Author Topic: Searching for GOD...  (Read 1467778 times)

Sebastian Toe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6099
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31750 on: October 10, 2018, 05:41:42 PM »
For our thought processes to make any sense, we need the conscious control which can only be provided by our God given freedom, not by the predetermined consequences of physical activity.
For a person who absolutely is certain that he is the resurrected Jesus, he must be using his concious control, the alternative would be that he is being driven by his predetermined physical brain activity.
Now as you have stated, the latter is impossible,  so what do you think is the explanation if he is not telling lies?
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends.'
Albert Einstein

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12636
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31751 on: October 10, 2018, 05:44:00 PM »
AB,

Quote
No.

Yes.

Quote
It is your materialistic explanation which fails.
It fails to to provide a definitive explanation for my conscious ability to choose.

That’s not a failure of what the materialistic model(s) indicate, namely that they appear to be on the right tracks considering the reasoning and evidence that support them. That “definitive” is the weasel word you tried to sneak in there – what they actually provide are incomplete models, which is a great deal more to go on than your and other faith alternatives for which there’s no definition at all, no means of identification at all, and no method of investigation at all.

If you think the lack of a complete definition to be problematic for the materialistic explanations we do have, why do you not think it to be an much bigger problem for your claims (“soul” etc) for which you have no “definition” of any kind?

Do you think you could just this once at least try to answer that rather than run away from it as you always have in the past?

Thanks.   

Quote
My conscious choices are certainly not random.
Nor are they entirely predetermined beyond my control.
I am free to choose - this is a simple reality for which there is no physical explanation.

Then you’ll have to tell us first what this “I” might be, and second how it somehow breaks out of the determined vs binary logic. As you’ve never bothered to address this in the past, perhaps you’d care finally to do so now? 

Quote
The truth really does set you free, so why not just rejoice in your God given freedom instead of trying to deny it?

Mindless faith assertion to finish noted. As you’ve never yet shown the slightest sign of having identified “the truth” though, perhaps you should turn your attention to that problem before overreaching into claims about a god and his doings?

Look, I’ll even give you a head start: if you want to make arguments for “god”, “soul” etc that others will take seriously then don’t do it by stringing together only logical fallacies.

You’re welcome. 
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6323
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31752 on: October 10, 2018, 06:50:33 PM »
That’s not a failure of what the materialistic model(s) indicate, namely that they appear to be on the right tracks considering the reasoning and evidence that support them. That “definitive” is the weasel word you tried to sneak in there – what they actually provide are incomplete models, which is a great deal more to go on than your and other faith alternatives for which there’s no definition at all, no means of identification at all, and no method of investigation at all.
But the materialistic model can never provide a definitive explanation for conscious choice.
Because any materialistic explanation will by definition provide no freedom to choose and assert that everything will be derived from physically defined reactions of material elements.  This is not fallacious thinking, it is a logical conclusion based upon known material behaviour.  So in the materialistic scenario, any concept of choice will have to be assumed to be illusionary.
Quote
If you think the lack of a complete definition to be problematic for the materialistic explanations we do have, why do you not think it to be an much bigger problem for your claims (“soul” etc) for which you have no “definition” of any kind?
You can't provide a physical definition for spiritual entities.  All we can provide is evidence for what they do.
Quote
Then you’ll have to tell us first what this “I” might be, and second how it somehow breaks out of the determined vs binary logic. As you’ve never bothered to address this in the past, perhaps you’d care finally to do so now? 
The "I" is the single entity of awareness which perceives our brain activity and consciously interacts with it.  Let us call call this single entity of awareness the human soul
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13624
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31753 on: October 10, 2018, 07:01:01 PM »
But the materialistic model can never provide a definitive explanation for conscious choice.

So what? That it doesn't, and maybe never will, doesn't open the door for 'God' to wander in.

Quote
Because any materialistic explanation will by definition provide no freedom to choose and assert that everything will be derived from physically defined reactions of material elements.  This is not fallacious thinking, it is a logical conclusion based upon known material behaviour.  So in the materialistic scenario, any concept of choice will have to be assumed to be illusionary.

So our freedom is constrained and the notion of untrammelled 'freedom' is illusory: so what?

Quote
You can't provide a physical definition for spiritual entities.

More to the point you can't: the burden of proof is yours.

Quote
All we can provide is evidence for what they do.

When do we get to see this evidence?

Quote
The "I" is the single entity of awareness which perceives our brain activity and consciously interacts with it.  Let us call call this single entity of awareness the human soul

I just call it 'me': which has proved sufficient enough to get me through life to date.

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6323
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31754 on: October 10, 2018, 08:19:22 PM »
For a person who absolutely is certain that he is the resurrected Jesus, he must be using his concious control, the alternative would be that he is being driven by his predetermined physical brain activity.
Now as you have stated, the latter is impossible,  so what do you think is the explanation if he is not telling lies?
As I said before, he is either mentally deluded or he is deliberately telling lies.  The former is a physical condition.  The latter is a deliberate act which can only be derived from the willpower of our human soul.
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13624
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31755 on: October 10, 2018, 08:31:04 PM »
As I said before, he is either mentally deluded or he is deliberately telling lies.  The former is a physical condition.  The latter is a deliberate act which can only be derived from the willpower of our human soul.

If 'souls' are inclined to tell lies, being divine and all, then I'm glad I don't have one.

Sebastian Toe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6099
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31756 on: October 10, 2018, 10:01:32 PM »
As I said before, he is either mentally deluded or he is deliberately telling lies.  The former is a physical condition. 
In what way does this type of physical condition cause the soul to act in such a way?
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends.'
Albert Einstein

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12636
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31757 on: October 11, 2018, 09:40:01 AM »
AB,

Quote
But the materialistic model can never provide a definitive explanation for conscious choice.

The problem here is that you don’t understand the terms you attempt, so the answer to that involves me unpacking the confusion before I can begin. What do you mean by “definitive” for example? If you mean something like, “as definitive as the definition we have of, say, gravity” then that’s not a statement you can make because it’s not something you can know to be true. If however you mean something more like, “correct beyond any possibility of being falsified” that’s technically true (for reasons I won’t trouble you with) but it’s also true for every other definition we have so it doesn’t help you at all. As presumably by "definition" what you actually mean is "explanation" in any case though ("consciousness" as a term is reasonably well defined, it's the explanation for it that's incomplete) why not use that term in any case?       

Quote
Because any materialistic explanation will by definition provide no freedom to choose and assert that everything will be derived from physically defined reactions of material elements.

First that’s the fallacy called the argumentum ad consequentiam again, and second the only “freedom” it would deny is your personal definition of it which is itself fundamentally irrational (for the reasons that keep being explained to you and you keep ignoring).

Quote
This is not fallacious thinking, it is a logical conclusion based upon known material behaviour.  So in the materialistic scenario, any concept of choice will have to be assumed to be illusionary.

It’s “illusory” and yes it is fallacious thinking for the reasons I’ve just explained.

Quote
You can't provide a physical definition for spiritual entities. All we can provide is evidence for what they do.

Well that’s embarrassing for you. Your complaint (wrongly as it happens) about the material model for consciousness is that it’s not “fully defined”, but you then exempt your conjecture about a “soul” from a much bigger definitional problem by throwing in the conditional “physical”. If you can’t provide a “physical” definition, then what kind of definition do you propose instead? If your answer remains “none at all” yet you persist with the claim then you’re doing something called special pleading, which is yet another fallacy.   

Quote
The "I" is the single entity of awareness which perceives our brain activity and consciously interacts with it.  Let us call call this single entity of awareness the human soul

No, let’s not for some very good reasons. First, if you think there’s something that “perceives our brain activity” then that something is presumably somehow outside and separate from our brains. Leaving aside for now the total absence of evidence for such a thing, and indeed the total absence of an explanation for how it would do that “interacting”, your invisible little man at the controls would itself still have to deal with the determined vs binary problem simply as matter of logic. Not "physical" logic. Not "material" logic. Just logic. “It’s magic innit?” has effectively been your only response to that so far, but I suspect that at some dim level even you know that to be hopeless. Why not then finally show some honesty and have a go at tackling it?

Second, “soul” implies a supernatural entity of some kind. If you want to claim a supernatural though, then you’ll have to explain first what you mean by it, how you’d identify it, how it could be investigated etc. Until and unless you can finally do that, you may as well say “wibble” for all the rhetorical use it has.

Look, I’ll even make it easy for you again. Do you remember a while ago that I used our two Norse friends to explain where you go wrong? You remember, Sven says to Eric, “I’m seeing patterns in the weather that enable me to tell whether it’ll rain tomorrow, and sometimes that evidence tells me too that thunder is coming” and Eric replies, “ah, but you don’t have a complete definition of thunder yet do you, therefore…it can never be defined in material terms, therefore….Thor!” As ever you just ignored it, but its construction is precisely the one you attempt for “soul”. You ignore the direction in which science currently points, you complain that it has yet fully to “define” consciousness, you make the entirely unqualified claim that it can never “define” consciousness, and then you drop in your superstitious belief “soul” about which you have no information of any kind as if that was an answer.

If you want anyone to take seriously your claim that you think about things, why not think about that and respond to it – preferably not by stringing together another series of fallacious arguments? Seriously though, why not now bring some honesty to the table and give it a go? In what way do you think your and Eric’s positions are different?
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 09:48:52 PM by bluehillside Retd. »
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12636
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31758 on: October 11, 2018, 01:56:41 PM »
Gabriella,

Quote
I challenged you on your statement that "he consistently dismisses in its entirely the scientific evidence we do have because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness." because to me he has not consistently dismissed etc etc in his posts but he has inserted a soul into the incomplete explanations. My view was that his statement about theories doesn't translate into him actually consistently dismissing etc etc as the theories don't effectively remove his views on free will. Whether he has a closed mind to any particular robust theory is a different argument - and one I would assess on a case by case basis. If you have some evidence that he has denied a robust theory that rules out his article of faith, then I am happy to consider it. I can't predict the future about whether AB will or will not be persuaded by a robust theory and modify his beliefs or what he perceives as an article of faith.

It’s simple enough – he denies “any theory” etc, and where he would draw the line for “effectively removes” is unknowable. If you think he meant something other than the words he used though, I suggest you ask him to clarify. Frankly I’m finding trying to second guess such low grade thinking too dull to continue with in any case.   

Quote
If we are no longer talking about half a jigsaw puzzle allowing you to predict the missing half, then yes I agree that having more parts to an explanation is more helpful to figuring out ways to test for missing parts of the explanation.

That’s weird. Are you seriously suggesting that a jig-saw puzzle with half the pieces missing isn’t more likely to indicate the final picture than a jig-saw puzzle with all the pieces missing?               

Quote
No, what I said was that you don't know what reality is at the deepest level.

Which was your mistake as I made no such claim remember? The point I was actually making was that AB doesn't know that, and moreover that relying on his "deepest beliefs" about what an experience feels like is a particularly unreliable method of explaining what causes it.   

Quote
My point was that no one knows what reality is at the deepest level so talking about reality at the deepest level or stating that someone thinks they know what is was meaningless.

Actually that was my point but ok…

Quote
I could be wrong but AB has not, as far as I can read, claimed to know what reality is at its deepest level or used the words "deepest truths" and yet you were stating to him "Except it’s not “obviously true” at all. That’s just an irrational belief you happen to hold built on the odd notion that your “deepest feelings” about something must therefore explain reality at the deepest level."

Yes he has claimed that. Again, ask him for yourself if you think he thinks otherwise. Good luck trying to get a straight answer to a straight question out of him though.   

Quote
I've argued this point with you before - I think beliefs are different from reality and facts. AB can hold onto his beliefs and claim they are facts but he has no objective evidence for them, only subjective evidence such as his personal experience, and I personally don't find that persuasive, so regardless of any claim of fact - my view is that it can't be proved as fact without objective evidence. It's up to other individuals if they are persuaded that it is true in the absence of objective evidence.

You don’t say. Try explaining that to AB then.                 

Quote
The decision-maker could be a mix of a conscious and unconscious brain process…

AB claims a “soul” that’s outside of brain processes but in some mysterious way is interacting with them, but ok so far…

Quote
- the process or method is currently unknown as there is not enough information on everything that my brain interacts with to produce thoughts. I think my brain process is influenced by many things e.g. genetics, chemistry, environment, interpretations of inputs, assessment of alignment with goals I have made, a sense of self-awareness, an acknowledgement of others sense of self-awareness.

Yes, but you’re still talking about self-awareness here – ie, mind as a function of brain so you’ll get no argument fro me.

Quote
I don't know where a soul fits in or what a soul is - it's a religious concept and can't be tested for to fit it into the studies about the brain in neuroscience and experimental psychology.

And nor can it fit in with any studies as its just white noise entirely unaccompanied by any information whatsoever. That’s the problem with it.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2018, 07:58:45 PM by bluehillside Retd. »
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke

ippy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11279
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31759 on: October 11, 2018, 05:54:15 PM »
But behaviour in a material brain will be entirely driven by the uncontrollable physical laws of nature.  Our brain is a very sophisticated instrument in which much of the functionality is effectively on automatic pilot, but to enable our freedom to make conscious choices, there is manual override which can only be provided by something capable of conscious interaction within the physical working of the brain.

Looks to me you're doing your best to corner the market on assertions here, again and the evidence for the, something capable of conscious interaction within the physical working of the brain? Please explain?

Commiserations Alan, ippy

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6323
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31760 on: October 11, 2018, 11:40:17 PM »
If 'souls' are inclined to tell lies, being divine and all, then I'm glad I don't have one.
The freedom given to us through the God given power of our human soul does not incline us in this way.  If it did, it would not be freedom.

We are free to tell lies.
We are free to tell the truth.
The choice is ours.
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7841
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31761 on: October 12, 2018, 06:19:17 AM »
The freedom given to us through the God given power of our human soul does not incline us in this way.  If it did, it would not be freedom.

We are free to tell lies.
We are free to tell the truth.
The choice is ours.

Then why are some people liars, and others not ?

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13624
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31762 on: October 12, 2018, 07:28:44 AM »
The freedom given to us through the God given power of our human soul does not incline us in this way.  If it did, it would not be freedom.

We are free to tell lies.
We are free to tell the truth.
The choice is ours.

Since the inclination to tell lies or tell the truth varies from person to person, as do other attributes such as specific abilities, experiences, creativity, altruism and intelligence etc, are we to conclude that these various aspects of each person are also aspects of their soul?

It seems to me that your are using 'soul' as a synonym for 'brain' because, for you, that all these are just are aspects of brain function will never be enough because animals have brains too - so us humans have got to have something 'extra' that is special and just for our species alone.

You're not making any sense, Alan, which I know is stating the obvious.

Steve H

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2163
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31763 on: October 12, 2018, 08:20:25 AM »
Then why are some people liars, and others not ?
Because some choose to be liars, and others don't. Pretty obvious, I'd've thought.
What do you get if you cross the Atlantic with the Titanic?
Half way.

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7841
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31764 on: October 12, 2018, 08:39:42 AM »
Because some choose to be liars, and others don't. Pretty obvious, I'd've thought.

That's not really saying anything; why would some people choose to be liars whereas others not.

Steve H

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2163
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31765 on: October 12, 2018, 08:42:04 AM »
That's not really saying anything; why would some people choose to be liars whereas others not.
Now you're being silly. Also, you need a question mark on the end of the above.
What do you get if you cross the Atlantic with the Titanic?
Half way.

Gabriella

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6932
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31766 on: October 12, 2018, 09:31:53 AM »
Gabriella,

It’s simple enough – he denies “any theory” etc, and where he would draw the line for “effectively removes” is unknowable. If you think he meant something other than the words he used though, I suggest you ask him to clarify. Frankly I’m finding trying to second guess such low grade thinking too dull to continue with in any case.
Our discussion was not about what he would do in the future but about whether he "consistently dismisses"etc. I disagreed that he had consistently dismissed in its entirety the evidence we do have etc- as there was no need for him to dismiss as existing theories don't "effectively remove" his concept  of conscious choice and they say nothing about a soul because there is no way to test for a soul. But fine let's leave it.

Quote
That’s weird. Are you seriously suggesting that a jig-saw puzzle with half the pieces missing isn’t more likely to indicate the final picture than a jig-saw puzzle with all the pieces missing?
As I said - it depends on what assumptions you make about the jigsaw puzzle - who knows what images the missing half contains and if they are similar or related to the images in the half you have.               

Quote
Which was your mistake as I made no such claim remember? The point I was actually making was that AB doesn't know that, and moreover that relying on his "deepest beliefs" about what an experience feels like is a particularly unreliable method of explaining what causes it.   

Actually that was my point but ok…

Yes he has claimed that. Again, ask him for yourself if you think he thinks otherwise. Good luck trying to get a straight answer to a straight question out of him though.
And my point was that you might not have claimed you know the deepest truth or reality but neither has Alan even though you were claiming he had. I couldn't find evidence of Alan saying anything about reality at the deepest level or deepest truth or deepest anything in my forum search - so without evidence I'm assuming it didn't happen but I could be wrong and the evidence is there and I can't see it. And sure I'll ask him if he said it:

Alan - did you say you know what reality is at the deepest level or you know the deepest truths when it comes to free will or conscious choices or souls?

Quote
You don’t say. Try explaining that to AB then.
A lot of people on here have explained to AB that his claims of fact are just beliefs until he produces some objective, testable evidence that supports his claims.                 

Quote
AB claims a “soul” that’s outside of brain processes but in some mysterious way is interacting with them, but ok so far…

Yes, but you’re still talking about self-awareness here – ie, mind as a function of brain so you’ll get no argument fro me.

And nor can it fit in with any studies as its just white noise entirely unaccompanied by any information whatsoever. That’s the problem with it.
Souls aren't white noise as a religious/ philosophical concept. As this isn't a science forum but is a religion & ethics forum, people who are interested in the philosophical concept of souls being held accountable will tend to discuss that on this board.
“Forget safety. Live where you fear to live.” Rumi

torridon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7841
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31767 on: October 12, 2018, 09:35:02 AM »
Now you're being silly. Also, you need a question mark on the end of the above.

So, why are some people grammar Nazis, and others not ?

Note question mark.

My point being, that there are always reasons for things; all that varies, is our appetite to explore and uncover those reasons.  A choice to not explore them is a preference for ignorance over knowledge.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 12:48:25 PM by torridon »

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6323
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31768 on: October 12, 2018, 09:36:37 AM »

It seems to me that your are using 'soul' as a synonym for 'brain' because, for you, that all these are just are aspects of brain function will never be enough because animals have brains too - so us humans have got to have something 'extra' that is special and just for our species alone.
Quite right.
Animals do not seem capable of telling lies.
Nor are they capable of the many human attributes which derive from our ability to consciously drive our own thought processes, rather than just react in accordance with biological instincts.
Quote
You're not making any sense, Alan, which I know is stating the obvious.
I makes perfect sense to me.
« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 09:40:59 AM by Alan Burns »
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32

Alan Burns

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6323
  • I lay it down of my own free will. John 10:18
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31769 on: October 12, 2018, 09:39:48 AM »
So, why are some people grammar Nazis, and others not ?

Note question mark.

My point being, that there are always reasons for things; all that varies, is our appetite to explore and uncover those reasons.  A choice to not explore them is a preference for ignorance of knowledge.
And the reason is ......
Our ability to consciously choose what we want to do.
The truth will set you free  - John 8:32

Gordon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13624
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31770 on: October 12, 2018, 09:55:13 AM »
Animals do not seem capable of telling lies.

Don't be silly: humans are animals too (including all the liars among us).

Quote
Nor are they capable of the many human attributes which derive from our ability to consciously drive our own thought processes, rather than just react in accordance with biological instincts.

So human animals have evolved to date with more sophisticated intellectual capabilities than other animal species: we know this already.

Quote
I makes perfect sense to me.

I know: that is certainly a problem, but hopefully the penny will drop for you at some point.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12636
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31771 on: October 12, 2018, 10:02:47 AM »
Steve H,

Quote
Because some choose to be liars, and others don't. Pretty obvious, I'd've thought.

Then you haven't been paying attention. According to AB, there's something he calls a "soul" that makes the decisions. Therefore (presumably) it's this soul that would choose to lie, and as evidently some people do lie so it seems must some souls be liars.

That is, not only can AB not furnish any definition at all, any means of identification of all, or any means of investigation at all of his claim "soul", nonetheless he claims too to know what it can and cannot do, albeit that his blanket assertions about that leads him into logical cul-de-sacs like this one.   
« Last Edit: October 12, 2018, 10:08:13 AM by bluehillside Retd. »
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke

Sebastian Toe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6099
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31772 on: October 12, 2018, 10:14:33 AM »
And the reason is ......
Our ability to consciously choose what we want to do.
Why would you're soul choose to lie though?
What would be the reasons for it to use it's "freedom" to do such a thing?
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends.'
Albert Einstein

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12636
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31773 on: October 12, 2018, 10:25:10 AM »
Gabriella,

Quote
Our discussion was not about what he would do in the future but about whether he "consistently dismisses"etc. I disagreed that he had consistently dismissed in its entirety the evidence we do have etc- as there was no need for him to dismiss as existing theories don't "effectively remove" his concept  of conscious choice and they say nothing about a soul because there is no way to test for a soul. But fine let's leave it.

Still you don’t understand that the problem is all his – whatever he means by “effectively removes” etc is what he routinely dismisses out of hand. What he think does that is something you’d have to ask him.

Quote
As I said - it depends on what assumptions you make about the jigsaw puzzle - who knows what images the missing half contains and if they are similar or related to the images in the half you have.


And as I corrected you, no it doesn’t because I used the word “probabilistically”. Take 100 puzzles, or 1,000, or 1,000,000 each with half the pieces missing and compare the results with the same sample sizes of puzzles each with all the pieces missing. It’s simple enough.               

Quote
And my point was that you might not have claimed you know the deepest truth or reality…

Yes that was your point, and you misguidedly tried to criticise me for it remember?

Quote
…but neither has Alan even though you were claiming he had. I couldn't find evidence of Alan saying anything about reality at the deepest level or deepest truth or deepest anything in my forum search - so without evidence I'm assuming it didn't happen but I could be wrong and the evidence is there and I can't see it. And sure I'll ask him if he said it:

Alan - did you say you know what reality is at the deepest level or you know the deepest truths when it comes to free will or conscious choices or souls?

Yes he has. He knows – really, really, really knows beyond even any possibility of being wrong. He’s been asked about this many times by the way, but he never bothers to answer. Maybe you’ll have better luck getting an answer out of him though.   

Quote
A lot of people on here have explained to AB that his claims of fact are just beliefs until he produces some objective, testable evidence that supports his claims.

Yet still it falls on deaf ears…                 

Quote
Souls aren't white noise as a religious/ philosophical concept. As this isn't a science forum but is a religion & ethics forum, people who are interested in the philosophical concept of souls being held accountable will tend to discuss that on this board.

Yes they are because, even as “a religious/ philosophical concept”, they collapse at the first hurdle of investigability. To think otherwise is to accept that “leprechauns” isn’t white noise either. 
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke

SusanDoris

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5526
Re: Searching for GOD...
« Reply #31774 on: October 12, 2018, 11:07:05 AM »
Gabriella

How can you possibly even begin to suggeste that a jigsaw puzzle with no pieces could in any way be more likely to produce a correct guess at the picture than one with half the pieces?

AB

Your responses are becoming so silly that it is really quite painful to read them!
The Most Honourable Sister of Titular Indecision.