Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

part 2 just out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcpMUcegeq4

I’ll have a look. In the meantime though, do you intend to share your argument to justify your statement that “But my contention is the TOTAL impossibility for rational , verified thought processes to just drop out from physically driven brain activity without the need for conscious control of the thought processes involved”?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I’ll have a look. In the meantime though, do you intend to share your argument to justify your statement that “But my contention is the TOTAL impossibility for rational , verified thought processes to just drop out from physically driven brain activity without the need for conscious control of the thought processes involved”?

This is one of the points made by Lennox in the video
(He even backs up the logic with a quote from Dawkins' "The God Delusion")
 

[Nearly Sane]

This is one of the points made by Lennox in the video
(He even backs up the logic with a quote from Dawkins' "The God Delusion")
 

And yet it's an infinite regress.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This is one of the points made by Lennox in the video
(He even backs up the logic with a quote from Dawkins' "The God Delusion")
 

So what's your and his argument then?

[Spud]

Firstly not sure why you are mixing up the gospels later attributed to Mark and John.

But let's look at the non-sense of your claim.

The gospel later attributed to John is considered to have originally been written around 100CE, so some 70 years after the purported events. But, of course we have no way of knowing whether this section was in the original - indeed the earliest actual text with this claim we have is from at least 100 years later still. So even if this were in the original the author and the readers would need to find people who would need to be at least 80 to have been present and likely to have been able to remember.

But there is another major problem - the text is written in Greek and therefore the author and the early readers would be Greek speakers, those likely present wouldn't speak Greek so there would be a major language issue.

Finally - it is considered likely the text was written in Ephesus - more than 1000 mile journey distance from Palestine.

So effectively in order to verify the claim (even assuming the text is in the original, which we don't know) the author or readers would need to travel over 1000 miles, try to find people who may be 80 or older who don't speak their language. Hmm - not really plausible is it Spud.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The healing reported in John 9 illustrates (even if it was made up) that it would be possible for a miracle to be verified. The Pharisees found the man's parents, who confirmed that he was their son and that he had been born blind, John 9:18. I wasn't saying John 9 could be verified by the reader of the gospel of John. After all, John doesn't give his name.

[Gordon]

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The healing reported in John 9 illustrates (even if it was made up) that it would be possible for a miracle to be verified.

Don't be silly - an anecdotal report is not sufficient verification for a miracle (especially if it was made up). I find it hard to believe that you would think that!
 

The Pharisees found the man's parents, who confirmed that he was their son and that he had been born blind, John 9:18. I wasn't saying John 9 could be verified by the reader of the gospel of John. After all, John doesn't give his name.

It's just an anecdote, Spud: not to be taken too seriously.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

So what's your and his argument then?

Logic

[Alan Burns]

And yet it's an infinite regress.

The infinite regress only exists in the materialistic, time related "cause and effect" scenario.
There is no infinite regress in the reality of the power of our human soul.

[Nearly Sane]

The infinite regress only exists in the materialistic, time related "cause and effect" scenario.
There is no infinite regress in the reality of the power of our human soul.

Evidence?

[Nearly Sane]

Logic

  You do know saying 'logic' isn't an argument?

[Spud]

Don't be silly - an anecdotal report is not sufficient verification for a miracle (especially if it was made up). I find it hard to believe that you would think that!
 
It's just an anecdote, Spud: not to be taken too seriously.

Hi Gordon,
I wasn't suggesting that an anecdotal report is enough to prove for us whether a story is true, I meant that people in the story (in John 9) could verify it. Likewise, a reader of the first copy of Mark 10 could check for himself if Bartimaeus had been healed, which would give him enough reason to believe the rest of Mark's account.
If two or more people did this independently, then that would be the basis on which subsequent generations could believe the account. Like you say, it doesn't prove it for us, as it assumes no mistakes or lies, but since you asked how, if it was true, we could know it, I'm suggesting this as the basis on which we can be confident  of it. Because at the end of the day, I think, whether we believe in God and miracles or not is a faith position, and for me belief is more fruitful than unbelief.

[Gordon]

Hi Gordon,
I wasn't suggesting that an anecdotal report is enough to prove for us whether a story is true, I meant that people in the story (in John 9) could verify it. Likewise, a reader of the first copy of Mark 10 could check for himself if Bartimaeus had been healed, which would give him enough reason to believe the rest of Mark's account.

Just no, Spud - even if one trivial detail in an account was true that is not a basis to conclude that all of the other details in an account are also true, and this is especially the case where the account claims a miracle.

If two or more people did this independently, then that would be the basis on which subsequent generations could believe the account. Like you say, it doesn't prove it for us, as it assumes no mistakes or lies, but since you asked how, if it was true, we could know it, I'm suggesting this as the basis on which we can be confident  of it.

Just no, again: to think as you appear to think displays extreme gullibility rather than 'confidence'.

Because at the end of the day, I think, whether we believe in God and miracles or not is a faith position, and for me belief is more fruitful than unbelief.

Of course it's faith position, Spud, since you cannot exclude the risks or mistakes or lies and since it seems that you accept miracle claims on the basis of anecdotal trivia: I can't see anything 'fruitful' about that. What exactly do you mean by 'unbelief'?

[Alan Burns]

  You do know saying 'logic' isn't an argument?

It is when the logic has been spelled out numerous times in previous posts.

[Nearly Sane]

It is when the logic has been spelled out numerous times in previous posts.

Which might be true if it had. But you just assert things, have the obvious fallacies in your thinking pointed out, and then ignore them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just no, Spud - even if one trivial detail in an account was true that is not a basis to conclude that all of the other details in an account are also true, and this is especially the case where the account claims a miracle.

Just no, again: to think as you appear to think displays extreme gullibility rather than 'confidence'.

Of course it's faith position, Spud, since you cannot exclude the risks or mistakes or lies and since it seems that you accept miracle claims on the basis of anecdotal trivia: I can't see anything 'fruitful' about that. What exactly do you mean by 'unbelief'?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence fallacy?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is when the logic has been spelled out numerous times in previous posts.

To my knowledge, no it hasn't. What you've actually done is to assert consciousness being a materialistic phenomenon as "totally impossible" and, when asked to justify that claim, you've only attempted to shift the burden of proof by demanding that other people tell you "precisely" how materialistic consciousness occurs.

I'll give you a clue: when your justifying "argument" for supernatural consciousness has a question mark at the end of it, it's not an argument.

So, and once again with feeling, what is this supposed logic that you claim to have?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence fallacy?

It's not a fallacy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It's not a fallacy.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-extraordinary-evidence-fallacy

[Gordon]

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-extraordinary-evidence-fallacy

Thanks for this Vlad - good to start the week with a laugh. This article is one long fallacy in itself, and from a guy who thinks he gets to make up his own fallacies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks for this Vlad - good to start the week with a laugh. This article is one long fallacy in itself, and from a guy who thinks he gets to make up his own fallacies.

https://iai.tv/articles/carl-sagan-was-wrong-ordinary-evidence-is-enough-auid-2348

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-extraordinary-evidence-fallacy

Ooh, so many mistakes in so few words that it's hard to know where to start. It's very simple: if I told you I went to the shops today and bought a pair of shoes you'd probably accept that statement at face value. If I also told you that on the way home I was kidnapped by aliens though, you'd likely want more evidence before accepting that claim too. The problem for Bible literalists is that historians do that too.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

https://iai.tv/articles/carl-sagan-was-wrong-ordinary-evidence-is-enough-auid-2348

Did you actually read the article? Here for example:

"On the other hand, if by “extraordinary” we mean improbable, then Sagan’s dictum is certainly correct. We can use a bit of mathematics called Bayes’ Theorem to show that if a hypothesis is highly improbable to begin with then it requires extraordinary evidence to make it probable in the light of that new evidence."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Did you actually read the article? Here for example:

"On the other hand, if by “extraordinary” we mean improbable, then Sagan’s dictum is certainly correct. We can use a bit of mathematics called Bayes’ Theorem to show that if a hypothesis is highly improbable to begin with then it requires extraordinary evidence to make it probable in the light of that new evidence."

Once again Forum members need to decide between reading  the whole article themselves or devolving their confirmation of their own bias to you.

The author does seem in your passage does seem to have eliminated the term "extrordinary" as inappropriate only to resurrect it. On the whole though we can forgive that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

I wasn't suggesting that an anecdotal report is enough to prove for us whether a story is true, I meant that people in the story (in John 9) could verify it. Likewise, a reader of the first copy of Mark 10 could check for himself if Bartimaeus had been healed, which would give him enough reason to believe the rest of Mark's account.

Which would still tell you nothing about whether a miracle had occurred though.

If two or more people did this independently, then that would be the basis on which subsequent generations could believe the account.

Two or more people witnessing someone having an epileptic fit would likely have said he was possessed by demons too, but that tells us nothing about whether the sufferer was in fact possessed by demons. 

Like you say, it doesn't prove it for us, as it assumes no mistakes or lies, but since you asked how, if it was true, we could know it, I'm suggesting this as the basis on which we can be confident  of it. Because at the end of the day, I think, whether we believe in God and miracles or not is a faith position,...

No, believing in god is a faith position; not believing in god isn’t. Believing god doesn’t exist on the other hand would be a faith position, but that’s a different matter.

...and for me belief is more fruitful than unbelief.

Which is the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy. Finding a truth claim "fruitful" is not an indicator of whether or not it's true. I might find believing in leprechauns fruitful too. So what though?     

Just out of interest, try to imagine that you had no a priori religious faith and instead came to the Bible stories dispassionately. Are you really suggesting that the accounts you refer to with all their attendant problems evidentially would be sufficient to persuade you that miracles had actually occurred nonetheless?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Once again Forum members need to decide between reading  the whole article themselves or devolving their confirmation of their own bias to you.

The author does seem in your passage does seem to have eliminated the term "extrordinary" as inappropriate only to resurrect it. On the whole though we can forgive that.

You think the article supports your assertion that Sagan's "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a fallacy. It doesn't.

Oh, and as you just ignored it - would you accept my claim that I'd been kidnapped by aliens on the same evidential basis that you'd accept that I'd bought a pair of shoes? Why not?