Searching for GOD...

[SusanDoris]

Tommy Cooper was funny, though. AB is not.

[wigginhall]

Tommy Cooper was funny, though. AB is not.

Do you know his gag, when he would give a taxi-driver an envelope, and say, 'have a drink on me', and it would have a tea-bag in it?   There are similarities, but yes, Alan is only unconsciously comical, or is that subconsciously?

[Gordon]

But I just demonstrated that I have the conscious will to compose this post and send it, and
I had the freedom to choose my own words. 

I do not need to explain how it works - I can demonstrate that it works.

Well you would say that: wouldn't you!

[wigginhall]

It reminds me of a New Age plonk demonstrating that he can travel on the astral plane, look, I'm doing it now!

[SusanDoris]

Do you know his gag, when he would give a taxi-driver an envelope, and say, 'have a drink on me', and it would have a tea-bag in it?   There are similarities, but yes, Alan is only unconsciously comical, or is that subconsciously?

Actually, I think it is very sad that an adult, ;in the second half of his life, can still live in the  cloud-cuckoo land AB inhabits. More worryingly are the large numbers of people with similar evangelistic views.

[torridon]

Whatever the basis - it remains a choice, not an uncontrolled reaction.

No it's not a choice if there is no basis upon which the choice is made. 

This is a profoundly simple piece of logic which identifies the paradox at the heart of your ideas.  What you present is not a mystery, it is wrong, plain wrong, and you've spent over two years obfuscating around the issue rather than facing up to the truth of the matter.  That's got to be some sort of record, and not one I would be proud of.

[wigginhall]

Actually, I think it is very sad that an adult, ;in the second half of his life, can still live in the  cloud-cuckoo land AB inhabits. More worryingly are the large numbers of people with similar evangelistic views.

I thought that in the UK, Christians like Alan are quite rare, but this is purely anecdotal, in the sense that I haven't met many with such antiquated views.  In the US, well, a lot more!

[BeRational]

The basis is my God given freedom to invoke a conscious choice.

This is not a fact, but something you have to demonstrate.

For example, the default position is that there is no god, until you can demonstrate that there is, so you cannot use god in any answer, just as I cannot use Pixies.

[ekim]

But that is not what the question us about, it is whether choices are pre determined, random or something else..

Ah, well that's easy from a Christian perspective.  There is no such source as 'random'.  All choices are predetermined.  They are either driven by self centred desires or by God's Will, including what Alan claims to be 'God given'.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is not a fact, but something you have to demonstrate.
 the default position is that there is no god,

the default position is that there is no god=Philosophical naturalism=unevidenced

[Nearly Sane]

the default position is that there is no god=Philosophical naturalism=unevidenced

No, this isn't about naturalism. It's about logic.

[Enki]

Perhaps he means a choice between desires e.g. between the desire for revenge and the desire to exhibit forgiveness.  The former is impulsive and the latter arises from inner stillness.

Not necessarily true, Ekim. The desire for revenge doesn't have to be one that is impulsive(indeed, it can be quite reflective), just as the desire for forgiveness doesn't have to be one that arises from some sort of inner stillness, as you put it. It is quite feasible, for instance, that a desire to forgive can be as impulsive as the opposite. It would depend upon many things, not least the particular situation and the general character of the person involved.

However I don't really think that AB's emphasis on how we choose has much to do with either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, this isn't about naturalism. It's about logic.

If you are saying the default position = there is no God
and the statement ''There is no God'' = Philosophical naturalism
then philosophical naturalism = unevidenced.

Secondly ''There is no God'' is a positive assertion and has a burden of proof and as far as we know is unevidenced as yet.

There's no avoiding it i'm afraid...........try to if you like.

[Alan Burns]

Alan says, 'I do not have to explain how it works', well, yes, probably because he can't.   Then all the stuff about 'I have demonstrated it' is a palpable fraud.   He is pulling a fast one, but I suppose this is how some theists operate.   Again, Tommy Cooper comes to mind.

You accuse me of deliberately pulling a fast one.

If I am guilty, it shows that I have the freedom to wilfully pull a fast one, thus demonstrating my freedom to consciously choose to do so.

And of course, everyone on this forum has the freedom to "pull a fast one" if they so wish - because God alone has the power to give us this freedom.  Nature is incapable of it because there can be no power to choose in a fully deterministic world.

[floo]

You accuse me of deliberately pulling a fast one.

If I am guilty, it shows that I have the freedom to wilfully pull a fast one, thus demonstrating my freedom to consciously choose to do so.

And of course, everyone on this forum has the freedom to "pull a fast one" if they so wish - because God alone has the power to give us this freedom.  Nature is incapable of it because there can be no power to choose in a fully deterministic world.

In your opinion.

[ekim]

Not necessarily true, Ekim. The desire for revenge doesn't have to be one that is impulsive(indeed, it can be quite reflective), just as the desire for forgiveness doesn't have to be one that arises from some sort of inner stillness, as you put it. It is quite feasible, for instance, that a desire to forgive can be as impulsive as the opposite. It would depend upon many things, not least the particular situation and the general character of the person involved.

However I don't really think that AB's emphasis on how we choose has much to do with either.

That may be so, but I was just giving an example rather than a categorical statement about the degree of impulse associated with those particular desires.  I'm not sure how many sorts of inner stillness there are, but I've only come across one.  I'm not sure what AB's emphasis is but was hoping that my comment would elicit a yes or no from him.

[Nearly Sane]

If you are saying the default position = there is no God
and the statement ''There is no God'' = Philosophical naturalism
then philosophical naturalism = unevidenced.

Secondly ''There is no God'' is a positive assertion and has a burden of proof and as far as we know is unevidenced as yet.

There's no avoiding it i'm afraid...........try to if you like.

There is no assumption that there is any specific thing without evidence for it. The statement is not that there is no god but if there is no evidence then the default is not to assume existence. That isn't a statement that it does not exist. You have had thus covered many times. So stop misrepresenting people.

[Nearly Sane]

You accuse me of deliberately pulling a fast one.

If I am guilty, it shows that I have the freedom to wilfully pull a fast one, thus demonstrating my freedom to consciously choose to do so.

And of course, everyone on this forum has the freedom to "pull a fast one" if they so wish - because God alone has the power to give us this freedom.  Nature is incapable of it because there can be no power to choose in a fully deterministic world.

Another post which shows your inability to understand basics. That there are posts that refer to us as if we have free will is simply a factor of normal discourse , it doesn't work as evidence in the philosophical claim.

[Gordon]

If you are saying the default position = there is no God
and the statement ''There is no God'' = Philosophical naturalism
then philosophical naturalism = unevidenced.

Secondly ''There is no God'' is a positive assertion and has a burden of proof and as far as we know is unevidenced as yet.

There's no avoiding it i'm afraid...........try to if you like.

Who here has specifically asserted 'There is no god'?

[Maeght]

Ah, well that's easy from a Christian perspective.  There is no such source as 'random'.  All choices are predetermined.  They are either driven by self centred desires or by God's Will, including what Alan claims to be 'God given'.

But Alan agrues that we can freely make choices such as to believe in God. He has said our choices are not predetermined.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Who here has specifically asserted 'There is no god'?

Who has specifically asserted that ''there is no God'' has been specifically asserted?

[Enki]

You accuse me of deliberately pulling a fast one.

If I am guilty, it shows that I have the freedom to wilfully pull a fast one, thus demonstrating my freedom to consciously choose to do so.

And of course, everyone on this forum has the freedom to "pull a fast one" if they so wish - because God alone has the power to give us this freedom.  Nature is incapable of it because there can be no power to choose in a fully deterministic world.

You seem to think that we have a special thing which you call a 'soul' which is somehow equivalent to our consciousness and which can make all sorts of free choices, although how this 'soul' interacts withe the mind/brain in order to make its choices known is never explained and on what basis it makes its choices is never clear at all. My own explanation of what you are always trying to say is that your idea of a 'choice' is very different from my own. Hence, when you try to demonstrate your idea of 'conscious will' by simply referring to a post you(or someone else) has written, to my mind you are demonstrating only that at that particular time your mind/brain wanted to compose that particular post. If we could recreate that particular moment in time, with everything as was, then I see no reason why you would not again write the particular post exactly as before. With this in mind, my idea of the word 'choice' in this context becomes very different to your idea of 'choice'. For me, choice is the inevitable result of interaction between different parts of the mind/brain together with information gathered from without the mind/brain and the ability to perform the action. As we cannot recreate that particular moment in time, I cannot demonstrate this, but neither can you demonstrate that any particular post is any sort of proof for suggesting that you have free will in the sense that you mean.

So, my take on it is to say, "yes, you have the freedom to 'pull a fast one'", but that freedom is the result of, as you say, a wish to do so. How that wish comes about is where we differ considerably. The introduction of God, although meaningful for you, is entirely superfluous to the argument.

[wigginhall]

Alan is using the word 'demonstrate' in a ridiculous way.   It's like a child saying, look I'm a dragon, yes, just in his head.   It's an anecdote, which Alan is dressing up, but then there are many anecdotes - e.g. I could say, I'm not aware of free will.  How do we distinguish between anecdotes?

[Alan Burns]

No it's not a choice if there is no basis upon which the choice is made. 

This is a profoundly simple piece of logic which identifies the paradox at the heart of your ideas.  What you present is not a mystery, it is wrong, plain wrong, and you've spent over two years obfuscating around the issue rather than facing up to the truth of the matter.  That's got to be some sort of record, and not one I would be proud of.

And would you deny that I have the freedom to wilfully obfuscate?

[Gordon]

Who has specifically asserted that ''there is no God'' has been specifically asserted?

Well you earlier on, in the post of yours I quoted, clearly associated 'there is no god' with a position of philosophical naturalism, so I was just wondering who here is a philosophical naturalist who might assert 'there is no god': presumably you must have someone in mind, else why would you mention it in the first place?