Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Just to add Alan seems confused by correlation does not mean causation as meaning that correlation is no evidence whatsoever which would as an absolute remove all scientific evidence.

Yes - it's another truism he's seized on but doesn't understand. Me getting soaked earlier didn't necessarily mean the rain did it, but it's a pretty good indication that it did.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes. It's true that there's a computer in front of me. It's also true that I took the dog for a walk this afternoon. That's more than one truth, contra AB's claim.

Those are just things that are true. I don't think they are different truths. Or are you just using truth to mean specific fact? If so then I think your reply to AB is a non sequitur.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Those are just things that are true. I don't think they are different truths. Or are you just using truth to mean specific fact? If so then I think your reply to AB is a non sequitur.

There's not telling what AB thinks sometimes, but taken at face value his claim "there is only one truth" is wrong. I can list lots of them. 

[Nearly Sane]

AB,

There's not telling what AB thinks sometimes, but taken at face value his claim "there is only one truth" is wrong. I can list lots of them.

Is there? I take him to mean there is a set of things that are true. Now I may be be wrong but that's what it reads like to me. If he does mean that what are the things that you could list which would show that claim to be wrong?

Also what is the meaning that you are taking when he says there is only one truth? 

[Alan Burns]

So you have no choice in what you believe and that's the truth, and yet I, in your view have a choice in what I believe, and that must be false. Which is an illogical position so I should ignore it.

You have it wrong.
Contrary to current popular thinking, we cannot choose what to believe.  We can only believe in what we discern to be true - even though it might not be what we would like to believe in.  I am confident that I have discerned the truth behind our existence from my knowledge of the divine revelations of Christian scriptures, historical facts, modern science and personal witness stories - combined with my own personal encounters with God through prayer and miracles.  I have no doubt that other people genuinely believe the truth to be different to my own belief, but this in no way detracts from my own convictions or my endeavours to share the Good News of salvation with other people.

[Nearly Sane]

You have it wrong.
Contrary to current popular thinking, we cannot choose what to believe.  We can only believe in what we discern to be true - even though it might not be what we would like to believe in.  I am confident that I have discerned the truth behind our existence from my knowledge of the divine revelations of Christian scriptures, historical facts, modern science and personal witness stories - combined with my own personal encounters with God through prayer and miracles.  I have no doubt that other people genuinely believe the truth to be different to my own belief, but this in no way detracts from my own convictions or my endeavours to share the Good News of salvation with other people.

I might have had it wrong had I said people could choose what to believe - I didn't.

If I can't choose what to believe, then my lack of belief in your god isn't my choice, so why would the belief be relevant to anything.


You've quite spectacularly taken aim and blown both your 'logical' feet off with that post.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Is there? I take him to mean there is a set of things that are true. Now I may be be wrong but that's what it reads like to me. If he does mean that what are the things that you could list which would show that claim to be wrong?

Also what is the meaning that you are taking when he says there is only one truth?

Perhaps we should leave it to AB to tell us what he meant by it rather than make guesses at it.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Perhaps we should leave it to AB to tell us what he meant by it rather than make guesses at it.

Fine with me

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have it wrong.

Contrary to current popular thinking, we cannot choose what to believe.

And yet countless times here you’ve told us that we can “direct our thoughts”, so why can’t we just direct our thoughts to believe on Tuesday something we didn’t believe on Monday?

We can only believe in what we discern to be true - even though it might not be what we would like to believe in.

And yet your every effort here tells us you’re determined to believe only what you want to believe.

I am confident that I have discerned the truth behind our existence from my knowledge of the divine revelations of Christian scriptures, historical facts, modern science and personal witness stories - combined with my own personal encounters with God through prayer and miracles.

And yet these are all terrible justifications for the reasons that have been explained to you many times and that you resolutely refuse to address. Does this strike you as the behaviour of someone who doesn’t believe only what he wants to believe so as to justify support an a priori faith position?
 

I have no doubt that other people genuinely believe the truth to be different to my own belief, but this in no way detracts from my own convictions or my endeavours to share the Good News of salvation with other people.

But the difference is that those people produce sound reasons to support their beliefs whereas you don’t, which does “detract from your own convictions”.   

[Gordon]

You have it wrong.
Contrary to current popular thinking, we cannot choose what to believe.  We can only believe in what we discern to be true - even though it might not be what we would like to believe in.

What if your discerning abilities are flawed?

I am confident that I have discerned the truth behind our existence from my knowledge of the divine revelations of Christian scriptures, historical facts, modern science and personal witness stories - combined with my own personal encounters with God through prayer and miracles.

No doubt you feel confident - but do you accept the possibility that you confidence is unjustified?

I have no doubt that other people genuinely believe the truth to be different to my own belief, but this in no way detracts from my own convictions or my endeavours to share the Good News of salvation with other people.

Again - do you accept the possibility that your convictions are unjustified?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

And yet your every effort here tells us you’re determined to believe only what you want to believe.

How does AB's efforts tell us this? What methodology are you using to differentiate between what AB wants to believe and what AB believes regardless of whether he wants to or not?

And yet these are all terrible justifications for the reasons that have been explained to you many times and that you resolutely refuse to address. Does this strike you as the behaviour of someone who doesn’t believe only what he wants to believe so as to justify support an a priori faith position?
 

Again, how are you determining that AB wants to believe his faith positions?

Are you saying that we can choose our desires?

Do you want to believe that we can choose our desires?

[Nearly Sane]

How does AB's efforts tell us this? What methodology are you using to differentiate between what AB wants to believe and what AB believes regardless of whether he wants to or not?
Again, how are you determining that AB wants to believe his faith positions?

Are you saying that we can choose our desires?

Do you want to believe that we can choose our desires?

So for free will to happen we would have to be able to choose our desires? Do you think that we can?

[Alan Burns]

NS,

Perhaps we should leave it to AB to tell us what he meant by it rather than make guesses at it.

I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the ultimate truth concerning the title of this thread.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

So for free will ti happen we would have to be able to choose our desires? Do you think that we can?

I don't know how free will could happen - I suppose it depends in what sense free will is being used here. AB seems to be saying you can't choose your beliefs, so indicates a lack of freedom.

BHS says AB wants to believe something. I can't figure out if BHS thinks that AB's wants are his 'free' choice based on what he freely wills and not determined by a cause? Or does BHS think AB can't help what he wants/ desires - that these desires are on a subconscious level and caused by nature/ nurture and these desires cannot be consciously selected?

I wanted clarification from BHS about what he means by AB is determined (indicates a conscious decision i.e. a choice) to believe only what AB wants to believe.

If there is a possibility of a higher power/ cause of the universe/ or some such concept - and if you have no evidence to rule out such a thing, and a belief in such a thing forms in your mind, how do you extinguish your belief in such a thing? What steps lead to stopping such a belief from forming?

Based on what I have read here, there seems to be a view that our conscious brain becomes aware of the sub-conscious desires - the conscious mind analyses while the subconscious fuels creativity, inspiration, and intuition; we can influence our subconscious beliefs and these beliefs may be based on subconscious wants / desires...... but as far as I am aware we cannot pinpoint what causes a particular desire or want to form in order for us to stop that desire forming.

For example, I can see that viewing yourself negatively causes unpleasant unhappy feelings, therefore I can choose to think positive thoughts about myself or I can choose to counter negative thoughts because I don't want to feel unhappy. But I don't think I am in control of that want / don't want- I can't make myself want/ desire to feel unhappy.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And yet countless times here you’ve told us that we can “direct our thoughts”, so why can’t we just direct our thoughts to believe on Tuesday something we didn’t believe on Monday?

Our ability to consciously control our thought processes is surely the only way we can discern the truth.  We cannot use our thoughts to change the truth.

And yet your every effort here tells us you’re determined to believe only what you want to believe.

As I have already said - I can only believe in what I discern to be true - NOT what I want to be true.

And yet these are all terrible justifications for the reasons that have been explained to you many times and that you resolutely refuse to address. Does this strike you as the behaviour of someone who doesn’t believe only what he wants to believe so as to justify support an a priori faith position?

The problem is that you refuse to accept much of the evidence I present -
Our demonstrable ability to exert conscious control of our thought processes to reach consciously verified conclusions.
The historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Any evidence of miracles done in the name of Jesus.
The incredible fine tuning of the universe which allowed the formation of planets and stars.
Any personal witness stories about miraculous conversions to Christianity.
The fact that intelligent design is a reality demonstrated by humans which reflects God's creativity.
The limitations of what can be achieved by predefined material reactions
et cetera ....

But the difference is that those people produce sound reasons to support their beliefs whereas you don’t, which does “detract from your own convictions”.   

I do not think you recognise sound reasons.

[Nearly Sane]

I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the ultimate truth concerning the title of this thread.

Sticking ultimate in front of truth doesn't really make anything clear here.

[torridon]

Talking of looking foolish - I just came across this bizarre scientific article which claims that love is an emergent property of the mammalian autonomic nervous system (in other words it is just an involuntary reaction).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9924740

Not as foolish as claiming that love is some sort of God magic.  A wiser head will engage with and try to understand what we discover through research, and the idea that love, whatever it is, clearly is an evolutionary adaptation has long been covered on this thread before, so it should not be coming as a surprise now.

[Maeght]

Our ability to consciously control our thought processes is surely the only way we can discern the truth.  We cannot use our thoughts to change the truth.As I have already said - I can only believe in what I discern to be true - NOT what I want to be true.The problem is that you refuse to accept much of the evidence I present -
Our demonstrable ability to exert conscious control of our thought processes to reach consciously verified conclusions.
The historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The incredible fine tuning of the universe which allowed the formation of planets and stars.
Any personal witness stories about miraculous conversions to Christianity.
The fact that intelligent design is a reality demonstrated by humans which reflects God's creativity.
The limitations of what can be achieved by predefined material reactions
et cetera ....I do not think you recognise sound reasons.

'The fact that intelligent design is a reality demonstrated by humans which reflects God's creativity.' What do you mean by that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There was no demand, it's already there in the discussion.

Where there are constant demands for evidence and accusations of no evidence, it would be amiss not to ask for evidence of a time loop

A loop is suggested because it explains the current state of contingent things

That is a phrase which makes the term contingent redundant and shows a lack of understanding of the word contingent. We cannot escape contingency and so it cannot be explained away

without the need to invent another, different kind of thing (i.e. something necessary).

If your time loop does indeed need nothing for its existence then it is indeed the necessary entity definitionally and as such you are far from eliminating necessity.

As to how many events, I'm reasonably confident no-one was suggesting that they have a definitive number, it's the concept that's being suggested, not a history. As to why... who knows? If it's a closed loop there may very well not be a why, it might be a question that makes no sense.

We now come then to the question, does a time loop make sense?Which definition of time do you mean?For example, time as the passage of entropy?
The infinite cumulative time of repeated cycles? might we not, since it is the same thing over and over again, not just consider it as a time line with each moment unique starting with a distinct moment?
You still don’t give any reason why the necessary entity cannot feature in a time loop.

Earlier I was accused of inventing something to avoid something else I.e. infinite regress.  We can make the same accusation of a time loop (a time loop doesn’t remove infinite regress as it happens and indeed generates it) and that’s aside from the accusation that you are avoiding having a necessary entity....Something you have signally failed to do since your “Time loop” has the characteristics of a necessary entity.....More to follow.

[Gordon]

The problem is that you refuse to accept much of the evidence I present -
Our demonstrable ability to exert conscious control of our thought processes to reach consciously verified conclusions.
The historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Any evidence of miracles done in the name of Jesus.
The incredible fine tuning of the universe which allowed the formation of planets and stars.
Any personal witness stories about miraculous conversions to Christianity.
The fact that intelligent design is a reality demonstrated by humans which reflects God's creativity.
The limitations of what can be achieved by predefined material reactions
et cetera ....I do not think you recognise sound reasons.

How ironic then that your list contains no 'sound reasons': it is a list of assertions, fantastical claims, anecdotes and fallacies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where did that notion that 'something' needs to 'decide'? Where did you make the leap from 'we have a loop of causality' to 'therefore there must be a conscious designer outside of that which instigated it'?

Well, yes that could be clumsiness on my part what I mean to say is, “There is a reason why the universe would be a timeloop rather than a time line, there would be a reason why there are a fixed number of events, although I grant you are saying that those reasons might be internal.

This is the question that people are actually asking you, to justify THIS leap - why do you presume that there has to be some sort of (presumably external?) independent, necessary element?

I am not presuming an external element, an internal, independent, necessary element would satisfy the demands just as well. It cannot though by definition be found in anything contingent since you cannot be contingent and the necessary entity just like you cannot be a square circle or  black and white at the same time.

In terms of consciousness that is a fearful gun jump on your parts since necessary entities are viewed by you as a doorway to God imho.... more to follow

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

How does AB's efforts tell us this? What methodology are you using to differentiate between what AB wants to believe and what AB believes regardless of whether he wants to or not?

Again, how are you determining that AB wants to believe his faith positions?

Are you saying that we can choose our desires?

Do you want to believe that we can choose our desires?

I tell you that leprechauns are real and thus that you should believe in them too. I justify my claim with reasons that you quickly identify as shit. You know they’re shit because they’re all fallacies, and you know they’re fallacies because you understand how fallacious arguments are constructed. You then take the time and trouble to explain to me why my justifying arguments are shit, setting out clearly the counter-reasoning involved, citing references from sites that codify and list fallacious arguments etc.

In turn I persistently ignore your rebuttals, and instead just repeat the same shit arguments over and over and over again no matter how many times you falsify them. Having done so, I then continue with my confident assertions that leprechauns are real.

What methodology would you use to conclude that I was interested in asserting as true only what I wanted to be true, and not what any reasoning I’m capable of justifiably demonstrates?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Our ability to consciously control our thought processes is surely the only way we can discern the truth.

No it isn’t because there could be no such ability without creating an infinite regress – whatever was necessary to do that “controlling” would then have to do some thinking of its own, so (according to your thinking) it in turn would need another controller of its own and so on forever.

You know this already though because it’s been explained to you here countless times, but you always ignore the explanation.

We cannot use our thoughts to change the truth.

You’ve got this arse-backwards. It’s our thoughts that enable us to discern truths, not the other way around. That’s why your thought that just ignoring the falsifications of your justifying reasoning is a good way to preserve your wrongheaded beliefs about what is true.   

As I have already said - I can only believe in what I discern to be true - NOT what I want to be true.

Yes I know you’ve said it, but your behaviour here tells the opposite story.

The problem is that you refuse to accept much of the evidence I present -…

No, I don’t just “refuse to accept it” – I falsify it. The problem though is that you then just ignore the falsifications you're given.

Our demonstrable ability to exert conscious control of our thought processes to reach consciously verified conclusions.

Falsified without rebuttal.

The historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Falsified without rebuttal.

Any evidence of miracles done in the name of Jesus.

Falsified without rebuttal.

The incredible fine tuning of the universe which allowed the formation of planets and stars.

Falsified without rebuttal.

Any personal witness stories about miraculous conversions to Christianity.

Falsified without rebuttal.

The fact that intelligent design is a reality demonstrated by humans which reflects God's creativity.

Gibberish.

The limitations of what can be achieved by predefined material reactions
et cetera ....

Falsified without rebuttal.

I do not think you recognise sound reasons.

Why not?

[Nearly Sane]

I don't know how free will could happen - I suppose it depends in what sense free will is being used here. AB seems to be saying you can't choose your beliefs, so indicates a lack of freedom.

BHS says AB wants to believe something. I can't figure out if BHS thinks that AB's wants are his 'free' choice based on what he freely wills and not determined by a cause? Or does BHS think AB can't help what he wants/ desires - that these desires are on a subconscious level and caused by nature/ nurture and these desires cannot be consciously selected?

I wanted clarification from BHS about what he means by AB is determined (indicates a conscious decision i.e. a choice) to believe only what AB wants to believe.

If there is a possibility of a higher power/ cause of the universe/ or some such concept - and if you have no evidence to rule out such a thing, and a belief in such a thing forms in your mind, how do you extinguish your belief in such a thing? What steps lead to stopping such a belief from forming?

Based on what I have read here, there seems to be a view that our conscious brain becomes aware of the sub-conscious desires - the conscious mind analyses while the subconscious fuels creativity, inspiration, and intuition; we can influence our subconscious beliefs and these beliefs may be based on subconscious wants / desires...... but as far as I am aware we cannot pinpoint what causes a particular desire or want to form in order for us to stop that desire forming.

For example, I can see that viewing yourself negatively causes unpleasant unhappy feelings, therefore I can choose to think positive thoughts about myself or I can choose to counter negative thoughts because I don't want to feel unhappy. But I don't think I am in control of that want / don't want- I can't make myself want/ desire to feel unhappy.

It should be remembered that AB believes in free will, and in the sense he does, BHS doesn't. I think AB in saying that he cannot choose his beliefs, and that none of us can then undermines his idea of free will completely. He's also disagreeing with a number of his own posts on herd where he has said that people are choosing not to believe in a god because of the consequences of that belief.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

I tell you that leprechauns are real and thus that you should believe in them too. I justify my claim with reasons that you quickly identify as shit. You know they’re shit because they’re all fallacies, and you know they’re fallacies because you understand how fallacious arguments are constructed. You then take the time and trouble to explain to me why my justifying arguments are shit, setting out clearly the counter-reasoning involved, citing references from sites that codify and list fallacious arguments etc.

In turn I persistently ignore your rebuttals, and instead just repeat the same shit arguments over and over and over again no matter how many times you falsify them. Having done so, I then continue with my confident assertions that leprechauns are real.

What methodology would you use to conclude that I was interested in asserting as true only what I wanted to be true, and not what any reasoning I’m capable of justifiably demonstrates?     

I was trying to clarify how you were using the word "want". Are you asserting that anything we think or believe demonstrates that we had a desire/ want to think or believe it?

I wouldn't conclude anything about what you wanted because I can't see how you have demonstrated what you want in the above leprechaun scenario.

How does any of the above tell me that you want to believe in leprechauns? You have only demonstrated that either you do believe in leprechauns (regardless of whether you want to or not) or that you are pretending to believe in leprechauns.

AB first said he thinks he can't choose his beliefs, which presumably means he thinks the rest of us can't choose our beliefs either. But he is now saying consciously controlling his thoughts will lead to him forming a belief - so he seems to be saying he is in control of how his beliefs are formed. I look forward to AB listing what he consciously thought that led to him forming his belief. I can then consciously think the same thoughts he consciously thought and presumably that means I will end up believing what he believes. Will report back on whether it worked once AB lists the consciously controlled thoughts I need to think in order to end up holding his belief.