Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

.... You on the other hand can tell us precisely nothing about your notion “soul” – what it’s made of, where it lives, how it makes decisions without antecedent reasons, how it interacts with “you”. You have no answers at all about these and many other questions – that is, you have no pieces of the jig-saw at all (other than the word “soul”).

Again then: why do you think having no pieces of the jig-saw gives you a better shot at seeing the picture than having some of the pieces?       

The key piece of the jigsaw I have is the reality of my freedom to think, to guide my own thoughts, to choose my own path, to compose this post.  It is a freedom which can't be written off as just an experience, or just the way it feels.  It is a reality which goes beyond any material based explanation, which is why I deem it to be a God given gift because I can find no feasible alternative explanation.  It is a reality which can't be taken away by flawed human thinking which attempts to fill in the missing pieces with material based explanations which inevitably deny the reality of the true freedom we all enjoy.

[torridon]

The key piece of the jigsaw I have is the reality of my freedom to think, to guide my own thoughts, to choose my own path, to compose this post.  It is a freedom which can't be written off as just an experience, or just the way it feels.  It is a reality which goes beyond any material based explanation, which is why I deem it to be a God given gift because I can find no feasible alternative explanation.  It is a reality which can't be taken away by flawed human thinking which attempts to fill in the missing pieces with material based explanations which inevitably deny the reality of the true freedom we all enjoy.

You are free to follow your heart's desire, just so long as nobody gets in your way.  There is nothing about freedom from coercion that requires supernatural explanation.  But you aren't free to choose which desires to have in the first place, you aren't free to choose which thoughts to have or which emotions to experience.. The thought we have in the present moment is a consequence of whatever it is that gave rise to it. Were this not the case, humans would be unviable and would have long ago gone extinct.

[Gordon]

The key piece of the jigsaw I have is the reality of my freedom to think, to guide my own thoughts, to choose my own path, to compose this post.  It is a freedom which can't be written off as just an experience, or just the way it feels.  It is a reality which goes beyond any material based explanation, which is why I deem it to be a God given gift because I can find no can't accept* any feasible alternative explanation.  It is a reality which can't be taken away by flawed human thinking which attempts to fill in the missing pieces with material based explanations which inevitably deny the reality of the true freedom we all enjoy.

* Fify

[Alan Burns]

* Fify

But the process of consciously accepting, (or rejecting) is in itself evidence of the conscious freedom we all enjoy, but which is denied by any material explanation.  We either employ our God given freedom to consciously accept something, or it is just an unavoidable reaction driven by endless chains of physically determined reactions.  You may use your conscious freedom to choose which is the case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

So having caught you out on your last series of mistakes you just ignore all the corrections you were given and bithely carry on as if nothing had happened right? ‘twas ever thus I guess.

It should be obvious even to you that the unanswered questions posed by the universe as it is observed do not transfer to the necessary entity the argument for which carries sufficient reason. Explanation trumps zero explanation in the field of explanation, particularly when you specially plead that something needs no explanation.

Can I just say what a privilege it is engaging with one of the great philosophical minds of our time? Really though. I asked for your answers to the same questions about your god that you’re troubled by when addressed to the universe, and whammo! – back you come with a detailed and considered treatise, replete with citations, footnotes and appendices. “It should be obvious even to you that the unanswered questions posed by the universe as it is observed do not transfer to the necessary entity…” eh?

Well, ok. “Its magic innit” would have taken you less time though.   

I have to admit that because your posts are largely ad hominem…

Lying doesn’t get you off the hook either. I post arguments – you ignore or straw man them.

Plus ça change.

…I've lost track of what's left of your manifold yet conflicting arguments. Is the universe here because of a non explanatory infinite regression? Is the universe brute fact? Is it the necessary entity? Are you ignorant of the explanation for the universe but you know it can't be God? Where are you on this one?

And after I took the time to explain the burden of proof fallacy again to you, only for you to crash right through it once more. Ah well. Yet again: I don’t know whether the universe began. If it did begin, I don’t know how it began. I don’t even know what “began” would mean when time itself is a property of the universe. You know – just like I said to you only a few posts back. Thing is though, nor do you. Nor does anyone. There are various speculations about these matters, but none thus far have risen to the level of an explanation.

You on the other hand tell us that the universe cannot be its own explanation. That’s your claim. That makes it your job then to justify it. You can duck and dive forever about that by demanding that I tell you how the universe came to be if you want to but it still won’t be my job to answer. “I have no idea” is fine for this purpose. What I do know though is that – thus far at least – you have no argument to show that the universe cannot be its own explanation.

“Burden of proof” – look it up. Finally.                 

I think you may be suffering from a limited understanding of contingency and seem to understand only temporal dependency. There is of course more ways than that to be dependent on something else e.g. simultaneously dependent heirarchies depending on a ground entity

No - if you want to assert into existence non-temporal dependency then by all means have a go at demonstrating it. You’re suffering from a bad case here of “If I say it it must be true” without bothering with any validating arguments.   

The argument from contingency is not magic. Contingency without necessity is not only not as good as magic, it is an absurdity.

Brilliant – so you have something better than “it’s magic innit” as your answer to “why god?”. What is it?

As for giving no reason, that is cobblers, the argument from contingency provides the reason, that is why you brought a paper by Carroll to say he is on a quest to disprove the PSR, so I would hazard that you know you are talking crap when you plead no reason.

Nurse! What on earth are you talking abut?

Finally ''Capiche''? You Edward G Robinson or something?

Eat popcorn if it helps.

Trouble is, I’ve emptied my Tesco’s entire supply of the stuff wating for you actually to answer a question. Cock-eyed optimist that I am, maybe I’ll give Sainsbury’s a go next…
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The key piece of the jigsaw I have is the reality of my freedom to think, to guide my own thoughts, to choose my own path, to compose this post.  It is a freedom which can't be written off as just an experience, or just the way it feels.  It is a reality which goes beyond any material based explanation, which is why I deem it to be a God given gift because I can find no feasible alternative explanation.  It is a reality which can't be taken away by flawed human thinking which attempts to fill in the missing pieces with material based explanations which inevitably deny the reality of the true freedom we all enjoy.

All you’ve done there is to respond to the arguments that undo you with a series of unqualified assertions (“It is a freedom which can't be written off as just an experience…”, “It is a reality which goes beyond any material based explanation ….” etc). If you’re incapable of  addressing the arguments then so be it, but what do you hope to achieve by just eructating statements of blind faith instead?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So having caught you out on your last series of mistakes you just ignore all the corrections you were given and bithely carry on as if nothing had happened right? ‘twas ever thus I guess.

Can I just say what a privilege it is engaging with one of the great philosophical minds of our time? Really though. I asked for your answers to the same questions about your god that you’re troubled by when addressed to the universe, and whammo! – back you come with a detailed and considered treatise, replete with citations, footnotes and appendices. “It should be obvious even to you that the unanswered questions posed by the universe as it is observed do not transfer to the necessary entity…” eh?

Well, ok. “Its magic innit” would have taken you less time though.   

Lying doesn’t get you off the hook either. I post arguments – you ignore or straw man them.

Plus ça change.

And after I took the time to explain the burden of proof fallacy again to you, only for you to crash right through it once more. Ah well. Yet again: I don’t know whether the universe began. If it did begin, I don’t know how it began. I don’t even know what “began” would mean when time itself is a property of the universe. You know – just like I said to you only a few posts back. Thing is though, nor do you. Nor does anyone. There are various speculations about these matters, but none thus far have risen to the level of an explanation.

You on the other hand tell us that the universe cannot be its own explanation. That’s your claim. That makes it your job then to justify it. You can duck and dive forever about that by demanding that I tell you how the universe came to be if you want to but it still won’t be my job to answer. “I have no idea” is fine for this purpose. What I do know though is that – thus far at least – you have no argument to show that the universe cannot be its own explanation.

“Burden of proof” – look it up. Finally.                 

No - if you want to assert into existence non-temporal dependency then by all means have a go at demonstrating it. You’re suffering from a bad case here of “If I say it it must be true” without bothering with any validating arguments.   

Brilliant – so you have something better than “it’s magic innit” as your answer to “why god?”. What is it?

Nurse! What on earth are you talking abut?

Trouble is, I’ve emptied my Tesco’s entire supply of the stuff wating for you actually to answer a question. Cock-eyed optimist that I am, maybe I’ll give Sainsbury’s a go next…

Most, if not all of the arguments on here are either absent, non sequitur or irrelevant.

Non temporal hierarchies or temporal heirarchies. The argument from contingency is good for any heirarchy. it works for an  infinite universe too..You see the universe raises questions about itself that are not applicable to the necessary entity.

In the case of Burden of proof that is nullified by the dismissal of sufficient reason isn't it? In the face of that do you still want to go through with that.

You are dependent on your organs, they are dependent on tissues, they are dependent on cells etc and all that dependence is going on simultaneously without the need to invoke the passage of time.

Love to stay and discuss the rococo intricacies of your baroque turdpolishing but as they say, life is short.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Most, if not all of the arguments on here are either absent, non sequitur or irrelevant.

BS. Still avoiding, misrepresenting and running away then I see. Ah well. 

If ever you feel like actually taking on the burden of proof for your claims though, by all means come back and give it a go.

Ooh - Sainsbury's does a sweet 'n' salty combo. Lovely! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

BS. Still avoiding, misrepresenting and running away then I see. Ah well. 

If ever you feel like actually taking on the burden of proof for your claims though, by all means come back and give it a go.

Ooh - Sainsbury's does a sweet 'n' salty combo. Lovely!

I think the argument from contingency satisfies the claim that there are reasons to believe in monotheism. Of course In that respect you have not actually satisfied your burden when you claim there are no reasons to believe.

Part of satisfying burden of proof is demonstrating that the default positions are ropy and that has happened also.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think the argument from contingency satisfies the claim that there are reasons to believe in monotheism. Of course In that respect you have not actually satisfied your burden when you claim there are no reasons to believe.

You have it arse-backwards again. My “burden” is simply to find the flaws in the arguments theists attempt to validate their beliefs. So far that’s been easy to do, albeit that you always run away from the falsifications. If you or any other theist ever brought to my attention an argument for (their choice of a) god that I couldn’t falsify though then I’d have no option but to agree with them. 

Part of satisfying burden of proof is demonstrating that the default positions are ropy and that has happened also.

A “don’t know” can’t be “ropy” (sic), and you still fundamentally fail to understand how the burden of proof works. “The universe can’t be its own explanation” is your claim – that makes it your job to make the case for it rather than just to assert it.

I’ve just had a fresh popcorn delivery – go for it! 

[Alan Burns]

AB,
 

All you’ve done there is to respond to the arguments that undo you with a series of unqualified assertions (“It is a freedom which can't be written off as just an experience…”, “It is a reality which goes beyond any material based explanation ….” etc). If you’re incapable of  addressing the arguments then so be it, but what do you hope to achieve by just eructating statements of blind faith instead?   

No
It is not blind faith.
It is faith based on the reality of my conscious freedom to choose to make what you deem to be "unqualified assertions".
No argument can take away this freedom, and its associated consequences.

[Nearly Sane]

No
It is not blind faith.
It is faith based on the reality of my conscious freedom to choose to make what you deem to be "unqualified assertions".
No argument can take away this freedom, and its associated consequences.

That's entirely circular.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No
It is not blind faith.

Yes. When you’re given falsifying arguments and you can only reply with unqualified assertions (“It is a reality which goes beyond any material based explanation….” etc), that’s pretty much an exemplar of blind faith.
 

It is faith based on the reality of my conscious freedom to choose to make what you deem to be "unqualified assertions".

That’s only a “reality” in the sense that it’s an explanatory narrative you find convincing. Rational consideration though finds it to be problematic for several reasons, none of which you’re able (or willing) to address. 

No argument can take away this freedom, and its associated consequences.

When you refuse to accept even the possibility of arguments falsifying your claims then all you’re showing us is an imprisoned mind. That’s a very problematic place to be – what if your utter certainty is misplaced? How would you ever know?       

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Yes. When you’re given falsifying arguments and you can only reply with unqualified assertions (“It is a reality which goes beyond any material based explanation….” etc), that’s pretty much an exemplar of blind faith.
 

If the arguments falsify my ability to consciously choose my own thoughts, words and actions, it must be the arguments which are at fault.

That’s only a “reality” in the sense that it’s an explanatory narrative you find convincing. Rational consideration though finds it to be problematic for several reasons, none of which you’re able (or willing) to address. 
 

The reality I perceive is only problematic if you try to define it in material terms.  Can you not see the basic contradiction in your own ability to consciously rationalise to reach a conclusion that the conscious freedom needed to rationalise can only be a feeling of freedom?

When you refuse to accept even the possibility of arguments falsifying your claims then all you’re showing us is an imprisoned mind. That’s a very problematic place to be – what if your utter certainty is misplaced? How would you ever know?       

It is you who need to escape from the imprisonment of materialistic thinking.  Set your spirit free 

[Sebastian Toe]

Set your spirit free 

What does your soul do when it's not connecting to this universe via your brain?
I'm assuming that because in your reality.....your soul is essentially you, right?
If so then surely you must be aware of it's whereabouts, it's actions, it's thoughts?
Do you interact with any of the other 8 billion souls?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If the arguments falsify my ability to consciously choose my own thoughts, words and actions, it must be the arguments which are at fault.

This is the brick wall you always erect when you have no arguments left to try. The point here is that it’s the arguments themselves that show you don’t have the “ability to consciously choose my own thoughts” as you think you do. Just sticking your fingers in your ears rather than engaging with those arguments honestly (or at all in fact) just makes that wall a prison. 

The reality I perceive is only problematic if you try to define it in material terms.

Or logical ones, but ok…

Can you not see the basic contradiction in your own ability to consciously rationalise to reach a conclusion that the conscious freedom needed to rationalise can only be a feeling of freedom?

No, I can’t “see” that because it’s nonsense. The experience of choice may feel free, but as a simple matter of logic it cannot be so because an independent entity telling the zombie me what to do would have to be making decisions of its own – which itself would require thought. Unless you want to conjure up an endless chain of “souls” each telling the next one up the line what to do that gives you a major problem.   
 

It is you who need to escape from the imprisonment of materialistic thinking.  Set your spirit free   

“Do not be so open-minded that your brains fall out.”

(Prof. Walter Kotschnig)

[Alan Burns]

What does your soul do when it's not connecting to this universe via your brain?
I'm assuming that because in your reality.....your soul is essentially you, right?
If so then surely you must be aware of it's whereabouts, it's actions, it's thoughts?
Do you interact with any of the other 8 billion souls?

I will know more about this when my material body ceases to function - until then I have faith in my God given freedom to choose my own thoughts, words and actions emanating from the non material source which is "me".

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I will know more about this when my material body ceases to function - until then I have faith in my God given freedom to choose my own thoughts, words and actions emanating from the non material source which is "me".

So as your “material body” has no answers, in what way is you faith about that not blind?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

This is the brick wall you always erect when you have no arguments left to try. The point here is that it’s the arguments themselves that show you don’t have the “ability to consciously choose my own thoughts” as you think you do. Just sticking your fingers in your ears rather than engaging with those arguments honestly (or at all in fact) just makes that wall a prison. 

Let us stick to facts.
My ability to consciously choose and manipulate my own thoughts is a fact.
If this were not a fact, my (or your) ability to apply logic to our thought processes would be impossible.
Our concept of logic exists in our conscious awareness, and this logic can only be applied though our ability to manipulate our conscious thoughts.  So if your consciously controlled attempt at applying logic comes up with a conclusion that your freedom to think is just a feeling of freedom - your logical processing is flawed.  The obvious flaw is in trying to explain all reality in terms of materialistic "cause and effect".  The conclusion must be that there is more to reality than material reactions alone.

[Nearly Sane]

Let us stick to facts.
My ability to consciously choose and manipulate my own thoughts is a fact.

Nope.

You appear to take the same attitide to the idea of facts as many Roman Catholic priests took to children. A permission to pervert and screw, while lying about it
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Let us stick to facts.

That would help…

My ability to consciously choose and manipulate my own thoughts is a fact.

… and then you fell at the very first hurdle. That’s not a fact at all.

If this were not a fact, my (or your) ability to apply logic to our thought processes would be impossible.
Our concept of logic exists in our conscious awareness, and this logic can only be applied though our ability to manipulate our conscious thoughts.  So if your consciously controlled attempt at applying logic comes up with a conclusion that your freedom to think is just a feeling of freedom - your logical processing is flawed.  The obvious flaw is in trying to explain all reality in terms of materialistic "cause and effect".  The conclusion must be that there is more to reality than material reactions alone.

This is full of logical mistakes that have been explained to you countless times before, only for you to ignore the explanations.

Look, I’m aware that I’m likely wasting my time here but let me try to explain something to you. Forget God. Forget atheism. Forget all of the content of our exchanges, and just focus for a moment on the process of making an argument.

In rhetorical logic we start with axioms. An axiom is a fundamental truth statement that’s unfalsifiable, but must be accepted nonetheless if any argument is to proceed. “I exist” for example is an axiomatic statement – I can’t prove it, but without it nothing can follow. 

Once we have our axioms, we proceed next to premises. A premise is a declarative statement that’s either logically true or logically false. That is, it’s falsifiable. For an argument you need at least two logically sound premises, to which rules of logic can be applied to reach a valid conclusion. Thus for example:

All people are mortal (premise 1).

Alan Burns is a person (premise 2).   

Therefore Alan Burns is mortal (conclusion).

If either supporting premise can be falsified though, then the conclusion also falls.

OK, so here’s what you do: you take a premise (eg “the reality of my conscious freedom to choose”, "If the arguments falsify my ability to consciously choose my own thoughts, words and actions, it must be the arguments which are at fault" etc) and treat it as if it’s axiomatic. It’s not though – it’s just a premise that can readily be falsified. By pretending it’s axiomatic though you just bat away all arguments because axioms aren’t argument-apt, and thus you think your position is protected. It isn’t though. Not even close.   

Are you following any of this? If you are, you have two options now: either you can try to engage with the basic structural parts of argument that I’ve just explained to you, or you can retreat to the same muddleheadedness you resort to (“can you not see that in order to compose….” yada yada). It’s up to you. Why not surprise me though and at least try the former?   

[torridon]

Let us stick to facts.
My ability to consciously choose and manipulate my own thoughts is a fact.
If this were not a fact, my (or your) ability to apply logic to our thought processes would be impossible.
..

As previously noted, this is not really true.  It might seem that way, superficially, but fundamentally, thoughts are things that happen. We do not manipulate them, choose them, or alter them. I cannot choose which thought to have next, and neither can you.

[Sebastian Toe]

I will know more about this when my material body ceases to function - until then I have faith in my God given freedom to choose my own thoughts, words and actions emanating from the non material source which is "me".

No details Alan?
I'm amazed that you are unable to describe what "you" do when you are not using "quantum tunnels" to access your physical brain and "manipulate" your physical body!
Without those details I would have to summarise that you are just making it all up  IMO.

[Alan Burns]

AB,
This is full of logical mistakes that have been explained to you countless times before, only for you to ignore the explanations.

Look, I’m aware that I’m likely wasting my time here but let me try to explain something to you. Forget God. Forget atheism. Forget all of the content of our exchanges, and just focus for a moment on the process of making an argument.

In rhetorical logic we start with axioms. An axiom is a fundamental truth statement that’s unfalsifiable, but must be accepted nonetheless if any argument is to proceed. “I exist” for example is an axiomatic statement – I can’t prove it, but without it nothing can follow. 

Once we have our axioms, we proceed next to premises. A premise is a declarative statement that’s either logically true or logically false. That is, it’s falsifiable. For an argument you need at least two logically sound premises, to which rules of logic can be applied to reach a valid conclusion. Thus for example:

All people are mortal (premise 1).

Alan Burns is a person (premise 2).   

Therefore Alan Burns is mortal (conclusion).

If either supporting premise can be falsified though, then the conclusion also falls.

OK, so here’s what you do: you take a premise (eg “the reality of my conscious freedom to choose”, "If the arguments falsify my ability to consciously choose my own thoughts, words and actions, it must be the arguments which are at fault" etc) and treat it as if it’s axiomatic. It’s not though – it’s just a premise that can readily be falsified. By pretending it’s axiomatic though you just bat away all arguments because axioms aren’t argument-apt, and thus you think your position is protected. It isn’t though. Not even close.   

Are you following any of this? If you are, you have two options now: either you can try to engage with the basic structural parts of argument that I’ve just explained to you, or you can retreat to the same muddleheadedness you resort to (“can you not see that in order to compose….” yada yada). It’s up to you. Why not surprise me though and at least try the former?

I appreciate your efforts in trying to put me right, but in all this you are missing the most fundamental point.
Before you can start with rhetorical logic ...
Before you can consider axioms ...
Before you you can  establish a premise ...
Before you can engage in arguments ...
Before you can falsify ...
Before you can draw conclusions ...

You need to have the necessary data in your conscious awareness, and you need the power to consciously manipulate this data to enact the above goals and make sense in what you are trying to do.  And if your conclusions deny this fundamental power, you must have gone wrong somewhere in your mentally controlled manipulations.

[Outrider]

I appreciate your efforts in trying to put me right, but in all this you are missing the most fundamental point.
Before you can start with rhetorical logic ...
Before you can consider axioms ...
Before you you can  establish a premise ...
Before you can engage in arguments ...
Before you can falsify ...
Before you can draw conclusions ...

You need to have the necessary data in your conscious awareness, and you need the power to consciously manipulate this data to enact the above goals and make sense in what you are trying to do.  And if your conclusions deny this fundamental power, you must have gone wrong somewhere in your mentally controlled manipulations.

They don't 'deny', or refute, that we have a consciousness. What they refute is that it's 'free', what they refute is that it's the product of some disembodied 'soul' that operates on fundamentally different rules from everything else we understand in existence because... um... gods?

O.