Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

How can one convince oneself of anything? Surely you are convinced by default? Are you suggesting that you have a belief that you try to convince yourself to have? So you believe something, and then give yourself a good talking to to get you to believe what you believe.

All I am saying is that in order to perceive anything to be right or wrong we need the power to consciously contemplate the factors involved and consciously guide our thoughts to reach valid conclusions.  Bluehillside claims we have no such power because in a materialistic scenario such power would be a logical impossibility.  Yet in order to reach such a conclusion he is actually demonstrating the power he claims cannot exist.  If our power to control our own thoughts is illusory then so are the conclusions - you can't have it both ways.

The reality is that we do have such power to control and direct our thoughts to reach validated conclusions, and this is demonstrated by our ability to reach valid conclusions.  This ability also demonstrates the power of our human soul to do what material reactions alone can never do.

[Gordon]

All I am saying is that in order to perceive anything to be right or wrong we need the power to consciously contemplate the factors involved and consciously guide our thoughts to reach valid conclusions.  Bluehillside claims we have no such power because in a materialistic scenario such power would be a logical impossibility.  Yet in order to reach such a conclusion he is actually demonstrating the power he claims cannot exist.  If our power to control our own thoughts is illusory then so are the conclusions - you can't have it both ways.

The reality is that we do have such power to control and direct our thoughts to reach validated conclusions, and this is demonstrated by our ability to reach valid conclusions.  This ability also demonstrates the power of our human soul to do what material reactions alone can never do.

Your 'argument', such as it is, lacks validity - it is, however, a superb example of how to creatively combine fallacies. 

[Outrider]

All I am saying is that in order to perceive anything to be right or wrong we need the power to consciously contemplate the factors involved and consciously guide our thoughts to reach valid conclusions.

I'm not sure we 'need' that, we could quite readily subconsciously process all that and come to the conclusion. As it is, though, we do appear to have conscious layer to our thought processes which is often involved, yes.

Bluehillside claims we have no such power because in a materialistic scenario such power would be a logical impossibility.

No, that's no what Bluehillside is saying, and the basis for that claim your making is not his interpretation, as you imply, but yours. You are the person who asserts without basis that consciousness can't arise from purely materialistic processes.

Yet in order to reach such a conclusion he is actually demonstrating the power he claims cannot exist.  If our power to control our own thoughts is illusory then so are the conclusions - you can't have it both ways.

Given that both your preconceptions here are flawed, it hardly needs to be said that your conclusion is equally baseless.

The reality is that we do have such power to control and direct our thoughts to reach validated conclusions, and this is demonstrated by our ability to reach valid conclusions.  This ability also demonstrates the power of our human soul to do what material reactions alone can never do.

No believe it's a part of that process, yes, but the existence of consciousness is not definitive evidence of a soul. The logical impossibility of consciousness being free of prior events and yet somehow still will (and, therefore, based on an understanding of prior events) is still something you've failed to address.

O.

[ekim]

Yes agreed about the power hungry shepherds - they would exist in any sphere including politics - so what you see as one of the problems of religion is that it is basically politics with woo.

......... you can't isolate religion as being the factor that allows leaders to brainwash people into fighting for their cause or country, as leaders would still be brainwashing people without religion - because humans can be brainwashed and leaders like to lead.

I tend to see two aspects of 'religion'.  One is what I would call the mystical aspect where mystics of the past have introduced methods like meditation and perhaps prayer to guide the individual away from self centred desires and fears into an inner 'state' of bliss, joy, paradise, heaven etc. so that action or non action would proceed from that unifying 'state'.  The other aspect is the organised aspect where certain 'leaders' can manipulate or use scripture and religious practices to suit their self centred agenda and form a collective identity such as Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu etc.  These organisations tend to be unitive on one level but divisive on a more global level.  They can also tend to fragment from within. 

I believe that the latter aspect also applies to political persuasions.  I would be more inclined to say that these days 'leaders' like to drive others.  You don't see Heads of State leading their troops into battle.  The art of persuasion is the tool used to influence the desires and fears of a 'mass' mind.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

NS,

You’re committing the fallacy of reaching hasty generalisations. Yes of course Stalinism, MAGA etc just make up their own facts but most political movements don’t. That’s why Truss crashed and burned – her actions were objectively, verifiably disastrous in the real world. There’s clearly a difference between that and clerics who make statements of certainty based on supposed other worlds that have no means of investigation and validation. For them, “You either agree the faith claim or you don’t” is the beginning and the end of it.

These seem to me to be fundamentally different approaches.       

I'd narrow the comparison to politicians and clerics both trying to convince people about more abstract notions like ethics and values - what is fair, what is right, what is good, what is bad. A large part of politics is concerned with these type of issues - e.g. debates over the fairness of free trade and free markets, access to private education, power of labour unions, immigration and asylum, family policy, how much the government should interfere in people's lives / fund and how much people should do for themselves etc. What are the human traits that lead to preference for any particular ethics-based political cause or political allegiance?

[Nearly Sane]

I'd narrow the comparison to politicians and clerics both trying to convince people about more abstract notions like ethics and values - what is fair, what is right, what is good, what is bad. A large part of politics is concerned with these type of issues - e.g. debates over the fairness of free trade and free markets, access to private education, power of labour unions, immigration and asylum, family policy, how much the government should interfere in people's lives / fund and how much people should do for themselves etc. What are the human traits that lead to preference for any particular ethics-based political cause or political allegiance?

Agree. In addition if you take the UK Election, Labour weren't really running on anything to do with fulfilled promises  they were asking people to have faith in them for what they said they were going to achieve.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All I am saying is that in order to perceive anything to be right or wrong we need the power to consciously contemplate the factors involved and consciously guide our thoughts to reach valid conclusions.

Except of course – as has been explained to you countless times already without response – having the “power to…consciously guide our thoughts to reach valid conclusions” would itself require some thinking, and so you’d then have to insert another agency to do that and so on forever. Just asserting a “soul” to do the job and relying on “it’s magic innit” to get you off that hook is called special pleading – yet another of your fallacies.

Bluehillside claims we have no such power because in a materialistic scenario such power would be a logical impossibility.

No Bluehillside does not. A “materialistic scenario” has nothing to do with it. Your faith belief “soul” fails because is logically impossible whether or not I’m a materialist.     

Yet in order to reach such a conclusion he is actually demonstrating the power he claims cannot exist.

No he isn’t.

If our power to control our own thoughts is illusory then so are the conclusions - you can't have it both ways.

That’s a non sequitur (another fallacy). The sensation of agency doesn’t invalidate the validity of the conclusions. 

The reality is that we do have such power to control and direct our thoughts to reach validated conclusions, and this is demonstrated by our ability to reach valid conclusions.

That’s not “the” reality at all. It’s just your reality, justified by some very poor reasoning. 

This ability also demonstrates the power of our human soul to do what material reactions alone can never do.

And the ability of leprechauns to leave pots of gold at the ends or rainbows demonstrates that leprechauns must be real too. You can’t just assert a logic-denying premise and then use it to justify your conclusion…

…and speaking of which, I took the time a few posts ago to rebut point-by-point the menu of false claims you made about why I argue that you’re wrong – in particular about the fine tuning argument and its reliance on circular reasoning. Should I take it that you’ve just ignored that in order to return to the same wrongheadedness at a later date?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Agree. In addition if you take the UK Election, Labour weren't really running on anything to do with fulfilled promises  they were asking people to have faith in them for what they said they were going to achieve.

Except what politicians actually say is they’ll make people safer, richer etc in this world. Thus these are claims that are testable after the policies have been applied. Clerics on the other hand concern themselves with abstract concepts about what their various gods supposedly want, what will happen in an afterlife if the divine rules are broken etc. None of these things are testable. In this respect the two groups make qualitatively different categories of claim.       

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Except what politicians actually say is they’ll make people safer, richer etc in this world. Thus these are claims that are testable after the policies have been applied. Clerics on the other hand concern themselves with abstract concepts about what their various gods supposedly want, what will happen in an afterlife if the divine rules are broken etc. None of these things are testable. In this respect the two groups make qualitatively different categories of claim.     

No, lots of religions make claims about this world too. And that doesn't affect that politicians ask for faith. You have, or are attempting to portray, incredibly simplistic caricatures of religion and political ideologies.
 
The 'bad outcomes' of religion are part of our inherent traits. It's not really clear to me what you think changes with someone being religious or not but there are hints of the 'Brights' nonsense.

ETA - you appear to have ignored Gabriella's post about politicians appealing to abstract concepts, which was what I had replied to.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, lots of religions make claims about this world too. And that doesn't affect that politicians ask for faith. You have, or are attempting to portray, incredibly simplistic caricatures of religion and political ideologies.

The assertions clerics make about this world may well be about, say, who people should and should not go to bed with but they still cite their supposed gods’ supposed wishes about that and so there’s nothing to test. Politicians on the other hand generally produce manifestos whose promises can be tested after the event, which seems to me to be a pretty important difference between the two groups.     
 

The 'bad outcomes' of religion are part of our inherent traits. It's not really clear to me what you think changes with someone being religious or not but there are hints of the 'Brights' nonsense.

No, what changes is that for the religious faith is put front and centre as if it had epistemological value, whereas politicians rarely in my experience rely on faith claims and instead anchor their statements to real world outcomes that are testable. I can see that in a Venn diagram there is some overlap between the two, but the bigger parts of the two circles are separate.     

ETA - you appear to have ignored Gabriella's post about politicians appealing to abstract concepts, which was what I had replied to.

Yes. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I have done, several times.The “argument” (such as it is) relies on the fallacy of hasty generalisation, the fallacy of composition and the fallacy of special pleading. Each time I have set them out for you though you’ve just scattered various straw men in reply while you beat a hasty retreat. 

What then would be the point of explaining your multiple mistakes to you yet again?

See above.

Yes it is. Your straw man version of it though is another matter, but as no-one argues for that there’s no justification required for that either.

I have done – repeatedly, and without rebuttal.

You’ve collapsed into gibberish again.

The fallacy of composition doesn't touch the definition of contingency nor eliminates a necessary being. Not even your
Usual Saffron Walden Shuffle can make it so.

So the necessary entity arising from the definition of contingency is sound.

What we are down to then is, Is the universe the necessary entity?
One of the properties of a necessary entity is that it is not composite since there would have to be a reason for how it has as many components there were and that reason would have to be the necessary being.

If you are invoking the universe as a composite. Then it fails the test for being the necessary being.

But don't think that because your objection is down and out there isn't more it can suffer.

A collection of small red bricks may not be a small red wall.
But it is still a collection and it is still red and not blue.

Similarly a universe of contingent things does not suddenly and miraculously become a universe of necessary things.

But your humiliation still isn't finished.
Because you are stillfaced with question"What is it about the universe then that is necessary?"

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The fallacy of composition doesn't touch the definition of contingency nor eliminates a necessary being. Not even your
Usual Saffron Walden Shuffle can make it so.

Wrong again. You assume that the deterministic character of the part of the universe you can observe implies that the universe itself must also be contingent on something else. That’s your fallacy of composition mistake.

So the necessary entity arising from the definition of contingency is sound.

No it isn’t – see above.

What we are down to then is, Is the universe the necessary entity?

To which, currently at least, the only defensible answer is ”don’t know”. What it isn’t though is an excuse to justify a separate necessary entity and then to special plead for it being exempt from needing a cause of its own. 

One of the properties of a necessary entity is that it is not composite since there would have to be a reason for how it has as many components there were and that reason would have to be the necessary being.

Drivel. If you want to conjure up from whole cloth one “it’s magic innit” god then why not conjure up instead a squadron of “they’re magic aren’t they” gods instead? 

If you are invoking the universe as a composite. Then it fails the test for being the necessary being.

No it doesn’t. All it tells you is that the universe has lots of parts, which may in turn for all I (or you) know have emerged from an original necessary universe.

But don't think that because your objection is down and out there isn't more it can suffer.

Your lack of self-awareness sometimes is remarkable.

A collection of small red bricks may not be a small red wall.
But it is still a collection and it is still red and not blue.

But it may be a wall too, and it may appear a different colour too. What point do you think you’re making here?

Similarly a universe of contingent things does not suddenly and miraculously become a universe of necessary things.

Oh dear. That the universe manifests to you as separate things at one level of abstraction (but may still be just parts of a single, integrated whole nonetheless) doesn’t imply that the universe as a whole necessarily isn’t its own cause, or even isn't eternal for that matter.   

But your humiliation still isn't finished.

Such a pity you have no grasp of irony.

Because you are stillfaced with question"What is it about the universe then that is necessary?"

No I’m not. You’re the one making the claim that the universe cannot be its own cause (and then inserting an “it’s magic innit” god to special plead a different cause) so it’s your job to establish first that something other than the universe is necessary for there to be a universe. This is your continued burden of proof mistake that you’ve never managed to grasp. You make the claim “the universe can’t be necessary”, therefore it’s your job to justify it without collapsing into fallacies.

Good luck with it though.     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Except of course – as has been explained to you countless times already without response – having the “power to…consciously guide our thoughts to reach valid conclusions” would itself require some thinking, and so you’d then have to insert another agency to do that and so on forever. Just asserting a “soul” to do the job and relying on “it’s magic innit” to get you off that hook is called special pleading – yet another of your fallacies.

No Bluehillside does not. A “materialistic scenario” has nothing to do with it. Your faith belief “soul” fails because is logically impossible whether or not I’m a materialist.     

No he isn’t.

That’s a non sequitur (another fallacy). The sensation of agency doesn’t invalidate the validity of the conclusions. 

That’s not “the” reality at all. It’s just your reality, justified by some very poor reasoning. 

And the ability of leprechauns to leave pots of gold at the ends or rainbows demonstrates that leprechauns must be real too. You can’t just assert a logic-denying premise and then use it to justify your conclusion…

…and speaking of which, I took the time a few posts ago to rebut point-by-point the menu of false claims you made about why I argue that you’re wrong – in particular about the fine tuning argument and its reliance on circular reasoning. Should I take it that you’ve just ignored that in order to return to the same wrongheadedness at a later date?   

Sorry Blue, but if you insist that your conscious control is illusory, then your concept of correctness must also be illusory.

[Outrider]

So the necessary entity arising from the definition of contingency is sound.

No, your derivation of 'something uncreated' from the general observation 'everything that is arises from something else' remains the special pleading it always was. In some instances you argue from the personal incredulity that you don't like infinite regress, other times you just ignore the possibility entirely, but you've still failed to adequately address it in any meaningful way.

What we are down to then is, Is the universe the necessary entity?

That's an interesting question, but you've not done sufficient work to make that the crux of any discussion.

One of the properties of a necessary entity is that it is not composite since there would have to be a reason for how it has as many components there were and that reason would have to be the necessary being.

Whether you consider a necessary entity capable of subdivision or not is, again, an interesting question, but it's intriguing that you keep attempting this argument to support your triumvirate deity whilst maintaining that the necessary entity can't be composite.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Sorry Blue, but if you insist that your conscious control is illusory, then your concept of correctness must also be illusory.

Arguably everything we think is “illusory” in some sense, but in any case our “concepts of correctness” don’t have to be absolutely true to be useful, and nor could they be unless we were also omniscient. 

Once again your poor reasoning ability has let you down here.

[Alan Burns]

No Bluehillside does not. A “materialistic scenario” has nothing to do with it. Your faith belief “soul” fails because is logically impossible whether or not I’m a materialist.     

The materialistic scenario I was referring to is the "cause and effect" as observed in our material universe which would indicate that everything is entirely determined by reactions to past events.  I presume this is the basis for your correct deduction that conscious control of our thoughts would be a logical impossibility in such a scenario.  What you fail to acknowledge is our demonstrable ability to be consciously aware of past events but not entirely determined by them.  You need to realise that our conscious self - our soul - exists and acts in the present, it is not determined by the past.  This is the only scenario which can give us the freedom which we all enjoy and use.  The freedom which allows us to think and draw valid conclusions.  The freedom which enables us to choose our own destiny.  The freedom which makes us human.

[Outrider]

The materialistic scenario I was referring to is the "cause and effect" as observed in our material universe which would indicate that everything is entirely determined by reactions to past events.

Yep.

I presume this is the basis for your correct deduction that conscious control of our thoughts would be a logical impossibility in such a scenario.

Can't speak for BHS on this, but no. I don't have any issue accepting conscious control of our thoughts is entirely possible. I just don't think it's any more free of prior constraints than our subconscious thoughts are.

What you fail to acknowledge is our demonstrable ability to be consciously aware of past events but not entirely determined by them.

You keep saying that this is demonstrable, but you keep failing to demonstrate it.

You need to realise that our conscious self - our soul - exists and acts in the present, it is not determined by the past.

In order for anyone to accept your claim you'd have to show why you conclude that, and you don't, you just keep reasserting it. Why do you think any such thing as a soul is involved? How is that 'soul' exerting will but not having that will be the product of prior events? How is something free of prior influence different from something random, and therefore not 'will' in any meaningful way?

This is the only scenario which can give us the freedom which we all enjoy and use.  The freedom which allows us to think and draw valid conclusions.  The freedom which enables us to choose our own destiny.  The freedom which makes us human.

That might be the scenario which, in your head, grants you freedom, but I don't need to come up with a scenario that allows for freedom, because I don't think we have free will.

O.

[jeremyp]

So the necessary entity arising from the definition of contingency is sound.

No it isn't. You haven't eliminated the possibility of infinite regress or a circular relationship.

What

we are down to then is, Is the universe the necessary entity?
One of the properties of a necessary entity is that it is not composite

You have shown no reasoning for this to be the case.

since there would have to be a reason for how it has as many components there were and that reason would have to be the necessary being.

Nice attempt to smuggle God in. It's failed.

[jeremyp]

Sorry Blue, but if you insist that your conscious control is illusory, then your concept of correctness must also be illusory.

Why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Wrong again. You assume that the deterministic character of the part of the universe you can observe implies that the universe itself must also be contingent on something else. That’s your fallacy of composition mistake.

The argument from contingency assumes nothing but the definition of contingency.
You are still invited to answer the question “what is it about the universe which is necessary”.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, your derivation of 'something uncreated' from the general observation 'everything that is arises from something else' remains the special pleading it always was. In some instances you argue from the personal incredulity that you don't like infinite regress, other times you just ignore the possibility entirely, but you've still failed to adequately address it in any meaningful way.

I’m not saying that everything is arises from something else though...I am saying that everything Contingent arises from something else. That’s what contingency is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't. You haven't eliminated the possibility of infinite regress or a circular relationship.

I think you need to say how an infinite regress is possible. How and why you get to treat an infinite series of entities like a single entity when it suits. Ditto circular relationship.

[Outrider]

I’m not saying that everything is arises from something else though...I am saying that everything Contingent arises from something else. That’s what contingency is.

And you're arbitrarily deciding that something has to be non-contingent because what, exactly? We all accept the notion of contingency, broadly, we all accept that pretty much everything we can demonstrate is a contingent effect of something prior. Based on that, you seem to presume there must be something which is not contingent, and so far that rationale appears to be fairly arbitrary - i.e. it's special pleading, because you want to have your god wedged in there somewhere, and you want your god to be special.

You fail to justify that presumption, though. You've not in any way established that the chain of contingency has to stop, that there has to be a some 'uncaused cause' at the foot of it all.

I think you need to say how an infinite regress is possible.

You've already acknowledged that there are contingent elements. Without any further changes the infinite regress is the inevitable conclusion of that - if you don't want the infinite regress, you have to justify why that is not the inevitable conclusion of contingency.

O.

[/quote]

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The materialistic scenario I was referring to is the "cause and effect" as observed in our material universe which would indicate that everything is entirely determined by reactions to past events.

No necessarily – there’s an open question about whether “true” randomness occurs at the quantum level – but for most purposes the universe we can observe appears to be deterministic in nature, yes.

I presume this is the basis for your correct deduction that conscious control of our thoughts would be a logical impossibility in such a scenario.

No. The basis is the same one that’s been explained to you countless times already – ie, whichever agency does the decision-making non-randomly would be able to do so only by responding to prior events. This is true whether that agency is the material “you”, a “soul” or for that matter anything else. Just asserting without reasons that it cannot be the former, and then inserting an “it’s magic innit” soul to get you off that hook is no answer at all. It’s epistemically equivalent to asserting leprechauns to cause rainbows before their true cause was known because “I’ve yet to see a good explanation for rainbows”.   

What you fail to acknowledge is our demonstrable ability to be consciously aware of past events but not entirely determined by them.

And what you fail to do is actually to demonstrate the thing you claim to be “demonstrable” with no supporting reasoning or evidence at all. Just calling something demonstrable does not thereby make it so.

You need to realise that our conscious self - our soul - exists and acts in the present, it is not determined by the past.

No – you need to realise that incoherent and logically impossible juvenilia like “soul” is no substitute for a reason and evidence-based explanation. You still seem to think that a jig-saw with pieces missing (materialism) is less likely to indicate a correct picture than a jig-saw with no pieces at all (soul). Why?   

This is the only scenario which can give us the freedom which we all enjoy and use.  The freedom which allows us to think and draw valid conclusions.  The freedom which enables us to choose our own destiny.  The freedom which makes us human.

No it isn’t. It isn’t for the reasons that are given to you and that you seem to be entirely unwilling or unable to address. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you're arbitrarily deciding that something has to be non-contingent because what, exactly?
Because all contingency has to be accounted for. Because the declaration “This contingency is actually also non contingent” is an absurdity akin to black equals white.