Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

I do not understand what Dark Energy is, but it cannot be pushing against the effects of gravity.

I do not understand string theory, but there cannot be more than the 3 spacial dimensions, that I perceive.

Do you see the problem with the above statements.

Both, should have stopped after I do not understand X

I do not have intimate knowledge of string theory, dark energy or spatial properties.  But I do have intimate knowledge of what I can do with my consciously driven willpower.  My ability to consciously control my own thoughts words and actions is my reality, and no amount of convoluted argument can change this.

[Alan Burns]

You often use the word 'reaction' when referring to past events, Alan. You only seem to use the word 'interaction' when you refer to this soul idea of yours. I would suggest that interaction is a far more accurate word when trying to explain what goes on in our minds. Hence, one past event could well be a thought that you may have had a moment ago. However that thought may well interact with a present thought, leading you to produce sentences on this message board. The message that you then produce becomes part of the interaction that goes on in your mind, leading to further thoughts and ideas. This seems to be a nuanced and complex operation of the mind which is best summed up by the word interaction rather than your rather simplistic idea of reaction only. In science the word 'interaction' applies to two or more objects having an effect upon one another, and, I suggest, the subtleties of the mind show considerable and constant interaction. In this way, all of your utterances may well have at least a part provenance which relies on interactions within your mind, and for which no soul is needed.

Any physically driven interaction is just a series of inevitable, uncontrollable reactions.   What I perceive about human behaviour is that there is consciously driven interaction with the physical world.

[Shaker]

I do not have intimate knowledge of string theory, dark energy or spatial properties.

But that won't stop you pontificating on them.

[Alan Burns]

Consider what your volition is though.  It's not some magic substance. It is something that is derived, not fundamental, and it derives from something prior.  if you wanted something for no reason whatsoever then it would be random.  To be meaningful, volition, willpower, desire, are formed from prior events that contribute to your will in the present moment. What we want, at any moment, is not under our control; if you think it is, just try wanting something you don't want. Willpower is not some primary force of nature, it is a derivative phenomenon of mind.

All I can say is that your perception of reality must be different to mine.  I can consciously control what I want to do at any moment in time.

[Alan Burns]

But Alan seems to want something for no reason!

No.  My wants are controlled by my conscious awareness - not by uncontrollable physically driven reactions.

[Shaker]

All I can say is that your perception of reality must be different to mine.

Whither the free will you bore endlessly on about?

[Alan Burns]

Perhaps you were in a hurry, Alan, or maybe you enjoy taking risks - or whatever: but there will be a prior whatever unless you make driving decisions randomly.

If my driving decisions were random I would not last long, so please do not keep asserting that random is the only alternative to physically driven determinism.  A spiritually driven choice is the only alternative to fully automated reaction.

[floo]

If my driving decisions were random I would not last long, so please do not keep asserting that random is the only alternative to physically driven determinism.  A spiritually driven choice is the only alternative to fully automated reaction.

In your opinion.

[Gordon]

If my driving decisions were random I would not last long, so please do not keep asserting that random is the only alternative to physically driven determinism.

Which it is - and your 'physically driven' caveat is redundancy: determinism is the only alternative to randomness whether you like it or not.

A spiritually driven choice is the only alternative to fully automated reaction.

I see you're reduced to making stuff up again.

[Stranger]

If my driving decisions were random I would not last long, so please do not keep asserting that random is the only alternative to physically driven determinism.  A spiritually driven choice is the only alternative to fully automated reaction.

Given that it's been explained to you several times and you have failed to come up with a counterargument, unless you can explain what difference adding "physical" to "determinism" makes, in exact and precise terms, further use of the of the qualification is blatant dishonesty on your part.

The phrase "spiritually driven choice" has no meaning at all unless you can explain how it works (which you've already conceded that you can't). You might as well say mojyoxpifnuk is the only alternative.

If some event (choice) is not fully determined by the reasons why it happened, then the there are no reasons left to decide between the possible outcomes, and something that happens for no reason is random.

That is simple, plain logic, why are you ignoring it and pretending that nonsense phrases offer a third option?

[Enki]

Any physically driven interaction is just a series of inevitable, uncontrollable reactions.   What I perceive about human behaviour is that there is consciously driven interaction with the physical world.

Unless your consciousness was a result of interactions within the brain state(e.g. the synchronization of nerve firing by the brain's EM field), then, of course, it would be interaction with the physical world because consciousness would be part of it.

[Alan Burns]

Given that it's been explained to you several times and you have failed to come up with a counterargument, unless you can explain what difference adding "physical" to "determinism" makes, in exact and precise terms, further use of the of the qualification is blatant dishonesty on your part.

The phrase "spiritually driven choice" has no meaning at all unless you can explain how it works (which you've already conceded that you can't). You might as well say mojyoxpifnuk is the only alternative.

If some event (choice) is not fully determined by the reasons why it happened, then the there are no reasons left to decide between the possible outcomes, and something that happens for no reason is random.

That is simple, plain logic, why are you ignoring it and pretending that nonsense phrases offer a third option?

Your post aptly demonstrates a deliberate attempt to counter my arguments.  Where do you suppose your own arguments originate?  What drives the well thought out logic of your arguments?  Are you responsible for them?  Or is it just a natural deterministic material reaction occurring in your brain cells? Do you have any form of control over these reactions?  And if so, what drives the control?  What determines you?

[torridon]

Your post aptly demonstrates a deliberate attempt to counter my arguments.  Where do you suppose your own arguments originate?  What drives the well thought out logic of your arguments?  ....

The past.

Arguments do not appear out of thin air, we form them in reaction to something.

Action and Reaction

Cause and Effect.

Simple, but profound principles that underpin everything.

[torridon]

All I can say is that your perception of reality must be different to mine.  I can consciously control what I want to do at any moment in time.

I don't believe you.

Can you want to have a homosexual affair, if you don't want to ?

We cannot control what we want. We simply try to get what we want.

[ippy]

Your post aptly demonstrates a deliberate attempt to counter my arguments.  Where do you suppose your own arguments originate?  What drives the well thought out logic of your arguments?  Are you responsible for them?  Or is it just a natural deterministic material reaction occurring in your brain cells? Do you have any form of control over these reactions?  And if so, what drives the control?  What determines you?

You're a very good example of successfull indoctrination, I note like a good little indoctrinee you're passing the compliment on to the next generation just as you've been indoctrinated to do so, in just the same way as you've been indoctrinated into your other strange ideas.

Necessarily the very kindest of regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

I don't believe you.

Can you want to have a homosexual affair, if you don't want to ?

We cannot control what we want. We simply try to get what we want.

Really

Of course I can't control my sexual orientation, but at any moment in time, I have the option of choosing what I want to do.  There may be many things I want to do, but I have the choice, and my choice will not the pre determined uncontrollable reactions to past events.  My conscious awareness has the power to consider the options, then make a choice.  This is reality.

[Alan Burns]

The past.

Arguments do not appear out of thin air, we form them in reaction to something.

Action and Reaction

Cause and Effect.

Simple, but profound principles that underpin everything.

So you claim that a well thought out argument is just an inevitable reaction.
Sorry, but well thought out arguments are just what they are - well thought out by your freedom to guide your own thoughts - not uncontrollable reaction.

[Gordon]

Really

Of course I can't control my sexual orientation, but at any moment in time, I have the option of choosing what I want to do.  There may be many things I want to do, but I have the choice, and my choice will not the pre determined uncontrollable reactions to past events.  My conscious awareness has the power to consider the options, then make a choice.  This is reality.

So you brain works reasonably well just like for most people - so what?

[Gordon]

So you claim that a well thought out argument is just an inevitable reaction.

But it is a considered reaction using the bits of your biology that allows you to do the considering, and of course how you go about this involves all the various factors that influence (such as previous experiences and personal preferences) your thinking and how capable your particular biological equipment is at thinking - which means your considerations might well be flawed, as you continue to demonstrate.

Sorry, but well thought out arguments are just what they are - well thought out by your freedom to guide your own thoughts - not  via uncontrollable reaction.

It is just routine thinking, Alan, where some people are better at it than others.

Your problem is that you start by assuming 'God' and then set about contriving a basis to insert this God into how you think things should be. You are, amongst all the various fallacies you use, seemingly caught in a cycle of perpetual begging the question by assuming your preferred conclusion of 'God' in every premise you advance, to the extent that you lack insight into your own flawed reasoning.

     


 

[Sebastian Toe]

So we have;
The physical universe in which our bodies reside.
The 'spiritual state' which is not part of our universe but is part of the 'eternal state' - in which our souls reside.
Our souls communicate with our brains ( somehow) and make decisions (somehow).

Is that correct - so far?

Yes
It is the only way I can make sense of the reality of my existence.

Taking this further.
Currently if your body is not in Heaven and your soul is not yet in Heaven either. Then logically it follows that Heaven cannot be in this Universe.
So is it maybe part of the 'Eternal state' in which your soul resides, just not actually near your soul
(Additional query - can there even be a 'near' in that place anyway?)
 - or is it somwhere else, away from and not part of the 'Eternal state'?
Do you have any idea?

[torridon]

Really

Of course I can't control my sexual orientation, but at any moment in time, I have the option of choosing what I want to do....

and if you are choosing from a range of options, the one you end up choosing is your preference, at that moment in time, by defacto definition. We cannot choose what our preference should be, because that implies an infinite regress of choice wherein we choose what to prefer based on some prior judgment of what to prefer, which judgement itself must therefore be based on some prior judgment of what to prefer which judgement itself must therefore be based on some prior judgment of what to prefer ... ad infinitum

It doesn't work like that, it couldn't work like that, and if human choice operated on such a basis then free will would be a curse leading to our early extinction.  When we think through which option to choose we are engaging in a deterministic algorithm to yield a result and the buck stops with whatever our preference is, and our preferences in the present moment are something have have no 'control' over as they are formed in the past; they are an outcome of prior experience and we cannot change the past.

[torridon]

So you claim that a well thought out argument is just an inevitable reaction.
Sorry, but well thought out arguments are just what they are - well thought out by your freedom to guide your own thoughts - not uncontrollable reaction.

and how exactly do you 'guide' your thoughts other than by thinking what you want to think, and can you control what to want ? How can we change what we want to want other than by wanting to do it ?  This is not just impossible, it is incoherent in concept

[Stranger]

Your post aptly demonstrates a deliberate attempt to counter my arguments.

And you have made no attempt to address my points - are you afraid?

Where do you suppose your own arguments originate?  What drives the well thought out logic of your arguments?  Are you responsible for them?  Or is it just a natural deterministic material reaction occurring in your brain cells?

[dishonest drivel removed]

Why keep mindlessly repeating the same 'argument' that has been addressed multiple times before? How many more times do I need to answer this point before you acknowledge the answer and address that, rather than just repeating the same nonsense?

I am responsible for my arguments and they are a (very probably) deterministic 'reaction' of my brain.

There is no contradiction - it's a false dichotomy (another logical fallacy to add to your collection).

What determines you?

That's a question you need to answer. What determines what your 'conscious will', non-material, magic soul thingy decides to do?

[Stranger]

Your post aptly demonstrates a deliberate attempt to counter my arguments. ...  What drives the well thought out logic of your arguments?

I've addressed your points. How about the basic courtesy of addressing mine?

Let's start with the fact that you have offered no alternative to deterministic decision making for your soul. You keep treating it as if its internal workings are unimportant or just posting meaningless phrases ("spiritually driven choice", for example).

As I said before, if some event (choice) is not fully determined by the reasons why it happened, then the there are no reasons left to decide between the possible outcomes, and something that happens for no reason is random.

That is simple, plain logic, that does not depend on the process being physical; that therefore has to apply to the internal deliberations of your proposed non-material soul as much as it does to a physical brain.

See also torridon's post #25045.

[Alan Burns]

Your problem is that you start by assuming 'God' and then set about contriving a basis to insert this God into how you think things should be. You are, amongst all the various fallacies you use, seemingly caught in a cycle of perpetual begging the question by assuming your preferred conclusion of 'God' in every premise you advance, to the extent that you lack insight into your own flawed reasoning.
   

I can say the same about secular reasoning which starts with the premiss that there is no God and everything must be explained in terms of observable material properties, which leads to the false conclusion that free will is an illusion and everything we do is unavoidably pre determined by past events.