Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

If a god exists, I wonder what its take is on the imaginative way humans have constructed its personality?

Like this post of yours Floo  , talk about the shortest route between two points, I wonder what sort of deluded answer Alan will come up with in response; that is when he stops moaning and stamping his feet, oh yes, if he can come up with a sensible response.

ippy

[Robbie]

If a god exists, I wonder what its take is on the imaginative way humans have constructed its personality?

That it is normal and human to anthropomorphise him. But God is beyond my understanding,I know that, yet he sent his son to us in fully human form to give us some idea of how he made us in his image. Sorry to be brief, I'm bit tired.

[floo]

That it is normal and human to anthropomorphise him. But God is beyond my understanding,I know that, yet he sent his son to us in fully human form to give us some idea of how he made us in his image. Sorry to be brief, I'm bit tired.

You are entitled to your beliefs of course, but there is no evidence that Jesus was anymore than a human with faults and failings like the rest of us.

[Stranger]

...yet he sent his son to us in fully human form to give us some idea of how he made us in his image. Sorry to be brief, I'm bit tired.

How do you know?

[ippy]

That it is normal and human to anthropomorphise him. But God is beyond my understanding,I know that, yet he sent his son to us in fully human form to give us some idea of how he made us in his image. Sorry to be brief, I'm bit tired.

Unfortunatly that's it is normal and human to have superstitious ideas where the believers of these ideas are unable to tell the difference between reality and unreality all without the ability to prove there is any substance to them.

I note you say you were dozy when you wrote this post of yours, a temporary condition?

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hello Robinson, and welcome to this mb.

That it is normal and human to anthropomorphise him. But God is beyond my understanding,I know that, yet he sent his son to us in fully human form to give us some idea of how he made us in his image. Sorry to be brief, I'm bit tired.

You're not alone in believing those things to be true, but do you have any reason to think that these assertions are "true for me too" facts rather than just your personal opinions on the matter?

Thanks.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

A genuine question.

How do you think your mission to bring people to God, or at least be open to the possibility of God is going?

The more you go on the more I feel moved from my neutral position of "I don't believe there is a God because there is no evidence that I would consider evidence that your God exists".

to one of:

If there is  a God that wants to have a relationship with me and sending AB to this forum is the best a multi-Omni God could do to convince me then I consider that to be evidence against said God, because the arguments are hopeless and could never convince me.


How do you feel about this? After all your efforts I now consider your God (i,e, as described by you) to be less probable than before you started!

I continue to witness to what I believe to be the truth.

Can I just summarise the alternative arguments put forward for material explanations of conscious awareness and free will:

Conscious awareness is an emergent property of physical brain activity driven entirely by deterministic electro chemical events in the human brain.
Our perception of free will in an illusion because every event in our brains is pre determined by the natural laws of science, and this can be verified by investigations into brain activity which show that our awareness of a conscious choice occurs after the activity which determines this choice.

If you accept these arguments, you are conceding that every choice you make is pre determined and unavoidable since it is driven entirely by the deterministic nature of this material universe.

And you are also conceding that the alternative arguments I have put forward on this thread are also just unavoidable brain activity occurring in the brain cells of Alan Burns, and the conscious awareness in either you or I cannot possibly change any of this.  We are all just blobs of material obeying the laws of science.

I maintain that you and I have the freedom to choose what we put forward on this forum, and this freedom to choose is not compatible with the deterministic nature of this material universe.  The only explanation which fits my perception of reality is that our freedom to choose emanates from a source outside the deterministic control of nature.  This source I believe to be the human soul which is recognised in the inspired religious beliefs of human beings throughout the world.

[Maeght]

I maintain that you and I have the freedom to choose what we put forward on this forum, and this freedom to choose is not compatible with the deterministic nature of this material universe.  The only explanation which fits my perception of reality is that our freedom to choose emanates from a source outside the deterministic control of nature.  This source I believe to be the human soul which is recognised in the inspired religious beliefs of human beings throughout the world.

Yes, we know that's what you believe.

[Stranger]

I maintain that you and I have the freedom to choose what we put forward on this forum, and this freedom to choose is not compatible with the deterministic nature of this material universe.

Yet you cannot offer an alternative to determinism (or randomness). And you continue to dishonestly link determinism to the "material universe" as if positing non-material minds could somehow change the logical necessity that they be either deterministic or random.

[Alan Burns]

Yet you cannot offer an alternative to determinism (or randomness). And you continue to dishonestly link determinism to the "material universe" as if positing non-material minds could somehow change the logical necessity that they be either deterministic or random.

Why do you continue to keep mentioning the term "random"?  I have never suggested that our free choices have any random element.  I am just saying that our conscious free will choices emanate from a source outside the deterministic control of material entities by interacting with our brain cells to invoke the choices we make.

[Alan Burns]

Yes, we know that's what you believe.

And do I take it that you believe you are entirely driven by the unguided forces of nature over which there can be no control?

[SusanDoris]

AB

You talk of all our actions being pre-determined. This does not mean that an action taken today was pre-determined yesterday. It means that every action we take whether it to type this or choose a particular biscuit is  taken by our brains before we are actually conscious of it. I don't know what sort of split-second timing that involves, but tests have been doneve have they not, that record activity in the brain prior to a choice or decision being made consciously. That's our free will doing it all. No outside factor is taking any decision for us.

If I'm not quite accurate here, will those who are better informed please tell me!

[Stranger]

Why do you continue to keep mentioning the term "random"?  I have never suggested that our free choices have any random element.  I am just saying that our conscious free will choices emanate from a source outside the deterministic control of material entities by interacting with our brain cells to invoke the choices we make.

I keep mentioning random because it is the only logical alternative to deterministic. Adding a "source outside the deterministic control of material entities" does not change the logic as it applies to that "source".

That "source" still has to make choices somehow. That "source" can only make choices that are deterministic or random - it doesn't matter a jot that it's "outside the deterministic control of material entities" - it is either deterministic in some larger sense (material plus magic la la spiritual land) or it is random.

How is this so difficult for you...?

[Alan Burns]

AB

You talk of all our actions being pre-determined. This does not mean that an action taken today was pre-determined yesterday. It means that every action we take whether it to type this or choose a particular biscuit is  taken by our brains before we are actually conscious of it. I don't know what sort of split-second timing that involves, but tests have been doneve have they not, that record activity in the brain prior to a choice or decision being made consciously. That's our free will doing it all. No outside factor is taking any decision for us.

If I'm not quite accurate here, will those who are better informed please tell me!

If you accept that every event is the consequence of a previous physical event, then this does mean that an action taken today was pre determined yesterday.  Indeed it was pre determined since the beginning of time.  The only way to break this chain of cause and effect is to induce events which are not pre determined by previous physical events.  Such events I claim to have a spiritual cause which is not controlled by nature, but by the conscious free will of the human soul.

[wigginhall]

But is free will determined by something else?

[Stranger]

The only way to break this chain of cause and effect is to induce events which are not pre determined by previous physical events.

When you write about determinism you seem compelled to associate it with "physical" or "material". Is that a genuine mental block you have? Are you genuinely unable to see that the two concepts and not logically linked? Can't you see that "not physical" or "not material" says nothing at all about whether something is deterministic or not?

The only way to break this chain of cause and effect is to induce events which are not pre determined by previous physical events.  Such events I claim to have a spiritual cause which is not controlled by nature, but by the conscious free will of the human soul.

Yes but how does the "conscious free will of the human soul" make choices? Deterministically or not?

[Enki]

And do I take it that you believe you are entirely driven by the unguided forces of nature over which there can be no control?

One needs to factor in all sorts of guided influences such as those as a result of human brain activity of course. However I would argue that the human brain developed through the influences of natural selection according to the TofE, so, ultimately, I would suggest, the only guiding influence is based upon that which survives and flourishes.

[ekim]

The only way to break this chain of cause and effect is to induce events which are not pre determined by previous physical events.  Such events I claim to have a spiritual cause which is not controlled by nature, but by the conscious free will of the human soul.

From the perspective of your religion, isn't the choice more basic than that?  Isn't it a choice between being driven (or determined) by self will (which includes the influence of previous physical and psychological events) and surrendering to the (pre-determined) Will of God?  In your prayer is the phrase 'Thy Will be done'.  Faith is the persistent determination to follow a path which facilitates the turning from self will to surrendering to God's Will.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I continue to witness to what I believe to be the truth.

If by “witness” you mean “assert”, we know you do – regardless of the logic or evidence that undoes you. That’s your problem.

Can I just summarise the alternative arguments…

It’s not the “alternative” argument – it’s the only argument. Just asserting a contradictory conjecture as true isn’t an argument of any kind, but anyways…

… put forward for material explanations of conscious awareness and free will:

Conscious awareness is an emergent property of physical brain activity driven entirely by deterministic electro chemical events in the human brain.

Our perception of free will in an illusion because every event in our brains is pre determined by the natural laws of science, and this can be verified by investigations into brain activity which show that our awareness of a conscious choice occurs after the activity which determines this choice.

More or less, yes. That’s what the evidence tells us.

If you accept these arguments, you are conceding that every choice you make is pre determined and unavoidable since it is driven entirely by the deterministic nature of this material universe.

“Concede” is the wrong word – it's used pejoratively. You mean, “recognise” or “understand” or similar.

And you are also conceding that the alternative arguments I have put forward on this thread are also just unavoidable brain activity occurring in the brain cells of Alan Burns, and the conscious awareness in either you or I cannot possibly change any of this.  We are all just blobs of material obeying the laws of science.

Again “concede” is wrong here and again you have no “arguments”, but essentially yes.

I maintain that you and I have the freedom to choose what we put forward on this forum, and this freedom to choose is not compatible with the deterministic nature of this material universe.

You are of course free to “maintain” anything you like even though the available logic and evidence is against you. What you can’t do though is to proselytise for your conjectures – for example by showing up on an internet message board and evangelising – without challenge.

The only explanation which fits my perception of reality is that our freedom to choose emanates from a source outside the deterministic control of nature.  This source I believe to be the human soul which is recognised in the inspired religious beliefs of human beings throughout the world.

But this conjecture gives you many more problems than it provides answers:

What logic would you use to discount the prevailing paradigm of consciousness as an emergent property?

Why do you think that your personal perception of reality should also be anyone else’s?

How would you demonstrate that there is anything outside the deterministic model?

What would “free” will mean even if there was such a thing as “soul”: would it act randomly, or would its choices be determined by prior knowledge? If the former, it would act inconsistently; if the latter, it's not "free".

Why do you think an argumentum ad populum helps you?

[torridon]

I maintain that you and I have the freedom to choose what we put forward on this forum, and this freedom to choose is not compatible with the deterministic nature of this material universe.  The only explanation which fits my perception of reality is that our freedom to choose emanates from a source outside the deterministic control of nature.  This source I believe to be the human soul which is recognised in the inspired religious beliefs of human beings throughout the world.

Yes, we know that is your belief.  But there is no evidence to back up this belief.  All you have is 'but that is how it feels'.  Yes we know that is how it feels, it feels like that for everyone.  Those of us who argue against you have gone further and taken honest account of the relevant research, something you ignore, and taken measure of the logic of the situation, something that you also continuously ignore. We have evidence and reason on our side; you have merely incredulity funding an ostrich style head in the sand attitude in the hope that reality will go away if you just keep on denying it for long enough. Reality will not go away any time soon, either man up and face it or settle for being a serial denier.

[Alan Burns]

What logic would you use to discount the prevailing paradigm of consciousness as an emergent property?

material entities react to events, but reaction does not define conscious perception

Why do you think that your personal perception of reality should also be anyone else’s?

It is based on logic.

How would you demonstrate that there is anything outside the deterministic model?

I can jump on one leg and wave my hands in the air just because I want to

What would “free” will mean even if there was such a thing as “soul”: would it act randomly, or would its choices be determined by prior knowledge? If the former, it would act inconsistently;

the term "will" is not defined by prior knowledge, neither is it random. 

Why do you think an argumentum ad populum helps you?

It just demonstrates that spiritual awareness is a common trait unique to the human race.

[Enki]

I reckon that AB gets his fix of dopamine every time he tells us that his 'soul' is responsible for the brain's decision making.

https://wellcome.ac.uk/news/uk-neuroscientists-win-brain-prize

[Stranger]

material entities react to events, but reaction does not define conscious perception

Neither can you.

It is based on logic.

No, it is fundamentally self-contradictory.

I can jump on one leg and wave my hands in the air just because I want to

And does that want appear randomly or is it determined?

the term "will" is not defined by prior knowledge, neither is it random.

Not random means determined. Not random and not deterministic is a contradiction.

It just demonstrates that spiritual awareness is a common trait unique to the human race.

Or that baseless superstition is a very common human failing. Let's face it, if it was actually an awareness of something, we might expect a little more agreement...

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I continue to witness to what I believe to be the truth.

Can I just summarise the alternative arguments put forward for material explanations of conscious awareness and free will:

Conscious awareness is an emergent property of physical brain activity driven entirely by deterministic electro chemical events in the human brain.
Our perception of free will in an illusion because every event in our brains is pre determined by the natural laws of science, and this can be verified by investigations into brain activity which show that our awareness of a conscious choice occurs after the activity which determines this choice.

If you accept these arguments, you are conceding that every choice you make is pre determined and unavoidable since it is driven entirely by the deterministic nature of this material universe.

And you are also conceding that the alternative arguments I have put forward on this thread are also just unavoidable brain activity occurring in the brain cells of Alan Burns, and the conscious awareness in either you or I cannot possibly change any of this.  We are all just blobs of material obeying the laws of science.

I maintain that you and I have the freedom to choose what we put forward on this forum, and this freedom to choose is not compatible with the deterministic nature of this material universe.  The only explanation which fits my perception of reality is that our freedom to choose emanates from a source outside the deterministic control of nature.  This source I believe to be the human soul which is recognised in the inspired religious beliefs of human beings throughout the world.

1) Best Argument from Consequences of the year so far. It'll take some topping so you should probably already hire the Black tie gear ready for end of year fallacy awards.

2) I didn't ask you what you believed re soul etc etc. I am well aware of your views.

This is what I actually asked:

AB,

A genuine question.

How do you think your mission to bring people to God, or at least be open to the possibility of God is going?

The more you go on the more I feel moved from my neutral position of "I don't believe there is a God because there is no evidence that I would consider evidence that your God exists".

to one of:

If there is  a God that wants to have a relationship with me and sending AB to this forum is the best a multi-Omni God could do to convince me then I consider that to be evidence against said God, because the arguments are hopeless and could never convince me.


How do you feel about this? After all your efforts I now consider your God (i,e, as described by you) to be less probable than before you started!

How about answering it?

I have heard your "arguments" and found them to be completely lacking in any merit.

This could be for several reasons. Two extreme ones might be:

1) They are rubbish.

2) You are correct but I am not capable of understanding them.

However, you expect me to believe there is an omnipotent God who wants to have a relationship with me and whilst he would know what it would take to convince me he sends you with your associated arguments.

As I say, if anything it moves me more to a position of there is no God.

Why not pray to him to reveal the six magic numbers I have written down. A correct guess might not be proof of his existence but it would be at least something worth looking into as opposed to the broken arguments you present.

So, again, any chance of an answer to the questions I ACTAULLY asked?

[Maeght]

And do I take it that you believe you are entirely driven by the unguided forces of nature over which there can be no control?

I think it is most likely from the scientific evidence as it curently stands, but could be wrong, but it is not a belief. You however believe in what you say since it is not supported by any evidence and your 'argument' consists of assertions and personnal incredulity. Could you be wrong?