Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Fine tuning is evidence of intent to achieve a desired result.

And the sun orbits the Earth right – after all it rises and sets every day. I’ve seen it!

What a level of obdurate, wilful dim-wittedness it must take to conclude that the universe is fine-tuned just so little old you can live in it rather than that it’s you who are “fine-tuned” – ie, adapted by evolution – to your environment!

“It was Mrs. Watts’s task, when I was a boy of about nine and attending a school on the edge of Dartmoor, in southwestern England, to instruct me in lessons about nature, and also about scripture. She would take me and my fellows on walks, in an especially lovely part of my beautiful country of birth, and teach us to tell the different birds, trees, and plants from one another. The amazing variety to be found in a hedgerow; the wonder of a clutch of eggs found in an intricate nest; the way that if the nettles stung your legs (we had to wear shorts) there would be a soothing dock leaf planted near to hand: all this has stayed in my mind, just like the “gamekeeper’s museum,” where the local peasantry would display the corpses of rats, weasels, and other vermin and predators, presumably supplied by some less kindly deity. If you read John Clare’s imperishable rural poems you will catch the music of what I mean to convey.

However, there came a day when poor, dear Mrs. Watts overreached herself. Seeking ambitiously to fuse her two roles as nature instructor and Bible teacher, she said, “So you see, children, how powerful and generous God is. He has made all the trees and grass to be green, which is exactly the colour that is most restful to our eyes. Imagine if instead, the vegetation was all purple, or orange, how awful that would be.”

"And now behold what this pious old trout hath wrought. I liked Mrs. Watts: she was an affectionate and childless widow who had a friendly old sheepdog who really was named Rover…

However, I was frankly appalled by what she said. My little ankle-strap sandals curled with embarrassment for her. At the age of nine I had not even a conception of the argument from design, or of Darwinian evolution as its rival, or of the relationship between photosynthesis and chlorophyll. The secrets of the genome were as hidden from me as they were, at that time, to everyone else. I had not then visited scenes of nature where almost everything was hideously indifferent or hostile to human life, if not life itself. I simply knew, almost as if I had privileged access to a higher authority, that my teacher had managed to get everything wrong in just two sentences. The eyes were adjusted to nature, and not the other way about.”

Christopher Hitchens – God is Not Great

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

logic does not define reality

Logic describes "reality". Without it all you have is guessing. 

[Alan Burns]

You keep using this dimwitted and obvious avoidance strategy, it's infantile, grow up for fuck's sake! It's also dishonest because nobody has ever suggested you cannot make choices or do anything else that humans obviously can do.

The question is what determines our choices?  What determines our thought patterns?  What is in control?

Is it reactions to past which are events beyond our control?
Or is it our conscious self?

If it is the former, we have no means to control or verify whatever emerges from a material brain.
Our conscious self is the only means by which we can guide our thoughts to reach intended, verifiable conclusions.

[Alan Burns]

What a level of obdurate, wilful dim-wittedness it must take to conclude that the universe is fine-tuned just so little old you can live in it rather than that it’s you who are “fine-tuned” – ie, adapted by evolution – to your environment!

As I replied to Torri,  You can't propose evolution to have been responsible for the fine tuning of the cosmological constant which enabled to formation of stars and galaxies - unless you invent the concept of the multiverse, an infinite number of galaxies.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Logic describes "reality". Without it all you have is guessing.

The logic you propose certainly does not describe the reality of my ability to consciously guide my own thoughts to reach intended, verifiable conclusions

[Stranger]

Continued evasion of the question noted.

The question is what determines our choices?  What determines our thought patterns?  What is in control?

Is it reactions to past which are events beyond our control?

Unless your are seriously dim or having problems with your memory, you really shouldn't need to ask me this again. Instead, any rational person who is serious about making their point would be addressing the answers I have already given you.

So, are you a serious person, with a functioning intellect or has your faith effectively destroyed your ability to engage in reasoned debate? Remember what you said before:

My view that conscious awareness can't be generated from material reactions alone is not just personal incredulity.  It is based upon sound logic on which I could write many pages.

Time, I think, to either retract this claim or start acting like a proper grown-up and actually engage in the debate.

One more time:

There is no 'you' that is separate from the stream of cause and effect whose control it can be beyond. You and I are in total control of what we do, but we are what the past has made us. We cannot be 'free' from being ourselves - that would be absurd.

Did you get that?

Then how about taking the conversation forward from there instead of your usual mindless repetition?

Or is it our conscious self?

It's not an either/or question, and the extent to which consciousness is involved is unknown.

If it is the former, we have no means to control or verify whatever emerges from a material brain.

A baseless assertion about a non-existent distinction.

Our conscious self is the only means by which we can guide our thoughts to reach intended, verifiable conclusions.

Show your working.

[Stranger]

As I replied to Torri,  You can't propose evolution to have been responsible for the fine tuning of the cosmological constant which enabled to formation of stars and galaxies - unless you invent the concept of the multiverse, an infinite number of galaxies.

Still doesn't help with any argument for any god(s), though.

• We don't know that there is any 'fine tuning' because we are in the field of a theory of everything that we don't yet have. It's possible that the constants of nature couldn't have been any different.
  
  
• There are good reasons to think there might be an infinite number of galaxies but that doesn't actually help. Clearly you don't understand the argument you are trying to make.
  
  
• Even if we conclude that the universe is very improbable, it is mathematically impossible that postulating a creator as an explanation would make things any less improbable; the conjunction fallacy, see #48188.
  
  
• A multiverse is a possible explanation (although it still makes things less probable for the same mathematical reasons) but at least we can get there by some reasonable interpretations of current hypotheses.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I replied to Torri,  You can't propose evolution to have been responsible for the fine tuning of the cosmological constant which enabled to formation of stars and galaxies - unless you invent the concept of the multiverse, an infinite number of galaxies.

What stupidity do you even think you’re trying to argue for here?

No-one had suggested “evolution to have been responsible for the fine tuning of the cosmological constant which enabled to formation of stars and galaxies” at all. What’s being explained to you is that life adapts to its environment, not the other way around.

And as you’ve just slipped off the hook again, do you now understand:

1. That you can’t assess the probability of an event without knowing too the number of opportunities for it to happen?

2. An argument that requires “god” for its premise cannot also be “undeniable evidence” for “god”?

You can keep running away all you like, but these questions won’t go away just because you avoid them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The logic you propose certainly does not describe the reality of my ability to consciously guide my own thoughts to reach intended, verifiable conclusions

That’s right, it doesn’t. Nor does it describe the reality that I watch the sun rise and set every day as it orbits the Earth.

Should we conclude from this that:

A. The subjective, illogical stories we tell ourselves to describe our realities are right nonetheless; or

B. The objectively verifiable logic and evidence that describe reality more robustly than our opinions about reality are more likely to be true?

Take your time…   

[torridon]

The question is what determines our choices?  What determines our thought patterns?  What is in control?

Is it reactions to past which are events beyond our control?
Or is it our conscious self?

If it is the former, we have no means to control or verify whatever emerges from a material brain.
Our conscious self is the only means by which we can guide our thoughts to reach intended, verifiable conclusions.

Each mind is a unique filter, or algorithm, processing information inputs to produce motor outputs and these outputs vary from person to person as no two minds are identical.  The conscious self is a projection of mind that serves amongst other things to act as focus of responsibility for choices made.  It is a feature of how consciousness has evolved in humans.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That’s right, it doesn’t. Nor does it describe the reality that I watch the sun rise and set every day as it orbits the Earth.

Should we conclude from this that:

A. The subjective, illogical stories we tell ourselves to describe our realities are wrong; or

But they offer the only rational explanation for our ability to guide our conscious thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions

B. The objectively verifiable logic and evidence that describe reality more robustly than our opinions about reality are more likely to be true?

This scenario fails to show how anyone can give credibility to whatever drops out from the unavoidable chemical reactions in a material brain.

[Alan Burns]

Each mind is a unique filter, or algorithm, processing information inputs to produce motor outputs and these outputs vary from person to person as no two minds are identical.  The conscious self is a projection of mind that serves amongst other things to act as focus of responsibility for choices made.  It is a feature of how consciousness has evolved in humans.

Which in your materialistic world boils down to endless strings of physically controlled reactions over which we can have no real conscious control.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But they offer the only rational explanation for our ability to guide our conscious thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions

No, they offer the rational explanation for why your subjective opinion about “our ability to guide our conscious thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions” is idiotic. That’s the point – when your subjective opinion and objective reason contradict each other, it’s your subjective opinion that’s wrong.

Try to understand why. 

But this scenario fails to show how anyone can give credibility to whatever drops out from the unavoidable chemical reactions in a material brain.

No it doesn’t but, even if it did, that would be just (yet another) of your logical fallacies – the argumentum ad consequentiam.

And as you’ve just slipped off the hook again, do you now understand:

1. That you can’t assess the probability of an event without knowing too the number of opportunities for it to happen?

2. An argument that requires “god” for its premise cannot also be “undeniable evidence” for “god”?

You can keep running away all you like, but these questions won’t go away just because you avoid them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Which in your materialistic world boils down to endless strings of physically controlled reactions over which we can have no real conscious control.

At one level, yes. So what?

[Stranger]

But they offer the only rational explanation for our ability to guide our conscious thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions

It's not a rational explanation. It doesn't even mean anything, it's just mindless gibberish.

This scenario fails to show how anyone can give credibility to whatever drops out from the unavoidable chemical reactions in a material brain.

Drivel. Where is your argument?

[Sebastian Toe]

But they offer the only rational explanation for our ability to guide our conscious thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions

How exactly do you verify your conclusions?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

At one level, yes. So what?

Your scenario shows that our perception of conscious control can't be true because our thoughts must be determined by reactions to past events.
Yet you claim to be able to have reached this conclusion by applying logic to what is perceived by our physical senses.
You can't have it both ways.
Your ability to reach validated conclusions must be dependent on some form of control.
If our perception of conscious control is just an illusion, then what is in control and how can you possibly claim any credibility with the results without the power to consciously asses what your apparent conscious control has produced?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your scenario shows that our perception of conscious control can't be true because our thoughts must be determined by reactions to past events.

Actually it shows that it can’t be true because such “control” would itself require thinking so even if you could demonstrate that brains can’t think for themselves it would answer nothing. 

Yet you claim to be able to have reached this conclusion by applying logic to what is perceived by our physical senses.p

Yes.

You can't have it both ways.

Why not?

Your ability to reach validated conclusions must be dependent on some form of control.

Why do you think that?

If our perception of conscious control is just an illusion,…

It is.

…then what is in control…

There doesn’t need to be something “in control”.

…and how can you possibly claim any credibility with the results without the power to consciously asses what your apparent conscious control has produced?

Easily – because at the lived experience level our conscious decision-making is responsible for its actions. At a deeper, explanatory level though “conscious control of our thoughts” is impossible idiocy. You’re also trying the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy here again by the way (not that you care).

And as you’ve just slipped off the hook again, do you now understand:

1. That you can’t assess the probability of an event without knowing too the number of opportunities for it to happen?

2. An argument that requires “god” for its premise cannot also be “undeniable evidence” for “god”?

You can keep running away all you like, but these questions won’t go away just because you avoid them.     

[Stranger]

Your scenario shows that our perception of [undefined gibberish] can't be true because our thoughts must be determined by reactions to past events.
Yet you claim to be able to have reached this conclusion by applying logic to what is perceived by our physical senses.
You can't have it both ways.

Incoherent, baseless assertion.

Your ability to reach validated conclusions must be dependent on some form of control.

It is. As has been pointed out multiple times, you are not free to arbitrarily redefine words to mean whatever you want them to. 'Control' is not the same as your god-magic nonsense.

If our perception of [undefined gibberish] is just an illusion, then what is in control and how can you possibly claim any credibility with the results without the power to consciously asses what your apparent [undefined gibberish] has produced?

Mindless repetition of a question you've asked and has been answered endless times before.

What are you afraid of?

Why do you keep running away from serious debate and the answers to the questions you ask? Why do you never address the answers instead of just endlessly repeating the same dimwitted questions? I've tried multiple times to give you serious answers and try to get you to respond (#48230, for example) yet you always ignore it or post some childish avoidance tactic.

You keep saying you're not afraid, but your posts tell a different story. You are posting exactly like somebody who is terrified of the truth.

[torridon]

Which in your materialistic world boils down to endless strings of physically controlled reactions over which we can have no real conscious control.

Of course we cannot have any control over the past. I can live with that, why cannot you ?  Likewise, that we live in a world of cause and effect is observed.  I can live with that, I don't feel the need to deny it.  It means that there are reasons underlying the choices I make, and I am happy with that.  The alternative would be inconceivable.

[Alan Burns]

You keep saying you're not afraid, but your posts tell a different story. You are posting exactly like somebody who is terrified of the truth.

On the contrary
I am simply witnessing to the truth.
The truth that human beings are in control of their own destiny.
Every post made on this forum reflects our God given freedom which you continue to try to deny.
It is certainly not me that is afraid of the truth.
The most common phrase quoted in the bible is "do not be afraid".

[torridon]

On the contrary
I am simply witnessing to the truth.
The truth that human beings are in control of their own destiny.
Every post made on this forum reflects our God given freedom which you continue to try to deny.
It is certainly not me that is afraid of the truth.
The most common phrase quoted in the bible is "do not be afraid".

You aren't witnessing to the truth, you are merely asserting your beliefs and denying findings from science along the way.  Other beliefs are available.

[Stranger]

On the contrary
I am simply witnessing to the truth.

ROTFLMAO! Are you even trying to be serious?

Recently you've been using the notion of "conscious control of our own thoughts". You (rightly) rejected the obvious meaning as absurd but now you utterly refuse to say what you do mean by it (by just ignoring the frequent requests or using childish and dishonest avoidance tactics). Why not, if you're not afraid?

So now we have you insisting that something you won't define, so is utterly meaningless, is the truth. How are we even supposed to assess that claim if you're too terrified to define what you mean?

Then it gets even more absurd, because you keep on claiming that people's posts are evidence for this totally undefined process. But it doesn't stop there! When asked how they are evidence and why they couldn't have been produced by deterministic minds, you refuse to answer that either. Why not, if you're not afraid?

More generally, it is you, not those who argue against you, who continually refuses to engage with arguments and address objections. You are forever ignoring the responses you get and repeating the same meaningless claims over and over again. Others are not afraid of engaging with your claims, so why do you run away from ours, rather than address them, if you're not afraid?

You are clearly inept at producing logical arguments, despite your previous claims to have 'sound logic'. You endlessly fall into even the most well known and widely understood fallacies (basic mistakes in logic). If you haven't been lying about your background, it would be easy for you to learn about logical arguments and the avoidance of fallacies in a fraction of the time you spend here pointlessly repeating the same mistakes. Why do you not want to learn to do this if you're not afraid?

The obvious conclusion from all this, is that you are afraid.

The truth that human beings are in control of their own destiny.
Every post made on this forum reflects our God given freedom which you continue to try to deny.

And here you go again. Something you won't define is the truth and what we say is evidence of what you won't define in some way that you won't define.

That looks exactly like an absurd and desperate assertion from somebody who is cornered and terrified of thinking about their own claims very carefully because they're afraid of what they might find if they do....

It is certainly not me that is afraid of the truth.

Then prove it: stop running away into empty, meaningless, undefined assertions, and endless fallacies; actually start engaging with the arguments!

[Alan Burns]

The obvious conclusion from all this, is that you are afraid.

I fear for your soul, Stranger, and the souls of all the other non believers on this forum.

So I will continue to use and witness to the God given freedom which I am using to compose this post.
The freedom which allows us to choose Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour..
The freedom which nature alone can never give.

[Stranger]

I fear for your soul, Stranger, and the souls of all the other non believers on this forum.

So I will continue to use and witness to the God given freedom which I am using to compose this post.
The freedom which allows us to choose Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour..
The freedom which nature alone can never give.

You've just run away from all the challenges again and retreated into meaningless claims and daft, baseless assertions of your blind faith. In short, yet more evidence of how afraid you are of the truth.

Why are you so afraid of thinking things through and attempting the 'sound logic' that you claimed, all those years ago, that you had? Are you even prepared to be honest about that yet? Was it a just a lie? A genuine misunderstanding of what 'sound logic' means?

You really should either retract it and admit you were wrong, or start backing it up. Why can't you at least be that honest?

All you are actually 'witnessing to' here is how afraid you are and how your blind faith has damaged your ability to reason. Because of your 'witnessing', I'm even more convinced of the foolishness of faith - it clearly cripples your ability to reason and even seems to make you less honest.