Answers to prayers?

[Spud]

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

I've edited my post. Please explain what you mean rather than just write insults.

[Alan Burns]

begging the question, personal incredulity and an argument from ignorance.

And what is the source of my personal incredulity?
Is it the inevitable result of natural cause and effect events which span over three billion years?

Or does it emanate from the "I" which drives my thoughts words and actions?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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.

Yes you are - or at least you're fundamentally misunderstanding the issue. You've posited "we" as if we're somehow outside of "natural laws" whereas all the evidence tells us that this "we" is a perceptual model that's just an emergent property of our material selves.

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.

That's some spectacularly bad thinking right there. How on earth can we be "handing over control to nature" when we are nature - or at least an inextricable part of it? Yes, it's "pre-determined" in the sense that our decision making is the outcome of unfathomably complex chains of cause and effect, even though the model we construct appears to suggest that we're somehow outside of that. 

Is your problem that you don't understand that, or that you do understand it but you don't like it so have to deny it to satisfy your ego?

Oh, and the point you've dodged by the way was that you pushed at an open door that leads nowhere when you pretended that others don't allow for the possibility of your god - just as we allow for the possibility of orbiting teapots and shape-shifting lizards in Buckingham Palace - but that says nothing whatever to whether any of these conjectures are more probably true than not.

And that's your problem when you attempt that straw man.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And what is the source of my personal incredulity?

Your consciousness, which is an emergent property of your material self.

[floo]

I've edited my post. Please explain what you mean rather than just write insults.

(((((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.)))))

You have made an assertion without evidence to support it. However, if god did give us life, it had no right to take it away again. We are humans, not its pawns with which it can play nasty games.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

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

No it isn't because no-one has said that. Or that the Clangers and the Soup Dragon can't be having a jolly old time on their far, far away planet, or that there can't be unicorns pooping glitter in Xanadu, or that.... etc

Any of these things and more - your god included - could be. How though do you think that helps you?

Oh, and having ignored the various rebuttals I posted to your broken thinking, then asked later on where they are and had me tell you, and then continued to ignore them I ask again: what exactly is your point in being here if you refuse point plank to address the reasoning that undoes you?   

[Hope]

Hope,

No it isn't because no-one has said that.

Soory to disappoint you, but ippy has, over the years, made it clear that he doesn't believe in a God to intervene in the first place. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Soory to disappoint you, but ippy has, over the years, made it clear that he doesn't believe in a God to intervene in the first place.

You disappoint me only because you continue to fail to grasp even the simplest logic. I don't "believe in a God to intervene in the first place" either. Nor do I believe that the Clangers and the Soup Dragon are enjoying a tea party as we speak. Nor do I believe that there are shape-shifting lizards in Buckingham Palace.

None of these non-beliefs though are the same thing as saying that any of them can't be – which was your straw man claim. However unlikely, I allow for the possibility that in due course there could be reasoning or evidence to make me change my mind about my non-belief(s).

This negative proof thing really has got you foxed still hasn't it.

[Hope]

None of these non-beliefs though are the same thing as saying that any of them can't be – which was your straw man claim. However unlikely, I allow for the possibility that in due course there could be reasoning or evidence to make me change my mind about my non-belief(s).

This negative proof thing really has got you foxed still hasn't it.

Except that ippy tends to use the 'can't be' argument.  It is why I tend to treat him somewhat differently to folk like you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Except that ippy tends to use the 'can't be' argument.  It is why I tend to treat him somewhat differently to folk like you.

Ippy can answer for himself regarding whether or not he "tends" to do that. In the post about which you accused him of a "can't" though he didn't. Why not just acknowledge that?

Should I expect further silence from you followed by repetition of the same logical errors by the way, or do you intend to address the rebuttals I posted and then reminded you of when you asked where they were?

[Gordon]

And what is the source of my personal incredulity?

Your brain, Alan.

Or does it emanate from the "I" which drives my thoughts words and actions?

Same thing: still your brain.

[torridon]

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.

We should put it down to natural then, as supernatural does not exist. Or at least there is no evidence for the supernatural and hence no reason to take that seriously. And of course there never could be any evidence for the supernatural, because it is, errm, supernatural, if there were any evidence for such then that would define it as natural, evidence being a naturalist concept.

There is no need to look for magic answers as to what drives thought when there are pointers to real answers all around us  Thoughts arise out of feelings; thus the feeling of hunger gives rise to the thought 'must go get a kebab'. Thoughts result from something, they are consequent of something prior, hence part of the chain of cause and effect. It may feel like we are in control, it may feel like we can take spontaneous decisions for no reason, but we don't have conscious access to the vast majority of our thought processes, most of which are subliminal, hence we feel we can be spontaneous.  The feeling of agency, of being in control, is just that, it is a feeling like any other, like the feeling of being hot or in pain or being sad, the feeling of being in control is another feeling produced by brain function.

[Enki]

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.

Of course neuroscience doesn't contradict the fundamental deterministic laws of nature(leaving aside any possible quantum probability effects). Why should it?

Assuming that you were correct that some sort of supernatural element exists, why couldn't both the natural and your supposed supernatural both have their parts to play? Why is there no compromise?

Your idea that brain damage is irrelevant assumes that there is some sort of supernatural driver extraneous to the brain, an idea for which you have no actual scientific evidence whatever. Unless or until you can deliver such evidence, how brain damage can effect our thoughts/feelings/decisions is extremely relevant.

[wigginhall]

So the supernatural controller is powerless in the case of brain damage?   If I meet someone who doesn't know who they are (because of brain disease), the soul is sort of hanging about, being sympathetic, I suppose?   Well, if it's a controller,why doesn't it do something about it?

Why, it's almost as if it doesn't exist!   

[wigginhall]

torridon wrote:

We should put it down to natural then, as supernatural does not exist. Or at least there is no evidence for the supernatural and hence no reason to take that seriously. And of course there never could be any evidence for the supernatural, because it is, errm, supernatural, if there were any evidence for such then that would define it as natural, evidence being a naturalist concept.

I was reading the thread again, and I thought that this paragraph goes to the heart of the matter, in relation to the supernatural.    As you say, there cannot be evidence for the supernatural.   So it is somehow left floating in the air, often propelled there by incredulity.   'I don't understand how thunder is formed, therefore Thor does it'.   That's the equivalent argument.   Today, we have 'I don't understand how thoughts are formed, therefore the soul'. 

I suppose people also say that they experience the supernatural or feel it, or sense it.   But this seems almost solipsistic. 

Then, the theist can also reverse the argument - 'OK, you prove to me that the brain produces thought' - but this is really admitting defeat. 

[Leonard James]

torridon wrote:

I was reading the thread again, and I thought that this paragraph goes to the heart of the matter, in relation to the supernatural.    As you say, there cannot be evidence for the supernatural.   So it is somehow left floating in the air, often propelled there by incredulity.   'I don't understand how thunder is formed, therefore Thor does it'.   That's the equivalent argument.   Today, we have 'I don't understand how thoughts are formed, therefore the soul'. 

I suppose people also say that they experience the supernatural or feel it, or sense it.   But this seems almost solipsistic. 

Then, the theist can also reverse the argument - 'OK, you prove to me that the brain produces thought' - but this is really admitting defeat.

Yes, Wigs and Torri,

I came to this conclusion long ago. It's all a total waste of time to argue with people so deeply entrenched in their daft beliefs.   

[ippy]

I take my hat off to you in respect for this post of yours Wiggi:

"So the supernatural controller is powerless in the case of brain damage?   If I meet someone who doesn't know who they are (because of brain disease), the soul is sort of hanging about, being sympathetic, I suppose?   Well, if it's a controller,why doesn't it do something about it?

Why, it's almost as if it doesn't exist"!   
====

Hope you say: "Except that ippy tends to use the 'can't be' argument.  It is why I tend to treat him somewhat differently to folk like you".

I have said many times when proof of this god idea of yours that resides inside your head is supplied I will be joining you, now, the likelihood of anyone supplying the said evidence is so unlikely I find it difficult to understand why otherwise intelligent people like yourself and others like A B bother with the god idea in the first place.

I only argue from the unlikely event of there being a god or anything like it in the first place POV Hope, I'm not expecting you or anyone else, to believe in a lot of things or ideas that up to the present date have no evidence to support them, in the way you and Alan expect others to believe your completely unsupported religious/faith ideas; the evidence for these religious/faith ideas of yours Hope, the evidence you say you have but never submit to this forum.

Blue, as for you planting nasturtiums on the Clangers the Soup Dragon and the royal lizards, how can you live with yourself?

ippy

   

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

Blue, as for you planting nasturtiums on the Clangers the Soup Dragon and the royal lizards, how can you live with yourself?

Sorry ipster (hangs head in shame, wanders slowly off occasionally muttering obscenities at passing dogs etc)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Me to Hope:

Should I expect further silence from you followed by repetition of the same logical errors by the way, or do you intend to address the rebuttals I posted and then reminded you of when you asked where they were?

Hope's reply to me:

Somewhere in the distance a coyote yowls mournfully, while tumbleweed scurries past as the breeze picks up and stirs the hanging spoon to tap erratically on the dinner gong and the long-abandoned rocking chair begins to creak on the broken down verandah...and our Hopey is long long gone and far far away.

Oh well.   

[ippy]

ippy,

Sorry ipster (hangs head in shame, wanders slowly off occasionally muttering obscenities at passing dogs etc)

Careless comments like yours can spoil these wonderful stories I first become aware of when sitting spellbound watching, listening and enjoying them with my children. 

Keep an eye open for "Fire Maidens from Outer Space", on this new Freeview channel 81, if you really want to know what life is really all about.

ippy

[Spud]

(((((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.)))))

You have made an assertion without evidence to support it. However, if god did give us life, it had no right to take it away again. We are humans, not its pawns with which it can play nasty games.

The evidence is all around, but you are suppressing it with theories like evolution. It's also in the Bible, a historical document, which you may not believe; but in order to back up the statement that you made earlier (re: me talking nonsense where faith is concerned), you need to prove that what I said is not in the Bible.

[Owlswing]

I find it difficult to understand why otherwise intelligent people like yourself and others like A B bother with the god idea in the first place.

ippy
 

Come on Ippy! You KNOW why! You have posted your abhorence of why!

Because it was drilled and drummed into their brains as children! And this is why they are so set on keeping religious education in schools and dragging their kids to church and Sunday school!

[torridon]

The evidence is all around, but you are suppressing it with theories like evolution. It's also in the Bible, a historical document, which you may not believe; ...

'suppressing' is probably the wrong word. 'Superseding' would be a better choice. Science doesn't seek to suppress earlier ideas, rather, prescientific ideas will tend to lose out naturally as our body of knowledge and understanding acquired through detailed observational and empirical analysis grows.

[floo]

The evidence is all around, but you are suppressing it with theories like evolution. It's also in the Bible, a historical document, which you may not believe; but in order to back up the statement that you made earlier (re: me talking nonsense where faith is concerned), you need to prove that what I said is not in the Bible.

That is GARBAGE the evidence is only around us in the minds of people like you. The Bible is NOT a historical document, that is a porky.

[Owlswing]

That is GARBAGE the evidence is only around us in the minds of people like you. The Bible is NOT a historical document, that is a porky.

An indigestable 'porkie' at that!