Searching for GOD...

[floo]

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.

As there is no evidence that god exists, it is reasonable to work on the assumption god is a figment of the imagination, until there is evidence, which verifies its existence beyond any shadow of doubt.

[Gordon]

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.

Utter nonsense, and you should know better by now, Alan: there is simply reasoning, which is something you clearly aren't acquainted with.

Your a priori assumption of 'God' is where you are going wrong.

[Sebastian Toe]

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.

 "Secularism is not an argument against Christianity, it is one independent of it. It does not question the pretensions of Christianity; it advances others. Secularism does not say there is no light or guidance elsewhere, but maintains that there is light and guidance in secular truth, whose conditions and sanctions exist independently, and act forever. Secular knowledge is manifestly that kind of knowledge which is founded in this life, which relates to the conduct of this life, conduces to the welfare of this life, and is capable of being tested by the experience of this life."

George Jacob Holyoake

[Stranger]

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.

You can say it but you'd be totally wrong.

Logic, by itself and without any assumption about the existence of any god or any assumption about whether consciousness is physical or not, leads to the conclusion that everything we do is unavoidably predetermined by past events (unless there is some random element).

This has been explained to you multiple times (most recently in #25045 and #25048) and you have totally failed to address the point.

[Alan Burns]

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.

You are thinking in a materialistic way which inevitably leads to your conclusion that everything must be pre determined by past events.

You do not seem to appreciate just what conscious awareness comprises and what it can do.  Granted it can only initiate one thing at a a time, and at that point in time it will be what it wants to do.  But our conscious awareness allows us to consider several options before making a final choice.  The act of being able to consciously consider the options allows us the freedom to choose.  There is a two way communication between conscious awareness and our physical brain cells.  Our conscious awareness perceives the information contained in our brain cells and it then initiates a conscious action by stimulating the required brain cells.   

[Alan Burns]

You can say it but you'd be totally wrong.

Logic, by itself and without any assumption about the existence of any god or any assumption about whether consciousness is physical or not, leads to the conclusion that everything we do is unavoidably predetermined by past events (unless there is some random element).

This has been explained to you multiple times (most recently in #25045 and #25048) and you have totally failed to address the point.

But this supposed logic does not explain how I can consciously choose to refute it.  So I can't possibly accept it as an explanation because it fails to explain the reality of my freedom to choose.

[Gordon]

You are thinking in a materialistic way which inevitably leads to your conclusion that everything must be pre determined by past events.

That is what the evidence to date implies.

You do not seem to appreciate just what conscious awareness comprises and what it can do.  Granted it can only initiate one thing at a a time, and at that point in time it will be what it wants to do.  But our conscious awareness allows us to consider several options before making a final choice.  The act of being able to consciously consider the options allows us the freedom to choose.  There is a two way communication between conscious awareness and our physical brain cells.  Our conscious awareness perceives the information contained in our brain cells and it then initiates a conscious action by stimulating the required brain cells.

It is just biology doing what it does, Alan. You might not like it, but that is your problem.

[Shaker]

I can say the same about secular reasoning

You can say it but you'd be wrong as usual.

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.

Occam's Razor isn't a male grooming product.

[Alan Burns]

That is what the evidence to date implies.

It is just biology doing what it does, Alan. You might not like it, but that is your problem.

It requires more than biological activity alone to explain the reality of human freedom to make a conscious choice.

[floo]

AB have you ever asked yourself, if god exists why does it play a game of hide and seek with humans instead of being in plain sight?

[Gordon]

But this supposed logic does not explain how I can consciously choose to refute it.  So I can't possibly accept it as an explanation because it fails to explain my freedom to choose.

For crying out loud Alan: what bit of 'that is what your brain does naturally' are you not getting?

That you feel you are choosing is just how it feels to you, and for practical purposes it is sufficient for you to feel your are navigating your way through life making choices.

[floo]

AB's posts could be injurious to those posters with high blood pressure!

[Stranger]

But this supposed logic does not explain how I can consciously choose to refute it.

Firstly, yes it does: you consciously chose to refute it because of past events - all the things that made you the person you are and the specifics of my message and how all that experience reacted to it.

Secondly, you haven't addressed the logic at all. If you think there is a flaw in it, what is it?

[Gordon]

It requires more than biological activity alone to explain the reality of human freedom to make a conscious choice.

Don't be silly: I've just chosen what words to type in this reply and will review them before I click post, where my choice is entirely an outcome of my biology operating normally and I'm influenced by my assessment of what you have said in the post I'm replying too and my recollection and assessment of all the various points made by all those involved in this thread.

No spiritual anything - just biology.   

[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....

...at all?

[Stranger]

You are thinking in a materialistic way which inevitably leads to your conclusion that everything must be pre determined by past events.

Unmitigated drivel. There is nothing in the post you are responding to that depends on minds being physical.

You do not seem to appreciate just what conscious awareness comprises and what it can do.

Well explain what it comprises and how it works, then; instead of endlessly asserting it can achieve the logically impossible.

Granted it can only initiate one thing at a a time, and at that point in time it will be what it wants to do.  But our conscious awareness allows us to consider several options before making a final choice.  The act of being able to consciously consider the options allows us the freedom to choose.

Nothing in that is incompatible with a deterministic system that's responses are entirely determined by past events. It is exactly what a good decision making algorithm would do.

[Alan Burns]

For crying out loud Alan: what bit of 'that is what your brain does naturally' are you not getting?

That you feel you are choosing is just how it feels to you, and for practical purposes it is sufficient for you to feel your are navigating your way through life making choices.

But I do not just feel that I am making a conscious choice.  I am demonstrably making conscious choices.  It is what God intended, so we can freely choose to accept Him as our saviour.

[Alan Burns]

Unmitigated drivel. There is nothing in the post you are responding to that depends on minds being physical.

Well explain what it comprises and how it works, then; instead of endlessly asserting it can achieve the logically impossible.

Nothing in that is incompatible with a deterministic system that's responses are entirely determined by past events. It is exactly what a good decision making algorithm would do.

Every decision making algorithm I know of was generated from the conscious awareness of human beings exercising their freedom to think and create.

[Sebastian Toe]

But I do not just feel that I am making a conscious choice.  I am demonstrably making conscious choices.  It is what God intended, so we can freely choose to accept Him as our saviour.

How would you go about choosing him if you had not heard of him in the past?

[Gordon]

But I do not just feel that I am making a conscious choice.  I am demonstrably making conscious choices.

It just feels like that, Alan.

It is what God intended, so we can freely choose to accept Him as our saviour.

This is just meaningless theobabble.

[Stranger]

But I do not just feel that I am making a conscious choice.  I am demonstrably making conscious choices.

That logically must be predetermined or involve a random element.

There is nothing you can do that will demonstrate otherwise - there cannot be any evidence to settle the matter, we have to rely on logic.

Every decision making algorithm I know of was generated from the conscious awareness of human beings exercising their freedom to think and create.

Did you forget about non-human animals? We have overwhelming evidence that good decision making algorithms have evolved - and all the evidence is that humans are just more sophisticated (in that respect) than other animals.

[Gordon]

Every decision making algorithm I know of was generated from the conscious awareness of human beings exercising their freedom to think and create.

Which is an argument from ignorance: yours, along with your usual added dash of personal incredulity, and of course since we aren't the only animals who can make decisions then we aren't unique: at best we have biological equipment which has evolved to give us intellectual advantages compared with other species - yet we can't fly or breathe underwater!

Who are you trying to convince here, Alan? It must be obvious to you by now that the only people who will give your bizarre ideas house-room are those who have already decided 'God', and even then I'm not sure that all your fellow Christians buy into your take on souls and consciousness.

[Alan Burns]

That logically must be predetermined or involve a random element.

There is nothing you can do that will demonstrate otherwise - there cannot be any evidence to settle the matter, we have to rely on logic.

Did you forget about non-human animals? We have overwhelming evidence that good decision making algorithms have evolved - and all the evidence is that humans are just more sophisticated (in that respect) than other animals.

I am not sure that you can identify the instinctive reactions of animals to be driven by decision making algorithms, but I am not an expert in this field - my own experience of decision making algorithms is entirely computer based which reflects the words I posted.

[Sebastian Toe]

I am not sure that you can identify the instinctive reactions of animals to be driven by decision making algorithms,

'Instinctive' wasn't mentioned, but you added it anyway!

[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.

Fascinating stuff Alan.
Does this mean that you can predict where Heaven is?

To progress your logic 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 clues as to what you are proposing?

Any at all?