Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

From Gordon:

Science ain't finished yet, Alan, so this is your incredulity messing up your critical thinking abilities yet again: by the way, how's the bespoke method(s) for investigating the supernatural coming along?

 

[Alan Burns]

Science ain't finished yet, Alan, so this is your incredulity messing up your critical thinking abilities yet again: by the way, how's the bespoke method(s) for investigating the supernatural coming along?

The more science discovers about the predictable, deterministic behaviour of material entities, the further it gets from being able to explain the unpredictable, but not random, behaviour of the human species.

[Nearly Sane]

The more science discovers about the predictable, deterministic behaviour of material entities, the further it gets from being able to explain the unpredictable, but not random, behaviour of the human species.

Show your working

[Sebastian Toe]

I know evil exists because I know good exists.
You can't know one without the other.

Again, not answering the question.

A reminder of one of your previous statements...

I am in agreement with the views expressed by CS Lewis in being convinced that the secular drift in our modern society is a result of people being deceived by the forces of evil which are prevalent in this world.

My question to you was and still is
What specifically are "the forces of evil", and how specifically do they deceive people?

It's a pretty straight forward query.
So far you have responded that you use prayer to recognise evil and that you know that evil exists...because good exists.
What you have singularly failed to do is address the actual question.

How on earth you are going to manage to persuade people about your message if you blatantly avoid answering straight forward questions?

Do you have a hidden agenda?
Are you possibly an agent of those "forces of evil "?
Both are possibilities based on your responses thus far!

[torridon]

The more science discovers about the predictable, deterministic behaviour of material entities, the further it gets from being able to explain the unpredictable, but not random, behaviour of the human species.

You've yet to explain how anything can be unpredictable without being random, other than in the trivial sense of 'hard to predict'.

[Stranger]

The more science discovers about the predictable, deterministic behaviour of material entities, the further it gets from being able to explain the unpredictable, but not random, behaviour of the human species.

Unmitigated, scientifically illiterate, illogical, self-contradictory drivel.

Quantum mechanics seems to be inherently non-deterministic (at least with regard to 'measurements'), and more and more of the strange predictions it does make are turning out to be correct.

There is a word for systems that are unpredictable but not random, it's called chaotic, which means deterministic systems that even unmeasurably tiny changes in initial conditions make very large differences to outcomes.

Regardless of all that, it doesn't change the nature of the argument that it is (even in principle) impossible to say that some phenomenon cannot have a physical explanation, without claiming omniscience. The whole of physics was transformed by the discoveries of quantum mechanics and general relativity, nobody can possibly rule out other, equally significant changes in the future.

And you still haven't made the slightest bit of progress in addressing the basic contradiction in your notion of free will (being able to have done differently without randomness), which makes it logically impossible.

The logic-free car crash you call an 'argument', appears to be based on two premises: the existence of your nonsense version of free will, and the impossibility of it having a physical explanation, and both of them are false. Your version of free will is logically impossible (because it's self-contradictory), and, if it weren't, you couldn't rule out a physical basis for the reasons given above.

Isn't it about time you at last admitted that you don't have the "sound logic" you claimed, just as a matter of basic human honesty?

[Outrider]

The more science discovers about the predictable, deterministic behaviour of material entities, the further it gets from being able to explain the unpredictable, but not random, behaviour of the human species.

I suspect that the fields of psychology, endocrinology and neurology might have something to say on that topic, perhaps with some input from the sociologists, political scientists...

You are essentially saying that because meteorologists don't have a 100% record rain is magic.

O.

[Alan Burns]

The logic-free car crash you call an 'argument', appears to be based on two premises: the existence of your nonsense version of free will, and the impossibility of it having a physical explanation, and both of them are false. Your version of free will is logically impossible (because it's self-contradictory), and, if it weren't, you couldn't rule out a physical basis for the reasons given above.

Isn't it about time you at last admitted that you don't have the "sound logic" you claimed, just as a matter of basic human honesty?

The logic is quite simple.
If a physical explanation can be found for human free will, it ceases to be free will and is reduced to being an unavoidable reaction to past events determined by the rules of physics - so no "you" involvement.

The reality is that I have demonstrable freedom to think, to dream, to believe, to worship, to love.  If you honestly believe love to be just an unavoidable consequence to past events beyond your control (remember - you can't control the past), you are missing out on humanities greatest gift.

[Outrider]

The logic is quite simple.
If a physical explanation can be found for human free will, it ceases to be free will and is reduced to being an unavoidable reaction to past events determined by the rules of physics - so no "you" involvement.

In itself that's not an argument against a deterministic or a purely physical source of consciousness.

The reality is that I have demonstrable freedom to think, to dream, to believe, to worship, to love.

No, the reality is that subjectively you feel as though you do, but you've not demonstrated in any way that it's actually the reality and not your misunderstanding.

If you honestly believe love to be just an unavoidable consequence to past events beyond your control (remember - you can't control the past), you are missing out on humanities greatest gift.

Why is my love for my wife and children any less because I don't have absolute control over it - quite the opposite, where in the situation was I supposed to consciously choose to fall in love?  I love my wife because she was a quirky combination of predictable and unpredictable, tantalising and reassuring, smart and dense, caring and hard, funny and serious and so much more (and she moves like an absolute angel on a dance floor!).  I was intrigued, we spent time together, and feelings grew but it wasn't a choice to fall in love or not, it was a consequence of spending that much time with someone who was a viable partner.

O.
[/quote]

[SusanDoris]

In itself that's not an argument against a deterministic or a purely physical source of consciousness.

No, the reality is that subjectively you feel as though you do, but you've not demonstrated in any way that it's actually the reality and not your misunderstanding.

Why is my love for my wife and children any less because I don't have absolute control over it - quite the opposite, where in the situation was I supposed to consciously choose to fall in love?  I love my wife because she was a quirky combination of predictable and unpredictable, tantalising and reassuring, smart and dense, caring and hard, funny and serious and so much more (and she moves like an absolute angel on a dance floor!).  I was intrigued, we spent time together, and feelings grew but it wasn't a choice to fall in love or not, it was a consequence of spending that much time with someone who was a viable partner.

O.

What a really lovely compliment to your wife.

[Alan Burns]

Why is my love for my wife and children any less because I don't have absolute control over it - quite the opposite, where in the situation was I supposed to consciously choose to fall in love?  I love my wife because she was a quirky combination of predictable and unpredictable, tantalising and reassuring, smart and dense, caring and hard, funny and serious and so much more (and she moves like an absolute angel on a dance floor!).  I was intrigued, we spent time together, and feelings grew but it wasn't a choice to fall in love or not, it was a consequence of spending that much time with someone who was a viable partner.

Of course there are reasons to fall in love.  They exist in your conscious awareness, where you have the freedom to contemplate on them, to consciously weigh them up and consider future scenarios, to compare them with other imagined scenarios and ultimately choose how to respond to them.  And you have just demonstrated your conscious ability to recall those reasons.  It all occurs within your present state of conscious awareness at any given time.  You are in control - not the unavoidable mechanistic reactions of material elements.

[Alan Burns]

What a really lovely compliment to your wife.

Agreed 

[Stranger]

The logic is quite simple.

Frankly Alan, you don't appear to have any idea what the word 'logic' even means.

If a physical explanation can be found for human free will, it ceases to be free will and is reduced to being an unavoidable reaction to past events determined by the rules of physics - so no "you" involvement.

Both a false dilemma and an appeal to consequences fallacy. You are either the product of the past (nature, nurture, and experience) or you are, to some extent, the product of nothing (randomness).

There's also an argument from ignorance fallacy lurking in the background in assuming that the physical world can only produce unavoidable reactions.

The reality is that I have demonstrable freedom to think, to dream, to believe, to worship, to love.

None of which require the ability to have done differently without randomness.

If you honestly believe love to be just an unavoidable consequence to past events beyond your control (remember - you can't control the past), you are missing out on humanities greatest gift.

Again, both a false dilemma and an appeal to consequences fallacy. As I said above, you are the product of the past (or randomness), so events can easily be under your control and the "unavoidable consequence to past events".

Again, you show no sign of understanding logic (hence the endless fallacies) and seem to care about it even less (hence you never respond when people point out your fallacies).

Have some basic honesty and admit you have no logic - otherwise you are blatantly bearing false witness.

[Alan Burns]

Both a false dilemma and an appeal to consequences fallacy. You are either the product of the past (nature, nurture, and experience) or you are, to some extent, the product of nothing (randomness).

Or you are an intended product of divine creation beyond human understanding

[Outrider]

Of course there are reasons to fall in love.  They exist in your conscious awareness, where you have the freedom to contemplate on them, to consciously weigh them up and consider future scenarios, to compare them with other imagined scenarios and ultimately choose how to respond to them.

I'm not sure there are.  There are traits about my wife that I still find endearing*, but they aren't 'reasons', because it's not a logical process, it's not a maths of 'do I have enough'.  It's a realisation one day that it's something special, but it's not a conscious decision.

And you have just demonstrated your conscious ability to recall those reasons.

Could I forget them, though?  Do I have that freedom?

It all occurs within your present state of conscious awareness at any given time.

The realisation happens in the conscious mind, but the emotion and the 'decision' doesn't.  Nobody sits down and has a long think and decides to be in love, they sit down and analyse how they feel and realise that it's happened (or hasn't).

You are in control - not the unavoidable mechanistic reactions of material elements.

But I am the unavoidable mechanistic reactions of material elements.

O.

*... enough to outweigh the other traits... 

[Outrider]

What a really lovely compliment to your wife.

I can say nothing more for her than that she has the patience and constitution to put up with me for 22 years and counting...

O.

[torridon]

Of course there are reasons to fall in love.  They exist in your conscious awareness, where you have the freedom to contemplate on them, to consciously weigh them up and consider future scenarios, to compare them with other imagined scenarios and ultimately choose how to respond to them.  And you have just demonstrated your conscious ability to recall those reasons.  It all occurs within your present state of conscious awareness at any given time.  You are in control - not the unavoidable mechanistic reactions of material elements.

All of that misses the point.  You cannot choose to love someone that you don't love.  Likewise, you cannot choose to believe something you don't believe. You really ought to be able to grasp this by now, it's been explained so many times.

[Stranger]

Or you are an intended product of divine creation beyond human understanding

Which is fine as a faith position but it isn't logic.

[Sebastian Toe]

The logic is quite simple.


The reality is that I have demonstrable freedom to think, ....

Good!
Have you freely thought of an answer to the question.....

What specifically are "the forces of evil", and how specifically do they deceive people?


I would have thought that someone in your poition, able to clarify the answer, would assist people on avoiding the dangers of "the forces of evil".

Why won't you?

[Alan Burns]

What specifically are "the forces of evil", and how specifically do they deceive people?

I do not know how the forces of evil work, just as I do not know how the force of gravity works.  But I know they both exist by knowing what they do.  The force of gravity pulls us toward the earth.  The forces of evil pull us away from God.

[Stranger]

The forces of evil pull us away from God.

So these "forces of evil" would be called "evidence", "logic", and "the nonsense Alan Burns posts"...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In retrospect we can certainly observe that species mutated to adapt to changing environments.

No, we can say that some mutations conferred advantages in the context of the environments they happened in. Living things don’t choose to mutate their genes to adapt to their environments. 

But there is no way of knowing that every beneficial mutation needed to adapt was generated by purposeless unguided forces.

Now you’ve tried the old switcheroo on the burden of poof. There’s also no way of knowing that every apple that ever fell was influenced by gravity rather than pulled down by an invisible pixie with a very thin piece of string.

Does that mean that we should take the pixie conjecture seriously?

Why not? 

[ippy]

I do not know how the forces of evil work, just as I do not know how the force of gravity works.  But I know they both exist by knowing what they do.  The force of gravity pulls us toward the earth.  The forces of evil pull us away from God.

   

Alan you say: 'I do not know how the forces of evil work, just as I do not know how the force of gravity works.  But I know they both exist by knowing what they do.  The force of gravity pulls us toward the earth.  The forces of evil pull us away from God'.

O K Alan where's the evidence that would, if there were any, support these assertions of yours, you mention gravity, we'll take that one as a given.

It'd also be interesting to know just how does this invisible friend of yours communicate with you, facebook, email, zoom or any of the other numerous channels there are available these days.

What is the point of your convoluted wriggling avoidance strategies such as your unqualified cognitive dissonance based ravings going on about free will when you never rise to the challenge and answer the multitude of  requests for anything that you might have there that would support any single one of your many assertions.

It's very unlikely many posters on this thread will be taking your gratuitous posts seriously without some sign of reason which to date has been absent from all the posts of your's that I've seen. 

Commiserations Alan, ippy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

But a puddle forms when enough rain falls in the area to fill a hole up. Clearly the puddle forms by chance, and it can't say that the hole is there for the sole purpose of it forming. But if the rain only fell in the hole and nowhere else, it would suggest (not prove) that it fell there by design. Gideon asked God for a sign in Judges 6:33-40 which happened in the same way: he laid a fleece on the ground overnight; in the morning it was soaked, but the ground around it was dry. To be totally sure this was God's doing, the next night he asked for the ground around the fleece to be wet and the fleece itself dry.

You're still not getting it. The analogy isn’t about puddles – it’s about the mistake of assuming that an environment is placed there just-so to suit you rather than realising that you suit the environment. You’re evolved to a being that needs a certain amount of rain for various reasons; rain isn’t put there in the right amount just for you as you are now.   

What you're doing here is declaring, on the basis of certain scientific evidence, that life evolved by chance over billions of years,…

Life did evolve over billions of years, yes – but not by “chance” as you imply. Evolution is descent with adaptation. Adaptation is anything but chance.

…like the rain falling over a large area gradually filling up a hole, and saying that this refutes the watchmaker argument (hence when I did an impression of the MP in the Commons when someone comes up with a winning argument).

No, the watchmaker’s argument is refuted by other means – easily so. The “argument” such as it is boils down to, “X look designed, therefore X is designed”. The ToE blows that out of the water very quickly.   

If I think the evidence doesn't point to that, then for me the watchmaker argument still stands.

And if I think the evidence for gravity doesn’t point to gravity making apples fall, then for me the invisible pixies with strings argument stands. The problem with each position alike though is that they provide no good reason for anyone for anyone to take them seriously. 

Sorry I've not replied earlier, my wifi wasn't able to connect to the site for a while.

Not a problem – I’ve been away for a couple of days too.

[Stranger]

I do not know how the forces of evil work, just as I do not know how the force of gravity works.  But I know they both exist by knowing what they do.  The force of gravity pulls us toward the earth.  The forces of evil pull us away from God.

Oh, and BTW, strictly speaking, there is no force of gravity - the earth just gets in the way of you following your natural, inertial path through space-time. Perhaps there is a good metaphor here: there are no forces of evil, just blind faith is getting in the way of people's normal thought processes that they apply to all other totally unevidenced and contradictory ideas.