Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

AB,

Relax Alan, I've got your back on this one....

NS: it's magic innit.

You're welcome.

One of Steve's not AB's

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

One of Steve's not AB's

Oops - sorry, my bad (though the question is relevant to AB too of course).

[Stranger]

And if the person and circumstances are entirely defined by physical material reactions, there is no deliberate act, no conscious choice - just a chain reaction.

Baseless assertion and false dichotomy.

And for the ten thousandth time "physical material" has nothing to do with the basic logic of the situation. You made a stupid logical mistake in thinking that positing a non-material soul could make your impossible version of freedom less impossible. It doesn't. It's still as totally meaningless as a square circle.

ETA: Just to be clear, in order for an act to be a deliberate choice it must also be a chain reaction.

[torridon]

You consistently ignore your own ability to consciously invoke an event in your material brain to implement a deliberate act of will.
Do not underestimate yourself.

Don't underestimate other creatures then.

When a wolf succeeds in bringing down a bison, it does so intentionally, deliberately, consciously.

You don't need supernatural powers to exercise your will, really Alan, it happens everywhere, all the time. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Baseless assertion and false dichotomy.

And for the ten thousandth time "physical material" has nothing to do with the basic logic of the situation. You made a stupid logical mistake in thinking that positing a non-material soul could make your impossible version of freedom less impossible. It doesn't. It's still as totally meaningless as a square circle.

Isn’t the point though rather not that AB has no clue how a “soul” would work outside any logical constraints but rather than he just doesn’t care? Having decided first that there is a “god”, he’s then signed up to menagerie of other beings (“Satan”, “souls” etc) to make the whole story hang together. And that’s all he needs – it’s all magic/”spiritual”/whatever so he doesn’t have to trouble himself with any coherent thinking about what these things are, how rationally they would work etc.

He also by the way has the breath-taking hypocrisy to dismiss the logic and evidence we have for consciousness on the basis that it’s incomplete and to insist that instead his superstitions must be the explanation when he has no logic or evidence at all for any of them. In other words, for some reason he thinks a jig-saw with no pieces is more likely to give an accurate picture than a jig-saw with some pieces.

[Roses]

But no one can say that fairies were responsible for establishing the underlying foundations, principals and motivation on which our civilization was built.

But no one has verifiable evidence the Biblical god was responsible either. To me it seems like a human creation, with all the worst human characteristics, but none of the best.

[Outrider]

Our human will is free from the uncontrollable rules of physical reactions.

How?  Brain activity is a series of neurological processes, defined electro-chemical reactions mediated by hormone levels and other defined mechanisms.  Unless you can demonstrate that there is something else to human will, how is that in any way free from the uncontrollable rules of physical reactions?  And if there is something 'else' impinging on the system, how is it free of physics?

Our human will is free from the short sighted view that everything is caused by something else.

How is following the apparent evidence of reality 'short sighted'?  Is it not, given the spectacular success of the scientific method to establish consistent behaviour in the physical world, at least as likely that your positing supernatural 'spiritual' elements an overreach?

Our human will emanates from the free spirit of the human soul.

Which you can demonstrate how?

Our human will is what makes us human.

Something of a circular argument, that, but still doesn't establish any reason to think that it's 'free' of physics.

O.

[Outrider]

And as I have pointed out to you so many, many, many times, you never produce any evidence or reasoning to support your opinions. You just stick "imo" on the end, as though that settles it. Pot, kettle.

Or we cite the body of scientific study... minor quibble, but important I think.

In any case, the freedom of our wills (within limits, obv) is not something that either can or needs to be demonstrated with evidence or arguments.

There's an obvious reason for that which I think you're overlooking...

Whatever some smart-alecs on here choose to think (see what I did there?)

I did. I think it's called an 'ad hominem'...

we know from direct personal experience that we have free-will.

I know from personal experience that that magician tore up my card, and yet at the end of the trick there it was... it turns out that there's a difference between what we think we know and what's actually true.  That's why we've developed systems to investigate our beliefs and assumptions and try to validate or refute them.

It's like consciousness: we know by direct personal experience that we are conscious. We can't prove it, but then, we don't need to. That's the point of "I think, therefore I am".

Actually, it's not - the point of 'I think, therefore I am' is not to establish consciousness but to establish existence; something has to exist to do the thinking.  Whether it's conscious depends on the definition of consciousness used.

After all, I know from personal experience that claims of gods are all nonsense, so there we go, job done, right...

O.

[Outrider]

And what can possibly invoke this change?
Where does our ability to invoke change emanate from if we have no control over the past events which drive our apparent choices?

Our ability to invoke change (at least, in the sense that I think you mean it) doesn't exist - the change happens because we are exposed to the ideas and our experience is such that we accept the new understanding over the old one.  Experience, if you will.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Baseless assertion and false dichotomy.

And for the ten thousandth time "physical material" has nothing to do with the basic logic of the situation. You made a stupid logical mistake in thinking that positing a non-material soul could make your impossible version of freedom less impossible. It doesn't. It's still as totally meaningless as a square circle.

ETA: Just to be clear, in order for an act to be a deliberate choice it must also be a chain reaction.

Once more, you totally ignore the possibility of conscious awareness invoking a choice at will from the present state of that awareness.  Our conscious awareness always exists and invokes acts from its own present.  It is only when you try to mechanise conscious awareness that you come up with your flawed logic in which conscious freedom cannot exist.

[Alan Burns]

But no one has verifiable evidence the Biblical god was responsible either. To me it seems like a human creation, with all the worst human characteristics, but none of the best.

I think you missed the point.
Belief in fairies played no part in building the civilised society we live in today.
Belief if God played a major part in building our modern society.
This is just to show how ridiculous it is to compare belief in fairies with belief in God.

[Stranger]

Once more, you totally ignore the possibility of conscious awareness invoking a choice at will from the present state of that awareness.  Our conscious awareness always exists and invokes acts from its own present.

That's because it isn't a possibility, it's meaningless word salad - just as it was the last time you posted it, and the time before that, and the time before that, and so on, and so on.

What exactly do you think you'll achieve by this mindless repetition?

[Alan Burns]

How?  Brain activity is a series of neurological processes, defined electro-chemical reactions mediated by hormone levels and other defined mechanisms.  Unless you can demonstrate that there is something else to human will, how is that in any way free from the uncontrollable rules of physical reactions?  And if there is something 'else' impinging on the system, how is it free of physics?

When you come to terms with what a conscious entity of awareness can or can't comprise, you should realise that it comprises more than mere physical reactions, and this is the "something else" which is aware of physical reactions, but not controlled by them.

How is following the apparent evidence of reality 'short sighted'?  Is it not, given the spectacular success of the scientific method to establish consistent behaviour in the physical world, at least as likely that your positing supernatural 'spiritual' elements an overreach?

It is short sighted because scientific investigation is limited to physical entities, so anything non physical will be overlooked or ignored or presumed not to exist.

Which you can demonstrate how?

By consciously composing this post.

[Alan Burns]

That's because it isn't a possibility, it's meaningless word salad - just as it was the last time you posted it, and the time before that, and the time before that, and so on, and so on.

What exactly do you think you'll achieve by this mindless repetition?

I am called to witness to the truth that we do have God's gift of free will.
I could not possibly witness to this truth if I did not have the conscious freedom to proclaim it.

[Roses]

I am called to witness to the truth that we do have God's gift of free will.
I could not possibly witness to this truth if I did not have the conscious freedom to proclaim it.

Called by whom?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Once more, you totally ignore the possibility…

Something that’s logically impossible isn’t, by definition, a possibility. Or at least it’s not a coherent one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I think you missed the point.
Belief in fairies played no part in building the civilised society we live in today.
Belief if God played a major part in building our modern society.
This is just to show how ridiculous it is to compare belief in fairies with belief in God.

No, you have. Beliefs that people act on tell you nothing about whether or not those beliefs are true in the first place. This should be obvious even to you given the plethora of gods people have believed in that you think to be false, yet those people have built all sorts of things because of those beliefs.

[Stranger]

I am called to witness to the truth that we do have God's gift of free will.

Fine - but why do you think making yourself and your faith seem utterly stupid but just repeating yourself instead of engaging with the arguments, furthers this aim?

I could not possibly witness to this truth if I did not have the conscious freedom to proclaim it.

As has been pointed out countless times before, you are free to do whatever you want, but that doesn't involve any impossible contradictions.

[Roses]

AB,

No, you have. Beliefs that people act on tell you nothing about whether or not those beliefs are true in the first place. This should be obvious even to you given the plethora of gods people have believed in that you think to be false, yet those people have built all sorts of things because of those beliefs.

Very true.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am called to witness to the truth that we do have God's gift of free will.

A solipsistic and frankly bizarre claim, but one you are of course entitled to make if you want to. Good luck in finding a cogent reason to justify it though.

I could not possibly witness to this truth if I did not have the conscious freedom to proclaim it.

Yes you could for the reason that's been explained to you abut 43 billion times now but that you refuse ever to address.

[Stranger]

It is short sighted because scientific investigation is limited to physical entities, so anything non physical will be overlooked or ignored or presumed not to exist.

Yet again: the problem with your claims has nothing to do with them being non-physical, the problem is that they are logically self-contradictory.

By consciously composing this post.

Yet again: claiming that the ability to post demonstrates your impossible claims is basically a lie.

[Alan Burns]

Fine - but why do you think making yourself and your faith seem utterly stupid but just repeating yourself instead of engaging with the arguments, furthers this aim?

As has been pointed out countless times before, you are free to do whatever you want, but that doesn't involve any impossible contradictions.

The impossible contradiction is in your statement that I am free to do what I want and adhering to your belief that every event is predetermined by past events.  The latter prohibits any form of freedom by making everything just inevitable, unavoidable reactions to past events over which there is no control other than the laws of physics.

[Stranger]

The impossible contradiction is in your statement that I am free to do what I want and adhering to your belief that every event is predetermined by past events.  The latter prohibits any form of freedom by making everything just inevitable, unavoidable reactions to past events over which there is no control other than the laws of physics.

And the pointless and mindless repetition of points that have been addressed countless times before, just goes on and on...

Yet again: you are free to do anything you want, but what you want to do is because of who you are, and who you are is the result of nature, nurture, and experience. You cannot be free of who you are, that doesn't make sense. You cannot choose what you ultimately want to do most - that would be an infinite regress: what do you want to want to do the most, what do you want to want to want to do the most...?

Seriously Alan, what's the point of just going round in circles? We've done this countless times before - every time you get to something you cannot answer, you just jump to another part of your script. You never even try to engage with the actual logic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The impossible contradiction is in your statement that I am free to do what I want and adhering to your belief that every event is predetermined by past events.  The latter prohibits any form of freedom by making everything just inevitable, unavoidable reactions to past events over which there is no control other than the laws of physics.

No it doesn’t for the reason you’ll never address remember?

[Alan Burns]

And the pointless and mindless repetition of points that have been addressed countless times before, just goes on and on...

Yet again: you are free to do anything you want, but what you want to do is because of who you are, and who you are is the result of nature, nurture, and experience. You cannot be free of who you are, that doesn't make sense. You cannot choose what you ultimately want to do most - that would be an infinite regress: what do you want to want to do the most, what do you want to want to want to do the most...?

Seriously Alan, what's the point of just going round in circles? We've done this countless times before - every time you get to something you cannot answer, you just jump to another part of your script. You never even try to engage with the actual logic.

But I do answer it.
The fact is that you consciously choose to label my answers as logically impossible.
Yet my freedom to point out the flaw in your logic aptly demonstrates this flaw.
Our freedom to make consciously driven choices is a reality which will keep this thread going forever until those who deny this freedom come to terms with their own precious gift of free will.