Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

My statement was not meaningless at all; understanding this simple but profound point is key to understanding all behaviours, not just human.

Does any animal have the ability to analyse human behaviour?

[Alan Burns]

AB

And the conceit that you show, i.e. that you think you know better than anyone else with only your personal and subjective assertions and claims to put forward is actually quite worrying. I was going
to write 'shocking', but at my age I think one is past being surprised or shocked at things. One is sad about them.

I am not making subjective assertions.

I am simply choosing to point out the obvious fact that our freedom to choose is not an illusion, but constitutes evidence of a God given gift which can't be derived from an entirely material universe where every event is a predetermined consequence of previous events.

[Roses]

I am not making subjective assertions.

I am simply choosing to point out the obvious fact that our freedom to choose is not an illusion, but constitutes evidence of a God given gift which can't be derived from an entirely material universe where every event is a predetermined consequence of previous events.

It might be obvious to you, but to many it isn't obvious at all.

[Alan Burns]

Once again ignoring the infinite regress. How do you, yourself make up your mind, if not by what you want to do the most?

And you continue to ignore the possibility of choices being invoked from within our present state of conscious awareness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not making subjective assertions.

I am simply choosing to point out the obvious fact that our freedom to choose is not an illusion, but constitutes evidence of a God given gift which can't be derived from an entirely material universe where every event is a predetermined consequence of previous events.

That "obvious fact" is your subjective assertion. That's your problem.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And you continue to ignore the possibility of choices being invoked from within our present state of conscious awareness.

It's not a possibility because it's as logically incoherent as a four-sided triangle, but even if it was one of your many dishonesties here is regularly to accuse people of discounting the possibility of something as if that had anything to say about its probability. Conceptually at least unicorns are possible. So what?   

[Stranger]

And you continue to ignore the possibility of choices being invoked from within our present state of conscious awareness.

Here we go again. Done another memory wipe, have we?

Once again: "the present" is logically meaningless (colloquial) or non-existent (physics). What do you think it means that makes any sense at all in this context?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That "obvious fact" is your subjective assertion.

No
Our freedom to choose is a reality we all perceive.
It is your subjective choice to presume that our freedom to choose is an illusion.

[wigginhall]

I am not making subjective assertions.

I am simply choosing to point out the obvious fact that our freedom to choose is not an illusion, but constitutes evidence of a God given gift which can't be derived from an entirely material universe where every event is a predetermined consequence of previous events.

Your stand-up routine is a bit rusty.  Assertions are pretty much your entire shtick.

[Alan Burns]

Here we go again. Done another memory wipe, have we?

Once again: "the present" is logically meaningless (colloquial) or non-existent (physics). What do you think it means that makes any sense at all in this context?

I am fully aware that you have previously tried to contest that "the present" is meaningless or non existent.  But once again I consciously choose to point out that you are wrong.  The present is where we all exist, where we perceive, where we interact, where we invoke our conscious choices.

[Stranger]

Our freedom to choose is a reality we all perceive.

No it isn't (not in the way you have presented 'freedom). I do things for reasons. I do not perceive myself making choices in logically impossible, self-contradictory ways. I do not choose what I want - I make my choices according to what I want most at the time.

[Stranger]

I am fully aware that you have previously tried to contest that "the present" is meaningless or non existent.  But once again I consciously choose to point out that you are wrong.  The present is where we all exist, where we perceive, where we interact, where we invoke our conscious choices.

You haven't answered the question (yet again). What do you mean by "the present"? You need to define it in a way that is logically coherent (so it makes a difference to the logic of the situation).

The present we "live in" is a colloquial phrase that is just a short amount of time - it is logically irrelevant.

[torridon]

Does any animal have the ability to analyse human behaviour?

What's that got to do with the price of fish ?  To some extent, no doubt they can, just go watch a hill farmer working the flock with his sheep dog.  But that is tangential to the point I was making - which is that we all (including all mammals) resolve choices in a fundamentally similar way.  Humans, being mammals, inherited the limbic system with its dopamine mediated behaviour mechanisms from earlier mammals.  In everyday language, that just means that we make choices through a system of emotion and we make choices on the basis of whichever option has the most emotional appeal, and that is something that is beyond our personal control.

[Alan Burns]

I do not choose what I want - I make my choices according to what I want most at the time.

Speak for yourself, but I have the freedom to choose what I want to do.
As any teenager will say, - "I can do what I want"

[Alan Burns]

What's that got to do with the price of fish ?  To some extent, no doubt they can, just go watch a hill farmer working the flock with his sheep dog.  But that is tangential to the point I was making - which is that we all (including all mammals) resolve choices in a fundamentally similar way.  Humans, being mammals, inherited the limbic system with its dopamine mediated behaviour mechanisms from earlier mammals.  In everyday language, that just means that we make choices through a system of emotion and we make choices on the basis of whichever option has the most emotional appeal, and that is something that is beyond our personal control.

So we can have no personal control over what we do?
Do you honestly presume that I have no personal control over the content of this reply?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No
Our freedom to choose is a reality we all perceive.

Lots of things that are “a reality we all perceive” turn out not to be reality at all. You’ve been given lots of examples of this – flat earth, objects touching, blue blood etc – but as ever you just ignore deeper thinking in favour of the shallow thinking that better suits your beliefs.   

It is your subjective choice to presume that our freedom to choose is an illusion.

No, it’s where the logic and evidence you consistently ignore or misrepresent leads.

[Gordon]

Speak for yourself, but I have the freedom to choose what I want to do.
As any teenager will say, - "I can do what I want"

Then they grow up a bit and, hopefully, their thinking matures: there may be exceptions of course.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Lots of things that are “a reality we all perceive” turn out not to be reality at all. You’ve been given lots of examples of this – flat earth, objects touching, blue blood etc – but as ever you just ignore deeper thinking in favour of the shallow thinking that better suits your beliefs.   

The examples you quote are derived from perception of data from our sensory organs pertaining to what exists outside our selves.  And I agree that it can be deceptive.  However our freedom to choose derives from our own minds - it can't be treated and dismissed in the same way as our external perceptions.  I have the ability to imagine something, and the freedom to choose whether or not to do it.  It is not an illusion, it is reality.

No, it’s where the logic and evidence you consistently ignore or misrepresent leads.

Don't be mislead by logic and evidence which presumes there is no God or human soul.

[Stranger]

Speak for yourself, but I have the freedom to choose what I want to do.
As any teenager will say, - "I can do what I want"

Yes and "I can do what I want" means something totally different to choosing your wants. Everybody acts according to what they want to do.

I simply don't believe that you choose your wants; it makes no sense and leads to an infinite regress - which is just one of the inconvenient arguments you can do nothing but ignore...

[Stranger]

Don't be mislead by logic and evidence which presumes there is no God or human soul.

The logic you keep on running away from makes no such assumptions.

[ekim]

How do you choose between desires? Ultimately, it's just sorting out which you desire more - and you have no control over that. You cannot choose what you want more. How would you do it except by what you want to want more? Then how do you choose that except by what you want to want to want more? See the problem?

I assumed that Alan was distinguishing between conscious choice and blind reaction.  Rage and jealousy may drive a person to blindly act in the moment and the act is overwhelmed by those particular desires.  A person can be trained to be aware (conscious) of that particular driver and see it for what it is, and then learn how to put a period of stillness between the emotion and the possible reaction.  He can then learn to choose an alternative response so that he is not overwhelmed by blind reaction.  The choice is between consciousness and un/sub-consciousness and the 'freedom' arises in the inner stillness rather than in the midst of desires and their satisfaction, thoughts and their addiction to problems.

[Stranger]

I have the ability to imagine something, and the freedom to choose whether or not to do it.

Which is perfectly compatible with determinism  (possibly with some randomness) and has nothing to do with the incoherent nonsense version of 'freedom' you keep on insisting we have.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The examples you quote are derived from perception of data from our sensory organs pertaining to what exists outside our selves.  And I agree that it can be deceptive.  However our freedom to choose derives from our own minds - it can't be treated and dismissed in the same way as our external perceptions.  I have the ability to imagine something, and the freedom to choose whether or not to do it.  It is not an illusion, it is reality.

As ever, you miss the point entirely. As a generalised phenomenon the way we perceive things and then derive explanations for them is very often misleading. There’s no reason to exempt state of mind experiences from that paradigm. That you refuse to think about that because the potential consequences terrify you is a different matter.

Don't be mislead by logic and evidence which presumes there is no God or human soul.

Have you any idea at all how far out of your depth you are when you make mistakes like this? As has been explained to you 4,762,185 times before now – logic and evidence don’t presume that at all. What logic an evidence actually do is to enable me to determine that the arguments you attempt for god, soul etc are wrong. Not just a bit wrong. Not just a tiny bit flaky around the edges wrong. Just plain, flat wrong. Does that necessarily mean that there cannot be gods or souls? No, no more than bad arguments for leprechauns mean there necessarily cannot be leprechauns. What it does men though is that you offer nothing to suggest that your various claims and assertions are correct.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp given how simple it is?   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I have no problem with using 'true' to convey a subjective view on a subjective matter - for example 'it is true that I think Mozart is the greatest composer'. That's fine. What isn't fine is for people to imply that their subjective opinion or belief is a matter of objective truth - people might say it, and you are correct that I cannot stop that, but that doesn't make it right.

So it is fine to say that 'it is the truth that I don't believe that god exists' (a claim about a subjective claim "my belief")

However it is no more correct for me to say that 'it is the truth that god does not exist' (implying an objective truth about a subjective matter, an opinion or belief) than it is for religious people to say that 'it is the truth that god exists' - both are completely inappropriate uses of the word truth. An appeal to the nature (religious vs non religious) of the personal conviction, nor the strength of that personal conviction makes no difference.

Continuing to rely on a BBC website aimed at GCSE level kids really isn't helping your cause - particularly as the BBC themselves have deleted it as they deem it to be out of date!

Deleted? Not sure what you mean - are you talking about my specific link - I haven't tested it recently. The BBC website still seems to be talking about religious truths though.

https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zpxpr82/revision/2

  I don't have a problem with using a website aimed at kids to explain the everyday meaning of how the word "truth" is used. I think it's helping my cause just fine. 

[Alan Burns]

Once again ignoring the infinite regress. How do you, yourself make up your mind, if not by what you want to do the most?

But the infinite regress lies with the logic of physical determinacy.  If everything is a consequence of previous events, there can be no definitive causal event, and therefore no originating cause for an act of deliberation.  Everything just regresses back through chains of cause and effect to the beginning of time.  So in this deterministic scenario, my mind is just an inevitable consequence of past events over which there can be no control other than the laws of physics.

Do you believe that this is the scenario which determines your conscious choices?