Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Certain amount of twaddle (to use your word) about the Incarnation - Ascension experience. Shall we try a summary: God is both immanent and transcendent. The Trinity of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit is broken at the Incarnation. God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are still omnipresent (not sure how you distinguish between them). How human you consider Jesus to have been rather depends on how much kenosis you allow him to have experienced (after all not many truly human people can walk on water and cure blindness at a touch). At the Ascension, he 'fills up' again - to translate the Greek word - and resumes his original status as part of the triune Godhead.

I'm not surprised that it took a few centuries to work out that that is what is supposed to have happened.

Thank you Dicky, this post has inspired me to specially contemplate and meditate on the intimacy of God being incarnated as a man and experiencing a life of a sentient creation and the kenosis. Perhaps part of that is a new thread?

[Stranger]

The medical team had done all they could.
When we arrived at the hospital he was on a morphine drip and oxygen to keep him as comfortable as possible.
We were told that his organs were failing and that "he would not regain consciousness - if he did it would be a miracle."
The medics left the room with his close family by his bedside.

Then a miracle happened - no emergency repairs or stent were needed.  Just a miraculous answer to prayer.

The problem being that this sort of thing happens. It may be rare but think how many people there are that it could happen to. If the people involved believe in praying to their chosen deity or they believe in some quack medicine or something else, then they will be busy praying or doing whatever else they think will work. Then, if it turns out to be one of the rare cases, they obviously put it down to their deity or whatever else they tried. That's why we get stories like this from all sorts of groups.

The fact remains that when you try to detect any objective effect of prayer statistically, we find it makes no difference.

And, of course, if you weren't so blinded with bias, you'd be asking why your God doesn't answer people's prayers in similar circumstances almost all of the time. How many people do yo think have died despite prayers compared to the number of stories like yours?

[Sebastian Toe]

The medical team had done all they could.
When we arrived at the hospital he was on a morphine drip and oxygen to keep him as comfortable as possible.
We were told that his organs were failing and that "he would not regain consciousness - if he did it would be a miracle."
The medics left the room with his close family by his bedside.

Then a miracle happened - no emergency repairs or stent were needed.  Just a miraculous answer to prayer.

It seems a shame that the medical staff wasted all their time and effort. All they seemingly needed to do was to leave him in a room with the prayer group.
Did anyone mention that to them?
"Step aside guys, we'll take it from here. No need for any of that medicine nonsense. Everyone gather round"
No?

[ProfessorDavey]

It seems a shame that the medical staff wasted all their time and effort. All they seemingly needed to do was to leave him in a room with the prayer group.
Did anyone mention that to them?
"Step aside guys, we'll take it from here. No need for any of that medicine nonsense. Everyone gather round"
No?

Indeed, and of course before the medical advances that allow aortic aneurysms to be treated successfully that's what would have happened. No available medical treatment, just prayer. So we can actually do a bit of an experiment to see whether it is medical treatment or prayer that works.

So a century ago or so, when all that could be done for someone with an aortic aneurysm was to hope and pray, survival was pretty well zero. Now when we have medical intervention, and in some cases people may still pray - 3 year survival rates following intervention are 94%.

Hmm what could have caused that 'miraculous' change in survival. Might it be:

a). That god suddenly started listening to prayers at exactly the same point as medical intervention was established.
b). That people forgot to pray for others who were ill with aortic aneurysms, only starting to do so at the same point as medical intervention was established.
c). That the 'miracle' is the development of highly successful medical interventions for aortic aneurysms and prayer does nothing.

Hmm.

[Alan Burns]

I know you mean well, Alan: but even so, that is a double fail.

There is still time, Gordon.
We will continue our prayers.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

We will continue our prayers.

I think that's a good idea. Not because it will make a blind bit of difference, but because it may distract you from teaching irrationality to people without the critical faculties to ignore you.   

[Alan Burns]

You need to get to grips with the reality of what is improbable.  For example the inevitable consequences of physically defined material reactions alone being able to make judgements, form verifiable conclusions, discern what is good and what is evil - and choose between the two.

I’ve falsified that stupidity many times before now without rebuttal so I don’t know why you’ve just repeated the same wrongheadedness once again.

You try to falsify it by inventing two levels of reality to explain how at one level you seem to have the ability to consciously guide your thought processes to reach consciously verified conclusions.  But as this conflicts with the notion that our conscious awareness is an emergent property defined by material reactions which have already been determined by past events, you have to conclude that all our perceived thoughts are a result of subconscious brain activity beyond our conscious control.

So I leave you to ponder how you managed to come up with this thoughtful explanation without having conscious control of the thought processes involved. 

But then you have to wonder what will be in control of this "pondering"

[Stranger]

You try to falsify it by inventing two levels of reality to explain how at one level you seem to have the ability to consciously guide your thought processes to reach consciously verified conclusions.

No. It doesn't even seem like we have conscious control of our own thought processes.

So I leave you to ponder how you managed to come up with this thoughtful explanation without having conscious control of the thought processes involved.

Conscious control of our own thought processes is contradictory gibberish. It's entirely unimaginable nonsense.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You try to falsify it by inventing two levels of reality to explain how at one level you seem to have the ability to consciously guide your thought processes to reach consciously verified conclusions.

Wrong again. I actually (ie, not just try to) falsify it by identifying why your occasional attempts at justifying arguments for your beliefs are wrong – a trivially simple thing to do.

But as this conflicts with the notion that our conscious awareness is an emergent property defined by material reactions which have already been determined by past events, you have to conclude that all our perceived thoughts are a result of subconscious brain activity beyond our conscious control.

Wrong again. All it “conflicts with” is your description of the subjective experience of apparent “control”. As rationally though that subjective experience cannot be what’s actually going on at the explanatory level it can be dismissed for explanatory purposes.

So I leave you to ponder how you managed to come up with this thoughtful explanation without having conscious control of the thought processes involved.

Why would I need to “ponder” something I’ve already found a plausible answer for and that you cannot or will not rebut with counter-arguments of your own?

But then you have to wonder what will be in control of this "pondering"

Only if you’re dimwitted enough just to assume that there needs to be something other than ourselves “in control”.

Look, I’ve told you several times: if you want to persuade rational thinkers here that your beliefs are sound then you need to find something other than blind faith claims and wrong arguments to do the job. Clearly your current strategy isn’t working for you, so why not try a least to find some logically robust arguments instead?   

[Alan Burns]

Look, I’ve told you several times: if you want to persuade rational thinkers here that your beliefs are sound then you need to find something other than blind faith claims and wrong arguments to do the job. Clearly your current strategy isn’t working for you, so why not try a least to find some logically robust arguments instead?

If you really want to persuade me why I am wrong, you need to come up with a feasible explanation for how "rational thinking" or "logically robust arguments" can emerge from physically determined material reactions which are beyond your conscious control.

in particular -
What guides the process and what verifies the validity of the result?
The answer "you" makes no sense if "you" are just a material entity entirely determined by the laws of physics with no will of your own.

[Stranger]

If you really want to persuade me why I am wrong, you need to come up with a feasible explanation for how "rational thinking" or "logically robust arguments" can emerge from physically determined material reactions which are beyond your conscious control.

in particular -
What guides the process and what verifies the validity of the result?
The answer "you" makes no sense if "you" are just a material entity entirely determined by the laws of physics with no will of your own.

So you're basically announcing to the world that you're so logically clueless that you think an argument from ignorance fallacy is perfectly fine, and, as if that wasn't enough, you think your own, evidence- and reasoning-free, meaningless, self-contradictory gibberish is better than a tentative explanation based on logic and reality.

Never has there been a better reason to think religion damages one's intellect. A Mensa member with a PhD dismissing evidence and reasoning for a baseless, nonsensical fantasy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If you really want to persuade me why I am wrong, you need to come up with a feasible explanation for how "rational thinking" or "logically robust arguments" can emerge from physically determined material reactions which are beyond your conscious control.

in particular -
What guides the process and what verifies the validity of the result?
The answer "you" makes no sense if "you" are just a material entity entirely determined by the laws of physics with no will of your own.

No I don’t, and your inability to grasp even simple logical concepts is letting you down again here. Whether or not you find the tentative findings of science about this “feasible” is neither here nor there. What actually matters is whether or not your various superstitious alternatives are themselves justified with sound reasoning. So far at least you’ve been unable to show that they are, and so your beliefs are epistemically equivalent to guessing.

As what that means is that your guesses about “god” are no more likely to be accurate than my guesses about leprechauns. 

It would help if you could at least indicate that you understand that a “don’t know” about consciousness would no more validate your claims about god/souls than a don’t know about the causes of epilepsy once vindicated the claim “therefore evil spirits”.   

Can you understand why that is the case at least?

[Alan Burns]

So you're basically announcing to the world that you're so logically clueless that you think an argument from ignorance fallacy is perfectly fine, and, as if that wasn't enough, you think your own, evidence- and reasoning-free, meaningless, self-contradictory gibberish is better than a tentative explanation based on logic and reality.

Never has there been a better reason to think religion damages one's intellect. A Mensa member with a PhD dismissing evidence and reasoning for a baseless, nonsensical fantasy.

The evidence you consistently choose to ignore is your own ability to think, to contemplate, to draw consciously verified conclusions and to cast your own judgement on posters such as me.  How can you possibly attribute such abilities to a material brain entirely governed by physically defined material reactions beyond your conscious control?

[Stranger]

The evidence you consistently choose to ignore is your own ability to think, to contemplate, to draw consciously verified conclusions and to cast your own judgement on posters such as me.  How can you possibly attribute such abilities to a material brain entirely governed by physically defined material reactions beyond your conscious control?

By not accepting logical fallacies as valid arguments and by accepting what the real evidence is telling us. You've now used an argument from ignorance, an argument from incredulity, and an argument by assertion in the space of two posts.

You can't just assert something into becoming evidence. All the actual evidence tells us that human brains have the abilities you list. There is zero evidence for anything else.

I'm still curious to know why you continue to stubbornly refuse to learn anything about rational arguments so you can avoid using obvious fallacies. It should be a quick and easy process for you (assuming you've been honest about your background). You could then make a better argument (or realise you couldn't) and we could all stop going round in circles.

What are you afraid of?

[torridon]

The evidence you consistently choose to ignore is your own ability to think, to contemplate, to draw consciously verified conclusions and to cast your own judgement on posters such as me.  How can you possibly attribute such abilities to a material brain entirely governed by physically defined material reactions beyond your conscious control?

Nobody ignores the fact that we can think; however some of us have understood the findings from the sciences of the mind, that our conscious experience is itself a product of non-conscious workings of mind.  You've still go to get your head round this insight.

[Alan Burns]

By not accepting logical fallacies as valid arguments and by accepting what the real evidence is telling us. You've now used an argument from ignorance, an argument from incredulity, and an argument by assertion in the space of two posts.

You can't just assert something into becoming evidence. All the actual evidence tells us that human brains have the abilities you list. There is zero evidence for anything else.

I'm still curious to know why you continue to stubbornly refuse to learn anything about rational arguments so you can avoid using obvious fallacies. It should be a quick and easy process for you (assuming you've been honest about your background). You could then make a better argument (or realise you couldn't) and we could all stop going round in circles.

What are you afraid of?

The real evidence lies in our ability to formulate rational arguments by consciously contemplating the reality in which we all exist.
It should be quite simple to realise that such ability lies beyond the capabilities of physically driven material reactions alone.  The laws of physics and chemistry have no mandate to formulate rational arguments and draw validated conclusions.  You need to widen your scope to look beyond the time related cause and effect scenario we observe in nature which reduces everything to be an inevitable reaction to past events over which we can have no conscious control.

I have no fear of the truth behind our existence.

[Stranger]

The real evidence lies in our ability to formulate rational arguments by consciously contemplating the reality in which we all exist.

Even if this is true, so what?

It should be quite simple to realise that such ability lies beyond the capabilities of physically driven material reactions alone.  The laws of physics and chemistry have no mandate to formulate rational arguments and draw validated conclusions.

Personal incredulity fallacy, yet again.

You need to widen your scope to look beyond the time related cause and effect scenario we observe in nature which reduces everything to be an inevitable reaction to past events over which we can have no conscious control.

Here we go again. Your mind is necessarily embedded in time. You cannot think anything in zero time, you cannot make a choice in zero time, you cannot formulate anything in zero time, you cannot validate anything in zero time. None of what you claim as evidence about minds can possibly happen without time.

And before you raise your usual nonsense, 'outside time' is logically equivalent to zero time because there is no extension along a time dimension.

Given that minds are embedded in time, they must either be deterministic systems or not. If not, they involve randomness.

Determinism and randomness (or effective randomness) are possible in the material universe, so you gain nothing at all by positing some non-material soul or whatever. It doesn't help the understanding of minds by one iota.

I have no fear of the truth behind our existence.

So why are you apparently terrified of learning to avoid silly logical mistakes (fallacies)?

[Alan Burns]

So why are you apparently terrified of learning to avoid silly logical mistakes (fallacies)?

It is my ability to apply logic which enables me to deduce that it would be a logical impossibility for me to consciously apply logic in a materialistic, time related cause and effect scenario which denies me conscious control of the thought processes involved.

The only feasible scenario to facilitate the conscious control needed to perform logical deductions and come to verified conclusions would be to invoke the thought control from within my conscious state of mind.  The scenario you try to use to refute my arguments would result in a conscious awareness entirely determined by inevitable reactions to past events which effectively denies you the essential ability to control the thought processes needed to apply the logic you constantly espouse.

[Stranger]

It is my ability to apply logic which enables me to deduce that it would be a logical impossibility for me to consciously apply logic in a materialistic, time related cause and effect scenario which denies me conscious control of the thought processes involved.

If you are using logic why are you keeping it secret? Why are your posts fallacy ridden and entirely logic-free?

The only feasible scenario to facilitate the conscious control needed to perform logical deductions and come to verified conclusions would be to invoke the thought control from within my conscious state of mind.

No logic here, just an argument by assertion fallacy, and a meaningless one at that. What the fuck does "invoke the thought control from within my conscious state of mind" even mean and why can't it be deterministic?

The scenario you try to use to refute my arguments would result in a conscious awareness entirely determined by inevitable reactions to past events which effectively denies you the essential ability to control the thought processes needed to apply the logic you constantly espouse.

No logic here either, just another argument by assertion fallacy. You haven't described any ability that is needed for thought and would not be possible in a deterministic system.

And you still haven't explained how you get over the self-contradiction at the heart of your notion of 'free will'.

Honestly Alan, if you think you are posting a logical argument here, you are seriously fooling yourself. Why don't you see your own fallacies? Do you think they somehow don't apply to you? Do you think these mistakes in reasoning are not really mistakes at all because you know better?

You do not become good at producing sound logical arguments just because you have applied logic in another discipline. It is a separate skill that you need to learn.

[Alan Burns]

What the fuck does "invoke the thought control from within my conscious state of mind" even mean and why can't it be deterministic?

It is what I am doing right now.
It is deterministic - I am the source which determines what I consciously choose to write.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Does it not occur to you that if you bothered to learn how basic logical arguments work you’d then be better placed to make some of your own, rather than endlessly churn the same logic-free assertions?

And no, as soon as you’re tempted to reply with “and how would I do that without my god-given gift of…” etc you’ll have collapsed again into irrationality. You need to start with logical arguments and then to see where it leads, not with your conclusion “god” and then just repeat it with no sound justifying arguments at all.

A few posts ago for example I explained to you why the absence of a “feasible” scientific explanation (in your opinion) for a phenomenon cannot be a justification for another supposed explanation with no supporting logic or evidence of its own. Would it kill you finally to try to address that actual argument rather than just repeat the same mistakes over and over again?     

[Stranger]

It is what I am doing right now.

Baseless, meaningless assertion.

It is deterministic...

For fuck's sake Alan, how many times do you need to be reminded what 'deterministic' means?

#39517
#32591
#32601

I am the source which determines what I consciously choose to write.

Mindless, meaningless foot-stamping.   

Where is your claimed logic?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Does it not occur to you that if you bothered to learn how basic logical arguments work you’d then be better placed to make some of your own, rather than endlessly churn the same logic-free assertions?

And no, as soon as you’re tempted to reply with “and how would I do that without my god-given gift of…” etc you’ll have collapsed again into irrationality. You need to start with logical arguments and then to see where it leads, not with your conclusion “god” and then just repeat it with no sound justifying arguments at all.

A few posts ago for example I explained to you why the absence of a “feasible” scientific explanation (in your opinion) for a phenomenon cannot be a justification for another supposed explanation with no supporting logic or evidence of its own. Would it kill you finally to try to address that actual argument rather than just repeat the same mistakes over and over again?   

I am not dealing with a mere absence of a scientific explanation.  I am using my conscious ability to apply logic to determine that there can be no scientific explanation for our ability to control and direct our own thought processes to reach consciously verified conclusions.  If there was a scientific explanation my ability to exert control would no longer exist, because all control would be delegated to physically controlled reactions over which I can have no conscious control.

[Enki]

It is what I am doing right now.
It is deterministic - I am the source which determines what I consciously choose to write.

For me, the "I" is basically the result of the physical workings of an individual brain. Hence the idea of deterministic is quite appropriate. That doesn't, of course, lead to any idea of non-materialistic control. So what do you mean by "I" and what evidence have you to back your ideas?

[Stranger]

I am not dealing with a mere absence of a scientific explanation.  I am using my conscious ability to apply logic...

No Alan, you are not. You have posted nothing that even resembles a logical argument.

...to determine that there can be no scientific explanation for our ability to control and direct our own thought processes to reach consciously verified conclusions.  If there was a scientific explanation my ability to exert control would no longer exist, because all control would be delegated to physically controlled reactions over which I can have no control.

Reasoning-free fantasy.