Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

I see your fallacy-fest continues unabated, Alan.

He doesn’t care. Either he dispenses with argument completely and relies just on unqualified assertion, or he tries arguments and collapses immediately into fallacies of one or several types. When these fallacies are explained to him though he will always ignore the explanations, then repeat exactly the same fallacies later on.

Periodically too he also has the quite astonishing brass neck to claim his arguments aren’t fallacious. 

I thought that Jesus allegedly said that bearing false witness was against the rules – AB though appears to think that doesn’t apply to him.

[torridon]

Like the intelligently guided development of the motor car, or aeroplanes, or computer technology ......

Instances of complex things creating less complex things abound in nature.  Bees build bee hives, Bower birds build intricate nests, fair enough, but you can't extrapolate from that to a general principle of logic that complex things are always created by things even more complex.  That doesn't work, it is a logic fail, you end up in an infinite regress.  The general principle is that complexity derives from simpler constituents, ultimately.

[Alan Burns]

More to the point though, as that’s the only evidence that’s available to you too why aren’t you equally sure of that?   

If the only acceptable evidence is limited to that of material behaviour, your conclusions are inevitable.

Your consistent refusal to acknowledge that the capabilities of the human mind offer substantial evidence of something more than material reactions can ever achieve is inevitably leading you to draw false conclusions which contradict the reality of your own abilities.  I have no doubt that you will try to dismiss this argument as personal incredulity, but there is nothing personal in the logical deduction that chains of uncontrollable physical reactions alone are incapable generating complex trains of thought which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions. 

Also these limitations on the only acceptable evidence being material behaviour leads to the inevitable conclusion that a single entity of conscious awareness must be something which emerges from material reactions.  But in this you refuse to acknowledge the impossibility of many discrete reactions being able to generate a single point of awareness.

You also seem to have a pre defined opinion that anyone who claims to have witnessed a truly miraculous event in their lives must be either deluded or lying regardless of the evidence.

There must come a point at which you must concede that our lives are more than just a roller coaster ride along a physically defined path from which there is no escape.

[Gordon]

If the only acceptable evidence is limited to that of material behaviour, your conclusions are inevitable.
Your consistent refusal to acknowledge that the capabilities of the human mind offer substantial evidence of something more than material reactions can ever achieve is inevitably leading you to draw false conclusions which contradict the reality of your own abilities.  I have no doubt that you will try to dismiss this argument as personal incredulity, but there is nothing personal in the logical deduction that chains of uncontrollable physical reactions alone are incapable generating complex trains of thought which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions. 

Also these limitations on the only acceptable evidence being material behaviour leads to the inevitable conclusion that a single entity of conscious awareness must be something which emerges from material reactions.  But in this you refuse to acknowledge the impossibility of many discrete reactions being able to generate a single point of awareness.

The fallacy-fest continues.

You also seem to have a pre defined opinion that anyone who claims to have witnessed a truly miraculous event in their lives must be either deluded or lying regardless of the evidence.

To claim a miracle you'll have to exclude the risks, such as delusions or lies, as you mention (plus some others like mistake and bias): but the burden of proof here is yours, Alan, so you'll need to demonstrate that 'truly miraculous' events do happen - until you do then we can dismiss 'miracles' as being a serious proposition.

There must come a point at which you must concede that our lives are more than just a roller coaster ride along physically defined path from which there is no escape.

Nope: best guess is that it is indeed "just a roller coaster" (with its ups and downs along the way).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It’s a trivially easy matter to falsify this latest cornucopia of fallacious reasoning, unqualified assertion and juvenilia but what though would be the point? We both know that no matter how comprehensively your efforts are dismantled you’ll just ignore the rebuttals I’ve taken the time to set out, and then make exactly the same mistakes in reasoning later on.

I tell you what. Why don’t I do it again, only this time you finally muster up the decency in return to try at least to address the rebuttals rather than just pretend they hadn’t happened. Fair enough?

Right then…

If the only acceptable evidence is limited to that of material behaviour, your conclusions are inevitable.

And you open with the fallacy of the straw man. The only acceptable evidence isn’t “limited to that of material behaviour” at all – the only acceptable evidence is that which satisfies the basic necessities of being evidence at all. That is, the facts or information must validate the conclusion. Just claiming, “X is really complicated, therefore its evidence for god” (which is all you have) is an abuse of the term “evidence”. I may as well claim the rainbows are “evidence” for leprechauns, or that fog in the Scottish Highlands is “evidence” for the reappearance of Brigadoon.     

If you think you have evidence for “God” then by all means (finally) set it out, but so far at least your attempts have so fundamentally abused and corrupted that term as to render it meaningless.   
   

Your consistent refusal to acknowledge that the capabilities of the human mind offer substantial evidence of something more than material reactions can ever achieve is inevitably leading you to draw false conclusions which contradict the reality of your own abilities.

My consistent refusal to do that is exactly justified for the reason I just explained to you and that you, finally, will now try at least to address won't you. You cannot accuse me of reaching false conclusions until and unless you finally manage to show why the rebuttals you’re given to the justifications you attempt for your conclusions are wrong. You can guess at any conclusions you like, but you cannot expect your guesses to be taken seriously until you finally tackle the problem of your justifications for them being a logical train wreck.   

I have no doubt that you will try to dismiss this argument as personal incredulity,…

In the absence of any coherent arguments at all you essay the argument from personal incredulity a lot, but not so far…

…but there is nothing personal in the logical deduction that chains of uncontrollable physical reactions alone are incapable generating complex trains of thought which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions.

That’s called argument by assertion – (yet) another fallacy. What “logical deduction” do you think you’ve made, rather than just asserted to be the case? I’m aware of no arguments at all (and certainly none provided by you) that would support your unqualified assertion, but I am aware of the basic principle of emergence that describes how complex phenomena arise spontaneously from less complex constituent parts. This model fits perfectly well as a likely explanation for consciousness – if you think it doesn’t though, then after all this time why not tell us what your “logical deduction” to the contrary entails rather than just claim to have it, but always keep it a secret?   

Also…

You can’t have an “also” when everything hitherto has just collapsed in a welter of error, fallacy and blind faith but ok…

… these limitations on the only acceptable evidence being material behaviour leads to the inevitable conclusion that a single entity of conscious awareness must be something which emerges from material reactions.  But in this you refuse to acknowledge the impossibility of many discrete reactions being able to generate a single point of awareness.

Again, you’re committing the argument by assertion fallacy. If you think that’s impossible then why not after all these, what, thousands? of repeated assertions with no qualifying arguments at all finally tell us how you propose to justify that assertion of impossibility?   

You also seem to have a pre defined opinion that anyone who claims to have witnessed a truly miraculous event in their lives must be either deluded or lying regardless of the evidence.

Or, in your case, entirely unable to explain how you eliminated the various non-miraculous (but less solipsistically thrilling) possible explanations rather than jumped straight to “that’s a miracle then” with no connecting logic at all. Of course you could show me to be wrong about that by explaining how the other explanations were impossible (or at least less likely than the miraculous one) but as that seems not to have troubled you in the first place, I doubt you’ll be able to explain to someone else right?   

There must come a point at which you must concede that our lives are more than just a roller coaster ride along a physically defined path from which there is no escape.

In principle that point would be when you or someone else could produce an argument to believe that that isn’t a dog’s breakfast of mindless assertion, blind faith, wishful thinking and logical car crashes. So far, that’s all you have but I now have high hopes that as I’ve taken the trouble to correct you multiple times once again you’ll finally muster up the decency to step up the plate and attempt at least some honest-to-goodness counter-arguments of your own.

You will now try at least to do that won’t you?

Won’t you?   

[Alan Burns]

In principle that point would be when you or someone else could produce an argument to believe that that isn’t a dog’s breakfast of mindless assertion, blind faith, wishful thinking and logical car crashes. So far, that’s all you have but I now have high hopes that as I’ve taken the trouble to correct you multiple times once again you’ll finally muster up the decency to step up the plate and attempt at least some honest-to-goodness counter-arguments of your own.
You will now try at least to do that won’t you?

Won’t you?

So can you explain to me how these acts of mindless assertions, blind faith, wishful thinking etc can possibly be generated by the uncontrolled physical reactions in a material brain.
I know I have asked this before, but I can't recall getting any reasonable explanation.
I keep getting accused of many forms of intentional misdemeanours, but I fail to see how you can reconcile this with your concept of our perceived conscious control being nothing more than an experience or  "just the way it seems".

So I will continue to demonstrate my conscious freedom by witnessing to the reality of our spiritual nature and the amazing gift of freewill which we can use to determine our own destiny.

[Gordon]

So can you explain to me how these acts of mindless assertions, blind faith, wishful thinking etc can possibly be generated by the uncontrolled physical reactions in a material brain.

It's just biology doing what it does, Alan.

I know I have asked this before, but I can't recall getting any reasonable explanation.

I think it is more the case that you don't like what you're being told: that mental processes are just biological activity going on in your head.

I keep getting accused of many forms of intentional misdemeanours, but I fail to see how you can reconcile this with your concept of our perceived conscious control being nothing more than an experience or  "just the way it seems".

That will be your personal incredulity at play again since, for you, you can't envisage mental experiences without your particular take on 'God' being shoehorned in somewhere: and that is where you keep going wrong and making reasoning errors (in the form of fallacies).

So I will continue to demonstrate my conscious freedom by witnessing to the reality of our spiritual nature and the amazing gift of freewill which we can use to determine our own destiny.

Then we will continue to 'witness' that for some people, such as yourself, a priori religious convictions can screw up their thinking even where there is evidence to show that they are, quite simply, wrong: in that their claims are unjustifiable via knowledge, reason or logic.

[torridon]

So can you explain to me how these acts of mindless assertions, blind faith, wishful thinking etc can possibly be generated by the uncontrolled physical reactions in a material brain...

Can you explain why you think mental states such as intentions and emotions could not be 'generated by physical reactions in a material brain' ?  Show your reasoning.

[Stranger]

If the only acceptable evidence is limited to that of material behaviour, your conclusions are inevitable.

Yet another blatant misrepresentation. The argument about your version of 'freedom' is not about 'material behaviour', it's just logic. What's more, you have offered no evidence (you don't seem to even understand the concept) or sound reasoning (likewise) to suggest anything else is involved.

Your consistent refusal to acknowledge that the capabilities of the human mind offer substantial evidence of something more than material reactions can ever achieve...

That will be because you have never once, in all the endless posts of yours that I've read, done anything other than baselessly assert this to be the case. You have never produced any reasoning or actual evidence at all.

Never.

...but there is nothing personal in the logical deduction that chains of uncontrollable physical reactions alone are incapable generating complex trains of thought which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions. 

What logical deduction? You've never posted anything that even looks like it might be a logical deduction. A logical deduction involves one or more premises (that you think people will agree about and that don't assume the conclusion), some valid logical steps, and a conclusion.

You've never even tried to do anything like that.

So can you explain to me how these acts of mindless assertions, blind faith, wishful thinking etc can possibly be generated by the uncontrolled physical reactions in a material brain.

Back to one of your favourite tactics to avoid facing up to the points being made.   

I know I have asked this before, but I can't recall getting any reasonable explanation.

Matthew 7:5

[Alan Burns]

Can you explain why you think mental states such as intentions and emotions could not be 'generated by physical reactions in a material brain' ?  Show your reasoning.

Nothing to do with emotions - they are beyond conscious control.
It is my demonstrable freedom to think and to actively pursue conscious intentions which defies any explanation from the physical model - which reduces everything to inevitable reaction.  How can anyone justify an accusation of intentional misdemeanours if they are just the unavoidable reactions in the physically controlled workings of a material brain?

[Sebastian Toe]

Nothing to do with emotions - they are beyond conscious control.

Does that mean that they are generated by physical reaction etc?

[Stranger]

It is my demonstrable freedom to think and to actively pursue conscious intentions which defies any explanation from the physical model...

Baseless assertion. You have given not the slightest hint of a reason why anybody should accept this.

...which reduces everything to inevitable reaction.

Regardless of whether minds are entirely physical or not, to the extent something isn't an 'inevitable reaction', it is random - for reasons that you continue to ignore.

How can anyone justify an accusation of intentional misdemeanours if they are just the unavoidable reactions in the physically controlled workings of a material brain?

Because it's still you who are using fallacies, ignoring logic, and claiming to be doing the opposite.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You just couldn’t do it could you. You’ve posted false reasoning after false reasoning after false reasoning that I and other have taken the time and trouble to address and correct, and instead of having the basic decency and honesty to address the corrections you’ve been given you’ve just slid sideways again into your favourite tactic of an argument from personal incredulity (yet another fallacy).

So what do you think will happen here? That your multiple failures in reasoning (straw man, argument by assertion, failure to produce the logic you claim to have etc) and have had corrected will just be forgotten about, thereby leaving you free to commit exactly the same failures in reasoning when it suits you?

What’s the point? If you can’t construct cogent arguments to justify your claims, why on earth do you think anyone would take them seriously?       

So can you explain to me how these acts of mindless assertions, blind faith, wishful thinking etc can possibly be generated by the uncontrolled physical reactions in a material brain.
I know I have asked this before, but I can't recall getting any reasonable explanation.
I keep getting accused of many forms of intentional misdemeanours, but I fail to see how you can reconcile this with your concept of our perceived conscious control being nothing more than an experience or  "just the way it seems".

Why do you think the injunction not to bear false witness doesn’t apply to you? 

So I will continue to demonstrate my conscious freedom by witnessing to the reality of our spiritual nature and the amazing gift of freewill which we can use to determine our own destiny.

Utter drivel, for the reasons you’re too dishonest or too frightened to address. Come back to me in the unlikely event you finally have a rush of honesty to the head and feel like addressing the countless holes you still dig for yourself.   

[Alan Burns]

Yet another blatant misrepresentation. The argument about your version of 'freedom' is not about 'material behaviour', it's just logic. What's more, you have offered no evidence (you don't seem to even understand the concept) or sound reasoning (likewise) to suggest anything else is involved.

The logic you persist in adhering to is entirely based upon observed material behaviour.  It is material elements which exhibit the time related cause and effect upon which your logic is based and which denies us the freedom we all enjoy.  You ignore the concept of anything outside the perceived time line of our material universe having any powers of interaction, but such a concept is the only feasible explanation for the reality of our conscious freedom to choose rather than react.  We have the amazing power to consciously interact with this universe rather than just react in accordance with the uncontrollable laws of nature.

[Stranger]

The logic you persist in adhering to is entirely based upon observed material behaviour.

Please stop lying.

It is material elements which exhibit the time related cause and effect upon which your logic is based...

Anything at all that does anything (interacts, perceives, makes choices, etc.), must be subject to change and hence be embedded in a time dimension. It makes bugger all difference if it's not a 'material element'. Human minds (the very act of thinking anything) needs time.

...and which denies us the freedom we all enjoy.

Another utterly baseless assertion. What 'freedom' do we enjoy that is incompatible with a deterministic system? Where is your reasoning?

You ignore the concept of anything outside the perceived time line of our material universe having any powers of interaction...

Interaction requires time. This really isn't hard. Something that interacts is engaged in a two-way communication, so it must change over time.

...but such a concept is the only feasible explanation for the reality of our conscious freedom to choose rather than react.  We have the amazing power to consciously interact with this universe rather than just react in accordance with the uncontrollable laws of nature.

Reasoning-free foot-stamping. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The logic you persist in adhering to is entirely based upon observed material behaviour.

No it isn’t. Observation validates logical argument, but the logic itself is a priori.
 

It is material elements which exhibit the time related cause and effect upon which your logic is based and which denies us the freedom we all enjoy.

No it doesn’t. What it actually does is to fail to justify the explanation you illogically attach to the experience of freedom.

You ignore the concept of anything outside the perceived time line of our material universe having any powers of interaction,…

No-one ignores the concept. What they actually do is to show the reasoning you attempt to justify the concept to be wrong.

…but such a concept is the only feasible explanation for the reality of our conscious freedom to choose rather than react.

No it isn’t. If you seriously think that though and claim to have reasoned your way to that conclusion then rather than just assert it it’s your job (finally) to demonstrate your reasoning.

Why will you never do that?   

We have the amazing power to consciously interact with this universe rather than just react in accordance with the uncontrollable laws of nature.

Mindless idiocy to finish. “Consciously interacting with the universe” is “the universe” interacting with itself – we’re inextricably part of the universe, not separate from it.

If you weren’t so dishonest you’d understand why.   

[Alan Burns]

What’s the point? If you can’t construct cogent arguments to justify your claims, why on earth do you think anyone would take them seriously?       

I could ask why anyone would take seriously the idea that our freedom to choose is not a reality.  The reality upon which the entire judicial system is based - holding each one of us to be personally accountable for our own actions.

Why do you think the injunction not to bear false witness doesn’t apply to you? 

The truth will set you free.

[Alan Burns]

If you weren’t so dishonest you’d understand why.

How can a continuum of this deterministic material universe possibly be dishonest?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I could ask why anyone would take seriously the idea that our freedom to choose is not a reality.  The reality upon which the entire judicial system is based - holding each one of us to be personally accountable for our own actions.

And you’d get the same answer you’ve had before and just ignored. We do have “freedom to choose” at an everyday, colloquial level of abstraction which is why we have things like working court systems. That doesn’t though for one moment negate the deeper, reason-based position that the experience of “freedom” as you intend it is necessarily illusory.

If were honest enough to engage with the arguments you’re given rather than just ignore them you’d at least have the possibility of understanding why this is. 

The truth will set you free.

Then why are you so dishonest? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How can a continuum of this deterministic material universe possibly be dishonest?

See above.

[Stranger]

I could ask why anyone would take seriously the idea that our freedom to choose is not a reality.  The reality upon which the entire judicial system is based - holding each one of us to be personally accountable for our own actions.

Yet again: we are free to choose to do anything we want to do, just not free to choose what you want to do most. That would lead directly to an infinite regress.

The truth will set you free.

So why the endless misrepresentation, and blatant falsehoods?

How can a continuum of this deterministic material universe possibly be dishonest?

Once again: the argument doesn't depend on you being part of the "continuum of this deterministic material universe". However, you are dishonest because (basically and at some level) you want to be. I suspect that it's because you are too afraid (probably subconsciously) to face up to the truth. The arguments must be wrong because otherwise your faith would be threatened, and that cannot be allowed to happen so you dismiss them without proper thought or analysis, which would be way too dangerous.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NTtS,

However, you are dishonest because (basically and at some level) you want to be. I suspect that it's because you are too afraid (probably subconsciously) to face up to the truth. The arguments must be wrong because otherwise your faith would be threatened, and that cannot be allowed to happen so you dismiss them without proper thought or analysis, which would be way too dangerous.

AB is the Wylie E. Coyote of this mb. When he charges off the cliff he can remain aloft only if he never looks down and sees the reality that he’s unsupported. That’s why he always misrepresents or ignores the rebuttals he’s given – actually engaging with them honestly (or even at all) would be the equivalent of looking down, and he daren’t risk that.

Ever.     

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq_bjaI0NTo

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And you’d get the same answer you’ve had before and just ignored. We do have “freedom to choose” at an everyday, colloquial level of abstraction which is why we have things like working court systems. That doesn’t though for one moment negate the deeper, reason-based position that the experience of “freedom” as you intend it is necessarily illusory.

If were honest enough to engage with the arguments you’re given rather than just ignore them you’d at least have the possibility of understanding why this is. 

Then why are you so dishonest?

To be accountable for acts of honesty or dishonesty, there has to be a source of control from which the act is consciously driven.  Where does this source lie in the endless chains of physically determined reactions in the continuum of a material universe?

If I am not personally accountable, then what precisely can be held accountable?

If there is no accountability within the endless chains of cause and effect, on what grounds can you accuse me of dishonesty?

And from where does the source of accusation arise?

What precisely determines the justification for the accusation?

And how can the ultimate judgement of right and wrong take place within an entirely deterministic scenario driven entirely by physical reactions beyond our conscious control?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

To be accountable for acts of honesty or dishonesty, there has to be a source of control from which the act is consciously driven.

Only at the experiential level. The experience of “control” tells you nothing though about what’s actually going on at the functional level beneath the experience. 

Where does this source lie in the endless chains of physically determined reactions in the continuum of a material universe?

There isn’t a “source” in the adolescent way you imply.

If I am not personally accountable, then what precisely can be held accountable?

For practical, everyday purposes you are personally accountable.

If there is no accountability within the endless chains of cause and effect, on what grounds can you accuse me of dishonesty?

Because, obviously, the “you” of the everyday, experiential level of abstraction is dishonest. Deeply so.   

And from where does the source of accusation arise?

See above.

What precisely determines the justification for the accusation?

Your dishonesty.

And how can the ultimate judgement of right and wrong take place within an entirely deterministic scenario driven entirely by physical reactions beyond our conscious control?

What makes you think there is an ultimate judgment of right and wrong?

So what you’ve just done here is to post one long mash up of the argument from incredulity and the argumentum ad consequentiam. What you haven’t done though is to have the honesty to address any of the falsifications that have been given to you.

What does this behaviour say about you do you think?   

[Stranger]

To be accountable for acts of honesty or dishonesty, there has to be a source of control from which the act is consciously driven.

YET AGAIN: the role of consciousness (how much something is 'consciously driven') has nothing to do with the logic of the situation.

Where does this source lie in the endless chains of physically determined reactions in the continuum of a material universe?

YET AGAIN: the logic has nothing to do with you being entirely physical - it is just as applicable if you have some sort of non-physical soul.

If I am not personally accountable, then what precisely can be held accountable?

Why do you think you're not accountable? To the extent you have a fully functioning human mind, and you are not being coerced, you have done what you wanted to do. That's about as accountable as it's possible to be.

What's more, even if you conclude that you are not accountable, that would just be an argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy.

So once again you've posted something that totally ignores all that you've been told and the actual arguments put to you and just repeats silly, fallacy-ridden nonsense. I really don't understand what you think you'll achieve by this. You seem to want to emphasis how much your faith has crippled your intellect. You are (assuming you've been honest about your background) capable of rational thought but as soon as the subject gets close to your faith, you collapse into incoherent, reasoning-free inanity.