Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

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.

Ignorant of something for which there is no evidence and which is a belief. Who'd have thought it!?

[Gordon]

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

If God is objectively real then what are the characteristics of it that can be tested, and by what method(s), where the process of ascertaining its objectivity is independent of any subjective opinions?

[SteveH]

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

At least AB comes up with some sort of argument for his beliefs. Why not engage with the argument for once?

[torridon]

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.

That's incorrect, and a non-sequitur to boot.  We don't, generally, go around justifying our non-belief with reasons to not believe.  What we do do, is the converse, we believe things for which we have justification, everything else is just unsubstantiated conjecture.

If, by spiritual, you mean supernatural, then I think it impossible to justify as supernatural is by definition outwith any empirical justification. If we could test the supernatural, then it wouldn't be supernatural, just natural.

[floo]

At least AB comes up with some sort of argument for his beliefs. Why not engage with the argument for once?

He doesn't have a logical argument because he has no evidence to support it.

[torridon]

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.

I'd agree with you that choices are not random.  But that means they are determined, and so is consistent with determinism.  You are opting for a 'spiritual' explanation for how those choices can be determined and yet seem to be free of determinism.  I think that is spurious, unnecessary,and given the nature of supernatural claims, unjustifiable.  The trigger that always seems to send you off in this direction is - 'there is no feasible physical explanation for what determines your conscious will'. That is a grand claim and it is unjustifiable.  There is nothing magic about conscious will, it is all just part of the way that will manifests through conscious minds; the fact that humans can probably contemplate a wider range of possibilities than other animals is to do with levels of cognitive sophistication.  It is not the case that all other creatures are merely mechanical but humans can think, therefore supernatural, this is totally banal.  All creatures have will, have emotions, have varying levels of conscious experience, this is how minds operate to facilitate decision making, providing mechanisms for resolving competing and conflicting needs in an ever-changing environment.

The fact that I feel free to blink my eyelid derives from the fact that there is nobody stopping me from doing it.  We only feel aggrieved about loss of freedom when some external factor gets in your way, prevents you from satisfying your desires.  When it is our own nature that obstructs, that doesn't feel unfree.  How miserable do you feel because you don't want things that you don't want ?

[Alan Burns]

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.]

But the deciding factor is your conscious will - as simple as that.

[floo]

But the deciding factor is your conscious will - as simple as that.

In your opinion.

[Stranger]

But the deciding factor is your conscious will - as simple as that.

So you can't answer the question and you aren't honest enough to admit it.

Your "conscious will" has to make its choice somehow and so is subject to the reasoning I presented. You are just running away from the problem (again).

[wigginhall]

Alan treats the will as like God, as a first cause, without further explanation.   It's as simple as that, pause here for snorts of laughter.

[Alan Burns]

So you can't answer the question and you aren't honest enough to admit it.

Your "conscious will" has to make its choice somehow and so is subject to the reasoning I presented. You are just running away from the problem (again).

The bottom line is that freedom (of any description) and determinism are incompatible.  And no amount of word garbage from the compatibalist flavour of determinism (quoting Kant) can change this.  The only way for any form of freedom to exist is for it to be derived from a source which is not constrained by the scientifically defined rules of physical reaction to previous events.

[Gordon]

The bottom line is that freedom (of any description) and determinism are incompatible.  And no amount of word garbage from the compatibalist flavour of determinism (quoting Kant) can change this.  The only way for any form of freedom to exist is for it to be derived from a source which is not constrained by the scientifically defined rules of physical reaction to previous events.

Or for it not to exist at all in the way you conceptualise it.

[Stranger]

The bottom line is that freedom (of any description) and determinism are incompatible.  And no amount of word garbage from the compatibalist flavour of determinism (quoting Kant) can change this.

If you want to contest that use of language (which is all it is), fine.

However, it doesn't change the fact that having the ability to do what we want, is compatible with determinism because it's what we want that is being determined.

Neither does it change the logic that, to the extent something isn't deterministic, it is random. So unless you think randomness gives us 'freedom', you are saying that 'freedom' can't exist.

The only way for any form of freedom to exist is for it to be derived from a source which is not constrained by the scientifically defined rules of physical reaction to previous events.

Once again running away from the logic: if all the considerations that go into making a choice, do not fully define that choice, then any remaining choice must be for no reason, which means random.

Being "derived from a source which is not constrained by the scientifically defined rules of physical reaction to previous events" doesn't change that logic one iota.

Are you going to have the honesty and courage to face that?

[Alan Burns]

I'd agree with you that choices are not random.  But that means they are determined, and so is consistent with determinism.  You are opting for a 'spiritual' explanation for how those choices can be determined and yet seem to be free of determinism.  I think that is spurious, unnecessary,and given the nature of supernatural claims, unjustifiable.  The trigger that always seems to send you off in this direction is - 'there is no feasible physical explanation for what determines your conscious will'. That is a grand claim and it is unjustifiable.  There is nothing magic about conscious will, it is all just part of the way that will manifests through conscious minds; the fact that humans can probably contemplate a wider range of possibilities than other animals is to do with levels of cognitive sophistication.  It is not the case that all other creatures are merely mechanical but humans can think, therefore supernatural, this is totally banal.  All creatures have will, have emotions, have varying levels of conscious experience, this is how minds operate to facilitate decision making, providing mechanisms for resolving competing and conflicting needs in an ever-changing environment.

The fact that I feel free to blink my eyelid derives from the fact that there is nobody stopping me from doing it.  We only feel aggrieved about loss of freedom when some external factor gets in your way, prevents you from satisfying your desires.  When it is our own nature that obstructs, that doesn't feel unfree.  How miserable do you feel because you don't want things that you don't want ?

External factors may well restrict our freedom, but we still have some freedom.
Our freedom to choose is derived from our internal nature - it is not restricted by it.
Just going back to the example of blinking - what possible physical explanation can be used to define how, when and where we choose to blink our left eyelid?  As soon as you come up with a physical explanation, it becomes an inevitable uncontrollable event over which there could have been no escape.

[Alan Burns]

Being "derived from a source which is not constrained by the scientifically defined rules of physical reaction to previous events" doesn't change that logic one iota.

Of course it does.  Can you not see the obvious difference between a chain of physical cause and effect (defined by the rules of science over which we have no control) and a spiritually induced act of will which derives from our own conscious awareness?

[Stranger]

Fallacy bingo time...

Just going back to the example of blinking - what possible physical explanation can be used to define how, when and where we choose to blink our left eyelid?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

As soon as you come up with a physical explanation, it becomes an inevitable uncontrollable event over which there could have been no escape.

Argumentum ad consequentiam.

[Alan Burns]

Alan treats the will as like God, as a first cause, without further explanation.   It's as simple as that, pause here for snorts of laughter.

And where do your snorts of laughter derive from?

[floo]

And where do your snorts of laughter derive from?

The consciousness, which is all part of the human brain.

[Stranger]

Of course it does.  Can you not see the obvious difference between a chain of physical cause and effect (defined by the rules of science over which we have no control) and a spiritually induced act of will which derives from our own conscious awareness?

No - because you haven't explained how "a spiritually induced act of will which derives from our own conscious awareness" magically frees itself from being logically self-consistent. You have just asserted that it changes the logic without explaining how.

Come on Alan, grow a backbone and face up to the argument. Either tackle it head on or admit you can't.

[SusanDoris]

No - because you haven't explained how "a spiritually induced act of will which derives from our own conscious awareness" magically frees itself from being logically self-consistent. You have just asserted that it changes the logic without explaining how.

Come on Alan, grow a backbone and face up to the argument. Either tackle it head on or admit you can't.

That is long, long, long overdue.

[Alan Burns]

No - because you haven't explained how "a spiritually induced act of will which derives from our own conscious awareness" magically frees itself from being logically self-consistent. You have just asserted that it changes the logic without explaining how.

Come on Alan, grow a backbone and face up to the argument. Either tackle it head on or admit you can't.

Can you not see the irony in what you are asking me to do?

What precisely is it that has to face up to the argument and tackle it head on?
Does what you ask of me not require my conscious freedom to do it?
If what you say is true about determinism, then what can possibly define the source to the action of facing up to the argument and tackling it head on?
Please tell me what it is within me that has to change, and what do you suggest can initiate this change?

In effect, you are asking me to use my conscious freedom to deny the conscious freedom of my human soul.   

[Stranger]

Can you not see the irony in what you are asking me to do?

So we're back to the part of your script where you employ this evasion tactic. You do realise that the real irony is that your posts could well originate from a simple software bot?

What precisely is it that has to face up to the argument and tackle it head on?
Does what you ask of me not require my conscious freedom to do it?
If what you say is true about determinism, then what can possibly define the source to the action of facing up to the argument and tackling it head on?
Please tell me what it is within me that has to change, and what do you suggest can initiate this change?

In effect, you are asking me to use my conscious freedom to deny the conscious freedom of my human soul.   

Rather than go through this all over again - either:

• you are conceding what you (wrongly) think I'm saying and therefore denying you have the freedom to tackle the point, or
  
  
• you are deploying a wilfully dishonest evasion tactic because you know that you can't answer the logic.

Which is it?

[Alan Burns]

So we're back to the part of your script where you employ this evasion tactic. You do realise that the real irony is that your posts could well originate from a simple software bot?

Rather than go through this all over again - either:

• you are conceding what you (wrongly) think I'm saying and therefore denying you have the freedom to tackle the point, or
  
  
• you are deploying a wilfully dishonest evasion tactic because you know that you can't answer the logic.

Which is it?

Of course I have the freedom to tackle the points you make, and in deploying this freedom, I am effectively showing you that your logic is flawed.

And how on earth can you suggest that I am deliberately employing wilful evasion tactics if my will is entirely pre determined? 

[SusanDoris]

Of course I have the freedom to tackle the points you make, and in deploying this freedom, I am effectively showing you that your logic is flawed.

And how on earth can you suggest that I am deliberately employing wilful evasion tactics if my will is entirely pre determined? 

I expect you think those comments are rather astute and clever. In my opinion, they are pathetic, not to mention blinkered to reality, etc etc

[Stranger]

Of course I have the freedom to tackle the points you make...

Why don't you, then?

And how on earth can you suggest that I am deliberately employing wilful evasion tactics if my will is entirely pre determined? 

This has been explained to you multiple time and I'll happily do so again just as soon as you prove that you have the freedom you claim and tackle the logic I presented.

Reminder: if all the factors that go into making a choice do not fully define the outcome, then there are no factors left that can be used to choose between any remaining options, so that part of the choice must happen for no reason, which means random.