Searching for GOD...

[Rhiannon]

But my so called gap fillers are not fairy tales, but divine revelations about the reason and purpose behind our existence, and they make infinitely more sense than the man made attempts to show that our existence is just an accident produced by the unguided natural forces of this universe which are demonstrably destructive.

I'm afraid this sounds less like sense and more like wishful thinking. Why does the accidental nature of existence frighten you so much?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alan,

I believe it is a God given ability for us to make conscious decisions, which ultimately allows us to choose our own destiny.

A personal belief to which you are entirely entitled of course despite the fact that you have neither argument nor evidence to support it, and despite the fact that it flatly contradicts what the science tells us to be the case.

Your problem though is that you started here by pitching up and proselytising, but your audience is more than capable of unpicking your attempts to make a case for a "true for you too" god. Your response is just to keep making the same logical mistakes, but that does not mean that after sufficient repetitions they will in some unexplained way just become logically robust. 

Sorry, but there it is. Finally make an argument that isn't logically broken and you'll be listened to; carry on as you are, and you'll leave the rest of us no choice but to ignore you.

Your call.

[Shaker]

But my so called gap fillers are not fairy tales

Yes they are.

but divine revelations about the reason and purpose behind our existence

No such thing.

they make infinitely more sense than the man made attempts to show that our existence is just an accident produced by the unguided natural forces of this universe which are demonstrably destructive.

No they don't.

See - freed from the demands of shoring up your case with evidence and reason anybody can blindly assert about absolutely anything, Alan. Remember Hitchens's First Law - what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Shaker]

I'm afraid this sounds less like sense and more like wishful thinking. Why does the accidental nature of existence frighten you so much?

The lack of personal specialness and significance that he demands of the universe, I reckon.

[Maeght]

The role of the conscious element is to perceive ...

Agreed - to collect information, to be aware. You questioned why it would exist if the sub conscious made the decisions - and there is your answer.

.... and make conscious choices on what is perceived.

But there is more and more evidence is that it is not making decisions but enacting decisions made by the subconscious.

I believe it is a God given ability for us to make conscious decisions, which ultimately allows us to choose our own destiny.

Back to it being your belief based on your belief in God - which is what it is all about.

[torridon]

The role of the conscious element is to perceive and make conscious choices on what is perceived.
I believe it is a God given ability for us to make conscious decisions, which ultimately allows us to choose our own destiny.

Perception occurs at preconscious levels of mind also, and it is also part of the base cognitive function of all creatures that have senses, not just humans.  If God gave the gift of conscious perception to humans it is because he gave it to all higher creatures on this planet and we humans have inherited it by virtue of inheriting the mammalian brain with all its base cognitive functions prewired from birth. If you want to carve out a special distinction for humans you need to move on from perception and consciousness which are ubiquitous and concentrate on those characteristics that are particular to us, such as language, humour, music, sociability, abstraction....

[Leonard James]

Perception occurs at preconscious levels of mind also, and it is also part of the base cognitive function of all creatures that have senses, not just humans.  If God gave the gift of conscious perception to humans it is because he gave it to all higher creatures on this planet and we humans have inherited it by virtue of inheriting the mammalian brain with all its base cognitive functions prewired from birth. If you want to carve out a special distinction for humans you need to move on from perception and consciousness which are ubiquitous and concentrate on those characteristics that are particular to us, such as language, humour, music, sociability, abstraction....

Hi Torri,

I agree with your post, but am not sure that language, humour, music, sociability, abstraction.... are only peculiar to humans.

[torridon]

I do not believe that a conscious element could exist in any model which does not have a soul, because the recipient of conscious information is the soul.

But as already been pointed out innumerable times, this implies that all creatures that enjoy consciousness must have a soul.  If you believe this to be the criterion for a soul then if you deny souls to wasps and hamsters and lizards then you are guilty of arbitrary double standards.

[torridon]

Hi Torri,

I agree with your post, but am not sure that language, humour, music, sociability, abstraction.... are only peculiar to humans.

Well, yes, you're probably right in the sense that these exist in some or other often more rudimentary forms in other creatures; I was just trying to help Alan along out of this mantra he is stuck in to do with perception/consciousness/free will.

[Stranger]

But my so called gap fillers are not fairy tales, but divine revelations about the reason and purpose behind our existence, and they make infinitely more sense than the man made attempts to show that our existence is just an accident produced by the unguided natural forces of this universe which are demonstrably destructive.

Unfortunately, you have provided no evidence for these stories of yours being anything but fairy tales and have provided no reasons why they make any more sense than "man made attempts" - or make any sense at all, for that matter.

[Leonard James]

Well, yes, you're probably right in the sense that these exist in some or other often more rudimentary forms in other creatures; I was just trying to help Alan along out of this mantra he is stuck in to do with perception/consciousness/free will.

I'm afraid that Alan has been totally imprisoned in his ideas for too many years to escape now.

In some people, religious indoctrination has the power to eclipse completely any critical thought.

[Alan Burns]

Why does the accidental nature of existence frighten you so much?

It does not frighten me.
I just find it impossible to bring myself to believe that I was brought into existence by unguided natural forces.  It is a logical impossibility with a probability of absolute zero.

The forces driving the evolutionary process may appear to be unguided, but there is evidence in our own brains that conscious will can interact with natural elements to bring about human creativity.   The Bible tells us that we are made in God's image, which indicates the source of our creative ability.

[Shaker]

It does not frighten me.
I just find it impossible to bring myself to believe that I was brought into existence by unguided natural forces.  It is a logical impossibility with a probability of absolute zero.

And where might your evidence for this assertion be found, Alan?

Do you remember that a few days ago you said that people keep accusing you of personal incredulity? Guess what - this is why.

The forces driving the evolutionary process may appear to be unguided

They're unguided, but they're also constrained.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alan,

It does not frighten me.

Well, let's see shall we?

I just find it impossible to bring myself to believe that I was brought into existence by unguided natural forces.

That's the argument from personal incredulity - one of your favourite logical fallacies.
 

It is a logical impossibility with a probability of absolute zero.

And that's just an argument from assertion - why on earth would you think it to be "logically impossible", rather than that you find the notion that no god is necessary for your existence to be too difficult to face? 

The forces driving the evolutionary process may appear to be unguided...

Yes, because they are.

...but there is evidence in our own brains that conscious will can interact with natural elements to bring about human creativity.

Non sequitur and it says nothing to the evidence that "conscious will" is in fact just an emergent property of our material selves.   

The Bible tells us that we are made in God's image, which indicates the source of our creative ability.

No, it just tells us that the Bible indicates that. The Bible is a book.

If you don't happen just to assume a priori that this book is accurate, then you don't have to trouble with tying yourself into logical knots as you do to deny the reason and evidence that contradicts you.

Are you frightened of the real answers? More like terrified I'd say, and you have my sympathy for that - finally realising that your "God" is a fiction would I think be very painful.

[Leonard James]

I just find it impossible to bring myself to believe that I was brought into existence by unguided natural forces.

Do you believe that unguided natural forces exist? The tectonic movements that produce mountains, the fact that water turns to ice when cooled, etc., do you consider these are guided or not?

[Alan Burns]

Do you believe that unguided natural forces exist? The tectonic movements that produce mountains, the fact that water turns to ice when cooled, etc., do you consider these are guided or not?

Of course natural unguided forces exist.  The point I am making is that human will can interact with these natural forces to create things.  This is evidence that intelligent design does occur in our universe.

[Stranger]

I just find it impossible to bring myself to believe that I was brought into existence by unguided natural forces.

Your self-importance is hardly an argument.

It is a logical impossibility with a probability of absolute zero.

Please feel free to present the logic....

[Alan Burns]

Are you frightened of the real answers? More like terrified I'd say, and you have my sympathy for that - finally realising that your "God" is a fiction would I think be very painful.

God can never be fiction because He has made Himself known to me, and nothing can change this.  You have my sympathy because you do not know God's love for you.  I hope and pray that one day you will discover the truth.

[Leonard James]

Of course natural unguided forces exist.  The point I am making is that human will can interact with these natural forces to create things.  This is evidence that intelligent design does occur in our universe.

So you accept that atoms and molecules can rearrange themselves to form more complex structures due to natural forces?

[Stranger]

God can never be fiction because He has made Himself known to me, and nothing can change this.

I'm sure that's what you believe but you have been unable to provide any hint of any objective eveidence or logical reasoning to support it. You might, therefore, be mistaken.

You also should consider that if you are correct, then your god is hiding from other people, which would be evil and unjust, if it is important for us to believe.

[torridon]

God can never be fiction because He has made Himself known to me, and nothing can change this.  You have my sympathy because you do not know God's love for you.  I hope and pray that one day you will discover the truth.

If God doesn't make himself known to Blue that means either he cannot, in which case he is not omnipotent, or he does not want to, in which case he is capricious rather than omnibenevolent; either way the thing that made itself known to you would not be god by most definitions. A good god would not mark out particular individuals for special attention leaving the rest of us out in the dark.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Alan Burns,

How you doing old son, forum treating you properly, good good, are you enjoying yourself, very important to enjoy the forum

Anyway old chap, you have been dogged on this wonderful thread with the question, do we have freewill, and the answer is yes, we do have freewill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bag5bXPS1w&feature=youtu.be

Enjoy.

Gonnagle.

[Maeght]

Dear Alan Burns,

How you doing old son, forum treating you properly, good good, are you enjoying yourself, very important to enjoy the forum

Anyway old chap, you have been dogged on this wonderful thread with the question, do we have freewill, and the answer is yes, we do have freewill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bag5bXPS1w&feature=youtu.be

Enjoy.

Gonnagle.

So you are free - within constraints. Those constraints are instinct and learning, which are surely examples of prior experiences determinining your apparent choice - so is this free will then? He says - free in a manner of speaking - I'm playing with words here. Certainly agree with that.

No one disagrees that we can make choices - the question is if they are free or predetermined by prior events, experiences etc I can't see this clip helps on that.

[Stranger]

No one disagrees that we can make choices - the question is if they are free or predetermined by prior events, experiences etc I can't see this clip helps on that.

Yes, I was somewhat disappointed with the clip in the sense that he didn't even mention determinism - which many people regard as important to the question. However, what he said probably had more to do with freedom in practice,

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger and Maeght,

My apologies gentlemen, more is to follow on the subject of freewill, there may be other posters who are way ahead on this subject, me, I am taking it slowly, but it is a very interesting little course.

Gonnagle.