Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Precisely - our freedom to think can't come from anything in the physically deterministic world of nature.   I am responsible for my own thoughts, making whatever is "me" to be supernatural rather than natural (of nature).

Back to empty, baseless assertion....   

[Alan Burns]

Back to empty, baseless assertion....   

And the assertion comes from where ...?

[Stranger]

And the assertion comes from where ...?

Seriously Alan, we've been through this many, many, many times now and you can't even think of new ways to phrase things, let alone provide any answers to the points that have been put to you.

The irony is that your posts could be generated by a simple software bot...

[Alan Burns]

Seriously Alan, we've been through this many, many, many times now and you can't even think of new ways to phrase things, let alone provide any answers to the points that have been put to you.

The irony is that your posts could be generated by a simple software bot...

But what determines my assertion?

[torridon]

Precisely - our freedom to think can't come from anything in the physically deterministic world of nature.  I am responsible for my own thoughts, making whatever is "me" to be supernatural rather than natural (of nature).

That is just silly. If our thoughts were supernatural then they would not be limited by circumstance.

Try these thoughts out :

Think of something that you have forgotten.
Believe something that you don't believe.
Look up at the sky and see it as green.
Think of something before you thought it.
Think what is the result of 25 * 879 + (23 * 9382938923920 / 49)  (don't cheat now)

If you have trouble with these then I don't buy it that you are supernatural; you are just as limited by reality as the rest of us.

[Stranger]

But what determines my assertion?

I have answered that question multiple times. There really seems little point in repeating what has already been said many, many times. The logic has been presented to you and you have been unable to produce a counterargument.

You can either try again or reject the notion of logic altogether (as you appeared to be doing a few posts back). What you can't do is post anything at all that would demonstrate that you do not have a deterministic mind. Mindless repetition of daft questions is especially ineffective in that regard...

[SusanDoris]

And all along I keep thinking, do the mother and father of AB's grandson also think in the same ignorant and silly way that AB does? I feel so sorry for that grandson if he is going to be indoctrinated with so many, many falsehoods.

[Alan Burns]

That is just silly. If our thoughts were supernatural then they would not be limited by circumstance.

Try these thoughts out :

Think of something that you have forgotten.
Believe something that you don't believe.
Look up at the sky and see it as green.
Think of something before you thought it.
Think what is the result of 25 * 879 + (23 * 9382938923920 / 49)  (don't cheat now)

If you have trouble with these then I don't buy it that you are supernatural; you are just as limited by reality as the rest of us.

The supernatural element merely gives us the freedom to consciously make a feasible choice.

[Nearly Sane]

The supernatural element merely gives us the freedom to consciously make a feasible choice.

An undefined thing makes something you can't define in a logically coherent way, feasible? That makes 'green ideas sleep furiously' look meaningful in comparison

[Alan Burns]

I have answered that question multiple times. There really seems little point in repeating what has already been said many, many times. The logic has been presented to you and you have been unable to produce a counterargument.

You can either try again or reject the notion of logic altogether (as you appeared to be doing a few posts back). What you can't do is post anything at all that would demonstrate that you do not have a deterministic mind. Mindless repetition of daft questions is especially ineffective in that regard...

You claim to have answered, but the fact that I have the freedom to reject the logic you present is in itself evidence against you, because you would have to show that my conscious choice to reject  your logic was an inevitable consequence of all previous events.

[Gordon]

You claim to have answered, but the fact that I have the freedom to reject the logic you present is in itself evidence against you, because you would have to show that my conscious choice to reject  your logic was an inevitable consequence of all previous events.

Nope - it would be sufficient to just show that you had poor reasoning skills, of which there is ample evidence in this thread.

[Alan Burns]

An undefined thing makes something you can't define in a logically coherent way, feasible? That makes 'green ideas sleep furiously' look meaningful in comparison

Just to clarify the point I was making -

Take away the supernatural element, and all you are left with is inevitable, uncontrollable consequences driven entirely by the laws of nature.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to clarify the point I was making -

Take away the supernatural element, and all you are left with is inevitable, uncontrollable consequences driven entirely by the laws of nature.

How does that help that you are proposing something undefined to do something you have been unable to define in a logically coherent fashion?

[Gordon]

Just to clarify the point I was making -

Take away the supernatural element, and all you are left with is inevitable, uncontrollable consequences driven entirely by the laws of nature.

So what!

You make 'nature' sound like a bad thing instead of just a thing: and these laws of nature don't stop you making choices anyway, even if these choices are subject to influences and precursors.

The problem you have is that this 'supernatural element' you mention is no more than theobabble that you can't even substantiate in the first place - it has all the influence of nebulous nothingness.

[Stranger]

You claim to have answered, but the fact that I have the freedom to reject the logic you present is in itself evidence against you...

Don't be silly.

...because you would have to show that my conscious choice to reject  your logic was an inevitable consequence of all previous events.

I don't have to show any such thing. I have presented a logical argument that shows that if your choice is not the result of determinism, then it has some random element because a lack of determinism is randomness.

As I said before, you can offer a counterargument (which you haven't managed to do yet) or reject logic itself in favour of blind faith but what you can't do (with any credibility) is supply evidence; the situation is far too complex for direct evidence either way.

I do not dispute that you can do whatever you want - but those are your only credible options...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just to clarify the point I was making -

Take away the supernatural element, and all you are left with is inevitable, uncontrollable consequences driven entirely by the laws of nature.

So leaving aside the wrongness of its content, your "clarification" turns out to be yet another repetition of a basic logical fallacy then - the argumentum ad consquentiam.

Why should anyone treat the very bad arguments you attempt for your beliefs any more seriously than you would treat the same very bad arguments for theirs?

[Alan Burns]

Nope - it would be sufficient to just show that you had poor reasoning skills, of which there is ample evidence in this thread.

But as you infer, it is still "me" that is ultimately responsible, not the natural laws of physics which determine the events occurring in a purely material brain.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

So leaving aside the wrongness of its content, your "clarification" turns out to be yet another repetition of a basic logical fallacy then - the argumentum ad consquentiam.

Why should anyone treat the very bad arguments you attempt for your beliefs any more seriously than you would treat the same very bad arguments for theirs?

So do you agree or not that in a purely material scenario, every event will be just a natural, unavoidable consequence entirely pre defined by the laws of physics?

[Gordon]

But as you infer, it is still "me" that is ultimately responsible, not the natural laws of physics which determine the events occurring in a purely material brain.

Alan: this might come as a shock, but you (the 'me' you speak of, otherwise referred to as your biology) are bound by natural laws and determinism - your bizarre beliefs do not confer immunity.

[Stranger]

But as you infer, it is still "me" that is ultimately responsible, not the natural laws of physics which determine the events occurring in a purely material brain.

All the evidence suggests that you are the result of the natural laws of physics which determine the events occurring in a purely material brain. What is more (as has been pointed out) even if you have a non-physical 'soul' it must still be the result of deterministic events or randomness.

[Stranger]

So do you agree or not that in a purely material scenario, every event will be just a natural, unavoidable consequence entirely pre defined by the laws of physics?

For all your dishonest attempts to associate determinism with physical, that is not necessarily the case. It is an open question whether the physical universe is deterministic - there may be some actual randomness.

[Alan Burns]

Yes it does, for reasons that keep being explained to you and you keep ignoring. The choice is essentially binary: deterministic or random. When you posit a little man at the controls and call it “soul” there’s no escaping that. If this “soul” is deterministic then you’ve just relocated the process, and if it’s random it can’t function consistently. 

What you seem to ignore is human awareness.  A binary switch can be perceived in human awareness.  We can foresee the potential consequences of switching it either way.  We can make a conscious choice which way to switch it, and when, or not to switch it at all.  It is all driven by our human awareness, not by the emergent properties of material elements under the total control of nature alone.

[Alan Burns]

Alan: this might come as a shock, but you (the 'me' you speak of, otherwise referred to as your biology) are bound by natural laws and determinism - your bizarre beliefs do not confer immunity.

I believe God has given us the freedom to make our own choices - something which nature can never do.

[torridon]

The supernatural element merely gives us the freedom to consciously make a feasible choice.

That's rich coming from someone who has been expounding on the soul's ability to do the unfeasible for three years now.  It is not possible to make a choice that is not consequential to its determining factors without being random; the suggestion is meaningless. Make your mind up Alan, you are merely inventing 'soul' to do the unfeasible free will thing whilst arbitrarily denying 'soul' the ability to do other, more obviously unfeasible things.  Time to ditch the double standards.

[wigginhall]

At least, the linking of the supernatural with the feasible, injects a note of humour.   One of the problems with supernatural stuff is that it seems to have no limits.  Why should I not choose to become a warthog, or travel to the stars?   Watch me, I'm free!