Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Our freedom to choose is a God given gift, the nature of which is beyond our understanding - but that does not prevent us from using this gift.

Rather, it is your contrived arbitrary conceptualisation of free will that is beyond understanding.  That is clearly because it makes no sense.

[SusanDoris]

Seems to me that not only are AB's post devoid of any rational and debatable content, but also that he is more and more demonstrating a very selfish attitude because he does not appear to think that any other poster's views are worth considering. He just knows he is right.

I don't know what Private Fraser thinks  of AB's ideas because I do tend to scroll past PF's posts but I suppose AB does have one fan: SotS - a somewhat  dodgy or unreliable compliment I think!

[Stranger]

Stephen Hawking has said recently that there was nothing before the big bang.

Yes - but that (in any theory or hypothesis I'm aware of) doesn't mean that there was a time when there was nothing, it means that "before the big bang" does not refer to a time. It is not a proposal that "starts from nothing" that then becomes something, as SotS suggested.

[Stranger]

Our freedom to choose is a God given gift, the nature of which is beyond our understanding - but that does not prevent us from using this gift.

Once again - you appear to have ignored the actual point I made and the question I asked. Why do you do that? It just comes across as ignorant and stupid.

Anyway, to deal with what you said: before you were trying to use our 'free will' as evidence for the soul, if it's "beyond our understanding" and doesn't actually manifest in any way that is distinguishable from determinism, it's pretty damn useless as evidence, isn't it?

But in a purely deterministic world, nothing can be subjective since everything is entirely defined by past events over which we have no control.

A rather bizarre non sequitur.

[Alan Burns]

Yesterday, I came to the end of a (talking) book called 'The Ancient Greeks' by Edith Hall. It has bbeen extremely interesting. The last chapter was a consideration of the influence of Christianity on the  Greeks and Romans.

There were several Greek writers , whose names I should have paused the disc to note down, who pointed out the irrationality of the beliefs espoused by those early Christian believers because of the knowledge gained by observation and experiment by Galen and others. I really recommend that AB and SotS take the time to find a copy of the book and read carefully that last chapter. 

The whole book provides a vivid and comprehensive picture of the nearly two thousand years of Greek life, travel and culture.

But any knowledge gained by observation and experiment by Galen and others would have been obtained using the conscious willpower exercised by these individuals.  To presume that such actions are just inevitable deterministic reactions to past events is truly bizarre.  There has to be a definable source from which these human activities are driven, and it can't be defined within the physical chains of cause and effect which reach back to the beginning of time.

[Alan Burns]

Stephen Hawking has said recently that there was nothing before the big bang.

He makes this claim by presuming that the laws of physics alone are capable of generating the creation of this universe.  But the flaw in this thinking is that these laws do not create anything.  Laws of physics simply describe the consequences to events - they are incapable of creating events themselves.

[torridon]

But any knowledge gained by observation and experiment by Galen and others would have been obtained using the conscious willpower exercised by these individuals.  To presume that such actions are just inevitable deterministic reactions to past events is truly bizarre.  There has to be a definable source from which these human activities are driven, and it can't be defined within the physical chains of cause and effect which reach back to the beginning of time.

Au contraire, the principal of cause and effect is the only way to make sense of things.  Human civilisation would not be possible if humans uniquely had become unhinged from the principle of cause and effect.  Nothing would make any sense.

[ippy]

Our freedom to choose is a God given gift, the nature of which is beyond our understanding - but that does not prevent us from using this gift.

So your vivid imagination tells you Alan, a very sad case, trouble is, I doubt you'll get over it?

Necessarily the kindest of regards to you Alan, ippy

[Stranger]

But any knowledge gained by observation and experiment by Galen and others would have been obtained using the conscious willpower exercised by these individuals.  To presume that such actions are just inevitable deterministic reactions to past events is truly bizarre.  There has to be a definable source from which these human activities are driven, and it can't be defined within the physical chains of cause and effect which reach back to the beginning of time.

Personal incredulity again. Don't you ever get tired of the same old fallacies?

He makes this claim by presuming that the laws of physics alone are capable of generating the creation of this universe.  But the flaw in this thinking is that these laws do not create anything.  Laws of physics simply describe the consequences to events - they are incapable of creating events themselves.

It's rather difficult to even unravel what you're trying to say here*. However, as I pointed out before: god is not an explanation of anything - it's just a baseless guess that (at best) moves the problems around a bit.

* Hawking's "no boundary conditions" proposal just has the universe as self-contained, self-consistent, and without any need for a starting point in time.

[Maeght]

He makes this claim by presuming that the laws of physics alone are capable of generating the creation of this universe.  But the flaw in this thinking is that these laws do not create anything.  Laws of physics simply describe the consequences to events - they are incapable of creating events themselves.

Have you read what he said?

[Alan Burns]

Au contraire, the principal of cause and effect is the only way to make sense of things.  Human civilisation would not be possible if humans uniquely had become unhinged from the principle of cause and effect.  Nothing would make any sense.

What about intelligently controlled manipulation?
You seem to underestimate the power of our freedom to consciously manipulate as opposed to pre defined reaction.

[Stranger]

What about intelligently controlled manipulation?

Fits just fine within cause and effect. It wouldn't make sense if it didn't.

You seem to underestimate the power of our freedom to consciously manipulate as opposed to pre defined reaction.

Are you labouring under a misapprehension that repeating this kind of empty nonsense is at all meaningful, let alone convincing?

[Alan Burns]

Are you labouring under a misapprehension that repeating this kind of empty nonsense is at all meaningful, let alone convincing?

Not a misapprehension, just a logical conclusion.

My ability to consciously choose to repeat what you deem to be empty nonsense is ample evidence of the reality that I have the freedom to do this through the will of my human soul - a freedom which you continually choose to label as empty nonsense.  Without the spiritual power of the human soul we are left with the endless chains of physically pre defined cause and effect - hence no freedom at all.

[Stranger]

Not a misapprehension, just a logical conclusion.

This is untrue. You have never posted any supporting logic - and you have ignored the logical arguments that undermine your assertions.

My ability to consciously choose to repeat what you deem to be empty nonsense is ample evidence of the reality that I have the freedom to do this through the will of my human soul - a freedom which you continually choose to label as empty nonsense.

Why are you ignoring everything that has been said to you about this? Your freedom to do as you choose is completely consistent with you being a deterministic being.

Without the spiritual power of the human soul we are left with the endless chains of physically pre defined cause and effect - hence no freedom at all.

And even if you introduce a 'soul', so long as it is logically self-consistent, it too is subject to endless chains of predefined cause and effect (unless it involves some randomness) - the logic supporting this has been presented mutliple times and you have never been able to answer it.

Why repeat the same empty claims unless you have some actual answers to the logical arguments that undermine them? Do you think everybody will have just forgotten?

[ippy]

This is untrue. You have never posted any supporting logic - and you have ignored the logical arguments that undermine your assertions.

Why are you ignoring everything that has been said to you about this? Your freedom to do as you choose is completely consistent with you being a deterministic being.

And even if you introduce a 'soul', so long as it is logically self-consistent, it too is subject to endless chains of predefined cause and effect (unless it involves some randomness) - the logic supporting this has been presented mutliple times and you have never been able to answer it.

Why repeat the same empty claims unless you have some actual answers to the logical arguments that undermine them? Do you think everybody will have just forgotten?

I think he does know Stranger, but it'a bit like the Chinese, where they have trouble with loss of face, it's much the same thing for Alan, if it isn't well, it has to be a bit of a worry.

Regards ippy

[torridon]

What about intelligently controlled manipulation?
You seem to underestimate the power of our freedom to consciously manipulate as opposed to pre defined reaction.

Go read the posts Alan, these things have been covered to death.  There is nothing magic about intelligence, it is entirely consistent with determinism, as also are consciousness, will, subjectivity, desire and the rest. I can consciously manipulate things out of a desire or a need to do so but I cannot consciously manipulate those principal needs and desires. If I choose to do A rather than B that reflects my preference at the moment of choosing. What I cannot do, is somehow artificially engineer myself such that I would prefer B to A if in fact I prefer A.  I cannot do that not because it is difficult, not because of some external factors inhibiting my freedom,I cannot do that because it is nonsensical to claim that I could.  If I wanted to want B rather than A that means that in fact I wanted A in the first place. 

Your understanding on this is profoundly mixed up, and yes, being profoundly mixed up is entirely consistent with determinism, as also is engagement with ideas and a desire to understand.

[SteveH]

Not a misapprehension, just a logical conclusion.

My ability to consciously choose to repeat what you deem to be empty nonsense is ample evidence of the reality that I have the freedom to do this through the will of my human soul - a freedom which you continually choose to label as empty nonsense.  Without the spiritual power of the human soul we are left with the endless chains of physically pre defined cause and effect - hence no freedom at all.

Whatever logic might say, we all know that we have free-will, albeit limited. To suggest otherwise is just silly, whatever philosophers may say.

[torridon]

Whatever logic might say, we all know that we have free-will, albeit limited. To suggest otherwise is just silly, whatever philosophers may say.

It all goes back to Schopenhaur : if we are 'free' to do what we want, exactly how free is that if we are not free to choose what to want in the first place ?

[Stranger]

Whatever logic might say, we all know that we have free-will, albeit limited. To suggest otherwise is just silly, whatever philosophers may say.

That rather depends on what you mean by 'free will' - the way many people 'think' about it (including Alan) is logically incoherent. Of course we can do as we want but we can't choose to be a different person who wants different things.

[SteveH]

That rather depends on what you mean by 'free will' - the way many people 'think' about it (including Alan) is logically incoherent. Of course we can do as we want but we can't choose to be a different person who wants different things.

Quite - which is why I said "albeit limited". However, we do have some ability to gradually become a different person, for better or worse: choosing good makes it easier to choose good next time, and ditto bad.

[Alan Burns]

And even if you introduce a 'soul', so long as it is logically self-consistent, it too is subject to endless chains of predefined cause and effect (unless it involves some randomness) - the logic supporting this has been presented mutliple times and you have never been able to answer it.

The physical laws and material properties of our universe can define the logic of cause and effect events, but you can't presume to know how spiritual entities work.  Time is a property of this physical universe - it is not necessarily applicable to the spiritual dimension which is not of this universe.  I do not believe that time as we know it will be experienced in the spiritual dimension.  Our soul can only experience time through the window of perception into this physical universe.  If this window closes down during unconsciousness, time is not perceived.  So you cannot presume to know that cause and effect logic is applicable to the spiritual will of the human soul, because cause and effect are dependent on time.

[Stranger]

Quite - which is why I said "albeit limited". However, we do have some ability to gradually become a different person, for better or worse: choosing good makes it easier to choose good next time, and ditto bad.

Yes - all of which actually fits in with determinism. What you can't have (logically) is any 'freedom' from determinism that isn't random (because not determined is what random is).

[Stranger]

The physical laws and material properties of our universe can define the logic of cause and effect events, but you can't presume to know how spiritual entities work.

The laws of physics may or may not be strictly deterministic - and they certainly don't define the logic. I do not presume to know how 'spiritual entities' work - all I am assuming is that, if by some chance they exist, they are logically self-consistent.

Time is a property of this physical universe - it is not necessarily applicable to the spiritual dimension which is not of this universe.  I do not believe that time as we know it will be experienced in the spiritual dimension.  Our soul can only experience time through the window of perception into this physical universe.  If this window closes down during unconsciousness, time is not perceived.  So you cannot presume to know that cause and effect logic is applicable to the spiritual will of the human soul, because cause and effect are dependent on time.

Well, at least you changed the record a bit.

Unfortunately, it doesn't really make a difference. Quite apart from the fact that it's unclear how a 'timeless' soul could contribute to decision making, the plain facts remain: at the point of making a choice, you have the external circumstances and the internal state of the mind (including a soul, for the sake of argument) and if those do not fully define the response, then there is nothing else left to influence it, so any remaining choice must be for no reason at all, which is random.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seve H,

Whatever logic might say, we...

Say what now?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Quite - which is why I said "albeit limited". However, we do have some ability to gradually become a different person, for better or worse: choosing good makes it easier to choose good next time, and ditto bad.

But you can't choose to be the person who chooses to be good. "Free" will is only free inasmuch as it appears to be that way but is nonetheless bounded by a deterministic framework. Anything else would be - as keeps being explained to AB and he keeps ignoring - random. The notion of a little magic man called "soul" that's neither deterministic nor random is incoherent.