AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vlad fails again to grasp that on only "positive assertion" is that arguments attempted so far for a "true for you too god" have been falsified - many time in fact, however much he may choose to lie about the content of the falsifications.

In which, after years of attempts, Vlad finally manages to get something right. Sadly however, the vacuity of the efforts so far to demonstrate the former leave him only with the latter.

The only vacuity here is the one experienced after you and the Gordster are asked for explanation or justification for your assertions.......and on that bombshell Hillside I'll bid you goodnight.

[bluehillside Retd.]

The only vacuity here is the one experienced after you and the Gordster are asked for explanation or justification for your assertions.......and on that bombshell Hillside I'll bid you goodnight.

In which Vlad keeps on lying 'til it hurts.

Oh well.

[Maeght]

I believe in love and compassion.

I believe they exist too.

[torridon]

Creators fallacious? Has no one created anything? What on earth can this ''false friend'' arsepull mean?

If we try to understand A by saying 'B must have made it', this gets us nowhere if we cannot say where B came from.  The creator fallacy is thus a false friend - appearing to solve a problem but in fact it only invites an infinite regress of creators which is a more intractable problem than just understanding A.  Another way to think of it is as a painkiller - it doesn't really address the underlying problem but it makes the pain go away.

[torridon]

I believe in love and compassion.

Hooray 

Do you also believe in truth ?  In which case what do you say to your wife when she comes home from the shops with a really awful new hat. Do you sacrifice compassion for the truth or do you sacrifice truth for compassion ?  Sorry derailment; please ignore 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If we try to understand A by saying 'B must have made it', this gets us nowhere if we cannot say where B came from.  The creator fallacy is thus a false friend - appearing to solve a problem but in fact it only invites an infinite regress of creators which is a more intractable problem than just understanding A.  Another way to think of it is as a painkiller - it doesn't really address the underlying problem but it makes the pain go away.

I don't think anybody is saying 'must'. I think most theists respect that there are other thought solutions to the great question but that at the end these are themselves unfalsifiable.

Infinite regress is one hazard of having big bangs and...it looks as though we have one and that invites an infinite regress which doesn't seem too problematical for you (special pleading?).

We are both, in our thinking, after an overall solution to the big question. If you are saying there is one.....How is that different from a God proposed solution?(more special pleading?).

Then we don't have even to consider a regression of creators or big bangs do we?
All we have to do is either have an infinite God or an infinite unconscious universe....and you won't accept the former why?(special pleading?).

Your beef really seems to be with a conscious infinite and that is pure naturalism.

Penultimately, those who realise that there is, contrary to what you say, no ''must'' about it. Have you not contemplated that these peoples actual belief in God is contingent on other things...not least an experience of God?

However this is more about you and IMHO you and your like accept philosophical naturalism all too readily and are too certain that it possesses some kind of flawlessness.

Finally there are Christians who are agnostic about God the creator and others like Origen for whom pre-existing matter is not a problem. They would say that this is because they are followers of the living Christ.

[SusanDoris]

#295*Assuming complexity in smaller steps (Richard Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable) rather than a single step makes the problem worse, in my opinion.

It sounds as if you think that your opinion on the matter is better** than that of Richard Dawkins. If this is so, what are your qualifications for doing so?

I see Gordon has mentioned Nobel prizes!

* Could you please explain this #295 - I've looked at the post and it seems that the words are yours?
** and /or more trustworthy, superior to, supported by better evidence...

]

[Alan Burns]

I believe they exist too.

Indeed, every human being has the capacity to show compassion and love.
But where is it sourced from?  Is it a few chemical reactions in the brain driven entirely by the deterministic laws of nature?  Or is it the capacity of the human soul to consciously interact with natural laws?

[wigginhall]

Indeed, every human being has the capacity to show compassion and love.
But where is it sourced from?  Is it a few chemical reactions in the brain driven entirely by the deterministic laws of nature?  Or is it the capacity of the human soul to consciously interact with natural laws?

Well, it would be interesting to see a concrete demonstration of the latter.   Can you give any citations, where this is done?

[torridon]

Indeed, every human being has the capacity to show compassion and love.
But where is it sourced from?  Is it a few chemical reactions in the brain driven entirely by the deterministic laws of nature?  Or is it the capacity of the human soul to consciously interact with natural laws?

Its a few chemical reactions in the brain.

Sorry about that.

Not just humans either; as mammals we have inherited the seven major emotions common to all mammals that come with the limbic system

[wigginhall]

It's not only a few chemical reactions; it's also a subjective experience (first person), which correlates with those chemical reactions.   As to how one leads to the other, unknown at the moment, but there are some promising research avenues.   As for research into the soul, well, hmm, we're still waiting.

http://news.mit.edu/2016/brain-processes-emotions-mental-illness-depression-0331

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Its a few chemical reactions in the brain.

Ah,yes but such chemical reactions eh?

[torridon]

I don't think anybody is saying 'must'. I think most theists respect that there are other thought solutions to the great question but that at the end these are themselves unfalsifiable.

Infinite regress is one hazard of having big bangs and...it looks as though we have one and that invites an infinite regress which doesn't seem too problematical for you (special pleading?).

We are both, in our thinking, after an overall solution to the big question. If you are saying there is one.....How is that different from a God proposed solution?(more special pleading?).

Then we don't have even to consider a regression of creators or big bangs do we?
All we have to do is either have an infinite God or an infinite unconscious universe....and you won't accept the former why?(special pleading?).

Your beef really seems to be with a conscious infinite and that is pure naturalism.

Penultimately, those who realise that there is, contrary to what you say, no ''must'' about it. Have you not contemplated that these peoples actual belief in God is contingent on other things...not least an experience of God?

However this is more about you and IMHO you and your like accept philosophical naturalism all too readily and are too certain that it possesses some kind of flawlessness.

Finally there are Christians who are agnostic about God the creator and others like Origen for whom pre-existing matter is not a problem. They would say that this is because they are followers of the living Christ.

I don't know that I 'accept philosophical naturalism', I just don't see any justification for supernaturalism.  I don't think we could define or detect 'supernatural' so that puts it out of the field of enquiry.   Not that I claim to have any profound answers, I think noone does, I am just flagging up what seems like dodgy reasoning to me, and that has included, recently, Matrix (or Simulation) theory and theism for both suffering an implication of infinite regress, and therefore probably a logic fail.  Or, with God, by defining God as uncaused and eternal, I think a tautology is on offer here, we are simply defining God to avoid the infinite regress and to avoid the question of his nature or origins. that looks like a fudge to me, and it looks like a simple answer to a question that in reality is very hard and demands more work from us to think clearly and freely without affectation or bias.  My instincts suggest answers to our deepest questions will stem from pure logic eventually; anything anthropocentric in character, like theism, always looks suspicious to me.

[Hope]

I don't know that I 'accept philosophical naturalism', I just don't see any justification for supernaturalism.

I think, in a very few words, you've summed up the principle of what many on the opposite side of the debate to yourself feel, Walter.  Science is limited to physical evidence, whilst real life would seem to extend beyond the mere physical - and therefore they don't believe that there is any justification for restricting one's understanding of real life to 'naturalism' (to recycle a term of yours).

[wigginhall]

I sometimes think that the riddle of consciousness will be solved by a mathematical discovery,  explaining how third person becomes first person.   'Consciousness is a mathematical pattern', (Tegmark).

 https://www.reddit.com/r/ted/comments/3l963t/consciousness_is_a_mathematical_pattern_max/

[torridon]

I think, in a very few words, you've summed up the principle of what many on the opposite side of the debate to yourself feel, Walter.  Science is limited to physical evidence, whilst real life would seem to extend beyond the mere physical - and therefore they don't believe that there is any justification for restricting one's understanding of real life to 'naturalism' (to recycle a term of yours).

That looks a rather dated idea of science. In the nineteenth century, with its emphasis on chemistry, perhaps.  But now we have multiple disciplines converging to help explain the seemingly intangible worlds of mental phenomena.

[Maeght]

Indeed, every human being has the capacity to show compassion and love.
But where is it sourced from?  Is it a few chemical reactions in the brain driven entirely by the deterministic laws of nature?

Probably.

Or is it the capacity of the human soul to consciously interact with natural laws?

Unlikely.

[Nearly Sane]

Unlikely.

on what basis of calculation can you evaluate Alan Burns' statement as unlikely?

[Hope]

Probably.

On what evidence do you come to this conclusion?

Unlikely.

On what evidence do you come to this conclusion?

Sorry, NS, I hadn't realised that you had already asked something similar.

[Nearly Sane]

On what evidence do you come to this conclusion?
On what evidence do you come to this conclusion?

Sorry, NS, I hadn't realised that you had already asked something similar.

No problem, but it should be noted that the same challenge applies to Alan's statements. And despite he and you being asked for a methodology to cover these sort of statements hundreds of times, nothing has appeared

[Maeght]

We know that the brain is involved in our emotions and actions. There is no evidence for the existence of a soul. On balance I would say that love and compassion are products of brain activity. I can't say it is certain but o balance seems most likely to me.

[Nearly Sane]

We know that the brain is involved in our emotions and actions. There is no evidence for the existence of a soul. On balance I would say that love and compassion are products of brain activity. I can't say it is certain but o balance seems most likely to me.

what would be evidence for a non naturalistic claim? How do use probability which is based in assumption of naturalism to give a figure for such a claim?

[Maeght]

I didn't give a figure and wouldn't attempt to. No idea what would be evidence for a non-naturalistic claim.

[Nearly Sane]

I didn't give a figure and wouldn't attempt to. No idea what would be evidence for a non-naturalistic claim.

to state something as unlikely there is an implied figure. Given you don't have an idea on how to evaluate it, the idea of 'unlikely' is specious

[Alan Burns]

I sometimes think that the riddle of consciousness will be solved by a mathematical discovery,  explaining how third person becomes first person.   'Consciousness is a mathematical pattern', (Tegmark).

But any pattern can only be perceived as a pattern from outside observation.  I once came across a mathematical proof that perception can't be defined in material terms.