Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

AB's fall-back is that the soul is immaterial, hence plays no part in cause/effect linkages, yet is still able to make choices, and have effects on the material world.   It is magic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

It is magic.

It's stupid. But hey, what do I know - he tells my arguments are shallow so, you know, that means they must be then

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

We cannot comprehend things that make no sense...

Especially when you are not prepared to modify your worldview. You want Alan to change his to see things your way, yet you are not prepared to do anything to yours to see things his way.

2+2=10 makes no sense if base 10 is assumed but is correct if base 2 is assumed. If you are going to maintain that only base 10 is allowed, you cannot consider anything else.

Furthermore, the equivalent worldview used in criticising Alan's stance is circular, as one has to make assumptions about the nature of what one is investigating. Alan cannot be criticized for this, when those holding to the natural is all we know of that is testable do entirely the same thing!

[Walter]

Wiggs,

It's stupid. But hey, what do I know - he tells my arguments are shallow so, you know, that means they must be then

AB has spent his life trying to tighten a left hand thread nut onto right hand thread bolt.
Showing him his mistake at this time in his life will cause his head to explode. So in an attempt to avoid this he keeps trying with the left hand thread nut in the hope that one day it will fit.
Persistence in this case does not attract praise though, only ridicule.

[torridon]

Especially when you are prepared to modify your worldview. You want Alan to change his to see things your way, yet you are not prepared to do anything to yours to see things his way.

2+2=10 makes no sense if base 10 is assumed but is correct if base 2 is assumed. If you are going to maintain that only base 10 is allowed, you cannot consider anything else.
..

You are just making the same base error that Sriram is so fond of here.  Logic is not contextual, it does not vary from culture to culture or depend on worldviews. Your maths example is merely a case of altering the mathematical language with which underlying truths are expressed.  The language might change, but the underlying conceptual truth will not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

Especially when you are prepared to modify your worldview. You want Alan to change his to see things your way, yet you are not prepared to do anything to yours to see things his way.

Because that would entail abandoning logic for illogic. And when you do that, anything else goes too.

2+2=10 makes no sense if base 10 is assumed but is correct if base 2 is assumed. If you are going to maintain that only base 10 is allowed, you cannot consider anything else.

You’ve had this approach invalidated before so why repeat it? The “world view” (to use your phrase) in both cases is still logic – all you’ve done is to change the opening condition of the base you're working in. To make an analogy with AB’s approach, you’d have to ask us to embrace the notion that 2+2=fish or similar.

Furthermore…

There is no furthermore because your premises fail.

…the equivalent worldview used in criticising Alan's stance is circular, as one has to make assumptions about the nature of what one is investigating. Alan cannot be criticized for this, when those holding to the natural is all we know of that is testable do entirely the same thing!

Flat wrong. If Alan (or anyone else) had a method to test his faith claims then all he’d need to do would be to produce it. I can propose a method to test the claim “gravity”. How would you propose to test the claim “God”?

[Walter]

Especially when you are prepared to modify your worldview. You want Alan to change his to see things your way, yet you are not prepared to do anything to yours to see things his way.

2+2=10 makes no sense if base 10 is assumed but is correct if base 2 is assumed. If you are going to maintain that only base 10 is allowed, you cannot consider anything else.

Furthermore, the equivalent worldview used in criticising Alan's stance is circular, as one has to make assumptions about the nature of what one is investigating. Alan cannot be criticized for this, when those holding to the natural is all we know of that is testable do entirely the same thing!

Show your proof or shut the .... up . Its that simple , everything else is meaningless word shite .

[SusanDoris]

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.

Even if you were in some remote manner - and this would probably accidental -  correct in anything you said, you would still not, in my opinion,  be in a position to (a) call others' rational thinking 'shallow, and (b] be patronising!

[Alan Burns]

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

Past knowledge, previous events and experiences can certainly influence my choice, but they do not dictate it.  It is my conscious awareness which chooses when and where to flick the switch.

[Walter]

Past knowledge, previous events and experiences can certainly influence my choice, but they do not dictate it.  It is my conscious awareness which chooses when and where to flick the switch.

my advice ; switch yours ON

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Past knowledge, previous events and experiences can certainly influence my choice, but they do not dictate it.  It is my conscious awareness which chooses when and where to flick the switch.

I'd suggest that your switch was flicked a long time ago.

And not in a good way.

[Gordon]

Especially when you are prepared to modify your worldview. You want Alan to change his to see things your way, yet you are not prepared to do anything to yours to see things his way.

2+2=10 makes no sense if base 10 is assumed but is correct if base 2 is assumed. If you are going to maintain that only base 10 is allowed, you cannot consider anything else.

Furthermore, the equivalent worldview used in criticising Alan's stance is circular, as one has to make assumptions about the nature of what one is investigating. Alan cannot be criticized for this, when those holding to the natural is all we know of that is testable do entirely the same thing!

I see we're back on the 'worldview' bollocks.

[torridon]

Past knowledge, previous events and experiences can certainly influence my choice, but they do not dictate it.  It is my conscious awareness which chooses when and where to flick the switch.

yes, but on what basis does your conscious awareness choose ?

[Maeght]

Past knowledge, previous events and experiences can certainly influence my choice, but they do not dictate it.  It is my conscious awareness which chooses when and where to flick the switch.

So on what basis does it choose?

[Outrider]

Past knowledge, previous events and experiences can certainly influence my choice, but they do not dictate it.  It is my conscious awareness which chooses when and where to flick the switch.

And how is that 'conscious awareness' built? It's inherited tendencies overlaid with experiential updates - you are a product of your past. Where does anything else demonstrably come into the equation?

O.

[ekim]

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

I think he has already agreed that it is a choice 'from a selection of mental and physical alternatives'.  I may be wrong but I think Alan is trying to distinguish between two types of decision one based upon blind reaction and the other based upon conscious response.  The former might be to kill out of revenge and the latter might be to forgive out of conscious compassion.  One is bound by blind hatred and anger the other freed by awareness and love.

[Nearly Sane]

I think he has already agreed that it is a choice 'from a selection of mental and physical alternatives'.  I may be wrong but I think Alan is trying to distinguish between two types of decision one based upon blind reaction and the other based upon conscious response.  The former might be to kill out of revenge and the latter might be to forgive out of conscious compassion.  One is bound by blind hatred and anger the other freed by awareness and love.

problem is that's irrelevant to what he has been asked. Which is how
the any decision is not either random or determined. Can you help him out?

(bTW saying 'blind hatred' 'freed by love' is begging the question.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

I think he has already agreed that it is a choice 'from a selection of mental and physical alternatives'.  I may be wrong but I think Alan is trying to distinguish between two types of decision one based upon blind reaction and the other based upon conscious response.

Or, to put it another way, broadly the difference between the roles of the limbic system and of the pre-frontal cortex respectively.

The former might be to kill out of revenge and the latter might be to forgive out of conscious compassion.

Or the other way around. Your instinctive response might be altruistic, and your considered one might be to poison someone’s coffee.

One is bound by blind hatred and anger the other freed by awareness and love.

Not really, no. One is quick and dirty reaction, the other is considered response. The content of either is another matter.

[ekim]

problem is that's irrelevant to what he has been asked. Which is how
the any decision is not either random or determined. Can you help him out?

(bTW saying 'blind hatred' 'freed by love' is begging the question.

Only by saying that both are determined by the state of being (or 'soul' in Alan speak) of the individual.  Action following blind anger is hardly a decision or choice but conscious forgiveness is more likely to be a choice free from rage.  'Blessed are the pure in heart that they may be seeing God' is determined by persistence with the faith's method.

[Nearly Sane]

Only by saying that both are determined by the state of being (or 'soul' in Alan speak) of the individual.  Action following blind anger is hardly a decision or choice but conscious forgiveness is more likely to be a choice free from rage.  'Blessed are the pure in heart that they may be seeing God' is determined by persistence with the faith's method.

More begging the question. Calling something 'blind anger' builds in your conclusion. I note you have ignored the point that Alan's position as you have outlined is irrelevant to the question asked.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ekim,

Action following blind anger is hardly a decision or choice but conscious forgiveness is more likely to be a choice free from rage.

Again, or the other way around.

How is that relevant in any case to a discussion about cause and effect vs Alan's magic?

[Stranger]

Past knowledge, previous events and experiences can certainly influence my choice, but they do not dictate it.  It is my conscious awareness which chooses when and where to flick the switch.

You are still totally ignoring the basic logic: your conscious awareness has to make a choice somehow - and the process by which it does so can only consist of deterministic or random steps. You appear to be trapped in a kind of kindergarten mindset of "ah but god and my soul are magic, so there!"

[Stranger]

Only by saying that both are determined by the state of being (or 'soul' in Alan speak) of the individual.  Action following blind anger is hardly a decision or choice but conscious forgiveness is more likely to be a choice free from rage.  'Blessed are the pure in heart that they may be seeing God' is determined by persistence with the faith's method.

You seem to be missing the point as badly as Alan. How it feels to us (thought through, or in the heat of a moment) is completely irrelevant to the basic logic. Any choice can only be arrived at by some combination of deterministic or random steps.

Our minds are without doubt immensely complex and we are a long way from a full understanding, but that doesn't affect the logic one jot. Neither does whether you consider minds to be a product of the physical brain or a non-physical soul.

[Maeght]

I think he has already agreed that it is a choice 'from a selection of mental and physical alternatives'.

Yes - but on what basis is that choice made? How is a decision reached on what is done for example - is it just random or based on previous experiences and knowledge. That is the point.

There are two alternatives say - what makes someone choose on over the other?

[ippy]

Contrary to what you believe Susan, it will be God who has the last word.

What's far worse for you Alan, you don't even realise how much of a fool you've made of yourself with your continual ludicrous assertive reposts of this nature.

ippy