Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

All you are witnessing to is your own stubborn refusal to accept evidence and logic, while all the time falsely claiming that you are using logic (thereby bearing false witness).

I could not refuse to accept evidence without the conscious freedom needed to refuse it.
I could not make any claims, false or otherwise, without the freedom needed to make such a claim.
To witness to anything requires a conscious act of will.

[torridon]

I cannot agree Gordon.
I am simply witnessing to reality of human free will.
Any attempt to try to unpick this reality can only confirm it.
It takes a conscious act of will to try to unpick it.
An attempt to try to disprove human free will requires consciously driven thought processes.
The contrived word jugglery used to explain this away merely confirms our freedom to control our own thoughts.
This is not illogical or unreasonable - it is reality.

That our will is simultaneously random and yet non random is indeed illogical and unreasonable, and yet this is your defacto claim. Claiming that we have will and exercise it to dispute your claims does not validate your illogical position, we merely show that your position is untenable and we can do so without recourse to your circular nonsense of our will being its own cause. My will to write this post now derives not from itself, but rather it can be traced back in time to having read your post to Gordon.  This whole thread is testimony to the ongoing smooth flow of cause and effect through time.

[torridon]

I could not refuse to accept evidence without the conscious freedom needed to refuse it.
I could not make any claims, false or otherwise, without the freedom needed to make such a claim.

Yes and your freedom is circumstantial.  Nobody and no thing stopped you.  Freedom means nothing obstructs you from acting on your will.  That doesn't take supernatural powers, it is merely the circumstance at the time.

[torridon]

To witness to anything requires a conscious act of will.

Yes, of course, but an incoherent description of will as being both random and yet not random is a nonsense misunderstanding of the nature of will

[Stranger]

I could not refuse to accept evidence without the conscious freedom needed to refuse it.
I could not make any claims, false or otherwise, without the freedom needed to make such a claim.
To witness to anything requires a conscious act of will.

Yes - and nobody is denying that you can consciously think and decide. Every time you imply that they are denying that, you are, effectively, telling porkies.

That is not the same thing as being able to have done differently without randomness - which is simply incoherent nonsense. If you think you can connect the one to the other, then you need some actual reasoning.

Surely it's time to either produce some logic to support your assertions or have the basic honesty to admit you have none?

[Gordon]

I could not refuse to accept evidence without the conscious freedom needed to refuse it.
I could not make any claims, false or otherwise, without the freedom needed to make such a claim.
To witness to anything requires a conscious act of will.

You certainly feel you are free to think, Alan, we all feel that - but the mistake you are making is to presume that your thinking is somehow free of all the various elements that influence it, which includes personal traits and biases that you aren't consciously aware of - for example, when irrational phobias intrude unannounced and uninvited upon our thinking when they are triggered.

It is because our thoughts are not really 'free', as you envisage 'free', and are consequential to the preceding circumstances and prevailing influences, that we think consistently most of the time, and even when we don't do so very well or when our thinking is inspired and includes novelty.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Isn't the nub of the problem here that in Alan's world the fact of being given an explanation for why he's wrong means he must be right?

He thinks that people making an argument – any argument – validates the whole ontology be builds on that assumption: "god", "souls", "driven", whatever. That's why he never bothers to concern himself with the falsifications of his a priori assumption - nothing anyone says can rebut it because the fact that the rebuttal's been expressed at all justifies it. For him, the assumption is axiomatic.

And that's why his a priori assumption being nonsense can't be shown to him - he'll never examine how valid it is (presumably because he's terrified of what he might discover if he did), and will use it as a padlocked door against any reason or evidence that undoes it. When you strip away all the avoidance, the digressions, the catastrophic attempts at logic underneath it all sits that granite-hard certainty: "If you can explain why I'm wrong, then I must be right".

Oh, and it gets worse: what he then does is to conflate never addressing the problems with his a priori assumption with weaknesses in the arguments that falsify it. He actually thinks his beliefs to be validated, strengthened even because no-one shows them to be wrong, whereas in truth he'll never allow them to be shown to be wrong because of the self-imposed logical straightjacket he's in.

[Alan Burns]

Yes - and nobody is denying that you can consciously think and decide. Every time you imply that they are denying that, you are, effectively, telling porkies.

To tell a porkie would require a deliberate act of will.
Such deliberation is a conscious act, not a reaction.
I can choose to witness to what I believe to be the truth,  - the choice is mine to make.
Or I can choose to say nothing and let you carry on with your flawed concept of logic which denies the reality of our conscious freedom to think, to choose, to imagine, to pray, to love, to hope, to believe, to discover, to search, to accept or reject God …..

[torridon]

To tell a porkie would require a deliberate act of will.
Such deliberation is a conscious act, not a reaction.
I can choose to witness to what I believe to be the truth,  - the choice is mine to make.
Or I can choose to say nothing and let you carry on with your flawed concept of logic which denies the reality of our conscious freedom to think, to choose, to imagine, to pray, to love, to hope, to believe, to discover, to search, to accept or reject God …..

So, nobody denies that we can think, imagine, love, deliberate etc, so why are you pretending such ?  Have you not read any of the posts on this thread ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

To tell a porkie would require a deliberate act of will.
Such deliberation is a conscious act, not a reaction.
I can choose to witness to what I believe to be the truth,  - the choice is mine to make.
Or I can choose to say nothing and let you carry on with your flawed concept of logic which denies the reality of our conscious freedom to think, to choose, to imagine, to pray, to love, to hope, to believe, to discover, to search, to accept or reject God …..

1. Just repeating the same flat wrong certainties over and over again does not make them less flat wrong.

2. The act of explaining why they're flat wrong does not mean that your (incoherent and logically impossible) conjecture about the nature of "free" will is correct.

3. I could tell you why (again), but you just won’t listen will you.

[Stranger]

More foot-stamping...   

To tell a porkie would require a deliberate act of will.

The sort nobody denies.

Such deliberation is a conscious act, not a reaction.

Why can't it be both?

Or I can choose to say nothing and let you carry on with your flawed concept of logic...

Where are the flaws?

...which denies the reality of our conscious freedom to think, to choose, to imagine, to pray, to love, to hope, to believe, to discover, to search, to accept or reject God …..

I have never once denied our ability to do any of those things - and to suggest I have, when I've just told you the opposite, looks a lot like a deliberate lie (and nothing I've said denies that ability either).

What you haven't done is provided any hint as to why any of these abilities needs us to be able to have done differently without randomness. Neither have you provided any way out of the obvious contradiction that entails.

Surely it's time to either produce some logic to support your assertions or have the basic honesty to admit you have none?

[ekim]

I can choose to witness to what I believe to be the truth,  - the choice is mine to make.
Or I can choose to say nothing and let you carry on with your flawed concept of logic which denies the reality of our conscious freedom to think, to choose, to imagine, to pray, to love, to hope, to believe, to discover, to search, to accept or reject God …..

I think you keep confusing 'conscious free will' and 'choice'.  Your above reply indicates that your consciousness is not free because it is absorbed in thought, the desire to choose, lost in imagination, indoctrinated into prayer and belief and finally it is attached to self will and by so doing rejects your God's Will.  Your choice is to seek freedom from self determination and surrender to your God's determination, as Jesus is supposed to have done.

[Alan Burns]

I think you keep confusing 'conscious free will' and 'choice'.  Your above reply indicates that your consciousness is not free because it is absorbed in thought, the desire to choose, lost in imagination, indoctrinated into prayer and belief and finally it is attached to self will and by so doing rejects your God's Will.  Your choice is to seek freedom from self determination and surrender to your God's determination, as Jesus is supposed to have done.

Yes, we can choose to do God's will, and this choice will always be driven by our own personal freedom.
Christianity is built upon our ability to choose using our gift of free will.
We are free to choose between good and evil.
We are free to accept Jesus as our saviour, or choose to reject Him.
We are free to choose whether to give in to selfish temptations, or to follow our conscience and act unselfishly.
We are free to accept the divine revelations of scripture, or choose reasons to reject them.
The choice is ours to make.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes, we can choose to do God's will, and this choice will always be driven by our own personal freedom.
Christianity is built upon our ability to choose using our gift of free will.
We are free to choose between good and evil.
We are free to accept Jesus as our saviour, or choose to reject Him.
We are free to choose whether to give in to selfish temptations, or to follow our conscience and act unselfishly.
We are free to accept the divine revelations of scripture, or choose reasons to reject them.
The choice is ours to make.

Logic free faith assertions noted. Sadly though:

1. Just repeating the same flat wrong certainties over and over again does not make them less flat wrong.

2. The act of explaining why they're flat wrong does not mean that your (incoherent and logically impossible) conjecture about the nature of "free" will is correct.

3. I could tell you why (again), but you just won’t listen will you.

[Stranger]

Yes, we can choose to do God's will, and this choice will always be driven by our own personal freedom.
Christianity is built upon our ability to choose using our gift of free will.
We are free to choose between good and evil.
We are free to accept Jesus as our saviour, or choose to reject Him.
We are free to choose whether to give in to selfish temptations, or to follow our conscience and act unselfishly.
We are free to accept the divine revelations of scripture, or choose reasons to reject them.
The choice is ours to make.

So, after this assertion of your faith position, are you ready yet to have the basic human honesty (let alone that which is supposed to come with your religion) to admit that you cannot provide anything like "sound logic" or a "logical analysis"?

BTW, there are Christians who don't believe in "free will" because it contradicts god's sovereignty. I actually knew one quite well at university. He was a Calvinist who believed in predestination.

[ekim]

Yes, we can choose to do God's will, and this choice will always be driven by our own personal freedom.
Christianity is built upon our ability to choose using our gift of free will.
We are free to choose between good and evil.
We are free to accept Jesus as our saviour, or choose to reject Him.
We are free to choose whether to give in to selfish temptations, or to follow our conscience and act unselfishly.
We are free to accept the divine revelations of scripture, or choose reasons to reject them.
The choice is ours to make.

The choices you mention are not totally free though, as the first is determined by your preconceived notion of what is good or evil.  Your second is determined by your religious doctrine.  Your third is determined by a conscience which has been ingrained over time.  Your fourth is determined by the existence of historical scripture and a belief in the divine.  These could all be considered as some of the ingredients which go to make up your 'self' and your choices appear to be self centred albeit religiously self centred, just as those who go under the labels of Muslim, Buddhist etc would also be religiously self centred but in a different way to you.

[Sebastian Toe]

I cannot agree Gordon.
I am simply witnessing to reality of human free will.
Any attempt to try to unpick this reality can only confirm it.
It takes a conscious act of will to try to unpick it.
An attempt to try to disprove human free will requires consciously driven thought processes.
The contrived word jugglery used to explain this away merely confirms our freedom to control our own thoughts.
This is not illogical or unreasonable - it is reality.

I cannot agree Alan.
I am simply witnessing the result of a biological brain working entirely within deterministic principles.
Any attempt to unpick  this reality can only confirm it.
It takes a biological brain working entirely within deterministic principles to unpick it.
Any attempt to try to disprove it using magic, non logical, extra dimentional, timeless yet time constrained,unevidenced souls, merely confirms that a biological brain working entirely within deterministic principles has the ability to think for itself, albeit in some cases somewhat irrationally.
The contrived word jugglery used to try to affirm aforesaid 'souls' merely confirms the incredible workings of our biological brains.
This is reasonable based on the facts available and therefore as near to reality as can be expected.
No magic required.

[torridon]

We are free to choose between good and evil.
We are free to accept Jesus as our saviour, or choose to reject Him.
We are free to choose whether to give in to selfish temptations, or to follow our conscience and act unselfishly.
We are free to accept the divine revelations of scripture, or choose reasons to reject them.
The choice is ours to make.

Well thank you for a platitudinous sermon.  Meanwhile, we could counter that with the following :

We are not free to like something we dislike
We are not free to believe something we don't believe.

What is the difference between my truth claims and yours ?  One difference is that yours are subject to mine, ie your claims are casual observation, my claims highlight simple but profound truths by which more superficial claims such as yours can be measured.  The extent to which your claims transgress against mine is the extent to which they are false.  So, with that in mind, consider the following truth claim :

We are free to believe in a flat Earth.

Is that statement true ?  Whether you consider that statement to be true or not, reveals something about how you understand the word 'free' and all that is implied by its use.  The numbers of people claiming to believe in a flat Earth has been rising steadily, apparently.  Go figure.

[Gordon]

To add.

We are free to believe something that is demonstrably wrong.

We are free to believe something that isn't, as yet, classed as verifiable knowledge (in full or in part).

We are free to believe something for which, as yet, there is no method suited to its investigation.

So, feeling 'free' can come with limitations.

[Alan Burns]

We are not free to like something we dislike

As I have said numerous times, we cannot change our likes or dislikes.

We are not free to believe something we don't believe.[/i]

Belief is not a choice.
We need to discern what we believe to be the truth - we cannot choose it.
How do we arrive at a belief?  Does it all just drop into place without conscious intervention?
The fact is that in order to discern any belief, we need freedom to consciously drive our own thought processes and contemplate the information available in order come to conclusions. Without conscious freedom, we could not arrive at any belief.  Our freedom to think is the essential starting point.

We are free to believe in a flat Earth.

We are free to contemplate the possibility of a flat earth by consciously examining the evidence and drawing conclusions.

[Stranger]

The fact is that in order to discern any belief, we need freedom to consciously drive our own thought processes and contemplate the information available in order come to conclusions. Without conscious freedom, we could not arrive at any belief.  Our freedom to think is the essential starting point.

We are free to contemplate the possibility of a flat earth by consciously examining the evidence and drawing conclusions.

So, in what way do any of those "freedoms" require that we could have done differently with no randomness?

You still seem to be confusing the role of consciousness with your impossible, contradictory idea of "freedom".

Still waiting for you to make any attempt to resolve the contradiction.

Still waiting for any hint of logic from you or the basic human honesty to admit that you don't have any.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I have said numerous times, we cannot change our likes or dislikes.

Then you have no “free” will about that.

Belief is not a choice.

Yes it is. You for example could finally address the manifold problems with the justifications you attempt for your beliefs, realise that they’re all wrong and question therefore whether your beliefs are legitimate. Similarly I was of the view that planets formed by violent collisions of matter, but am now persuaded by the “gentle nudge” theory that was recently developed. That’s is, I changed my mind about something.

We need to discern what we believe to be the truth - we cannot choose it.

Yes you can if you’re honest enough to engage with the reason and evidence in front of you. You should try it.

How do we arrive at a belief?  Does it all just drop into place without conscious intervention?

It’s more complex than that – the conscious and sub-conscious minds in continual feedback loops etc (when we are conscious that is) – but essentially yes.

The fact is…

Ah, your standard “the fact is” when you’re about to express a personal, unqualified, logically incoherent, probably internally contradictory opinion that’s pretty much the antithesis of a fact…

…that in order to discern any belief, we need freedom to consciously drive our own thought processes and contemplate the information available in order come to conclusions.

…and sure enough, there it is. You’ve had explained to you countless times why this is utter nonsense, only for you to ignore the explanations. What then would be the point of explaining it to you again?

Without conscious freedom, we could not arrive at any belief.

That’s a basic non sequitur - of course we could. Why would you think otherwise?

Our freedom to think is the essential starting point.

No, it’s just yours. That’s why any attempt to falsify it falls on deaf ears - you think that the fact of making the falsification itself must be evidence for your assertion. For as long as you keep that door tight shut though you’ll never see why behind it lies only BS.

We are free to contemplate the possibility of a flat earth by consciously examining the evidence and drawing conclusions.

Or to ignore the evidence, to misrepresent it, to pretend it doesn’t exist, to attempt flat wrong arguments to rebut it etc. To that extent, you and the flat-earthers are very similar.

[torridon]

As I have said numerous times, we cannot change our likes or dislikes.

This alone is an admission of determinism.  Surely in a free will scenario, we would be free to choose what to like and not.  But reality is not like that, we merely act out the desires that we have but did not choose to have.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

This alone is an admission of determinism.  Surely in a free will scenario, we would be free to choose what to like and not.  But reality is not like that, we merely act out the desires that we have but did not choose to have.

Quite. With an invisible magic little man at the controls operating outside all known physical and logical constraints, you'd think this "soul" could just instruct its Marmite-hating host to love the stuff by the following morning. It seems not though - at least according to AB.

[Alan Burns]

This alone is an admission of determinism.  Surely in a free will scenario, we would be free to choose what to like and not.  But reality is not like that, we merely act out the desires that we have but did not choose to have.

Absolutely not.  We have no freedom to choose our own personality - it is what we are born with.
We can't choose our desires, but we do have freedom to choose how, when, where and if to act out our desires.
And we would not be able to contemplate any concept of determinism vs freedom without our consciously driven freedom to think things through.