Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

In my, increasingly stronglly held, opinion, your replies are getting sillier by the day.

Susan, I think Bizarre would be a good description as well as silly.

It looks to me 'Our Lord Richard Dorkins on High', was right to use the word delusion in the title of his book.

Now the other day I was looking into the innermost meanings of several editions of the 'Star trek' novels_____________

Sorry Alan, do you remember that T V series a few years back called 'The Twilight Zone'?

Necessarily the kindest of regards ippy

[wigginhall]

On that subject, I often get plagued by ear worms.  Sometimes I can't get to sleep at night because I can't stop some damn tune playing on endless loop in my head; like some irritating neighbours and their stereo, there's no way I can stop it.  The worst thing is, and this must be telling, that it is often some tune I don't even like.  Can you imagine trying to sleep when there is "Agadoo-doo-doo, push pineapple, shake the tree, Agadoo-doo-doo, push pineapple, grind coffee" playing over and over in your head.

I think this is evidence that a sense of singular personhood is actually a contrivance; rather we are a mess of competing fears and desires constantly churning underneath the surface

A few years ago, I was writing a lot, and I was often woken up in the night, with whole paragraphs going through my head, and I knew, I would have to get up and type them out, if I was going to get any sleep.   But then later, this stopped.   In fact, even later, I stopped writing.

Is AB seriously saying that this has been under the control of the soul?   Crazy talk.   And as to singular personhood, I don't believe it.    'The self as group' is the title of a talk that a friend of mine used to do.

[Alan Burns]

The only logical alternative to being deterministic is to be random (as was discussed at great length before) - the very opposite of control.

As I have previously explained, our conscious awareness enables us to to be aware of all the influencing factors prior to making a conscious choice.  Our choice is not automated - it is under the control of our conscious awareness.  Yes, of course it is determined - by the conscious willpower of our human soul which interacts with this world - it does not just react.

[Shaker]

As I have previously explained

Asserted.

There you go. No charge.

[wigginhall]

Yes, that use of 'explained' is a kind of murder of the English language, and of logic.   

[Alan Burns]

In my, increasingly strongly held, opinion, your replies are getting sillier by the day.

It is the replies to me which are the silliest, Susan, because they reduce all human beings to be biological machines, driven entirely by the uncontrollable forces of nature with no will of their own.  The only explanation they can offer for human free will is that it does not exist. 

[Shaker]

It is the replies to me which are the silliest, Susan, because they reduce all human beings to be biological machines, driven entirely by the uncontrollable forces of nature with no will of their own.  The only explanation they can offer for human free will is that it does not exist.

We've yet to see you offer a credible, evidence-based alternative. You're only here to preach and you're bloody useless at that as well. 

[wigginhall]

It is the replies to me which are the silliest, Susan, because they reduce all human beings to be biological machines, driven entirely by the uncontrollable forces of nature with no will of their own.  The only explanation they can offer for human free will is that it does not exist.

But you are offering nothing at all.   You just keep repeating a form of words, which we all know by heart now.   This is not an explanation, not even a description, despite being asked to provide one.

[Stranger]

As I have previously explained, our conscious awareness enables us to to be aware of all the influencing factors prior to making a conscious choice.  Our choice is not automated - it is under the control of our conscious awareness.  Yes, of course it is determined - by the conscious willpower of our human soul which interacts with this world - it does not just react.

You have actually not explained anything at all and you still haven't answered my question - are you afraid to think about it?

Did you take no notice at all of our previous discussion? Of course our actions are determined by our "conscious willpower", the point is: how does our "conscious willpower" arrive at its choice?

We've been all over this before and you eventually had to admit that you had no idea. So you are absolutely insisting that we need some non-material thingy but you can't say what it does that deterministic, material things can't, or how it does it.

[floo]

It is the replies to me which are the silliest, Susan, because they reduce all human beings to be biological machines, driven entirely by the uncontrollable forces of nature with no will of their own.  The only explanation they can offer for human free will is that it does not exist.

You make assertions, which lack logic and credibility, imo.

[Stranger]

The only explanation they can offer for human free will is that it does not exist.

And you can't even explain what 'free will' (in the sense you keep going on about) actually is.

[SusanDoris]

What do you mean, 'reduce'? That is an insult to the wonderful,  amazing physical, evolved species that is the human species. We have not been reduced to being humans with all our associated abilities and emergent properties,. our abilities to imagine, to create, and,
Imagine,  we have found ourselves raised to being the most.sophisticated of animals, and of the ape species.
By making full use of the abilities we have, we have avoided species extinction.

?to dismiss them, rather than praise them to the skies,  as uncontrollable, using that adjective in the most demeaning, unscientific, uninformed way, is, I assert,  a disgrace.

As for calling the intelligent, considered, considerate and factual replies you receive 'silly' is a remark for which you should apologise.
That is another of my strongly held opinions!
The modification has come out without AB's post at the top, but since he has already posted, I don't think that will cause confusion.

[Maeght]

As I have previously explained, our conscious awareness enables us to to be aware of all the influencing factors prior to making a conscious choice.  Our choice is not automated - it is under the control of our conscious awareness.  Yes, of course it is determined - by the conscious willpower of our human soul which interacts with this world - it does not just react.

Claiming you've explained something when all you've done is made assertions based on your beliefs seems pretty silly to me.

[Alan Burns]

What do you mean, 'reduce'? That is an insult to the wonderful,  amazing physical, evolved species that is the human species. We have not been reduced to being humans with all our associated abilities and emergent properties,. our abilities to imagine, to create and, by doing so, we use, make full use of our natures. Without the ways that evolution has worked, we would not be here in the first place and would have become extinct if we did not use to the full those forces of nature which enable us to act the way we do.
?to dismiss them, rather than praise them to the skies,  as uncontrollable, using that adjective in the most demeaning, unscientific, uninformed way, is, I assert,  a disgrace.

As for calling the intelligent, considered, considerate and factual replies you receive 'silly' is a remark for which you should apologise.
That is another of my strongly held opinions!

That needs a bit more editing, but I'm going to post first, in case I get the 'this post can't be displayed' screen.

You do realise, Susan, that these forces you praise to the skies are totally indifferent to life.  If we had to rely entirely on the random uncontrolled, aimless forces of nature you would end up with nothing more than a chaotic goo, no matter how old or how extensive our universe is.  I do appreciate all the profoundly intelligent attempts which are made to try to explain our existence without God, but feel saddened that these people do not realise who they have to thank for their intelligent abilities.

[Sebastian Toe]

If we had to rely entirely on the random uncontrolled, aimless forces of nature you would end up with

...exactly what we have now.

[Shaker]

You do realise, Susan, that these forces you praise to the skies are totally indifferent to life.

You feel free to cry into your pillow over it - nobody else cares.

If we had to rely entirely on the random uncontrolled, aimless forces of nature you would end up with nothing more than a chaotic goo, no matter how old or how extensive our universe is.

The assertions keep a-rollin'

I do appreciate all the profoundly intelligent attempts which are made to try to explain our existence without God

No you don't, since you demonstrate regularly that you don't even understand them.

but feel saddened that these people do not realise who they have to thank for their intelligent abilities.

Go and be sad with somebody who cares.

[Alan Burns]

Sorry Alan, do you remember that T V series a few years back called 'The Twilight Zone'?

One of my earliest memories was listening to "Journey into Space" on the radio.  I look back on this with fond memories in realising just how much better the spoken word fills your imagination than being spoon-fed with images on a screen.   
 (sorry it is a bit off topic)

[floo]

You do realise, Susan, that these forces you praise to the skies are totally indifferent to life.  If we had to rely entirely on the random uncontrolled, aimless forces of nature you would end up with nothing more than a chaotic goo, no matter how old or how extensive our universe is.  I do appreciate all the profoundly intelligent attempts which are made to try to explain our existence without God, but feel saddened that these people do not realise who they have to thank for their intelligent abilities.

You have no evidence whatsoever to support your statement, it is only wishful thinking on your part. 

[SusanDoris]

You do realise, Susan, that these forces you praise to the skies are totally indifferent to life. 

What do you mean, 'indifferent'? That is an emotion, needing brains, chemicals and nervous systems to be produced.  I think you should get your definitions more precisely stated.

[Alan Burns]

What do you mean, 'indifferent'? That is an emotion, needing brains, chemicals and nervous systems to be produced.  I think you should get your definitions more precisely stated.

I simply mean that they can't possibly have any purpose or aim.

[Shaker]

I simply mean that they can't possibly have any purpose or aim.

Don't tell me we have to hold your hand and walk you through the concept of emergence again, do we?

[SusanDoris]

I simply mean that they can't possibly have any purpose or aim.

And there you are, anthropomorphising again.

[Nearly Sane]

Don't tell me we have to hold your hand and walk you through the concept of emergence again, do we?

But Alan will put up his superheroic Incredulity against your puny Emergence and the cage fight in Alan"s octagon in his head will have Emergence 'emerge' slowly muttering This is what science seems to support' to be body checked and pummelled by Incredulity laughing and saying 'see me choose freely to chastise your wimpy science ass! Weep while i hit you with my begging the question and reification. Bow before the circularness. I am the Anderson Silva of mma fallacy smackdowns'

[torridon]

You do realise, Susan, that these forces you praise to the skies are totally indifferent to life.  If we had to rely entirely on the random uncontrolled, aimless forces of nature you would end up with nothing more than a chaotic goo, no matter how old or how extensive our universe is. 

Out of the sizeable population of baffling Burns ideas, I find this one of the contenders for barmiest of all.  This universe of 'uncontrollable', 'chaotic'. 'indifferent' forces that is inimical to life was created by a god as a venue for life, and ultimately humans.  I mean, why ?  Surely a god with relevant powers would do the complete opposite - he would create a universe that was conducive to life.  Your god seems to be like a builder of bonfires who goes to lengths to drench the wood with water so that is stands virtually no chance of lighting.

[Alan Burns]

Out of the sizeable population of baffling Burns ideas, I find this one of the contenders for barmiest of all.  This universe of 'uncontrollable', 'chaotic'. 'indifferent' forces that is inimical to life was created by a god as a venue for life, and ultimately humans.  I mean, why ?  Surely a god with relevant powers would do the complete opposite - he would create a universe that was conducive to life.  Your god seems to be like a builder of bonfires who goes to lengths to drench the wood with water so that is stands virtually no chance of lighting.

But who are you to say just how easy or difficult it is to build up life from nothing?