Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Yes, I do fully understand the explanation you are giving.
My contention is that such explanation does not explain the reality of my existence and my mental powers of perception, deduction and interaction.
Your explanation reduces you and I to be just uncontrollable parts of a meaningless, purposeless material universe entirely driven material reactions.  The fact that we can perceive meaning and purpose in our lives defies such explanation.  How do you define meaning and purpose within endless chains of uncontrollable reactions?  You do not seem to appreciate the truly miraculous powers we have to perceive meaning and purpose in our lives and our consciously driven abilities to manipulate and interact rather than just react in order to endeavour to achieve fulfilment in our earthly lives - and reach our true spiritual home.

That is your incredulity showing again.  It might not be easy to conceive of how mind arose from matter but clearly it did and it does. At 1bn years old there was no life at all on this planet but by 2bn years we had simple single celled life and by 4bn years old we had complex and diverse ecosystems with the earliest forms of mind evolving in the oceans.  As soon as you write it off as 'miraculous' you are foreclosing any attempt at understanding, you are closing the door on knowledge. Many people are happy to go through life without ever digging deeper, I get that.  To grow your knowledge means letting go of cherished simplistic beliefs.  In my book, that is a trade worth making.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes, I do fully understand the explanation you are giving.

Okaaay… so does that mean I can expect you honestly to engage with it after all this time?

My contention is that such explanation does not explain the reality of my existence and my mental powers of perception, deduction and interaction.

And that’s a resounding “no” then. “The reality” as you put it is actually just a description of your experience. It’s a description of my experience too if that helps. Very often though descriptions of our experiences fails at an explanatory level – the earth isn’t flat even though I experience it that way; I don’t actually touch the keys in front of me even though I experience it that way; the optical illusion picture isn’t actually moving, even though I experience it that way.

Can you see that descriptions of experiences very often fail if we rely on them for our explanations of reality? That’s what you have – a description of an experience. Your problem though is that it’s all you have and, as in so many other examples, if you rely just on that type of description for your explanation of reality then you will be – have been in fact – led badly astray.   

Your explanation reduces you and I to be just uncontrollable parts of a meaningless, purposeless material universe entirely driven material reactions.

Actually it doesn’t – but in any case you really, really should know by now that fallacious arguments are wrong arguments. Here you’ve tried an argumentum ad consequentiam (with a false premise to boot) – a basic error in reasoning. 

The fact that we can perceive meaning and purpose in our lives defies such explanation.

No it doesn’t for the reasons I keep explaining and you keep ignoring.

How do you define meaning and purpose within endless chains of uncontrollable reactions?

Now you’re trying another fallacy, the argument from personal incredulity. I don’t need to “define” them – I just need to show that they exist, and that they can do so in a deterministic model of reality – a simple think for you to grasp if, as you claim, you truly do ”fully understand” the argument. 

You do not seem to appreciate the truly miraculous powers we have to perceive meaning and purpose in our lives and our consciously driven abilities to manipulate and interact rather than just react in order to endeavour to achieve fulfilment in our earthly lives - and reach our true spiritual home.

Of course I don’t “appreciate” something that may make sense in your head, but has no supporting reasoning or evidence to justify it. I can appreciate the astonishing complexity that’s at play to give rise to the emergent property of consciousness, but the “miraculous powers” etc part is just you collapsing again into your baseline mistakes in reasoning.   

Why not try this time to do as I asked – grasp that you have to invalidate the deterministic explanation first if you want open up a gap for “consciously driven” type assertions to occupy? Currently you’re still putting the cart before the horse – the a priori argument (for determinism) removes the need for a necessary little man at the controls whereas you start (and finish) with the little man at the controls assertion as though the a priori argument hadn’t been made to begin with.   

Try putting the horse before the cart this time, and then see where that takes you…   

[Roses]

The discussion on this topic seems pointless. Nothing new has been brought up, no evidence produced, strongly held views on both sides are never going to be changed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So a choice is not free then.  How can it be free if the choice comes loaded with threats and inducements ? A gift given freely would not come with strings and consequences attached,

I think you have to look at this in the light of a comparison between a gift given and a gift not given.
Where the gift brings something that not having the gift does not provide.

If I am then offered a lifebouy while I am neck high in a stormy sea. The strings attached are for me to hold onto and the consequences of the lifebouy are me getting saved.

Refusal of the gift is down to ''No thanks I can handle all this myself'' or ''storm?, what storm?''

[Stranger]

If I am then offered a lifebouy while I am neck high in a stormy sea. The strings attached are for me to hold onto and the consequences of the lifebouy are me getting saved.

But in this case, the person offering to save you is the one who threw you in the water to begin with, has made sure it's impossible for you to swim to safety yourself, and has also made the lifebuoy invisible, so you have to search for it using nothing but blind faith.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But in this case, the person offering to save you is the one who threw you in the water to begin with, has made sure it's impossible for you to swim to safety yourself, and has also made the lifebuoy invisible, so you have to search for it using nothing but blind faith.

So you think it is impossible to reach safety yourself and you can't find a literal physical lifebouy?

[Stranger]

So you think it is impossible to reach safety yourself and you can't find a literal physical lifebouy?

You've completely ignored what I said.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You've completely ignored what I said.   

Alright, You are refusing rescue because you cannot rescue yourself?

[Stranger]

Alright, You are refusing rescue because you cannot rescue yourself?

I'm not refusing anything - I don't believe any of this nonsense. All I'm saying is that, according to many versions of Christianity, we have no way to save ourselves (we are all 'sinners') so god would be judging us for being the way it made us (cf. thrown us in the water and made sure that we cannot swim to safety ourselves). It would also have made the offer of rescue invisible because all we have is one religious superstition amongst many - none of which have the slightest hint of any evidence or reasoning to support them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not refusing anything - I don't believe any of this nonsense. All I'm saying is that, according to many versions of Christianity, we have no way to save ourselves (we are all 'sinners') so god would be judging us for being the way it made us (cf. thrown us in the water and made sure that we cannot swim to safety ourselves). It would also have made the offer of rescue invisible because all we have is one religious superstition amongst many - none of which have the slightest hint of any evidence or reasoning to support them.

I think you are too free with the word nonsense and other emotionally hyperbolic statements which pepper your posts.

The storm is yourself. IMO you are of the ''storm, what storm?'' variety I previously talked about.

Being opposed to reason as you are with your attempts to deny PSR in the ''special pleading'' for the universe ''just being'', You are a fine one to talk about evidence and reasoning.

[Stranger]

I think you are too free with the word nonsense and other emotionally hyperbolic statements which pepper your posts.

The storm is yourself. IMO you are of the ''storm, what storm?'' variety I previously talked about.

Being opposed to reason as you are with your attempts to deny PSR in the ''special pleading'' for the universe ''just being'', You are a fine one to talk about evidence and reasoning.

Anything but address the actual points I was raising.     

If we are all sinners, that isn't a choice, it's a design flaw and any god that judges us for it is unjust. You also totally ignored the injustice of hiding the offer of help amongst all the other superstitions of the world.

[Outrider]

My contention is that such explanation does not explain the reality of my existence and my mental powers of perception, deduction and interaction.

I'm not sure you mean that, precisely - that you understand it means that you accept that it does explain you, you just (for a variety of reasons) don't think that possible explanation is the correct one.

Your explanation reduces you and I to be just uncontrollable parts of a meaningless, purposeless material universe entirely driven material reactions.

How is that a 'reduction'? Why is acknowledging complexity arising from incredible amounts of simple elements a 'reduction'? Is a tsumani or hurricane somehow less because we comprehend fluid dynamics and thermodynamics?

The fact that we can perceive meaning and purpose in our lives defies such explanation.

No, it doesn't; again, you don't like that explanation, but as yet you've not explained why it's insufficient, you've just attempted to convince us that you don't believe it. We appreciate that you don't; the fact that it's a sufficient explanation doesn't mean that it's the correct explanation, but to assert  that it can't be isn't the case.

How do you define meaning and purpose within endless chains of uncontrollable reactions?

Ironic. How do you define meaning if the recourse is to 'miracle'? If there's no chain of cause and effect, if there is no irrevocable link from prior to subsequent, how is there 'meaning'?

You do not seem to appreciate the truly miraculous powers we have to perceive meaning and purpose in our lives and our consciously driven abilities to manipulate and interact rather than just react in order to endeavour to achieve fulfilment in our earthly lives - and reach our true spiritual home.

I could be mean-spirited and interpret that as an ad hominem - you are suggesting that we are somehow 'lesser' because you don't have the ability to explain your point of view to us in a way that makes us change our mind. I'd remind you that if we all fail to grasp a point that you're trying to make, you have failed as the communicator, not us.

Regardless, before we can 'appreciate' these truly miraculous powers, you'd have to demonstrate that there are these miraculous  powers, and the fact that you - specifically you -  don't accept that consciousness may arise from complexity does not constitute a demonstrate that magic is real.

O.

[Alan Burns]

.... all we have is one religious superstition amongst many - none of which have the slightest hint of any evidence or reasoning to support them.

That is quite a substantial claim.
Or is it just a personal opinion driven by what you want to believe, or not believe?

Can you elaborate on why you can dismiss every single claim of miracles done in Jesus' name?
Do you have absolute proof that the historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ can be dismissed?
Can you claim that every single person who found life changing reasons to convert to Christianity were mistaken?
Are you confident that whatever comprises your self awareness will cease to exist when your physical body dies?
Is our unique ability to contemplate the existence of anything supernatural just an unintended, accidental consequence of natural forces?
Is your power to consciously deny all these arguments entirely driven by nothing but material reactions?

[Gordon]

I'm sure NTtS will be along in due course to respond - meanwhile I'll have a go.

Can you elaborate on why you can dismiss every single claim of miracles done in Jesus' name?

The unassessed risks of mistake, exaggeration, bias and lies render these miracle claims untenable as things stand: therefore they can easily be dismissed.

Do you have absolute proof that the historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ can be dismissed?

It isn't a matter of 'proof', Alan: those risks I mentioned above get in the way again, and are sufficient to dismiss the 'dead for around 3 days and then not dead' claim - in addition the 'remarkable claims require remarkable evidence' adage certainly applies to the resurrection claim. 

Can you claim that every single person who found life changing reasons to convert to Christianity were mistaken?

I think that has to be likely, given that the core elements of what they believe may well involve mistakes, exaggeration bias and lies, and it seems that these risks cannot be meaningfully dismissed.

That some people find adhering to certain religious superstitions (and there are so many to choose from) to be personally fulfilling may say something about them but, given the risks I've mentioned, their no doubt sincerely held religious convictions are not in themselves sufficient to confirm that these superstitious beliefs are true independently of their personal convictions that they are: after all, they could be wrong given the potential weaknesses of the source material.   

Are you confident that whatever comprises your self awareness will cease to exist when your physical body dies?

Yes, since that is what the evidence to date suggests.

Is our unique ability to contemplate the existence of anything supernatural just an unintended, accidental consequence of natural forces?

Yes - it is just how our biology works.

Is your power to consciously deny all these arguments entirely driven by nothing but material reactions?

Yes - whatever I think about anything is just a biological process going on inside my head.

[Stranger]

That is quite a substantial claim.
Or is it just a personal opinion driven by what you want to believe, or not believe?

It's 'driven' by my experience to date. Nobody has ever provided me with the slightest hint of any evidence or reasoning to support any of the claims of the various religions.

Can you elaborate on why you can dismiss every single claim of miracles done in Jesus' name?
Do you have absolute proof that the historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ can be dismissed?
Can you claim that every single person who found life changing reasons to convert to Christianity were mistaken?

Simply trying to reverse the burden of proof. It's up to those making the claims to provide the evidence or reasoning. It's not up to other people to disprove them.

Are you confident that whatever comprises your self awareness will cease to exist when your physical body dies?
Is our unique ability to contemplate the existence of anything supernatural just an unintended, accidental consequence of natural forces?
Is your power to consciously deny all these arguments entirely driven by nothing but material reactions?

The evidence strongly suggests that the all of these are the case. Your comical attempts to argue against against them have done nothing but emphasis just how bereft of reasoning, logic, and evidence, the alternatives are.

[Outrider]

That is quite a substantial claim.

I agree, I think to contest the Christianity is one set of unsubstantiated claims amongst many is to fail to appreciate the breadth of competing claims made under that umbrella term...

Or is it just a personal opinion driven by what you want to believe, or not believe?

How do you 'want to believe'? Believe isn't driven by desire, it's a consequence of information on an extant psyche.

Can you elaborate on why you can dismiss every single claim of miracles done in Jesus' name?

At the risk of speaking on someone else's behalf, the clue is in the word 'miracle'. If you're making claims that can only be justified by resorting to an explanation of 'magic happened', then you can't support the claim, and it can therefore be dismissed.

Do you have absolute proof that the historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ can be dismissed?

You don't need absolute proof to dismiss an unsubstantiated claim.

Can you claim that every single person who found life changing reasons to convert to Christianity were mistaken?

It's as viable as the claim that every single person who found life changing reasons to convert to - or life-affirming reasons to remain within - Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, any of the various strains of paganism, animism or any of the hundreds of other religious traditions was mistaken. If you're going to play the numbers game, there are - and have been - more non-Christians than Christians.

Are you confident that whatever comprises your self awareness will cease to exist when your physical body dies?

Yep.

Is our unique ability to contemplate the existence of anything supernatural just an unintended, accidental consequence of natural forces?

What makes you think it's unique? Even if it's unique on Earth, and our understanding of animal psychology (and, to be fair, consciousness) isn't developed enough to solidly support that, who knows what intelligences are out beyond that.

Is your power to consciously deny all these arguments entirely driven by nothing but material reactions?

There are no arguments here; there's a few assertions, a few logical fallacies (argumentum ad populum, false dichotomy...) and a whole lot of trying to shift the burden of proof.

O.

[torridon]

That is quite a substantial claim.
Or is it just a personal opinion driven by what you want to believe, or not believe?

Can you elaborate on why you can dismiss every single claim of miracles done in Jesus' name?
Do you have absolute proof that the historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ can be dismissed?
Can you claim that every single person who found life changing reasons to convert to Christianity were mistaken?
..

That's largely just special pleading.  You have no problem rejecting the alleged claims of other miracle workers, and the testimony of people converting to other faiths, you're just making an exception for yours. What's wrong with being even handed, rejecting all nonsense claims across the board ?

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/394768723567167227/

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

That is quite a substantial claim.
Or is it just a personal opinion driven by what you want to believe, or not believe?

No, it’s “driven” by the facts of the matter.

Can you elaborate on why you can dismiss every single claim of miracles done in Jesus' name?

Yes – it’s because there’s no evidence for them capable of bearing rational enquiry.

Do you have absolute proof that the historical evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ can be dismissed?

Outside of pure logic, there are no “absolute proofs” of anything. Do you have absolute proof that leprechauns don’t exist?

You’re trying to shift the burden of proof here – a basic error in reasoning. 

Can you claim that every single person who found life changing reasons to convert to Christianity were mistaken?

Can you claim that every single person who’ found life-changing reasons to convert to other faiths entirely were mistaken? Here you're confusing the effect of a belief with its epistemic truth value. 

Are you confident that whatever comprises your self awareness will cease to exist when your physical body dies?

Yes – why aren’t you?

Is our unique ability to contemplate the existence of anything supernatural just an unintended, accidental consequence of natural forces?

That “unique” is unqualified, and even if it is true you’re committing another mistake in reasoning here called the reference point error (or sometimes as the lottery winner’s fallacy – can the lottery winner claim that his good fortune doesn’t imply there’s something special about little old him?) 

Is your power to consciously deny all these arguments entirely driven by nothing but material reactions?

And that’s the fallacy of reification to finish. If you think there’s a “power to consciously deny” something then you need to demonstrate it before you start asking questions about how it works. What you’re trying to ask here is, “is the experience of decision-making actually explicable as material processes playing out?” – to which the answer is, “as that’s what reason and evidence indicates, then yes”.

Oh, and as you just ignored it – do you now see what you have to falsify a priori argument about why being able to make arguments does not require some interventionist agency somehow floating free of our thoughts before you can introduce you’re a posteriori claim that making an argument must mean there’s an interventionist agency floating free of our thoughts?         

[Alan Burns]

Quote

    Are you confident that whatever comprises your self awareness will cease to exist when your physical body dies?

Yes – why aren’t you?

You appear to have convinced yourself that our conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions.
Nothing actually emerges from material reactions other than more material reactions.
What is a material reaction?
At the most basic level, it is a perceived change in state in material elements over time.
Consider how a change in state can be perceived?
Is it feasible for the perception of a change in state to be defined in material terms using more material reactions?
If so, how do these other reactions differ from the reactions being perceived?

To perceive a change in state, the datum from which it is perceived must be somehow independent from what is being perceived.
For example, you cant perceive the rotation of the earth while you are still on the earth.
Similarly, changes in state over time can't be perceived from within the same time/space coordinates as that which is changing.

We take so much for granted in our human ability to perceive time.
I postulate that changes in state over time can only be perceived from a time independent datum - the human soul.

[Stranger]

You appear to have convinced yourself that our conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions.

That is indeed what all the evidence suggests. However, it is totally irrelevant to why your version of 'freedom' is self-contradictory and therefore impossible.

Is it feasible for the perception of a change in state to be defined in material terms using more material reactions?

We are all still waiting for the slightest hint of evidence or reasoning from yourself to suggest that it can't. Impossible, self-contradictory magic is not in the least bit feasible as an alternative.

To perceive a change in state, the datum from which it is perceived must be somehow independent from what is being perceived.
For example, you cant perceive the rotation of the earth while you are still on the earth.

Of course you can - look at the stars or the sun.

Similarly, changes in state over time can't be perceived from within the same time/space coordinates of that which is changing.

One of your silliest baseless assertions to date - and that is saying a lot.

I postulate that changes in state over time can only be perceived from a time independent datum - the human soul.

Perception is itself a change of state. Your mind changes state every time you notice (perceive) anything, from not having noticed it to having it in your memory. Perception is totally impossible without being embedded in time - it is the transfer of information from the external world into the mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You appear to have convinced yourself that our conscious awareness is an emergent property of material reactions.

As that’s essentially what the only coherent reasoning and evidence available to me indicate, yes.

Nothing actually emerges from material reactions other than more material reactions.
What is a material reaction?
At the most basic level, it is a perceived change in state in material elements over time.
Consider how a change in state can be perceived?
Is it feasible for the perception of a change in state to be defined in material terms using more material reactions?
If so, how do these other reactions differ from the reactions being perceived?

At a fundamental level they don’t differ – “material reactions” as you put it are characteristics of both the perceiver and the perceived. It just happens though that the complexity of some material systems is such that they give rise to a level of abstraction that’s conscious.     

To perceive a change in state, the datum from which it is perceived must be somehow independent from what is being perceived.

Depends what you mean by “somehow independent”. We are independent inasmuch as different abstractions of material systems interact, but there’s no independence in the sense of stepping outside the overall material system itself.   

For example, you cant perceive the rotation of the earth while you are still on the earth.

Have you never noticed the sun appearing to cross the sky? What do you think that is if not the perception of the rotation of the earth?

Similarly, changes in state over time can't be perceived from within the same time/space coordinates as that which is changing.

This is just gibberish. What do you even think you’re trying to say here? 

We take so much for granted in our human ability to perceive time.

“We” very often take a great deal for granted. So?

I postulate that changes in state over time can only be perceived from a time independent datum - the human soul.

And I postulate that leprechauns play the celtic harp when the mood takes them. The problem with each of our postulations however is that there’s no cogent reasoning or evidence to support either of them.

[Alan Burns]

Perception is itself a change of state. Your mind changes state every time you notice (perceive) anything, from not having noticed it to having it in your memory. Perception is totally impossible without being embedded in time - it is the transfer of information from the external world into the mind.

But if the human mind comprises nothing more than material elements, when these elements change over time - how can the change be perceived from the current state?  Once a material element changes state, how does it recall its previous state?

[Stranger]

But if the human mind comprises nothing more than material elements, when these elements change over time - how can the change be perceived from the current state?  Once a material element changes state, how does it recall its previous state?

It's called 'memory'.   

[Alan Burns]

 

Have you never noticed the sun appearing to cross the sky? What do you think that is if not the perception of the rotation of the earth?

That is because you can refer to an independent datum from which the spin can be perceived.

[Alan Burns]

It's called 'memory'.   

Try defining "memory" from first principles in material terms from outside human perception.