Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

A conscious choice is not random.  If David Hamilton were to make a random choice about overtaking, he would not last long - and it is difficult to see how such a choice could be made sub consciously before he became aware of it.  As I said earlier, a conscious choice can be influenced by perceived data in the brain, but the action needed to invoke the choice is made by the conscious self.  We are not automated robots - we have the freedom to choose.

Diddy David Hamilton has taken to motor sports ?  Well, I never.

Well even if he did, he would not be making random choices behind the wheel or he would pretty quickly exclude himself from the gene pool.  No, he would be making choices for a reason and those reasons would be part and parcel of the chains of cause and effect running through from sensory perception to motor (hic) response.

Neither would he be deliberating using the higher cognitive functions of conscious mind to consider split second high speed manoeuvres as conscious judgements are way too slow in that situation. Conscious awareness always lags slightly behind reality and it is in high speeds sports where this distinction becomes relevant for sports science. Where fast reactions are called for and we don't have time to think things through, it is in such situations where we can understand most clearly that our choices are made preconsciously.

[Maeght]

A conscious choice is not random.  If David Hamilton were to make a random choice about overtaking, he would not last long - and it is difficult to see how such a choice could be made sub consciously before he became aware of it.  As I said earlier, a conscious choice can be influenced by perceived data in the brain, but the action needed to invoke the choice is made by the conscious self.  We are not automated robots - we have the freedom to choose.

Alan, you have made this point several times and it has been addressed but this doesn't seem to make any difference to you. So, do you remember this being addressed? If so, do you see no merit in what was said to you? If so why? Is it worth addressing this ppint again or will you just dismiss that and restate it in the future as if it hadn't been addressed?

[Stranger]

Not disturbed.  Just being realistic about what they can and can't achieve.

You actually have no idea what they can achieve. Nobody seriously claims to know everything about the physical world.

Do you honestly believe that you are being driven by chains of unguided cause and effect which began with the Big Bang?.  If not then you have to admit that there is something from outside this unguided chain which is guiding you.

Admitting it for the sake of argument: this 'something' of which you speak, would also have to be driven by another chain of events of cause and effect (possibly with some random element) - what have you gained?

[ekim]

Admitting it for the sake of argument: this 'something' of which you speak, would also have to be driven by another chain of events of cause and effect (possibly with some random element) - what have you gained?

That's where God as the prime mover comes in, the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end, the source and the destination.

[Alan Burns]

Admitting it for the sake of argument: this 'something' of which you speak, would also have to be driven by another chain of events of cause and effect (possibly with some random element) - what have you gained?

To have another separate chain of events not originating from the Big Bang would need to have been started by an agency from outside this deterministic universe.  I am not disputing that everything must have a cause.  I am questioning the ultimate source of the cause.  I am suggesting that there is plenty of evidence that our universe is not entirely driven by deterministic chains of events which started with the Big Bang.  For example, intelligent design does exist as demonstrated with the human creativity derived from intelligent interactions driven by our free will to achieve conscious objectives.

[Shaker]

To have another separate chain of events not originating from the Big Bang would need to have been started by an agency from outside this deterministic universe.  I am not disputing that everything must have a cause.

Except God, apparently

[Maeght]

To have another separate chain of events not originating from the Big Bang would need to have been started by an agency from outside this deterministic universe.  I am not disputing that everything must have a cause.  I am questioning the ultimate source of the cause.  I am suggesting that there is plenty of evidence that our universe is not entirely driven by deterministic chains of events which started with the Big Bang.  For example, intelligent design does exist as demonstrated with the human creativity derived from intelligent interactions driven by our free will to achieve conscious objectives.

Once again using things which are not proven to exist (such as free will) as evidence for something else. Not a good way to argue Alan.

[Alan Burns]

Alan, you have made this point several times and it has been addressed but this doesn't seem to make any difference to you. So, do you remember this being addressed? If so, do you see no merit in what was said to you? If so why? Is it worth addressing this ppint again or will you just dismiss that and restate it in the future as if it hadn't been addressed?

My points may have been addressed using alternative possible explanations, but I maintain that there is substantial evidence and logic to support the points I am making.

[Shaker]

"Maintain = baldly assert."

[Sebastian Toe]

I think you are now entering the realm of schizophrenia 

I think you are scared to attempt to answer the question.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB: "2+2=5"

Me: "Er, actually it’s 4"

AB: "2+2=5"

Me: "No, it’s 4 and here are some mathematical proofs that demonstrate that"

AB: "But wouldn’t it be awful if 2+2=4. Therefore, 2+2=5"

Me: "Awful or not, it’s still 4"

AB: "2+2=5"

Me: "Okaaaay, so try to focus and finally answer a question: what connection do you think there to be between desiring an outcome and that
outcome being true?"

AB: "2+2=5"

Me: "Well, if you just want to assert “5”, why not 7 or 9 or 263?"

AB: "Now you’re being schizophrenic"

Me: "So there’s no logic or evidence for 2+2=5, and such logic and evidence as we do have clearly suggests that the 2+2=4 yet you cling to 2+2=5 nonetheless. Why?"

AB: "2+2=5"

Me: "AAAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!"

AB: "I know 2+2=5 because it's been personally revealed to me. Therefore, 2+2=5"

Me: "But what makes you believe that something you think has been revealed to you provides a truth for anyone else?"

AB: "2+2=5"

Me: (Sound of quiet sobbing)

AB: "The truth will set you free...

...2+2 =…"

[Alan Burns]

Except God, apparently

I have to admit that the possible causes of things outside our universe are beyond my understanding (and yours).  But I can still perceive that there must be an ultimate cause for Life, The Universe and Everything.

[Shaker]

I have to admit that the possible causes of things outside our universe are beyond my understanding

Despite which you seem to have quite firm views about its alleged nature and preferences.

(and yours)

I don't think of anything being outside the universe, and even if I did, would know that I could say absolutely nothing about it whatever. 

It's called a modicum of intellectual humility - try it.

[Alan Burns]

.........
Me: (Sound of quiet sobbing)

AB: "The truth will set you free...

...2+2 =…"

I think you have aptly demonstrated your ability to use your intelligently driven free will to interact with this forum in your own unique style. 

Or do you think your post was an inevitable consequence of the chain of events which started with the Big Bang?

[BeRational]

I think you have aptly demonstrated your ability to use your intelligently driven free will to interact with this forum in your own unique style. 

Or do you think your post was an inevitable consequence of the chain of events which started with the Big Bang?

By his answer I think 5

[Alan Burns]

Where fast reactions are called for and we don't have time to think things through, it is in such situations where we can understand most clearly that our choices are made preconsciously.

I would say that conscious awareness is at its peak when we need to make split second decisions.  Lewis's decision to put his foot down has to be based on his conscious awareness of the situation and perceived opportunity.

[torridon]

Do you honestly believe that you are being driven by chains of unguided cause and effect which began with the Big Bang?. 

Yes, in a word.

Granted, it might not feel like that, but it makes profoundly good sense; any universe wherein effect did not follow faithfully from cause would be unintelligible and we would not be here to argue about it. So I for one, am glad to be bound in and part of the great chain of cause and effect.

Granted it does not feel that way, but hey, if you are going to rock up internet discussion forums to debate it, you really ought to have moved on from a superficial that's how it feels position.

[torridon]

I would say that conscious awareness is at its peak when we need to make split second decisions.  Lewis's decision to put his foot down has to be based on his conscious awareness of the situation and perceived opportunity.

Yes, well you are still wrong, or at least in denial of the relevant research.  It is quite largely from sports science in particular that we have got our insights about the nature and extent of consciousness lag. In fast moving situations we have to react more quickly that consciousness would allow. Conscious mind does come into the picture in broader more complex questions that need prolonged consideration, such as buying a new house, or asking that nice lady to marry you.

[Alan Burns]

It's called a modicum of intellectual humility - try it.

I tried it:

And secularists need to give up their vendetta against the very idea of God and, with a modicum of intellectual humility, stop portraying us as dangerous, deluded or stupid.

Joel Edwards, "Religious conscience in a secular state".

[Shaker]

I tried it:

And secularists need to give up their vendetta against the very idea of God and, with a modicum of intellectual humility, stop portraying us as dangerous, deluded or stupid.

Including when they patently are?

[torridon]

Including when they patently are?

Bad boy Shaker, on to that naughty step NOW 

[Maeght]

My points may have been addressed using alternative possible explanations, but I maintain that there is substantial evidence and logic to support the points I am making.

Of course you do but if you accept that there are alternative explanations then it is, as I have said, a poor arguing technique to use it as evidence to support something else.

[wigginhall]

I would say that conscious awareness is at its peak when we need to make split second decisions.  Lewis's decision to put his foot down has to be based on his conscious awareness of the situation and perceived opportunity.

Well, anecdotally, that sounds incorrect to me.  I used to play a lot of sports, and your phrase about 'conscious awareness of the situation', doesn't sound right at all.  For example, in a game of football, there are times when you can look round and weigh up what to do, and evaluate how the game is going; but if you are charging up the field, and the ball is being swung over, you let your body react to this.   Even to call it a decision sounds odd to me.   'Preconscious' is a useful term actually, and footballers often say, when asked how they did some brilliant play, 'I don't know how I did it'.   Well, I believe them. 

There is also the phenomenon of over-thinking in sports.  This can happen to players at every level, but it is striking in very good players, as their form drops, as they attempt to think it through.  Eventually, they usually relax and stop over-thinking, and their form improves.   The football coaches often say, look, he had too much time, and he ruined it.

[Outrider]

Not disturbed.  Just being realistic about what they can and can't achieve.  Do you honestly believe that you are being driven by chains of unguided cause and effect which began with the Big Bang?.  If not then you have to admit that there is something from outside this unguided chain which is guiding you.  Could it possibly be "you"?

No, I don't have a strong reason to think that the Big Bang constitutes something outside of the realm of cause and effect - I think the chain of cause and effect is infinite.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Of course you do but if you accept that there are alternative explanations then it is, as I have said, a poor arguing technique to use it as evidence to support something else.

Out of the many possible explanations, I endeavour to home in on the truth.