Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

Just look at how mankind has discovered so many ways to manipulate and interact with the forces of nature to facilitate many aspects of modern life we take for granted. - -

I don't see how that implies any design.

using electricity, magnetism, radio waves, the properties of silicon, knowledge and use of chemical reactions, use of wood for building, the extraction of iron and steel from ore, crop cultivation, energy from fossil fuels ...
Were they meant to be discovered and used?

No. They just are.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because knowledge is good - what we've done with the knowledge is a mixed bag, how we've come to the knowledge in some instances is questionable, but the world has never been poorer for having a better understanding.

No you mean only the knowledge achieved by empirical means is good and any other knowledge is evil. I would say that knowledge is neutral until exploited.

[Outrider]

No you mean only the knowledge achieved by empirical means is good and any other knowledge is evil. I would say that knowledge is neutral until exploited.

No, knowledge is good. Your problem is that you don't have a reliable way of getting knowledge outside of the empiricism you have ideological issues with.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, knowledge is good. Your problem is that you don't have a reliable way of getting knowledge outside of the empiricism you have ideological issues with.

O.

That empiricism yield empirical facts is no problem to me. It's just your philosophical empiricism. that is at fault

[Outrider]

That empiricism yield empirical facts is no problem to me. It's just your philosophical empiricism. that is at fault

Empiricism yields likely facts. Overwhelmingly likely, in many instances. Your alternative provides what, exactly?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Empiricism yields likely facts. Overwhelmingly likely, in many instances. Your alternative provides what, exactly?

O.

It has no bearing on the acquisition of skills and competences and knowledge in other learning domains for example mathematics, ethics, philosophy(indeed there are serious failings with the philosophy of empiricism),the arts or the humanities.

[Outrider]

It has no bearing on the acquisition of skills and competences and knowledge in other learning domains for example mathematics, ethics, philosophy(indeed there are serious failings with the philosophy of empiricism),the arts or the humanities.

It has no bearing on the depiction of the sex-life of fish-like organisms in non-terrestrial seas, either, but as that also wasn't the question it's equally irrelevant. What does your alternative to empricism offer in the way of any sort of confidence about what reality is and how it works?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It has no bearing on the depiction of the sex-life of fish-like organisms in non-terrestrial seas, either, but as that also wasn't the question it's equally irrelevant. What does your alternative to empricism offer in the way of any sort of confidence about what reality is and how it works?

O.

I have nothing against methodological empiricism and suggest no alternative
for establishing empirical facts.
To be confident that it shows us reality is imho a sticking point. It does show us some things work but disqualifies philosophical empiricism at a fundamental level.

[Outrider]

I have nothing against methodological empiricism and suggest no alternative for establishing empirical facts.

Not just 'empirical' facts. Facts are facts, empiricism is the best tool we have for uncovering those. You can dismiss it, but you don't have anything better. This appears just another of your attempts to try justify not having anything useful by trying to drag everything else down to your level.

To be confident that it shows us reality is imho a sticking point.

Consistency leads to confidence. If it isn't consistent, empiricism says it either needs to be reformulated or rejected. How do you derive any confidence in propositions without testing them?

It does show us some things work but disqualifies philosophical empiricism at a fundamental level.

It doesn't discount philosophical empiricism entirely; philosophical empiricism, like any other ideology, has proven to be impossible to derive logically as necessarily true, but at the pragmatic level empiricism has thoroughly pissed all over anything anyone else has offered as an explanatory mechanism for anything.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not just 'empirical' facts. Facts are facts, empiricism is the best tool we have for uncovering those. You can dismiss it, but you don't have anything better. This appears just another of your attempts to try justify not having anything useful by trying to drag everything else down to your level.

Consistency leads to confidence. If it isn't consistent, empiricism says it either needs to be reformulated or rejected. How do you derive any confidence in propositions without testing them?

It doesn't discount philosophical empiricism entirely; philosophical empiricism, like any other ideology, has proven to be impossible to derive logically as necessarily true, but at the pragmatic level empiricism has thoroughly pissed all over anything anyone else has offered as an explanatory mechanism for anything.

O.

Philosophical empiricism is self negating.

[Outrider]

Philosophical empiricism is self negating.

Did you hear the 'whoosh' as that point went straight past you without your noticing it?

For someone who has so little time for Mr dePfeffel Johnson, you share the trait of badly answering questions that weren't asked in the vain attempt to pretend that no-one will notice that the the ones that were asked weren't answered at all. Also like him you're not getting away with it.

O.

[Alan Burns]

It's not that there is no concept of meaning - we each find our own meaning - but there's no evidence that there's any overarching purpose to reality or our existence which we need to find. There's no evidence that reality was created FOR something; it is simply a naturally occurring event, of which we are an equally incidental part. We are significant to ourselves and each other, but to the universe at large we appear to be incidental.

You appear to deliberately ignore or dismiss the divine revelations of the Christian bible which offer meaning and purpose to our lives on this earth.  To claim there is no evidence is not true.  You are finding reasons to ignore the evidence.

Yet both biology and physics appear to render the notion of 'free will' untenable. There is no evidence of any 'missing' parts of our mental activity which would afford space for some non-deterministic component of thinking to represent the 'freedom' you talk of.

The future is not some as yet undetermined range of possibilities; there is no universal 'now' waiting for tomorrow to get here. Time is a dimension, and yesterday, tomorrow and all the other points along the timeline exist in parallel. Reality is already written, end-to-end, and we are not creating it as we go, we are documenting it from the inside as we travel the only road we can.

Yes, the evidence obtained from biology and physics do render the notion of free will to be untenable.  But the evidence you continue to ignore or dismiss is in the capabilities of the human mind.  To presume that all human endeavours - (our thoughts, our ability to discern reason, our ability to draw logical conclusions, our creativity, our imagination, our capacity to choose between good and evil ...) can all be the result of the inevitable fall out from the uncontrollable nature of particle physics alone is also untenable.  The reality of your demonstrable ability to consciously control your own thoughts offers evidence that you comprise far more than material reactions alone can ever achieve.

[ProfessorDavey]

You appear to deliberately ignore or dismiss the divine revelations of the Christian bible which offer meaning and purpose to our lives on this earth.

I don't think Outrider is ignoring this at all - he clearly states that 'we each find our own meaning', and clearly that includes a religious belief including a christian religious belief. So for some people 'we each find our own meaning' translates to finding meaning and purpose from christian teaching. For others this teaching has no significant meaning or purpose and they find meaning and purpose from other things, whether religious or otherwise.

Now, self evidently christian teaching will only be a minor contributor to meaning and purpose at a population level and throughout history, as (even if we only restrict ourselves to humans) for most of human existence christian teaching did not exist and therefore cannot have provided meaning and purpose.

If we are looking for something close to universality in terms of meaning and purpose I think we'd need to consider family, relationships and love, which, of course, have a strong evolutionary drive within social animals such as humans.

[Outrider]

You appear to deliberately ignore or dismiss the divine revelations of the Christian bible which offer meaning and purpose to our lives on this earth.

I don't ignore them, I have examined them and dismissed them, much I've dismissed similar sentiments from Hinduism and Islam and Judaeism - I've not really examined any others enough to make a similar claim, I'm at the stage where I'm dismissing them on principle. I see nothing in the real world to hold up against those claims and find them believable.

To claim there is no evidence is not true.  You are finding reasons to ignore the evidence.

No, there is not evidence. There are claims certainly, but the claims are not supported by anything. Perhaps the claims could be considered evidence, to a degree, but I think that's stretching the definition.

Yes, the evidence obtained from biology and physics do render the notion of free will to be untenable.  But the evidence you continue to ignore or dismiss is in the capabilities of the human mind.

Which is examined through the media of biology and physics, and so leads to the understanding that 'free will' does not appear to be viable.

To presume that all human endeavours - (our thoughts, our ability to discern reason, our ability to draw logical conclusions, our creativity, our imagination, our capacity to choose between good and evil ...) can all result of the inevitable fall out from the uncontrollable nature of particle physics alone is also untenable.

To presume so, perhaps. To conclude so, though, based on the available evidence is not only tenable it's unavoidable.

The reality of your demonstrable ability to consciously control your own thoughts offers evidence that you comprise far more than material reactions alone can ever achieve.

Firstly, that 'reality' is not a reality, it's a perception. It 'feels' like we're in control, but we are unreliable narrators of our own existence. Our conscious activity is the superficial awareness of a morass of sub-conscious activity which provides to us thoughts as fait accompli, which we then try to post hoc rationalise into a cohesive narrative.

Secondly, no, it doesn't, it offers evidence that complexity has arisen from the interaction of simple elements over extraordinary (to us) amounts of time.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Which is examined through the media of biology and physics, and so leads to the understanding that 'free will' does not appear to be viable.

However, there is no definition of what comprises or drives our conscious will within the realms of biology and physics.  Without such definition, you cannot presume to use knowledge of biology and physics to dismiss the possibility of human free will.  The demonstrable capabilities of human free will offer substantial evidence that it derives from a source beyond the scope of physics and biology - the human soul.

[Sebastian Toe]

However, there is no definition of what comprises or drives our conscious will within the realms of biology and physics.  Without such definition, you cannot presume to use knowledge of biology and physics to dismiss the possibility of human free will.  The demonstrable capabilities of human free will offer substantial evidence that it derives from a source beyond the scope of physics and biology - the human soul.

However, there is no verifiable definition of what comprises the soul, where it exists, how it communicates with our physical bodies, where it came from, how it got "paired" with individuals....and so much more.
Without such definitions you cannot presume to use anything other than pure conjecture and wishful thinking to wish it into existence.
Can you?

[Alan Burns]

However, there is no verifiable definition of what comprises the soul, where it exists, how it communicates with our physical bodies, where it came from, how it got "paired" with individuals....and so much more.
Without such definitions you cannot presume to use anything other than pure conjecture and wishful thinking to wish it into existence.
Can you?

Our ability to consciously wish for anything is evidence of a capability beyond the scope of what can be derived from the results of particle physics.

[Sebastian Toe]

Our ability to consciously wish for anything is evidence of a capability beyond the scope of what can be derived from the results of particle physics.

So you keep saying but you also insist on "definitions" from those questioning your "reality", however you fall predictably silent when asked to produce your definitions!

I therefore must conclude that, using your own argument (i.e. no definition = not real), your "soul/free will conjecture remains firmly in the wishful thinking category.

[Nearly Sane]

Our ability to consciously wish for anything is evidence of a capability beyond the scope of what can be derived from the results of particle physics.

Assertions are not evidence.

[Outrider]

However, there is no definition of what comprises or drives our conscious will within the realms of biology and physics.

Because there's nothing to distinguish it from any other thought process; it's experientially different, but not phenomenologically.

Without such definition, you cannot presume to use knowledge of biology and physics to dismiss the possibility of human free will.

No, without a reasonable basis you cannot determine that there's anything significantly different enough to warrant treating it differently. It's not a separate phenomenon.

The demonstrable capabilities of human free will offer substantial evidence that it derives from a source beyond the scope of physics and biology - the human soul.

Absolute nonsense - those 'demonstrable capabilities' are not in any way demonstrable. Firstly, there's no demonstration that 'free will' is free, nor that it's functionally any different from any other thought process. Second there's no examples of activity that aren't immediately traceable to well-understood causitory phenomena - if there was something intangible like a 'soul' having an effect we'd see otherwise inexplicable activity and we don't.

O.

[Alan Burns]

So you keep saying but you also insist on "definitions" from those questioning your "reality", however you fall predictably silent when asked to produce your definitions!

I therefore must conclude that, using your own argument (i.e. no definition = not real), your "soul/free will conjecture remains firmly in the wishful thinking category.

Definition of the human soul:
An entity of conscious awareness capable of invoking wilful interaction as opposed to the unavoidable reaction associated with material entities.

[Sebastian Toe]

Definition of the human soul:
An entity of conscious awareness capable of invoking wilful interaction as opposed to the unavoidable reaction associated with material entities.

Oh good, I can apply that very good logic to other mammals e.g.
Definition of the dog soul;
an entity of conscious awareness capable of invoking wilful interaction as opposed etc....
Using Alan Burns logic.....It has a definition thus it must exist!
Thanks for that.

[ekim]

Oh good, I can apply that very good logic to other mammals e.g.
Definition of the dog soul;
an entity of conscious awareness capable of invoking wilful interaction as opposed etc....

That's probably partly right.  There are a number of Hebrew words in the Old Testament which have been translated a 'soul'.  Nephesh is one of them, which includes instincts,appetites and drives and consciousness of environment and appears as 'psyche' in the New Testament, which is nowadays
studied as psychology.   Another word translated as 'soul' is Neshama which tends to represent a divine element in man.  I suspect that Alan's 'wilful interaction' element is more associated with Nephesh, that part of human nature which is shared with other animals.  Praying 'Thy Will be done' is probably an attempt to disassociate with the wilful nephesh and identify with the divinely inspired neshama.

[Gordon]

Definition of the human soul:
An entity of conscious awareness capable of invoking wilful interaction as opposed to the unavoidable reaction associated with material entities.

In one sentence you pack in a bunch of problems.

1. Just defining something isn't sufficient to conclude it exists - I'd have thought that the criticisms of the ontological argument would warn you of the dangers of this approach.

2. Your first five words could equally apply to biology (as in the brain).

3. You need to insert something between "invoking" and "wilful", such as 'apparently' or 'seemingly' to avoid assuming too much and begging the question. 

4. You need to unpack your "invoking wilful interaction as opposed to the unavoidable reaction associated with material entities." because your "unavoidable reaction" could well apply to naturalistic conscious or unconscious neurological processes that determine what feels like being "wilful". I suspect your turn of phrase here is just your personal incredulity getting in the way again.

5.  You imply that this "entity", which is code for "human soul", isn't "material" - but you've yet to demonstrate that this thing actually exists, and further explain how it works, without falling into your usual fallacies.

Therefore you definition has more holes in it than does the average colander. 

[Outrider]

Definition of the human soul: An entity of conscious awareness capable of invoking wilful interaction as opposed to the unavoidable reaction associated with material entities.

So, not something that there's any evidence for, then? You'd be as well posting a definition for a unicorn fairy demon god four-sided triangle...

O.