Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

No  - my conscious self makes the choice.  That is the gift God has given us.

If by that, you mean your soul makes the choice, then on what basis does a soul make a choice if it is free from prior influences ?

[Alan Burns]

If by that, you mean your soul makes the choice, then on what basis does a soul make a choice if it is free from prior influences ?

I have never claimed that the choices we make are free from prior influences.  Influences play a part, but they do not dictate a conscious choice.  My Christian faith influences what I write, but it does not dictate it.  The final choice is just what I want to do at a particular moment in time.

[Alan Burns]

So you are once again stating that being an atheist is not a choice.

I said it was not easily changed.  You can't just choose not to be an atheist - it usually takes a lot of dedicated time and effort to discover God in your life.

[Nearly Sane]

I said it was not easily changed.  You can't just choose not to be an atheist - it usually takes a lot of dedicated time and effort to discover God in your life.

  You are offering absolutely nothing coherent here, why would anyone spend time trying to discover something they didn't believe in.

You are all over the place in terns of what is changeable, what isn't what is a preference versus a want, how you choose things that you somehow don't want.

[Nearly Sane]

I have never claimed that the choices we make are free from prior influences.  Influences play a part, but they do not dictate a conscious choice.  My Christian faith influences what I write, but it does not dictate it.  The final choice is just what I want to do at a particular moment in time.

And you've never put forward a logically coherent position of how any choice made is not purely the result of prior causes and/or random. You have no coherent definition of your claim never mind presented any sensible argument for it.

[floo]

I said it was not easily changed.  You can't just choose not to be an atheist - it usually takes a lot of dedicated time and effort to discover God in your life.

Which begs the question, if god exists, why make it so hard to discover it?

[torridon]

I have never claimed that the choices we make are free from prior influences.  Influences play a part, but they do not dictate a conscious choice.  My Christian faith influences what I write, but it does not dictate it.  The final choice is just what I want to do at a particular moment in time.

So, a free will choice is not really free if it is not free from influences is it ? 

Suppose you subtract all relevant influencing factors, so that it is genuinely free from all influence, on what basis then would your soul then make a choice ?

[Gordon]

My Christian faith influences what I write, but it does not dictate it.

I suspect, Alan, that your take on Christianity (as opposed to that of other Christians) utterly dictates what you write.

You want to portray your faith as being logical and reasoned and in a sense akin to the discipline of science, so you've created your own narrative on this basis which you then use as an argument from authority: where you've become your own authority! However, as we've regularly seen here, the mast that you've created on which you attempt to pin your hopes is no more than a fallacy-ridden already collapsed tower of Jenga bricks and you seem unable to deal with this.

No doubt if the penny did drop so would your faith, and I suspect that is a risk you'll guard against at all costs. 

[Alan Burns]

So, a free will choice is not really free if it is not free from influences is it ? 

Suppose you subtract all relevant influencing factors, so that it is genuinely free from all influence, on what basis then would your soul then make a choice ?

It is impractical and irrelevant to do what you are suggesting.

I have constantly said that a free will choice is simply the ability to freely choose between two or more viable alternatives.  The fact that there are constraints and past influences does not alter the fact that we have this freedom to consciously choose.  It is ultimately our conscious will that flicks the biological switch in our brain to make the final choice, not the influences or constraints.

[wigginhall]

Our conscious will flicks the biological switch in our brain - bloody hell, this is like an episode of Dr Who. 

[Nearly Sane]

It is impractical and irrelevant to do what you are suggesting.

I have constantly said that a free will choice is simply the ability to freely choose between two or more viable alternatives.  The fact that there are constraints and past influences does not alter the fact that we have this freedom to consciously choose.  It is ultimately our conscious will that flicks the biological switch in our brain to make the final choice, not the influences or constraints.

No, Alan, it's completely relevant since you want to argue that there is some freedom beyond determinism and/or random in the choice.

I agree it's impractical for you since you haven't been able to do ot at all, hence your continued logical incoherence.

[Gordon]

It is ultimately our conscious will that flicks the biological switch in our brain to make the final choice, not the influences or constraints.

Years ago there was a comic (The Dandy I think) with a cartoon strip called 'The Numskulls', where different wee men 'ran' the brain and body: you seem to be operating at this level.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/72/the-numskulls/p1

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I notice that you've continued to rely on some false arguments for your position. As you seem to have missed it once again, here's the question I've asked you several times now only in an even bigger typeface so you'll be sure not to miss it again:

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE TERM “LOGICAL FALLACY” MEANS AND, IF YOU DO, DOES YOUR RELIANCE ON THEM IMPLY THAT YOU THINK THAT A FALSE ARGUMENT SOMEHOW BECOMES A GOOD ONE WHEN YOU HAPPEN TO LIKE ITS OUTCOME?

I can incidentally suggest various answers you might want to tre: "No, I have no idea what this means"; "Yes I know what it means, but I have no idea why it matters"; "Yes I know what it means and why it matters, but when the outcome is "God" or "soul" bad arguments somehow become good arguments" etc.

It's up to you though.

[Alan Burns]

No, Alan, it's completely relevant since you want to argue that there is some freedom beyond determinism and/or random in the choice.

I agree it's impractical for you since you haven't been able to do ot at all, hence your continued logical incoherence.

My argument is simply that we are not automated biological robots.  Our freedom of choice can actually override past influences if we so wish.  We also have the freedom to choose the time and place to invoke our choice.  It is our conscious will that makes the final choice, not the automated cause and effect chains of physical deterministic events which date back to the beginning of time.

[Nearly Sane]

My argument is simply that we are not automated biological robots.  Our freedom of choice can actually override past influences if we so wish.  We also have the freedom to choose the time and place to invoke our choice.  It is our conscious will that makes the final choice, not the automated cause and effect chains of physical deterministic events which date back to the beginning of time.

And on what basis would that 'freedom' work? Yet again Alan you produce an answer that seems as if you aren't really reading the post. If you remove determinist and random factors, how is a choice made? On what basis could a choice be made?

[Alan Burns]

And on what basis would that 'freedom' work? Yet again Alan you produce an answer that seems as if you aren't really reading the post. If you remove determinist and random factors, how is a choice made? On what basis could a choice be made?

If you were asked to think of a number, you can use your ability to make a free choice of any number you want, but it will be specific, not random.  It is based on what you consciously want to choose.

[Alan Burns]

BH,
I think your emergent property has got stuck in a groove - try giving yourself a nudge.

[BeRational]

BH,
I think your emergent property has got stuck in a groove - try giving yourself a nudge.

Why can you not just simply answer the question?

Your avoidance speaks volumes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My argument is simply that we are not automated biological robots.

No Alan, that's not your "argument" at all - it's just your assertion. To be an argument there would have to be one or more premises, some logic that's cogent, and a conclusion.

You on the other hand just state your premises and conclusions as the same thing ("God", "soul" etc). When you occasionally do attempt some connecting logic the effort always fails because your arguments are false.

Why do you think anyone would find any of this nonsense persuasive?

[torridon]

It is impractical and irrelevant to do what you are suggesting.

I have constantly said that a free will choice is simply the ability to freely choose between two or more viable alternatives.  The fact that there are constraints and past influences does not alter the fact that we have this freedom to consciously choose.  It is ultimately our conscious will that flicks the biological switch in our brain to make the final choice, not the influences or constraints.

It may be impractical but it is not irrelevant.  This is to do with the nature of making a choice. We cannot really 'freely choose between two or more viable alternatives' without any reference to the relevant determining factors, otherwise the 'choice' is just a meaningless random event. If there is no reason why one is chosen and another not, then it is a random event.  This is the nature of choice and it transcends all the various herrings you throw up, like 'spiritual' or 'physical', as if these somehow make a difference to the logic of the situation. A choice is a function of causal factors otherwise it is a random event. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I think your emergent property has got stuck in a groove - try giving yourself a nudge.

The question concerns logic, not emergence - and why not at least try to answer it?

[torridon]

If you were asked to think of a number, you can use your ability to make a free choice of any number you want, but it will be specific, not random.  It is based on what you consciously want to choose.

That is quite a nice little thought experiment.

Suppose you did that, and you came up with 17, say.

On what basis did you choose 17, and not 23 and not 458, and what the hell was wrong with 763 anyway ?

What this thought experiment demonstrates is something rather tangential to the free will discussion, something about the nature of conscious and preconscious thought. Did you really weigh up all the numbers in existence in conscious mind and come to the realisation that 17 was the more attractive one for some reason ?  Or did 17 just pop into your head, unconsciously ?

[wigginhall]

It may be impractical but it is not irrelevant.  This is to do with the nature of making a choice. We cannot really 'freely choose between two or more viable alternatives' without any reference to the relevant determining factors, otherwise the 'choice' is just a meaningless random event. If there is no reason why one is chosen and another not, then it is a random event.  This is the nature of choice and it transcends all the various herrings you throw up, like 'spiritual' or 'physical', as if these somehow make a difference to the logic of the situation. A choice is a function of causal factors otherwise it is a random event.

Freedom for AB is like God, it is outside the material universe, and outside logic, and cause/effect relations.   Of course, this makes it indescribable and non-communicable, i.e. pretty useless.  I am curious as to whether this is a bizarre idea which AB is pushing, or is it central to Christian theism?   If it is, it's not surprising that nobody can communicate it, or only via a tangled mess.

[Nearly Sane]

If you were asked to think of a number, you can use your ability to make a free choice of any number you want, but it will be specific, not random.  It is based on what you consciously want to choose.

How would it be free? How would you know if it was? How is that in any way an answer to the question asked?

[Nearly Sane]

That is quite a nice little thought experiment.

Suppose you did that, and you came up with 17, say.

On what basis did you choose 17, and not 23 and not 458, and what the hell was wrong with 763 anyway ?

What this thought experiment demonstrates is something rather tangential to the free will discussion, something about the nature of conscious and preconscious thought. Did you really weigh up all the numbers in existence in conscious mind and come to the realisation that 17 was the more attractive one for some reason ?  Or did 17 just pop into your head, unconsciously ?

To link it back to the free will discussion, let's suppose that the decision is 'free', how on earth would any decision happen. If we remove cause and randomness, why would any number be chosen? As a thought experiment, Alan has thoughtfully loaded the metaphorical shotgun and blown his metaphorical feet off thoughtfully