you need to know if you're ever going to be taken seriously when you claim to have logic on your side. There is quite a bit on informal fallacies (chapters 6 and 7), which are the ones you tend to fall into, largely because you've never come close enough to presenting anything remotely like logic to have trouble with formal fallacies. You might want to dive into how logical arguments are actually structured: deductive arguments are covered in chapter 8 (categorical logic) and chapter 9 (truth-functional logic), and inductive arguments are covered in chapter 10.

It's not actually that people can't make a logical case without studying this sort of thing but very few have the necessary aptitude (and you're definitely not one of them) and, even if they do, it's very difficult to avoid some of the pitfalls if you haven't studied the subject - especially if you have strong opinions or beliefs regarding the matter at hand.

Happy reading (if you dare), and you're welcome.

Unfortunately you do not seem to be using this critical thinking to the full.

In looking at the logic behind your take on determinism, your conclusions are entirely inevitable based upon the limitations of the initial premiss.  How sure can you be that every event will be a direct consequence of previous events without being random?  Can you presume that quantum events with no discernable cause are random?  And can your conclusion be used to verify the feasibility of critical thinking being processed by nothing but inevitable reactions to past events.  How can you consciously initiate and control the processes needed to use critical thinking if you are effectively a spectator to the consequences from inevitable reactions occurring in your material brain?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Unfortunately you do not seem to be using this critical thinking to the full.

In looking at the logic behind your take on determinism, your conclusions are entirely inevitable based upon the limitations of the initial premiss.  How sure can you be that every event will be a direct consequence of previous events without being random?  Can you presume that quantum events with no discernable cause are random?  And can your conclusion be used to verify the feasibility of critical thinking being processed by nothing but inevitable reactions to past events.  How can you consciously initiate and control the processes needed to use critical thinking if you are effectively a spectator of the consequences to inevitable reactions occurring in your material brain?

This is mostly just a rehash of your usual mistakes and misunderstandings. The point though is that you can only be as "sure" as the only available plausible option - ie the only one that aligns with reason and evidence - allows you to be. That's not to say that it's impossible for your "it's magic innit" answer to be the correct one just as a matter of dumb luck, but there's no good reason to think that it is.

Anyway, as you now seem to have abandoned even the pretence of logic to justify your claims and assertions what method to distinguish them from just guessing do you propose instead?   

[torridon]

In looking at the logic behind your take on determinism, your conclusions are entirely inevitable based upon the limitations of the initial premiss.  How sure can you be that every event will be a direct consequence of previous events without being random?  Can you presume that quantum events with no discernable cause are random? 
..

This has been covered so many times already.  We cannot rule out the possibility of true randomness, that is not the point. Supposing there is some random element affecting mental processes, it does not help to explain will.  Any randomness would obstruct the execution of will, it would not facilitate it.

[torridon]

..
How can you consciously initiate and control the processes needed to use critical thinking if you are effectively a spectator to the consequences from inevitable reactions occurring in your material brain?

A moment of 'conscious initiation' has its roots in the reaction to previous events.  Were that not the case, then all 'conscious initiations' would be random events with no meaning.   Our choices only have meaning because they are located within the flow of cause and effect.

[Outrider]

In looking at the logic behind your take on determinism, your conclusions are entirely inevitable based upon the limitations of the initial premiss.

Then your first error was thinking that including deterministic materialism was an initial premise - it's a conclusion drawn from the available evidence.  If there's something else, by all means present both it and a methodology by which it can be verified, but otherwise it goes in the box with 'pixie-dust' as unevidenced claims.

How sure can you be that every event will be a direct consequence of previous events without being random?

It's a provisional understanding, technically, but the considerable wealth of centuries of observation that this is how the material world works is a robust basis for operating as though the conclusion were proven.

Can you presume that quantum events with no discernable cause are random?

Personally I struggle with this, too; my suspicion is that there is an underlying mechanism which we, as yet, do not percieve.  Functionally, though, the behaviour appears random at the moment.  Either way, though, it has to fall into one of those two options.

And can your conclusion be used to verify the feasibility of critical thinking being processed by nothing but inevitable reactions to past events.  How can you consciously initiate and control the processes needed to use critical thinking if you are effectively a spectator to the consequences from inevitable reactions occurring in your material brain?

You 'consciously initiating' anything is actually you becoming consciously aware that your unconscious has already come to that conclusion as a result of the influences if innumerable prior events that shaped your brain architecture, hormonal responses, blood sugar level, ambient lighting, air temperature etc.

O.

[Stranger]

Unfortunately you do not seem to be using this critical thinking to the full.

Wow. It's you who are trying to prove something here, Alan, I'm pointing out that your assertions contain a prima facie contradiction that you have been unable to resolve - oh, and multiple instances of logical fallacies.

So how about dropping the staggering double standards you always apply and presenting your argument logically (like you claimed you could)? Set out some premises you think can be agreed upon and use categorical or truth-functional logic to get to your conclusion that human will cannot be material.

In looking at the logic behind your take on determinism, your conclusions are entirely inevitable based upon the limitations of the initial premiss.  How sure can you be that every event will be a direct consequence of previous events without being random?

Because not being the consequence of anything is pretty much the definition of randomness. Those things that an event can be the consequence of are those things that were present prior to it happening.

Can you presume that quantum events with no discernable cause are random?

What's that got to do with anything?

And can your conclusion be used to verify the feasibility of critical thinking being processed by nothing but inevitable reactions to past events.  How can you consciously initiate and control the processes needed to use critical thinking if you are effectively a spectator to the consequences from inevitable reactions occurring in your material brain?

A spectator is nothing but an observer, if you removed a spectator, the process would continue regardless. I'm not aware that anybody is arguing that our conscious minds could be taken away and the thought processes would go on regardless, so using the term is misrepresentation.

Another question that you never, ever answer: what possible difference to anything that anybody does or think would the contradictory ability to have done differently in exactly the same situation and state of mind, make?

Anyway, as I said, it's you who said you had "sound logic" and it's you who are trying to prove something, so how about producing a categorical or truth-functional argument, or just an admission that you can't?

[Alan Burns]

This has been covered so many times already.  We cannot rule out the possibility of true randomness, that is not the point. Supposing there is some random element affecting in mental processes, it does not help to explain will.  Any randomness would obstruct the execution of will, it would not facilitate it.

I think you misunderstood the point.
I am not talking about the presence of randomness.  I am pointing out the possibility (or probability) that some events without discernable cause are not necessarily random.

[torridon]

I think you misunderstood the point.
I am not talking about the presence of randomness.  I am pointing out the possibility (or probability) that some events without discernable cause are not necessarily random.

Whether or not the cause is discernible makes no difference to the logic. An event is either caused by something prior. or it isn't, in which case it is random. Discernible or not is merely an issue of computation, not one of principle. Quantum events are no different to events in classical physics in this regard, they are either caused by something or they are random.

[Gordon]

I am not talking about the presence of randomness.  I am pointing out the possibility (or probability) that some events without discernable cause are not necessarily random.

So, having pointed that out, how would you go about calculating the probability of something for which you can discern no cause (such as antecedents)?

I'd love to see you what calculations you'd employ.

[Stranger]

I think you misunderstood the point.
I am not talking about the presence of randomness.  I am pointing out the possibility (or probability) that some events without discernable cause are not necessarily random.

In what possible way do you think that whether a cause is discernible or not has anything at all to do with the argument?

[Alan Burns]

So, having pointed that out, how would you go about calculating the probability of something for which you can discern no cause (such as antecedents)?

I'd love to see you what calculations you'd employ.

I do not need calculations to illustrate the evidence for the conscious freedom needed to contemplate reality, reason, discern logic and draw valid conclusions.
I have yet to see viable evidence that it can all be produced from subconscious brain activity driven by nothing but inevitable physically controlled reactions.

[torridon]

I do not need calculations to illustrate the evidence for the conscious freedom needed to contemplate reality, reason, discern logic and draw valid conclusions.
I have yet to see viable evidence that it can all be produced from subconscious brain activity driven by nothing but inevitable physically controlled reactions.

The evidence is all around you, go take a look, everywhere there is evidence of people using their brains to think with.  Clearly it happens, so it is incumbent on us to figure it out.  This is why we do science, we don't just collapse back into magical thinking on encountering something challenging.

[Gordon]

I do not need calculations to illustrate the evidence for the conscious freedom needed to contemplate reality, reason, discern logic and draw valid conclusions.
I have yet to see viable evidence that it can all be produced from subconscious brain activity driven by nothing but inevitable physically controlled reactions.

So, and ignoring your usual fallacies, why did you mention probability if you're not in a position to explain what you intended by use of this term?

[Alan Burns]

The evidence is all around you, go take a look, everywhere there is evidence of people using their brains to think with.  Clearly it happens, so it is incumbent on us to figure it out.  This is why we do science, we don't just collapse back into magical thinking on encountering something challenging.

When I look around, I see evidence of God's creation

[torridon]

When I look around, I see evidence of God's creation

That's because of your God tinted glasses.

[Nearly Sane]

When I look around, I see evidence of God's creation

I can sing a rainbow

[ProfessorDavey]

When I look around, I see evidence of God's creation

When you and I look around I suspect we see the same thing - the natural world around us. And you and I can both surely agree that that natural world exists and we have ample evidence of how it has come about in natural terms - and it is indeed wonderful. Yet for some reason you need to add an unnecessary layer (god's creation) that presupposes an entity exists for which there is no evidence and even were he/she/it to exist there is no reason why nor evidence that the natural world was created by that purported god.

On another thread Bramble described that as diminishing and I agree - the natural world is remarkable - to see it as the play-thing of an anthropomorphised and man-made god is both diminishing and fundamentally ego-centric and arrogant.

[Alan Burns]

So, and ignoring your usual fallacies, why did you mention probability if you're not in a position to explain what you intended by use of this term?

I think it was Sir Fred Hoyle who calculated the probability of the first living cell forming from combinations of amino acids as one in  ten to the power of eighty one, which is many magnitudes more than the estimated number of atomic particles in the known universe.

And it was a prominent scientist or mathematician who likened the process of unguided evolution to a blind man trying to solve a rubic's cube by randomly twisting the squares and asking his friend "is that it?".

And we have yet to discover how conscious awareness and consciously driven choices work in purely material terms.

It is impossible to calculate accurate probabilities for life as we know it to have come into existence on this earth, but from my own common sense perspective, the likelihood of it happening from nothing but unguided forces is a pretty good definition of absolute zero.