Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why should I presume there is a different ruleset for this one particular set of ideas?

Maths has different assumptions and ways of approach from science, Not all of maths is described by the physical. Similarly Art operates differently from science. Ditto philosophy which is based on logic and reason and evidentialism is but one school

If it has an effect on the world, that effect can be measured and assessed. If it doesn't have an effect on the world then it doesn't matter.

But that's just your opinion isn't it? If it's not Physics then it doesn't matter...Why then do you get upset by the persecution of one set of people by another.? Why do I get upset by antitheistic humbug if it isn't physics?
Morality is not physical.
If you think it is then show me a morality. How much does it weigh?

Religion tried to explain death, life,

Dust to dust, ashes to ashes. A great ancient insight. Unfortunately a scientific description of what happens in death or birth has no consolatory power or joy, but I can marvel at both

Arguably the application of the fruits of science's labour, but perhaps a irrelevant distinction. Whether the fruits of science are intrinsically good or not is a different thing,

ah it is is it?

but on the evidence of that you can't say that science hasn't achieved anything.

When did I say that.I have nothing against science but I'm finding your scientismic piety quite embarrassing.

Except that innumerable historians pointed out the vast swathe of evidence that shows how stories shift in meaning over time, through translation, cultural interpretation, deliberate reinterpretation and just human fallibility.

Because of the pronouncements of the esteemed Nobel winning scientist Will Self? Oh, wait, no, the OTHER Will Self. Will Self of 'I was smacked up on Tony Blair's plane' fame... Well that's shown me, you've got Will Self being wrong on your side, whatever will I do now?

I think you need to look closer.

Which doesn't explain why you suddenly decide you need something without a cause in the otherwise perfectly identifiable chain of events. Your reason needs a reason, because of Sufficient Reason, and at the moment that reason appears to be special pleading.

O.

The reason can be external or intrinsic, So if you claim the universe is the necessary entity then the reason is intrinsic to the universe.
So the God of the gaps is dead....which leaves the
God of philosophy, The almighty, the creator of nature gaps included, the ultimate, the fundamental the necessary entity.
The God of the agnostic who holds that God might exist.

Is the physical all that is real? If that's how you define reality.

Can the necessary be detected. Not if it means the observed is affected by the observer IMHO.

Finally in terms of special pleading. " The universe just is and there's an end to it takes some whacking..
............perhaps he means that the universe is the necessary entity?

[Outrider]

Maths has different assumptions and ways of approach from science, Not all of maths is described by the physical.

None of maths is described by the physical - it can be used in examples to help understand the physical, because maths is a tool that can be used to model the physical, not the other way round.

Similarly Art operates differently from science.

Art, though, like maths, but unlike religion, doesn't try to make claims about how the world works. Hence they aren't like for like comparisons.

Ditto philosophy which is based on logic and reason and evidentialism is but one school

So is religion. But, as I've said before, theology is the Emperor's New Clothes of philosophy.

But that's just your opinion isn't it?

No, that's a logical conclusion. If something has no measurable effect on anything, in what way can it be said to exist at all? If it doesn't exist, it doesn't really matter.

f it's not Physics then it doesn't matter...

Who said anything about physics? There are innumerable ways to measure things that don't involve physics - not just other 'hard' sciences like chemistry or biology, but everything down the chain through sociology, geography, history, psephology... the list goes on.

Why then do you get upset by the persecution of one set of people by another.?

Because I'm part of a group of people. Empathy. Do you need the idea of a god in order to care? Is that who you want to be?

Why do I get upset by antitheistic humbug if it isn't physics?

I'm not entirely sure why you get upset about anything, or where you see this antitheism, but the answer to neither of those is physics. It's psychology (which is, arguably, applied neurology but our neurology's not sophisticated enough to operate at that level. And, of course, neurology is just applied physics, but we need a really big computer to do that modelling and we currently don't have it).

Morality is not physical.

Really? You don't get a rush of blood sometimes, when you see injustice? Your stomach doesn't churn in horror? You don't get a cold sweat at the worst depravities of humanity? Sounds physical to me. Of course, those are physiological effects which result from moral judgements, but it means at the very least the systems are linked. Where's the non-physical bit? Where's the demonstration of that? This is the opposite of your last claim - this isn't a claim looking for an effect to demonstrate its reality, this is an effect for which you're leaping to an unwarranted cause, ignoring the demonstrable in favour of the fabulous.

If you think it is then show me a morality.

Of course, I can't interpret it for you, and the resolution might not be sufficient, but it's in there somewhere. If you've a better demonstration have at it.

How much does it weigh?

It's a pattern of energy, it doesn't have mass, and therefore doesn't weigh.

Dust to dust, ashes to ashes. A great ancient insight.

A deepity.

Unfortunately a scientific description of what happens in death or birth has no consolatory power or joy, but I can marvel at both

For you it doesn't; perhaps because you're so desperately looking to the sky that you're failing to appreciate the wonder around you. I'm sure there's a fable or two about that.

ah it is is it?

Yes. Whether or not you like what people do with a tool is a different question to whether or not the tool exists and works.

When did I say that.

You didn't, I was highlighting the contrast with religion, which I pointed out hadn't achieved anything - hence, was a failed enterprise.

I have nothing against science but I'm finding your scientismic piety quite embarrassing.

If I were you, and I kept having to hide behind ad hominems instead of arguments, I'd be pretty embarrassed too. Thankfully for me, that's not the case.

The reason can be external or intrinsic,

There's lucky.

So if you claim the universe is the necessary entity then the reason is intrinsic to the universe.

If I ever claim that, I'll be sure to bear that in mind.

So the God of the gaps is dead...

Can something non-existent be dead? Isn't that a little like asserting that if atheism is the lack of belief then a rock is an atheist? Can an imaginary friend die?

which leaves the God of philosophy, The almighty, the creator of nature gaps included, the ultimate, the fundamental the necessary entity.

Woven entirely out of threads of imagination and ignorance, paraded through the streets to the gasps of those who choose not to pay attention.

The God of the agnostic who holds that God might exist.

God might. All you need is a scintilla of a reason to think that might be the case, the slightest hint of some sort of basis for the claim...

Is the physical all that is real? If that's how you define reality.

Who knows? If there's something else, though, we need a new system to demonstrate it. Until then, what's the difference between a non-physical entity which has no effect, and nothing?

Can the necessary be detected. Not if it means the observed is affected by the observer IMHO.

That sounds like the start of a methodology. Now all you need is the bit where you have something that CAN demonstrate the non-physical, rather than just excuses for why we can't but are supposed to accept the claim anyway.

Finally in terms of special pleading. " The universe just is and there's an end to it takes some whacking..

No, in terms of special pleading you have to go way, way further than Russell's slightly glib pronouncement before, somewhere in the distance, you see the vague, dusty footprints where William Lane Craig's take on the Kalam Cosmological Argument has walked away over the horizon.

............perhaps he means that the universe is the necessary entity?

Perhaps he does. Perhaps he expanded on that, somewhere. I don't know, I've never been that interested to spend the time reading his work.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

None of maths is described by the physical - it can be used in examples to help understand the physical, because maths is a tool that can be used to model the physical, not the other way round.

There is mathematics that is found in physics, are you denying that?
Then there is the maths that finds no physical expression and is independent of physics. At a basic level this means values inequations for constants etc that are not actually found
In nature but are perfectly valid mathematically.
Each magisterium has that kind of separation from physics.

Art, though, like maths, but unlike religion, doesn't try to make claims about how the world works. Hence they aren't like for like comparisons.

A set of assertions I look forward to you justifying.
I dispute that art never expresses world views, How do you explain religious art?

So is religion. But, as I've said before, theology is the Emperor's New Clothes of philosophy.

Sounds good what does it mean?

Theology is not all of religion though and making pronouncements on scientific phenomena is not all of religion. Science is not the raison d’être of religion

[Outrider]

There is mathematics that is found in physics, are you denying that?

Yes. There are patterns of activity in physics, and we can model them mathematically, but that doesn't make maths a part of the activity that physics studies, it makes maths a tool that's used. Digging with a shovel in geology doesn't make the shovel part of the geological record.

Then there is the maths that finds no physical expression and is independent of physics. At a basic level this means values inequations for constants etc that are not actually found in nature but are perfectly valid mathematically.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. Our grasp of all of physics is limited, so it may be that some of what's currently abstract mathematics does actually correlate with something physical. Tellingly, though, what you're saying here is that we have some maths, but it doesn't correspond to anything real.

Each magisterium has that kind of separation from physics.

Yes, but if it doesn't correspond to anything real then what use is it? Mathematicians engaged in 'pure' maths might long for a time when something they're working on becomes relevant, but they don't claim that it's depicting a higher truth that physics is intrinsically incapable of conceiving, or even just possibly. That's not 'non-overlapping magisteria', that's 'we have some interesting fringe stuff that we've not found a use for, yet'. Physics has those, biology has those.

Religion doesn't. Religion has claims it has use for, but not the validation to back up that they exist, it's the exact opposite, it's a point in search of a basis compared to a foundation in search of an application.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes. There are patterns of activity in physics, and we can model them mathematically, but that doesn't make maths a part of the activity that physics studies, it makes maths a tool that's used. Digging with a shovel in geology doesn't make the shovel part of the geological record.

Perhaps, and perhaps not. Our grasp of all of physics is limited, so it may be that some of what's currently abstract mathematics does actually correlate with something physical. Tellingly, though, what you're saying here is that we have some maths, but it doesn't correspond to anything real.

Yes, but if it doesn't correspond to anything real then what use is it? Mathematicians engaged in 'pure' maths might long for a time when something they're working on becomes relevant, but they don't claim that it's depicting a higher truth that physics is intrinsically incapable of conceiving, or even just possibly. That's not 'non-overlapping magisteria', that's 'we have some interesting fringe stuff that we've not found a use for, yet'. Physics has those, biology has those.

Religion doesn't. Religion has claims it has use for, but not the validation to back up that they exist, it's the exact opposite, it's a point in search of a basis compared to a foundation in search of an application.

O.

It's not clear to me what 'religion' is in these sort of terms. I think we look at claims that people who say they are religious make rather than have a clear idea of what religious claims are.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Two immediate problems with claiming these pictures show a ‘Morality’. Which part of the picture is showing me good and which bad, an ought or ought not?

Secondly, supposing the Followers of Fred Phelps produce a better picture. Does that mean they are more moral?

For you it doesn't; perhaps because you're so desperately looking to the sky that you're failing to appreciate the wonder around you. I'm sure there's a fable or two about that.

As I said, I can enjoy what’s going on in the whole of the garden.

The argument from contingency is a bottom up argument. Attempts to Imbue composites with ultimacy are the skyhooks.

And in terms of deepities, here’s one, “The whole of the universe is in this wineglass”... know who said that?

[torridon]

That would be Richard Feynman.

Where do I go to collect my prize ?

[Outrider]

Two immediate problems with claiming these pictures show a ‘Morality’. Which part of the picture is showing me good and which bad, an ought or ought not?

Difficult to say, I don't know what moral question was being put to them at the time, or whether it was what would be generally considered to be a 'good' or 'bad' viewpoint - that's an image of it happening, though.

Secondly, supposing the Followers of Fred Phelps produce a better picture. Does that mean they are more moral?

How is the picture quality tied to the morality of the radiographer? If I write my answer in neater handwriting is it a more precise explanation? And does that make me more or less honest?

That makes no sense - a higher resolution image, or a more precise or focussed image on particular parts of the brain might elicit a clearer answer on whether the thought being imaged is more or less 'moral', but it doesn't say anything about the morality of the photographer.

As I said, I can enjoy what’s going on in the whole of the garden.

While thinking there are fairies at the bottom of it.

The argument from contingency is a bottom up argument.

That doesn't make the special pleading go away, though.

Attempts to Imbue composites with ultimacy are the skyhooks.

Attempts at special pleading are still attempts at special pleading, too.

And in terms of deepities, here’s one, “The whole of the universe is in this wineglass”... know who said that?

So your counter to my pointing out that you're calling on a deepity is to come up with another deepity? I didn't cite it - the problem wasn't that it was said, I don't know what context either of the originals were in, they may have been appropriate there, but you deploying them devoid of context doesn't carry any weight.

Sounds good what does it mean?

That theology is portrayed as the philosophical justifications and explanations for religious thought, but is based not on a reason or a realisation, but on the assumption that ideas like 'divinity' or 'god' have a basis in the first place.

Theology is not all of religion though

No, there's the homophobia, misogyny, tribalism, caste discrimination, warmongering, anti-science rhetoric, power grabbing, tax avoidance, and, I'm led to believe, rich tea biscuits and tea.

and making pronouncements on scientific phenomena is not all of religion.

It's the only bit of it that can be checked, and its consistently failed.

Science is not the raison d’être of religion

No, but truth claims were one of the tools, and science has shown those claims to be in error.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Difficult to say, I don't know what moral question was being put to them at the time, or whether it was what would be generally considered to be a 'good' or 'bad' viewpoint - that's an image of it happening, though.

So no differential then. We can see the right side of the brain but not the wrong side.
Another aspect is, how does it show the actual nature of morality, does it show that morality is an illusion?Does it show that morality is real? Does it show that morality is absolute or that morality is relative? Does it show that morality is just a matter of taste?

How is the picture quality tied to the morality of the radiographer?

If I say as you seem to that the best representation of what morality is, is a photograph then obviously, A better image is going to tell us more about it. So supposing there is a difference between the followers of Fred Phelps and say, atheists, supposing differing parts of the brain light up or supposing the Phelps subjects produce clearer brighter images what will that tell us? Do we take our cue from the pictures or interpret them in the light of what we believe already  ?

No, there's the homophobia, misogyny, tribalism, caste discrimination, warmongering, anti-science rhetoric, power grabbing, tax avoidance, and, I'm led to believe, rich tea biscuits and tea.

Typical New Atheist ploy. Blame the bad in the world on religion. "Religion is the root of all evil" and credit all the good in the world to atheism.

All those things will continue but more than that you are just recapitulating the christian themes of good and bad,

Where you are the one's who have been freed from the evils of the past by your saints and prophets, the greatest of whom are still with us.

[jeremyp]

Yes, reiki and homeopathy are pseudoscientific and make claims that are susceptible to science and have failed comprehensively. I would not put God and Religion in that category,

What you are saying here is that there is no way to show that God is real. If that's thew case, then why pretend he is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What you are saying here is that there is no way to show that God is real.

No,There's no way to show that God is physical, saying that only the physical is real is circular argument.

Why would it be impossible for science to detect God?
If God is the necessary entity then he is independent and unchanged by anything external. Observation affects the observed. The necessary entity cannot be physically composed and must be singular.
If the universe is a simulation created externally then that type of God exists externally to the universe

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No,There's no way to show that God is physical, saying that only the physical is real is circular argument.

No it isn’t, and that’s not what’s being said either. If you want to post a non-physical, then the task is all yours to define it and to demonstrate that it exists at all

Why would it be impossible for science to detect God?

Because those who assert gods fail to provide any data points with which the scientific method can engage. They also fail to provide data points with which any other known method of investigation and verification can engage.

If God is the necessary entity then he is independent and unchanged by anything external.

IF leprechauns leave pots of gold at the ends of rainbows then we’d better start looking for them immediately. IF anything…

Observation affects the observed. The necessary entity cannot be physically composed and must be singular.

So you assert, but you never argue for why you think this would be the case.

If the universe is a simulation created externally then that type of God exists externally to the universe

Naughty. Why a god rather than something other than a god? 

[Outrider]

So no differential then. We can see the right side of the brain but not the wrong side.

What are you talking about?

Another aspect is, how does it show the actual nature of morality, does it show that morality is an illusion?

It shows that morality is a brain activity. It shows nothing more and nothing less than that. It might be, somehow, that morality is something more than that, but if you want to make the claim you'd need to justify it, and so far I don't see that happening.

Does it show that morality is real?

Do you need a picture to show you that morality is real? Do you not feel it?

Does it show that morality is absolute or that morality is relative?

I think we need more study to determine that, but the evidence of how morality differs with culture whilst being located typically in similar areas of the brain suggests to me that it's relative.

Does it show that morality is just a matter of taste?

In the sense that it appears to be an aesthetic judgement, I'd say that follows from its being relative, if that turns out to be the case.

If I say as you seem to that the best representation of what morality is, is a photograph then obviously, A better image is going to tell us more about it.

I still don't see how it's going to say anything about the radiographer, though? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you meant.

So supposing there is a difference between the followers of Fred Phelps and say, atheists, supposing differing parts of the brain light up or supposing the Phelps subjects produce clearer brighter images what will that tell us?

That they're processing whatever it is that their processing differently - you'd need to calibrate across a number of subjects to start to identify the patterns, and I don't believe we're at that stage yet.

Do we take our cue from the pictures or interpret them in the light of what we believe already  ?

Given the success the scientific method has had generating the images in the first instance, I'd say we hypothesise, we experiment, we report on whether that validates or refutes the hypothesis, we publish the findings for discussion and iterate the process.

Typical New Atheist ploy. Blame the bad in the world on religion. "Religion is the root of all evil" and credit all the good in the world to atheism.

Where? Did I suggest that there were no other sources of these ills? Did I suggest that there was another philosophy that was a bulwark against them? The history of religion is, whether you like the fact or not, replete with examples of these activities, and whilst other ways of thought appear to be moving forward religion still clings to the homophobia, the misogyny, the tribalism. And those traits - which are, perhaps, human traits intrinsically - are not only not apparently mitigated by religion, but are actively fostered by the inherent authoritarianism of religion's basis, and the bronze age basis for the moral precepts which underpin their culture.

All those things will continue but more than that you are just recapitulating the christian themes of good and bad,

I didn't single out Christianity. I didn't even single out Judeo-Christian viewpoints - indeed, I explicitly include things like caste systems to capture Hinduism and make it clear that I think this is a facet of religion, not just one example.

Where you are the one's who have been freed from the evils of the past by your saints and prophets, the greatest of whom are still with us.

Locke. Mill. Rousseau. Kant. Voltaire. Hume. Hobbes. Descartes. Diderot. I'm pretty sure none of them are 'saints', and even more sure that none of them are alive. These giants looked at the human condition, but at the risk of paraphrasing a 'religionist': if I have seen far, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of these giants.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No it isn’t,

Of course it is, end of

and that’s not what’s being said either. If you want to post a non-physical, then the task is all yours to define it and to demonstrate that it exists at all

You are the ones stating that only physical things are real. The burden is yours, try it without circular argument.

Because those who assert gods fail to provide any data points

There are no data points for your assertion that only physical things are real. The onus to provide them is on you. I shan’t be holding my breath though.

 Why a god rather than something other than a god?

I’m not proposing any god, Hillside but God.Whose attributes I’ve outlined to you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It shows that morality is a brain activity.

yes? And
I suppose their is nothing out their that we detect but we merely produce it in our brains.

Do you need a picture to show you that morality is real?

since you put the picture on you apparently seem to think I do

I think we need more study to determine that, but the evidence of how morality differs with culture whilst being located typically in similar areas of the brain suggests to me that it's relative.

In the sense that it appears to be an aesthetic judgement, I'd say that follows from its being relative, if that turns out to be the case.

I still don't see how it's going to say anything about the radiographer, though? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you meant.

That they're processing whatever it is that their processing differently - you'd need to calibrate across a number of subjects to start to identify the patterns, and I don't believe we're at that stage yet.

Given the success the scientific method has had generating the images in the first instance, I'd say we hypothesise, we experiment, we report on whether that validates or refutes the hypothesis, we publish the findings for discussion and iterate the process.

Where? Did I suggest that there were no other sources of these ills? Did I suggest that there was another philosophy that was a bulwark against them? The history of religion is, whether you like the fact or not, replete with examples of these activities, and whilst other ways of thought appear to be moving forward religion still clings to the homophobia, the misogyny, the tribalism. And those traits - which are, perhaps, human traits intrinsically - are not only not apparently mitigated by religion, but are actively fostered by the inherent authoritarianism of religion's basis, and the bronze age basis for the moral precepts which underpin their culture.

I didn't single out Christianity. I didn't even single out Judeo-Christian viewpoints - indeed, I explicitly include things like caste systems to capture Hinduism and make it clear that I think this is a facet of religion, not just one example.

Locke. Mill. Rousseau. Kant. Voltaire. Hume. Hobbes. Descartes. Diderot. I'm pretty sure none of them are 'saints', and even more sure that none of them are alive. These giants looked at the human condition, but at the risk of paraphrasing a 'religionist': if I have seen far, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of these giants.

O.

I have nothing against scientific research, Fill your boots. It seems to me though that we have to bring our own moralities to the party for the data to make any sense.

How it advances morality any more than what is involved in abberent behaviour any further than damage to the brain causes it I lknow not but then again I am not against science research.

I Used the metaphor Saint you use the metaphor Giant. You can't help but revere them. Other metaphors include "Horsemen". I would call them the apostles of your faith.

I read  the tenth anniversary edition of The God Delusion where Dawkins talks about What he calls "The Horsemen Books" and what book should be included. In this case it was Krauss's book.
That is a case of an apostle determining Canon if ever there was one.

[jeremyp]

No,There's no way to show that God is physical, saying that only the physical is real is circular argument.

What's the way to show God is real?

If God is the necessary entity then he is independent and unchanged by anything external.

You mean like people praying?

Observation affects the observed.

If God cannot be observed, how can we tell it is real?

The necessary entity cannot be physically composed and must be singular.

So definitely not the Christian god which is a trinity.

If the universe is a simulation created externally then that type of God exists externally to the universe

That doesn't mean that the god couldn't reach in to the simulation and change things.

[Gordon]

Vlad

Your constant thrashing about is very wearing, so perhaps I can make some points.

1. As far as is known all of our thoughts, feelings, emotions, dreams, moral/ethical opinions, judgments and perceptions etc are natural physical phenomena that exist wholly within our biology, and in particular our neurology, where the likes of scans, EEG's and the effects of trauma/medical conditions/neurosurgery all provide supporting evidence.

2. So, if you think that there are non-natural explanations, such as Alan does with his 'souls' notion, then the onus is on you to describe the mechanism and explain how it can be investigated: for example, is there an equivalent form of scan that would identify this 'soul' thing? If that can't be provided then we can, for the time being, just dismiss any notions of supernatural agency being an active element in how our neurology operates.

3.  You seem obsessed by Dawkins and 'horsemen' when, as far as I can see, nobody else here is - so whenever you go off on one of your regular rants you are, in essence, talking to yourself.

[Outrider]

yes? And

In the greater scheme of reasons why people might think a god was necessary, demonstrating the physiological components of moral thinking seems quite important.

I suppose their is nothing out their that we detect but we merely produce it in our brains.

I can't prove there's nothing else - how do you prove a negative, after all. But I see no need for one to explain the situation, I see no evidence for one. If you want to make that claim, feel free, but the onus is on you to justify the claim.

since you put the picture on you apparently seem to think I do

No, I seem to think that because it's what you wrote.

I have nothing against scientific research, Fill your boots. It seems to me though that we have to bring our own moralities to the party for the data to make any sense.

Yes. What we don't appear to be doing, though, is bringing disembodied extra-physical intelligences' directives or some channel to an extra-universal paragon to the interpretation.

How it advances morality any more than what is involved in abberent behaviour any further than damage to the brain causes it I lknow not but then again I am not against science research.

We weren't discussing what should be the content of a moral philosophy, though, that's not what neurology (certainly at the moment, possible ever) is for.

I Used the metaphor Saint you use the metaphor Giant.

Except that the concept of saint isn't a metaphor, here, is it. It's being deployed as a pejorative and a comparator because, on your side, you genuinely think you have saints. And the implication is that the 'scientific' side is just as ritualistic and authoritarian and bound by tenet and scripture as yours.

You can't help but revere them.

Revere? I don't 'revere' them, it's not even about them, although deploying the names is a useful shorthand. I respect their bodies of work, even the parts where I don't agree with them.

Other metaphors include "Horsemen".

Another divinities reference, another pejorative allusion. Noted.

I would call them the apostles of your faith.

You probably would. It just highlights how incapable you seem to be of grasping how differently people think.

I read  the tenth anniversary edition of The God Delusion where Dawkins talks about What he calls "The Horsemen Books" and what book should be included. In this case it was Krauss's book.
That is a case of an apostle determining Canon if ever there was one.

Was he suggesting that people be killed or exiled for including a different book? Was there the threat of eternal damnation on people for reading something not on the list? There's a gulf between a recommended reading list and establishing a canon.

Do you need a brain scan to tell you whether thinking about that activates the morality centres of the brain?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the greater scheme of reasons why people might think a god was necessary, demonstrating the physiological components of moral thinking seems quite important.

I can't prove there's nothing else - how do you prove a negative, after all. But I see no need for one to explain the situation, I see no evidence for one. If you want to make that claim, feel free, but the onus is on you to justify the claim.

No, I seem to think that because it's what you wrote.

Yes. What we don't appear to be doing, though, is bringing disembodied extra-physical intelligences' directives or some channel to an extra-universal paragon to the interpretation.

We weren't discussing what should be the content of a moral philosophy, though, that's not what neurology (certainly at the moment, possible ever) is for.

Except that the concept of saint isn't a metaphor, here, is it. It's being deployed as a pejorative and a comparator because, on your side, you genuinely think you have saints. And the implication is that the 'scientific' side is just as ritualistic and authoritarian and bound by tenet and scripture as yours.

Revere? I don't 'revere' them, it's not even about them, although deploying the names is a useful shorthand. I respect their bodies of work, even the parts where I don't agree with them.

Another divinities reference, another pejorative allusion. Noted.

You probably would. It just highlights how incapable you seem to be of grasping how differently people think.

Was he suggesting that people be killed or exiled for including a different book? Was there the threat of eternal damnation on people for reading something not on the list? There's a gulf between a recommended reading list and establishing a canon.

Do you need a brain scan to tell you whether thinking about that activates the morality centres of the brain?

O.

I think the necessity of Killing people is Sam Harris's
Department.and maybe that of his readers who nodded sagaciously at the relevant sections of "Horseman" scripture".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's the way to show God is real?

All you can thus do is look for the effects. Not an unusual suggestion since it crops up in cosmological and multiverse theories other than that, you are showing the presumption that we have to reveal God rather than considering the possibility that he reveals himself to us.
IOW encounter and response. Here I would look at belief, where God "crops up" and God avoidance and theophobia

You mean like people praying?

As CS Lewis said Prayer does not change God, it changes me. Ideally we should be confiding in God in unbroken communion but no one manages that IMO.

If G

od cannot be observed, how can we tell it is real?
So definitely not the Christian god which is a trinity.That doesn't mean that the god couldn't reach in to the simulation and change things.

He cannot be observed but he can make himself known.

[Outrider]

I think the necessity of Killing people is Sam Harris's Department.

And here's the thing, because it's not canon, I don't have to accept what Sam Harris has to say.

and maybe that of his readers who nodded sagaciously at the relevant sections of "Horseman" scripture".

Maybe they did, maybe some of them did and some of them didn't. That makes them human, and so far as we've seen that still makes the moral decisions they make or abrogate to be ones that happen in the brain. You're still not giving any reason to think that morality is something more than mental activity.

It is telling, though, that you think the best defence you can offer is to suggest that 'the other side' is as bad as your side is. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of religion, is it.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course it is, end of

Ah, and there was me thinking “circular reasoning” actually meant something like the reasoner beginning with what they are trying to end with, as opposed to just making an assertion with no reasoning at all, flawed or otherwise. Still, now you’ve used the killer rhetorical device of “end of” that's me shown right?
 

You are the ones stating that only physical things are real. The burden is yours, try it without circular argument.

I know you love a straw man, but can you cite from all the thousands of Replies here even just one example of someone ever actually stating that as you claim? Just one will suffice.

Good luck with the search though.

Just to remind you – YOU’RE the one asserting the non-physical to be real, so the burden of proof is all YOURS to define what YOU mean by it and then to demonstrate its existence.

Again, good luck with it though.   

There are no data points for your assertion that only physical things are real. The onus to provide them is on you. I shan’t be holding my breath though.

An assertion I haven't made. Stop lying.

I’m not proposing any god, Hillside…

And yet just a few posts ago (Reply #50861) you blithely asserted “If the universe is a simulation created externally then that type of God exists externally to the universe”. Again then, why a “God” specifically? 

…but God.Whose attributes I’ve outlined to you.

You haven’t “outlined” you’ve just asserted, but you refuse to tell us why with any justifying arguments.

Oh, and just to remind you, your whole tottering “necessary entity” edifice speculation rests on (at least three) logical fallacies (fallacy of hasty generalisation, fallacy of composition, fallacy of special pleading) all of which you ran away from when they were explained to you.

Apart from all that though…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad

Your constant thrashing about is very wearing, so perhaps I can make some points.

1. As far as is known all of our thoughts, feelings, emotions, dreams, moral/ethical opinions, judgments and perceptions etc are natural physical phenomena that exist wholly within our biology, and in particular our neurology, where the likes of scans, EEG's and the effects of trauma/medical conditions/neurosurgery all provide supporting evidence.

What about the hard problem of consciousness and the circularity of physicalism?

2. So, if you think that there are non-natural explanations, such as Alan does with his 'souls' notion, then the onus is on you to describe the mechanism and explain how it can be investigated: for example, is there an equivalent form of scan that would identify this 'soul' thing? If that can't be provided then we can, for the time being, just dismiss any notions of supernatural agency being an active element in how our neurology operates.

Naturalism though depends on, the suspension of sufficient reason, universal unconsciousness, infinity, and possibly the popping in out of nothing from, and this is the key, from nowhere.

3.  You seem obsessed by Dawkins

I love him

and 'horsemen' when, as far as I can see, nobody else here is - so whenever you go off on one of your regular rants you are, in essence, talking to yourself.

You embraced them in the 2000's and now discard them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What about the hard problem of consciousness and the circularity of physicalism?

What about them?

Naturalism though depends on, the suspension of sufficient reason, universal unconsciousness, infinity, and possibly the popping in out of nothing from, and this is the key, from nowhere.

“Naturalism” as actually defined rather than your person redefinition of that term depends on none of these things.

I love him

Sadly I fear your love is unrequited though.

You embraced them in the 2000's and now discard them.

Bizarre.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



“Naturalism” as actually defined rather than your person redefinition of that term depends on none of these things.

Be my guest

Sadly I fear your love is unrequited though.

Oh....Bugger