Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

These so called "corrections" are just alternative ways of observing the same facts and coming up with differing opinions about the implications - illustrating the truth in Sassy's opening post which suggests that many on this forum choose to seek reasons not to believe in God rather than reasons to believe.

I'd have thought that from the many responses on this thread that, by now, the penny would have dropped for you: that Sassy is wrong.

[Gordon]

The uniqueness found in human conscious awareness and free will was first illustrated in the cave art paintings of the Lascaux Cave if France, dating from about 20,000 years ago (very recent on the evolutionary time scale).  What is illustrated in these cave paintings is the human ability to choose to replicate what they perceive in their conscious awareness.  It was not just the mechanical replication performed by some bird species, but a conscious choice to replicate what they perceived in a different media by drawing it on the cave walls.  This shows the human ability to consciously choose what we do with our perceived data rather than just react to it.  This is not the automated reactions found in rolling boulders or other animal species, but the unique combination of self awareness and free will which many humans take for granted as being categorised in the same way as other animal behaviour.

You level of analysis-meter seems to be stuck on 'Infantile', Alan: perhaps you need to grow up a bit and leave 'childish things', such as the above, behind.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Flat wrong. Again. Logic is logic is logic – the whole point of it is to eliminate the subjective, the opinionated, the biased and to replace it with the objective, the independent, the verifiable.

Baby steps now Alan, baby steps. Take this example: If B > A and if C > B, then C must be > A. It doesn’t matter how many “alternative ways of observing the same facts” you claim to have – the (objective) logic always trumps your (subjective) opinions.   

Still with me? Good - hang on to your hat, we’ll move now from mathematical logic to rhetorical logic. You commit so many fallacies that it’s hard to know where to start, but let’s pick any one of them – the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy for example. This means that correlation doesn’t imply causation, so the fact of event B following event A does not imply that event B was caused by event A. So let’s say that I really like egg and chips for my tea, and that I tell myself that if I don’t step on a single crack in the pavement on my way home there’ll be egg and chips waiting for me. And sure enough, that’s what I do and there is indeed egg and chips waiting for me. Would I be right to claim that my walking pattern had caused the selection of my evening repast? No of course I wouldn’t, and I think that you have at least enough of a glimmering of an understanding of logic to know that too, no matter how many “alternative ways of observing the same facts and coming up with differing opinions about the implications…” you might have right? Right? You can look at the facts in as many ways as you like, yet still there’s no logical path that takes you from careful walking to egg and chips on the table.

Still hanging in there? Good. Now’s here’s your version of exactly the same fallacy: “I couldn’t find my car keys. I prayed to god. I found my car keys. Therefore god”.   

Can you see that these two arguments are identical – ie, they’re both examples of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? And can you now also see that, as with the first example, no matter how many ways you claim “alternative ways of observing the same facts and coming up with differing opinions about the implications…” still you’d have no logic at all to take you from praying to finding your keys?

Got it now? Good. OK, now you understand that logic is in its very nature independent of the subjective and so your “alternative ways” effort is utter bullshit, perhaps you can realise too that not only is it utter bullshit in respect of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, it’s also utter bullshit in respect of all the other fallacies you regularly collapse into – all of them: the negative proof fallacy, the argument from personal incredulity, the circular reasoning, the argumentum ad populum, the argumentum ad consequentiam, the etc (and wearily) etc. All of them.             

Oh, and I should of course have mentioned yet another of the fallacies you’re so fond of – the shifting of the burden of proof. If you still seriously think there to be a “god”, then make an argument to justify the claim that isn’t logically fucked.

What’s stopping you (aside that is from not having one)?

How on earth you can possibly come up with such convoluted justification for your own point of view and still believe it all happens in your subconscious brain activity beggars belief.

I will keep you in my prayers, Blue, and hope you will one day see the light.

[torridon]

How on earth you can possibly come up with such convoluted justification for your own point of view and still believe it all happens in your subconscious brain activity beggars belief.

I will keep you in my prayers, Blue, and hope you will one day see the light.

It's just called thinking Alan, many people do it, why not try it one day ?

[Nearly Sane]

How on earth you can possibly come up with such convoluted justification for your own point of view and still believe it all happens in your subconscious brain activity beggars belief.

I will keep you in my prayers, Blue, and hope you will one day see the light.

Vacuous shite which once again shows no respect.

[Stranger]

How on earth you can possibly come up with such convoluted justification for your own point of view and still believe it all happens in your subconscious brain activity beggars belief.

I will keep you in my prayers, Blue, and hope you will one day see the light.

Dishonest misrepresentation, personal incredulity, cowardly retreat from all the substantive arguments, rounded off with patronising, superstitious nonsense.

And still failing to produce the sound logic you claimed to have.

[Sebastian Toe]

How on earth you can possibly come up with such convoluted justification for your own point of view and still believe it all happens in your subconscious brain activity beggars belief.

....whereas, a soul.......which exists outwith spacetime in a timeless "place", experiencing time only when it visits here, to interrogate our neural activity in order to make some ,real time decisions.
Once our neural activity ceases and our memories are no longer available, the soul travels to another place, Heaven, where those memories are magically restored within an unknown medium, to enable the soul to "recognise" everyone you have ever known (who also made it there).

...well, that does not beggar belief nor is it convoluted at all .....is it?

[Alan Burns]

It's just called thinking Alan, many people do it, why not try it one day ?

And what is it that does the thinking?
Is it just the consequential reactions generated from a few bits of the continuum of this material universe?

[Nearly Sane]

And what is it that does the thinking?
Is it just the consequential reactions generated from a few bits of the continuum of this material universe?

what do you mean by 'it' that avoids a begging the question?

[torridon]

And what is it that does the thinking?
Is it just the consequential reactions generated from a few bits of the continuum of this material universe?

It is minds that think, do you not have a mind ?  And the contents of minds clearly are consequential to what has gone into them, to deny that would be to claim that minds are random.  Each mind responds uniquely to novel input and that is because each mind has been fashioned to date by its own unique learning path. A mind that did not learn would be a pointless, useless thing.

[Stranger]

And what is it that does the thinking?

In your case, nothing at all, or so it would seem.

Is it just the consequential reactions generated from a few bits of the continuum of this material universe?

Personal incredulity fallacy.   

Still waiting for logic or honesty.

[Alan Burns]

None of which presents a serious challenge to a deterministic account of mind, given that 'consciously choosing' is a just of process of determination within a deterministic system. It may be more complex than many other phenomena in nature, but there sure ain't no reason to imagine it some sort of impossible magic.

You vastly underestimate the significance of these cave paintings.
It is the first verifiable evidence of the existence of conscious awareness.  Rather than just reacting to visual graphic images, these early humans were able to illustrate to the outside world that they were actually seeing these images, rather than reacting to them, by being able to reproduce them on their chosen media - the cave walls.

[SusanDoris]

How on earth you can possibly come up with such convoluted justification for your own point of view and still believe it all happens in your subconscious brain activity beggars belief.

I will keep you in my prayers, Blue, and hope you will one day see the light.

Drivel - cringe, cringe  - more drivel

[Stranger]

You vastly underestimate the significance of these cave paintings.
It is the first verifiable evidence of the existence of conscious awareness.  Rather than just reacting to visual graphic images, these early humans were able to illustrate to the outside world that they were actually seeing these images, rather than reacting to them, by being able to reproduce them on their chosen media - the cave walls.

And what exactly is it about this ability that necessitates being able to have done differently without randomness? In what way is illustrating something not a reaction to it (and the rest of the environment at the time)?

This is an argument by assertion of proof by repeated assertion fallacy. Your last two posts consisted of two fallacies - well known mistakes in reasoning.

Why don't you care?

[Gordon]

You vastly underestimate the significance of these cave paintings.
It is the first verifiable evidence of the existence of conscious awareness.  Rather than just reacting to visual graphic images, these early humans were able to illustrate to the outside world that they were actually seeing these images, rather than reacting to them, by being able to reproduce them on their chosen media - the cave walls.

You do realise that some humans like to draw and paint: it is a trait of our species, albeit that the ability to do so varies, as does the imagination of the artist.

My 4 year-old grand-daughter currently loves to draw/paint giraffes, and the last time I looked I didn't see any giraffes wandering about the northern outskirts of Glasgow. That she uses her imagination and that she gets pleasure from drawing/painting is unremarkable since it is just her developing biology doing what it does. 

[torridon]

You vastly underestimate the significance of these cave paintings.
It is the first verifiable evidence of the existence of conscious awareness.  Rather than just reacting to visual graphic images, these early humans were able to illustrate to the outside world that they were actually seeing these images, rather than reacting to them, by being able to reproduce them on their chosen media - the cave walls.

To clear up your usual misconception about consciousness first, this predates early human cave paintings by several hundreds of millions of years, way back to the co-evolution of sense organs and their corresponding cortical structures that between them create an internal representation of what is outside. 

What you really meant was the development of creativity, of abstract and representational art, and yes, you might view these as significant milestones in the development of the modern human mind.  I don't see any anthropologists however scratching their heads in disbelief, seeing this as evidence of some sort of slow ingress of supernatural powers into human thinking.  There is no reason to see it in any terms other than the natural trajectory of minds increasing in sophistication over time, developing greater capacities for nuanced expression.  People who did cave art did it for a reason, just like when you choose an apple rather than a pear, you do so for a reason. The reasons may have been to with communication, to express identity, to communicate knowledge, to pass on cultural values.  Supernatural powers neither required nor evidenced.

[Alan Burns]

You do realise that some humans like to draw and paint: it is a trait of our species, albeit that the ability to do so varies, as does the imagination of the artist.

My 4 year-old grand-daughter currently loves to draw/paint giraffes, and the last time I looked I didn't see any giraffes wandering about the northern outskirts of Glasgow. That she uses her imagination and that she gets pleasure from drawing/painting is unremarkable since it is just her developing biology doing what it does.

It is evidence of the miracle of human conscious awareness which so many of us take for granted.  Evidence that we can consciously choose our response to what we see - and in doing so we verify that we are actually seeing it, rather than just reacting to the graphic data produced from sensory organs.  You are free to label it with biology, human mind, brain, emergent property etc - but none of these labels explain what conscious awareness is or how it works.  I hope you will one day come to realise that the entity of awareness which is you will never be explained in terms of material reactions, because material elements can only produce reactions - they do not perceive.

[Gordon]

It is evidence of the miracle of human conscious awareness which so many of us take for granted.  Evidence that we can consciously choose our response to what we see - and in doing so we verify that we are actually seeing it, rather than just reacting to the graphic data produced from sensory organs.  You are free to label it with biology, human mind, brain, emergent property etc - but none of these labels explain what conscious awareness is or how it works.  I hope you will one day come to realise that the entity of awareness which is you will never be explained in terms of material reactions, because material elements can only produce reactions - they do not perceive.

For crying out loud, Alan, grow up and drop the cloyingly infantile incredulity - you have no idea just how silly you look when you post stuff like this.

[Stranger]

It is evidence of the miracle of human conscious awareness which so many of us take for granted.  Evidence that we can consciously choose our response to what we see - and in doing so we verify that we are actually seeing it, rather than just reacting to the graphic data produced from sensory organs.

It is evidence of certain human abilities and behaviours - none of which you have provided any rational reason to think requires a miracle. Nobody is claiming that it just a reaction to the graphic data, there will be all sorts of other thoughts and influences involved.

What part of the process (of "consciously choosing") necessitates being able to have done differently without randomness?

You are free to label it with biology, human mind, brain, emergent property etc - but none of these labels explain what conscious awareness is or how it works.

Breathtaking hypocrisy again, from somebody who claims self-contradictory magic is an "explanation".

I hope you will one day come to realise that the entity of awareness which is you will never be explained in terms of material reactions, because material elements can only produce reactions - they do not perceive.

You are once again claiming to be omniscient.   

Still waiting for the logic you said you had. If you don't provide any and don't admit you can't (because you were mistaken or whatever), how long do you think I should wait before having sufficient evidence to conclude that your claim was a barefaced lie?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How on earth you can possibly come up with such convoluted justification for your own point of view and still believe it all happens in your subconscious brain activity beggars belief.

A few posts ago (Reply 40399) I set out for you the basics of logic, and I explained clearly and with examples where you go wrong when you attempt it to justify your beliefs. I have also reminded you of your own citation of 1 Peter 3:16-17: “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”

In reply you have done two things:

1. Completely ignored the explanations you were given, thereby apparently deciding that you know better than 1 Peter 3:16-17; and

2. Posted yet another logical fallacy, in this case the argument from personal incredulity. The reason- and evidence-based explanation you’ve been given may beggar your personal belief, but it presents no such problem for people who are honest enough and reasoning enough to understand it. 

So just to be clear – you cannot reject an argument you know to be wrong when you don’t care about its conclusion (egg and chips for tea), but rely on exactly the same argument when its conclusion is something you care about a lot (your belief “god”). This is true no matter how much you try to apply “alternative ways of observing the same facts and coming up with differing opinions about the implications…”

So rather than keep posting the same lying fuckwittery, why not just for once try to be honest and confront head on the numerous problems you routinely give yourself?

I will keep you in my prayers, Blue,…

Yes, please do that. Please do that a lot. Please make it your full time job in fact. I would much rather you wasted your time that way than that you spent it polluting the minds of the young and the gullible with your mendacity and ludicrous superstitions. 

…and hope you will one day see the light.

Such a pity you have no idea what the word “irony” means…

[torridon]

It is evidence of the miracle of human conscious awareness which so many of us take for granted.  Evidence that we can consciously choose our response to what we see - and in doing so we verify that we are actually seeing it, rather than just reacting to the graphic data produced from sensory organs.  You are free to label it with biology, human mind, brain, emergent property etc - but none of these labels explain what conscious awareness is or how it works.  I hope you will one day come to realise that the entity of awareness which is you will never be explained in terms of material reactions, because material elements can only produce reactions - they do not perceive.

You haven't got any evidence for human consciousness being miraculous though have you ?  All you have is your mantra that it can never be explained in material terms.  That's not evidence of miracles, its just evidence of your incredulity and lack of imagination.  If you really had any evidence, you'd have published already and turned the scientific world upside down and yours would be a household name.  When you've got something stronger than your personal incredulity, let us know.

[Alan Burns]

What part of the process (of "consciously choosing") necessitates being able to have done differently without randomness?

To understand my position, and why I could never accept your conclusions, :-
There is a fundamental difference between our ability to contemplate reality, perceive meaning and purpose, analyse, draw conclusions - and just be an instrument subject to inevitable, unavoidable reactions resulting from the workings of a material brain.  In order to indulge these abilities, we need the conscious freedom to manipulate and drive our own thought processes to achieve these specific goals.  Such freedom is impossible in an environment where every event is entirely dictated by previous events.  You deem this freedom to be a logical impossibility, which I would agree with in considering our knowledge of nature, and which is why I consider it substantial evidence for the supernatural power of our human soul.

[Alan Burns]

Blue,

Apologies for not replying more fully to your recent post: Reply 40399 in which you explained the basics of logic.  I fully agree with these basics, but I can't agree with the way you attempt to use them in your replies.  For instance - I have never claimed that answers to prayer can prove God's existence.  I fully agree that valid explanations can be found for many claims to answered prayers.  From my own perspective I know that the things I pray about will work out better than the things I neglect to pray about.  I know it is not conclusive evidence, but it is part of the substantial evidence which leads me to belief in God and the power of prayer.

[Stranger]

There is a fundamental difference between our ability to contemplate reality, perceive meaning and purpose, analyse, draw conclusions - and just be an instrument subject to inevitable, unavoidable reactions resulting from the workings of a material brain.

Assertion based on incredulity.

In order to indulge these abilities, we need the conscious freedom to manipulate and drive our own thought processes to achieve these specific goals.  Such freedom is impossible in an environment where every event is entirely dictated by previous events.

Why?

What is it about anything we do that needs this impossible, self-contradictory ability to have been able to do things differently without any randomness?

You deem this freedom to be a logical impossibility, which I would agree with in considering our knowledge of nature...

Why do you keep lying about the basis of the argument against you?

It's got nothing to do with our knowledge of nature.

...and which is why I consider it substantial evidence for the supernatural power of our human soul.

How many more times? IF if made logical sense (which it doesn't), then claiming that it's impossible to have a natural explanation is claiming to be omniscient about nature. We don't know that nature is deterministic (confined to "inevitable reactions"), so any process you think might be happening "supernaturally" could just as easily be an unknown natural processes.

In short, your "argument" is fucked either way. It's logically self-contradictory, and even if it wasn't, it wouldn't lead to the conclusion you want anyway.

[torridon]

To understand my position, and why I could never accept your conclusions, :-
There is a fundamental difference between our ability to contemplate reality, perceive meaning and purpose, analyse, draw conclusions - and just be an instrument subject to inevitable, unavoidable reactions resulting from the workings of a material brain.  In order to indulge these abilities, we need the conscious freedom to manipulate and drive our own thought processes to achieve these specific goals.  Such freedom is impossible in an environment where every event is entirely dictated by previous events.  You deem this freedom to be a logical impossibility, which I would agree with in considering our knowledge of nature, and which is why I consider it substantial evidence for the supernatural power of our human soul.

We cannot really 'manipulate' our thoughts. We cannot alter the fundamental workings of our brain, the thoughts we get are the consequence of a healthy functioning brain. To the extent that we 'drive' our thoughts, this is merely us acting on our desires anyway, so it is no different - we cannot choose our desires, rather we follow them and act upon them.  If you think you can alter your brain function, do tell, do describe, this idea makes no sense to me.