Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

But how can you find an argument which is sound without being able to direct your own conscious thoughts to compile and verify said argument?

Easy, like everyone else on this planet he will utilise biological brain to do the thinking , without the need to invoke magic.

[Sebastian Toe]

BUT HOW DO YOU CONSCIOUSLY DETERMINE IF AN ARGUMENT IS SOUND OR UNSOUND?

You determine it by using your brain, not an unevidenced, "soul" that can only work when magic is invoked.
Just in case you haven't understood, that means "soul" cannot possibly work, ever.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Still irrelevant. Whatever the answer is, it cannot make your logically impossible answer into the correct one.

Yet again...your speculation “soul” would have to do some thinking of its own.

This would initiate an infinite regress.

An infinite regress is logically impossible.

How then do you propose resolve your problem with your conjecture “soul”?   

Once more you have deliberately evaded the simple question of how you came to the conclusion that conscious control of your thoughts is a logical impossibility by claiming the question to be irrelevant.  Why do you refuse to answer it?  Are you afraid to admit that you have employed conscious control of your thoughts to come to this conclusion?

[Sebastian Toe]

Once more you have deliberately evaded the simple question of

How does God or the Evil One put thoughts into your consciousness?
By what process?

[torridon]

Once more you have deliberately evaded the simple question of how you came to the conclusion that conscious control of your thoughts is a logical impossibility by claiming the question to be irrelevant.  Why do you refuse to answer it?  Are you afraid to admit that you have employed conscious control of your thoughts to come to this conclusion?

That your claim of 'controlling your thoughts' is incoherent nonsense has already been explained hundreds of times.  Why keep on asking the same question when it has already been answered ?  'Controlling' (a thought) would itself be a thought process and so your claim establishes an infinite regress.  Stop trolling and try understanding, for a change.

[Gordon]

Alan

Tell me - to what extent does your 'conscious control of thought' claim fit with RCC theology/doctrine?

As far as I'm aware, though I could be wrong, this particular claim is yours alone. If so, then it seems to me, since the RCC seems wedded to structured ritual, that you've become a kind of lone ranger on this.   

[Stranger]

Once more you have deliberately evaded the simple question of how you came to the conclusion that conscious control of your thoughts is a logical impossibility by claiming the question to be irrelevant.

Perhaps you are feeling a bit like the rest of us do with you all the time...? You really have no room to criticise on the basis of not answering questions, especially as the question really is just another fallacy (shifting the burden of proof) and that this has been explained to you multiple times.

Why do you refuse to answer it?  Are you afraid to admit that you have employed conscious control of your thoughts to come to this conclusion?

And back to the latest question that you are avoiding. You have rejected the obvious meaning of "conscious control of our own thought processes", so it's now meaningless. Before it was obviously impossible, now it's gibberish. How can anybody be afraid of either?

You, on the other hand, seem terrified of actually thinking about any of the points raised. You appear to be back in "fingers-in-ears, mindless repetition" mode.

Yet again I'll point out that if you'd just spent a fraction of the time you've spent posting the same mindless nonsense on here over and over again, on actually learning about logic and critical thinking, you would know how to avoid fallacies and how to construct sound logical arguments, not to mention the importance of properly defining all terms and concepts you want to use. You might then have been more successful in communicating your point (assuming there actually is one behind all the bullshit you post here). Why would you not want to do that?

Now, back to the latest question you are avoiding:

What do you mean by "conscious control of our own thought processes"?

There needs to be a proper description of the proposed process. Not trite, meaningless drivel like "it's defined by what it does" or avoidance, like "you know what it means"; I really, really don't - not since you dismissed the obvious meaning as 'silly'.

[Alan Burns]

Alan

Tell me - to what extent does your 'conscious control of thought' claim fit with RCC theology/doctrine?

As far as I'm aware, though I could be wrong, this particular claim is yours alone. If so, then it seems to me, since the RCC seems wedded to structured ritual, that you've become a kind of lone ranger on this.

In the confetior recited at the beginning of Mass we ask forgiveness for sins of thought, word and deed.
We are held to account for what we choose to think.

[Gordon]

In the confetior recited at the beginning of Mass we ask forgiveness for sins of thought, word and deed.
We are held to account for what we choose to think.

You're fine then - since we don't really choose what to think in the sense that you describe. Hard to see why you need forgiveness for thoughts that you didn't choose to think in the first place.

[ekim]

In the confetior recited at the beginning of Mass we ask forgiveness for sins of thought, word and deed.
We are held to account for what we choose to think.

That seems like part of an indoctrination process - persistent recitation of a doctrine, reward for doing so and punishment for failure. So much for freedom of choice.

[Alan Burns]

Stranger, Bluehillside

You must realise that there is no infinite regress in reality because as you correctly say it is a logical impossibility.
So how does the concept of infinite regress come into your conscious awareness?
You apparently arrived at this concept by thinking about what can cause human thoughts and trying to make this cause comply with the time related "cause and effect" scenario we perceive in nature.

The reality is that the concept of infinite regress only exists in your mind, and it got there through your ability to contemplate the nature of human thought processes and consciously trying to make it fit in with your very limited knowledge of how the human mind works.  If you had no conscious control of your own thoughts you would never have been able to come up with the concept of an infinite regress.

[Alan Burns]

Just came across this brilliant speech given at Oxford by a professor of mathematics -
Amazing what he crammed into 15 minutes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otrqzITuSqE

[Stranger]

You must realise that there is no infinite regress in reality because as you correctly say it is a logical impossibility.
So how does the concept of infinite regress come into your conscious awareness?

The application of logic (something that seems to be alien to you).

You apparently arrived at this concept by thinking about what can cause human thoughts and trying to make this cause comply with the time related "cause and effect" scenario we perceive in nature.

False. Neatly demonstrating that you are either not paying attention or the ideas have gone way over your head. The infinite regress involved in "conscious control of our own thought processes" really has nothing to do with cause and effect. It is a direct logical consequence of the fact that "conscious control" implies a thought process itself, so you end up having to consciously control that too and hence to the infinite regress.

At least that was before you yourself rejected that definition as 'silly'. Now it's just gibberish, so I'll ask again:

What do you mean by "conscious control of our own thought processes"?

If you had no conscious control of your own thoughts you would never have been able to come up with the concept of an infinite regress.

Meaningless and baseless assertion.

[Sebastian Toe]

If you had no conscious control of your own thoughts you would never have been able to come up with the concept of an infinite regress.

Of course they can think and contemplate, they use their brains.
That needs no recourse to a magic requiring, logic defying "soul".

[Alan Burns]

The application of logic (something that seems to be alien to you).

By what means do you apply logic within your conscious awareness?

False. Neatly demonstrating that you are either not paying attention or the ideas have gone way over your head. The infinite regress involved in "conscious control of our own thought processes" really has nothing to do with cause and effect. It is a direct logical consequence of the fact that "conscious control" implies a thought process itself, so you end up having to consciously control that too and hence to the infinite regress.

Which neatly demonstrates your consciously controlled application of logic

What do you mean by "conscious control of our own thought processes"?

It is the means by which you come up with the concept of infinite regress in your conscious mind.

[Stranger]

Just came across this brilliant speech from an Oxford professor of mathematics -
Amazing what he crammed into 15 minutes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otrqzITuSqE

That was seriously underwhelming. Basically a collection of the normal trite drivel people come up with to support theism. Starts out with the utter idiocy of claiming that god explains why there is something rather than nothing! Since, if one believes it god, it is a something, this is quite clearly nonsensical. He then proposes that the alternative is the universe created itself. Then talks about nothing turning into everything - something I don't think anybody believes (at least not literally nothing).

Then a we're off to the many times refuted classic Plantinga argument against naturalism.

Then the argument from morality. The idea we can get morality from the god of the bible, who (among other things) approves of slavery and genocide, is laughable.

Then off into blind faith nonsense about Jesus and the bible.

Then trying to brush aside the problem of suffering and trying to tie it in to the absurdity of the crucifixion. Finishing off with an appeal to consequences fallacy.

[Alan Burns]

You're fine then - since we don't really choose what to think in the sense that you describe. Hard to see why you need forgiveness for thoughts that you didn't choose to think in the first place.

I can assure you, Gordon, that I am quite capable of sinning in thought, word and deed.
In fact all sins begin by consciously giving in to temptations which start within our conscious minds.
Any instinctive reaction in which occurs before we have time to think about it is no sin.

[Stranger]

More intellectually lazy, thought-free nonsense...

By what means do you apply logic within your conscious awareness?

That's your phrase, not mine. You tell me.

Which neatly demonstrates your consciously controlled application of logic

  Yet another meaningless and baseless assertion. And I also note that you entirely ignored the point that you don't appear to even understand the arguments against you. Whether it's just not paying attention, because it's beyond intellectual ability, or you're too afraid to think about them, I can't tell, but it does you no favours to ignore it when somebody points out that you have misunderstood.

It is the means by which you come up with the concept of infinite regress in your conscious mind.

I told you before (#47831) that that kind of answer is not a definition. You are just begging the question (again).

So, I'm still waiting for an answer...

What do you mean by "conscious control of our own thought processes"?

There needs to be a proper description of the proposed process. Not trite, meaningless drivel like "it's defined by what it does" or avoidance, like "you know what it means"; I really, really don't - not since you dismissed the obvious meaning as 'silly'.

[Alan Burns]

And I also note that you entirely ignored the point that you don't appear to even understand the arguments against you. Whether it's just not paying attention, because it's beyond intellectual ability, or you're too afraid to think about them ....

Of course I consciously think about the points you make.
My ability to consciously think about the content of your posts is what leads me to the conclusion that the logic you espouse is inherently flawed because it denies my freedom to consciously guide my own thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions.

If our thought processes are not consciously guided and our conclusions are not consciously verified how can you possibly claim truth or correctness in what they produce?

[Stranger]

Of course I consciously think about the points you make.

I see no evidence of this. Why do you then ignore so much and just run away back to the same trite, lazy assertions you've made countless times before? Like this:-

My ability to consciously think about the content of your posts is what leads me to the conclusion that the logic you espouse is inherently flawed because it denies my freedom to consciously guide my own thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions.

First, you don't appear to have such an abilit, from the evidence of your answers. Secondly, the rest is just a meaningless collection of words you endlessly post like a mantra. There is no intellectual substance to them at all. You have not properly explained the process you are claiming goes on, you have not addressed any of the arguments against what you have said, and you continue to refuse to properly answer questions.

What the hell is the point, Alan?

You obviously think it's worth your time to come and post here, but what for?

If you don't want to persuade people, then why spend the time? If you do, surely you must be intelligent enough to realise that mindless repetition and ignoring all counterarguments and requests for definitions and clarifications of your claims, is never going to work? And if persuasion is your goal, then why do you refuse to even try to learn any logic and critical thinking so as to avoid fallacies and to learn how to construct sound arguments? Why would you not want to learn to do better?

Anyway, here we go again with the question you still haven't properly answered...

What do you mean by "conscious control of our own thought processes"?

There needs to be a proper description of the proposed process. Not trite, meaningless drivel like "it's defined by what it does" or avoidance, like "you know what it means"; I really, really don't - not since you dismissed the obvious meaning as 'silly'.

[Gordon]

I can assure you, Gordon, that I am quite capable of sinning in thought, word and deed.
In fact all sins begin by consciously giving in to temptations which start within our conscious minds.
Any instinctive reaction in which occurs before we have time to think about it is no sin.

That can't be right: if a temptation starts within your conscious mind, and you say that you consciously control your conscious thinking, then if you recognise an undersriable  temptation-related thought that you can't/ haven't consciously controlled for, then your whole schema collapses.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Once more you have deliberately evaded the simple question of how you came to the conclusion that conscious control of your thoughts is a logical impossibility by claiming the question to be irrelevant.  Why do you refuse to answer it?  Are you afraid to admit that you have employed conscious control of your thoughts to come to this conclusion?

First, given your habit of ducking and diving from every question and challenge that’s put to you here that’s a bit rich don’t you think?

Second, the reason I haven’t answered it is that it’s IRRELEVANT. It’s irrelevant for the reasons I keep explaining to you and you keep dodging.

As you’ve just dodged that explanation again here, here’s again is the last time I explained it to you (Reply #47820 – there are countless others before this one that you dodged too by the way):

"Still irrelevant. Whatever the answer is, it cannot make your logically impossible answer into the correct one.

Yet again...your speculation “soul” would have to do some thinking of its own.

This would initiate an infinite regress.

An infinite regress is logically impossible.

How then do you propose resolve your problem with your conjecture “soul”?"   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Stranger, Bluehillside

You must realise that there is no infinite regress in reality because as you correctly say it is a logical impossibility.
So how does the concept of infinite regress come into your conscious awareness?
You apparently arrived at this concept by thinking about what can cause human thoughts and trying to make this cause comply with the time related "cause and effect" scenario we perceive in nature.

The reality is that the concept of infinite regress only exists in your mind, and it got there through your ability to contemplate the nature of human thought processes and consciously trying to make it fit in with your very limited knowledge of how the human mind works.  If you had no conscious control of your own thoughts you would never have been able to come up with the concept of an infinite regress.

This is epically dim stuff AB. Yet again: if you want to posit your conjecture “soul” to do the thinking for a sort of zombie “us” then that thinking must be a process too. And if you assert (for some so far unexplained reason) that brains cannot think for themselves, then you merely relocate the same (supposed) problem to your (supposed) “soul”. And that would initiate an infinite regress.

Thus your entire position becomes:

1. Brains cannot think for themselves (though I cannot justify that claim with reason or evidence).

2. Therefore something else (called a “soul”) must do it instead, only to get this “soul” off the same hook I assert to be the problem with brains, it's also magic.

It’s hopeless for reasons that should be obvious even to you by now, but after all this time of falling to produce anything worthy of consideration (least of all the sound arguments you claimed to have but never produce no matter how many times you're asked for them) it seems to be all you have.     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

First, given your habit of ducking and diving from every question and challenge that’s put to you here that’s a bit rich don’t you think?

Second, the reason I haven’t answered it is that it’s IRRELEVANT. It’s irrelevant for the reasons I keep explaining to you and you keep dodging.

As you’ve just dodged that explanation again here, here’s again is the last time I explained it to you (Reply #47820 – there are countless others before this one that you dodged too by the way):

"Still irrelevant. Whatever the answer is, it cannot make your logically impossible answer into the correct one.

Yet again...your speculation “soul” would have to do some thinking of its own.

This would initiate an infinite regress.

An infinite regress is logically impossible.

How then do you propose resolve your problem with your conjecture “soul”?"

Claiming my conjecture leads to "infinite regress" is no answer to how you managed to reach a consciously verified conclusion that conscious control of your thoughts must be a logical impossibility because, when you think about it, it leads to infinite regress.  Can you not see why this answer which you keep evading could at least be a tiny bit relevant?

[Sebastian Toe]

Claiming my conjecture leads to "infinite regress" is no answer to how you managed to reach a consciously verified conclusion that conscious control of your thoughts must be a logical impossibility because, when you think about it, it leads to infinite regress.  Can you not see why this answer which you keep evading could at least be a tiny bit relevant?

It's a loaded question and you know it.
Why?
Because you have shoehorned your version ie "consciously verified" into it.

On the other hand in the real world he has of course thought about any question and comes to a conclusion, but unfortunately for you he has used his brain and not a magic requiring, logically incoherent "soul".