Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

That's your biology, Alan.

And what is biology other than the uncontrollable deterministic reactions of material particles?
Which ultimately makes any opinion to be objective rather than subjective because its cause is is not derived from the self, but from natural reaction (unless you bring into play the subjective power of the human soul.)

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I engage with the logic that tells me my ability to choose my own arguments is derived from the gift of conscious free will, which has no feasible explanation in the materialist scenario other than: "Well it must be an illusion because that's what the (scientific) evidence suggests."

First, you’ve just had logic explained to you in a series of posts (some from me) and you’ve been corrected on your error of claiming that finding your attempts at it to be wrong has nothing to do with whether or not someone believes in “God”.

Why have you just ignored that?

Second, if the scientific evidence suggests something then why, in the absence of anything else that’s investigable, wouldn’t you accept that as the provisional answer?

[Gordon]

And what is biology other than the uncontrollable deterministic reactions of material particles?

So; what if it is? Seems to work well enough for practical purposes (like typing this post).

Which ultimately makes any opinion to be objective rather than subjective because its cause is is not derived from the self, but from natural reaction (unless you bring into play the subjective power of the human soul.)

Word salad.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Second, if the scientific evidence suggests something then why, in the absence of anything else that’s investigable, wouldn’t you accept that as the provisional answer?

I have the ability to accept or reject the scientific argument.  If I choose to reject it, what do you think is the ultimate source of this choice to reject?  In your scenario, I have no real choice in the matter, since all my thoughts and actions must be pre determined by past events.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have the ability to accept or reject the scientific argument.

To an extent, yes. You could for example assert "2+2=5" until you're blue in the face. Your problem though would come if you tried to design a parachute using that belief. That's why you leave others no choice but to point and laugh every time you display your ignorance of what science tells us, about evolution for example. 

If I choose to reject it, what do you think is the ultimate source of this choice to reject?

I think it's what the science tells us it is - biology that's self-aware. Why would anyone think otherwise? 

In your scenario, I have no real choice in the matter, since all my thoughts and actions must be pre determined by past events.

It's not "my" scenario, it's the scenario of all of mainstream science from multiple disciplines. And of course "you" have choice, only "you" and "choice" don't mean what you assume them to mean.   

[Nearly Sane]

I have the ability to accept or reject the scientific argument.  If I choose to reject it, what do you think is the ultimate source of this choice to reject?  In your scenario, I have no real choice in the matter, since all my thoughts and actions must be pre determined by past events.

Why are you rejecting it, if not pre determined or random? Why would any choice be made removing those? Note you've been asked that many many many tines on this thread but answer came there none. You can't even make a logically coherent explanation of your claim, never mind a justifiable one.

[Alan Burns]

I think it's what the science tells us it is - biology that's self-aware. Why would anyone think otherwise? 

Because biology has not been able to define what comprises "self aware".

It's not "my" scenario, it's the scenario of all of mainstream science from multiple disciplines. And of course "you" have choice, only "you" and "choice" don't mean what you assume them to mean.

I agree that we differ in our definitions of "you" and "choice".

I understand "You" to be the spiritual entity which enables you to consciously choose between many viable alternatives.

My understanding of your thought is that "you" are just part of the material continuum of this universe entirely controlled by the scientific laws of this universe with no ability to choose other than riding along with the pre determined reactions occurring in your physical brain.

[Sebastian Toe]

I have the ability to accept or reject the scientific argument.  If I choose to reject it, what do you think is the ultimate source of this choice to reject?

You are the ultimate source of the choice.
No need for a third party soul to make it for you.

[Nearly Sane]

Because biology has not been able to define what comprises "self aware".I agree that we differ in our definitions of "you" and "choice".

I understand "You" to be the spiritual entity which enables you to consciously choose between many viable alternatives.

My understanding of your thought is that "you" are just part of the material continuum of this universe entirely controlled by the scientific laws of this universe with no ability to choose other than riding along with the pre determined reactions occurring in your physical brain.

And again Alan,  repetition isn't an argument or coherent, your entire position is based on idea that despite being asked hundreds of times what you mean by free you have been unable to even start to describe, and possibly haven't shown any understanding of the question.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Because biology has not been able to define what comprises "self aware".

But it's a long way toward doing that and, even it wasn't, why on earth would you think that would imply a non-biological explanation?

You've had this explained countless times but you keep ignoring your mistake. The absence or incompleteness of an explanation tells you absolutely nothing whatever about a conjcture you may want to use to fill the gap (especially one for which there's no "definition" of any kind, so it fails even your very bad argument).

Why won't you address this?

I agree that we differ in our definitions of "you" and "choice".

Yes, mine rests on reason and evidence; yours is unqualified assertion. Why then should anyone listen to you?

I understand "You" to be the spiritual entity which enables you to consciously choose between many viable alternatives.

I know you do. Absent a means to investigate the claim though, your understanding is just white noise.

Why won't you address this?

My understanding of your thought is that "you" are just part of the material continuum of this universe entirely controlled by the scientific laws of this universe with no ability to choose other than riding along with the pre determined reactions occurring in your physical brain.

Again you're confused about the word "choose" here but essentially yes - something is either caused by something that precedes it or it's random. It's binary. There is no third option. Just throwing "soul" into the mix about which "you haven't quite got the details worked out" or some such makes you appear ridiculous.

Is that really what you want?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

But it's a long way toward doing that and, even it wasn't, why on earth would you think that would imply a non-biological explanation?

You've had this explained countless times but you keep ignoring your mistake. The absence or incompleteness of an explanation tells you absolutely nothing whatever about a conjcture you may want to use to fill the gap (especially one for which there's no "definition" of any kind, so it fails even your very bad argument).

Why won't you address this?

Yes, mine rests on reason and evidence; yours is unqualified assertion. Why then should anyone listen to you?

I know you do. Absent a means to investigate the claim though, your understanding is just white noise.

Why won't you address this?

Again you're confused about the word "choose" here but essentially yes - something is either caused by something that precedes it or it's random. It's binary. There is no third option. Just throwing "soul" into the mix about which "you haven't quite got the details worked out" or some such makes you appear ridiculous.

Is that really what you want?

I think the trouble here though is that intelligence is the incomplete answer and the gap remains "The hard problem of consciousness". The suspicion is that the gap has been given a traditional "builders solution"...........filled with grit and shit. No names no pack drill.

[Shaker]

I think the trouble here though is that intelligence is the incomplete answer and the gap remains "The hard problem of consciousness". The suspicion is that the gap has been given a traditional "builders solution"...........filled with grit and shit.

Take it up with Burns.

[Alan Burns]

And again Alan,  repetition isn't an argument or coherent, your entire position is based on idea that despite being asked hundreds of times what you mean by free you have been unable to even start to describe, and possibly haven't shown any understanding of the question.

My freedom is simply the ability to consciously choose what I want to do.  The question is - What is it that defines my conscious "want".  I have been accused many times of deliberate use of fallacies, but where does this deliberation originate from?  If it is just the unavoidable consequence to all previous events, then there can be no source of deliberation since it will be just an unavoidable reaction.  So am I responsible for the content of my own posts?  If so, it is because I have the freedom to consciously choose the content, and not simply undergo an unavoidable reaction to naturally occurring events.

[Nearly Sane]

My freedom is simply the ability to consciously choose what I want to do.  The question is - What is it that defines my conscious "want".  I have been accused many times of deliberate use of fallacies, but where does this deliberation originate from?  If it is just the unavoidable consequence to all previous events, then there can be no source of deliberation since it will be just an unavoidable reaction.  So am I responsible for the content of my own posts?  If so, then it is because I have the freedom to consciously choose the content, and not simply undergo an unavoidable reaction to naturally occurring events.

and again you have ignored the  whole issue about about freedom. How does freedom exist! How does it avoid determinism or random effects! After all this time you are still providing nothing, not even a basic understanding of the issue.

[Alan Burns]

Again you're confused about the word "choose" here but essentially yes - something is either caused by something that precedes it or it's random. It's binary. There is no third option. Just throwing "soul" into the mix about which "you haven't quite got the details worked out" or some such makes you appear ridiculous.

Is that really what you want?

I simply want to share what I believe to be the only feasible explanation for my conscious ability to choose.  If my choice is just a consequence of previous physical events, then it is not a choice, but a reaction.  To enable conscious choice, the determining factor in the choice will need to break free from the physical chains of cause and effect and be defined within the conscious entity which is "you".

[Nearly Sane]

I simply want to share what I believe to be the only feasible explanation for my conscious ability to choose.  If my choice is just a consequence of previous physical events, then it is not a choice, but a reaction.  To enable conscious choice, the determining factor in the choice will need to break free from the physical chains of cause and effect and be defined within the conscious entity which is "you".

and yet again you talk about choice deapited the fact tgatbyou have made no effort to explain how that would be free. Why is that Alan! Why have you made no attempt to explain how something is free? Why given it is your central argument have you not even shown any indication that you have a clue about how what freedom would mean? Why?

[Alan Burns]

and again you have ignored the whole issue about about freedom ....;.

Just stop for a minute and consider what you are saying here.  You appear to be accusing me of deliberately ignoring something.  But how can I possibly deliberately ignore something unless I am given the conscious freedom to do so?  In the materialistic scenario there can be no source for deliberation if everything is an inevitable consequence of previous physical chains of cause and effect events

[Nearly Sane]

Just stop for a minute and consider what you are saying here.  You appear to be accusing me of deliberately ignoring something.  But how can I possibly deliberately ignore something unless I am given the conscious freedom to do so?  In the materialistic scenario there can be no source for deliberation if everything is an inevitable consequence of previous physical chains of cause and effect events

  This is called begging the question Alan. It doesn't matter if you and I are just  determined. You still haven't shown any understanding of how something could coherently be free. So you have no coherence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I simply want to share what I believe to be the only feasible explanation for my conscious ability to choose.

Precisely so. And if you simply want to share your faith beliefs, we have a place for that. It's called the faith sharing area.

If you want to attempt arguments that validates those beliefs though then by all means try them here, only your approach of argument-free assertions, logical fallacies and just ignoring the falsifications you're given doesn't even get its trousers off for that purpose.   

If my choice is just a consequence of previous physical events, then it is not a choice, but a reaction.  To enable conscious choice, the determining factor in the choice will need to break free from the physical chains of cause and effect and be defined within the conscious entity which is "you".

And speaking of logical fallacies, that's yet another argumentum ad consequentiam - something you've had explained countless times but you just ignore nonetheless. As soon as you construct a sentence with "if" and "then" in it you'll almost certainly commit the same fallacy. The 'reaction" as you call it is still for all practical purposes a choice - that's how we live our lives - but ultimately it cannot "break free from the physical chain of cause and effect" as you put it because that would make it random - ie chaotic.

Would it really kill you at least to try to grasp the argument before you return with the same idiotic mantra? Just once perhaps?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Precisely so. And if you simply want to share your faith beliefs, we have a place for that. It's called the faith sharing area.

If you want to attempt arguments that validates those beliefs though then by all means try them here, only your approach of argument-free assertions, logical fallacies and just ignoring the falsifications you're given doesn't even get its trousers off for that purpose.   

And speaking of logical fallacies, that's yet another argumentum ad consequentiam - something you've had explained countless times but you just ignore nonetheless. As soon as you construct a sentence with "if" and "then" in it you'll almost certainly commit the same fallacy. The 'reaction" as you call it is still for all practical purposes a choice - that's how we live our lives - but ultimately it cannot "break free from the physical chain of cause and effect" as you put it because that would make it random - ie chaotic.

Would it really kill you at least to try to grasp the argument before you return with the same idiotic mantra? Just once perhaps?

But how can I possibly commit a deliberate fallacy if my apparent freedom to choose is just an inevitable consequence to events over which I have no control?

And my computer programming experience has engrained in me the logic of if ... then ... else ... clauses. So according to your logic, my computer programs must also be full of deliberate argumentum ad consequentiam fallacies. 

[Sebastian Toe]

But how can I possibly commit a deliberate fallacy if my apparent freedom to choose is just an inevitable consequence to events over which I have no control?

But you do have control, just not the control that you think you have.

No need for a third party soul though.

[torridon]

My freedom is simply the ability to consciously choose what I want to do.  The question is - What is it that defines my conscious "want".  I have been accused many times of deliberate use of fallacies, but where does this deliberation originate from?  If it is just the unavoidable consequence to all previous events, then there can be no source of deliberation since it will be just an unavoidable reaction.  So am I responsible for the content of my own posts?  If so, it is because I have the freedom to consciously choose the content, and not simply undergo an unavoidable reaction to naturally occurring events.

And if we cannot choose what to want, where is the freedom in that? Can you choose to want something that you don't want ?  Can you choose to believe something that you don't believe ? Sometimes in the past you've shown signs of grasping this fundamental insight, now you are backsliding again. We cannot choose to want something that we don't want other than by wanting to choose to want that thing.  This understanding is incoherent.

[ippy]

This thread really brings home the reality of the title of Richard D's fameous book.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

And if we cannot choose what to want, where is the freedom in that? Can you choose to want something that you don't want ?  Can you choose to believe something that you don't believe ? Sometimes in the past you've shown signs of grasping this fundamental insight, now you are backsliding again. We cannot choose to want something that we don't want other than by wanting to choose to want that thing.  This understanding is incoherent.

But the reality is that I have the conscious power to choose in how and when (and if) to satisfy my wants.  This is what makes us human and distinguishes us from the predictable pre programmed behaviour of animals.  So I will continue to employ my God given power to choose to witness to the reality of God's existence.  There is nothing incoherent about the power of our souls to consciously choose our thoughts, words and actions.  It is only incoherent if you try to make it comply with the endless physical chains of cause and effect

[floo]

But the reality is that I have the conscious power to choose in how and when (and if) to satisfy my wants.  This is what makes us human and distinguishes us from the predictable pre programmed behaviour of animals.  So I will continue to employ my God given power to choose to witness to the reality of God's existence.  There is nothing incoherent about the power of our souls to consciously choose our thoughts, words and actions.  It is only incoherent if you try to make it comply with the endless physical chains of cause and effect

In your opinion.