Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I was talking in general about the view expressed from many posters is that the only admissible evidence in discerning what our conscious awareness is or how it works must come from mankind's scientific investigation of our material world.

Also not true. Evidence of other kinds would in principle be fine – the only “must” though is that it must be evidence, rather than the string of logically fallacious assertions you make.   

Such investigation is inherently limited by what can be perceived with our physical senses and man made instruments.

Wrong terminology, but basically yes. Our investigations are limited by the limits of our abilities to conduct them. So what though?

Hence if the only admissible evidence stems from scientific study of material behaviour, it is inevitable that any conclusions will be limited to materialistic explanations - even when they fail to provide a feasible explanation.

Wrong again. If you think there’s some way reliably to investigate and test your claims then it’s your job to tell us what it is. Don’t complain that methodological materialism can only investigate the material – tell us what method you propose we should apply to your beliefs instead.   

[Stranger]

What is the ultimate causal event of a conscious choice?
If it is deemed to be an inevitable reaction to other inevitable reactions there is no causal event.
Without any definitive causal event, the concept of conscious choice becomes meaningless.

The cause of you making choices is either because of preceding causes or it involves randomness, for reasons you must know by now but never ever address except with meaningless gibberish about the present.

I was talking in general about the view expressed from many posters is that the only admissible evidence in discerning what our conscious awareness is or how it works must come from mankind's scientific investigation of our material world.

Firstly, you are (yet again) ignoring that fact that the argument against your version of "free will" is entirely logical and has nothing to do with science. Secondly, if you want other evidence to be considered, then it's up to you to come up with it and some way of objectively assessing its probable truth.

We are all still waiting for the "sound logic" you claimed you had....

[Enki]

I was talking in general about the view expressed from many posters is that the only admissible evidence in discerning what our conscious awareness is or how it works must come from mankind's scientific investigation of our material world.  Such investigation is inherently limited by what can be perceived with our physical senses and man made instruments.  Hence if the only admissible evidence stems from scientific study of material behaviour, it is inevitable that any conclusions will be limited to materialistic explanations - even when they fail to provide a feasible explanation.

I, amongst others, have asked you repeatedly to give explanations to substantiate your assertions. In fact just recently I quoted my post from 2016, when I  commented:

My overriding problem with Alan's ideas is that they never involve any sort of explanation. To simply assert a 'soul' seems to me to be attempting to fill a gap(if indeed it actually exists) with a word which has no explanatory value. We are never told how the soul explains consciousness, how it reacts to/informs the brain, where it is located, how it functions etc. As I see it, it could just as well be named x the unknown for all the use it is.

As usual, you didn't even bother to reply. You have never given any explanation in answering such questions, you have never described any methodology which supports your  assertions, and now what you seem to be doing is bitch about the scientific approach.

That seems hypocritical to me, Alan.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

From my point of view (and, I'd suggest, that of most of our community here in the UK) because we feel that people deserve to have the freedom to live their own lives for their own benefit.

Do you think we shouldn't have slaves?  If so, why?

O.

so in a country in which slavery was popular it would be a moral good to have slaves?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

I have. If he no longer thinks that though, he can just tell us. If he does still cling to the notion of objective morality but has changed his mind about where it's codified though, it'd be interesting to hear where else he thinks he can find it.

Citation. Where have you seen this?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

so in a country in which slavery was popular it would be a moral good to have slaves?

What’s “more good”? When slavery was commonplace it was considered morally acceptable; now it isn’t. There’s no reason though to assume a set of universal rules re what’s morally good & morally bad – we intuit and reason our way to these judgements. 

Citation. Where have you seen this?

In various of your previous posts. It’s easy enough to resolve though – just tell us what you do believe. Specifically:

1. Do you think there’s such a thing as objective morality?

2. Do you think the supposed existence of objective morality is evidence for a god?

3. Do you think the rules and edicts of this supposed objective morality are accurately recorded in some “holy” texts?

[Outrider]

so in a country in which slavery was popular it would be a moral good to have slaves?

To me, no.  To them, presumably, or they'd enact social change to remove it.  I note that you've (for a change) not answered the question yourself - do you believe that it's wrong to have slavery, and if so why?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To me, no.  To them, presumably, or they'd enact social change to remove it.  I note that you've (for a change) not answered the question yourself - do you believe that it's wrong to have slavery, and if so why?

O.

So which of you is more moral. You for not wanting slavery or them for wanting it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What’s “more good”? When slavery was commonplace it was considered morally acceptable; now it isn’t. There’s no reason though to assume a set of universal rules re what’s morally good & morally bad – we intuit and reason our way to these judgements. 

In various of your previous posts. It’s easy enough to resolve though – just tell us what you do believe. Specifically:

1. Do you think there’s such a thing as objective morality?

2. Do you think the supposed existence of objective morality is evidence for a god?

3. Do you think the rules and edicts of this supposed objective morality are accurately recorded in some “holy” texts?

Citation, where did you see me post what you allergens?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Citation, where did you see me post what you allergens?

All over the place, and no I'm not going to trawl through endless posts of yours looking for them. Stop dicking around - either your believe these things now or you don't. Which is it?

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad,

All over the place, and no I'm not going to trawl through endless posts of yours looking for them. Stop dicking around - either your believe these things now or you don't. Which is it?

If you cannot back up with evidence your claim about Vlad's beliefs, then it's time to drop the claim.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So which of you is more moral. You for not wanting slavery or them for wanting it?

Again, you can't have a "more" unless you have some sort of yardstick to measure against. They were acting morally well according to the morality of their time and place, but were acting morally badly according to the morality of our society now. I cannot imagine an argument that would ever in future return us to the morality of slavery, but I cannot rule it out either as a possibility.     

[ippy]

1. I was in my mid twenties when I became a Christian. So yes I do. I was not therefore indoctrinated.
In fact I rejected Sunday school at an early age. A crocodile would go round the village every Sunday morning collecting the Sunday school. Peer pressure gets no worse than 15 of your school friends outside your door. They gave up in short order.

Sorry to have sunk your indoctrination theory

Did you see Dillahunty in Cambridge in December?

Not a bad post from yourself Vlad, but it still no doubt remains that you seem unable to grasp why so many of us can't take religions seriously.

If you found out that I was looking into the figures of how many Leprechauns are currently living here in the UK, you'd quietly be thinking, rightly so, this blokes off his trolley, I'm sure this has been put to you many times but I'll give it another try Vlad, because there isn't sufficient evidence to prove the existence of Leprechauns I don't believe in Leprechauns and the same reasoning process amounts to applies ditto for all gods.

Regards, ippy.

[Nearly Sane]

so in a country in which slavery was popular it would be a moral good to have slaves?

From my subjective view, no. Can you say whether you think slavery is moral, and given your belief in moral realism why your position is correct?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

If you cannot back up with evidence your claim about Vlad's beliefs, then it's time to drop the claim.

BS. It's bog standard Vladdism - notice that he hasn't denied it so there's no need either to justify it or to drop it. If he does deny it though then I'll look for some of the times he's "argued" for it (ie, copied and posted WLC on the subject) to show him to be wrong.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

BS. It's bog standard Vladdism - notice that he hasn't denied it so there's no need either to justify it or to drop it. If he does deny it though then I'll look for some of the times he's "argued" for it (ie, copied and posted WLC on the subject) to show him to be wrong.   

Nope, your claim, your burden of proof.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Nope, your claim, your burden of proof.

Nope - just now there's nothing to prove; he's just asking me to do some unpaid clerical work. If he wants to deny it though, then it'll be up to me to justify my claim.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Nope - just now there's nothing to prove; he's just asking me to do some unpaid clerical work. If he wants to deny it though, then it'll be up to me to justify my claim.

No, you made a claim. You have been asked to provide evidence. You are refusing to do so.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not a bad post from yourself Vlad, but it still no doubt remains that you seem unable to grasp why so many of us can't take religions seriously.

Prior to becoming a christian with the exception of a few weeks leading up to it, I didn't take religion seriously. When I began to find out more about it and acquired understanding of it I realised I needed to. Before this I not only did not take religion seriously but thought the religious were odd people with mental illness. After, I realised that there had never been any foundation for that thinking. The assumption had been put there by acquiring it from my environment. In other words I had been conditioned by the society I was in not to take religion seriously. A condition I think you and others remain in although I have not heard your account of how you came to your position.

[ProfessorDavey]

Prior to becoming a christian with the exception of a few weeks leading up to it, I didn't take religion seriously. When I began to find out more about it and acquired understanding of it I realised I needed to. Before this I not only did not take religion seriously but thought the religious were odd people with mental illness. After, I realised that there had never been any foundation for that thinking. The assumption had been put there by acquiring it from my environment. In other words I had been conditioned by the society I was in not to take religion seriously. A condition I think you and others remain in although I have not heard your account of how you came to your position.

Vlad - were you brought up to be christian, in other words in a christian household? I remember a little while ago you talked about rebelling against going to Sunday School - but presumably that means your parents thought you should be going to Sunday school, and parents who aren't bringing up their children as christians tend not to choose to send their kids to Sunday school (regardless of whether the child complies or rebels).

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, you made a claim. You have been asked to provide evidence. You are refusing to do so.

Yes, I've been "asked" for evidence (albeit with his usual utter charmlessness) but just now that's an admin task, not a matter relevant to the veracity of the claim. If he wants to deny the claim though then the onus will be on me to justify it (though frankly I'd have little appetite for it given the countless times I've provided chapter and verse that falsifies him only for him to ignore it in favour of his next evasion as if nothing had happened. Try his mistake re biblical authority for a god with a plan just a few posts ago for a prime example - I gave him the citation, he acted as if nothing had happened. What then is the point?).     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad - were you brought up to be christian, in other words in a christian household. I remember a little while ago you talked about rebelling against going to Sunday School - but presumably that means your parents thought you should be going to Sunday school, and parents who aren't bringing up their children as christians tend not to choose to send their kids to Sunday school (regardless of whether the child complies or rebels).

You seem to have totally ignore that i've said I took it for granted that religious people were mild nutters. I suppose it doesn't fit in with your thesis.
My mother worked as a health visitor and so any break from the Kids was welcome, Thought there was something there, but was against the overtly religious. Her brother was in a religious movement and her verdict was people like that were cranks. My father ditto although he would make fun of people of religion when they arose. My parents never darkened the door of the church. It was the done thing for the kids of my village to go to sunday school but my parents were sympathetic to me not going.
.......And I would imagine sunday school was the experience for most kids of my generation.

Now I would be interested to know who here was brought up as an atheist and dragged by their parents down to the Headshrinkers if they showed the slightest interest in religion?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Prior to becoming a christian with the exception of a few weeks leading up to it, I didn't take religion seriously. When I began to find out more about it and acquired understanding of it I realised I needed to. Before this I not only did not take religion seriously but thought the religious were odd people with mental illness. After, I realised that there had never been any foundation for that thinking. The assumption had been put there by acquiring it from my environment. In other words I had been conditioned by the society I was in not to take religion seriously. A condition I think you and others remain in although I have not heard your account of how you came to your position.

Does it ever occur to you that, of all the gods that have been believed in in all those places over all those centuries of religious traditions, it's a remarkable co-incidence that the one you found out more about just happened to be the only real one? Do you seriously contend that you wouldn't have been just as convinced by narratives about different god(s) had you happened to have found out about them in a different time and at a different place? 

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to have totally ignore that i've said I took it for granted that religious people were mild nutters. I suppose it doesn't fit in with your thesis.

Not at all, and I've no idea why you infer that from what I asked. All I wanted to know was a little more about your upbringing, because I think it is relevant to people who claim not to have been religious and then suddenly to become so. Typically you'll find these people actually had a religious upbringing and therefore while they may have rebelled for a while are really returning to their upbringing 'norm' (so to speak) rather than suddenly turing to a religion that had never been part of their lives before.

My mother worked as a health visitor and so any break from the Kids was welcome, Thought there was something there, but was against the overtly religious. Her brother was in a religious movement and her verdict was people like that were cranks. My father ditto although he would make fun of people of religion when they arose. My parents never darkened the door of the church.

Thanks for the information.

It was the done thing for the kids of my village to go to sunday school but my parents were sympathetic to me not going.
.......And I would imagine sunday school was the experience for most kids of my generation.

Really - regardless of the generation and location I think it has only ever been the 'done thing' to go to sunday school for the children of parents who are bringing up their children to be religious. How old are you Vlad - I thought you were broadly of my generation - and certainly my experience was that sunday school was there for the kids of religious parents. There was nothing close to a universal expectation that all kids should go to sunday school. But then I went to a non religious school. Perhaps you can tell us whether your parents chose to send you to a faith school or a non faith school.

Now I would be interested to know who here was brought up as an atheist ...

I'll stop you there - I think the number of kids being brought up as atheists is vanishingly small. Sure children may be brought up by atheist parents, and religion won't feature in those households, but that is not the same as bringing children up as atheist.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes, I've been "asked" for evidence (albeit with his usual utter charmlessness) but just now that's an admin task, not a matter relevant to the veracity of the claim. If he wants to deny the claim though then the onus will be on me to justify it (though frankly I'd have little appetite for it given the countless times I've provided chapter and verse that falsifies him only for him to ignore it in favour of his next evasion as if nothing had happened. Try his mistake re biblical authority for a god with a plan just a few posts ago for a prime example - I gave him the citation, he acted as if nothing had happened. What then is the point?).     

Evidence is just an 'admin task'. Hmmm...