Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

These are philosophical explanations for which there is plenty of evidence, for those who can see.

What is the evidence then?

[Sriram]

I told you....if you are blind to it....I can't show you!

[jeremyp]

I told you....if you are blind to it....I can't show you!

Ah right, so when you said

These are philosophical explanations for which there is plenty of evidence, for those who can see.

You actually meant there is no evidence.

[Alan Burns]

Recent posts on other threads once more demonstrate the truth of Sassy's opening post on this thread in which she observes:

I was reading some of the threads and it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him.

Yet I am repeatedly informed that the mental acrobatics needed to formulate such reasoning all happens within the subconscious activity of a material human brain before it emerges into our conscious awareness.

I have yet to find a feasible explanation for how the unavoidable fall out from chains of physically determined material reactions in a material brain can produce such reasoning, and what ultimately determines its viability.

[Nearly Sane]

Recent posts on other threads once more demonstrate the truth of Sassy's opening post on this thread in which she observes:Yet I am repeatedly informed that the mental acrobatics needed to formulate such reasoning all happens within the subconscious activity of a material human brain before it emerges into our conscious awareness.

I have yet to find a feasible explanation for how the unavoidable fall out from chains of physically determined material reactions in a material brain can produce such reasoning, and what ultimately determines its viability.

It's been a while since you called people who don't believe in god liars. Never gets new.

[ProfessorDavey]

Recent posts on other threads once more demonstrate the truth of Sassy's opening post on this thread in which she observes:Yet I am repeatedly informed that the mental acrobatics needed to formulate such reasoning all happens within the subconscious activity of a material human brain before it emerges into our conscious awareness.

I have yet to find a feasible explanation for how the unavoidable fall out from chains of physically determined material reactions in a material brain can produce such reasoning, and what ultimately determines its viability.

So AB, what is your reasoning for not believing in the huge number of gods that are purported by believers to exist across human history that aren't the christian god.

Remember that the difference between you and me is that you do not believe in n-1 gods (where n is the large number of gods purported to exist) and I do not believe in n gods. Perhaps let's discuss the n-1 gods that neither of us believe in as that may allow you to understand why you don't believe in them.

[Enki]

Recent posts on other threads once more demonstrate the truth of Sassy's opening post on this thread in which she observes:Yet I am repeatedly informed that the mental acrobatics needed to formulate such reasoning all happens within the subconscious activity of a material human brain before it emerges into our conscious awareness.

I have yet to find a feasible explanation for how the unavoidable fall out from chains of physically determined material reactions in a material brain can produce such reasoning, and what ultimately determines its viability.

How sad that your take on religion encourages you to repeat accusations which are both insulting and wrong.

[torridon]

Recent posts on other threads once more demonstrate the truth of Sassy's opening post on this thread in which she observes:Yet I am repeatedly informed that the mental acrobatics needed to formulate such reasoning all happens within the subconscious activity of a material human brain before it emerges into our conscious awareness.

I have yet to find a feasible explanation for how the unavoidable fall out from chains of physically determined material reactions in a material brain can produce such reasoning, and what ultimately determines its viability.

And yet, neuroscience tells us that almost all brain activity is subconscious.  Go figure.

[Alan Burns]

And yet, neuroscience tells us that almost all brain activity is subconscious.  Go figure.

My consciously driven ability to "go figure" is what proves your presumptions about what neuroscience tells you is wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

My consciously driven ability to "go figure" is what proves your presumptions about what neuroscience tells you is wrong.

But what about all those 'go figure' moments that lead you to not believe in n-1 gods.

And by the way 'go figure's isn't sufficient evidence for anything unless it can be objectively, theoretically and/or experimentally verified.

[Nearly Sane]

My consciously driven ability to "go figure" is what proves your presumptions about what neuroscience tells you is wrong.

  How many branches of science are wrong because of your feelings?

[Gordon]

My consciously driven ability to "go figure" is what proves your presumptions about what neuroscience tells you is wrong.

This is just your personality incredulity at work again, Alan: you're effectively saying that neuroscience is wrong because it contradicts your religious beliefs, and your use of 'proves' futher indicates the depths of your incredulity.

[Alan Burns]

This is just your personality incredulity at work again, Alan: you're effectively saying that neuroscience is wrong because it contradicts your religious beliefs, and your use of 'proves' futher indicates the depths of your incredulity.

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with the logic in question.
What I am saying is that my conscious ability to drive my own thought processes contradicts Torridon's claim that current neuroscience indicates that our thoughts are determined by subconscious activity.

You appear to be implying that my belief in my conscious ability to drive my own thoughts is somehow labelled as personal incredulity. 

[Nearly Sane]

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with the logic in question.
What I am saying is that my conscious ability to drive my own thought processes contradicts Torridon's claim that current neuroscience indicates that our thoughts are determined by subconscious activity.

You appear to be implying that my belief in my conscious ability to drive my own thoughts is somehow labelled as personal incredulity. 

and you have just created an infinite regress, again.

[torridon]

My religious beliefs have nothing to do with the logic in question.
What I am saying is that my conscious ability to drive my own thought processes contradicts Torridon's claim that current neuroscience indicates that our thoughts are determined by subconscious activity.

(Conscious) thoughts emerge from deeper recesses of our minds.  This is not a process that we can control, this is how minds work. We cannot choose which thought to have next, that makes no sense.

[Gordon]

You appear to be implying that my belief in my conscious ability to drive my own thoughts is somehow labelled as personal incredulity. 

Yep

[Alan Burns]

(Conscious) thoughts emerge from deeper recesses of our minds.  This is not a process that we can control, this is how minds work. We cannot choose which thought to have next, that makes no sense.

If you are not in control of your own thoughts, how can you possibly come to such a conclusion?
What precisely is held responsible for the accuracy of your thought processes?
Why should your uncontrollable thoughts be deemed superior to mine?
How can any viable judgement be made if there is no conscious control?

It is your scenario which makes no sense, because any concept of sense is incompatible with uncontrollable thought processes.

[torridon]

If you are not in control of your own thoughts, how can you possibly come to such a conclusion?

This way of conceptualising thought processes posits a separation between a 'self' and its thoughts.  However, there is no separate being in there, commanding and controlling the flow of neural activity, deciding what thoughts should happen next.  It is better understood in terms of there being a sense of self - something that emerges out of the flow of thoughts and emotions, characteristic patterns and tendencies. An inner controller, by contrast, just ends up in an infinite regress and offers no explanatory value.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So AB, what is your reasoning for not believing in the huge number of gods that are purported by believers to exist across human history that aren't the christian god.

Remember that the difference between you and me is that you do not believe in n-1 gods (where n is the large number of gods purported to exist) and I do not believe in n gods. Perhaps let's discuss the n-1 gods that neither of us believe in as that may allow you to understand why you don't believe in them.

Hi Davey, I thought I might offer some alternative ideas to your n gods hypothesis.
Firstly they could be local interpretations of the divine. e.g. Jupiter and Zeus.

A pantheon of gods could be divinisation of forces of nature organised by a head god who herself is the local expression of actual supernatural divinity.

They could be all real in but there is only one who is not contingent on the others and that’s the one we should really be bothered in but then that is back to the pantheon.

n-1 gods is a relic from the new atheist era.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This way of conceptualising thought processes posits a separation between a 'self' and its thoughts.  However, there is no separate being in there, commanding and controlling the flow of neural activity, deciding what thoughts should happen next.  It is better understood in terms of there being a sense of self - something that emerges out of the flow of thoughts and emotions, characteristic patterns and tendencies. An inner controller, by contrast, just ends up in an infinite regress and offers no explanatory value.

And yet infinite regress is frequently offered as an explanation on this forum regarding the existence of the universe...where are you then?

[Gordon]

And yet infinite regress is frequently offered as an explanation on this forum regarding the existence of the universe...where are you then?

Details please.

[Nearly Sane]

And yet infinite regress is frequently offered as an explanation on this forum regarding the existence of the universe...where are you then?

Why are you lying?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why are you lying?

I'm not. I am of course referring to the infinite chain of causation that is frequently suggested as a riposte to the idea of a creator.
And ofcourse it refers to your own riposte against the idea of a necessary being.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not. I am of course referring to the infinite chain of causation that is frequently suggested as a riposte to the idea of a creator.
And ofcourse it refers to your own riposte against the idea of a necessary being.

Is it? Where?
Fuck knows what you are on about as regards  ''my riposte' 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it? Where
Fuck knows what you are on about as regards  ''my riposte'

It comes up regularly. The only leg work I shall be doing on your behalf is to flag up when you or anyone else does it again.
You may like to use the search engine on the forum to look at the frequency of the term 'turtles all the way down".