Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

So you choose to consign the words, "spiritual" and "present" to be meaningless.
But both these words have meanings which are well known and well documented.
So what qualifies you to deem them to be meaningless?

'Spiritual' is poorly defined in the sense that it means different things to different people. I am sure that Enki and Rhiannon for instance use the word to mean different things to you.

'Present' has a simple straightforward meaning in common parlance, but digging beneath the obvious, there is no such thing as the present moment.

[ekim]

So you choose to consign the words, "spiritual" and "present" to be meaningless.
But both these words have meanings which are well known and well documented.
So what qualifies you to deem them to be meaningless?

Could it be to enable you to believe in your presumption that the terms "physically predetermined" and "freedom to choose" are compatible?

As has been asked of you before, now is a good opportunity for you to provide the meaning of 'spirit' and 'soul' as you see it otherwise the question could be asked: Could it be to enable you to believe in your presumption that the terms "spiritually determined" and "freedom to choose" are compatible?   The truth will set you free  - John 8:32

[Alan Burns]

As has been asked of you before, now is a good opportunity for you to provide the meaning of 'spirit' and 'soul' as you see it otherwise the question could be asked: Could it be to enable you to believe in your presumption that the terms "spiritually determined" and "freedom to choose" are compatible?   The truth will set you free  - John 8:32

Without the spiritual awareness of my soul, I would not have the freedom or capability to believe in anything., or question anything, or contemplate anything - because I would be entirely driven by the uncontrollable, physically predetermined forces of nature.  I am my soul, my soul is me.  I am not a biological robot with no will of my own.  The truth really does set us free - free from the unavoidable consequences derived from the physically predetermined control of nature

[Alan Burns]

YET AGAIN: "physically" has nothing to do with the logic you continue to totally ignore. This has been explained endlessly by several posters.

of course the word physical has everything to do with the flawed logic you keep using, because "physical" implies that something is predetermined by the laws of physics, which are beyond anybody's control. 

YET AGAIN:  it is obvious that freedom to choose, using the standard dictionary definitions, is compatible with (pre)determinism*. 

But your explanations presume that what we want is predetermined, which effectively removes any freedom we have to choose what we want if the want itself is predetermined, so no freedom at all in your interpretation.

[Stranger]

Without the spiritual awareness of my soul, I would not have the freedom or capability to believe in anything., or question anything, or contemplate anything - because I would be entirely driven by the uncontrollable, physically predetermined forces of nature.  I am my soul, my soul is me.  I am not a biological robot with no will of my own.  The truth really does set us free - free from the unavoidable consequences derived from the physically predetermined control of nature

Another statement of blind faith without the hint of any evidence or argument to support it and despite the logic and evidence that is against it.

[torridon]

Without the spiritual awareness of my soul, I would not have the freedom or capability to believe in anything., or question anything, or contemplate anything - because I would be entirely driven by the uncontrollable, physically predetermined forces of nature.  I am my soul, my soul is me.  I am not a biological robot with no will of my own. 
..

If a 'soul' has its own will, that will must still derive from something for it to be not random.  'Souls' do not buy you a way out of the nature of will, which must be deterministic to be not random.  Playing with words and spurious concepts gets you nowhere.

[ekim]

Without the spiritual awareness of my soul, I would not have the freedom or capability to believe in anything., or question anything, or contemplate anything - because I would be entirely driven by the uncontrollable, physically predetermined forces of nature.  I am my soul, my soul is me.  I am not a biological robot with no will of my own.  The truth really does set us free - free from the unavoidable consequences derived from the physically predetermined control of nature

That doesn't really explain what you mean by 'soul' so that others who do not see themselves as a 'soul' can validate for themselves.  A non 'spiritual' person might say 'Without my brain, I would not have the freedom or capability to believe in anything., or question anything, or contemplate anything - because I would be entirely driven by the uncontrollable, physically predetermined forces of nature.  I am the sum total of my physical and mental capabilities which allows me to respond, sometimes robotically according to millennia of preprogramming, and sometimes inquisitively or experimentally according to prevailing circumstances.  The truth really does set us free - free from religious doctrine.'

[Stranger]

of course the word physical has everything to do with the flawed logic you keep using, because "physical" implies that something is predetermined by the laws of physics, which are beyond anybody's control.

You aren't even reading and taking in the arguments, let alone thinking (deeply or otherwise) about them, are you? If you were, you'd know my answer to this and be able to answer that instead of this thought-free, bot-like repetition of the same thing over and over again.

YET AGAIN: Where is the flaw in the logic?

YET AGAIN: If something is not physical it must be just as (pre)determined as if it were physical unless it has some randomness - that's just logic. This has been explained time and time again and you never answer it or even indicate that you've read it. And no, repeating the bit of your script that says "determined by the spiritual will" (or whatever) is different from "determined by the uncontrollable, physically predetermined..." is not addressing the logic that has been put forward.

But your explanations presume that what we want is predetermined, which effectively removes any freedom we have to choose what we want if the want itself is predetermined, so no freedom at all in your interpretation.

Obviously you didn't even read the rest of my post.   

YET AGAIN: According the the dictionary definition of freedom, you are wrong. Your own definition of freedom is incoherent and self-contradictory.

YET AGAIN: No matter which way you look at it, this is an argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy which seems to be becoming one of your favourites, alongside personal incredulity.

YET AGAIN: How do you suppose you could choose your wants? By what you want to want? Then how about choosing that? What you want to want to want? I guess you'll just ignore that again...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Me (Reply 33216)

[/quote]But AB doesn't care about that. Having conjured up a little man at the controls he calls "soul" and placed it carefully in a space he calls "spiritual" none of that matters - in his ontology he can claim anything he likes no matter how irrational because, well, you know....magic.[/quote]

And right on cue, AB (Reply 33219)

Unless you are a spiritual entity which is not constrained by the physical delays associated with chains cause and effect.

What the soul perceives and what it actuates will always take place in the spiritual present where the soul exists.

Uncanny eh? Just make up something you call “soul”, situate it in a space you’ve also made up and call “spiritual” and all bets are off. Anything you feel like claiming for these things is fine no matter how irrational because rationality doesn’t apply in magic land. That you’d have to have some sort at least of reasoning and evidence to demonstrate “soul” and “spiritual” in the first place is of course something that’s entirely lost on AB, but there it is nonetheless – full on argument by assertion. 

[Alan Burns]

You aren't even reading and taking in the arguments, let alone thinking (deeply or otherwise) about them, are you? If you were, you'd know my answer to this and be able to answer that instead of this thought-free, bot-like repetition of the same thing over and over again.

YET AGAIN: Where is the flaw in the logic?

YET AGAIN: If something is not physical it must be just as (pre)determined as if it were physical unless it has some randomness - that's just logic. This has been explained time and time again and you never answer it or even indicate that you've read it. And no, repeating the bit of your script that says "determined by the spiritual will" (or whatever) is different from "determined by the uncontrollable, physically predetermined..." is not addressing the logic that has been put forward.

Obviously you didn't even read the rest of my post.   

YET AGAIN: According the the dictionary definition of freedom, you are wrong. Your own definition of freedom is incoherent and self-contradictory.

YET AGAIN: No matter which way you look at it, this is an argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy which seems to be becoming one of your favourites, alongside personal incredulity.

YET AGAIN: How do you suppose you could choose your wants? By what you want to want? Then how about choosing that? What you want to want to want? I guess you'll just ignore that again...

And yet again, your post aptly demonstrates your freedom for you to consciously choose your own words rather than have them chosen for you by the physically predetermined forces of nature.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And did you then say, "But to be fair by "free will" I actually meant a logically impossible conceptualisation of it", and did she reply, "Oh in that case he's quite right to tell you that you're not a thinker at all"?

Tried it, but she was too busy laughing to give a coherent reply.
You are apparently becoming a great source of amusement. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Tried it, but she was too busy laughing to give a coherent reply.
You are apparently becoming a great source of amusement. 

As non-thinkers have been amused through the ages, right up until the time they finally grasp where they've gone wrong. Sadly in your case it's taking longer than any of us expected, but you never know...   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And yet again, your post aptly demonstrates your freedom for you to consciously choose your own words rather than have them chosen for you by the physically predetermined forces of nature.

And yet again why do you persist with this idiocy when you've had it corrected literally scores of times only for you to ignore the correction and repeat the idiocy?

What does this behaviour say about you do you think? 

[Stranger]

And yet again, your post aptly demonstrates your freedom for you to consciously choose your own words rather than have them chosen for you by the physically predetermined forces of nature.

And yet again, your post aptly demonstrates a total lack of any thought (let alone deep thought) about, and/or attention to, what is being said to you. It could easily have been generated by a software bot as one of your standard responses to a post you have no answers to.

It's a bit of a classic actually. It includes your oft repeated lie (it's been explained so often, I'm struggling to see how it could be anything else) that our experience and abilities are the same as your contradictory 'explanation' for them, plus a false dichotomy and a misrepresentation of the arguments against you - all in one sentence!

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And yet again why do you persist with this idiocy when you've had it corrected literally scores of times only for you to ignore the correction and repeat the idiocy?

What does this behaviour say about you do you think?

It says I am exercising my freedom to speak up for the truth.

Your so called corrections are merely plays on words to try to explain the unexplainable -  how consciously driven freedom can emerge from physically predetermined reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It says I am exercising my freedom to speak up for the truth.

Wrong again. What it says is that you think that sticking your fingers your ears and making "la la la" noises is an accetable debating technique.

Your so called corrections are merely plays on words to try to explain the unexplainable -  how consciously driven freedom can emerge from physically predetermined reactions.

First, how would you know as you've never bothered to engage with (let alone to respond to) them?

Second, they're no such thing of course. What they actually are are plainly written, simply expressed, logically robust explanations of why your claims are incoherent, irrational and impossible. That you cannot or will not ever respond to them doesn't change that, however much you may wish it to be otherwise.

Third, they're not attempts to explain the "unexplainable" at all. There's plenty of explanation all right albeit incomplete, but the point is that the absence of an explanation (complete or not) for a phenomenon provides no evidence whatever for an alternative which itself has no supporting evidence of any kind. Perhaps if you stopped misrepresenting what's actually said here that would be a good start at least? 

Oh, and by the way I offered a while ago to walk you through the basics of logical argument. Should I take your silence in response to mean that you feel much safer lost in your world of deep irrationality so you'd rather not risk it?   

[Stranger]

It says I am exercising my freedom to speak up for the truth.

Looks much more like you're exercising your freedom to mindlessly repeat nonsense and never properly respond to counterarguments.

Your so called corrections are merely plays on words...

If they are, then why do you keep on running away from addressing them directly? What specifically do you mean?

Let's not forget that it's you who keeps using "freedom" in a non-standard way, to mean your own contradictory idea about it, and who then tries to pretend that our experience of freedom is the same thing as your contradictory idea of it.

...to try to explain the unexplainable -  how consciously driven freedom can emerge from physically predetermined reactions.

We have far more of an explanation of "consciously driven freedom" than you do.

[Sebastian Toe]

And yet again, your post aptly demonstrates your freedom for you to consciously choose your own words rather than have them chosen for you by the physically predetermined forces of nature.

And yet again your post demonstrates that your biological brain can think deeply, far more deeply than your unevidenced, completely logic free, magic requiring "soul" can.

[torridon]

It says I am exercising my freedom to speak up for the truth.

Your so called corrections are merely plays on words to try to explain the unexplainable -  how consciously driven freedom can emerge from physically predetermined reactions.

You aren't speaking up for the truth, you are speaking up for a facile and irrational conceptualisation of how things are.

If this world were made by a God, he/she would make it as it is, as we see it, there could no other way.  We are 'free' to enjoy the taste of chocolate, isn't that nice, but we aren't 'free' to choose how chocolate tastes, as this would make no sense.  And in exactly the same way, we are 'free' to do what we want, isn't that nice, but we aren't free to choose which desires to have in the first place, as this makes no sense. To be free to choose our desires would mean being free of reason, it would break the link of cause and effect introducing randomness into the world.  The way it is, is the only way it could be; reality as you describe it would be incomprehensible, without meaning.  It is good that we can choose what we want, and it is also good that there are reasons underlying our wants and that there are reasons underlying those reasons.  If it were not like this, humans could never have evolved.

[Alan Burns]

You aren't speaking up for the truth, you are speaking up for a facile and irrational conceptualisation of how things are.

I speak up for the obvious truth (to most people) that we have freedom to choose what we want to do.  A freedom which can't be explained in physical terms unless we can convince ourselves that this obvious freedom is some form of illusion.

If this world were made by a God, he/she would make it as it is, as we see it, there could no other way.  We are 'free' to enjoy the taste of chocolate, isn't that nice, but we aren't 'free' to choose how chocolate tastes, as this would make no sense.

But we are obviously free to choose how, when and where (or if) to indulge in eating chocolate.

And in exactly the same way, we are 'free' to do what we want, isn't that nice, but we aren't free to choose which desires to have in the first place, as this makes no sense. To be free to choose our desires would mean being free of reason, it would break the link of cause and effect introducing randomness into the world.

Of course we cant choose our desires, but we have freedom to choose how to indulge in them, and it certainly ain't random.

  The way it is, is the only way it could be; reality as you describe it would be incomprehensible, without meaning.

Quite the opposite
My Christian faith gives meaning to our lives which is absent from any secular perspective.

  It is good that we can choose what we want, and it is also good that there are reasons underlying our wants and that there are reasons underlying those reasons.  If it were not like this, humans could never have evolved.

And the reasons are formulated in our conscious awareness, not in physically predetermined reactions.
Without our conscious freedom to choose our thoughts, words and actions,  we could never have created works of art, literature, philosophy, scientific discovery ......

[Stranger]

I speak up for the obvious truth (to most people) that we have freedom to choose what we want to do.  A freedom which can't be explained in physical terms unless we can convince ourselves that this obvious freedom is some form of illusion.

Once again, the totally dishonest association between what people experience and the self-contradictory nonsense you want to believe about how that comes about.

The freedom we experience is being able to do what we want. You have provided no evidence and no reasoning whatsoever to support the assertion that that experience cannot possibly be explained in physical terms.

On the other hand, you are right that the self-contradictory nonsense that you want to believe about freedom can't be explained in physical terms, but that's because it's inherently self-contradictory and therefore cannot be explained in any terms.

Of course we cant choose our desires, but we have freedom to choose how to indulge in them, and it certainly ain't random.

So how do you choose how to indulge your desires? You obviously have to desire to indulge your desires in some way more than the others. Then how do you choose that desire to indulge your desires in a particular way? How then do you choose the desire to desire to to indulge your desires in a particular way?

And the reasons are formulated in our conscious awareness, not in physically predetermined reactions.

And are those reasons formulated entirely because of what led up to them or not? If not, then something must be involved that isn't due to anything that led up to it, which means it must be random.

I guess you'll just go on (and on and on and on) ignoring any points that are too difficult for you - more evidence that you might be a software bot...

[Alan Burns]

Once again, the totally dishonest association between what people experience and the self-contradictory nonsense you want to believe about how that comes about.

The freedom we experience is being able to do what we want. You have provided no evidence and no reasoning whatsoever to support the assertion that that experience cannot possibly be explained in physical terms.

On the other hand, you are right that the self-contradictory nonsense that you want to believe about freedom can't be explained in physical terms, but that's because it's inherently self-contradictory and therefore cannot be explained in any terms.

So how do you choose how to indulge your desires? You obviously have to desire to indulge your desires in some way more than the others. Then how do you choose that desire to indulge your desires in a particular way? How then do you choose the desire to desire to to indulge your desires in a particular way?

And are those reasons formulated entirely because of what led up to them or not? If not, then something must be involved that isn't due to anything that led up to it, which means it must be random.

I guess you'll just go on (and on and on and on) ignoring any points that are too difficult for you - more evidence that you might be a software bot...

But to follow your logic, any rapist, murderer or paedophile would have no freedom of choice in what they do because whatever they do is entirely predetermined by past events.  Is this what you honestly believe?

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Events and choices are either predetermined by natural laws and past occurrences or they are random.  Randomness is the unknown quantity here. We come across randomness everywhere, even in evolution.

Randomness need not be actually 'random'. It could be determined by external factors that we have no idea about. Predetermination in line with natural laws and past occurrences is valid only if there are no external influences on the system.

If Consciousness (as in panpsychism) is present everywhere, there is a possibility that  so called 'random' events are determined by this Consciousness.  Extending that further, if our individual consciousness is linked to the overall consciousness, it is possible that at some level at least, we individuals can influence  and determine the course of events.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Stranger]

But to follow your logic, any rapist, murderer or paedophile would have no freedom of choice in what they do because whatever they do is entirely predetermined by past events.  Is this what you honestly believe?

And if we follow your logic....  but wait, you haven't got any logic, what you are suggesting is self-contradictory for the reasons stated in the post you quoted.

[Stranger]

Events and choices are either predetermined by natural laws and past occurrences or they are random.  Randomness is the unknown quantity here. We come across randomness everywhere, even in evolution.

Randomness need not be actually 'random'. It could be determined by external factors that we have no idea about. Predetermination in line with natural laws and past occurrences is valid only if there are no external influences on the system.

If there are external influences on the system, they too must either be the result of randomness or determinism (in some other system).

If Consciousness (as in panpsychism) is present everywhere, there is a possibility that  so called 'random' events are determined by this Consciousness.  Extending that further, if our individual consciousness is linked to the overall consciousness, it is possible that at some level at least, we individuals can influence  and determine the course of events.

You are making the same mistake as Alan. Consciousness has to come to a choice somehow. The logic of the situation is that any event (including the result of a conscious choices) must either happen entirely due to its logical antecedents or not. If not, then to some part of why it happened is not due to anything that led up to it, which means that it must be random.

Either conscious minds are deterministic systems or not, and if not, they involve randomness.

As people keep on telling Alan, this has nothing to do with physical laws - it's just logic.