Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

I see no contradictions in being able to accept the truth behind our existence.

The trouble is that your attempts to support what you call the truth consist of nothing but fallacy-ridden, self-contradictory nonsense. What's more, you don't even have the intellectual honesty to face up to the problems and make any attempt to correct them.

The contradictions come when you search for reasons not to accept the truth, in particular in trying to deny your own freedom to make consciously driven choices which are not just unavoidable reactions to past events.

Another example of you just repeating the same illogical drivel rather than addressing what has already been said about it. For example, you have never once been able to point out any actual contradiction involved in "consciously driven choices" also being "unavoidable reactions".

[Alan Burns]

For example, you have never once been able to point out any actual contradiction involved in "consciously driven choices" also being "unavoidable reactions".

You seem unable to acknowledge the profound difference between a choice and a reaction.
We have control over our choices.
We can have no control over reactions.
You need to come to terms the reality rather than constantly falling back on flawed logic which denies the reality we all live in.

[Gordon]

You seem unable to acknowledge the profound difference between a choice and a reaction.
We have control over our choices.
We can have no control over reactions.
You need to come to terms the reality rather than constantly falling back on flawed logic which denies the reality we all live in.

A choice is, in essence, a form of reaction, Alan: the difference between the two that you assert seems spurious since I doubt that I could ever choose otherwise in the precise circumstances under which I seem to be freely choosing, and as such I'm reacting - and aspects of that reaction may well involve the influence of personal preferences and traits that I may not be fully aware of as I seem to be choosing.

You've been told this before of course - many times. 

[torridon]

You seem unable to acknowledge the profound difference between a choice and a reaction.
We have control over our choices.
We can have no control over reactions.
You need to come to terms the reality rather than constantly falling back on flawed logic which denies the reality we all live in.

A choice is a reaction, or more subtly, a choice (at the level of a thinking mind) consists of an immense number of reactions at the cellular level. We are not free to alter the biochemistry going on at the cellular level in our heads and the choices we make are therefore the deterministic outcome of all that activity.

[Alan Burns]

You provide people with sufficient reason to not believe with pretty much every posting.  If the christian god exists, as in being both being almighty and benign, then evil cannot also exist because an omnipotent and benevolent god would not tolerate that.  The two concepts are mutually contradictory.  Posting up obviously irrational ideas is the way to go if you want to put people off religious faith.

If there is a god which is benign and omnipotent, then it would not tolerate these 'forces of evil' in the first place.  This is another classic example of poor, self-contradictory reasoning being used to justify belief.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?
C.S. Lewis

[Stranger]

You seem unable to acknowledge the profound difference between a choice and a reaction.

Which is just a baseless assertion that there is such a difference.

We have control over our choices.
We can have no control over reactions.

Of course we do, we are the ones that are reacting.

You need to come to terms the reality rather than constantly falling back on flawed logic which denies the reality we all live in.

More baseless assertion. You have never once been able to point out a flaw in the logic and your concept of "the reality we all live in" is superficial, subjective, and illogical.

[Stranger]

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?
C.S. Lewis

Trite, irrelevant drivel.   

[Gordon]

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?
C.S. Lewis

I'll see your (hopeless apologist) Lewis and raise you a Joyce: which is just as irrelevant to this topic.

Stately, plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed.

[Enki]

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?
C.S. Lewis

This statement by Lewis(Mere Christianity, Bk 2, Ch 1) isn't my position at all. As I see morality as a human construct(with the proviso of the evidence of proto-morality in certain animal species) the universe seems totally indifferent. Hence words like 'cruel' and 'unjust' are words that I don't even consider appropriate. As regards Lewis's straight line/crooked line idea that would depend on who decides which is the straight line and which is the crooked line and the evidence shows that throughout history and amongst differing human cultures there are many interpretations of the straight line/crooked line idea. It is interesting, I think, that in the same paragraph, Lewis talks about his own 'violent reactions' against the supposed 'unjust' nature of the universe. This, I think, tells you more about Lewis's emotional state of mind than any balanced rational view.

On the other hand, and in the same vein as Torri(whom you were replying to), once you accept a god who is benign and omnipotent, then the 'forces of evil' that you also seem to accept are a contradiction to his/her/its benignity and instead smack of a callous, uncaring god.

Either way, your Lewis quote is entirely without significance in this context.

[jeremyp]

The fact that we exist, and we are aware of our existence must lead to a deduction that there must be something which caused us to exist.

The fact that God exists and is aware of his own existence must lead to a deduction that there must be something which caused his existence.

[Alan Burns]

A choice is a reaction, or more subtly, a choice (at the level of a thinking mind) consists of an immense number of reactions at the cellular level. We are not free to alter the biochemistry going on at the cellular level in our heads and the choices we make are therefore the deterministic outcome of all that activity.

No matter how complex the chains of reactions going on inside a material brain, the eventual outcome will still be a reaction - not a choice.
The words"reaction" and "choice" are two different words with two different meanings.

To enable choice, you need a deliberate interaction - not a reaction, to invoke the choice.  Without this interaction there is no choice.

There is also the problem of being able to reach valid conclusions within a brain totally driven by physically defined chains of reactions with no means of conscious intervention.  I know I have breached this subject before, but never had any viable explanation.

[Gordon]

I know I have breached this subject before, but never had any viable explanation.

That will be because you are overwhelmed by religious nonsense and associated personal incredulity, Alan.

[jeremyp]

No matter how complex the chains of reactions going on inside a material brain, the eventual outcome will still be a reaction - not a choice.
The words"reaction" and "choice" are two different words with two different meanings.

To enable choice, you need a deliberate interaction - not a reaction, to invoke the choice. 

What's the difference between an interaction and a reaction?

When you make a choice, what informs your decision? Does it randomly pop into your mind or do you weigh up all the information available to you? If it's the latter, how is it different to reacting to the information you have? If it's the former, how is it different to tossing a coin?

[torridon]

No matter how complex the chains of reactions going on inside a material brain, the eventual outcome will still be a reaction - not a choice.
The words"reaction" and "choice" are two different words with two different meanings.

To enable choice, you need a deliberate interaction - not a reaction, to invoke the choice.  Without this interaction there is no choice.
..

Choice, reaction, interaction, all come down to the same thing ultimately. We might have different words to express what is going on at different levels of complexity and emergence. 'Choice' refers to the lived experience of decision making, but under the hood, it still comes down to simple deterministic reactions amongst untold multitudes of individual brain cells as competing neural assemblies compete with each other to resolve choices.

[torridon]

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?
C.S. Lewis

This is irrelevant to the question of why a loving creator god would unleash evil in the world in the form of Satan.  Can you not understand that love and evil are not consistent with each other ? I had that figured out by about the age of five.

[Alan Burns]

The fact that God exists and is aware of his own existence must lead to a deduction that there must be something which caused his existence.

If you insist on everything having a time related cause, you fall into the "turtles all the way down" fallacy.    For anything to exist there has to be an ultimate cause of existence.  God is "that which exists" in what must be a timeless dimension.

[Alan Burns]

This is irrelevant to the question of why a loving creator god would unleash evil in the world in the form of Satan.  Can you not understand that love and evil are not consistent with each other ? I had that figured out by about the age of five.

In separate beings, each with their own free will, the concepts of love and evil are inevitable.

[Stranger]

No matter how complex the chains of reactions going on inside a material brain, the eventual outcome will still be a reaction - not a choice.
The words"reaction" and "choice" are two different words with two different meanings.

Yes, a choice is a subset of reactions, all it means is that it is you reacting to the possibility of having more than one course of action available to you.

To enable choice, you need a deliberate interaction - not a reaction, to invoke the choice.  Without this interaction there is no choice.

A deliberate interaction is just a series of reactions that involve the process of deliberation. You're just playing silly word games.

There is also the problem of being able to reach valid conclusions within a brain totally driven by physically defined chains of reactions with no means of conscious intervention.  I know I have breached this subject before, but never had any viable explanation.

Of course you have, you've just ignored them all in favour of mindlessly repeating the same drivel as if nobody had replied at all. For about the ten thousandth time: for a start, you've have never once managed to actually express how you think the impossible, nonsensical, self-contradictory, unimaginable ability to have chosen differently without randomness, would help with the validity of any conclusion you might reach.

The claim of "no means of conscious intervention", is just a misrepresentation of what is being said; the involvement of consciousness has nothing to do with it being a chain of reactions, neither does whether the reactions are entirely physical or not. Regardless of both, your mind is either operating as a deterministic system or it isn't, and therefore, by definition, there must be some randomness involved.

Do we really have to go through this all over again, or have you actually thought of any new answers to the logic you've been studiously ignoring?

[Alan Burns]

Choice, reaction, interaction, all come down to the same thing ultimately. We might have different words to express what is going on at different levels of complexity and emergence. 'Choice' refers to the lived experience of decision making, but under the hood, it still comes down to simple deterministic reactions amongst untold multitudes of individual brain cells as competing neural assemblies compete with each other to resolve choices.

I go back to C.S. Lewis who puts it succinctly:
You can't go back and change the beginning but you can start where you are and change the ending

[Stranger]

I go back to C.S. Lewis who puts it succinctly:
You can't go back and change the beginning but you can start where you are and change the ending

C. S. Lewis seems to be quite an expert in producing trite, irrelevant deepity.

[Gordon]

If you insist on everything having a time related cause, you fall into the "turtles all the way down" fallacy.    For anything to exist there has to be an ultimate cause of existence.  God is "that which exists" in what must be a timeless dimension.

How does one identify a 'timeless dimension' from the possibility of wishful thinking that there is such a thing?

[Gordon]

I go back to C.S. Lewis who puts it succinctly:
You can't go back and change the beginning but you can start where you are and change the ending

Another example of infantile thinking: I've no idea why you keep citing Lewis given that his Christian apologist stuff is laughable (and in my opinion his twee fiction is equally laughable).

[jeremyp]

If you insist on everything having a time related cause, you fall into the "turtles all the way down" fallacy.

It was your argument, remember, not mine. I just turned it back on you.

For anything to exist there has to be an ultimate cause of existence.  God is "that which exists" in what must be a timeless dimension.

Your first sentence implies that if God exists, he must have a cause.Your second sentence implies that some things exist that don't have a cause. Which of the two sentences are you going to stick with?

[Alan Burns]

A deliberate interaction is just a series of reactions that involve the process of deliberation. You're just playing silly word games.

What is the source of deliberation?

[Stranger]

What is the source of deliberation?

Your mind. And, yet again, deliberation is either a deterministic system or it isn't (and therefore involves randomness).

Do you really not have anything new to ask or contribute? Why just pretend that you haven't had all this explained to you endless times before?