Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

But it is not the computer program which is responsible for any assertions - it is the programmer.  And no programmer has been able to replicate the existence of conscious free will in a program.

Begging the question: do you ever think critically about what you write before posting?

The computer program would not exist without the programmer, and the human mind would not exist without its Creator who shares His creative willpower with His created.

And again, albeit with a dash of added reification and incredulity for good measure.

[Nearly Sane]

There are many similarities between human behaviour and animal behaviour, but no animal has shown any capacity to believe, or disbelieve in a Creator.  Such an ability can only come from the God given conscious perception and willpower of the human soul.

we are animals.

[Maeght]

There are many similarities between human behaviour and animal behaviour, but no animal has shown any capacity to believe, or disbelieve in a Creator.

How would you recognise that in other animals Alan?

[torridon]

There are many similarities between human behaviour and animal behaviour, but no animal has shown any capacity to believe, or disbelieve in a Creator.  Such an ability can only come from the God given conscious perception and willpower of the human soul.

Baseless assertion; anyone can play that game :

No human has shown any capacity to detect electrical fields. Such an ability can only come from the shark-God given facility for electroreception

[Gordon]

There are many similarities between human behaviour and animal behaviour, but no animal has shown any capacity to believe, or disbelieve in a Creator.

That is, I'd say, to their credit given some of what human Creator-believers have done as a consequence of their beliefs.

Such an ability can only come from the God given conscious perception and willpower of the human soul.

Nope - you're back on the fallacy roundabout again: you must be getting dizzy by now.

[Stranger]

But it is not the computer program which is responsible for any assertions - it is the programmer.

Which has nothing to do with the point.

...and the human mind would not exist without its Creator who shares His creative willpower with His created.

More baseless assertion - that could very easily be an instinctive reaction to the questions I asked and that you ignored...

Want another go?

1/ Please explain exactly how "spiritually determined events" come about if they are not a combination of determinism and randomness?

2/ Why can't an assertion be a reaction?

[Alan Burns]

What reality is this, and how does one identify spiritual causes as opposed to the common or garden kind? This sounds like more of your theobabble, Alan.

You seem to assert continually, Alan, but then I suppose that is in your nature. You do a lot of reacting too: such as the mindless mantras you invariably respond with even when they've been roundly trounced and exposed as being a fallacy-fest.

I will continue to use my God given freedom to witness to the truth of our spiritual nature - without which I would not have the ability to witness to anything because I would be driven by the secular, uncontrollable nature of this material world which has no willpower of its own.

I am constantly being accused of deliberate use of assertions and fallacies, but these same accusers are in denial that I can have any free will of my own because I am just flesh and blood driven by the uncontrollable forces of nature.  Can you not see the irony in this?

[Alan Burns]

Baseless assertion; anyone can play that game :

Anyone with free will!

[Gordon]

I will continue to use my God given freedom to witness to the truth of our spiritual nature - without which I would not have the ability to witness to anything because I would be driven by the secular, uncontrollable nature of this material world which has no willpower of its own.

I am constantly being accused of deliberate use of assertions and fallacies, but these same accusers are in denial that I can have any free will of my own because I am just flesh and blood driven by the uncontrollable forces of nature.  Can you not see the irony in this?

Not really: people are just pointing out to you how poor your reasoning skills are whenever your faith gets in your way.

[Maeght]

Alan, how do you know that what appear to be free choices are not instinctive reactions based on prior experiences?

[Sebastian Toe]

Anyone with free will!

Anyone with a continuous feedback loop of data, emeging as a concious entity!

[Stranger]

I will continue to use my God given freedom to witness to the truth of our spiritual nature - without which I would not have the ability to witness to anything because I would be driven by the secular, uncontrollable nature of this material world which has no willpower of its own.

I am constantly being accused of deliberate use of assertions and fallacies, but these same accusers are in denial that I can have any free will of my own because I am just flesh and blood driven by the uncontrollable forces of nature.  Can you not see the irony in this?

The rather sad irony is actually that, while you are loudly proclaiming the need for some fantasy, self-contradictory version of 'free will' (you might as well be saying we all need square triangles in our heads), it is rather obvious that you have completely surrendered your actual will (in the realistic sense) to religious indoctrination that simply won't allow you to even contemplate the contradictions in your position.

[Alan Burns]

Anyone with a continuous feedback loop of data, emerging as a conscious entity!

Data travelling round in circles is still just data and it will not produce conscious entities.  A conscious entity perceives data - it may well react to it, but it has the conscious ability to choose how to react.  And I speak from experience in this, as we all should if we allow ourselves to see the truth.

[Nearly Sane]

Data travelling round in circles is still just data and it will not produce conscious entities.  A conscious entity perceives data - it may well react to it, but it has the conscious ability to choose how to react.  And I speak from experience in this, as we all should if we allow ourselves to see the truth.

And back with your perennial accusation that other people are lying.

[Sebastian Toe]

Data travelling round in circles is still just data and it will not produce conscious entities.  A conscious entity perceives data - it may well react to it, but it has the conscious ability to choose how to react.  And I speak from experience in this, as we all should if we allow ourselves to see the truth.

Not at all. My version is correct. It's just sad that you cannot see that!

[Alan Burns]

..... do you ever think critically about what you write before posting?

I think very deeply about what I post on here, Gordon.  And this is yet more evidence for the power of the human soul to drive our thought processes - they are not the uncontrolled reactions of a physically  determined biological machine.

[Gordon]

I think very deeply about what I post on here, Gordon.  And this is yet more evidence for the power of the human soul to drive our thought processes - they are not the uncontrolled reactions of a physically  determined biological machine.

Clearly, as this post demonstrates, you don't you know: critical thinking is very different to clinging to broken reasoning expressed in the form of repetitive mantras.

You've painted yourself into a corner due to your dependence on this soul and consciousness nonsense: not only are your arguments demonstrably fallacious (ignorance, incredulity etc) but you are a hostage to new knowledge continuing to contradict your assertions. You seem to have protected yourself fairly well, since you are clearly impervious to reason where your faith is concerned, since if you were to lower your guard I suspect your faith would be a casualty.

Given the responses you get here I'm surprised you are still proselytising, which is what you are really doing no matter how much you try to dress it up as something equivalent to science.     

[Sebastian Toe]

I think very deeply about what I post on here, Gordon.  And this is yet more evidence for the power of the human soul to drive our thought processes - they are not the uncontrolled reactions of a physically  determined biological machine.

Your post further demonstrates a  continuous feedback loop of data, emeging as a concious entity.

[Shaker]

Given the responses you get here I'm surprised you are still proselytising, which is what you are really doing no matter how much you try to dress it up as something equivalent to science.   

The responses are quite useless; the BurnsBot is stuck for ever on mince and repeat (which doesn't say a lot for the much vaunted pretensions to free will, but there you go).

And we know that he, or perhaps it, is here only to proselytise; that's been made abundantly clear. That these efforts have universally been a dismal failure, and that the entity going by the name of Alan Burns operates still on a NIGO basis (Nothing In; Garbage Out) is perhaps the final piece of evidence that  Moderator: Content removed. Sorry, my mistake; I meant bot.

[Alan Burns]

Clearly, as this post demonstrates, you don't you know: critical thinking is very different to clinging to broken reasoning expressed in the form of repetitive mantras.

You've painted yourself into a corner due to your dependence on this soul and consciousness nonsense: not only are your arguments demonstrably fallacious (ignorance, incredulity etc) but you are a hostage to new knowledge continuing to contradict your assertions. You seem to have protected yourself fairly well, since you are clearly impervious to reason where your faith is concerned, since if you were to lower your guard I suspect your faith would be a casualty.

Given the responses you get here I'm surprised you are still proselytising, which is what you are really doing no matter how much you try to dress it up as something equivalent to science.   

But can you not see that any form of conscious thinking , be it critical or broken reasoning, must be driven by some form of controlling entity.  Do you seriously believe that you have no control over your own thoughts?  If there is any form of control, then it defies the physically deterministic nature of purely material based entities which can comprise no control - just reaction.

[Sebastian Toe]

But can you not see that any form of conscious thinking , be it critical or broken reasoning, must be driven by some form of controlling entity.  Do you seriously believe that you have no control over your own thoughts?  If there is any form of control, then it defies the physically deterministic nature of purely material based entities which can comprise no control - just reaction.

Once more your post further demonstrates a  continuous feedback loop of data, emeging as a concious entity.
Giving your concious self the feeling of control.

[torridon]

I will continue to use my God given freedom to witness to the truth of our spiritual nature - without which I would not have the ability to witness to anything because I would be driven by the secular, uncontrollable nature of this material world which has no willpower of its own.

Flawed and superficial thinking.

That 'willpower' is a product of nature; it is not some elementary novel force somehow undiscovered by science, it is a manifestation of lower order forces of nature manifesting through behaviours of higher animals. A mother whale trying desperately to protect her young from attack is using her willpower.  It is not some magic thing unique to homo sapiens, willpower is ubiquitous throughout nature.  Humans merely have greater cognitive range to bring to bear on how to satisfy their desires.  There is no rationale and no evidence supporting your assertions that humans uniquely have the power to want things that they don't want. Nobody, and no thing, would want such an irrational ability.

[Gordon]

But can you not see that any form of conscious thinking , be it critical or broken reasoning, must be driven by some form of controlling entity.  Do you seriously believe that you have no control over your own thoughts?  If there is any form of control, then it defies the physically deterministic nature of purely material based entities which can comprise no control - just reaction.

As usual your hyperbole is to the fore with this kind of reductio - I might think that I am in control of my thoughts but I can't be sure that I am and I'm very aware that my capacity to think can be influenced by various factors affecting my biology: illness, distraction, things that I ingest, situations I misjudge, the limitations of my mental capacities and whether or not I am awake (no doubt there are other factors). So yes: I'm not in complete control of my thoughts and I'd be a fool to think I was.

Your 'just reaction' fallback position is no more than a mix of the fallacies of ignorance and incredulity.

[Alan Burns]

As usual your hyperbole is to the fore with this kind of reductio - I might think that I am in control of my thoughts but I can't be sure that I am and I'm very aware that my capacity to think can be influenced by various factors affecting my biology: illness, distraction, things that I ingest, situations I misjudge, the limitations of my mental capacities and whether or not I am awake (no doubt there are other factors). So yes: I'm not in complete control of my thoughts and I'd be a fool to think I was.

Your 'just reaction' fallback position is no more than a mix of the fallacies of ignorance and incredulity.

You may not be in complete control, but can you not admit to having any control of your thoughts, Gordon?  The scenario I am supposed to be convinced by does not allow any control because everything will be dictated by the uncontrollable forces of nature.

[Stranger]

But can you not see that any form of conscious thinking , be it critical or broken reasoning, must be driven by some form of controlling entity.  Do you seriously believe that you have no control over your own thoughts?  If there is any form of control, then it defies the physically deterministic nature of purely material based entities which can comprise no control - just reaction.

How about just stopping for a moment and thinking about how we make decisions and exert control? We gather and evaluate all the information, we contemplate our options, we bring to bear our knowledge and experience, we consult our feelings, values, preferences, and beliefs. Finally, based on all that (or not, if we decide to act impulsively) we make a choice and act.

Nothing in the that is in any way incompatible with us being deterministic beings (the impulse my be (pseudo)-random). What exactly is the magic non-material part of us supposed to bring to the party?