Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Alan Burns seems perfectly sincere to me.

And I have to say that other posters seem sincere in their own beliefs.
But sincerity alone does not lead to truth, so the debate goes on.   

[Nearly Sane]

Freedom to choose our own thoughts, words and actions does not imply freedom from determinism of any sort, just free from the deterministic nature of physically controlled reactions.  As I said earlier, our conscious awareness is the buffer zone in which we are consciously aware of influences, but allows us freedom to choose how to react (or not to react) to those influences.

Infinite regress again, Alan.

[Nearly Sane]

And I have to say that other posters seem sincere in their own beliefs.
But sincerity alone does not lead to truth, so the debate goes on.   

Agree but you need to argue logically. You don't. In the main you don't make any arguments only assertions.

[torridon]

Freedom to choose our own thoughts, words and actions does not imply freedom from determinism of any sort, just free from the deterministic nature of physically controlled reactions.  As I said earlier, our conscious awareness is the buffer zone in which we are consciously aware of influences, but allows us freedom to choose how to react (or not to react) to those influences.

But even within that 'buffer zone' we are still not free from the principle that our choices reflect our desires and our desires are not something we have control over.  What do you want to think about in the next moment ?  It will be the thing that you most want to think about. There is no escaping this simple logic, it is the fundamental basis of how minds work, of how all choice is resolved, ultimately.

[Stranger]

Freedom to choose our own thoughts, words and actions does not imply freedom from determinism of any sort, just free from the deterministic nature of physically controlled reactions.

You're trying to play word games with "determinism" again, and once again misrepresenting the argument against you as being specifically about the physical world. A deterministic system is basically a logical (mathematical) concept and the physical world may or may not be an example of one. There is no special kind of determinism that is associated with the physical world.

Anything that changes state over time (as anything that makes a choice must), is either operating as a deterministic system or it isn't (and therefore involves randomness).

This has been explained to you time and time again, so why do you go on misrepresenting it as an argument about the physical world? NS seems to think you're sincere, why would somebody who is both intelligent and sincere, not tackle the actual argument against them instead of playing games with the meanings of words and indulging in constant misrepresentation?

If you think there is a way in which choices can be made without the process being a deterministic system or not, then by all means bring forward your argument, but you can't do that by constantly associating determinism (usual meaning) with the physical world and pretending that there is another sort of determinism (Alan-speak) that still applies to your claims that explicitly deny ("we could have done differently") determinism (usual meaning).

Edited to add: And by the way, going to the part of your script that insists that choices are "determined by" the will of the human soul or whatever, is not addressing the point. This is a how question, not a what question.

[Owlswing]

You're trying to play word games with "determinism" again, and once again misrepresenting the argument against you as being specifically about the physical world. A deterministic system is basically a logical (mathematical) concept and the physical world may or may not be an example of one. There is no special kind of determinism that is associated with the physical world.

Anything that changes state over time (as anything that makes a choice must), is either operating as a deterministic system or it isn't (and therefore involves randomness).

This has been explained to you time and time again, so why do you go on misrepresenting it as an argument about the physical world? NS seems to think you're sincere, why would somebody who is both intelligent and sincere, not tackle the actual argument against them instead of playing games with the meanings of words and indulging in constant misrepresentation?

If you think there is a way in which choices can be made without the process being a deterministic system or not, then by all means bring forward your argument, but you can't do that by constantly associating determinism (usual meaning) with the physical world and pretending that there is another sort of determinism (Alan-speak) that still applies to your claims that explicitly deny ("we could have done differently") determinism (usual meaning).

My dear Never Talk  - you cannot argue logically with someone who has been brainwashed practically since birth. They do not have the freedom to actually listen to and act upon what you are explaining to them because the voices in their head are telling them that you are speaking sacrilege and their brain turns off.

[ippy]

My dear Never Talk  - you cannot argue logically with someone who has been brainwashed practically since birth. They do not have the freedom to actually listen to and act upon what you are explaining to them because the voices in their head are telling them that you are speaking sacrilege and their brain turns off.

Owl, go to Wikkie and then on to how they the North Koreans during their last war gave up on brainwashing in the end because they tried it but it didn't work, so nobody now tries to do brainwashing anymore.

Regards, ippy.

[ippy]

And I have to say that other posters seem sincere in their own beliefs.
But sincerity alone does not lead to truth, so the debate goes on.   

As says the unqualified assertion specialist man!

Many commiserations Alan.

[Alan Burns]

You're trying to play word games with "determinism" again, and once again misrepresenting the argument against you as being specifically about the physical world. A deterministic system is basically a logical (mathematical) concept and the physical world may or may not be an example of one. There is no special kind of determinism that is associated with the physical world.

Anything that changes state over time (as anything that makes a choice must), is either operating as a deterministic system or it isn't (and therefore involves randomness).

This has been explained to you time and time again, so why do you go on misrepresenting it as an argument about the physical world? NS seems to think you're sincere, why would somebody who is both intelligent and sincere, not tackle the actual argument against them instead of playing games with the meanings of words and indulging in constant misrepresentation?

If you think there is a way in which choices can be made without the process being a deterministic system or not, then by all means bring forward your argument, but you can't do that by constantly associating determinism (usual meaning) with the physical world and pretending that there is another sort of determinism (Alan-speak) that still applies to your claims that explicitly deny ("we could have done differently") determinism (usual meaning).

Edited to add: And by the way, going to the part of your script that insists that choices are "determined by" the will of the human soul or whatever, is not addressing the point. This is a how question, not a what question.

I fully understand the reasoning you give.  I accept how you come to these logical conclusions.
However, these conclusions are not compatible with the reality I live in - they come nowhere near.
My reality tells me that I have freedom to choose and direct my own thoughts, with the knowledge that I could have chosen differently if I so wished.
This is because I am in control - I make the choices- not the past.
You may well try to pass this off as just the way it feels, or just an experience of freedom.
You may compare it to the illusion of a flat earth.
But the illusion of a flat earth is external to the reality that is me.
My freedom is within me - it is what I am.
As your logical analysis confirms, such freedom cannot be given by nature alone.
I do not profess to know how my freedom manifests within me - I just use it.

[Roses]

I fully understand the reasoning you give.  I accept how you come to these logical conclusions.
However, these conclusions are not compatible with the reality I live in - they come nowhere near.
My reality tells me that I have freedom to choose and direct my own thoughts, with the knowledge that I could have chosen differently if I so wished.
This is because I am in control - I make the choices- not the past.
You may well try to pass this off as just the way it feels, or just an experience of freedom.
You may compare it to the illusion of a flat earth.
But the illusion of a flat earth is external to the reality that is me.
My freedom is within me - it is what I am.
As your logical analysis confirms, such freedom cannot be given by nature alone.
I do not profess to know how my freedom manifests within me - I just use it.

That is your personal reality, not mine.

[torridon]

I fully understand the reasoning you give.  I accept how you come to these logical conclusions.
However, these conclusions are not compatible with the reality I live in - they come nowhere near.
My reality tells me that I have freedom to choose and direct my own thoughts, with the knowledge that I could have chosen differently if I so wished.
..

If you had so wished, then that implies a different circumstance, so yes, in that case you would have chosen differently.  Time for that penny to drop Alan, you are still not getting it.

What we do, is act on the desires we have, but we cannot choose which desires to have.  Nobody has that freedom.

[Enki]

I fully understand the reasoning you give.  I accept how you come to these logical conclusions.
However, these conclusions are not compatible with the reality I live in - they come nowhere near.
My reality tells me that I have freedom to choose and direct my own thoughts, with the knowledge that I could have chosen differently if I so wished.
This is because I am in control - I make the choices- not the past.
You may well try to pass this off as just the way it feels, or just an experience of freedom.
You may compare it to the illusion of a flat earth.
But the illusion of a flat earth is external to the reality that is me.
My freedom is within me - it is what I am.
As your logical analysis confirms, such freedom cannot be given by nature alone.
I do not profess to know how my freedom manifests within me - I just use it.

Of course you could have made a different choice with the understanding that you could have made a different choice if you had so wished. The point is at the moment you made that choice you didn't so wish, did you?

[Alan Burns]

I was inspired by these words from the scripture readings from Sunday's Mass:

1 Peter 3:16-17
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

It reminds me that I am not trying to win arguments, but, on God's behalf, to win souls

[torridon]

I was inspired by these words from the scripture readings from Sunday's Mass:

1 Peter 3:16-17
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

It reminds me that I am not trying to win arguments, but, on God's behalf, to win souls

To make any progress on that front, you'd first need to establish some evidence for 'God's and for 'soul's.  In their absence, we can safely ignore such empty assertions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I fully understand the reasoning you give.  I accept how you come to these logical conclusions.
However, these conclusions are not compatible with the reality I live in - they come nowhere near.

Think about what you’ve just said there. You accept that the logic dictates that your experience of “free” will cannot actually be what it feels like to you (and to the rest of us for that matter) but without pause (let alone any counter-argument of your own) you just dismiss that logic out-of-hand in favour of “the reality I live in”.

Does anything seem to be problematic about that to you? Does not the fact that the logic (which you seem to accept as sound) tells you that your experience of reality is a functionally useful abstraction but cannot be an explanation for what’s really happening trouble you at all?

My reality tells me that I have freedom to choose and direct my own thoughts, with the knowledge that I could have chosen differently if I so wished.
This is because I am in control - I make the choices- not the past.
You may well try to pass this off as just the way it feels, or just an experience of freedom.

Yes, “my” reality tells me that too provided I don’t actually think about why it cannot be the reality at a deeper, more logically cogent level. If you’re capable of grasping the sense of the logic that tells you why that is, why then cling to the notion that my reality is also the reality?
 

You may compare it to the illusion of a flat earth.
But the illusion of a flat earth is external to the reality that is me.
My freedom is within me - it is what I am.

Irrelevant. The flat earth analogy just explains that the way things appear to be is not necessarily the way things are – nothing more.

As your logical analysis confirms, such freedom cannot be given by nature alone.

It confirms no such thing. What it actually “confirms” is the exact opposite of that, so why pretend otherwise?
 

I do not profess to know how my freedom manifests within me - I just use it.

No you don’t, which is why you collapse into “it’s magic innit” when asked for an argument that would falsify the reasoning that undoes you. As a side issue, you might also want to consider why “the naturalistic explanation is incomplete therefore I’ll call it impossible and dismiss it out-of-hand” and “I do not profess to know how my freedom manifests within me” ie, “I have precisely zero information about my alternative” doesn’t work at all. Does it.   

[Nearly Sane]

I was inspired by these words from the scripture readings from Sunday's Mass:

1 Peter 3:16-17
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

It reminds me that I am not trying to win arguments, but, on God's behalf, to win souls

But you show no respect when you state as you have done frequently that those who state they have no belief in a god are lying about their motivations and seeking reasons not to believe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you..."

Fair enough. Do you now plan to adopt this behaviour?

[Stranger]

I fully understand the reasoning you give.  I accept how you come to these logical conclusions.

Why do you keep misrepresenting it, then? You also said you had your own logic. Still waiting for it...

However, these conclusions are not compatible with the reality I live in - they come nowhere near.

This is nothing but personal incredulity that the experience you have can be explained by a deterministic system.

My reality tells me that I have freedom to choose and direct my own thoughts, with the knowledge that I could have chosen differently if I so wished.

Of course you could, IF you'd so wished - but you didn't. The question is about why you wished to do what you wished to do at the time, rather than something else. The logic applies directly to what you wished to do at the time. Either the wishes you form are coming about as the result of some deterministic system or not (and therefore involve randomness).

This is because I am in control - I make the choices- not the past.

This is a false dilemma. Of course it's you making the choices, but that doesn't in any way change the logic. You have come to be the person you are either entirely due to the past or not (which again means randomness).

As your logical analysis confirms, such freedom cannot be given by nature alone.

No, Alan, your misrepresenting it yet again. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "NATURE ALONE". The "freedom" you've just described above is perfectly compatible with a deterministic system. It's just your extra assertion that you could have done (wished) differently for no reason at all without it being random, that is LOGICALLY self-contradictory.

I do not profess to know how my freedom manifests within me - I just use it.

So you can't exclude the logically self-consistent version, then.

Apart from basic human honesty, there is another reason you really do need to stop linking the argument with the physical. We don't know (and somebody as well respected as Roger Penrose has suggested it, although he didn't manage to convince many people) that consciousness doesn't involve entirely new physics. Hence, if you can make it make logical sense, then you cannot rule out a physical explanation.

[Outrider]

I fully understand the reasoning you give.  I accept how you come to these logical conclusions.
However, these conclusions are not compatible with the reality I live in - they come nowhere near.

Why?

My reality tells me that I have freedom to choose and direct my own thoughts, with the knowledge that I could have chosen differently if I so wished.

Then, frankly, you've failed to examine it sufficiently closely.

This is because I am in control - I make the choices- not the past.

You, though, are a product of that past - it is THROUGH YOU that the past manifests.

You may well try to pass this off as just the way it feels, or just an experience of freedom. You may compare it to the illusion of a flat earth. But the illusion of a flat earth is external to the reality that is me.

It's not; it's a concept you've encountered, compared against other ideas that you'd previously encountered, made a balanced judgement on and then concluded that it's nonsense.  What you've not established in this thread is how you think that could have gone any differently - with who you were at the time you encountered that flat-Earth theory, was there any way you could have seriously believed the notion?  Or was it entirely inevitable that that particular version of you at that moment in time would always reject the idea?

My freedom is within me - it is what I am.

How are you free but not random?

As your logical analysis confirms, such freedom cannot be given by nature alone.

No, you misunderstand - it's not that such a state requires something outside of nature, it's the idea that something could be both non-deterministic and non-random AT THE SAME TIME is logically untenable, natural or otherwise.

O.

[ippy]

I was inspired by these words from the scripture readings from Sunday's Mass:

1 Peter 3:16-17
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

It reminds me that I am not trying to win arguments, but, on God's behalf, to win souls

Go forth and multiply Alan, how silly can you get?

Many commiserations Alan, you really do need them, ippy.

[Gordon]

It reminds me that I am not trying to win arguments, but, on God's behalf, to win souls

How do you think that is going?

[Roses]

How do you think that is going?

Not very well, I should think.

[Alan Burns]

The source of human will remains as elusive as the source of existence to the human mind - until they come to know God.

[Owlswing]

The source of human will remains as elusive as the source of existence to the human mind - until they come to know God.

The title of this thread is "Searching for God"!

You have very obviously found Him so for Christ's sake shut the fuck up!

[Roses]

The god/s worshipped by humans are a product of the vivid human imagination, imo. No one has produced any verifiable evidence to support their existence.

AB's mind tells him that the Biblical god does exist, but has never produced an argument, which is convincing in this regard.