Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My posts are simply giving witness to the true purpose and meaning of our earthly lives.

It is you performing the ducking and diving in order to seek reasons to dismiss any evidence of God or your own spiritual nature.

Your continued evasiveness is noted. This is about whether or not you can legitimately call your arguments "evidence" at all. Again then:

1. You agree that the way some arguments are framed makes them invalid.
   
2. You agree that fallacies are documented and codified, so your arguments can be compared with those to see whether or not they’re fallacies too regardless of your or my opinions about that.

3. You agree I hope (though you’ve yet to say so) that using demonstrably invalid arguments to justify something you believe to be true does not thereby make those arguments valid.     

So, assuming that you agree with all three premises do you therefore agree that when you attempt a demonstrably invalid argument to justify your faith belief the justification fails necessarily?

PS Have you worked out yet why your accusation of attempting the fallacy fallacy was wrong? I ask because you've yet to apologise for it and withdraw it.

[Nearly Sane]

My posts are simply giving witness to the true purpose and meaning of our earthly lives.

It is you performing the ducking and diving in order to seek reasons to dismiss any evidence of God or your own spiritual nature.

And yet you've said we can't choose our beliefs so you are contradicting yourself.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Your continued evasiveness is noted. This is about whether or not you can legitimately call your arguments "evidence" at all. Again then:

Do I take it that you have no intention of viewing the two personal witness stories I posted?

You appear to have a very low opinion of me, but I am not here on an ego trip.
However I would be interested in what you may have to say about two other people who can give much better witness to God that I can.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Do I take it that you have no intention of viewing the two personal witness stories I posted?

You appear to have a very low opinion of me, but I am not here on an ego trip.
However I would be interested in what you may have to say about two other people who can give much better witness to God that I can.

I’ll be happy to identify the false reasoning in anything you think to be evidence in due course. There’s not much point in doing it again now though because each time I’ve done it in the past you’ve just ignored the correction and repeated the same mistake later on.

That’s why you should understand some basic rules of rhetorical logic first so that we have a framework in which to talk. Once you grasp the basics, when you attempt a fallacy again we can quickly agree that it mirrors a standard definition of one such so you can abandon it and look instead for something more robust.

So for this purpose (and yet again):

1. You agree that the way some arguments are framed makes them invalid.
   
2. You agree that fallacies are documented and codified, so your arguments can be compared with those to see whether or not they’re fallacies too regardless of your or my opinions about that.

3. You agree I hope (though you’ve yet to say so) that using demonstrably invalid arguments to justify something you believe to be true does not thereby make those arguments valid.     

So, assuming that you agree with all three premises do you therefore agree that when you attempt a demonstrably invalid argument to justify your faith belief the justification fails necessarily?

PS Have you worked out yet why your accusation of attempting the fallacy fallacy was wrong? I ask because you've yet to apologise for it and withdraw it.   

[torridon]

All of which fail when you subject them to logical analysis.

You seem to dismiss any personal witness claims about encounters with Jesus with the bland "its not logical".
So are you presuming these witnesses are lying? or mentally deluded? or could they be simply telling the truth?
try watching these:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsLFL-Yz_3c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSFeI_s6ass  (best if you start this one minute in to get to the start of his story)

Do you dismiss witness evidence of encounters with aliens ?  We have far better witness testimony evidence of alien abductions than we do for the resurrection of Jesus.

[Sebastian Toe]

Do I take it that you have no intention of viewing the two personal witness stories I posted?

You appear to have a very low opinion of me, but I am not here on an ego trip.
However I would be interested in what you may have to say about two other people who can give much better witness to God that I can.

Mohammed was visited by an angel.
Do you dismiss his witness testimony?

[Outrider]

Training a dog not to bite is just moulding their instinctive reaction using the "carrot and stick" technique.

But you've not offered anything to suggest that human personal development is anything more than that.

Instinctive reactions can be changed by learnt experiences, just as computer chess players are programmed to learn from past mistakes with no need for conscious awareness.

And a more complex processor can learn by experience, presumably, to manifest more complex patterns. None of that precludes consciousness being an overlay that happens in parallel to that happening unbidden, giving you a ringside seat to your thought processes as they happen to you.

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

I’ll be happy to identify the false reasoning in anything you think to be evidence in due course. There’s not much point in doing it again now though because each time I’ve done it in the past you’ve just ignored the correction and repeated the same mistake later on.

That’s why you should understand some basic rules of logic first so that we have a framework in which to talk. Once you grasp the basics, when you attempt a fallacy again we can quickly agree that it mirrors a standard definition of one such and you can abandon it and look instead for something more robust.

Predictably you appear to be pre-judging any evidence of God before you have seen it and seem determined to find reasons to dismiss it.

You have a lot of trust in the logic you quote - even though this logic is in contention with the conscious freedom we all enjoy and which is a fundamental aspect at the heart of our existence.

I hope one day you will see past the scales of deception and discover the truth.

[Alan Burns]

And yet you've said we can't choose our beliefs so you are contradicting yourself.

What I said was that we can only believe in what we perceive to be the truth, even if it not what we would like to believe.

[Alan Burns]

Mohammed was visited by an angel.
Do you dismiss his witness testimony?

No
But I would question whether the angel was from God or from the evil one.

[Alan Burns]

But you've not offered anything to suggest that human personal development is anything more than that.

And a more complex processor can learn by experience, presumably, to manifest more complex patterns. None of that precludes consciousness being an overlay that happens in parallel to that happening unbidden, giving you a ringside seat to your thought processes as they happen to you.

I have spent most of my working life (since 1969) programming computers, and I am still doing it.  From this experience I can assure you that no man made computer will ever achieve conscious awareness.  They can certainly mimic the outward appearance of self awareness, but internally there is nothing.  It will never happen

[Maeght]

What I said was that we can only believe in what we perceive to be the truth, even if it not what we would like to believe.

So you can't choose what to believe.

[Gordon]

What I said was that we can only believe in what we perceive to be the truth, even if it not what we would like to believe.

That seems incredibly subjective, since in essence you are saying that 'truth' is a consequence of the perceptions of each one of us. Moreover, since none of us are perfect, and since our perceptual abilities may vary, then 'truth' becomes a moveable feast, and especially so when our personal traits add to the inherent subjectivity: for we could, quite simply, and by lacking sufficient insight, be wrong in our assumptions about 'truth'.

Doesn't fly, Alan, since your approach is redolent with potential weaknesses.


 

[torridon]

I have spent most of my working life (since 1969) programming computers, and I am still doing it.  From this experience I can assure you that no man made computer will ever achieve conscious awareness.  They can certainly mimic the outward appearance of self awareness, but internally there is nothing.  It will never happen

Fond of making grand proclamations, aren't you ?

It is better to show appropriate humility acknowledeging what we don't yet know; that way we can grow in learning.

[Nearly Sane]

What I said was that we can only believe in what we perceive to be the truth, even if it not what we would like to believe.

Which means we can't choose what we believe which means you were contradicting yourself.

[Nearly Sane]

I have spent most of my working life (since 1969) programming computers, and I am still doing it.  From this experience I can assure you that no man made computer will ever achieve conscious awareness.  They can certainly mimic the outward appearance of self awareness, but internally there is nothing.  It will never happen

There are many people with just as much experience as you, and with greater experience in the area of consciousness who would disagree. You, or they, making unqualified statements on such things is only marginally more useful than the person on the Clapham omnibus doing so. They are not arguments, or evidence. That you seem to think your statement is shows a lack of understanding of logic.

[Nearly Sane]

That seems incredibly subjective, since in essence you are saying that 'truth' is a consequence of the perceptions of each one of us. Moreover, since none of us are perfect, and since our perceptual abilities may vary, then 'truth' becomes a moveable feast, and especially so when our personal traits add to the inherent subjectivity: for we could, quite simply, and by lacking sufficient insight, be wrong in our assumptions about 'truth'.

Doesn't fly, Alan, since your approach is redolent with potential weaknesses.

I don't think Alan is in that statement claiming anything that goes against your statement. He's simply confirming that we cannot choose what we believe.

[Outrider]

I have spent most of my working life (since 1969) programming computers, and I am still doing it.  From this experience I can assure you that no man made computer will ever achieve conscious awareness.

The last 'computer expert' I recall making pronouncements like that was Thomas Watson of IBM, in I think the 1940s, who said something to the effect that he didn't see a need for more than maybe five computers in the world. Given the pace of technological development, and given our collective inability to precisely DEFINE consciousness, let alone explain it, I don't see how you can have any sort of rational basis for a proclamation like that. You might be right, although I don't think so, but it's not a reasoned opinion, it's at best a hunch.

They can certainly mimic the outward appearance of self awareness, but internally there is nothing.

And now all you have to do is demonstrate that the same cannot be said of us.

It will never happen

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." Lord Kelvin, 1895. And with the greatest of respect, you're no Lord Kelvin.

O.
[/quote]

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB.

Predictably you appear to be pre-judging any evidence of God before you have seen it and seem determined to find reasons to dismiss it.

It’s not evidence. I can tell you precisely why it’s not evidence, but for you to understand why it’s not evidence you’d need some understanding of basic rhetorical logic. When I try to drag you kicking and screaming in that direction though you endlessly divert, distract and prevaricate – presumably because you’re terrified of discovering that your reasons for believing what you believe are shit. 

You have a lot of trust in the logic you quote - even though this logic is in contention with the conscious freedom we all enjoy and which is a fundamental aspect at the heart of our existence.

You’re contradicting yourself again. On the one hand you tell us you have sound reasons to justify your beliefs (though you never produce them), but on the other you tell us that logic must be wrong when it contradicts your subjective opinions.

I hope one day you will see past the scales of deception and discover the truth.

You’ve never produced anything here that suggests you have the first idea about what is “the truth”.

You could instead though show us that you’re not a coward or a liar (or both) by actually answering the simple yes/no question below that you keep dodging. What’s stopping you?

Once again then:

1. You agree that the way some arguments are framed makes them invalid.
   
2. You agree that fallacies are documented and codified, so your arguments can be compared with those to see whether or not they’re fallacies too regardless of your or my opinions about that.

3. You agree I hope (though you’ve yet to say so) that using demonstrably invalid arguments to justify something you believe to be true does not thereby make those arguments valid.     

So, assuming that you agree with all three premises do you therefore agree that when you attempt a demonstrably invalid argument to justify your faith belief the justification fails necessarily?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have spent most of my working life (since 1969) programming computers, and I am still doing it.  From this experience I can assure you that no man made computer will ever achieve conscious awareness.  They can certainly mimic the outward appearance of self awareness, but internally there is nothing.  It will never happen

I have spent my entire working life (since 969) in the scriptorium of one of the great monasteries of Europe copying and illuminating the Holy Bible. I can assure you that no machine will ever achieve printing. It will never happen. 

[Alan Burns]

Which means we can't choose what we believe which means you were contradicting yourself.

I have never claimed that we can choose what to believe.
There is only one truth and it is there to be discerned, not chosen.

[Nearly Sane]

I have never claimed that we can choose what to believe.
There is only one truth and it is there to be discerned, not chosen.

Where I said that you were contradicting yourself is when, having written that people don't choose their beliefs then you wrote
'My posts are simply giving witness to the true purpose and meaning of our earthly lives.

It is you performing the ducking and diving in order to seek reasons to dismiss any evidence of God or your own spiritual nature.'

Which indicates you think that people are choosing not to believe in your god.

[Sebastian Toe]

No
But I would question whether the angel was from God or from the evil one.

Then anyone can offer the same question to any "experience".
Was it from one or the other?
How do you tell the difference?

[Alan Burns]

You’re contradicting yourself again. On the one hand you tell us you have sound reasons to justify your beliefs (though you never produce them), but on the other you tell us that logic must be wrong when it contradicts your subjective opinions.

It is not a subjective opinion to claim that we need conscious control of our thought processes in order to reach consciously verifiable conclusions.  I am merely pointing out a demonstrable reality - which confirms that the logic you are using to claim the impossibility to exert conscious control of our thoughts is inherently flawed.

You never explained what you meant by the phrase, "consciousness is a self-evaluating emergent property of minds".  But the key to the flaw in this statement lies in what you presume can perform this "self evaluating".  If it is all done by sub conscious brain activity beyond your conscious control there can be no means of validating the outcome.  You would also need to employ some form of conscious control to be able to judge the validity of other people's conclusions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is not a subjective opinion to claim that we need conscious control of our thought processes in order to reach consciously verifiable conclusions.  I am merely pointing out a demonstrable reality - which confirms that the logic you are using to claim the impossibility to exert conscious control of our thoughts is inherently flawed.

You never explained what you meant by the phrase, "consciousness is a self-evaluating emergent property of minds".  But the key to the flaw in this statement lies in what you presume can perform this "self evaluating".  If it is all done by sub conscious brain activity beyond your conscious control there can be no means of validating the outcome.  You would also need to employ some form of conscious control to be able to judge the validity of other people's conclusions.

If you have no interest at all in understanding even some basic principles of rhetorical logic what do you think endlessly repeating justifications for your beliefs that are fallacious will achieve?

Just in the last few posts for example you accused me of committing the fallacy fallacy and, despite my explaining to you what it actually means, you just ignored your mistake as if nothing had been said. Then you tried to introduce personal testimonials as evidence, and again when I told you that that enterprise was also a logical fallacy you just ignored that problem too.   

Why then do you think anyone here capable of rational thought won’t every time you post think immediately “here comes AB again with another set of logically false arguments”? What do you think this will achieve?

Once again with no hope at all of you having the basic decency or honesty to reply:

1. You agree that the way some arguments are framed makes them invalid.
   
2. You agree that fallacies are documented and codified, so your arguments can be compared with those to see whether or not they’re fallacies too regardless of your or my opinions about that.

3. You agree I hope (though you’ve yet to say so) that using demonstrably invalid arguments to justify something you believe to be true does not thereby make those arguments valid.     

So, assuming that you agree with all three premises do you therefore agree that when you attempt a demonstrably invalid argument to justify your faith belief the justification fails necessarily?

A simple “yes/no” would do. Is that really too much to ask?

Really though?