Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That’s good. Admitting to your personal incredulity about that is an important first step.

The next step though that you’ve yet to grasp is to understand why your personal incredulity about something is not a valid argument for something else.

The good news however is that there are people here who can help you with that. We can walk you ever so gently and carefully along your fist tentative steps toward rhetorical reason and logic. Nothing too fancy to begin with you understand, just a slow stroll through the many fallacies you attempt to justify your faith beliefs. Why, once the first couple have sunk in before you know it I bet you’ll be falsifying the rest of ‘em all by yourself. You go for it Tiger!

Sorry Blue, but no amount of the rhetorical reason and logic you continue to pontificate on can possibly take away the reality of my conscious freedom to choose these words in my reply to you.
Perhaps you could begin to take easy steps in gradually coming to terms with the fact that you too may have this freedom to consciously choose whatever replies you deem to make.

[torridon]

Sorry Blue, but no amount of the rhetorical reason and logic you continue to pontificate on can possibly take away the reality of my conscious freedom to choose these words in my reply to you.

You chose words freely because no one impinged on your freedom to do so.  You chose and used the words that you wanted to use, but you weren't and aren't free to choose which wants to have, that is the bit you don't seem to have grasped yet.

[Gordon]

Sorry Blue, but no amount of the rhetorical reason and logic you continue to pontificate on can possibly take away the reality of my conscious freedom to choose these words in my reply to you.
Perhaps you could begin to take easy steps in gradually coming to terms with the fact that you too may have this freedom to consciously choose whatever replies you deem to make.

This is pathetic even for you, Alan: your biology involves the capacity for thinking which includes an understanding of language, the desire to express yourself and the capacity to choose how you prefer to express yourself via, in the case of here, what you post - there is nothing remarkable about that. However, when it comes to the desires and wants aspects you aren't free from your intrinsic needs and biases, some of which you aren't consciously aware of, else you could just arbitrarily decide to want what you don't want or desire what you consider undesirable.

You can test this yourself quite easily - just decide that you have the 'freedom' to choose to become an atheist and then, presumably, you'll have become an atheist having exercised your 'freedom' to choose this course.

Do let us know how you get on with this test. 

[Stranger]

Sorry Blue, but no amount of the rhetorical reason and logic you continue to pontificate on can possibly take away the reality of my conscious freedom to choose these words in my reply to you.

You're hiding behind this "conscious freedom" phrase again. Nobody is denying the 'freedom' needed to choose the words used in a reply (they are the words you wanted to use at the time) and to suggest that they are is tantamount to lying.

What is disputed is the inherently self-contradictory ability to have done differently without randomness (let's call that X). In which case, your 'argument' becomes entirely circular, that is, that you are simply asserting that we need X to write posts and then saying, "look we can write posts, so we must have X".

It's absurd to the point of being comical.

Where is your "sound logic"?

[Sebastian Toe]

Blue, Ippy

I admit to being amazed at what you believe emerges from the physically determined reactions in your material brains.   

...I admit to being amazed that a seemingly otherwise intelligent person is willing to invest so heavily in an unevidenced, illogical soul which resides outwith this physical universe but nevertheless it pops in and out from its timeless-zone (but only when weare awake) in order to somehow read our entire brain patterns, in real time, "think", make decisions and then by some entirely yet to be explained method(possibly magic) it causes a physical reaction to occur.
 

[ippy]

...I admit to being amazed that a seemingly otherwise intelligent person is willing to invest so heavily in an unevidenced, illogical soul which resides outwith this physical universe but nevertheless it pops in and out from its timeless-zone (but only when weare awake) in order to somehow read our entire brain patterns, in real time, "think", make decisions and then by some entirely yet to be explained method(possibly magic) it causes a physical reaction to occur.
 

I'm wondering what Colin thinks of all this Seb?

Reggs, ippy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Sorry Blue, but no amount of the rhetorical reason and logic you continue to pontificate on can possibly take away the reality of my conscious freedom to choose these words in my reply to you.

This is particularly dimwitted stuff AB, even for you. Your reality is just that – yours alone, subjective. If you want anyone to think it maps to an objective reality though, then you need reasons to justify that claim. And reasons are what you try as soon as you introduce the word “because”. “I believe in God” is fine just as an assertion, epistemically identical to “I believe in leprechauns”. The moment you try to justify it though with, “I believe in God because…” and follow that with various wrong arguments then what you’re essentially saying here is: “no amount of your correct reasoning can possible be allowed to trump my incorrect reasoning”. The obvious response to that though is, “why not?”. Why exactly do you think that your unsound arguments to justify your beliefs should override the sound arguments that show them to be wrong?

If I were to say, “I don’t care how many logically sound ways you can show that 2+2=4, your reasoning cannot take away from the reality I perceive that 2+2=5” would you not ask me why not? 

Perhaps you could begin to take easy steps in gradually coming to terms with the fact that you too may have this freedom to consciously choose whatever replies you deem to make.

See above. 2+2≠5 no matter how many times you assert that it does.

I offered to explain the basics of rhetorical logic to you. You’ve ignored the offer. To remain wilfully ignorant of it is your choice, but I think it’s a poor one.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

This is particularly dimwitted stuff AB, even for you. Your reality is just that – yours alone, subjective. If you want anyone to think it maps to an objective reality though, then you need reasons to justify that claim. And reasons are what you try as soon as you introduce the word “because”. “I believe in God” is fine just as an assertion, epistemically identical to “I believe in leprechauns”. The moment you try to justify it though with, “I believe in God because…” and follow that with various wrong arguments then what you’re essentially saying here is: “no amount of your correct reasoning can possible be allowed to trump my incorrect reasoning”. The obvious response to that though is, “why not?”. Why exactly do you think that your unsound arguments to justify your beliefs should override the sound arguments that show them to be wrong?

It is nothing to do with God.  My freedom to choose my own thoughts, words and actions is a reality which I cannot possibly deny.  The fact that there can be no material explanation for this reality does not take away the reality - which would reduce me to being a biologically driven robot with no freedom of my own.  It is quite simple.  If my freedom is a reality, then there must be a non physical explanation - whether you like it or not.

[Stranger]

You certainly have a talent Alan; it really is quite to hard comprehend how you manage to pack to much illogical nonsense into so few words. What's more it's all just thought-free repetition of points that have all been answered countless times before and you've just ignored.

My freedom to choose my own thoughts, words and actions is a reality which I cannot possibly deny.

This is fundamentally nonsensical to begin with. Sure you can choose to think about one subject rather than another but you do that because you want to think about that more than other things and that want is not under your direct control. Neither does it make any sense to say you choose your own thoughts in any literal sense, because you simply don't choose the next thing that pops into your head and if you could, that itself would be a thought process so you'd have an infinite regress.

What you actually experience is deciding you want to think about something and then doing so, which is perfectly compatible with a deterministic system (not being able to have done differently).

The fact that there can be no material explanation for this reality does not take away the reality...

Now you're trying to claim omniscience again. Your version of 'freedom' is only physically impossible because it's logically impossible. If it it wasn't logically impossible, you couldn't rule out a physical explanation.

...which would reduce me to being a biologically driven robot with no freedom of my own.

Now back to the good old appeal to consequences fallacy.

It is quite simple.

...and riddled with bad reasoning and self-contradiction.

If my freedom is a reality, then there must be a non physical explanation - whether you like it or not.

False - for all the reason given to you yet again above.

If you want to portray yourself and your faith as illogical, simplistic, and dishonest, then you're doing a fine job - otherwise, I suggest you rethink your strategy, start paying some attention to the answers your are getting, stop misrepresenting other people's views and stop claiming to have logic when you don't seem to even care what it means, let alone how to present any.

[ekim]

It is nothing to do with God.  My freedom to choose my own thoughts, words and actions is a reality which I cannot possibly deny.  The fact that there can be no material explanation for this reality does not take away the reality - which would reduce me to being a biologically driven robot with no freedom of my own.  It is quite simple.  If my freedom is a reality, then there must be a non physical explanation - whether you like it or not.

It's your use of the word 'freedom' which causes the problem.  I don't think anybody denies you the ability to choose between thoughts, words, and actions but are you free from the desire to do so or not do so?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is nothing to do with God.

Yes it has. You convince yourself that consciousness must be non-naturalistic, and that way you open the door to “souls”, “god”, “spiritual nature” and the rest on the menageries of superstitions you cling to.

My freedom to choose my own thoughts, words and actions is a reality which I cannot possibly deny.

Yes you could if you were honest. We all have “freedom” at a prosaic experiential level, but at a deeper level it’s simply impossible to avoid the binary determined vs random paradigm – and no, relying on magic for your escape doesn’t get you out of that.   

The fact that there can be no material explanation for this reality does not take away the reality - …

Yes it does, or at least it does unless you think magic is a legitimate method – in which case anyone can claim anything else that takes their fancy using the same method. Leprechauns? No problem – they’re just magic too.   

…which would reduce me to being a biologically driven robot with no freedom of my own.

Argumentum ad consequentiam – one of your favourite pieces of wrongheaded thinking.

It’s also not true by the way. Your experience of “freedom” is the same whether or not there’s a deeper deterministic reality.
 

It is quite simple.

Yes it is. Why can’t you understand it therefore?

If my freedom is a reality,…

Your definition of “freedom” is a reality – but it's only your subjective reality. If you want to bridge the gap from subjective to objective realities though, then you need to find some reasons to justify the claim that aren’t plainly wrong.

…then there must be a non physical explanation…

Wrong again. Anything can be “a” reality – unicorns might be a reality for me. Until and unless you can finally demonstrate your subjective reality about your perception of freedom to be an objective reality though, then there’s no need to concern yourself with speculations about a supposed non-physical. 

… - whether you like it or not.

Irrelevant. It’s reason that undoes you, not what I happen to like or not like.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Yes it has. You convince yourself that consciousness must be non-naturalistic, and that way you open the door to “souls”, “god”, “spiritual nature” and the rest on the menageries of superstitions you cling to.

Yes you could if you were honest. We all have “freedom” at a prosaic experiential level, but at a deeper level it’s simply impossible to avoid the binary determined vs random paradigm – and no, relying on magic for your escape doesn’t get you out of that.   

Yes it does, or at least it does unless you think magic is a legitimate method – in which case anyone can claim anything else that takes their fancy using the same method. Leprechauns? No problem – they’re just magic too.   

Argumentum ad consequentiam – one of your favourite pieces of wrongheaded thinking.

It’s also not true by the way. Your experience of “freedom” is the same whether or not there’s a deeper deterministic reality.
 
Yes it is. Why can’t you understand it therefore?

Your definition of “freedom” is a reality – but it's only your subjective reality. If you want to bridge the gap from subjective to objective realities though, then you need to find some reasons to justify the claim that aren’t plainly wrong.

Wrong again. Anything can be “a” reality – unicorns might be a reality for me. Until and unless you can finally demonstrate your subjective reality about your perception of freedom to be an objective reality though, then there’s no need to concern yourself with speculations about a supposed non-physical. 

Irrelevant. It’s reason that undoes you, not what I happen to like or not like.

You have a tendency to chop up valid arguments into small chunks which make it easier for you to pick fault with  - but they are out of context in the argument as a whole.

[Gordon]

You have a tendency to chop up valid arguments into small chunks which make it easier for you to pick fault with  - but they are out of context in the argument as a whole.

You need to realise, Alan, that all the 'arguments' you attempt invariably contain a mix of fallacies that then need to be untangled by anyone responding to you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have a tendency to chop up valid arguments into small chunks which make it easier for you to pick fault with  - but they are out of context in the argument as a whole.

Your complete avoidance of the rebuttals you were given is noted, and in any case that’s not true either.

First, your “arguments” such a they are are not valid. You rely on false reasoning, or you abandon the attempt at argument altogether and revert to unqualified assertions.

Second, your replies tend to scatter fallacies, solecisms, evasions etc apparently as these thoughts occur to you. It’s appropriate therefore to “chop up” these mistakes so as to rebut them individually.

Third, there is no “argument as a whole” – or at least not so far there isn’t. Simply bundling wrong arguments does not somehow make them correct overall.

If you have an argument to justify your beliefs that you think isn’t wrong  – either a small one or a “whole” one – then just tell us what it is. If though all you have is endless repetitions of the same mistakes (“the fact that you can compose this…” yada yada etc) then there’s no point in you continuing to waste everyone’s time.             

[Enki]

You have a tendency to chop up valid arguments into small chunks which make it easier for you to pick fault with  - but they are out of context in the argument as a whole.

A valid argument surely contains valid reasons supporting a contention. Yet all you seem to give are assertions and assumptions, not reasons at all.


Consider your post 42032 to which Blue was replying:

It is nothing to do with God.

An assertion with no argument involved.

My freedom to choose my own thoughts, words and actions is a reality which I cannot possibly deny.

All you are stating here is that you see this 'freedom' as reality which is an assertion with no argument to support it.

The fact that there can be no material explanation for this reality does not take away the reality -

How can you possibly know that there can be no material explanation? Are you omniscient? Again, this is simply an assertion.

which would reduce me to being a biologically driven robot with no freedom of my own.

Whether this would be true or not, it is not a valid argument in support of your contention.

It is quite simple.  If my freedom is a reality, then there must be a non physical explanation - whether you like it or not.

And again you end with a straightforward assertion with no reasoned argument whatever. And you finish, quite predictably, with what seems like an emotional flourish which carries no weight as a valid argument.

As far as I can see you do not present any 'valid arguments' at all, even though the onus is on you to do so. Perhaps it's simply the case that you haven't got any.

[Stranger]

You have a tendency to chop up valid arguments into small chunks...

I have yet to see any evidence at all that you understand what a valid argument actually means...

[ippy]

I have yet to see any evidence at all that you understand what a valid argument actually means...

He does see it but he wont admit it, you know N T S, the pack of cards syndrome.

Regards, ippy.

[Alan Burns]

I have yet to see any evidence at all that you understand what a valid argument actually means...

And you apparently fail to comprehend there must be an ultimate source from which your ability to make consciously driven logical deductions derives.

[Stranger]

And you apparently fail to comprehend there must be an ultimate source from which your ability make consciously driven logical deductions derives.

It's called a 'human brain' - and your evasion is noted.

A valid argument is one in which it is impossible for its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. Given a clear statement of an argument's premises, the logical steps, and the conclusion, its validity should not be a matter of debate. Either it's impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, or it isn't.

Despite being asked multiple times, you have never even tried to put your 'argument' into a form from which its validity can even be assessed. You just spout endless baseless assertions and obvious fallacies (basic mistakes in reasoning).

Why is that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And you apparently fail to comprehend there must be an ultimate source from which your ability make consciously driven logical deductions derives.

“There must be” isn’t an argument – it’s just an assertion. What argument do you have to justify your belief?   

[NicholasMarks]

Here is a reply that, with thorough analysis, answers all questions...but you will need the Holy Bible to find them...

I've got a few answers for you...God did it. You see, secreted within the Holy Bible is a wonderful science. This science says that before the big-bang there was a static universe filled with a wonderful dynamic energy that just drifted around a static universe gathering into many huge, dense clouds of galaxy proportions. It was when two of these dense clouds drifted into each other that God's Hadron collider came into force as the dense cores of each cloud set upon a journey that would bring them onto a collision course and when the collision came shock-waves sprung into life which passed through all the other galaxy clouds...spinning them all up into electric storms with many tornadoes in each storm and the eyes of these tornadoes created an imploding force between these two dimensions, being the original static dimension and now a high-speed, expanding, dimension that passed over and through the static dimension...and these imploding forces created energy sucking energy, hence stars, atoms, gravity and life...and we drew the short straw because we are a part of that high-speed expanding dimension.

[Gordon]

Welcome back Nicholas.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Whoa - Sparky's back! How are you and yours? All well I hope?

Here is a reply that, with thorough analysis, answers all questions...but you will need the Holy Bible to find them...

I've got a few answers for you...God did it. You see, secreted within the Holy Bible is a wonderful science. This science says that before the big-bang there was a static universe filled with a wonderful dynamic energy that just drifted around a static universe gathering into many huge, dense clouds of galaxy proportions. It was when two of these dense clouds drifted into each other that God's Hadron collider came into force as the dense cores of each cloud set upon a journey that would bring them onto a collision course and when the collision came shock-waves sprung into life which passed through all the other galaxy clouds...spinning them all up into electric storms with many tornadoes in each storm and the eyes of these tornadoes created an imploding force between these two dimensions, being the original static dimension and now a high-speed, expanding, dimension that passed over and through the static dimension...and these imploding forces created energy sucking energy, hence stars, atoms, gravity and life...and we drew the short straw because we are a part of that high-speed expanding dimension.

"God's Hadron collider" eh? Weeell...okaaaay....if you say so... Presumably these remarkable (if incoherent) claims are the fruits of the "research" you told us you were doing way back when are they? Must have cost you a fortune in tin foil for all the hats, but how exciting nonetheless! When and where do you intend to publish these findings so minds less gifted than yours can investigate them for themselves? 

[NicholasMarks]

Whoa - Sparky's back! How are you and yours? All well I hope?
 

"God's Hadron collider" eh? Weeell...okaaaay....if you say so... Presumably these remarkable (if incoherent) claims are the fruits of the "research" you told us you were doing way back when are they? Must have cost you a fortune in tin foil for all the hats, but how exciting nonetheless! When and where do you intend to publish these findings so minds less gifted than yours can investigate them for themselves?

Hello Gordon and bluehillside...Retired now, I see. There have been ups and downs but the teaching remains the same...although, perhaps, now, a little more polished. God exists because everything seen is made from the invisible stuff, God's Dynamic Energy, written of in Isaiah, and which, normally, can't be seen but which Albert Einstein and Nikola Tesla made visible for us...and there is no escaping that fact that the Holy Bible declared its existence about 3000 years ago.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sparky,

Hello Gordon and bluehillside...Retired now, I see. There have been ups and downs but the teaching remains the same...although, perhaps, now, a little more polished. God exists because everything seen is made from the invisible stuff, God's Dynamic Energy, written of in Isaiah, and which, normally, can't be seen but which Albert Einstein and Nikola Tesla made visible for us...and there is no escaping that fact that the Holy Bible declared its existence about 3000 years ago.

"Polished" is pushing it, but good to see your greatest hits ("wonderful" this, "dynamic energy" that) are still in play. Just think - if you could ever find an argument to justify these claims or evidence to verify them, you'd single-handedly revolutionise all of science. They'd have to invent a new Nobel prize just for you!

Good luck with it though - let us know if you ever make any progress with that.