Searching for GOD...

[Enki]

I think you have all just generated substantial evidence for the existence of human free will.

You just had to type that, didn't you, Alan?   

[floo]

I answered it several thousand posts back on this thread.

You haven't answered the question in a way which makes any logical sense.

[ekim]

To link it back to the free will discussion, let's suppose that the decision is 'free', how on earth would any decision happen. If we remove cause and randomness, why would any number be chosen? As a thought experiment, Alan has thoughtfully loaded the metaphorical shotgun and blown his metaphorical feet off thoughtfully

I should have thought that from a Christian perspective there is no free will.  There are wilful decisions and actions determined by self considerations and there are decisions and actions determined by the will of their God, which to a human might appear as random.  The discipline is to surrender self determination in favour of God determination.

[Alan Burns]

I should have thought that from a Christian perspective there is no free will.  There are wilful decisions and actions determined by self considerations and there are decisions and actions determined by the will of their God, which to a human might appear as random.  The discipline is to surrender self determination in favour of God determination.

God has enabled us to do His will by giving us the ability to consciously choose what we do.  We can make a conscious choice to do His will, but God does not take over - we are still in control.

[BeRational]

I answered it several thousand posts back on this thread.

So you will have no problem identifying the post, or posting your answer again then?

[Alan Burns]

So you will have no problem identifying the post, or posting your answer again then?

It all boiled down to a difference of opinion, but I have no wish to trawl through all the arguments again.  My posts are indicators to discovering the truth of God's existence.  They do not comprise watertight logic, so it is very easy to nit pick on certain points, but in doing so the whole concept of the argument gets lost.

[Nearly Sane]

It all boiled down to a difference of opinion, but I have no wish to trawl through all the arguments again.  My posts are indicators to discovering the truth of God's existence.  They do not comprise watertight logic, so it is very easy to nit pick on certain points, but in doing so the whole concept of the argument gets lost.

Yes if something is shown to be logically unsound, then your argument as you admit will be lost. So now you have admitted that you have lost the argument, what are you going to do?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I answered it several thousand posts back on this thread.

No you didn't.

[Nearly Sane]

I should have thought that from a Christian perspective there is no free will.  There are wilful decisions and actions determined by self considerations and there are decisions and actions determined by the will of their God, which to a human might appear as random.  The discipline is to surrender self determination in favour of God determination.

obviously this isn't AB's brand of Christianity

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It all boiled down to a difference of opinion, but I have no wish to trawl through all the arguments again.

No it didn’t. A difference of opinion would concern, say, whether coffee is nicer than tea. What you attempt is assertions of fact that rely on false arguments, which is a different matter entirely.

My posts are indicators to discovering the truth of God's existence.

And that’s one of those false arguments – called the reification fallacy. You can’t just refer to “the truth of God’s existence” as if it were an axiom. Your problem here is to demonstrate that that is a truth without relying on false arguments to do the job.

They do not comprise watertight logic, so it is very easy to nit pick on certain points, but in doing so the whole concept of the argument gets lost.

This is wrong on so many levels.

First, you give yourself too much credit. It’s not that they “do not comprise watertight logic”; it’s that they comprise attempts at logic that are completely broken. This is a bit like saying, “2+2=5 does not comprise watertight logic”. Your “logic” is wrong. Flat wrong. Not a bit “not watertight”, but flat wrong.

Second, this isn’t about nitpicking on certain points at all. The arguments you attempt for “God” are the point. If those arguments fail (and they do) then your claim “God” is just your personal assertion on the matter, no more and no less epistemically useful than my claim “pixies”.

Third, “the whole concept of the argument” doesn’t “get lost” at all. Rather it’s falsified. If you have a different “concept” that has cogent logic to support it, or a different argument entirely then by all means bring them to the table. For now though all you have is some personal assertions and some very bad arguments you wrongly think to validate them.   

So let’s try again. Here’s the question once more:

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE TERM “LOGICAL FALLACY” MEANS AND, IF YOU DO, DOES YOUR RELIANCE ON THEM IMPLY THAT YOU THINK THAT A FALSE ARGUMENT SOMEHOW BECOMES A GOOD ONE WHEN YOU HAPPEN TO LIKE ITS OUTCOME?

It’s simple enough. The first part requires only a “yes” or a “no”. If it's a "no", the term can be explained to you so you can avoid false arguments in future. If it’s a “yes”, then the second part comes into play and again all you'd need for a reply is a “yes” or a “no”.

Subject to your answers, you can be helped on your way.

[BeRational]

It all boiled down to a difference of opinion, but I have no wish to trawl through all the arguments again.  My posts are indicators to discovering the truth of God's existence.  They do not comprise watertight logic, so it is very easy to nit pick on certain points, but in doing so the whole concept of the argument gets lost.

That's sort of the point!

If the argument contains a fallacy, then you cannot use it to make your point, as it is, as you say, invalid.

[floo]

God has enabled us to do His will by giving us the ability to consciously choose what we do.  We can make a conscious choice to do His will, but God does not take over - we are still in control.

What actual evidence do you have to support that statement apart from a mere belief?

[torridon]

It all boiled down to a difference of opinion, but I have no wish to trawl through all the arguments again.  My posts are indicators to discovering the truth of God's existence.  They do not comprise watertight logic, so it is very easy to nit pick on certain points, but in doing so the whole concept of the argument gets lost.

Your arguments don't constitute pointers to God in my view, if anything rather the opposite, they tend to demonstrate the underlying reasons why some people believe, not the same thing.  There are plenty of atheists who 'believe' in free will, Len, for example.  Such compatibilists are, I think, valuing the lived experience of life over and above the understanding of it, which might be a curious thing, but it is nonetheless a spectrum that we are all on. It involves committing a slight fudge, an overlooking of detail, a slight disinterest in the full story. Atheists often cry 'god of the gaps' when theists exploit a gap in our knowledge as evidence for god.  in this free will issue I think you are exploiting not so much a gap in knowledge as that fudge, that overlooking of detail, that disinterest in being pedantically true to critical reasoning. You might claim that it is a soul that achieves final choice but you haven't offered any actual evidence for souls nor any rationale for how souls could do it. When you've got something coherent and compelling to substantiate your claims, post it up by all means, until that time the rationale that sees choice as the ultimately deterministic resolution of prior influences remains robust imo.

[wigginhall]

The link from free will to soul to God seems - well, I was going to say weak, but that is an over-estimate.  It is non-existent.  And so often it seems to assume its conclusion from the beginning.   Do I really believe that AB has looked at the 'evidence' of free will and 'conscious awareness', and then opted for God?  No, I don't.   I think he has started with his belief in God, and then scrabbles round for some back-up.

But that's what baffles me.  Why not just go with his belief in God, and let go of the non-arguments, and the God of the gaps  stuff, which probably repels many people, as it is so daft?

[torridon]

Yes, it's all rather, unseemly, somehow.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

The link from free will to soul to God seems - well, I was going to say weak, but that is an over-estimate.  It is non-existent.  And so often it seems to assume its conclusion from the beginning.   Do I really believe that AB has looked at the 'evidence' of free will and 'conscious awareness', and then opted for God?  No, I don't.   I think he has started with his belief in God, and then scrabbles round for some back-up.

But that's what baffles me.  Why not just go with his belief in God, and let go of the non-arguments, and the God of the gaps  stuff, which probably repels many people, as it is so daft?

That’s pretty much what I’ve been saying to him for some time. If he has a strong personal opinion about something he calls “God” and feels the need to tell others about it, then just say “I have a strong personal opinion about something I call “God””. The rest of us can then respond with a “good for you” and treat that unqualified opinion like any other.

What he actually does though is to attempt some very bad arguments to validate his belief as a truth for other people too. When those people can see that those arguments fail, the risk he runs is that his inability to deal with the falsifications make him appear idiotic and so actively drive people away from his faith beliefs. 

Personally I think running in the opposite direction from faith beliefs is a good idea, but I can’t help thinking that that’s not what he intends even as that’s what he achieves.

[ekim]

God has enabled us to do His will by giving us the ability to consciously choose what we do.  We can make a conscious choice to do His will, but God does not take over - we are still in control.

I doubt whether that is the way Jesus saw it when confronted with the possibility of his execution.  A paraphrase of Mark 14 (34:36) 'O God, if it is possible,  let this impending destiny be averted, but only if it conforms to your will.    If the only way for this fateful event to pass by is for me to experience it then let it be so.' suggests that he did not know his God's will, but although he preferred the option of survival, he was prepared to surrender to whatever his God decided.  Muslim, for instance, means 'one who submits or surrenders to God', but there are a number of deluded people who think they know his will and make a 'conscious choice' to become suicide bombers on the strength of that.

[Alan Burns]

Your arguments don't constitute pointers to God in my view, if anything rather the opposite, they tend to demonstrate the underlying reasons why some people believe, not the same thing.  There are plenty of atheists who 'believe' in free will, Len, for example.  Such compatibilists are, I think, valuing the lived experience of life over and above the understanding of it, which might be a curious thing, but it is nonetheless a spectrum that we are all on. It involves committing a slight fudge, an overlooking of detail, a slight disinterest in the full story. Atheists often cry 'god of the gaps' when theists exploit a gap in our knowledge as evidence for god.  in this free will issue I think you are exploiting not so much a gap in knowledge as that fudge, that overlooking of detail, that disinterest in being pedantically true to critical reasoning. You might claim that it is a soul that achieves final choice but you haven't offered any actual evidence for souls nor any rationale for how souls could do it. When you've got something coherent and compelling to substantiate your claims, post it up by all means, until that time the rationale that sees choice as the ultimately deterministic resolution of prior influences remains robust imo.

That’s pretty much what I’ve been saying to him for some time. If he has a strong personal opinion about something he calls “God” and feels the need to tell others about it, then just say “I have a strong personal opinion about something I call “God””. The rest of us can then respond with a “good for you” and treat that unqualified opinion like any other.

What he actually does though is to attempt some very bad arguments to validate his belief as a truth for other people too. When those people can see that those arguments fail, the risk he runs is that his inability to deal with the falsifications make him appear idiotic and so actively drive people away from his faith beliefs. 

Personally I think running in the opposite direction from faith beliefs is a good idea, but I can’t help thinking that that’s not what he intends even as that’s what he achieves.

Just to say that I do not see things as a God of Gaps, but a God of All.  I can see the work of God in all of His creation.  I know of many Christians whose faith does not hinge on anything scientific, so I agree that the content of my postings are not essential to faith.  But so many of my friends, colleagues and family seem to think that science can be used to support a Godless belief, so I try to remove this obstacle to faith in what I post.  Regarding our friend Len, I have spent many years in trying to show him that his belief in free-will could lead on to an awareness of the existence of his human soul.  I have all but lost hope of convincing other hardened atheists on this Forum of God's existence, but the fact that this thread gets about one thousand views a day gives me hope that some may see through the short sighted arguments that reduce human beings to being deluded biological robots with no will of their own. 

[BeRational]

Just to say that I do not see things as a God of Gaps, but a God of All.  I can see the work of God in all of His creation.  I know of many Christians whose faith does not hinge on anything scientific, so I agree that the content of my postings are not essential to faith.  But so many of my friends, colleagues and family seem to think that science can be used to support a Godless belief, so I try to remove this obstacle to faith in what I post.  Regarding our friend Len, I have spent many years in trying to show him that his belief in free-will could lead on to an awareness of the existence of his human soul.  I have all but lost hope of convincing other hardened atheists on this Forum of God's existence, but the fact that this thread gets about one thousand views a day gives me hope that some may see through the short sighted arguments that reduce human beings to being deluded biological robots with no will of their own.

We keep looking to see if you will be honest enough to accept that you are wrong.

You are no honest as you dodge questions. Questions that undo your position.

You seem blind to this fact.

[floo]

Just to say that I do not see things as a God of Gaps, but a God of All.  I can see the work of God in all of His creation.  I know of many Christians whose faith does not hinge on anything scientific, so I agree that the content of my postings are not essential to faith.  But so many of my friends, colleagues and family seem to think that science can be used to support a Godless belief, so I try to remove this obstacle to faith in what I post.  Regarding our friend Len, I have spent many years in trying to show him that his belief in free-will could lead on to an awareness of the existence of his human soul.  I have all but lost hope of convincing other hardened atheists on this Forum of God's existence, but the fact that this thread gets about one thousand views a day gives me hope that some may see through the short sighted arguments that reduce human beings to being deluded biological robots with no will of their own.

You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is, you have no evidence to support it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just to say that I do not see things as a God of Gaps, but a God of All.

A god of the gaps is exactly what you attempt when you find a (usually imaginary) gap in the materialistic model of the world, then announce that the gap must be evidence for “God”, “soul” etc ("consciousness isn't fully defined, therefore soul" etc.). It’s no such thing – it’s just a gap.

I can see the work of God in all of His creation.

That’s nice for you. And I can see leprechauns whenever I hear music.

So now we have two personal opinions.

So?

I know of many Christians whose faith does not hinge on anything scientific, so I agree that the content of my postings are not essential to faith.

But the “content of your postings” consists only of your personal assertions of faith beliefs and some broken arguments. Why in your view should anyone else take those claims seriously?

But so many of my friends, colleagues and family seem to think that science can be used to support a Godless belief, so I try to remove this obstacle to faith in what I post.

By lying about what science actually tells us?

Why bother?

Science only “supports a godless belief” to the extent that claims about gods that involve scientific claims can be falsified.

Regarding our friend Len, I have spent many years in trying to show him that his belief in free-will could lead on to an awareness of the existence of his human soul.

You can’t “show” someone something you’re unable to demonstrate to be true. All you can do is to assert your personal opinion on the matter, which is all you have.

I have all but lost hope of convincing other hardened atheists on this Forum of God's existence, but the fact that this thread gets about one thousand views a day gives me hope that some may see through the short sighted arguments that reduce human beings to being deluded biological robots with no will of their own.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the point. As you’ve dodged it yet again, here it is yet again:

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE TERM “LOGICAL FALLACY” MEANS AND, IF YOU DO, DOES YOUR RELIANCE ON THEM IMPLY THAT YOU THINK THAT A FALSE ARGUMENT SOMEHOW BECOMES A GOOD ONE WHEN YOU HAPPEN TO LIKE ITS OUTCOME?

If you still refuse to answer (or to lie about having answered it already) why not at least tell us why you won’t answer it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Incidentally, as you just ignored the rebuttal to your "my logic may not be watertight but..." attempt here is is again:

This is wrong on so many levels.

First, you give yourself too much credit. It’s not that they “do not comprise watertight logic”; it’s that they comprise attempts at logic that are completely broken. This is a bit like saying, “2+2=5 does not comprise watertight logic”. Your “logic” is wrong. Flat wrong. Not a bit “not watertight”, but flat wrong.

Second, this isn’t about nitpicking on certain points at all. The arguments you attempt for “God” are the point. If those arguments fail (and they do) then your claim “God” is just your personal assertion on the matter, no more and no less epistemically useful than my claim “pixies”.

Third, “the whole concept of the argument” doesn’t “get lost” at all. Rather it’s falsified. If you have a different “concept” that has cogent logic to support it, or a different argument entirely then by all means bring them to the table. For now though all you have is some personal assertions and some very bad arguments you wrongly think to validate them.

Can you see the problem you've given yourself now?

As your attempts at argument are calamitous, why not just settle for assertions and personal opinions instead?

[Gordon]

Just to say that I do not see things as a God of Gaps, but a God of All.  I can see the work of God in all of His creation. 

I think that is the case for you: there is just 'god' and you see everything as being a consequence of this a priori assumption.

I know of many Christians whose faith does not hinge on anything scientific, so I agree that the content of my postings are not essential to faith. 

Then these other Christians are more nuanced that you in avoiding painting themselves into corners, thereby avoiding the pitfalls you stagger into in that for them, presumably, their faith is based on personal conviction rather that incoherent claims such as yours that are so easily undone because they fail at the argument stage, mainly due to being so obviously fallacious.

But so many of my friends, colleagues and family seem to think that science can be used to support a Godless belief, so I try to remove this obstacle to faith in what I post.

The you'd be wrong: science is indifferent to supernatural claims since they fall outside the scope of its methods, hence the repeated requests for a method that is specific to such claims, However,when you try to make claims that impinge on, say, neurology you can expect to have any misrepresentations or ignorance highlighted: in some respects you are being just as cavalier with science as are the idiotic YEC brigade.

I have all but lost hope of convincing other hardened atheists on this Forum of God's existence, but the fact that this thread gets about one thousand views a day gives me hope that some may see through the short sighted arguments that reduce human beings to being deluded biological robots with no will of their own.

I don't think you had any real hope to start with, Alan, given that the arguments you've offered to date have failed because they are invariably fallacious in one way or another and that this thread has grown arms and legs simply means that the exchanges have interested people, and possibly we're all mildly addicted to what goes on in this thread.

Your last bit is intended to be pejorative' of course, but I've no problem in thinking that 'I' am no more than a product of my biology.

[Alan Burns]

We keep looking to see if you will be honest enough to accept that you are wrong.

You are no honest as you dodge questions. Questions that undo your position.

You seem blind to this fact.

I can't accept that my posts are wrong, but I do not wish to waste time in endless tit for tat exchanges.  You have the right to judge my posts as you wish, but I am sincere in my belief that my posts are true indicators to the reality of God.  And the fact that a writer of great intelligence and intellect such as CS Lewis gets similar accusations of fallacious thinking is an encouragement for me to carry on being a witness to the truth of God's existence.

[Gordon]

I can't accept that my posts are wrong, but I do not wish to waste time in endless tit for tat exchanges.  You have the right to judge my posts as you wish, but I am sincere in my belief that my posts are true indicators to the reality of God.  And the fact that a writer of great intelligence and intellect such as CS Lewis gets similar accusations of fallacious thinking is an encouragement for me to carry on being a witness to the truth of God's existence.

Then, Alan, you need to stop the attempts at trying to redefine biology so as to jemmy in the 'spiritual' and just stick to a sense of personal conviction that Christianity is meaningful for you.