The power of prayer

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No, the only "evidence" you have for non-material stuff is your limited reasoning ability. If you could grasp the arguments you've been given you'd realise that the claim utter nonsense.

But the fact that you can reply to my post in such a way is clear evidence that your brain is not entirely driven by deterministic reactions to events which began about three billion years ago.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the fact that you can reply to my post in such a way is clear evidence that your brain is not entirely driven by deterministic reactions to events which began about three billion years ago.

The term "clear evidence" has to mean something if you want to use it in meaningful discourse. Why on earth would you think that replying to a post on a website isn't just an outcome of an unfathomably long chain of cause and effect? 

[Sebastian Toe]

But the fact that you can reply to my post in such a way is clear evidence that your brain is not entirely driven by deterministic reactions to events which began about three billion years ago.

Or maybe it is. Only you just can't fathom out why that might be.

[torridon]

You seem to be very optimistic about what can be achieved by purely material entities which simply react to events.  The evidence for the existence of non material entities which are not restricted by deterministic rules of science lie in the perception of your own existence

I don't see that follows.  Perception, when you deconstruct it, is cascades of bioelectrochemical reactions all following natural laws.  Vision, for instance, is the vastly complex informational transformation of patterns in photon energy from retina to cortex.  There is no magic in this process.  I don't look up at the sky and decide that my blue-sensitive retinal cones should react differently to blue wavelengths of light today; no, I see the sky as blue and I have no choice in the matter; and so it must be with higher levels of perception and cognition such as self-awareness as these all arise out of similar biological neural processing.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

The term "clear evidence" has to mean something if you want to use it in meaningful discourse. Why on earth would you think that replying to a post on a website isn't just an outcome of an unfathomably long chain of cause and effect?

Which leaves no possibility for conscious manipulation of your thoughts if they are all pre determined.

[Sebastian Toe]

Which leaves no possibility for conscious manipulation of your thoughts if they are all pre determined.

Does that matter, if the end result is that you still believe/feel that you have conscious manipulation?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Which leaves no possibility for conscious manipulation of your thoughts if they are all pre determined.

No it doesn't because that "manipulation" is itself a function of cause and effect. You cannot just make up an arbitrary "something" outside of that which itself isn't anchored in consistent laws and processes so as to address a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Just because you feel that you're manipulating by some non-natural process doesn't mean that you actually are - it just means that it feels that way.   

[ippy]

I've just read through your posts with Blue Alan, blinkered would be at the kinder end of ways to describe your determined dismissal of any eminently sensible post sent to you.
 
I know this old quote of Douglas Adam's could be seen as old hat but it describes you so well and in a nutshell, quote: 

 “I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.”

Have a serious look into a mirror while reading this quote to yourself, it describes you and exactly where you are.

ippy

[NicholasMarks]

But the fact that you can reply to my post in such a way is clear evidence that your brain is not entirely driven by deterministic reactions to events which began about three billion years ago.

The problem here is that we are all subjects of brain washing...we are surreptitiously told things are true which are blatantly untrue. Propaganda and advertising are the worst offenders but we are often willing partners to it. The problem is that by being overloaded with false reasoning we become stunted in our mental outlook...this is serious because we are then falling into unhealthy physical  health problems...the healthy circulation of nutrients to our brain and our glands and organs become suppressed.

Enter the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ. He and he alone offers the mechanics of repair via his righteous teaching.

Don't just take  my word for it...everyone is entitled to give it a try.

 

[Maeght]

But the fact that you can reply to my post in such a way is clear evidence that your brain is not entirely driven by deterministic reactions to events which began about three billion years ago.

How is that evidence for that?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sparky,

The problem here is that we are all subjects of brain washing...we are surreptitiously told things are true which are blatantly untrue. Propaganda and advertising are the worst offenders but we are often willing partners to it. The problem is that by being overloaded with false reasoning we become stunted in our mental outlook...this is serious because we are then falling into unhealthy physical  health problems...the healthy circulation of nutrients to our brain and our glands and organs become suppressed.

Being lied to is a problem (which is why I wish you'd stop doing it) but it's not the problem here. The problem here is that the evidence about the nature of "free" will fatally undermines the edifice Alan Burns has built to validate his faith beliefs, so he just denies it and hopes no-one notices.

Enter the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ. He and he alone offers the mechanics of repair via his righteous teaching.

Which is a personal opinion you happen to hold, but only a personal opinion until and unless you finally manage an underlying argument to support it.

Don't just take  my word for it...everyone is entitled to give it a try.

Many have, and have found your claims to be complete nonsense.

[floo]

The problem here is that we are all subjects of brain washing...we are surreptitiously told things are true which are blatantly untrue. Propaganda and advertising are the worst offenders but we are often willing partners to it. The problem is that by being overloaded with false reasoning we become stunted in our mental outlook...this is serious because we are then falling into unhealthy physical  health problems...the healthy circulation of nutrients to our brain and our glands and organs become suppressed.

Enter the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ. He and he alone offers the mechanics of repair via his righteous teaching.

Don't just take  my word for it...everyone is entitled to give it a try.

 

It didn't work for me when I was a kid and needed him most.

[ippy]

The problem here is that we are all subjects of brain washing...we are surreptitiously told things are true which are blatantly untrue. Propaganda and advertising are the worst offenders but we are often willing partners to it. The problem is that by being overloaded with false reasoning we become stunted in our mental outlook...this is serious because we are then falling into unhealthy physical  health problems...the healthy circulation of nutrients to our brain and our glands and organs become suppressed.

Enter the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ. He and he alone offers the mechanics of repair via his righteous teaching.

Don't just take  my word for it...everyone is entitled to give it a try.

Wrong word Nick, you're using brainwashing when you actually mean indoctrination, brainwashing was a failed North Korean experiment, that dates back to the fifties, it doesn't work so they gave up on it, don't worry though it's a common error.

ippy

[Khatru]

Enter the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ.

You keep referring to the

accurate teaching of Jesus Christ

Looking at your religion, it's easy to see that Christianity consists of thousands of different denominations, sects and cults, all asserting that their take on the mythology is true.

Please can you share with us exactly what these accurate teachings are.

A simple enough request?  Well, maybe not for you, as your consistent inability to tell us what these accurate teachings are belies whatever message it is that you're attempting to get across.

[BashfulAnthony]

I've just read through your posts with Blue Alan, blinkered would be at the kinder end of ways to describe your determined dismissal of any eminently sensible post sent to you.
 
I know this old quote of Douglas Adam's could be seen as old hat but it describes you so well and in a nutshell, quote: 

 “I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.”

Have a serious look into a mirror while reading this quote to yourself, it describes you and exactly where you are.

ippy

These frequent allusions to comments made by Douglas Adams are absurd.  What was he?  A writer of pretty silly things, certainly no theologian or great intellect.  His opinion is of no more worth than any Joe Bloggs. And for him to impugn the intelligence of millions is arrogant and puerile,  and ever so slightly ridiculous,  since thousands and thousands of them are a good deal more intelligent and perceptive than he ever was.  It seems that when a person achieves a little fame or notoriety they immediately assume they are experts in anything they choose to pontificate on. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

These frequent allusions to comments made by Douglas Adams are absurd.  What was he?  A writer of pretty silly things, certainly no theologian or great intellect.  His opinion is of no more worth than any Joe Bloggs. And for him to impugn the intelligence of millions is arrogant and puerile,  and ever so slightly ridiculous,  since thousands and thousands of them are a good deal more intelligent and perceptive than he ever was.  It seems that when a person achieves a little fame or notoriety they immediately assume they are experts in anything they choose to pontificate on.

That's a sort of inverse argument from authority - "he wasn't an authority, therefore we can discount what he said".

You need to separate the ideas from the person. What he said stands or falls on its merits - the puddle analogy for example is an effective way to demonstrate the anthropic principle, so people use it. It doesn't become less effective for that purpose because he wasn't, say, a professor of logic.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

That's a sort of inverse argument from authority - "he wasn't an authority, therefore we can discount what he said".

You need to separate the ideas from the person. What he said stands or falls on its merits - the puddle analogy for example is an effective way to demonstrate the anthropic principle, so people use it. It doesn't become less effective for that purpose because he wasn't, say, a professor of logic.

I was merely making the point that he was quoted as though because he said it, it must be true.  Why not simply make the point without reference to some "celebrity or other?"

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

I was merely making the point that he was quoted as though because he said it, it must be true.  Why not simply make the point without reference to some "celebrity or other?"

No-one does that. He's credited with the quotes because that's the standard protocol in discussions of this kind. It's a courtesy, and it looks like attempted plagiarism if you use the quotes unacknowledged.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

No-one does that. He's credited with the quotes because that's the standard protocol in discussions of this kind. It's a courtesy, and it looks like attempted plagiarism if you use the quotes unacknowledged.

It is perfectly proper to make a point others have made, as long as you don't repeat something word for word as though it is your original idea.  It would be a tad difficult to debate anything if we were constrained by having to give credit to anyone who might have made a similar point.

[Nearly Sane]

It is perfectly proper to make a point others have made, as long as you don't repeat something word for word as though it is your original idea.  It would be a tad difficult to debate anything if we were constrained by having to give credit to anyon who might have made a similar point.

are you saying that quoting anyone is wrong?

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

It is perfectly proper to make a point others have made, as long as you don't repeat something word for word as though it is your original idea.  It would be a tad difficult to debate anything if we were constrained by having to give credit to anyon who might have made a similar point.

You can make the point in general but if, say, I wanted to use the puddle analogy to demonstrate the anthropic principle it'd be bad form not to cite the person who came up with it. 

[BashfulAnthony]

are you saying that quoting anyone is wrong?

I'm saying that it is absurd to quote someone unless they have a particular expertise in that subject, not simply because they are well-known.  Otherwise I might as well quote my next door neighbour, Dave, from time to time.  After all, his opinion would be as valid as that of Douglas Adams!

[Nearly Sane]

I'm saying that it is absurd to quote someone unless they have a particular expertise in that subject, not simply because they are well-known.  Otherwise I might as well quote my next door neighbour, Dave, from time to time.  After all, his opinion would be as valid as that of Douglas Adams!

if your next door neighbour says something worth quoting, then I see nothing wrong with that. The idea that one needs 'expertise' in something to be right on it is ludicrous.

[BashfulAnthony]

if your next door neighbour says something worth quoting, then I see nothing wrong with that. The idea that one needs 'expertise' in something to be right on it is ludicrous.

You miss my point.  I am saying that Adams was quoted as though his opinion carried more weight than Dave's; that's what's ludicrous.  Why not just make your point without quoting anyone?

[Nearly Sane]

You miss my point.  I am saying that Adams was quoted as though his opinion carried more weight than Dave's; that's what's ludicrous.  Why not just make your point without quoting anyone?

so you are taking the position that quoting people is in some way wrong.