Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

What does your soul do when it is not "connected" to your material brain?

Dances like Fred Astaire

[Maeght]

You vastly underestimate the power of the human soul.

Probably because there is no evidence that such a thing exists.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Stop right there. Whether or not you can see why I think things is nether here nor there. You’re the one claiming either highly improbable or impossible (you flip-flop between these two, very different, positions) so it’s your job to justify your claim about that. Stop trying to shift the burden of proof and focus instead on the claim you’re making by – finally – justifying it.

You talk as if I am alone in my claim to us having the power to consciously control our own thoughts and that I am personally responsible for justifying it.  I am sure if you were to conduct an opinion poll on this matter there would be an overwhelming majority who believe as I do - (I would guess at least 99.9%), and there have been many in depth discussions on the subject.  And I would presume that the concept of human free will is at the heart of every major religion.  So why should the burden of proof lie with me?  Is it not the "free will deniers" who should justify how they can generate logical arguments and sound reasoning without the power to consciously control their own thoughts?

[torridon]

You talk as if I am alone in my claim to us having the power to consciously control our own thoughts and that I am personally responsible for justifying it.  I am sure if you were to conduct an opinion poll on this matter there would be an overwhelming majority who believe as I do - (I would guess at least 99.9%), and there have been many in depth discussions on the subject.  And I would presume that the concept of human free will is at the heart of every major religion.  So why should the burden of proof lie with me?  Is it not the "free will deniers" who should justify how they can generate logical arguments and sound reasoning without the power to consciously control their own thoughts?

Oh dear, logical fallacies R Us, you just can't seem to write anything without stumbling about in fallacy-land.  Here we have argumentum ad populum, and shifting the burden of proof..

Just because a belief is popular or widespread does not make it true.  I would bet that 99.9% of the world's population believed the world was flat in the Bronze Age or earlier.  But they were all wrong. In the Iron Age 99.9% of the world's population believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.  But they were all wrong.  Most people aren't scientists, but someone like you with a research degree could have been at the leading edge of science, not at the trailing edge, stumbling around trying to fight a rear guard action denying the findings of science.

[Gordon]

You talk as if I am alone in my claim to us having the power to consciously control our own thoughts and that I am personally responsible for justifying it.  I am sure if you were to conduct an opinion poll on this matter there would be an overwhelming majority who believe as I do - (I would guess at least 99.9%), and there have been many in depth discussions on the subject.  And I would presume that the concept of human free will is at the heart of every major religion.  So why should the burden of proof lie with me?  Is it not the "free will deniers" who should justify how they can generate logical arguments and sound reasoning without the power to consciously control their own thoughts?

Because it is you who claims that biology is never enough, it is you who proposes 'souls' and it is you who asserts that you have 'free will' and have the power to consciously control your thoughts - therefore the burden of proof is yours alone.

It is you who is trying, and failing, to insert 'God' into a biological process. 

[Alan Burns]

Oh dear, logical fallacies R Us, you just can't seem to write anything without stumbling about in fallacy-land.  Here we have argumentum ad populum, and shifting the burden of proof..

Just because a belief is popular or widespread does not make it true.  I would bet that 99.9% of the world's population believed the world was flat in the Bronze Age or earlier.  But they were all wrong. In the Iron Age 99.9% of the world's population believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.  But they were all wrong.  Most people aren't scientists, but someone like you with a research degree could have been at the leading edge of science, not at the trailing edge, stumbling around trying to fight a rear guard action denying the findings of science.

I have never denied the findings of science.
It is science which highlights the inadequacy of material behaviour alone to explain our consciously driven abilities to perform rational thinking and make logical deductions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You talk as if I am alone in my claim to us having the power to consciously control our own thoughts and that I am personally responsible for justifying it.  I am sure if you were to conduct an opinion poll on this matter there would be an overwhelming majority who believe as I do - (I would guess at least 99.9%), and there have been many in depth discussions on the subject.

And I would presume that the concept of human free will is at the heart of every major religion.  So why should the burden of proof lie with me?  Is it not the "free will deniers" who should justify how they can generate logical arguments and sound reasoning without the power to consciously control their own thoughts?

First, you’ve just ignored my explanation of why you have the burden of proof – your claim = your burden of proof. It’s very simple. Constantly asking other people to justify their beliefs instead of justifying your own is fallacious reasoning.

Second, “99.9%” of people think a lot of things that are wrong. Almost everyone for example thinks their noses aren't within their fields of vision, whereas in fact our noses are fully visible and our brains compensate so they seem to be invisible:

https://www.ceenta.com/news-blog/why-cant-i-see-my-nose#:~:text=Put%20simply%2C%20you%20don't,day%2Dto%2Dday%20basis

I’ve cautioned you before that if you want to play on logic’s turf then you have to play by logic’s rules. One of those rules is that the argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, and you just committed it. 

So, and in the sure knowledge that I’m wasting my time again, how – without collapsing again into fallacious reasoning – would you propose to justify your claim that consciousness without supernatural intervention is impossible?

How though?       

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have never denied the findings of science.

Yes you have. The science of evolutionary biology for example explains speciation without supernatural intervention yet you declare that it must be wrong about that because you really want it to require “guidance” too. 

It is science which highlights the inadequacy of material behaviour alone to explain our consciously driven abilities to perform rational thinking and make logical deductions.

Science does no such thing. Stop lying. Science actually works painstakingly and bottom up to build explanatory models for observable phenomena. That sometimes those explanations are incomplete or missing entirely does not for one moment imply that the phenomena are therefore not material in character.

Try to work out for yourself why this is the case.     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Yes you have. The science of evolutionary biology for example explains speciation without supernatural intervention yet you declare that it must be wrong about that because you really want it to require “guidance” too. 

How on earth can you possibly presume that every single beneficial mutation happened by random unguided events

Science does no such thing. Stop lying. Science actually works painstakingly and bottom up to build explanatory models for observable phenomena. That sometimes those explanations are incomplete or missing entirely does not for one moment imply that the phenomena are therefore not material in character.

Science still has no definition for how self awareness can be generated from material reactions alone.  It never will have - because awareness is not a reaction.  No matter how much complexity we build in to man made contraptions, self awareness will not be there.  The best we can do is mimic the outward appearance of self awareness, but inside there will be nothing but material reactions.  Nothing actually emerges from material reactions other than more material reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How on earth can you possibly presume that every single beneficial mutation happened by random unguided events 

You really haven’t got a clue about the burden of proof have you. Not. A. Fucking. Clue.

First, I’m don’t need to “presume” anything – if you want to assert that evolution must have “guidance” THEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS WITH YOU TO JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIM.

Second, your claim moreover was that you don’t deny the findings of science. That was a lie. You do. Specifically, you deny the science of evolutionary biology that explains speciation with no supernatural guidance component required.

QED

Science still has no definition for how self awareness can be generated from material reactions alone.

Debatable, but in any case irrelevant.

It never will have –

Something you cannot possibly know to be true.

…because awareness is not a reaction.

Gibberish.

No matter how much complexity we build in to man made contraptions, self awareness will not be there.

Also something you cannot possibly know to be true, and in any case also irrelevant. “Science” explaining something and science building something are two different matters.

The best we can do is mimic the outward appearance of self awareness, but inside there will be nothing but material reactions.  Nothing actually emerges from material reactions other than more material reactions.

Except you’ve never even tried to justify your unqualified assertion that consciousness isn’t “material reactions” despite being asked to do so many times. If you can’t justify your assertions and declarations with reason and evidence (or with some other but yet to be discovered means), they’re worthless. 

Try to remember in future that when you can't do logic well it's wiser to stick to blind faith than it is to do logic badly.

[Maeght]

How on earth can you possibly presume that every single beneficial mutation happened by random unguided events

Because there is no evidence for guidance.

[Sebastian Toe]

How on earth can you possibly presume that every single beneficial mutation happened by random unguided events

That looks awfully like you are denying the findings of science.
Am I mistaken?

[Alan Burns]

What does your soul do when it is not "connected" to your material brain?

I speculate we will still exist as an entity of awareness, but we will no longer have awareness of human senses.  The bible suggests we will exist in our heavenly body and we will see God as He really is.

[Alan Burns]

Because there is no evidence for guidance.

The evidence lies in the unfathomable complexity of the human brain which is purported to have come into being by purposeless, unguided random forces of nature. 

Evolution is still regarded as a theory.  The evidence shows that it was a gradual process which took place over time, but whether it was guided or unguided is open to question.

[Enki]

The evidence lies in the unfathomable complexity of the human brain which is purported to have come into being by purposeless, unguided random forces of nature. 

Evolution is still regarded as a theory.  The evidence shows that it was a gradual process which took place over time, but whether it was guided or unguided is open to question.

What on earth do you mean by "Evolution is still regarded as a theory" ?

Evolution is a scientific theory.

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.

Some theories are so well-established that they are unlikely ever to be fundamentally changed (for example, scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

You just don't learn, do you? 

[Sebastian Toe]

I speculate we will still exist as an entity of awareness,

Awareness of what?

[Maeght]

The evidence lies in the unfathomable complexity of the human brain which is purported to have come into being by purposeless, unguided random forces of nature. 

Evolution is still regarded as a theory.  The evidence shows that it was a gradual process which took place over time, but whether it was guided or unguided is open to question.

Complexity is not evidence for a soul.

You need to demonstrate that the complexity of the human brain cannot exist without guidance from a soul rather than just asserting it. You are making a claim so need to provide the evidence to support that claim - burden of proof.

Evolution by Natural Selection will always be regarded as a theory in science, because that is what it is. There is no evidence for it being guided - which is what I stated. You cannot provide evidence for it being guided but rather just assert that it must be due to personal incredulity fueled by your religious beliefs.

[Gordon]

The evidence lies in the unfathomable complexity of the human brain which is purported to have come into being by purposeless, unguided random forces of nature.

As good an example of personal incredulity in a single sentence as I've ever seen.
 

Evolution is still regarded as a theory.  The evidence shows that it was a gradual process which took place over time, but whether it was guided or unguided is open to question.

So how would you test this question? How many evolutionary biologists have formulated hypotheses to look for evidence of guidance? I'm guessing none.

[torridon]

I have never denied the findings of science.

Your entire oeuvre is science denial

Science : "Evolution is unguided"
Burns: "Evolution is guided"

Science : "Notwithstanding some quantum randomness, the future state of the cosmos can predicted given knoweldge of initial conditions"
Burns: "No, human willpower is a distinct force shaping the future"

Science : "Humans are made of particles of cosmic matter"
Burns: "Humans are magical beings created by a divien being"

Looks pretty much like science denial to me and everyone else

[Enki]

So, it's back to the drawing board for you, Alan, no doubt to come up with more assertions, more protestations of incredulity, more trying to shift the burden of proof, interspersed, no doubt, with occasional attempts at proselytising.

[Sriram]

Your entire oeuvre is science denial

Science : "Evolution is unguided"
Burns: "Evolution is guided"

Science : "Notwithstanding some quantum randomness, the future state of the cosmos can predicted given knoweldge of initial conditions"
Burns: "No, human willpower is a distinct force shaping the future"

Science : "Humans are made of particles of cosmic matter"
Burns: "Humans are magical beings created by a divien being"

Looks pretty much like science denial to me and everyone else

None of what you say about science is true.

Science has not established that evolution is unguided. It is just an assumption.

Science has not established that initial conditions  determine final outcomes. This is also an assumption. Emergence and complexity at every stage is not explained by science.

Our bodies are made of cosmic matter. What our minds are and what consciousness is has not been determined by science.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The evidence lies in the unfathomable complexity of the human brain which is purported to have come into being by purposeless, unguided random forces of nature.

That’s not evidence of supernatural intervention at all. I explained to you a while back the vast, near-unfathomable unlikelihood of a particular sequence of 52 playing cards being dealt, yet a sequence of 52 cards appears every time the deck is dealt. Do you think that there must therefore be a guiding hand in play for any specific sequence to appear? Why not?     

Evolution is still regarded as a theory.

Your ignorance of terminology is letting you down here. In colloquial speech “theory” can mean an unjustified idea or a conjecture, but in science it means something very different – in science a “theory” is the most robust level of epistemic certainty there is. That’s why we have the theory of germs causing disease, the theory of gravity etc. Scientific theories are for all practical purposes true, but science also has to allow for the possibility of new evidence emerging that could cause the theory to be amended or withdrawn.

One of the ironies here by the way is that while religions verifiably know nothing, it’s only they who arrogate to themselves claims of sure and certain knowledge.       

The evidence shows that it was a gradual process which took place over time, but whether it was guided or unguided is open to question.

That’s a non-point. In science anything is “open to question” – all the evidence we have concerning gravity for example is that it’s a natural phenomenon, but that doesn’t mean we can rule out absolutely the possibility that it’s actually done by invisible pixies holding stuff down with very thin strings. Once again, your basic failure to understand the burden of proof is letting you down here.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

None of what you say about science is true.

Yes it is.

Science has not established that evolution is unguided.

Science makes no claim to establishing that anything is not the case. What science does do though is to develop and validate explanatory models that work perfectly well without the need for further unqualified assumptions, including “guidance”. 

It is just an assumption.

No, it’s a straw man – yours (see above).

Science has not established that initial conditions  determine final outcomes. This is also an assumption. Emergence and complexity at every stage is not explained by science.

Our bodies are made of cosmic matter. What our minds are and what consciousness is has not been determined by science.

Again, see above for where you’ve gone wrong.

[Outrider]

How on earth can you possibly presume that every single beneficial mutation happened by random unguided events

There is no direct evidence of guidance. Darwin, and those that followed, developed an explanatory theory that did not require guidance, and predictions were made based upon that theory. All the subsequent evidence has either ratified that theory, or led to developments of it. Therefore no-one is 'presuming' anything, it's a conclusion from the available evidence. That's not absolute proof, but you need something more significant than 'but I've got a big book of bedtime stories' to justify dismissing it.

Science still has no definition for how self awareness can be generated from material reactions alone.

And we therefore don't know. But not knowing does not equate to 'therefore souls'.

It never will have - because awareness is not a reaction.

What is it that you're aware of, and how is your sense of awareness not a reaction to that thing impinging upon your consciousness?

No matter how much complexity we build in to man made contraptions, self awareness will not be there.

Citation needed. In order to justify the claim that consciousness can not potentially be generated artificially you'd need to establish how consciousness comes about, which you've just said can't be done currently. It might be that you're correct, but you can't justify that claim at this time.

The best we can do is mimic the outward appearance of self awareness, but inside there will be nothing but material reactions.

Given that you can't establish what consciousness is - as you admitted - how can you now suggest that we can definitively say that consciousness is something more material reactions?

Nothing actually emerges from material reactions other than more material reactions.

Music. Art. Love. Cheese.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

There is no direct evidence of guidance. Darwin, and those that followed, developed an explanatory theory that did not require guidance, and predictions were made based upon that theory. All the subsequent evidence has either ratified that theory, or led to developments of it. Therefore no-one is 'presuming' anything, it's a conclusion from the available evidence. That's not absolute proof, but you need something more significant than 'but I've got a big book of bedtime stories' to justify dismissing it.

And we therefore don't know. But not knowing does not equate to 'therefore souls'.

What is it that you're aware of, and how is your sense of awareness not a reaction to that thing impinging upon your consciousness?

Citation needed. In order to justify the claim that consciousness can not potentially be generated artificially you'd need to establish how consciousness comes about, which you've just said can't be done currently. It might be that you're correct, but you can't justify that claim at this time.

Given that you can't establish what consciousness is - as you admitted - how can you now suggest that we can definitively say that consciousness is something more material reactions?

Music. Art. Love. Cheese.

O.

Mmmmmm  cheese