Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

I forgot to ask in my response to your post:

What is the proven truth AB is teaching? What is he offering as proof? Sounds to me like he is just making a lot of assertions. If i’ve understood him correctly, he believes that electrochemical activity taking place in his mind - producing his thoughts - are influenced by some other unseen part of him related to something spiritual or supernatural he calls his soul.

The brain requires energy - calories - to function and produce thoughts. I am not sure what AB is asserting about energy and souls. He might have mentioned it but I dip in and out of this thread so may have missed it.

My so called assertions are based on the fact that at the material level, all electro-chemical brain activity is entirely determined according to the laws of science, which leaves no room for any form of human free will to exist at the physical level.  This has lead many scientists to conclude that human free will is an illusion, and all our thoughts, words and actions are entirely pre determined by physical chains of cause and effect.

Your question about energy is an interesting one, since any interaction with the physical brain should not break the basic premiss that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but spiritual interaction induced through the apparently indeterminate quantum events would not break these rules.

[Alan Burns]

What you are claiming for the soul is impossible.  Just as impossible as claiming that the souls can add 2 and 2 to make 428.  It is impossible.  You're so fixated I think you just haven't actually stopped to think about it, and you settle for 'I don't know how the soul does it'.  It doesn't do it, because it is impossible.

How can you possibly come to this conclusion if you deny the existence of the human soul?

[torridon]

If your logic does not acknowledge the reality of human free will it is meaningless....

Your free will is not a reality it is an assertion. The logic that Stranger and others offer demonstrates that your assertions about it are wrong.  The deterministic framework of understanding makes complete sense, yours is nonsense.

[Nearly Sane]

My so called assertions are based on the fact that at the material level, all electro-chemical brain activity is entirely determined according to the laws of science, which leaves no room for any form of human free will to exist at the physical level.  This has lead many scientists to conclude that human free will is an illusion, and all our thoughts, words and actions are entirely pre determined by physical chains of cause and effect.

Your question about energy is an interesting one, since any interaction with the physical brain should not break the basic premiss that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but spiritual interaction induced through the apparently indeterminate quantum events would not break these rules.

Why have you followed your comment 'so called assertions' with an assertion that is also a non sequitur as it does nothing to deal with the idea that you are making assertions?

[torridon]

How can you possibly come to this conclusion if you deny the existence of the human soul?

if you want to show some evidence for souls then go ahead; but claiming they are evidenced by your incoherent conceptualisations are not the way to go.  Something has to make sense in the first place, before we can go looking for evidence of it.

[Stranger]

It's meaningless in the context answering the point I keep making. If you think it's an answer, you need to explain how.

I also note that you cut out and ignored my argument yet again. You really must be terrified of it. Go on - have some courage and go through it step by step and tell me where it goes wrong. Tell my in what way "the will of the human soul" gets round the logic.

If your logic does not acknowledge the reality of human free will it is meaningless.

Once again you are running scared from actually going through the logic.

You keep asserting that there can be no difference between physical determinism and spiritual determinism, but the difference is that we can define what controls physical determinism - the laws of physics.

That difference makes no difference at all to the logic - as you would know if you weren't too scared to think about it.

You cannot presume to know what controls spiritual determinism.

I'm not presuming to know anything except that whatever is making a choice cannot do the logically impossible.

All I can do is continue to demonstrate the consequences of my spiritually determined thoughts and actions by witnessing to the reality of my freedom make conscious choices.

When everybody is saying that you are free to post whatever you like, it is stunningly stupid to claim that doing so in any way demonstrates your baseless fantasies.

Come on Alan, grow an intellectual backbone and actually go through the logic I've outlined (#26930) step by step and tell me where it's wrong and in what way this 'soul' makes a difference.

I'll not be holding my breath...

[Stranger]

My so called assertions are based on the fact that at the material level, all electro-chemical brain activity is entirely determined according to the laws of science, which leaves no room for any form of human free will to exist at the physical level.

The problem is that what you refer to as "human free will' isn't anything of the sort - it's just self-contradictory nonsense.

In order for something to be free, that something has to have a means of making choices that is self-consistent. It has to be able to approach a problem in its own way, bringing to bear its own experience and character. In other words, its choices must be determined by who it is.

Your contradictory fantasies are not even about freedom in any meaningful way.

[Alan Burns]

Your free will is not a reality it is an assertion. The logic that Stranger and others offer demonstrates that your assertions about it are wrong.  The deterministic framework of understanding makes complete sense, yours is nonsense.

Yet I continue to use my God given free will to refute the short sighted logic which you and Stranger keep postulating.

[Stranger]

Yet I continue to use my God given free will to refute the short sighted logic which you and Stranger keep postulating.

That is untrue. Is it a deliberate lie?

[Alan Burns]

That is untrue. Is it a deliberate lie?

How can you possibly accuse me of doing anything deliberately when you assert that everything I do must be pre determined?  Surely you can see that the concept of deliberate action cannot be reconciled with the concept that everything is just a consequence of previous events.  The word "deliberate" infers that I must be the ultimate source of the deliberation, rather than it being the unavoidable consequence to the never ending chains of cause and effect.

And just to reassure you - my post was not meant to be a deliberate lie

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

On what basis did you think my words were amusing? Sounds a bit as if you were making one of your comments, which tend to have an air of derision … …  So do I take it that you approve of their probably being taught that something for which there is zero objective evidence is a truth? As I point out regularly, they should learn about such beliefs, as they are an integral part of our history.Neither AB nor any other person has a proven truth of any God, separately-existing spirit or soul etc. They have not even got an almost 100% truth for, as scientists will tell you, there is always a vanishingly minute allowance made for the possibility of something in the current Theory being wrong at some time in the future.

Yes BHS does engage in derision in his posts - your observations about posters’ derisive exchanges on here are acceptable in place of a point that is relevant to the actual subject of the discussion. By the way, I think someone who (IMO)  fakes concern for a poster’s grandson in a debate rather than arguing the point under discussion should expect some derision for their post.

I’m confused - I thought you said that AB was teaching things as proven truths rather than beliefs or assertions. What did he say to indicate they were proven truths, if he has no proof to offer when it occurs to his grandson to question AB’s beliefs and assertions?

[Stranger]

How can you possibly accuse me of doing anything deliberately when you assert that everything I do must be pre determined?  Surely you can see that the concept of deliberate action cannot be reconciled with the concept that everything is just a consequence of previous events.  The word "deliberate" infers that I must be the ultimate source of the deliberation, rather than it being the unavoidable consequence to the never ending chains of cause and effect.

The word deliberate means: Done consciously and intentionally. As has been explained to you multiple times, this is totally consistent with you being deterministic.

And just to reassure you - my post was not meant to be a deliberate lie

Do you understand the word refute? It means: Prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove. This is not something you have done with regard to the logic myself and torridon have presented to you. You haven't even had the basic intellectual courage to address it directly. I have asked you multiple times to actually go through the logic and tell us where you think the flaw is and you have just ignored my requests.

Will you now withdraw the statement that you have refuted our logic?

[Alan Burns]

Will you now withdraw the statement that you have refuted our logic?

I have to refute this logic and will continue to do so because it does not reflect the reality we live in.  Our human will is determined in real time, in the present - not pre determined and thus not shackled by the unavoidable consequences to previous events.

[Nearly Sane]

I have to refute this logic and will continue to do so because it does not reflect the reality we live in.  Our human will is determined in real time, in the present - not pre determined and thus not shackled by the unavoidable consequences to previous events.

Given that isn't a refutation, rather a simple denial, and the concept of refuting was covered in Stranger's post but you left that out here, this post seems a bit duplicitous, Alan.

[Stranger]

I have to refute this logic and will continue to do so because it does not reflect the reality we live in.  Our human will is determined in real time, in the present - not pre determined and thus not shackled by the unavoidable consequences to previous events.

That isn't a refutation, it's just contradiction with a side helping of assertion. Once again, you have refused the chance to actually go through the logic and refute it.

Anybody can play the contradiction and assertion game: I have to 'refute' your fantasy version of 'free will' because it does not reflect the reality we live in. Our human will is determined by who we are as people - what our nature, nurture, and experience have made us - applied, in real time, to our situation - not shackled by a nonsensical, contradictory, fantasy 'soul'...

[SusanDoris]

Yes BHS does engage in derision in his posts - your observations about posters’ derisive exchanges on here are acceptable in place of a point that is relevant to the actual subject of the discussion. By the way, I think someone who (IMO)  fakes concern for a poster’s grandson in a debate rather than arguing the point under discussion should expect some derision for their post.[/quote[]

I do not fake concern, or fake anything. that is to be deliberately lying and I rely on truth. I have always found that it is far too difficult to remember a lie. I hope you will apologise for accusing me of fake concern.

I’m confused - I thought you said that AB was teaching things as proven truths rather than beliefs or assertions. What did he say to indicate they were proven truths, if he has no proof to offer when it occurs to his grandson to question AB’s beliefs and assertions?

If you go way back through AB's posts, you will find one where he uses words which, in effect, intimate that his grandson will be  brought up with faith beliefs.

Edited to correct quote tags

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I do not fake concern, or fake anything. that is to be deliberately lying and I rely on truth. I have always found that it is far too difficult to remember a lie. I hope you will apologise for accusing me of fake concern.If you go way back through AB's posts, you will find one where he uses words which, in effect, intimate that his grandson will be  brought up with faith beliefs.

Edited to correct quote tags

I’m afraid I think it sounds over the top to feel “so sorry” for a child based on nothing more than being told he will be brought up with faith beliefs.

Maybe you use the phrase  “so sorry” in a different way from me. Given all the problems many children are facing  I might use that phrase if a child was neglected or going hungry or cold or being bullied, but if the child is loved, cared for and generally happy I’m not really seeing the requirement for your level of sorrow. Hence my opinion that that level of sorrow was not genuine but just a phrase to make a point in a discussion with a poster you disagree with.

Also faith beliefs seem a different category to me from proven truths.

[torridon]

I have to refute this logic and will continue to do so because it does not reflect the reality we live in.  Our human will is determined in real time, in the present - not pre determined and thus not shackled by the unavoidable consequences to previous events.

I can't recognise that.  Tell me, Alan, exactly how long do you think the present moment lasts ?  Everything in the present moment derives from what has gone before.  Everything that I consider as my will derives from something that has happened.  It does not, can not, derive from the present moment.  Something that happens in the present moment can only affect the future.

[Alan Burns]

I can't recognise that.  Tell me, Alan, exactly how long do you thing the present moment lasts ?  Everything in the present moment derives from what has gone before.  Everything that I consider as my will derives from something that has happened.  It does not, can not, derive from the present moment.  Something that happens in the present moment can only affect the future.

What defines the origin of an act of conscious will? If it not defined by the chains of cause and effect which stretch back to the beginning of time, where and when does it originate?  And what is it that can be held responsible for triggering the act?

[SusanDoris]

I’m afraid I think it sounds over the top to feel “so sorry” for a child based on nothing more than being told he will be brought up with faith beliefs. ]
<snip>
Hence my opinion that that level of sorrow was not genuine …

Then your opinion is wrong in this case.

Also faith beliefs seem a different category to me from proven truths.

Well, that is of course glaringly obvious.
[/quote]

[torridon]

What defines the origin of an act of conscious will? If it not defined by the chains of cause and effect which stretch back to the beginning of time, where and when does it originate?  And what is it that can be held responsible for triggering the act?

Here you display your trademark evasiveness.  Rather than engage with and address the previous post you just trot out one of your tangential mantras for the umpteenth time.

Our will must derive from something in the past.  It cannot derive from something happening in the present moment because the present moment is of zero duration and time has to elapse for something happening now to become a potential factor in our awareness.

It is not possible for a desire or motive or wish or intention to arise in us out of thin air, there must be a causal reason otherwise that wish or intention would be random.  When we make a choice from options we are weighing them up to identify which desire is the strongest and act on that.  This isn't rocket science, it isn't string theory, it is profoundly simple.  We cannot choose what desires to have or which desire should be the strongest.  If we could do that then we could also believe that London is in Scotland or I could just choose to be Japanese every alternate Tuesday. It doesn't work like that, it couldn't possibly work like that; things happen for a reason and minds make choices, also, within that fundamental paradigm. We cannot be free of reason.

[Stranger]

What defines the origin of an act of conscious will? If it not defined by the chains of cause and effect which stretch back to the beginning of time, where and when does it originate?  And what is it that can be held responsible for triggering the act?

Once again you refuse to address the logic and go back to asking questions that have been answered many times before.

An "act of conscious" will is the output of a decision making process that takes as its inputs all the current data on the choice, the current state of the decision maker (state of mind, personality, and so on) and outputs an "act of conscious will". If all those inputs do not fully define just one possible choice, then there is nothing left that can be used to make a final choice between remaining options, so that final part of the choice must be random.

Cue more evasion...

[Alan Burns]

Here you display your trademark evasiveness.  Rather than engage with and address the previous post you just trot out one of your tangential mantras for the umpteenth time.

Our will must derive from something in the past.  It cannot derive from something happening in the present moment because the present moment is of zero duration and time has to elapse for something happening now to become a potential factor in our awareness.

It is not possible for a desire or motive or wish or intention to arise in us out of thin air, there must be a causal reason otherwise that wish or intention would be random.  When we make a choice from options we are weighing them up to identify which desire is the strongest and act on that.  This isn't rocket science, it isn't string theory, it is profoundly simple.  We cannot choose what desires to have or which desire should be the strongest.  If we could do that then we could also believe that London is in Scotland or I could just choose to be Japanese every alternate Tuesday. It doesn't work like that, it couldn't possibly work like that; things happen for a reason and minds make choices, also, within that fundamental paradigm. We cannot be free of reason.

Torri,
You keep quoting examples of things we have no choice in, but I can easily counter these by giving countless examples of things in which we can have a conscious choice.  I do not see what you are trying to prove with these trivial examples.  Conscious choices do exist.  I can exercise my conscious choice over many things at a time I choose - we will continue to disagree on what determines our choices.  I can never accept the scenario you put forward because I am certain that my final choices are determined in real time by my own will, not by the inevitable consequences to past events.

[Alan Burns]

Once again you refuse to address the logic and go back to asking questions that have been answered many times before.

An "act of conscious" will is the output of a decision making process that takes as its inputs all the current data on the choice, the current state of the decision maker (state of mind, personality, and so on) and outputs an "act of conscious will". If all those inputs do not fully define just one possible choice, then there is nothing left that can be used to make a final choice between remaining options, so that final part of the choice must be random.

Cue more evasion...

I perceive your logic to be flawed because you do not consider the possibility of the human soul being able to consciously invoke a choice at will.  You insist that even the spiritual power of the human soul (if it exists) is tied to inevitable, deterministic, unavoidable choices and is incapable of invoking its own will.  You obviously do not know the power of your own human soul.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Then your opinion is wrong in this case.

I don't think so. AB's grandson is irrelevant to the debate on what influences our decisions. You bringing AB's grandson into the debate to express your fake concern for him seems an underhand way of debating.   

Well, that is of course glaringly obvious.

If we are agreed that proven truths are different from beliefs, your question in #26914 about whether I thought AB's beliefs should be taught as proven truths seems pointless.

I then asked you in #26933:

"What is the proven truth AB is teaching? What is he offering as proof? Sounds to me like he is just making a lot of assertions. If i’ve understood him correctly, he believes that electrochemical activity taking place in his mind - producing his thoughts - are influenced by some other unseen part of him related to something spiritual or supernatural he calls his soul."

You replied in #26946: "Neither AB nor any other person has a proven truth of any God, separately-existing spirit or soul etc."

My response in #26960 was "I’m confused - I thought you said that AB was teaching things as proven truths rather than beliefs or assertions. What did he say to indicate they were proven truths, if he has no proof to offer when it occurs to his grandson to question AB’s beliefs and assertions?"

And you replied in #26965 "If you go way back through AB's posts, you will find one where he uses words which, in effect, intimate that his grandson will be  brought up with faith beliefs."

AB's grandson may well be brought up with faith beliefs but we seem now to agree that it is impossible for these beliefs to be taught as proven truths, given there is no proof for faith beliefs or for non-religious morals for that matter.