Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

I have no problem with animals being driven by their physically determined reactions to previous events, dictated by their programmed instincts and learnt experiences.


The point is that it totally undermines your red text dismissal of my question. Clearly you think at least some of the steps can be done without the magic non-material bit.

My question is which part of it can't, in principle, happen in a deterministic way?

All my red text points were directed at the power of your own conscious will to interactively drive your own thoughts and actions and not just allow the uncontrollable chains of physical cause and effect to dictate your thoughts and actions.

[torridon]

It's a story Torridon, therefore we have to allow it not to cover the complete Gamut of human existence.
In it God is portrayed as the universal corrector of human evil.

Agree it's a story, a moral fable, and part of that instructive moral is to indicate that indiscriminate punishment is OK.  A bit like Saddam Hussein blowing away entire villages because some bad guys lived there.  I'd go with Marcion, that Old Testament stuff portrays a god of hate, better for you if it could be quietly buried.

[torridon]

All my red text points were directed at the power of your own conscious will to interactively drive your own thoughts and actions and not just allow the uncontrollable chains of physical cause and effect to dictate your thoughts and actions.

We can't really drive our thoughts though.  Thoughts happen.  Can you think which thought to think next without thinking about it ?

[floo]

You do not seem to understand the power of your own God given freedom to wilfully interact with this world and not just ride on the waves of entirely pre determined reactions to physical events.  The evidence is there in your own ability to wilfully respond to my posts.

AB you keep making these statements as if they were a fact, but they are only a mere belief. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you have an alternative, and, as Stranger pointed out AB openly admits he doesn't, care to share?

Well I have talked about precedence and equivalence. The decision for or against personal commitment to God is both unprecedented(what material influence could possibly help you out in that decision and is without equivalence (given that there is consequential mediocrity with all other choices).

[Alan Burns]

But how does will happen, if not determined or random, is the question.

I just know that the evidence in all the posts on this thread show that our thoughts are not just pre determined automated reactions, but wilfully thought out responses.  I do not understand how our spiritual interaction works - no one does, but the evidence for it is truly overwhelming.

[torridon]

You do not seem to understand the power of your own God given freedom to wilfully interact with this world and not just ride on the waves of entirely pre determined reactions to physical events.  The evidence is there in your own ability to wilfully respond to my posts.

And you seem to have forgotten that we cannot choose what to want, we merely act upon what we want.  Try wanting something you don't want, and see how you get on.  All those 'wilful interactions' are always a consequence of something prior that has led to a desire for interaction.

[Nearly Sane]

I just know that the evidence in all the posts on this thread show that our thoughts are not just pre determined automated reactions, but wilfully thought out responses.  I do not understand how our spiritual interaction works - no one does, but the evidence for it is truly overwhelming.

If you cannot even formulate the idea in a logical fashion as you have just admitted, saying you believe in it and there is evidence for it is just noise.

[Nearly Sane]

Well I have talked about precedence and equivalence. The decision for or against personal commitment to God is both unprecedented(what material influence could possibly help you out in that decision and is without equivalence (given that there is consequential mediocrity with all other choices).

Both a non sequitur and gibberish. Well done.

[floo]

I just know that the evidence in all the posts on this thread show that our thoughts are not just pre determined automated reactions, but wilfully thought out responses.  I do not understand how our spiritual interaction works - no one does, but the evidence for it is truly overwhelming.

NO IT ISN'T, if it was the rest of us would see it too, not just you.

[Alan Burns]

And you seem to have forgotten that we cannot choose what to want, we merely act upon what we want.  Try wanting something you don't want, and see how you get on.  All those 'wilful interactions' are always a consequence of something prior that has led to a desire for interaction.

Of course I can choose what I want to do.
I want to respond to your post and tell you that you are wrong because I can choose what I want to do.
And I have done it.
QED

[floo]

Of course I can choose what I want to do.
I want to respond to your post and tell you that you are wrong because I can choose what I want to do.
And I have done it.
QED

How can you say someone is wrong when you cannot produce the evidence to support your belief?

[Alan Burns]

NO IT ISN'T, if it was the rest of us would see it too, not just you.

You have just aptly demonstrated that you have the conscious will to respond to my post and deny that this action is evidence of your power to wilfully interact!   

[torridon]

Of course I can choose what I want to do.
I want to respond to your post and tell you that you are wrong because I can choose what I want to do.
And I have done it.
QED

I think you are just not engaging with ideas, just skimming above the surface.

You responded to the previous post because you wanted to.  Easy peasey lemon squeezy. Now try wanting something that you don't want.  It cannot be done.

[Alan Burns]

I think you are just not engaging with ideas, just skimming above the surface.

You responded to the previous post because you wanted to.  Easy peasey lemon squeezy. Now try wanting something that you don't want.  It cannot be done.

But what drives our wants?
And what drives our choices as to how and when and if to act upon what we want?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Both a non sequitur and gibberish. Well done.

I disagree. What possible reference could there be with anything else other than god for making the decision for relationship with or against God? You are the one arguing that decisions are determined or random.
I'm not saying most decisions are contingent. But what is this decision contingent on?

[torridon]

But what drives our wants?
And what drives our choices as to how and when and if to act upon what we want?

Our wants are derived from something prior.  Cause and effect in operation.  If you ever formed a desire for something for absolutely no reason whatsoever, then it would be random, by definition.

[Nearly Sane]

I disagree. What possible reference could there be with anything else other than god for making the decision for relationship with or against God? You are the one arguing that decisions are determined or random.
I'm not saying most decisions are contingent. But what is this decision contingent on?

Mostly gibberish, and just to make up for the gap in your life caused by bluehillside's absence, insert leprechaun for god in your post to see why it's nonsense.

[Alan Burns]

Our wants are derived from something prior.  Cause and effect in operation.  If you ever formed a desire for something for absolutely no reason whatsoever, then it would be random, by definition.

NOT RANDOM BUT SPIRITUALLY DETERMINED

[Shaker]

Uh oh. It'll be scrolling twaddle next.

[Nearly Sane]

NOT RANDOM BUT SPIRITUALLY DETERMINED

so removing the extraneous and undefined word, 'Not random but determined'

[Stranger]

You do not seem to understand the power of your own God given freedom to wilfully interact with this world and not just ride on the waves of entirely pre determined reactions to physical events.

You ignored my point. The determinism - random choice has NOTHING to do with it being physical.

The evidence is there in your own ability to wilfully respond to my posts.

This is a particularly silly mantra. The point about evidence is that it distinguishes between hypotheses. Both your magic-soul and an ultimately deterministic entity would be wilfully responding.

[Stranger]

NOT RANDOM BUT SPIRITUALLY DETERMINED

FIFY

It's either random or determined - the word "spiritually" is meaningless.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Mostly gibberish, and just to make up for the gap in your life caused by bluehillside's absence, insert leprechaun for god in your post to see why it's nonsense.

There is plenty more antiVlad gobshittism around even without it's leading exponent........Know what I'm saying?

It isn't gibberish at all. What I am asking is what determines a) the choice of a relationship with God or against him. And does whatever it is fall within the classic definitions of determinism or any understanding of randomness?

If you haven't worked this out than the determinist schtick is not worked out is it?

[Stranger]

All my red text points were directed at the power of your own conscious will to interactively drive your own thoughts and actions and not just allow the uncontrollable chains of physical cause and effect to dictate your thoughts and actions.

You still haven't answered my question. What part of the sequence of events would, in principle, be impossible for a deterministic system.