Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

If commenting that Alan seems to have claimed testimony and personal experience as his evidence and does not appear to have claimed to have objective evidence for his God is being an apologist for Alan, I'm happy to go with that assessment - especially if being an apologist for Alan irritates you in some way. It may not irritate you but it seemed important to you that you state I am an apologist for Alan, so sure - let's go with that.

Oh I'm not irritated in the slightest: if I were I imagine that by now I'd have waded into the interminable exchanges between yourself and BHS on the subject of interpreting what Alan's views actually are.

Given that Alan has been a regular contributor to this thread, and is presumably well aware of the exchanges on the subject of what he (Alan) sees as being evidence for 'God', I'm surprised that he hasn't stepped in to state unequivocally what his views are with regards to the objectivity of what he cites as evidence. I'd have thought the simple way to end to to-and-fro would be to ask him: so I will.

Alan - do you consider that what you regard as being objective evidence for 'God', including from your personal experience, is sufficient to conclude that 'God' must also be objectively 'true' for others (such as me), and is 'true' independently of both your personal convictions and mine/others?
       

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Well, during the amount of time I spend on reading and sometimes responding to your posts, which is a very small proportion of the time I spend on reading others, that is possibly true. But then, reasons why people do and say things I find very interesting.

The reason why is presumably determined by my nature/nature or random factors (I'll go with that until further information comes to light). I haven't analysed it and if I tried I would probably bore myself. It can be interesting to analyse other people though so I get where you are coming from.

I could look at Facebook I suppose - as there are some interesting debate groups on there but for whatever reason I find it more interesting to post comments on here when something in a thread grabs my attention such as the nature of evidence - maybe I'm on here due to familiarity, I don't know. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Oh I'm not irritated in the slightest: if I were I imagine that by now I'd have waded into the interminable exchanges between yourself and BHS on the subject of interpreting what Alan's views actually are.

Yeah - sorry about those - it probably is really boring for everyone else - I tend to skim past when those happen between BHS and Vlad.

Given that Alan has been a regular contributor to this thread, and is presumably well aware of the exchanges on the subject of what he (Alan) sees as being evidence for 'God', I'm surprised that he hasn't stepped in to state unequivocally what his views are with regards to the objectivity of what he cites as evidence. I'd have thought the simple way to end to to-and-fro would be to ask him: so I will.

Good idea.     

[floo]

Unfortunately, past experience has shown me that those who do not want to believe will always find a reason not to believe, even if it means that they have to conclude that all their thought processes are pre determined by events over which they have no control, because for control to exist, there needs to be a source of control - not just inevitable reactions to previous events.

My past experience has given me very good reason not to believe. Experience where religion is concerned doesn't prove anything, certainly not whether a god of some sort does or does not exist.

[Maeght]

Unfortunately, past experience has shown me that those who do not want to believe will always find a reason not to believe, even if it means that they have to conclude that all their thought processes are pre determined by events over which they have no control, because for control to exist, there needs to be a source of control - not just inevitable reactions to previous events.

People who don't believe can give reasons why. This doesn't mean they don't want to believe, just they don't. Often theses reasons are a response to claims made by those who do believe, claims they feel supports their beliefs.

For you to interpret such things as people not wanting to believe is innaccurate.

[Alan Burns]

Unfortunately, past experience has shown me that those who do want to believe will always find a reason to believe.

Now, which sentence makes more sense ?

Dear Torri,

You have repeatedly quoted examples of situations over which we have no capacity for free choice - such as sexual orientation, then extrapolated this to conclude that we have no free choice in anything.  And you seem to use this as a reason not to believe in anything spiritual.

Well, just try blinking your left eyelid.
Try blinking it a few times - you are free to choose how many.
Try blinking it slowly, or fast - you are free to choose.
Try making another useless movement with some other portion of your anatomy - you are free to choose which.

These choices are certainly not random.
Nor are they pre determined by your nurture, upbringing or experience, because anyone can make these choices regardless of their background.

Your choices are simply determined by your conscious will.  And there is no feasible physical explanation for what determines your conscious will.  It is clear evidence of your spiritual nature which gives you freedom to choose.

[floo]

Dear Torri,

You have repeatedly quoted examples of situations over which we have no capacity for free choice - such as sexual orientation, then extrapolated this to conclude that we have no free choice in anything.  And you seem to use this as a reason not to believe in anything spiritual.

Well, just try blinking your left eyelid.
Try blinking it a few times - you are free to choose how many.
Try blinking it slowly, or fast - you are free to choose.
Try making another useless movement with some other portion of your anatomy - you are free to choose which.

These choices are certainly not random.
Nor are they pre determined by your nurture, upbringing or experience, because anyone can make these choices regardless of their background.

Your choices are simply determined by your conscious will.  And there is no feasible physical explanation for what determines your conscious will.  It is clear evidence of your spiritual nature which gives you freedom to choose.

In your opinion. It isn't clear to others at all.

[SusanDoris]

AB #27,880

This post shows how very lacking you are in a knowledge and understanding of biology, not to mention evolutionary biology.  Why do you think you know better than psychologists, neurology experts, etc? Do you think they should all use your blind faith instead?

[Stranger]

You have repeatedly quoted examples of situations over which we have no capacity for free choice - such as sexual orientation, then extrapolated this to conclude that we have no free choice in anything.  And you seem to use this as a reason not to believe in anything spiritual.

I'll let torridon speak for himself but this in no way at all represents the general arguments against your views here. I'll repeat that nobody needs a reason to not believe - it's any reason to actually take your position seriously that is lacking.

Well, just try blinking your left eyelid.
Try blinking it a few times - you are free to choose how many.
Try blinking it slowly, or fast - you are free to choose.
Try making another useless movement with some other portion of your anatomy - you are free to choose which.

I guess you're just going to 'forget' all the times it's been pointed out to you that all this is fully compatible with determinism.

Nor are they pre determined by your nurture, upbringing or experience, because anyone can make these choices regardless of their background.

Did you actually think about this at all before posting it? It's just a non-sequitur. Of course whether we chose to do as you suggested and exactly what we chose to do could easily have been predetermined by the things you mentioned.

Your choices are simply determined by your conscious will.

Yes - of course.

I guess you're just going to dishonestly (?) 'forget' the argument that you have been avoiding since you started this, yet again? Once more: if all the factors that go into making a choice (the exact situation, nature, nurture, and experience) do not filly determine the choice, then there is nothing left that can be used to determine it, so any choice between the remaining options must be for no reason, which means random.

And there is no feasible physical explanation for what determines your conscious will.

Baseless assertion.

It is clear evidence of your spiritual nature which gives you freedom to choose.

Clearly not.

[wigginhall]

So blinking shows that you have freedom to blink, which shows that you have a spiritual nature, which is a soul, and that comes from God.

It all seems so obvious, doesn't it?   Why aren't there Churches of the Great Blinking Behemoth? 

[Robbie]

There's an idea, but how do you know there aren't any?

[wigginhall]

There's an idea, but how do you know there aren't any?

Yes, there might be, but I suppose many people are not convinced that blinking shows our spiritual nature, and therefore God.   

[Alan Burns]

AB #27,880

This post shows how very lacking you are in a knowledge and understanding of biology, not to mention evolutionary biology.  Why do you think you know better than psychologists, neurology experts, etc? Do you think they should all use your blind faith instead?

I just know beyond doubt that no form of freedom can possibly exist in a physically deterministic world, and any attempt to refute this simple logic is ample evidence that the refutation itself is a consequence of the author's obvious freedom to think.

[floo]

I just know beyond doubt that no form of freedom can possibly exist in a physically deterministic world, and any attempt to refute this simple logic is ample evidence that the refutation itself is a consequence of the author's obvious freedom to think.

Just because you believe it to be so beyond all doubt, doesn't mean you are correct.

[Alan Burns]

I guess you're just going to dishonestly (?) 'forget' the argument that you have been avoiding since you started this, yet again? Once more: if all the factors that go into making a choice (the exact situation, nature, nurture, and experience) do not filly determine the choice, then there is nothing left that can be used to determine it, so any choice between the remaining options must be for no reason, which means random.

But the one factor you seem to ignore in determining our conscious choice is the spiritually induced will of the person making the choice.  All the factors you mention are physically definable, therefore constitute nothing more that an inevitable physical reaction to previous events.  Reaction does not mean choice.

[Maeght]

But the one factor you seem to ignore in determining our conscious choice is the spiritually induced will of the person making the choice.  All the factors you mention are physically definable, therefore constitute nothing more that an inevitable physical reaction to previous events.  Reaction does not mean choice.

I wouldn't say that not mentioning something for which there is no evidence qualifies as ignoring it.

[Alan Burns]

I wouldn't say that not mentioning something for which there is no evidence qualifies as ignoring it.

The evidence lies in your ability to make conscious choices, which by definition are not merely inevitable, unavoidable reactions to previous events.

[Stranger]

I just know beyond doubt that no form of freedom can possibly exist in a physically deterministic world...

I have provided a logical argument that shows that the only form of 'freedom' that makes any logical sense, would have to result from a deterministic system (physical is irrelevant for the reasons explained at great length before).

You have provided nothing whatsoever to support your claimed certainty.

...and any attempt to refute this simple logic...

What "simple logic"? You have provided no evidence and no logic to support your empty assertions.

...is ample evidence that the refutation itself is a consequence of the author's obvious freedom to think.

Who has questioned anybody's freedom to think?

But the one factor you seem to ignore in determining our conscious choice is the spiritually induced will of the person making the choice.

Until you provide some meaningful definition of, and some evidence or reasoning for, "the spiritually induced will of the person", it is just a meaningless string of words.

What's more, no matter what it is, it doesn't affect the reasoning that I presented one iota.

Remember the basic logic: if all the factors that go into making a choice (the exact situation, nature, nurture, and experience) do not fully determine the choice, then there is nothing left that can be used to determine it, so any choice between the remaining options must be for no reason, which means random.

So how can this "spiritually induced will of the person" make that final part of the choice without it being random and without it having anything to do with any of the factors that go into making the choice (including its own nature)?

[Gordon]

Alan - do you consider that what you regard as being objective evidence for 'God', including from your personal experience, is sufficient to conclude that 'God' must also be objectively 'true' for others (such as me), and is 'true' independently of both your personal convictions and mine/others?
     

Alan

I asked you the above earlier, but since it was in a reply to Gabriella you may have missed it: so, what do you say?

[Stranger]

The evidence lies in your ability to make conscious choices...

Nobody is disputing our ability to make conscious choices - so claiming it as evidence for your view is tantamount to lying.

...which by definition are not merely inevitable, unavoidable reactions to previous events.

And so is trying to redefine terms to suit your view.

I see the Easter break has done nothing for your intellectual honestly and courage...

[Alan Burns]

Alan

I asked you the above earlier, but since it was in a reply to Gabriella you may have missed it: so, what do you say?

Of course the objective reality of God exists.  It is the prerogative of all humans to discover this reality.

[Maeght]

The evidence lies in your ability to make conscious choices, which by definition are not merely inevitable, unavoidable reactions to previous events.

No evidence is facts. It is not a fact that the apparent conscious choices are not reactions to previous events. So no evidence.

[ippy]

Alan, you keep getting tied up in gift wrapping with a beautiful big sparkly bow atop and for some reason you think all you need to do is assert your way out, anything other than give direct answers to the watertight questions you're being asked, this is a side of you that is no longer laughable , it's extremely sad for you not the others.

I really wish you well!
 

[Alan Burns]

Nobody is disputing our ability to make conscious choices - so claiming it as evidence for

What I dispute is your concept of how conscious choices are determined.  You claim that a physical or spiritual cause offers no difference to the deterministic nature of our conscious choices, but in this claim you are displaying extreme ignorance of what our spiritual nature is capable of.

[Stranger]

What I dispute is your concept of how conscious choices are determined.  You claim that a physical or spiritual cause offers no difference to the deterministic nature of our conscious choices, but in this claim you are displaying extreme ignorance of what our spiritual nature is capable of.

So enlighten me and answer the logic you keep on avoiding: if all the factors that go into making a choice (the exact situation, nature, nurture, and experience) do not fully determine the choice, then there is nothing left that can be used to determine it, so any choice between the remaining options must be for no reason, which means random.

[Not holding breath.]