Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

You might find Him on a bookshelf in something called the Bible.

This Jesus jam in the Bible, does it taste like strawberry or a sort of pork taste?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It also underpins my conception of the reality that I am able to make a conscious choice which is not pre determined by the cause and effect chains over which there is no control.

A perception which – as has been explained to you many times now – is almost certainly wrong.   

I would also contend that this reality is perceived by over 99 of the human population.

“This” reality might well be, but that’s just another attempt at an argumentum ad populum. That for day-to-day purposes we proceed as if we are free of the underlying substrate of cause and effect says nothing about whether we actually are.

This is a Christian thread, and I am simply doing my best to witness to the truth as Jesus asked me to do.

It’s actually a thread about Christianity, not a thread to proselytise for it. You’ve also just committed the fallacy of reification again – you have no idea whether Jesus asked you to do anything, let alone whether even if he did it’s “the truth”.

And there are plenty of warnings in the New Testament about the ridicule we will have to endure in witnessing to the truth.

Identifying the holes in your arguments isn’t “ridiculing”, and of course it does – lots of religious texts get their retaliation in first this way as a defence mechanism.

But you seem to be allowing the limited knowledge arising from human scientific discoveries to override your perception of reality.

Of course. Our “perceptions of reality” are highly fallible, and have consistently been shown to be wrong when investigated using objective means. Perceptions of reality are essentially just opinions – and there are as many of those as there are people to have them.

We are far from discovering the whole of reality, and we have no idea how much more there is to discover.  Can you not see that current scientific knowledge may be too limited to draw the conclusion that our freedom to choose is an illusion.

Yes it may be. It may also be too limited to draw the conclusion that apples fall because of gravity when in fact it’s pixies with very thin strings doing it. The point though is that science provides models of reality that are the most consistently aligned with observation that we have. Faith beliefs, perceptions of reality etc on the other hand are essentially arbitrary. If you don’t believe me, try designing a parachute using “faith”. 

You may be making the biggest mistake in your life in concluding that we cannot choose our own destiny, because this is the reason why God has given us this freedom.

And so might you be – especially as there are plenty of beliefs available in other gods just as petty and insecure as yours who would be just as upset with you for backing the wrong horse. The point though is that, while we may be wrong (about anything), so far at least no-one has managed to provide a cogent argument to suggest that we are. 

Incidentally, I notice that you just ignored my earlier rebuttal of your notion “soul” is an “alternative explanation” for anything.

Oh well.

[Gordon]

You might find Him on a bookshelf in something called the Bible.

An interesting old book - but in relation to the bits about what Jesus is alleged to have said and done in these anecdotal accounts of uncertain provenance, and since its fans seemingly have no way to exclude the risks of mistake, exaggeration or lies (and I've asked this question of them frequently) - then these bits about Jesus are indistinguishable from fiction and just can't be taken seriously.

[Alan Burns]

It isn't actually science that is your biggest problem - it's logic. We have to be deterministic creatures (perhaps with a random element) because there is no logical alternative.

This has been explained to you many times and you keep on ignoring it or totally misunderstanding. How about you at least try to address it (go back to #14605 and #14606)?

These posts are just confirming that there has to be a reason behind a conscious choice.  I do not dispute this.  The reason I have chosen Jesus as my saviour is because I have discovered God's love, and it is not an uncontrolled deterministic chain of events that enabled me to do this, but the conscious awareness of my human soul.

[ekim]

It isn't actually science that is your biggest problem - it's logic. We have to be deterministic creatures (perhaps with a random element) because there is no logical alternative.

As far as I understand him, the difference is Alan doesn't identify with being a 'creature' i.e. a physical body with its associated mental activities and which can be seen as deterministic.  He identifies with a soul which he believes to be an impartial witness or consciousness and free from mental and physical constraints but in a position to exercise a choice from a selection of mental and physical alternatives.  He doesn't accept that this 'soul' is an emergent property.  Alan can correct me if I am wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You might find Him on a bookshelf in something called the Bible.

Well, stories about “Him” anyway.

Helpfully, the Bible is usually sold alongside the Koran, the Shruti of Hinduism, the Tripiṭaka and the Dhammapada of Bhuddism, the Arul Nool of Ayyavazhi, the Talmud, the Principal Doctrines of Epicureanism, the Dao de jing of Taoism, the Analects of Confucius etc.

Amazing innit, the number of texts some people think to be “holy”.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

These posts are just confirming that there has to be a reason behind a conscious choice.  I do not dispute this.  The reason I have chosen Jesus as my saviour is because I have discovered God's love, and it is not an uncontrolled deterministic chain of events that enabled me to do this, but the conscious awareness of my human soul.

You can no more "choose" not to be a phenomenon of cause and effect than you can choose not to be subject to gravity. What you can do though - have done in fact - is to have some wrong beliefs about that.

[Alan Burns]

As far as I understand him, the difference is Alan doesn't identify with being a 'creature' i.e. a physical body with its associated mental activities and which can be seen as deterministic.  He identifies with a soul which he believes to be an impartial witness or consciousness and free from mental and physical constraints but in a position to exercise a choice from a selection of mental and physical alternatives.  He doesn't accept that this 'soul' is an emergent property.  Alan can correct me if I am wrong.

Correct Ekim 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You can no more "choose" not to be a phenomenon of cause and effect than you can choose not to be subject to gravity. What you can do though - have done in fact - is to have some wrong beliefs about that.

But in the deterministic world there can be no right or wrong.  Just inevitable consequences to events.  And how can the human mind possibly contemplate the idea of right and wrong if it is deterministically controlled?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But in the deterministic world there can be no right or wrong.  Just inevitable consequences to events.  And how can the human mind possibly contemplate the idea of right and wrong if it is deterministically controlled?

First, that's a(nother) logical fallacy called the argumentum ad consequentiam. Even if you were right about that, "no right or wrong" would make no difference at all to the underlying reality of cause and effect.

Second though, you're wrong about that in any case. Your problem is in thinking that rightness and wrongness are in some way universal qualities or phenomena. They're not - right and wrong are what we intuit and reason them to be using the appearance of free will that we have. And that for most practical purposes is good enough.

A moment's thought should tell you this by the way. Slavery for example was once thought to be fine and dandy, and now it isn't: right has become wrong. What we can't do though is to decide that gravity (which is a universal phenomenon) is a bit of a pain, so we'll decide to float around the place instead.
 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

First, that's a(nother) logical fallacy called the argumentum ad consequentiam. Even if you were right about that, "no right or wrong" would make no difference at all to the underlying reality of cause and effect.

Second though, you're wrong about that in any case. Your problem is in thinking that rightness and wrongness are in some way universal qualities or phenomena. They're not - right and wrong are what we intuit and reason them to be using the appearance of free will that we have. And that for most practical purposes is good enough.

A moment's thought should tell you this by the way. Slavery for example was once thought to be fine and dandy, and now it isn't: right has become wrong. What we can't do though is to decide that gravity (which is a universal phenomenon) is a bit of a pain, so we'll decide to float around the place instead.

And it was their Christian faith which inspired William Wilberforce and his colleagues to campaign for the abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

[torridon]

But you seem to be allowing the limited knowledge arising from human scientific discoveries to override your perception of reality.   We are far from discovering the whole of reality, and we have no idea how much more there is to discover.  Can you not see that current scientific knowledge may be too limited to draw the conclusion that our freedom to choose is an illusion.  You may be making the biggest mistake in your life in concluding that we cannot choose our own destiny, because this is the reason why God has given us this freedom.

But our 'perceptions of reality' may well be wrong.  Science has track form in showing how things seem to us might not be the real deal in any objective sense. Scientific knowledge may be limited, I agree, and science never offers proof.  However, we can take account of what the evidence suggests, to ignore that amounts to being in denial. But more profoundly, what the science suggests, although not intuitive, is nonetheless logical, and that is the clincher. It makes sense to see human choice as the working out of cause and effect, whereas your idea that choices can be made in the absence of such context makes no logical sense. A choice has to be made for a reason, otherwise it is just a random event.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And it was their Christian faith which inspired William Wilberforce and his colleagues to campaign for the abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

The same Christian faith that endorsed it for the preceding two millennia.

Either way though, that's entirely beside the point that you've just had explained and then ignored.

Why do you do that?

Would Jesus be proud of you for your behaviour do you think?

[Alan Burns]

It makes sense to see human choice as the working out of cause and effect, whereas your idea that choices can be made in the absence of such context makes no logical sense. A choice has to be made for a reason, otherwise it is just a random event.

But in the deterministic chain of cause and effect there can be no choice, just inevitable consequence, so the concept of choice makes no sense at all.  It is not random, but a conscious choice between two or more alternatives.

[torridon]

But in the deterministic chain of cause and effect there can be no choice, just inevitable consequence, so the concept of choice makes no sense at all.....

yes, that is why we say it is illusory

[Alan Burns]

AB,

The same Christian faith that endorsed it for the preceding two millennia.

Either way though, that's entirely beside the point that you've just had explained and then ignored.

Why do you do that?

Would Jesus be proud of you for your behaviour do you think?

I do appreciate your sincere attempts to try to explain and justify your concept of reality, but your reasoning is very shallow in comparison to the spiritual insights I perceive through the awareness of my human soul.  I am sorry that I do not have time to answer all your points, but I try to home in on what I perceive to be important.

[Alan Burns]

yes, that is why we say it is illusory

But what if it isn't? 

[torridon]

And the biggest, most important choice you could ever make is to choose to to accept Jesus as your Saviour.

, or not, as the case may be. A muslim will probably not make that choice, seeing it as immoral. An atheist will probably not make that choice, seeing it as barmy.  Just goes to show, how prior context shapes and ultimately determines the choices we make.  If you'd been born in Karachi, you would almost certainly have gone down the road of Islam.   If you'd been born in 10th century Norway, you might have been a devotee of Loki. If you'd been born deaf dumb and blind, none of this would make any sense to you.  Our lives are shaped by the broader context in which we are born.

[torridon]

But what if it isn't?

What if two plus two equals seventy nine ?  We cannot comprehend things that make no sense, and the notion that we can make choices for a reason that are free of any reason makes no sense.

[Stranger]

These posts are just confirming that there has to be a reason behind a conscious choice.  I do not dispute this.  The reason I have chosen Jesus as my saviour is because I have discovered God's love, and it is not an uncontrolled deterministic chain of events that enabled me to do this, but the conscious awareness of my human soul.

It's incredible that you still don't understand the logic. Either a decision is part of a deterministic chain of events or it is random (or some combination). There is no third conscious choice option. A conscious choice is still subject to the same logic.

Not deterministic is random - not random is deterministic.

[wigginhall]

What if two plus two equals seventy nine ?  We cannot comprehend things that make no sense, and the notion that we can make choices for a reason that are free of any reason makes no sense.

AB is having his cake and eating it.   His soul (according to him) is outside cause/effect chains, but is able to make choices, thus becoming a cause, which has effects.    But it's not really a cause, as it's immaterial.   Why do I hear Tommy Cooper's laugh at this point?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do appreciate your sincere attempts to try to explain and justify your concept of reality, but your reasoning is very shallow in comparison to the spiritual insights I perceive through the awareness of my human soul.  I am sorry that I do not have time to answer all your points, but I try to home in on what I perceive to be important.

First, the shallowness here is all yours. However much you think you "perceive" something the hopelessness of your arguments to validate that belief tells the rest of us that you're probably wrong. Bad thinking is still bad thinking however much you want to dismiss having that pointed out by calling the rebuttals "man-made". 

Second, the rebuttals you "perceive" to be important turn out to be only those you think you can answer because the others have knocked your claims and assertions out of the park. That you cannot respond coherently to the even those you think you can address is a separate matter.

[Maeght]

But in the deterministic chain of cause and effect there can be no choice, just inevitable consequence, so the concept of choice makes no sense at all.  It is not random, but a conscious choice between two or more alternatives.

On what basis is the choice made? Purely random or based on knowledge of previous events and experiences? Or something else?

[wigginhall]

On what basis is the choice made? Purely random or based on knowledge of previous events and experiences? Or something else?

You'll have to wait a bit, while AB scrabbles around, trying to make something up.   

[Stranger]

But in the deterministic chain of cause and effect there can be no choice, just inevitable consequence, so the concept of choice makes no sense at all.  It is not random, but a conscious choice between two or more alternatives.

On what basis is the choice made? Purely random or based on knowledge of previous events and experiences? Or something else?

See:

These posts are just confirming that there has to be a reason behind a conscious choice.  I do not dispute this.

He clearly thinks that the word conscious magically transforms the binary choice between random and deterministic into a ternary one and gives him the self-contradictory ability to make a choice for a reason without it being deterministic (or deterministic with some random elements).