Answers to prayers?

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, there is certainly a gap in our understanding of what constitutes conscious awareness and human will.

You seem to imply that by juggling about with what has already been discovered, there will be a "natural" explanation for these properties.  The problem is that a natural explanation allows no possibility for the existence of any entity which can control or manipulate, because every event will be pre defined by preceding events.  So by invoking natural explanations, you are conceding that any concept of control must be an illusion.

The alternative is to admit to the possibility that there is something yet to be discovered which will provide an explanation for our conscious awareness and human will, and hence confirm our ability to control and drive our own thought processes.

It is called I don't know. You are making a claim and trying to switch the burden of proof is fundamentally dishonest.

[Gordon]

Yes, there is certainly a gap in our understanding of what constitutes conscious awareness and human will.

You seem to imply that by juggling about with what has already been discovered, there will be a "natural" explanation for these properties.

No I'm not - I reserve judgment, or put simply I'm comfortable with 'I don't know'.

The problem is that a natural explanation allows no possibility for the existence of any entity which can control or manipulate, because every event will be pre defined by preceding events.  So by invoking natural explanations, you are conceding that any concept of control must be an illusion.

It isn't a problem, since if I say 'I don't know' then I'm not offering an explanation at all. If you have on that you see as non-naturalistic then by all mean present it, but if you do remember to include the methodology involved since if you don't have a method then your explanation is likely to be fallacious.

The alternative is to admit to the possibility that there is something yet to be discovered which will provide an explanation for our conscious awareness and human will, and hence confirm our ability to control and drive our own thought processes.

Nope - you are begging the question here by assuming your preferred conclusion (that 'there is something yet to be discovered'), which is a fallacy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes, there is certainly a gap in our understanding of what constitutes conscious awareness and human will.

You seem to imply that by juggling about with what has already been discovered, there will be a "natural" explanation for these properties.  The problem is that a natural explanation allows no possibility for the existence of any entity which can control or manipulate, because every event will be pre defined by preceding events.  So by invoking natural explanations, you are conceding that any concept of control must be an illusion.

The alternative is to admit to the possibility that there is something yet to be discovered which will provide an explanation for our conscious awareness and human will, and hence confirm our ability to control and drive our own thought processes.

You've tried this straw man before so it's disappointing to see you return to it. No-one "allows no possibility for the existence of any entity which can control or manipulate", so why pretend otherwise?

Anything - literally - might be. Your problem remains though to provide a logical path from "don't know" to "god" without just asserting the argument from ignorance. 

[Enki]

From Hope's reply 277:

ippy (and Gordon), society relies heavily on the concept of right and wrong - and several times people here have made it very clear that science doesn't deal with right and wrong.  There are a number of ideas within this aspect of life that are either totally global or largely global.  If, as we are told, science doesn't deal with the idea, are we to understand that the concept doesn't actually exist?  That its just a mirage?

The idea that science doesn't deal with morality, I would suggest, is only loosely correct, in the sense that it does not become the arbiter of whether a particular action is moral or not. Science, however, does provide explanations for the existence of morality, and can make pertinent observations as to whether certain actions may promote human flourishing or not. It is then up to society to decide which course of action to take, and that may differ according to many other influences prevalent at any particular time.

The concept of human morality, from a scientific point of view, comes from within the human mind. As far as I can see, there is no reason to think that it comes from any other source, unless you can give reasoned and evidential arguments that this is so. To simply state some sort of 'god' as the source, unless this can be evidenced, is simply pure conjecture.

[floo]

It is the human mind which creates all concepts, imo.

[wigginhall]

Yes, there is certainly a gap in our understanding of what constitutes conscious awareness and human will.

You seem to imply that by juggling about with what has already been discovered, there will be a "natural" explanation for these properties.  The problem is that a natural explanation allows no possibility for the existence of any entity which can control or manipulate, because every event will be pre defined by preceding events.  So by invoking natural explanations, you are conceding that any concept of control must be an illusion.

The alternative is to admit to the possibility that there is something yet to be discovered which will provide an explanation for our conscious awareness and human will, and hence confirm our ability to control and drive our own thought processes.

I'm not sure how much you know about neuroscience, but there is plenty of research into 'executive functions' in the brain, involving things like attention, inhibition, memory, reasoning, planning, and so on.   

So the idea of control is valid in neuroscience, and one type of evidence is from various kinds of brain damage, which can impair various control mechanisms.   I think 'executive dysfunction' used to be used as a term, but maybe not now.  If you know anyone with dementia, you may well see signs of some impairment. 

But there is someone here who knows a lot more about it than me - not sure if it's enki or not.   Maybe you should read a bit more.

[Enki]

I'm not sure how much you know about neuroscience, but there is plenty of research into 'executive functions' in the brain, involving things like attention, inhibition, memory, reasoning, planning, and so on.   

So the idea of control is valid in neuroscience, and one type of evidence is from various kinds of brain damage, which can impair various control mechanisms.   I think 'executive dysfunction' used to be used as a term, but maybe not now.  If you know anyone with dementia, you may well see signs of some impairment. 

But there is someone here who knows a lot more about it than me - not sure if it's enki or not.   Maybe you should read a bit more.

Hi Wiggs,

You are too kind. I doubt it is me.

However, just one of the many studies of brain damaged patients, and how their sense of morality was affected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/science/22brain.html?_r=0

[wigginhall]

You are too modest!

I'm just waiting for AB to invoke the ghost in the machine - but what is it that pays attention?  It must be some entity, therefore soul, therefore God, therefore I'm a snowflake for Jesus, hurrah.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's pretending imaginary things are real and then making up sophisticated nonsense to hide their non-existence.

No it's taking a basic premise about the universe and thence reasoning from that.

It's what Sean Carroll does within the tight boundaries of his field, methodological materialism and he extrapolates that into philosophical materialism through reasoning but not methodological materialism.

Nothing wrong with that of course only the squirming that certain folks will now undertake to argue that it is somehow more virtuous than theological reasoning.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No it's taking a basic premise about the universe and thence reasoning from that.

Not really. It's just pushing at the open door of "anything's possible" and hoping that no-one notices that there's no path from that to "therefore god is probable".

It's what Sean Carroll does within the tight boundaries of his field, methodological materialism and he extrapolates that into philosophical materialism through reasoning but not methodological materialism.

No he doesn't, and you still rely in any case on your wrong understanding of "philosophical materialism".

Nothing wrong with that of course only the squirming that certain folks will now undertake to argue that it is somehow more virtuous than theological reasoning.

It's not "squirming" and it is more "virtuous" if by that you mean logically supportable because the former has a probabilistic methodology underpinning and the latter is indistinguishable from just guessing.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

No it's taking a basic premise about the universe and thence reasoning from that.

It's what Sean Carroll does within the tight boundaries of his field, methodological materialism and he extrapolates that into philosophical materialism through reasoning but not methodological materialism.

Nothing wrong with that of course only the squirming that certain folks will now undertake to argue that it is somehow more virtuous than theological reasoning.

Oi!

What about my reply #243?

Maybe you would like to set up a 1-1 debate on it. Sure we can agree terms.

As I say it was a shame you were on a flyer and "forgot" about the previous thread.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Not really. It's just pushing at the open door of "anything's possible" and hoping that no-one notices that there's no path from that to "therefore god is probable".

No he doesn't, and you still rely in any case on your wrong understanding of "philosophical materialism".

It's not "squirming" and it is more "virtuous" if by that you mean logically supportable because the former has a probabilistic methodology underpinning and the latter is indistinguishable from just guessing.

I'm afraid Carroll is a romantic mathematician given his work on string theory, multiverse and his criticism of falsification and calling the physicists definition of fine tuning ''a problem''. All these things come under what you call guessing which you are trying to call a ''bad'' thing.
You cannot have it both ways where one ''guessing'' is more virtuous than another.

[Gordon]

No it's taking a basic premise about the universe and thence reasoning from that.

It's what Sean Carroll does within the tight boundaries of his field, methodological materialism and he extrapolates that into philosophical materialism through reasoning but not methodological materialism.

Nothing wrong with that of course only the squirming that certain folks will now undertake to argue that it is somehow more virtuous than theological reasoning.

You seem to have forgotten to explain 'theological reasoning': telling us what you think about other matters doesn't answer the question I asked.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm afraid Carroll is a romantic mathematician given his work on string theory, multiverse and his criticism of falsification and calling the physicists definition of fine tuning ''a problem''. All these things come under what you call guessing which you are trying to call a ''bad'' thing.

So just to be clear - you, Vlad, who consistently either lies about the arguments that undo you or just invents new meaning for terms that actually mean something else in order to support your faith conclusion and who has no known knowledge or experience in the field has decided that internationally regarded and extensively published cosmologist Sean Carroll can be dismissed as a "romantic mathematician" with no argument of any kind to support that contention.

Is that really the corner into which you wish to paint yourself?

Really?

You cannot have it both ways where one ''guessing'' is more virtuous than another.

Of course you can. Which "guess" do you think to be more probably true: that there's a keyboard in front of you, or that there's an invisible pixie tap dancing on the keys?

Why?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So just to be clear - you, Vlad, who consistently either lies about the arguments that undo you or just invents new meaning for terms that actually mean something else in order to support your faith conclusion and who has no known knowledge or experience in the field has decided that internationally regarded and extensively published cosmologist Sean Carroll can be dismissed as a "romantic mathematician" with no argument of any kind to support that contention.

Is that really the corner into which you wish to paint yourself?

Really?

Of course you can. Which "guess" do you think to be more probably true: that there's a keyboard in front of you, or that there's an invisible pixie tap dancing on the keys?

Why?

Anybody reading what I said would accept that multiverse is in fact romantic mathematics since a lot of what is proposed is untestable. There is of course nothing wrong with what he has done......guessing that what he has the maths for exists physically.

Anybody reading what I have said would have noticed that what gets near to criticism on my part is what any atheist could and indeed has taken issue with him.
Namely that fine tuning observed in physics constitutes some kind of problem........
and that we should get rid of falsification in science......an act that presumably bring untestable multiverse theories firmly into science rather than guessing.

As I have said the only unforgivable here is the bending of the conventions of science to accommodate what he does.

I have no beef with his science or his maths as I understand it and leave both to be judged by his peers as is proper.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Anybody reading what I said would accept that multiverse is in fact romantic mathematics since a lot of what is proposed is untestable. There is of course nothing wrong with what he has done......guessing that what he has the maths for exists physically.

That's a basic category error. A multiverse is a hypothesis - something that might or might not be, pending further evidence. You on the other hand assert "God" as a fact, albeit with no coherent reasoning to support you. Hypotheses and facts are not the same thing.

Anybody reading what I have said would have noticed that what gets near to criticism on my part is what any atheist could and indeed has taken issue with him.

Namely that fine tuning observed in physics constitutes some kind of problem........
and that we should get rid of falsification in science......an act that presumably bring untestable multiverse theories firmly into science rather than guessing.

Nope. He's said that "fine tuning" appears to some to be a problem until you understand that thee is no fine tuning, and he's merely discussed the problems falsification can bring but not said we should" get rid of it.

If you want to critique someone by all means do, but not just by lying about what he says.

As I have said the only unforgivable here is the bending of the conventions of science to accommodate what he does.

It probably would be, but no-one has.

I have no beef with his science or his maths as I understand it and leave both to be judged by his peers as is proper.

Fine - any news re the actual question though: if you think all is guessing, why would you conclude that there's a keyboard in front of you (your "guess") but not an invisible tap dancing pixie on the keys (my "guess")?

Why so coy?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That's a basic category error. A multiverse is a hypothesis - something that might or might not be, pending further evidence. You on the other hand assert "God" as a fact, albeit with no coherent reasoning to support you. Hypotheses and facts are not the same thing.

Nope. He's said that "fine tuning" appears to some to be a problem until you understand that thee is no fine tuning, and he's merely discussed the problems falsification can bring but not said we should" get rid of it.

If you want to critique someone by all means do, but not just by lying about what he says.

It probably would be, but no-one has.

Fine - any news re the actual question though: if you think all is guessing, why would you conclude that there's a keyboard in front of you (your "guess") but not an invisible tap dancing pixie on the keys (my "guess")?

Why so coy?

An hypothesis must be testable though and that firmly brings multiverse into guessing. Sorry.

Are you suggesting that things are reasoned into existence?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

An hypothesis must be testable though and that firmly brings multiverse into guessing. Sorry.

Don't be - you're still flat wrong. A hypothesis should be testable at least in principle. There are various suggestions as to how you could do this for the multiverse hypothesis. How in principle would you propose to test your god hypothesis (as you've presumably now downgraded the claim to)?

Are you suggesting that things are reasoned into existence?

No.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Don't be - you're still flat wrong. A hypothesis should be testable at least in principle. There are various suggestions as to how you could do this for the multiverse hypothesis.

Hmm.....and how would the multiverse be made manifest under these suggestions?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You've tried this straw man before so it's disappointing to see you return to it. No-one "allows no possibility for the existence of any entity which can control or manipulate", so why pretend otherwise?

Anything - literally - might be. Your problem remains though to provide a logical path from "don't know" to "god" without just asserting the argument from ignorance.

I am not making this up.  If you google "Free will is an illusion" you will get numerous papers, articles and books written by scientists who come to the inevitable conclusion that in a closed deterministic universe there is no scope for anything to be in control other than natural laws over which we have no control.

You may well say "I don't know" to the question of defining what comprises and drives our conscious thoughts but to assume that there is a natural explanation is handing over control to nature, over which we have no control.  For control to exist, the source of control must be in the supernatural not the natural, otherwise is is just a pre determined chain of reactions defined by nature.

[Hope]

Another good example of the godidit syndrome, well done yet again, Alan.

ippy

Whereas this is a good example of the 'godcanthavedoneit' syndrome, ippy   

[Spud]

It's one thing for God to do it to himself. It's another thing to do it to an innocent child just to set an example to its parents.

And for the record, I'm not the kind of snivelling weasel that would let another person take the punishment for my crimes, whether he is God or not.

That's very noble, but really isn't sensible. True, Jesus dying in our place seems unjust. But he didn't have to spend eternity paying for our sin like we will have to if we reject him.

We are talking about murdering somebody to teach  another person a lesson. If you can't see the moral repugnancy of that act, you really need to lie down and take a long hard look at yourself.

I didn't at any point say that God murdered him. He did however allow him to be murdered by his parents, if that is found to be what happened. And he will bring good out of what happened.

Edit:
At some points in the Bible, God is said to have killed. Eg David and Bathsheba's son whom God "struck" with an illness that killed him. Or in the Flood, which God sent to kill everyone except 8 people.
Is this murder? No because murder is unlawful killing. God gave us life so he has the right to take it away. He has a purpose in doing so, which we do not understand at the time because we are his creatures and his thoughts are higher than ours.

[floo]

Spud you have your head right up your rear end where your take on faith is concerned, imo.

[Gordon]

I am not making this up.  If you google "Free will is an illusion" you will get numerous papers, articles and books written by scientists who come to the inevitable conclusion that in a closed deterministic universe there is no scope for anything to be in control other than natural laws over which we have no control

Science is naturalistic so its conclusions, and these are always provisional, are based on naturalism - no surprise there.

You may well say "I don't know" to the question of defining what comprises and drives our conscious thoughts but to assume that there is a natural explanation is handing over control to nature, over which we have no control.  For control to exist, the source of control must be in the supernatural not the natural, otherwise is is just a pre determined chain of reactions defined by nature.

Nice to see so many fallacies packed into one paragraph: begging the question, personal incredulity and an argument from ignorance.

[Alan Burns]

I'm not sure how much you know about neuroscience, but there is plenty of research into 'executive functions' in the brain, involving things like attention, inhibition, memory, reasoning, planning, and so on.   

So the idea of control is valid in neuroscience, and one type of evidence is from various kinds of brain damage, which can impair various control mechanisms.   I think 'executive dysfunction' used to be used as a term, but maybe not now.  If you know anyone with dementia, you may well see signs of some impairment. 

But there is someone here who knows a lot more about it than me - not sure if it's enki or not.   Maybe you should read a bit more.

Neuroscience, no matter how complex, can't contradict the fundamental deterministic laws of nature.  The driver of our thoughts is either natural, or it is supernatural.  There is no compromise.

And the symptoms of physical brain damage are irrelevant.  If a machine is damaged, it will malfunction and the driver of the machine loses control.  The loss of control can't be used to prove the driver does not exist.