Searching for GOD...

[ippy]

I believe God's universe was intended to be consciously understood and manipulated, but these attributes of conscious understanding and manipulation are in themselves beyond human comprehension - because they are not of this inherently deterministic universe.

What would we, what could we do without people like you Alan, I'm awestruck, I also have noticed that you're not a human, I hadn't realised, you, it seems understand these things that are beyond human comprehension, WOW! how do we describe you then? Is it still allright to address you as Alan? 

With all of the sympathy in the world to you Alan, ippy

[Alan Burns]

Just trying to comply with human scientific theory, I wonder if you realise exactly what you're, in effect saying here?

Complying with human scientific theory that could also be described as, complying with a reasoned, evidence based theory, I would say reasoned thoughts trump assertion any time, why is this so difficult for you to understand Alan?

But no matter how reasoned human thoughts can be, they do not trump reality.

=====

There you go again Alan, throwing your rationality to the wind and going to ridiculous illogical lengths to square things with your mind about your unsubstantiated unsupported beliefs.

My beliefs are substantiated by demonstrating my God given free will every time I post on this forum.

[floo]

But no matter how reasoned human thoughts can be, they do not trump reality.

=====My beliefs are substantiated by demonstrating my God given free will every time I post on this forum.

Only in your opinion, AB you really aren't convincing.

[Maeght]

My beliefs are substantiated by demonstrating my God given free will every time I post on this forum.

You keep saying that but how do you know it is a free choice and not a preprogrammed response to other posts?

[ippy]

But no matter how reasoned human thoughts can be, they do not trump reality.

=====My beliefs are substantiated by demonstrating my God given free will every time I post on this forum.

Come on Alan share it with us other lowly shadows of human beings, tell us how this free will you keep banging on about can possibly lend anything to your case, demonstrate to us exactly how your version of reasoning, demonstrates?

We've all had enough of the theobable from you, now how about the actual exact mechanism, with all of the details, of how you've arrived at this rather strange conclusion?

Sorry, if it's beyond human comprehension, I was forgetting, of course it'll only be you that understands?

Warmest and most kindly regards to the non-human that deems to walk among us, Alan.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

You keep saying that but how do you know it is a free choice and not a preprogrammed response to other posts?

I have the freedom to choose whether or not to respond.
I have the freedom to analyse and consider how to respond.
I have the freedom to choose my words.
I have the freedom to guide my own thought processes.
I have the freedom to choose a polite response, or a cynical response.
I have the freedom to sympathise with other viewpoints.
I have the freedom to pray about how to respond.
I have the freedom to type these words.

I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that my response is not entirely pre programmed by past events. (And God gave me the freedom to make this statement)

[floo]

I have the freedom to choose whether or not to respond.
I have the freedom to analyse and consider how to respond.
I have the freedom to choose my words.
I have the freedom to guide my own thought processes.
I have the freedom to choose a polite response, or a cynical response.
I have the freedom to sympathise with other viewpoints.
I have the freedom to pray about how to respond.
I have the freedom to type these words.

I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that my response is not entirely pre programmed by past events. (And God gave me the freedom to make this statement)

Just because you believe something beyond a shadow of a doubt, doesn't mean you are correct.

[Gordon]

I have the freedom to choose whether or not to respond.
I have the freedom to analyse and consider how to respond.
I have the freedom to choose my words.
I have the freedom to guide my own thought processes.
I have the freedom to choose a polite response, or a cynical response.
I have the freedom to sympathise with other viewpoints.
I have the freedom to pray about how to respond.
I have the freedom to type these words.

I know beyond any shadow of a doubt that my response is not entirely pre programmed by past events. (And God gave me the freedom to make this statement)

I can almost see you stamping your feet as you wrote this, and I've no doubt this I'd how it seems to you: but you don't 'know', it just seems that way to you since it fulfills your prior personal need for 'God' which, ironically, determines every post you write.

[SusanDoris]

A superb example of vacuous theobabble: well done you.

for some time now I have been losing respect for AB because of his lack of attempts to respond in any meaningful way to the excellent, well-considered posts by others.   It is in my opinion bad manners to talk at people with fingers firmly in ears the way he appears to.

[Maeght]

I have the freedom to choose whether or not to respond.
I have the freedom to analyse and consider how to respond.
I have the freedom to choose my words.
I have the freedom to guide my own thought processes.
I have the freedom to choose a polite response, or a cynical response.
I have the freedom to sympathise with other viewpoints.
I have the freedom to pray about how to respond.
I have the freedom to type these words.

Not an answer to my question. Have another try.

know beyond any shadow of a doubt that my response is not entirely pre programmed by past events. (And God gave me the freedom to make this statement)

You believe it but don't know it. How can you know your responses are not predetermined by the programming of your brain by previous events? Don't just repeat that you know, try answering how you know.

[Alan Burns]

I can almost see you stamping your feet as you wrote this, and I've no doubt this I'd how it seems to you: but you don't 'know', it just seems that way to you since it fulfills your prior personal need for 'God' which, ironically, determines every post you write.

It is my knowledge of God which drives me to share the wonderful gift of Christian faith.  I was in no way in a "stamping my feet" mode, just trying to emphasise the reality of our God given freedom. But some are trying to convince themselves that this freedom does not exist.  I hope they can eventually discover the truth.

[Maeght]

It is my knowledge of God which drives me to share the wonderful gift of Christian faith.  I was in no way in a "stamping my feet" mode, just trying to emphasise the reality of our God given freedom. But some are trying to convince themselves that this freedom does not exist.  I hope they can eventually discover the truth.

No one is trying to convince themselves of that, don't be so patronising. And how about trying to answer the question I asked?

[Alan Burns]

No one is trying to convince themselves of that, don't be so patronising. And how about trying to answer the question I asked?

I answered it in the best way I could, by illustrating a freedom that a physically deterministic scenario could never possibly achieve.

[ippy]

I answered it in the best way I could, by illustrating a freedom that a physically deterministic scenario could never possibly achieve.

So it's another refusal to answer the question asked, other than with nonsensicle theobable?

Still wishing you all of the very best and kindest of regards out of necessity in your case Alan, ippy

[torridon]

I answered it in the best way I could, by illustrating a freedom that a physically deterministic scenario could never possibly achieve.

I see no reason to suppose that is valid.

In a deterministic scenario, agents will still make optimal choices in any situation. A rabbit will choose the best site for its burrow in given circumstances; a venture capitalist will choose which start up to back with his money.  The notion of freedom, is irrelevant or incoherent.  We weigh up the options and choose what looks like the best option to the best of our abilities.  Neither rabbit nor venture capitalist can be or would want to be 'free' of the relevant considerations when making a choice.

[Maeght]

I answered it in the best way I could, by illustrating a freedom that a physically deterministic scenario could never possibly achieve.

That does not answer the question. If this is the best you can do this shows that you are simply making assertions due to your religious beliefs, a predetermined, programmed response.

[floo]

That does not answer the question. If this is the best you can do this shows that you are simply making assertions due to your religious beliefs, z predetermined, programmed response.

That would appear to be the case.

[ippy]

That would appear to be the case.

Alan's posts sometimes make me wonder who he's trying to convince?

Regards L R, ippy

[Alan Burns]

I see no reason to suppose that is valid.

In a deterministic scenario, agents will still make optimal choices in any situation. A rabbit will choose the best site for its burrow in given circumstances; a venture capitalist will choose which start up to back with his money.  The notion of freedom, is irrelevant or incoherent.  We weigh up the options and choose what looks like the best option to the best of our abilities.  Neither rabbit nor venture capitalist can be or would want to be 'free' of the relevant considerations when making a choice.

If what you say is true, the implication would be that any criminal would have a cast iron alibi for any criminal act because they could say it was just an unavoidable consequence of their sub conscious brain activity over which they have no control.  You could make a fortune as a defence lawyer if you were able to convince a jury of your convictions.

[Nearly Sane]

If what you say is true, the implication would be that any criminal would have a cast iron alibi for any criminal act because they could say it was just an unavoidable consequence of their sub conscious brain activity over which they have no control.  You could make a fortune as a defence lawyer if you were able to convince a jury of your convictions.

This doesn't work as the judgement of society is also fixed. That there might be no such thing as free will is an academic discussion not a practical one. It is also an argumentum ad consequentiam, and if you had made any attempt to understand posts you wouldn't continually pull out the same old fallacies.

[Alan Burns]

This doesn't work as the judgement of society is also fixed. That there might be no such thing as free will is an academic discussion not a practical one.

So under these terms, what is the point of any discussion - academic or otherwise

[Nearly Sane]

So what is the point of any discussion - academic or otherwise

Depends on your perspective. If there is no free will, which is let us remember something you have given no coherent description of, then we will just have the discussions that we will have except when random things might happen.


From an internal perspective then it might not feel like that and the discussions are their own point. They are what we want to do even though we might have no choice over the wants.

BTW - you are just repeating the use of the ad consequentiam fallacy here. It isn't not true because you dislike the outcome.

[wigginhall]

I don't think humans enjoy things because they have free will.   I mean, they don't stop in the middle of reading a novel, or getting plastered, or watching TV, or whatever, and think yeah, I'm doing free will now.   We are more practical and less philosophical than that, surely.  But in any case, 'free' doesn't make sense.

[Alan Burns]

Depends on your perspective. If there is no free will, which is let us remember something you have given no coherent description of, then we will just have the discussions that we will have except when random things might happen.


From an internal perspective then it might not feel like that and the discussions are their own point. They are what we want to do even though we might have no choice over the wants.

BTW - you are just repeating the use of the ad consequentiam fallacy here. It isn't not true because you dislike the outcome.

I suspect it is the materialists who dislike the concept of human free will, because to admit its existence leads on to the first step of discovering that we all have a spiritual nature.  As Sweetpea recently pointed out, many on this thread seem unable to take this first important step in a journey to faith which could lead on to an amazing journey of discovery.

[floo]

I suspect it is the materialists who dislike the concept of human free will, because to admit its existence leads on to the first step of discovering that we all have a spiritual nature.  As Sweetpea recently pointed out, many on this thread seem unable to take this first important step in a journey to faith which could lead on to an amazing journey of discovery.

In order to do that you have to suspend reason and logic!