Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Krauss reinterprets nothing, he points out that the original misnomer of 'nothing' is misleading.

No, what he does at best is lumps the philosophers among the ignorati of the past, poor benighted souls waiting for the coming of the Krauss, and at worse accuses them of failed science by stating that what they meant by nothing was the vacuum of space which as we now know is no such thing.

There are several flaws with this...how did they think space was a vacuum in past centuries ? Secondly the philosophers he is trying to discount are perfectly clear what they mean by nothing. So a massive strawman from the Krauss.

Where there was failed science from past philosophers, that would have come from materialist philosophers.

[Nearly Sane]

No, what he does at best is lumps the philosophers among the ignorati of the past, poor benighted souls waiting for the coming of the Krauss, and at worse accuses them of failed science by stating that what they meant by nothing was the vacuum of space which as we now know is no such thing.

There are several flaws with this...how did they think space was a vacuum in past centuries ? Secondly the philosophers he is trying to discount are perfectly clear what they mean by nothing. So a massive strawman from the Krauss.

Where there was failed science from past philosophers, that would have come from materialist philosophers.

What is the clearest definition of 'nothing' for you, and from which philosopher is it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Way to miss the point (again). It was your contention that materialism was incapable of answering certain profound questions, thereby legitimising supernaturalism

You said that as though that was a bad thing. Materialism is incapable of answering profound questions and for reasons of impossibility of access apart from stepping outside the universe in order to take the place of the observer.

What do you mean by supernaturalism?

I explained to you that materialism reaching a don’t know,

Yes , we know that, stop trying to sell ignorance therefore as some kind of adequate argument or answer

not having the tools to conduct an experiment, not being able to conceive of the tools necessary to conduct an experiment etc is neither here nor there: if you want to dismiss materialism in principle, then you need an argument to do it. Just pointing to practical difficulties with building experiments does

I understand those limitations may be temporary and am not arguing against them except in cases where the answer can only be obtained from observing the universe which as I have shown is not possible within materialism

not for one moment demonstrate that the answers must be therefore “supernatural”.

Again we don't know what you mean by supernatural, what I mean is things not pervious to investigation by naturalistic or materialistic means.   

   

So again: how do you get from “materialism does not explain X” to “therefore X cannot be material”?

First of all I don't think you will find me stating that anywhere. My contention is in certain circumstances materialism cannot explain X. I thought we had moved on from this and were talking in terms of contingent and necessary entities since this moves us away from the turdpolishing opportunities the charlatan materialist has from vague terms like ''supernatural' ' materialism' etc.


I can understand how there can be hard baked materialists and scientism( for faith that science will find answers even in the face of the impossibility of observing the universe without being in a traditionally scientific observers viewpoint IS what scientism is) adherents.

We have been culturally imbued by such a belief for decades

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You said that as though that was a bad thing. Materialism is incapable of answering profound questions and for reasons of impossibility of access apart from stepping outside the universe in order to take the place of the observer.

What do you mean by supernaturalism?

Yes , we know that, stop trying to sell ignorance therefore as some kind of adequate argument or answer

I understand those limitations may be temporary and am not arguing against them except in cases where the answer can only be obtained from observing the universe which as I have shown is not possible within materialism

Again we don't know what you mean by supernatural, what I mean is things not pervious to investigation by naturalistic or materialistic means.   

First of all I don't think you will find me stating that anywhere. My contention is in certain circumstances materialism cannot explain X. I thought we had moved on from this and were talking in terms of contingent and necessary entities since this moves us away from the turdpolishing opportunities the charlatan materialist has from vague terms like ''supernatural' ' materialism' etc.

I can understand how there can be hard baked materialists and scientism( for faith that science will find answers even in the face of the impossibility of observing the universe without being in a traditionally scientific observers viewpoint IS what scientism is) adherents.

We have been culturally imbued by such a belief for decades

Your standard tactic there of throwing straw men, false arguments and diversionary tactics at the wall while you try to make good your escape.

So, to get back to the question of, “So again: how do you get from “materialism does not explain X” to “therefore X cannot be material”?” to which you just replied, “First of all I don't think you will find me stating that anywhere”, here’s where you stated just that:

“I have demonstrated where only something supernatural must occur. i.e. when a condition is inexplicable by materialism or naturalism.” (Reply 44303)

Not only did you demonstrate no such thing, you still have no answer to why “only something supernatural must occur” when our current state of knowledge means “a condition is inexplicable by materialism or naturalism”.

Why not then have a go at justifying what you actually said rather than run away again? 

PS Re “What do you mean by supernaturalism?” as you were the one who introduced the term, do you not think that it’s your job to tell us what you meant by it? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Because the so called explanations come nowhere near to explaining the reality of the freedom we all enjoy.

Notwithstanding how debatable that is, even if it was true what do you think a “don’t know” would tell you about your speculations on alternatives (“god”, “soul” etc)?

Why won’t you respond to this simple point: the (supposed) absence of evidence for one explanation does not provide evidence for a different explanation (for which incidentally there’s no evidence at all)?

Could you at least indicate that you understand the point here, even if you can’t or won’t address it?   

You seem to have faith that the uncontrollable material reactions in your brain are sufficient to generate these so called explanations within your subconscious before you become aware of them.

Leaving aside your use of “faith” there (“some degree of confidence” is probably more accurate), as that’s what the only cogent reasoning and evidence available to me suggests then yes.

I have faith in our God given freedom to be able to consciously manipulate our thoughts from within our present state of conscious awareness in order to arrive at verifiable conclusions.

I know. The difference between us though is that your “faith” (religious sense) has no coherent reasoning or evidence to justify it, whereas my “faith” (colloquial sense) has both.

And to accuse me yet again of personal incredulity –

Yes. That’s what “I don’t think science sufficiently explains consciousness, therefore god” etc looks like. 

… think about what it is that can be personally held to account - is it just a set of reactions governed by the laws of physics?

That’s currently the most likely explanation, yes.   

Are the laws of physics guilty of generating this incredulity?

That’s currently the most likely explanation, yes.   

Are physically controlled reactions alone capable of making the numerous unqualified assertions I get accused of?

That’s currently the most likely explanation, yes.   

If not, what is it that can be held to account, and how can it repeatedly generate such fallacious arguments without a "me" at the centre of the controls?

There is no “if not”. If you want to establish an “if not” though, then you will finally have to make an argument to justify the claim. I’ve explained to you several times how you should construct an argument, and I’ve also explained to you that unqualified assertions (“I deem”, “obvious truth”, “legitimate” etc) fall a long way short of that.

So, do you or don’t you have anything at all to offer other than unqualified assertions?     

[Alan Burns]

Yes.

Yes (thought your use of "guilt" smacks of reficiation).

Yes.

Nothing: your "if not" is misplaced. Your functioning biology is sufficient to do the job nicely enough, which includes any reasoning errors you/we may make, and also it produces this sense of 'I/me' in all of us (when we are awake and alert that is).

So Gordon -
In this scenario, what can possibly be the arbitrator to deduce what is right and what is wrong?
Who or what decides which set of reactions are producing a "reasoning error"?
Why would my set of reactions be guilty of reasoning errors, while yours are not ?

[Maeght]

Any answer to my question about the historical evidence for the existence of God Alan?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So Gordon -
In this scenario, what can possibly be the arbitrator to deduce what is right and what is wrong?

People are.

Who or what decides which set of reactions are producing a "reasoning error"?

People do.

Why would my set of reactions be guilty of reasoning errors, while yours are not  ?

Because when on occasion you do attempt an argument (as opposed to more frequently just make unqualified assertions) the mistakes in reasoning you make can be identified and explained to you.

Oh, and all of this just speaks to your incredulity again. No matter what the answers to these question, that still leaves you with the problem of making one or more justifying arguments FOR your various religious speculations.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Any answer to my question about the historical evidence for the existence of God Alan?

That question was precisely 13 words too long. AB doesn’t do answers – just expressions of personal incredulity and unqualified assertions. 

[Maeght]

Maeght,

That question was precisely 13 words too long. AB doesn’t do answers – just expressions of personal incredulity and unqualified assertions.

Just had to count the number of words in the question 

I'm not bothering engaging generally with the discussion about free will etc as there seems no point but thought the claim of historical evidence may have more substance to discuss. No expecting a very full answer though I must say. Prove me wrong Alan?!

[Gordon]

So Gordon -
In this scenario, what can possibly be the arbitrator to deduce what is right and what is wrong?
Who or what decides which set of reactions are producing a "reasoning error"?
Why would my set of reactions be guilty of reasoning errors, while yours are not ?

It's just biology, Alan - in essence your brain decides, but you're not aways aware of it because it decides some stuff before you become aware: you are your own 'arbitrator' but none of our brains are perfect, and stuff like personal traits, experiences and biases can creep in.

[ekim]

There are millions of wise people whose finger points to God.
I know of none whose finger points to a pixie

An appeal to authority is not a valid way to support your notion of God.  At least with your Chinese proverb there is the possibility of those with eyesight to confirm the existence of the moon, which was worshipped as the Goddess Luna.  The title of this topic is 'Searching for God'.  It would be helpful if you could now give a description of the God or Gods which those wise people point to bearing in mind that the Hebrew word translated as God is Elohim which is a plural word 'Gods'. 

[Alan Burns]

Any answer to my question about the historical evidence for the existence of God Alan?

We could start with the resurrection.
I know it has been well discussed, and I presume you will claim it has been dismissed as historical evidence.
But if it did not happen, I would not be posting on a Christian thread two thousand years later - and neither would anyone else.

[Maeght]

We could start with the resurrection.
I know it has been well discussed, and I presume you will claim it has been dismissed as historical evidence.
But if it did not happen, I would not be posting on a Christian thread two thousand years later - and neither would anyone else.

Correct. There is no actual historical evidence for the resurrection. There is evidence for a belief in the resurrection fairly early in the Christian Church, a belief which is now an established part of the Christian religion, which explains why you are posting about it now. That isn't evidence for the existence of God from history. Anything else?

[Sebastian Toe]

We could start with the resurrection.
I know it has been well discussed, and I presume you will claim it has been dismissed as historical evidence.
But if it did not happen, I would not be posting on a Christian thread two thousand years later - and neither would anyone else.

We do have a Muslim section here as well.
I presume that using your logic, nobody would post there or on any other Muslim thread if Mohammed had not really talked to an angel.
 Therefore according to Alan Burns reasoning, Mohammed's revelation and all that entails must be fact.

Will you be heading down to the local mosque for prayers anytime soon?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

We could start with the resurrection.
I know it has been well discussed, and I presume you will claim it has been dismissed as historical evidence.

He wouldn’t just claim it, it has been “been dismissed as historical evidence”. That’s because the various tests for historicity are designed to exclude myth, hearsay, inadequately evidenced faith claims etc and so the Christian resurrection story (there are several others from other faiths – it’s a repeated trope) must be dismissed for historical purposes.     

But if it did not happen, I would not be posting on a Christian thread two thousand years later - and neither would anyone else.

No, if there wasn’t a belief that it happened, then you would not (or may not) etc.   

You really need to understand the difference between a fact and a belief, and in any case you’re just trying a version of the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy again here.

[Alan Burns]

Why won’t you respond to this simple point: the (supposed) absence of evidence for one explanation does not provide evidence for a different explanation (for which incidentally there’s no evidence at all)?

I presume that you are referring to the absence of evidence for a material based explanation for our conscious awareness of the choices and thought patterns we invoke.

In order to accept your conclusion that there will be a material based explanation - even though it is not yet fully understood, I would have to believe that all my choices and thoughts are somehow pre determined by physical brain activity before they emerge into whatever comprises my conscious awareness.  Can you not see how impossible this is?  In order to consciously believe in anything I need the freedom to think about it in a rational way.  Beliefs do not just drop into my conscious awareness without me having the power to consciously contemplate the factors involved and home in on what I honestly think is the truth.

Any natural explanation cannot escape from the inevitable chains of physically driven cause and effect over which we have no control.

The truth is that I know I am in conscious control of my own thoughts and words, and many of my actions.  I also know that there can never be a natural explanation for such conscious control, which is why I must conclude that my power to consciously exert control must emanate from a supernatural source - not subconscious brain activity over which I can have no conscious control

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I presume that you are referring to the absence of evidence for a material based explanation for our conscious awareness of the choices and thought patterns we invoke.

No, I’m referring to your claim that there’s an “absence of evidence for…” etc. Actually there’s lots of evidence (from neuroscience for starters) but I was just explaining to you that, even if that was not the case, that would provide no evidence whatsoever in support of your various faith claims (“god”, “soul” etc).

What I’m asking you therefore (so far with no response) is whether you understand why that’s the case.   

Do you?

In order to accept your conclusion that there will be a material based explanation - even though it is not yet fully understood, I would have to believe that all my choices and thoughts are somehow pre determined by physical brain activity before they emerge into whatever comprises my conscious awareness.

Pretty much, yes. That’s not the point though.

Can you not see how impossible this is?

No. And nor will I until and unless you can find a cogent argument to show that it is impossible.

That’s though isn’t the point remember?

In order to consciously believe in anything I need the freedom to think about it in a rational way.  Beliefs do not just drop into my conscious awareness without me having the power to consciously contemplate the factors involved and home in on what I honestly think is the truth.

No you don’t. All you need is the sensation of such “freedom”, but not the actuality of it – especially if you try to reify the sensation into a fact for all the contradictions that gives you.

Anyway, that though isn’t the point remember?

Any natural explanation cannot escape from the inevitable chains of physically driven cause and effect over which we have no control.

As there’s no reason to think there’s a third party “we” involved, then yes.

Anyway, that though isn’t the point remember?

The truth..

Oh-oh. Whenever you assert “the truth” you collapse immediately thereafter into unqualified assertions and very bad arguments. Cock-eyed optimist that I am though let’s see if you can do any better this time shall we?...

…is that I know I am in conscious control of my own thoughts and words, and many of my actions.  I also know that there can never be a natural explanation for such conscious control, which is why I must conclude that my power to consciously exert control must emanate from a supernatural source - not subconscious brain activity over which I can have no conscious control

…aaaand, no you can’t. All you “know” is a description of your experience of “control” that, superficially at least, makes sense to you. The problem with that though is that if you have any interest at all in “the truth” then – at some point – you’re going to have to confront the logical problems your reason- and evidence-denying narrative gives you.     

Anyway, back to the point: even if you were right to say that there’s no materialist explanation for consciousness, that would give you not one joy of an iota of a smidgin of evidence for your various speculations about alternatives. I’ve even tried to simplify why this is with an analogy (thunder and Thor remember?) to no avail. I remain at a loss therefore to know how to get you to address the mistakes in reasoning you keep making.     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No, I’m referring to your claim that there’s an “absence of evidence for…” etc. Actually there’s lots of evidence (from neuroscience for starters) but I was just explaining to you that, even if that was not the case, that would provide no evidence whatsoever in support of your various faith claims (“god”, “soul” etc).

What I’m asking you therefore (so far with no response) is whether you understand why that’s the case.   

Do you?

Pretty much, yes. That’s not the point though.

No. And nor will I until and unless you can find a cogent argument to show that it is impossible.

That’s though isn’t the point remember?

No you don’t. All you need is the sensation of such “freedom”, but not the actuality of it – especially if you try to reify the sensation into a fact for all the contradictions that gives you.

Anyway, that though isn’t the point remember?

As there’s no reason to think there’s a third party “we” involved, then yes.

Anyway, that though isn’t the point remember?

Oh-oh. Whenever you assert “the truth” you collapse immediately thereafter into unqualified assertions and very bad arguments. Cock-eyed optimist that I am though let’s see if you can do any better this time shall we?...

…aaaand, no you can’t. All you “know” is a description of your experience of “control” that, superficially at least, makes sense to you. The problem with that though is that if you have any interest at all in “the truth” then – at some point – you’re going to have to confront the logical problems your reason- and evidence-denying narrative gives you.     

Anyway, back to the point: even if you were right to say that there’s no materialist explanation for consciousness, that would give you not one joy of an iota of a smidgin of evidence for your various speculations about alternatives. I’ve even tried to simplify why this is with an analogy (thunder and Thor remember?) to no avail. I remain at a loss therefore to know how to get you to address the mistakes in reasoning you keep making.     

And I remain at a loss to know how you can keep coming up with such detailed arguments and continue to believe it all emanates from your subconscious brain activity without any means of conscious control. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And I remain at a loss to know how you can keep coming up with such detailed arguments and continue to believe it all emanates from your subconscious brain activity without any means of conscious control.   

Given the very many times it’s been explained to you in plain terms and without rebuttal, why do you suppose it is that you “remain at a loss” about that?

Oh, and back to the question you keep dodging: do you understand why the absence of evidence for one explanation is not evidence for a different explanation?

Would it really kill you finally to answer that? 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Given the very many times it’s been explained to you in plain terms and without rebuttal, why do you suppose it is that you “remain at a loss” about that?

Oh, and back to the question you keep dodging: do you understand why the absence of evidence for one explanation is not evidence for a different explanation?

Would it really kill you finally to answer that?

The fact that you are able to try to explain anything in plain terms is ample evidence for the conscious freedom you need to think up such explanation.  To suggest that all these so called explanations can just fall out from sub conscious brain activity makes no sense at all.  You are trying (unsuccessfully) to shoe horn the capabilities of our human selves to fit in with your short sighted view of a reality entirely defined by mechanistic cause and effect driven by physical reactions beyond our conscious control.  Your demonstrable ability to try to do this is evidence of the conscious freedom which can have no material explanation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The fact that you are able to try to explain anything in plain terms is ample evidence for the conscious freedom you need to think up such explanation.

FFS. I don’t know what’s wrong with you, I really don’t. It’s the explanations you’re given that show you to be wrong about that. You can’t keep just ignoring them and then downstream of the falsifying arguments return again and again to this nonsense as if the arguments hadn’t been made.

Try to understand this: if you actually read, understand and cannot rebut the arguments then they stand, and “The fact that you are able to try to explain anything in plain terms is ample evidence.. etc” collapses.       

To suggest that all these so called explanations can just fall out from sub conscious brain activity makes no sense at all.

“Just fall out” is poisoning the well with pejorative language (it’s a vastly complex process), and it only “makes no sense at all” to you because you privilege your narrative about your experience of thinking over the reasoning and evidence that shows that narrative to be wrong. Flat wrong. 

You are trying (unsuccessfully) to shoe horn the capabilities of our human selves to fit in with your short sighted view of a reality entirely defined by mechanistic cause and effect driven by physical reactions beyond our conscious control.  Your demonstrable ability to try to do this is evidence of the conscious freedom which can have no material explanation.

Utter BS – see above.

Oh, and you have just run away from the question again here it is once more for you:

do you understand why the absence of evidence for one explanation is not evidence for a different explanation?

You’re continued evasiveness about this is looking plain dishonest now.

[Alan Burns]

do you understand why the absence of evidence for one explanation is not evidence for a different explanation?

I am not talking about absence of evidence.
I am highlighting the impossibility for consciously controlled reasoning to emerge from a material brain entirely driven by physically controlled reactions over which we have no conscious control - we do not control the laws of physics.  You can't escape from this by simply claiming the working of the brain to be complex.  No amount of physically driven complexity will allow conscious control.  You keep referring to the explanations which you deem to falsify my reasoning - but your capability to come up with such explanations are themselves evidence of the reasoning you are trying to falsify.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not talking about absence of evidence.

Yes you are. When I’ve asked you WHY you believe the unqualified assertions you make (“god”, “soul” etc) to be true you either ignore the question or – at best – you tell me it’s because you don’t find the materialistic explanations such as they are convincing. Regardless of whether or not that’s the case, I therefore explain to you that the (supposed) absence of evidence for the materialist model does not thereby provide supporting evidence for your supernatural conjectures.

It’s a simple matter of logic, and it holds true for any competing explanatory models. The absence of scientific knowledge about thunder for example did not justify their alternative claim “Thor”. I’ve tried to get you to tell me whether or not you understand this, so far without success. If by some chance you do understand it though, then you should know never again to try “because I don’t find the materialist explanation convincing” when asked what justification you have for your claims.

Claims about “god”, “soul” etc must be justified on their own merits, not on the demerits of alternative explanations.

Are you clear about this now?             
 

I am highlighting the impossibility for consciously controlled reasoning to emerge from a material brain entirely driven by physically controlled reactions over which we have no conscious control - we do not control the laws of physics.

Now you’re shifting ground. If you want to assert that a materialistic model of consciousness is impossible (no matter what evidence materialism may provide to the contrary) then you have all your work ahead of you to explain WHY you think it to be impossible. Just asserting it to be so isn’t an argument – it’s just another unqualified assertion.

You can't escape from this by simply claiming the working of the brain to be complex.

Escape what? You haven’t argued for anything yet.

No amount of physically driven complexity will allow conscious control.

You’re starting from the wrong place again. If you want “conscious control” as you mean it to be your premise, then you need first to demonstrate its existence – something you’ve never even attempted so far as I recall, not least presumably because of the insurmountable contradictions it gives you.

You keep referring to the explanations which you deem to falsify my reasoning - but your capability to come up with such explanations are themselves evidence of the reasoning you are trying to falsify.

And as a dog returns to its vomit, so you return to the same error in thinking over and over again. The arguments you’re given (but won’t or can’t address) precede and falsify assertions about needing “conscious control” as you put it. You have to deal with those arguments therefore before you can make a case for this supposed conscious control. Just repeating endlessly “you’ve made an argument, therefore conscious control” like a broken speak your weight machine is just circular reasoning – yet another of the fallacies into which you routinely collapse.

Look, why not just for once try at least to deal with the a priori arguments for why you don’t (indeed can't) have the conscious control you think you have, rather than ignore them, assume that you do have the conscious control you think you have, and then use that assumption to throw at the arguments that have already falsified it?     

What is it that stops you – fear? Incomprehension? Dishonesty? What?       

[Alan Burns]

What is it that stops you – fear? Incomprehension? Dishonesty? What?       

My God given freedom to witness to the truth.