Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

You really do struggle to try to justify your materialistic scenario.

In essence there would be no knowledge of existence without the miraculous gift of self awareness which defies any materialistic definition or explanation.

Without our God given gift of free will, none of us would be able to write posts on a message board like this.
It is our miraculous ability to think about the reality we exist in which has enabled us to more fully understand how things work.

Pointless, mindless, reasoning-free foot-stamping.

Otherwise known as argument by assertion fallacy. A fallacy being a really obvious mistake in reasoning that you could easily learn to avoid if you spent a fraction of the time you've spent on here learning something about reasoning and critical thinking.

Why don't you do that? What have you got to lose? What are you afraid of?

[Alan Burns]

Pointless, mindless, reasoning-free foot-stamping.

Otherwise known as argument by assertion fallacy. A fallacy being a really obvious mistake in reasoning that you could easily learn to avoid if you spent a fraction of the time you've spent on here learning something about reasoning and critical thinking.

Why don't you do that? What have you got to lose? What are you afraid of?

I suggest you use your abilities of reasoning and critical thinking to honestly contemplate the impossibility of such abilities to somehow emerge from the unavoidable consequences of physically driven material reactions which are beyond your conscious control.

[Stranger]

I suggest you use your abilities of reasoning and critical thinking to honestly contemplate the impossibility of such abilities to somehow emerge from the unavoidable consequences of physically driven material reactions which are beyond your conscious control.

And there you go again with the silly, irrational assertions. You have not posted any logic that leads your conclusion of impossibility. You haven't even posted anything that looks like it might possibly be a logical argument that gets you there.

Just endless assertion and personal incredulity.

I'll ask again: why won't you learn to produce logical arguments? What are you so afraid of?

[Enki]

"I" is the source of all you choose to do, say or think.
Without "I" your existence would be a meaningless blob of reconstituted star debris with no will or purpose of your own.

Well, first of all, let me remind you of what I originally said:

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?

Your response is vague almost to the point of meaninglessness. What on earth does the  'source of all you choose to do, say or think' actually mean. It could just as easily fit the source being the brain , as I have suggested, or anything else you care to name. I wanted clarity on your part, which you have failed to give and I asked for evidence which you have not even attempted to give.

The second part of what you say is simply window dressing and, again, could equally apply to the individual brain. Yet again no attempt is made to clarify your position or to give supporting evidence.

You seem to think in terms of platitudes and undigested ideas and somehow you think that this should be enough to convince people to follow your meanderings. I really do not understand why you should think to be so.

[Sebastian Toe]

I suggest you use your abilities of reasoning and critical thinking to honestly contemplate the impossibility of such abilities to somehow emerge from the unavoidable consequences of physically driven material reactions which are beyond your conscious control.

I suggest you use your abilities of reasoning and critical thinking to honestly contemplate the impossibility of a "soul", which requires magic to exist and even if it did exist, magic to operate!

[Alan Burns]

And there you go again with the silly, irrational assertions. You have not posted any logic that leads your conclusion of impossibility. You haven't even posted anything that looks like it might possibly be a logical argument that gets you there.

Here is the question you keep avoiding -

How you can you possibly get to a "logical argument" without the freedom to consciously direct the thought processes involved in formulating and verifying a logical argument?  The freedom your "logical argument" appears to deny.

[Stranger]

Here is the question you keep avoiding -

How you can you possibly get to a "logical argument" without the freedom to consciously direct the thought processes involved in formulating and verifying a logical argument?  The freedom your "logical argument" appears to deny.

Are you even being serious now? You seem to have descended into self-parody.

• The phrase "...the freedom to consciously direct the thought processes..." is vague hand-waving at best.
• You appear to be just assuming a controlling role for consciousness, without the slightest hint of evidence or reasoning.
• You then assumed that it cannot happen in a deterministic system (real meaning), again without any hint of supporting reasoning.
• Even if you'd asked a coherent question that couldn't be answered from present knowledge, that would be an argument from ignorance fallacy.
• Finally, the 'alternative' you've proposed is logically impossible, so can be dismissed from the get-go.

I'll ask again: why won't you learn to produce logical arguments? What are you so afraid of?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Here is the question you keep avoiding -

How you can you possibly get to a "logical argument" without the freedom to consciously direct the thought processes involved in formulating and verifying a logical argument?  The freedom your "logical argument" appears to deny.

As you just ignored it last time, here’s the question again: why if you want people to take your claims seriously don’t you learn even the basics of logical argument so you can avoid mistakes in reasoning like this one and maybe finally produce an argument for your beliefs that isn’t wrong?

[ekim]

You might understand Alan's argument for his beliefs better if you attended a Christian Association.  You could try this one: - http://tinyurl.com/mwzyhw73

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

You might understand Alan's argument for his beliefs better if you attended a Christian Association.  You could try this one: - http://tinyurl.com/mwzyhw73

Thanks, but at this stage I have no interest in his AB's beliefs. Rather I'm interested in whether he has logically sound arguments for thinking they're true. Not only have there been none yet, but worse still he shows no sign of caring how logically sound arguments should be structured at all. 

Coda: after posing the above I opened the link. Very droll 

[Nearly Sane]

You might understand Alan's argument for his beliefs better if you attended a Christian Association.  You could try this one: - http://tinyurl.com/mwzyhw73

[Alan Burns]

I'll ask again: why won't you learn to produce logical arguments? What are you so afraid of?

The logic is quite simple:

We have no control over the laws of physics and chemistry.
The behaviour of any material entity will be entirely determined by the laws of physics and chemistry (over which we have no control).
Therefore from a materialistic perspective we have no control over what we do, think or say.

So I ask again - how can a verifiable logical conclusion be reached without any control of the processes involved?

[Stranger]

The logic is quite simple:

Logic appears to be something that is completely beyond you.

We have no control over the laws of physics and chemistry.
The behaviour of any material entity will be entirely determined by the laws of physics and chemistry (over which we have no control).
Therefore from a materialistic perspective we have no control over what we do, think or say.

Begging the question yet again. You have assumed that there is something called 'we' that is separate from cause and effect. There is no justification for that. We are the result of cause and effect (determinism, real meaning) and are also in control because we can do as we like. Surely this isn't beyond your ability to understand?

Begging the question is another fallacy that you could avoid if you could be arsed to learn anything about logical arguments.

Why won't you? What are you afraid of?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The logic is quite simple:

Good. Finally tell us what it is then.

We have no control over the laws of physics and chemistry.

Depends what you mean by “control”, but ok…

The behaviour of any material entity will be entirely determined by the laws of physics and chemistry (over which we have no control).

See above.

Therefore from a materialistic perspective we have no control over what we do, think or say.

Wrong. “We” do “control” what we “do think and say” quite routinely. Your mistake here is just to assume that a separate “we” is necessary to do that, rather that it being the process of a single, integrated whole. That’s where your attempt at a logically sound argument falls apart.   

So I ask again - how can a verifiable logical conclusion be reached without any control of the processes involved?

In principle at least, easily – provided you don’t make your entirely justification-free a priori assumptions about what that process consists of. Can you see now why learning the basics about what logically sound arguments actually entail might have helped you avoid yet more embarrassment here? 

[Alan Burns]

Logic appears to be something that is completely beyond you.

Begging the question yet again. You have assumed that there is something called 'we' that is separate from cause and effect. There is no justification for that. We are the result of cause and effect (determinism, real meaning) and are also in control because we can do as we like. Surely this isn't beyond your ability to understand?

Whatever you presume to be "we" is irrelevant.
Are you admitting that that laws of physics and chemistry control your thoughts, words and actions?

[Alan Burns]

Wrong. “We” do “control” what we “do think and say” quite routinely. Your mistake here is just to assume that a separate “we” is necessary to do that, rather that it being the process of a single, integrated whole. That’s where your attempt at a logically sound argument falls apart.   

But in a materialistic scenario, the "we" is irrelevant.
Is it the laws of physics and chemistry in control - or could there be something else?

[SteveH]

In essence there would be no knowledge of existence without the miraculous gift of self awareness which defies any materialistic definition or explanation.

This is pure gapism - using God to explain what science as yet can't. It is bad theology, as well as bad science, as it continually reduces the part of nature that God is responsible for. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer pointed out, we should think of God as the creator and sustainer of everything - the stuff we can explain scientifically as well as the stuff we can't yet.

[torridon]

But is a materialistic scenario, the "we" is irrelevant.
Is it the laws of physics and chemistry in control - or could there be something else?

You mean, like some sort of invisible, immaterial, inexplicable, undiscovered, undefined magical being inhabiting us which, although it cannot interact with physics and chemistry, has no problem controlling them ?

No.  Go back to school and start over.

[Stranger]

Whatever you presume to be "we" is irrelevant.
Are you admitting that that laws of physics and chemistry control your thoughts, words and actions?

You are using the word 'control' in a bizarre way here. The brain is an evolved control system, so it is far more correct to say that we are in control ourselves. It also makes more sense because it's true that we can do as we like.

However, even if we accept your weird use of words, this is just another fallacy (silly, avoidable mistake in logic) called an appeal to consequences. Reality is under no obligation to be as you'd like it to be.

And you're also ignoring the fact that your proposed alternative is impossible. For reasons I've explained endless times, even a non-material mind would have to operate over time and would be just as 'controlled' by the past as a purely material brain. The logic is inescapable, regardless.

Appeal to consequences is yet another fallacy that you could avoid if you could be arsed to learn anything about logical arguments. Why won't you? What are you afraid of?

[Alan Burns]

This is pure gapism - using God to explain what science as yet can't. It is bad theology, as well as bad science, as it continually reduces the part of nature that God is responsible for. As Dietrich Bonhoeffer pointed out, we should think of God as the creator and sustainer of everything - the stuff we can explain scientifically as well as the stuff we can't yet.

God is responsible for all nature - He created it.

[ekim]

God is responsible for all nature - He created it.

How do you know that is true?
... because it says so in the Bible
How do you know the Bible is true?
.... because God inspired  it.
How do you there is a God?
.... because it says so in the Bible.

[Alan Burns]

You are using the word 'control' in a bizarre way here. The brain is an evolved control system, so it is far more correct to say that we are in control ourselves. It also makes more sense because it's true that we can do as we like.

All I am pointing out is that in a material entity there can be nothing in control other than the uncontrollable consequences of physically defined reactions.  You can label it as an evolved control system, but ultimately any material entity will be entirely determined by the uncontrollable laws of nature with no will of its own - just inevitable reactions. 

I can do what I like because I am in control.

[Nearly Sane]

All I am pointing out is that in a material entity there can be nothing in control other than the uncontrollable consequences of physically defined reactions.  You can label it as an evolved control system, but ultimately any material entity will be entirely determined by the uncontrollable laws of nature with no will of its own - just inevitable reactions. 

I can do what I like because I am in control.

Do you control what you like?

[Maeght]

God is responsible for all nature - He created it.

You claim.

[Stranger]

All I am pointing out is that in a material entity there can be nothing in control other than the uncontrollable consequences of physically defined reactions.

This is just another thought-free, meaningless mantra. The situation is that you have a mind that was shaped by the past and can do as it wants. It is also still an appeal to consequences fallacy (easily avoidable mistake in logic).

You also continue to ignore the fact that a non-material mind would be subject to exactly the same logic: there can be nothing in control other than the uncontrollable consequences of physically and non-physically defined reactions. The self-contradictory version of 'control' you want to claim is simply impossible, physically or otherwise.

Appeal to consequences is yet another fallacy that you could avoid if you could be arsed to learn anything about logical arguments. Why won't you? What are you afraid of?