Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If a miracle is an act of God then all history lacks is the ability to establish the "Of God" component of act of God. The event or act, having happened in the physical world stands or falls investigatively. That's what you guys aren't getting.

"all" ??!!

If a rainbow is an act of leprechauns then all physics lacks is the ability to establish the "Of leprechauns" component of act of leprechauns. The event or act, having happened in the physical world stands or falls investigatively. That's what you aren't getting.

You good with that?

Of course mythological or alternative answers have to be investigated....but not automatically taken as some kind of default history.

The "default of history" is that non-naturalistic claims cannot be investigated naturalistically. Try again. 

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad,

"all" ??!!

If a rainbow is an act of leprechauns then all physics lacks is the ability to establish the "Of leprechauns" component of act of leprechauns. The event or act, having happened in the physical world stands or falls investigatively. That's what you aren't getting.

You good with that?

The "default of history" is that non-naturalistic claims cannot be investigated naturalistically. Try again.

I suppose then the question is what is the 'non naturalistic' part of any claim. What Vlad is suggesting, I think, is that historians could investigate whether Jesus was killed, and was dead, and came alive again, and that could have been caused by a 'naturalist' cause such as sufficiently advanced aliens. If they could find out enough to establish that as probabalistically true, then it could be 'history' but the claim.of done by super/nonnatural god power would still be ignored.

If it was approached that way then any claims to events that in theory could happen would in the case of the Bible l, then be dismissed as not even hearsay evidence, and so unlikely, as to be some form of lie.


ETA IF we were to take this approach to the Miracle of the Sun which is much clearer evidence in terms of identiable known sources and due witnesses, it still gets dismissed as some form of delusion.


Indeed there are many claims that are effectively looked at like this such as alien addiction for which in terms of how we might grade evidence we have vastly more evidence than for the resurrection, and has no non naturalistic claims of causes attached.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I suppose then the question is what is the 'non naturalistic' part of any claim.

Just a side bar, there’s an a priori problem here I think with defining what “non-naturalistic” would mean even conceptually. I suppose “not occurring consistent with the laws and forces of the universe” would be one possible response, but if you wanted to install a causal god too then presumably it too would have to act too outwith any “naturalistic” constraints of its own – but then being bound by, say, requiring maximum good (omnibenevolence) would itself be a type of “natural” constraint on that god because he couldn’t just decide one day not to be omnibenevolent. That’s why the whole notion collapses into incoherence as soon as you try to examine it even on its own terms. Anyway…     

What Vlad is suggesting, I think, is that historians could investigate whether Jesus was killed, and was dead, and came alive again,…

Just as a practical matter it’s hard to see how they could do that. Distinguishing actual death from, say, a coma would be impossible for historians both because of the insufficiency of the surviving data and because the contemporaneous witnesses wouldn’t have had access to that data in the first place.   

…and that could have been caused by a 'naturalist' cause such as sufficiently advanced aliens. If they could find out enough to establish that as probabalistically true, then it could be 'history' but the claim.of done by super/nonnatural god power would still be ignored.

There’s a category problem here though – any possible naturalistic cause could to some extent at least be calculated, but I have no idea how you’d go about calculating the probability of a non-naturalistic cause for comparison purpose (probability itself being a naturalistic concept).   

If it was approached that way then any claims to events that in theory could happen would in the case of the Bible l, then be dismissed as not even hearsay evidence, and so unlikely, as to be some form of lie.

Yes – it’s “not even wrong” territory because there’s nothing to falsify using any known method.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Just a side bar, there’s an a priori problem here I think with defining what “non-naturalistic” would mean even conceptually. I suppose “not occurring consistent with the laws and forces of the universe” would be one possible response, but if you wanted to install a causal god too then presumably it too would have to act too outwith any “naturalistic” constraints of its own – but then being bound by, say, requiring maximum good (omnibenevolence) would itself be a type of “natural” constraint on that god because he couldn’t just decide one day not to be omnibenevolent. That’s why the whole notion collapses into incoherence as soon as you try to examine it even on its own terms. Anyway…     

Just as a practical matter it’s hard to see how they could do that. Distinguishing actual death from, say, a coma would be impossible for historians both because of the insufficiency of the surviving data and because the contemporaneous witnesses wouldn’t have had access to that data in the first place.   

There’s a category problem here though – any possible naturalistic cause could to some extent at least be calculated, but I have no idea how you’d go about calculating the probability of a non-naturalistic cause for comparison purpose (probability itself being a naturalistic concept).   

Yes – it’s “not even wrong” territory because there’s nothing to falsify using any known method.

Agree with most of this but there's no question of judging the probability of a non natural cause, and for the purposes of Vlad's idea, I think it has to be excluded from any form of investigation, as we don't have a method to do so.


Essentially the approach is similar to the tests on prayer 'working'. You can in theory test to see whether a naturalist event, such as recovery from a disease happens, but you can't show any cause that is non naturalist if it does happen. That tests seem to indicate that the naturalist event doesn't happen falsified the claim of the event happening bit says nothing about non naturalist causes of anything.

[ProfessorDavey]

If a miracle is an act of God then all history lacks is the ability to establish the "Of God" component of act of God. The event or act, having happened in the physical world stands or falls investigatively. That's what you guys aren't getting.

Almost as if faith claims attributed to god are considered under a completely distinct academic discipline to historical claims - specifically within the academic discipline of theology rather than history.

History is unable to comment on such claims which is why they are shunted off into a different discipline and a different university department for study. And of course theology is unable to demonstrate the veracity of such faith claims either.

[Alan Burns]

Enki,
Thanks for your multiple responses to my recent posts.
For now I would like to comment on one of those responses:

My thoughts of course can be influenced by many things, but ultimately I (i.e. my brain) controls my own thoughts.

What is in question here is the role of conscious awareness.
The materialist view is that conscious awareness somehow emerges from material reactions in your brain - in which case you can only be aware of what has already been predetermined by those reactions.  This would apparently rule out the concept of having conscious control of your own thought processes - because you cannot exert control over what has already been determined.  One wonders how any form of rational thinking can take place in such a scenario.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Agree with most of this but there's no question of judging the probability of a non natural cause, and for the purposes of Vlad's idea, I think it has to be excluded from any form of investigation, as we don't have a method to do so.

Yes, that was my point. No matter how improbable you might think, say, aliens effecting a resurrection might be it is in principle at least calculable, whereas the (im)probability of Vlad’s god isn’t. How then could anyone conclude that “God” is more probable than any naturalistic possibility?     

Essentially the approach is similar to the tests on prayer 'working'. You can in theory test to see whether a naturalist event, such as recovery from a disease happens, but you can't show any cause that is non naturalist if it does happen. That tests seem to indicate that the naturalist event doesn't happen falsified the claim of the event happening bit says nothing about non naturalist causes of anything.

Quite so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What is in question here is the role of conscious awareness.
The materialist view is that conscious awareness somehow emerges from material reactions in your brain - in which case you can only be aware of what has already been predetermined by those reactions.

If by “you” you mean something like the consciously aware component of “you” then pretty much, yes.

This would apparently rule out the concept of having conscious control of your own thought processes - because you cannot exert control over what has already been determined.

No, that wouldn’t be the reason for ruling it out. What rules it out is logic – essentially that you cannot have a “something” that has “conscious control of your own thought processes” without that something also doing some thinking of its own, in which case you simply relocate the same questions about consciousness to that something. And no, “but it’s magic innit” still doesn’t get you off that hook.   

One wonders how any form of rational thinking can take place in such a scenario.

Why? Rational thinking could occur quite readily in that scenario because it’s part of a feedback loop with the observable world with which we interact.   

[Gordon]

Enki,
Thanks for your multiple responses to my recent posts.
For now I would like to comment on one of those responses:What is in question here is the role of conscious awareness.
The materialist view is that conscious awareness somehow emerges from material reactions in your brain - in which case you can only be aware of what has already been predetermined by those reactions.  This would apparently rule out the concept of having conscious control of your own thought processes - because you cannot exert control over what has already been determined.  One wonders how any form of rational thinking can take place in such a scenario.

Not this illogical nonsense again: give it a rest, Alan

[Alan Burns]

Why? Rational thinking could occur quite readily in that scenario because it’s part of a feedback loop with the observable world with which we interact.

Well at least I have got you to agree that we do interact rather than just react with what we perceive.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Well at least I have got you to agree that we do interact rather than just react with what we perceive.   

Your continued evasiveness is noted. Can I take it that you still have no interest at all in understanding why the list of reasons you posted as justifications for your beliefs were all wrong? Oh well.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Your continued evasiveness is noted. Can I take it that you still have no interest at all in understanding why the list of reasons you posted as justifications for your beliefs were all wrong? Oh well.

So in your materialistic scenario where everything which enters your conscious awareness has already been determined -
What precisely is it that determines what is right or wrong, and how can this judgement be verified?

[Gordon]

So in your materialistic scenario where everything which enters your conscious awareness has already been determined -
What precisely is it that determines what is right or wrong, and how can this judgement be verified?

It's all just biology, Alan.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So in your materialistic scenario where everything which enters your conscious awareness has already been determined -
What precisely is it that determines what is right or wrong, and how can this judgement be verified?

What “precisely” does that I don’t know. What I do know though is that your question assumes premises that are false. Determining right from wrong on moral questions is epistemologically no different from finding right from wrong about any other aesthetic choices – about music or art as examples. There is therefore no “verification” in the top down sense of a reference to universal benchmarks about such matters. Rather we work our toward workable positions about these matters “bottom up”, which evolve and develop of time – for example in a society’s treatment of gay rights.

Oh, and in any case you’re just trying another shifting of the burden of proof here. Even if my answer was that I don’t have the first idea about that that would provide not one jot of a hint of an iota of support for your notion “soul”, about which you have significantly less information than I have about consciousness – ie, none whatsoever…

…which brings us back to the bankruptcy of your justifying arguments for your beliefs. They’re wrong. All of them. I can tell you again why they’re all wrong if you’d like me to, but yet again I see you’ve just ignored this problem.   

What does your behaviour here say about you do you think?         

[torridon]

So in your materialistic scenario where everything which enters your conscious awareness has already been determined -
What precisely is it that determines what is right or wrong, and how can this judgement be verified?

There is no objective, universal guide as to what is right and what is wrong.  All we do is form our own opinions based on what feels right to us based upon our own experience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

What “precisely” does that I don’t know. What I do know though is that your question assumes premises that are false. Determining right from wrong on moral questions is epistemologically no different from finding right from wrong about any other aesthetic choices – about music or art as examples. There is therefore no “verification” in the top down sense of a reference to universal benchmarks about such matters. Rather we work our toward workable positions about these matters “bottom up”, which evolve and develop of time – for example in a society’s treatment of gay rights.

Oh, and in any case you’re just trying another shifting of the burden of proof here. Even if my answer was that I don’t have the first idea about that that would provide not one jot of a hint of an iota of support for your notion “soul”, about which you have significantly less information than I have about consciousness – ie, none whatsoever…

…which brings us back to the bankruptcy of your justifying arguments for your beliefs. They’re wrong. All of them. I can tell you again why they’re all wrong if you’d like me to, but yet again I see you’ve just ignored this problem.   

What does your behaviour here say about you do you think?       

Or, morality is more akin to mathematics where maths remains unaffected by physical conditions. As one and one is still 2 at the event horizon of a black hole, so genocide is still wrong at the same location?

One may not like Bovril as a hot drink...but love it cold as a spread.

[Nearly Sane]

Or, morality is more akin to mathematics where maths remains unaffected by physical conditions. As one and one is still 2 at the event horizon of a black hole, so genocide is still wrong at the same location?

One may not like Bovril as a hot drink...but love it cold as a spread.

So you can do proofs in morals like maths? Could you demonstrate?

[ProfessorDavey]

Or, morality is more akin to mathematics where maths remains unaffected by physical conditions. As one and one is still 2 at the event horizon of a black hole, so genocide is still wrong at the same location?

Total non-sense. Morality is entirely context dependent and a product of higher level consciousness in certain species, most important to those species that need to retain cohesion in a societal context.

You mention genocide - well this is a human-defined term and one that is often used in a selected manner. But the very notion of genocide has absolutely no meaning outside of those human societal structures. So did genocide exist in the early universe billions of years before life of any kind could have emerged and certainly human life. Nope - it means absolutely nothing within that context. So morality is about as far removed as you can get from mathematics, which remains relevant regardless of whether there are humans to define and use it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Or, morality is more akin to mathematics where maths remains unaffected by physical conditions. As one and one is still 2 at the event horizon of a black hole, so genocide is still wrong at the same location?

One may not like Bovril as a hot drink...but love it cold as a spread.

No: morality is subjective; maths is objective. That’s why someone committing genocide might believe they’re behaving morally well but they can’t also have 2+2=5.

[Sebastian Toe]

I mean ... wtf ... just non-sense made up stuff.

Maybe they're having dreams about Jesus the prophet, the one that Mohamed told them about.
Not Jesus the god!

Sorry, Alan!

[Alan Burns]

Lennox vs Dawkins on the question of Blind Faith

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13GvfTexSoc

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Lennox vs Dawkins on the question of Blind Faith

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13GvfTexSoc

And?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you can do proofs in morals like maths? Could you demonstrate?

Not exactly however we know actions and attitudes result in consequences just as we know that 1 plus one results in 2. I can't demonstrate an object called a "moral compass" either but that doesn't stop most of us feeling that someone else's is faulty.

Am I saying that moral realism reduces to mathematical realism? No.

Hillside on the other hand seems to be saying though that taste and morality are nothing more than aesthetic/s.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No: morality is subjective; maths is objective. That’s why someone committing genocide might believe they’re behaving morally well but they can’t also have 2+2=5.

Anybody?

[Nearly Sane]

Not exactly however we know actions and attitudes result in consequences just as we know that 1 plus one results in 2. I can't demonstrate an object called a "moral compass" either but that doesn't stop most of us feeling that someone else's is faulty.

Am I saying that moral realism reduces to mathematical realism? No.

Hillside on the other hand seems to be saying though that taste and morality are nothing more than aesthetic/s.

So in this case when you say 'not exactly' you mean not at all.