Blasphemy or Biblical?

[_subgenius]

Borderline r******* reasoning, with a healthy dose of ipse dixit and petitio principii.

Ahhhh...the old "because i say so" rebuttal...nicely played senor Buffalot.

But please...illuminate us all as to how one has the ability to choose "otherwise"....or do you consider that an impossible action for a person to take?

[_Buffalo]

Borderline r******* reasoning, with a healthy dose of ipse dixit and petitio principii.

Ahhhh...the old "because i say so" rebuttal...nicely played senor Buffalot.

But please...illuminate us all as to how one has the ability to choose "otherwise"....or do you consider that an impossible action for a person to take?

"Because I say so" was the crux of your argument. That's what ipse dixit means. If you'd like to use reasoning to defend your argument, that would be appreciated.

Why would you think that under a non-supernatural paradigm, there would be no choice? That was the question you were begging, and if that's your premise, you need to do more than pronounce it - you need to defend it.

[_subgenius]

Why would you think that under a non-supernatural paradigm, there would be no choice? That was the question you were begging, and if that's your premise, you need to do more than pronounce it - you need to defend it.

my apologies, i did not realize that such a fundamental lesson was required...but her ye go:


1. The laws of nature are universal..for example gravity "behaves" on earth the same as on the moon, or in space...or my favorite - rainbows, which will occur when the components of such are present.
2. Chemical reactions are bound to the laws of nature....for example, oxidation...or when vinegar is mixed with baking soda, etc...
3. The human body is composed entirely of chemical reactions, all of which are incapable of "reacting" outside of the established natural law which governs them. For example the sodium-potassium pump at the cellular level.
4. The human mind is simply a complex system of chemical reactions.
5. The human mind is bound by the laws of nature...no thought, no emotion, no involuntary action, exists outside the laws which govern the chemical reactions which govern the organs, tissues, and cells of every human being.
6. Therefore, all human thought and action is bound to the laws of chemical reactions.
7. There exists nothing that can manipulate a chemical reaction to not "react" at its fundamental level. Another chemical reaction may manipulate another reaction, but that is simply a more complex system of the same laws.
8. Therefore, everything you do and think is a "reaction" and is governed by the external stimuli which initiates a reaction, a reaction which is unable to deviate from its governed path.
9. So, the notion that one could "choose otherwise" must be an illusion.....human existence is merely a more "complicated" version of being a leaf.
10. A leaf is unable to bend "away" from the sun...its natural law is to bend towards the sun...this occurs at the cellular/chemical level. No leaf is capable of "choosing" to bend away from the sun.
11. Without the "supernatural" one must succumb to the notion that "natural" law is all that there is.
12. Without the ability to "choose otherwise" then the ideas of "individuality", the self, moral responsibility, and liberty are just complex delusions.
13. To resist this notion, one must affirm that the supernatural is possible.......

[_Buffalo]

Why would you think that under a non-supernatural paradigm, there would be no choice? That was the question you were begging, and if that's your premise, you need to do more than pronounce it - you need to defend it.

my apologies, i did not realize that such a fundamental lesson was required...but her ye go:


1. The laws of nature are universal..for example gravity "behaves" on earth the same as on the moon, or in space...or my favorite - rainbows, which will occur when the components of such are present.
2. Chemical reactions are bound to the laws of nature....for example, oxidation...or when vinegar is mixed with baking soda, etc...
3. The human body is composed entirely of chemical reactions, all of which are incapable of "reacting" outside of the established natural law which governs them. For example the sodium-potassium pump at the cellular level.
4. The human mind is simply a complex system of chemical reactions.
5. The human mind is bound by the laws of nature...no thought, no emotion, no involuntary action, exists outside the laws which govern the chemical reactions which govern the organs, tissues, and cells of every human being.
6. Therefore, all human thought and action is bound to the laws of chemical reactions.
7. There exists nothing that can manipulate a chemical reaction to not "react" at its fundamental level. Another chemical reaction may manipulate another reaction, but that is simply a more complex system of the same laws.
8. Therefore, everything you do and think is a "reaction" and is governed by the external stimuli which initiates a reaction, a reaction which is unable to deviate from its governed path.
9. So, the notion that one could "choose otherwise" must be an illusion.....human existence is merely a more "complicated" version of being a leaf.
10. A leaf is unable to bend "away" from the sun...its natural law is to bend towards the sun...this occurs at the cellular/chemical level. No leaf is capable of "choosing" to bend away from the sun.
11. Without the "supernatural" one must succumb to the notion that "natural" law is all that there is.
12. Without the ability to "choose otherwise" then the ideas of "individuality", the self, moral responsibility, and liberty are just complex delusions.
13. To resist this notion, one must affirm that the supernatural is possible.......

In this unorganized, sprawling mess of word salad, you neglected to demonstrate how choice is precluded by any natural laws. Could you be more specific?

[_subgenius]

In this unorganized, sprawling mess of word salad, you neglected to demonstrate how choice is precluded by any natural laws. Could you be more specific?

you poor helpless thing...just your posts prove it..because no one could possibly choose to be that inept.
But how about you demonstrate, alone or in front of a group, how you "choose" to control the electrical membrane potential of a cell as it rapidly rises and falls.
Or better yet, please demonstrate how water can "choose" to be anything but water?
wait

let us keep it really really simple and to the point....

....Thoughts...do they have an anatomy/chemistry? In other words are Thoughts the creation of neurotransmitters? Are thoughts beholden to chemical and electrical transformations that occur in the brain?
And if so, then are these chemical and electrical transformation ruled by natural law...are they dictated by the laws of the universe, the same which govern how hydrogen can combine with oxygen to make water?
And if not, then what are thoughts the creation of? if you answer "who knows" or "unknown as of today" then you must concede the position of "supernatural"....whether you want to specify God or not.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

[_Buffalo]

In this unorganized, sprawling mess of word salad, you neglected to demonstrate how choice is precluded by any natural laws. Could you be more specific?

you poor helpless thing...just your posts prove it..because no one could possibly choose to be that inept.
But how about you demonstrate, alone or in front of a group, how you "choose" to control the electrical membrane potential of a cell as it rapidly rises and falls.
Or better yet, please demonstrate how water can "choose" to be anything but water?
wait

let us keep it really really simple and to the point....

....Thoughts...do they have an anatomy/chemistry? In other words are Thoughts the creation of neurotransmitters? Are thoughts beholden to chemical and electrical transformations that occur in the brain?
And if so, then are these chemical and electrical transformation ruled by natural law...are they dictated by the laws of the universe, the same which govern how hydrogen can combine with oxygen to make water?
And if not, then what are thoughts the creation of? if you answer "who knows" or "unknown as of today" then you must concede the position of "supernatural"....whether you want to specify God or not.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

So your argument boils down to consciousness and thought require magic in order to exist? Goodness. I can see you haven't thought this one through. :)

And whether you like it nor not, "supernatural" is not the default position when naturalistic explanations are absent (which is not even the case here).

[_subgenius]

... "supernatural" is not the default position when naturalistic explanations are absent (which is not even the case here).

as you will undoubtedly fail to provide proof for your assertion here, i will go ahead an state "you fail".
supernatural is the "default".
for example:
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.<---------read this one slowly
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernatural

but please, amaze me!

and for the record....it is the case here...or are you going to subscribe to the notion that thoughts are beholden to "nature" and thus governed by the universal laws of nature...and thus individuality, self, agency, etc...are eradicated in the name of biochemicallly induced illusions?

or will you just creep back into your little troll cave and refill your cute little purse of snarky comments, leaving no room for substance.

i thought as much....or did i?

[_Drifting]

subgenius, I'm confused. <insert witty response>

Are you saying that because we have an inbuilt ability to choose some things e.g. I chose what socks to put on but didn't choose the colour of my eyes, that proves the existence of a supernatural force?

Or are you saying that 'reactions', such as instinctively withdrawing ones hand from a fire because you felt a burning sensation, can be overcome (forcing ones self to keep ones hand in the flames) and so that proves the existence of a supernatural force?

[_Buffalo]

... "supernatural" is not the default position when naturalistic explanations are absent (which is not even the case here).

as you will undoubtedly fail to provide proof for your assertion here, i will go ahead an state "you fail".
supernatural is the "default".
for example:
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.<---------read this one slowly
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernatural

but please, amaze me!

and for the record....it is the case here...or are you going to subscribe to the notion that thoughts are beholden to "nature" and thus governed by the universal laws of nature...and thus individuality, self, agency, etc...are eradicated in the name of biochemicallly induced illusions?

or will you just creep back into your little troll cave and refill your cute little purse of snarky comments, leaving no room for substance.

i thought as much....or did i?

Supernatural is not the default for a couple of reasons. First, there is no evidence that anything supernatural exists. None. Therefore no rational position can be based on leaning on the supernatural. Second, the natural default when no evidence is available is no position at all. Otherwise what you're engaging in is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

For a quick primer on thought and how its works, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousn ... approaches


Helpfully, I've provided your next attempt at a refutation for you. This Youtube video sums up your arguments in this thread thus far:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs

[_subgenius]

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousn ... approaches


Helpfully, I've provided your next attempt at a refutation for you. This Youtube video sums up your arguments in this thread thus far:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs

so, obviously your position is the one which concludes that individuality, agency, personal responsibility, and consciousness are simply complex systems of chemical induced illusions, with some sort biological imperative - for which you have no evidence for, but surely must exist....got it (check).

please, find here my obligatory youtube video rebuttal, thank you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm_-sW4Vktw