Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why have you just ignored all the corrections I gave you?

Why do you think that all the parts of the universe are contingent, and why for that matter do you think an "entity" that emerges from constituent parts couldn't have properties (now you know that the emergent whole is greater than the sum of its parts) that enable its own existence nonetheless – see hypotheses about quantum borrowing for example:
 
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002102750.htm 

Oh, and while you're about it, how would you propose to justify inserting a god confronted with the same questions as your answer without the special pleading of "It's magic innit"? 

Good luck with it though.   

If you think there is no equality between popping out of nothing and magic then you are beyond redemption.

Quantum borrowing? We can still ask why quantum borrowing.... and not nothing.
Quantum borrowing still falls within cause and effect because it is not cause then effect.
The universe would still be contingent on there being something rather than nothing.
Since you have eliminated the arrow of time there can be no argument against simultaneity I.e. if something can happen after or before a cause there is no restriction on things happening simultaneously.

A necessary entity is independent of anything in terms of what it does and what it can do.

I think your position is you think matter is the necessary entity. Can’t be. Because it can be changed by contingent entities.

I think that for quantum borrowing to count, logic has to go out the window. At the moment though it still falls within cause and effect and within the ambit of laws of nature.

[ekim]

I am accusing you of not giving a straight answer to this question:

For consciousness to be "naturalistic", are you prepared to concede that you have no ability to consciously manipulate whatever enters your conscious awareness?

You and others on this forum seem to think I am in the wrong to mention the concept of "conscious control of thoughts" without giving a full definition of what it actually means.  Yet our criminal justice system is entirely based on the fact that we must take personal responsibility for all our thoughts, words and actions.  If you deny that the concept of conscious control of our thoughts is a reality - your are implying that none of us can be held personally responsible for whatever we choose to do, think or say.  Your really do need to come to terms with the fact that our freedom to choose is a demonstrable reality which can't be taken away by the short sighted, flawed logic emanating from the materialist's view.

To discuss the topic I should say that it is necessary to know what 'conscious control of thoughts' means to you as it is your concept. You also periodically intermingle it with 'freedom'. Thoughts are often motivated by certain desires and this casts doubts upon your notion of freedom. There is also the idea of thought control being surreptitiously imposed upon people through indoctrination by religious, political and commercial organisations.  Are Roman Catholics free from Catholicism?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you think there is no equality between popping out of nothing and magic then you are beyond redemption.

Quantum borrowing? We can still ask why quantum borrowing.... and not nothing.
Quantum borrowing still falls within cause and effect because it is not cause then effect.
The universe would still be contingent on there being something rather than nothing.
Since you have eliminated the arrow of time there can be no argument against simultaneity I.e. if something can happen after or before a cause there is no restriction on things happening simultaneously.

1. Your return to the argument from incredulity fallacy is noted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity#:~:text=Argument%20from%20incredulity%2C%20also%20known,or%20is%20difficult%20to%20imagine.

2. If you seriously think your “it’s magic innit” declaration is epistemically equivalent to the hypothesis proposed by Prof. Daniel Grumiller from the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the TU Wien (Vienna) and his colleagues then I suggest you take it up with them. For your sake though, I should warn you that (once they’ve stopped laughing) they’ll likely want you to show your working for your “it’s magic innit” notion, just as they have for their hypothesis so the two can be compared. 

Could be short meeting… 

A necessary entity is independent of anything in terms of what it does and what it can do.

I have no idea what you mean by that, and nor how you’d justify whatever it is you think you do mean.

I think your position is you think matter is the necessary entity. Can’t be. Because it can be changed by contingent entities.

Have a peek down the front of your trousers. Are your pants on fire? They should be, what with your relentless lying about that. Perhaps if I set it out in caps this time it will help you the next time your Johnsonian urge to lie rears its ugly head again?

I DON’T SAY THAT THE MATTTER IS THE “NECESSARY ENTITY”. I DON’T NEED TO BECAUSE I’M NOT MAKING THE CLAIM HERE – YOU ARE. YOUR CLAIM IS THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ITS OWN EXPLANATION. YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIM, BUT YOU REMAIN ENTIRELY UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO DO SO. YOU THEREFORE CAN SAFELY BE IGNORED UNTIL YOU ADDRESS YOUR PROBLEM ABOUT THAT.

All clear now? No more of your lying to come in reply even?

Good.   

I think…

And your evidence for that would be?

… that for quantum borrowing to count, logic has to go out the window. At the moment though it still falls within cause and effect and within the ambit of laws of nature.

What logic do you think Prof. Grumiller and his colleagues have defenestrated exactly, and why?

Perhaps you should tell them so they can withdraw or amend their paper? I’m sure the world of theoretical physics would be very grateful if you did. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

1. Your return to the argument from incredulity fallacy is noted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity#:~:text=Argument%20from%20incredulity%2C%20also%20known,or%20is%20difficult%20to%20imagine.

2. If you seriously think your “it’s magic innit” declaration is epistemically equivalent to the hypothesis proposed by Prof. Daniel Grumiller from the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the TU Wien (Vienna) and his colleagues then I suggest you take it up with them. For your sake though, I should warn you that (once they’ve stopped laughing) they’ll likely want you to show your working for your “it’s magic innit” notion, just as they have for their hypothesis so the two can be compared. 

Could be short meeting… 

I have no idea what you mean by that, and nor how you’d justify whatever it is you think you do mean.

Have a peek down the front of your trousers. Are your pants on fire? They should be, what with your relentless lying about that. Perhaps if I set it out in caps this time it will help you the next time your Johnsonian urge to lie rears its ugly head again?

I DON’T SAY THAT THE MATTTER IS THE “NECESSARY ENTITY”. I DON’T NEED TO BECAUSE I’M NOT MAKING THE CLAIM HERE – YOU ARE. YOUR CLAIM IS THAT THE UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ITS OWN EXPLANATION. YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIM, BUT YOU REMAIN ENTIRELY UNWILLING OR UNABLE TO DO SO. YOU THEREFORE CAN SAFELY BE IGNORED UNTIL YOU ADDRESS YOUR PROBLEM ABOUT THAT.

All clear now? No more of your lying to come in reply even?

Good.   

And your evidence for that would be?

What logic do you think Prof. Grumiller and his colleagues have defenestrated exactly, and why?

Perhaps you should tell them so they can withdraw or amend their paper? I’m sure the world of theoretical physics would be very grateful if you did.

They didn't chuck logic out of the window. Your misrepresentation of their findings does.

It seems you couldn't resist the temptation to chuck science shamanically at a problem.

From https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002102750.htm

 "The fact that nature allows an energy smaller than zero for a certain period of time at a certain place does not mean that the law of conservation of energy is violated," stresses Daniel Grumiller. "In order to enable negative energy flows at a certain location, there must be compensating positive energy flows in the immediate vicinity."

That wraps it up for your latest attempt to show that the universe just is/popped out of nothing/created itself.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

They didn't chuck logic out of the window. Your misrepresentation of their findings does.

And yet what you actually said was “I think that for quantum borrowing to count, logic has to go out the window. At the moment though it still falls within cause and effect and within the ambit of laws of nature”.

So no misrepresentation by me at all then.

It seems you couldn't resist the temptation to chuck science shamanically at a problem.

From https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191002102750.htm

And yet just a few short posts ago you told us “My position is that we can use the word universe to describe that which could be observed and studied by science”. Of course if you now want to rescind your manifesto for scientism that’s up to you, but in any case if you (now) don’t like using the methods and tools of science to address deep questions about the universe, what methods and tools would you propose for the job instead? 

"The fact that nature allows an energy smaller than zero for a certain period of time at a certain place does not mean that the law of conservation of energy is violated," stresses Daniel Grumiller. "In order to enable negative energy flows at a certain location, there must be compensating positive energy flows in the immediate vicinity."

That wraps it up for your latest attempt to show that the universe just is/popped out of nothing/created itself.

No it doesn’t, and I thought I just cautioned you against continuing to lie about what I do and don’t think?

Oh, and while we’re here do you ever propose to attempt at least an argument to justify your claim that the universe cannot be “necessary”?

Ever?

Ever ever ever?

Why so coy?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

And yet what you actually said was “I think that for quantum borrowing to count, logic has to go out the window. At the moment though it still falls within cause and effect and within the ambit of laws of nature”.
 

Yes, for quantum borrowing to count as a reason for the universe popping out of nothing/creating itself.

Quantum borrowing is fine if you aren't trying to make it do that....which you were and that was where you misrepresented them by gussying up their theory into an origin of the universe scenario.

You've spent at least 10 minutes today in the straw clutching zone Hillside....The meter is running.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

And I’m explaining to you that your “question” is so freighted with misunderstanding, undefined terminology and unqualified assumption that it’s impossible for anyone to answer it. It’s incoherent – a bit like me demanding that you tell me what time the Brigadoon Post Office opens, and then getting all upset with you when you patiently and repeatedly explain to me that the question is absurd (and why). 

This is a simple question which could be understood and answered by most 10 year olds:

For consciousness to be "naturalistic", are you prepared to concede that you have no ability to consciously manipulate whatever enters your conscious awareness?

Yes – or indeed any definition of that, however incomplete.

There is no scientific definition for what constitutes our ability to control our thoughts.  That does not mean that we do not have such ability.

But our criminal justice system also doesn’t concern itself with superstitious nonsense like supposed “souls” remember? As has been explained to you countless times without rebuttal, at the everyday, colloquial, practical level of abstraction “we” are responsible for our actions, and that’s all the justice system needs. At a deeper, more logically and evidentially robust level of abstraction however, notions of “free” will evaporate like the mist as nonsensical.

There is only one level of personal responsibility.
You can't have it both ways.
Are we personally responsible for our thoughts, words and actions? 

Wrong again – see above. Lots of explanations that are useful for everyday purposes don’t work at all at a more cogent level, but each operates alongside the other quite readily nonetheless.

Funny that.

There is certainly something funny in the way you try to evade the truth by inventing two levels of reality

Not that you give a damn about the numerous logical fallacies you rely on by the way, but fyi you've just crashed into another example of the argumentum ad consequentiam.   

Contrary to your perception, my arguments are about truth and the reality we all live in - nothing to do with my personal preferences.

No, it’s you who really need to come to terms with the fact that just calling something “short sighted, flawed logic emanating from the materialist's view” does not thereby make it “short sighted, flawed logic emanating from the materialist's view”. To falsify logic rather than just dismiss it out of hand, you need sound logical arguments of your own for rebuttal purposes. So far at least you’ve never managed to produce any (despite claiming to have “sound logic” of your own waiting in the wings), which leads only to the inference that you hit upon some dim-witted and entirely unsupportable bad ideas when you were a young and have now become so heavily invested in them that rather than address your mistakes you prefer instead just to flounder about with endless abject drivel on an internet discussion board.     

You constantly claim that you have arguments which "undo me" (or other similar expressions).  But none have come anywhere near to convince me that my God given free will is an illusion or "just the way it seems", and your highly convoluted attempts to point out that I am mistaken merely confirm your own demonstrable ability to consciously drive your own thoughts to reach your desired conclusions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes, for quantum borrowing to count as a reason for the universe popping out of nothing/creating itself.

Quantum borrowing is fine if you aren't trying to make it do that....which you were and that was where you misrepresented them by gussying up their theory into an origin of the universe scenario.

You've spent at least 10 minutes today in the straw clutching zone Hillside....The meter is running.

I see you’ve just ignored all the corrections you were given – ah well, ’twas ever thus with you I suppose.

As for quantum borrowing, you’re still not getting it (that or just you’re choosing to misrepresent it again). No-one’s making an argument for QB (or for that matter for anything else) explaining the universe potentially being its own “necessity”. What’s actually being said is that there are various ideas and hypotheses about a possibly necessary universe just now (and for all either of us know potentially many more to come) that you have no means of falsifying. Your unqualified assertion nonetheless though is that the universe cannot be its own necessity – ie, you think you can falsify any hypotheses to the contrary, now and in the future.

Why you asert that is anyone’s guess – you keep being asked to justify your claim and you either run away from answering or instead produce a dog’s dinner of incoherence and logical fallacies.

So there was have it… either YOU can justify YOUR claim (in which case, why don’t you?), or YOU can’t justify YOUR claim (in which case it’s worthless).

You choose.         

[ekim]

..... your highly convoluted attempts to point out that I am mistaken merely confirm your own demonstrable ability to consciously drive your own thoughts to reach your desired conclusions.

Well, at least you seem now to be acknowledging that the driving force is a desire for a particular conclusion.  This seems then to indicate that the wilful thoughts are not free but driven by personal desires.  I suspect that the Christian prayer which includes 'Thy Will be done' is to incline the individual towards surrendering to a Divine Will rather than succumbing to a personal will driven by personal desires.

[Sebastian Toe]

There is no scientific definition for what constitutes our ability to control our thoughts.  That does not mean that we do not have such ability.

Ooh, I can play this game....

Just because we do not yet have a scientific description of how consciousness emerges from a deterministic, biological brain. That does not mean that it doesn't happen.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This is a simple question which could be understood and answered by most 10 year olds:

For consciousness to be "naturalistic", are you prepared to concede that you have no ability to consciously manipulate whatever enters your conscious awareness?

Most ten-year-olds could understand “what time does the Brigadoon Post Office open?” too. Just because a question is phrased in passable English does not mean it must also be cogent. Chomsky’s famous "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" for example is grammatically correct, but is a meaningless sentence as well. 

If you want to ask a question that’s both grammatical and cogent though, you need to think about removing the assumptions that are embedded in it. You could for example rephrase it as something like, “For consciousness to be "naturalistic", is your position that you've been given no argument to indicate a stand-alone “you” to do any manipulating, that any claim of manipulation is self-negating because it too would require some thinking of its own, and that there’s no need for any such speculation in any case by reference to what neuroscience and basic reasoning both are able to tell us at this time?”

The answer by the way would be “yes”.     

There is no scientific definition for what constitutes our ability to control our thoughts.  That does not mean that we do not have such ability.

Here’s what I don’t understand: anyone can make a mistake. That’s fine – we all do it from time-to-time. You though make a mistake, are corrected on it and then go on to repeat exactly the same mistake (many times often) regardless of the correction you’ve been given.

Why though? Are you simply not capable of thinking rationally, even when the problem has been explained to you – or are you a rational thinker in other areas, but your superstitious beliefs have so corrupted your ability to think that it’s lost forever?

Either way, here’s your mistake explained (again):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
 

There is only one level of personal responsibility.
You can't have it both ways.
Are we personally responsible for our thoughts, words and actions?

Yes – that’s why we have a justice system (to use your example).

Does that mean we also have “free” will in the way you fondly imagine it to be though? Of course not – such a thing would be so internally contradictory as to be self-negating.

You know why this is already though don’t you because it’s been explained to you countless times here, and without rebuttal.   
 

There is certainly something funny in the way you try to evade the truth by inventing two levels of reality

There aren’t “two” levels of reality – there are many. My reality for example is very different from that of a bat.

Why is something so obvious so hard for you to grasp?

Contrary to your perception, my arguments are about truth and the reality we all live in - nothing to do with my personal preferences.

Except what you call “truth and the reality we all live in” is exactly an expression of your personal preferences, and in ay case you still crashed into to an argumentum ad consequentiam.

Again.

You constantly claim that you have arguments which "undo me" (or other similar expressions).

Yes – you rely on unqualified assertions and declarations (which are epistemically worthless), or you routinely fall into one or several logical fallacies. I explain those fallacies to you (ie, I “undo” your arguments) and you just ignore the corrections you’re given.

But none have come anywhere near to convince me that my God given free will is an illusion or "just the way it seems", and your highly convoluted attempts to point out that I am mistaken merely confirm your own demonstrable ability to consciously drive your own thoughts to reach your desired conclusions.

That the schooling you’re given doesn’t “come anywhere near to convince me that my God given free will is an illusion” isn’t a reflection on the inadequacy of the schooling you’re given – it just confirms something you’ve (apparently proudly) told us before, namely that no argument no matter how sound could ever convince you to change your mind about your faith beliefs. You try to play the game of justifying those beliefs with arguments, but when they collapse in a heap in front of you you refuse to play the game any more by addressing the falsifications you’re given.

You’re basically a bad chess player who when he doesn’t like the way the game is going throws over the board. And then you do it again and again and again. And the sadness of that is that you could instead actually learn something from the person on the other side of the board so you'd be a better player for the next game.

What does this say about you do you think? Liar? Victim of religious idiocy? Intellectually challenged? I don’t know, but it’s not pretty to look at.     

[torridon]

This is a simple question which could be understood and answered by most 10 year olds:

For consciousness to be "naturalistic", are you prepared to concede that you have no ability to consciously manipulate whatever enters your conscious awareness?

Our conscious awareness is constructed by neural processes over which we have no direct control.  So, no, we cannot control the contents of our conscious awareness.  If you look at the blue sky, can you 'manipulate' its blueness ?  Choose to see it as green perhaps ?  Of course you can't.  Consciousness is anyway a form of very short term memory, and no one can 'manipulate' the past.

[Gordon]

This is a simple question which could be understood and answered by most 10 year olds:

For consciousness to be "naturalistic", are you prepared to concede that you have no ability to consciously manipulate whatever enters your conscious awareness?

Yes - I suspect that there is subconscious stuff that very likely influences what kind of thoughts I have/emerge into my awareness. I'm not aware of having to think about what I should think about.

[Alan Burns]

 ....  no argument no matter how sound could ever convince you to change your mind about your faith beliefs.   the conscious freedom you use to formulate those arguments.

FIFY

[Alan Burns]

Our conscious awareness is constructed by neural processes over which we have no direct control.  So, no, we cannot control the contents of our conscious awareness.  If you look at the blue sky, can you 'manipulate' its blueness ?  Choose to see it as green perhaps ?  Of course you can't.  Consciousness is anyway a form of very short term memory, and no one can 'manipulate' the past.

But I do have control over what to look at, and I also have control over how I describe what I look at, and I can control what I consciously interpret about what I see.  In other words I have the conscious freedom to contemplate, reflect and choose what to see next. 

And I can imagine a pink sky 

[Gordon]

But I do have control over what to look at, and I also have control over how I describe what I look at, and I can control what I consciously interpret about what I see.  In other words I have the conscious freedom to contemplate, reflect and choose what to see next. 

And I can imagine a pink sky 

So, you have a brain that does what brains do: I see you slip in a sneaky 'consciously intepret', but 'consciously' is redundant here and 'interpret' is sufficient.

I seem to be able to recognise the difference between the smell of bacon being cooked and petrol based on experience and recall without any need to 'consciously' ponder.

[Enki]

But I do have control over what to look at, and I also have control over how I describe what I look at, and I can control what I consciously interpret about what I see.  In other words I have the conscious freedom to contemplate, reflect and choose what to see next. 

And I can imagine a pink sky 

Alan, could you  please actually describe or define what you mean by the word 'I' in your statement above?

[Alan Burns]

Alan, could you  please actually describe or define what you mean by the word 'I' in your statement above?

My conscious self - it is the only "I" which exists.  It defines me, and defines the "present".  Everything I do, think or say, and awareness of everything which exists emanates in my own conscious self.  I can't give you a material or scientific definition of "I".  I only know what it does.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

 ....  no argument no matter how sound could ever convince you to change your mind about   the conscious freedom you use to formulate those arguments.

FIFY

In Reply 45510 I took the time to dismantle your previous effort line-by-line, only for you to ignore all of that and to repeat exactly same mistake that had just been falsified as if nothing had been said.

What do you get from this dishonest evasiveness, and what do you expect people here who, unlike you, are capable of reasoning to make of your behaviour?

Look, I’ll make even simpler for you: if you want to justify your beliefs with reason and logic then you must expect to play by the rules of reason and logic. It’s no use when those same rules falsify your arguments just ignoring them only to repeat exactly the same mistakes or throwing over the chess board entirely because you’ve decided that logic is the wrong tool for the job after all, only once more to sneak back later on to repeat your mistakes ad nauseam.

Just put up or shut up: do you have any logically sound arguments at all to justify your faith beliefs? If you have and you want those beliefs to be taken seriously, tell us what those arguments are; if you haven’t, then disappear over to the blind faith page where you belong.

It’s very simple. You choose.   

[Alan Burns]

To discuss the topic I should say that it is necessary to know what 'conscious control of thoughts' means to you as it is your concept. You also periodically intermingle it with 'freedom'. Thoughts are often motivated by certain desires and this casts doubts upon your notion of freedom. There is also the idea of thought control being surreptitiously imposed upon people through indoctrination by religious, political and commercial organisations.  Are Roman Catholics free from Catholicism?

We are not free from influences and desires.
We are free to choose how to deal with them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alan,

We are not free from influences and desires.
We are free to choose how to deal with them.

Just repeating the same idiocy doesn't make it less idiotic. How could a supposed “chooser” be free of influences and desires of it own?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

In Reply 45510 I took the time to dismantle your previous effort line-by-line, only for you to ignore all of that and to repeat exactly same mistake that had just been falsified as if nothing had been said.

What do you get from this dishonest evasiveness, and what do you expect people here who, unlike you, are capable of reasoning to make of your behaviour?

Look, I’ll make even simpler for you: if you want to justify your beliefs with reason and logic then you must expect to play by the rules of reason and logic. It’s no use when those same rules falsify your arguments just ignoring them only to repeat exactly the same mistakes or throwing over the chess board entirely because you’ve decided that logic is the wrong tool for the job after all, only once more to sneak back later on to repeat your mistakes ad nauseam.

Just put up or shut up: do you have any logically sound arguments at all to justify your faith beliefs? If you have and you want those beliefs to be taken seriously, tell us what those arguments are; if you haven’t, then disappear over to the blind faith page where you belong.

It’s very simple. You choose.

But according to the logic you keep quoting, I am not free to choose. 
However I do believe that I have the power to choose - and you have this power too.
I am fully aware that you took the time to dismantle my previous efforts line-by-line, and I appreciate your efforts.  But it is your consciously driven ability to do all this which effectively dismantles your own argument.  I agree with your conclusion that it is a logical impossibility for us to have the power to consciously drive our own thought processes - but no amount of consciously thought out logic can change reality of your consciously driven ability contemplate such logic.  You cannot change reality - even if you consider the reality to be a logical impossibility.

I am not witnessing to my faith belief.  I do not need faith to realise that I can consciously control my own thoughts.  It would be dishonest of me to deny I had such freedom.

[Alan Burns]

Alan,

Just repeating the same idiocy doesn't make it less idiotic. How could a supposed “chooser” be free of influences and desires of it own?

If you read my post, I said that we are not free of influences or desires.  We are consciously aware of them.  But we are not entirely driven by them. We are free to choose how to deal with them.  We can indulge in them to whatever extent we want to - or we can choose to resist them.  The choice is ours.

[torridon]

If you read my post, I said that we are not free of influences or desires.  We are consciously aware of them.  But we are not entirely driven by them. We are free to choose how to deal with them.  We can indulge in them to whatever extent we want to - or we can choose to resist them.  The choice is ours.

This doesn't make sense.  How we choose to indulge or resist our desires is a consequence of our desires, which we are not free of, and cannot choose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But according to the logic you keep quoting, I am not free to choose.

You really haven’t understood a word have you. Not a thing. Of course if, say, you’d planned to drive to Exeter via the M3 and someone told you you’d be better off taking A303 you’d be capable of changing your mind about which route to take. No-one here has ever suggested otherwise. Where you collapse into incoherence though is to assume that your mind-changing must be done for “you” by an invisible homunculus of some kind that you call a “soul” for which there’s no definition, no need and no evidence at all, rather than that the decision has been made by a vastly complex and integrated phenomenon called consciousness that’s essentially communicating with itself.       

However I do believe that I have the power to choose - and you have this power too.

We know what you believe. After all, you never stop telling us what you believe. That’s all you do though – you tell us what you believe. What you’re being asked to do though is to explain why you believe it – ie, justify your beliefs with some reasoning that isn’t hopelessly wrong, which is when you either run away or blunder into various fallacious arguments.

I am fully aware that you took the time to dismantle my previous efforts line-by-line, and I appreciate your efforts.

I don’t want you to appreciate them; I want you finally to give some indication that you’ve understood them, and better yet either rebutted them or amended your arguments for future use so you don’t make the same mistakes again. And again. And again…

But it is your consciously driven ability to do all this which effectively dismantles your own argument.

…like this one. The arguments you “appreciate” but won’t engage with tell you why this repeated mantra is idiotically wrong. Just repeating it rather than trying at least to address the arguments that explain why it’s idiotically wrong is pointless. Take it to the blind faith area if that’s all you’re capable of but stop wasting the time of people who can reason their way to conclusions instead. 

I agree with your conclusion that it is a logical impossibility for us to have the power to consciously drive our own thought processes - but no amount of consciously thought out logic can change reality of your consciously driven ability contemplate such logic.  You cannot change reality - even if you consider the reality to be a logical impossibility.

Yet another piece of fallacious reasoning – this time the fallacy of reification. Your declaration of a “the power to consciously drive” was, is and will continue to be utter bollocks unless and until you finally have the honesty to address the arguments that explain to you why it’s utter bollocks and then try at least to rebut them.

I am not witnessing to my faith belief.

You’re not witnessing” anything – you never have done. You’re just asserting and declaring but never justifying your assertions and declarations with reason and argument that isn’t wrong. Flat wrong. 

I do not need faith to realise that I can consciously control my own thoughts.  It would be dishonest of me to deny I had such freedom.

No, not "realise" – just believe. Wrongly so too. If you want claim to “realise” something then you need some justification for the claim. And your dishonesty isn’t to “deny such freedom” – it’s your point blank, fingers in the ears refusal to address the arguments that explain why you don’t have that “freedom” at all. You can keep lying to us and perhaps to yourself about that too for as long as you like, but for as long as you do that you’re efforts here will remain worthless.