Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

But there is evidence in abundance - which you and others have sought reasons to dismiss.

Another totally baseless assertion. Where is this evidence?

For example the reality of our own conscious freedom - a freedom you demonstrate by consciously trying to dismiss such freedom as an illusion.

Another totally baseless assertion. You have posted nothing at all that connects our ability to dismiss your nonsense to the nonsense version of "freedom" itself.

A freedom which is indeed a logical impossibility when analysed from a materialist point of view.

Dishonest misrepresentation. It is fundamentally self-contradictory for reasons that have nothing to do with any "materialist point of view". Why do you keep on lying about this?

And there are the miracles, personal witness stories, historical accounts of God's witness to mankind...

As there are for all sorts of contradictory gods and other superstitions.

...culminating in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus...

A story in some old books.

...all apparently dismissed using the "logically impossible version of conscious freedom".

And you still haven't made any sort of connection between people's ability to think and your self-contradictory version of "freedom".

So, no evidence whatsoever.

Where is the logic you said you had?

[Alan Burns]

Which is in contrast to the video you chose to post up.  Adjusting his output for different audiences, I suppose.

We (my wife, children and I) recently discovered his web site (word on fire) when looking for a suitable daily Mass broadcast in the absence of our being able to attend church.  For me, he brings the scriptures to life with a depth and meaning I have not encountered before.  He freely admits that the message of scripture is not popular to many people. ("if you want entertainment , go watch Oprah" he recently quipped in one of his sermons.) He pulls no punches when talking of God - he certainly does not pander to popular opinion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You are free to put your faith in whatever you think can emerge unintentionally from unguided physical reactions in material entities.

More evasive dishonesty. You’ve avoided the question again, and you’ve wrongly conflated the two meanings of “faith” – ie, a reasoned conclusion based on logic and evidence (eg, emergence), and a conviction without supporting logic and evidence (eg, god). 

I put my faith in God.

Not yet you don’t. What you actually do is put your “faith” in your belief “god” being accurate – ie, the second meaning. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

...he certainly does not pander to popular opinion

Or to logical cogency to support his claims and assertions. 

[ekim]

But there is evidence in abundance - which you and others have sought reasons to dismiss.
For example the reality of our own conscious freedom - a freedom you demonstrate by consciously trying to dismiss such freedom as an illusion.  A freedom which is indeed a logical impossibility when analysed from a materialist point of view.

And there are the miracles, personal witness stories, historical accounts of God's witness to mankind, culminating in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus - all apparently dismissed using the "logically impossible version of conscious freedom".

Another way of looking at what you are saying is that your adversaries are neither free from the desire to dismiss what you say nor the constraints of logic.  Materialism is irrelevant.  Similarly you are not yet free from the constraints of the religious interpretation of the life and death of Jesus.

[Nearly Sane]

We (my wife, children and I) recently discovered his web site (word on fire) when looking for a suitable daily Mass broadcast in the absence of our being able to attend church.  For me, he brings the scriptures to life with a depth and meaning I have not encountered before.  He freely admits that the message of scripture is not popular to many people. ("if you want entertainment , go watch Oprah" he recently quipped in one of his sermons.) He pulls no punches when talking of God - he certainly does not pander to popular opinion.

And he lies

[Alan Burns]

AB,

More evasive dishonesty. You’ve avoided the question again, and you’ve wrongly conflated the two meanings of “faith” – ie, a reasoned conclusion based on logic and evidence (eg, emergence), and a conviction without supporting logic and evidence (eg, god). 

Are you not amazed by what apparently emerges from my subconscious brain activity? 

[torridon]

Are you not amazed by what apparently emerges from my subconscious brain activity? 

Seems to me you are a shining example par excellence of predictability

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Are you not amazed by what apparently emerges from my subconscious brain activity? 

Depressed rather than amazed I'd say.

[Roses]

AB,

Depressed rather than amazed I'd say.

Me too.

[Stranger]

Are you not amazed by what apparently emerges from my subconscious brain activity? 

Not really - you're amazingly predictable, and if you're not being deliberately (consciously) dishonest and evasive, then your subconscious really is taking the lead (on this forum, anyway)...

[SusanDoris]

Are you not amazed by what apparently emerges from my subconscious brain activity? 

Not me - horrified and  appalled, yes, especially since I imagine your grandson is being in doctrinated with all of it too, like millions of other children around the world.

[SusanDoris]

Are you not amazed by what apparently emerges from my subconscious brain activity? 

[Outrider]

On the contrary - I have given it a great deal of thought which brought me to the conclusion that such ability to think could not be driven entirely by the uncontrollable consequences of physical reactions alone.

Except that, from what you've shown us so far, it's not a conclusion - it's a prior assertion that you're trying, and failing, to build a coherent argument around.

I have the freedom to control rather than just react.

If you are 'controlling' this, what are those decision based upon, and in what way are they free of the prior conditions - you've still failed to address this fundamental oxymoron in the very concept of free will.

This makes "me". personally accountable for all my conscious thoughts, words or actions.

It would, yes, if it were true.  You keep coming back to this as though it were significant to the argument, and it isn't. It's a significant CONSEQUENCE that the non-viability of the very notion of free will asks significant questions about ideas like personal responsibility, crime and punishment and the basis of eternal reward or torment in religion, but those don't actually impact the basis for the argument for free will itself.

Your deterministic scenario would effectively exonerate us all from any guilt over anything we ever choose to do, because you claim we could not possibly have made any other choice.

Actually, no, although it changes the nature of any response to such actions from punishment to rehabilitation - not an entirely bad thing, to my mind, and on a practical level there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that it's more effective.

This is not the reality we all live in.

The logic, and the evidence, suggest that it is - it's not the way you see reality, but that seems to be more to do with how you look at it than how it is.

O.

[ippy]

Alan doesn't actually have free will due to, I suspect, the indoctrination he seems to have been through as a child and unfortunately for him as a subject he seems to have been rather more susceptible than most to this method of spreading ideas, any ideas including daft ones.

ippy.

[Alan Burns]

If you are 'controlling' this, what are those decision based upon, and in what way are they free of the prior conditions - you've still failed to address this fundamental oxymoron in the very concept of free will.

We are not free of prior conditions.
We are consciously aware of prior conditions.
Our conscious awareness enables us to choose how to react to these prior conditions.

[Sebastian Toe]

We are not free of prior conditions.

I detest the smell of celery, it gives me the dry boke.

We are consciously aware of prior conditions.

I am aware that if I put celery in my mouth,I will throw up.

Our conscious awareness enables us to choose how to react to these prior conditions.

How can my free will chose to make me react differently when presented with aforementioned celery?

[torridon]

We are not free of prior conditions.
We are consciously aware of prior conditions.
Our conscious awareness enables us to choose how to react to these prior conditions.

and how we choose to react reflects how we most want to react and this is not something we have control over.

[Gordon]

We are not free of prior conditions.

True

We are consciously aware of prior conditions.

Wrong: we may be aware of some, but even then not of all the antecedents of any conditions that we think we are aware of and fully understand, while of course we may be blissfully unaware of other factors that are, nevertheless, relevant. For example, when dealing with other people, you cannot be 'consciously aware' of all their motivations and prejudices, and even if you think you are how could you ever know your 'conscious awareness' of other people was an accurate understanding? 

Our conscious awareness enables us to choose how to react to these prior conditions.

I suspect you are wrong here, for the obvious reason that you are not omniscient.

[Stranger]

We are not free of prior conditions.

This just shows how little actual thought you've put into this. If we are not, to some extent, "free" from prior conditions, then everything we did would be entirely the result of them, an "inevitable reaction" to them, which you keep on denying.

Unfortunately for you, being free from prior conditions means randomness.

We are consciously aware of prior conditions.
Our conscious awareness enables us to choose how to react to these prior conditions.

And this mindless little mantra of yours doesn't even address the question. Your seem blind to the fact that saying we "choose" tells us nothing about how a choice is made.

Mindless repetition of trite, reasoning-free nonsense, while totally ignoring the answers you've have been given, is not the behaviour of an intelligent, thoughtful adult. Not what one would expect from somebody who signs themselves "Dr Alan Burns BSc Phd MBCS CEng CITP". It's just childish foot-stamping: "I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! And I'm not listening to you!"

[Roses]

A person can be very intelligent but their mind is in lockdown when it comes to how they view their faith.

[Outrider]

We are not free of prior conditions.

Then you agree that free will is a myth?

We are consciously aware of prior conditions.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no - not that it seems to matter very much given that our conscious awareness happens after the decisions have been made.

Our conscious awareness enables us to choose how to react to these prior conditions.

This suggests that actually you do think that we are free of our prior conditions, which you just said that we weren't.  If our conscious awareness is somehow free of prior conditions, then it's a random element - which you've also said that you don't think is the case.  How does that conscious awareness manage to be 'not random' but also 'not determined by prior events', given that there is literally NO OTHER OPTION.

Things either happen as a result of what happened before, or they are random, there is no third option here.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

A person can be very intelligent but their mind is in lockdown when it comes to how they view their faith.

Thing is, given the impossibility of AB's logic free free will, that's true of everyone about everything

[ekim]

This suggests that actually you do think that we are free of our prior conditions, which you just said that we weren't.  If our conscious awareness is somehow free of prior conditions, then it's a random element - which you've also said that you don't think is the case.  How does that conscious awareness manage to be 'not random' but also 'not determined by prior events', given that there is literally NO OTHER OPTION.

Things either happen as a result of what happened before, or they are random, there is no third option here.

O.

I think from the point of view of the religion there is a third option..... God's Will.  What appears to be random to humans and 'not determined by prior events' is determined by the 'Will of God', the source of all events.  The idea is 'atonement' in the sense of 'at-one-ment' with God's Will rather than at-many-ment with human will which is often divisive rather than unitive.  To link it with the title of this thread 'Searching for God', the Mystics would see 'self' sacrifice or  surrender as a means unitive knowing rather than intellectual conceptualising.

[Outrider]

I think from the point of view of the religion there is a third option..... God's Will.  What appears to be random to humans and 'not determined by prior events' is determined by the 'Will of God', the source of all events.  The idea is 'atonement' in the sense of 'at-one-ment' with God's Will rather than at-many-ment with human will which is often divisive rather than unitive.  To link it with the title of this thread 'Searching for God', the Mystics would see 'self' sacrifice or  surrender as a means unitive knowing rather than intellectual conceptualising.

That takes away human free will and makes it God's, though, and doesn't actually explain how the logic is any different - it's still either dependent upon the elements that made God what it is, or it's random.  There still isn't any sort of logical 'third path' for a god to manifest something that is both not deterministic and not random.

O.