Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Humans and other animals are all part of God's creation and as such I totally agree that we all have the same roots and share many similarities.  But the fundamental and obvious difference is that humans have been given the gift of consciously driven free will.  I know you are in denial over this and it is a great shame that you and others do not fully appreciate the nature of this amazing gift.  A gift which will ultimately transcend the death of our physical bodies.

Not in denial, just have the insight to see that we cannot be free of what we want, and what we want is not a matter of choice.  To even claim such, is irrational.

[Alan Burns]

Not in denial, just have the insight to see that we cannot be free of what we want, and what we want is not a matter of choice.  To even claim such, is irrational.

But the act of claiming this is in itself a demonstration of my freedom to do so.

[Sebastian Toe]

But the act of claiming this is in itself a demonstration of

...an unfathomably large chain of cause and effect events.

You may not like it but that is what it is.

 

[Maeght]

It is irritating for me too to have to endure personal accusations of various nature, and also be told that I am entirely driven by physically deterministic events with no free will of my own.

So are you doing it on purpose to get your own back?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Humans and other animals…

Ooh, do I sense some progress here? Do you now grasp that humans are animals too?

…are all part of God's creation…

Oh FFS! Not another utterly baseless assertion surely? Really though?

…and as such I totally agree that we all have the same roots and share many similarities.

Just as the Theory of Evolution tells you should be the case. Funny that.

But the fundamental and obvious difference is that humans have been given the gift…

More un-argued and un-evidenced assertion. If you think someone has been “given a gift” then you should at least try to demonstrate first that there’s a gift-giver to do the giving don’t you think?

…of consciously driven free will.

A notion you’ve had comprehensively dismantled before your eyes yet you keep repeating like a Duracell bunny banging its drum. Why do you persist with this stupidity? Seriously though, why?

I know you are in denial over this…

Stop lying. The only “denial” here is your denial of the reasoning that undoes you. Just pretending that it isn’t there is a type of dishonesty and it does you no credit.

… and it is a great shame that you and others do not fully appreciate the nature of this amazing gift.

No, the “great shame” here is that you’re so lost to even basic reason and logic that you have no way back from the ludicrousness of you faith beliefs. And what’s an even greater shame is that presumably at some point you’ll have access to young minds (if you haven’t already) whose critical faculties aren’t as developed as those of some of us here and you’ll infect them too with your abject ignorance and obduracy. And that breaks my heart, it really does.

A gift which will ultimately transcend the death of our physical bodies.

And more utter bollocks to finish. So we’ve made no progress here at all then after all. Oh well.

Oh, and by the way I took the trouble a few posts back to dismntly your recent efforts point-by-point and I see that yet again you’ve just ignored the rebuttal of your claims and assertions.
What does that say about you do you think?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is irritating for me too to have to endure personal accusations of various nature,

Stop playing the victim, and you don’t have to “endure” anything. Some of us here recognise your behaviour and call you out on it. Your choice then is to engage or just to repeat the same mistakes, the same assertions, the same mantras. For reasons known only to yourself you choose the latter. If you had even an ounce of decency you’d instead say, “OK here’s an argument that I struggle with, so let me at least try to set out a counter-argument to see where that takes me.” Only you never do that do you. Why not?

What exactly are you so frightened of? That a life time of beliefs will turn out to be utterly misplaced? Well yes, they probably are - but just think of the weight that’ll be lifted if you actually allow yourself to emerge blinking into the sunlight of logic and reason! 

Seriously though, just try dipping your toe in at least to see how it feels. You’ll feel that bonkers mediaeval superstitionism just slip away if you at least give it a go. Really, you will.     

…and also be told that I am entirely driven by physically deterministic events with no free will of my own.

Not sure why you think constant misrepresentation helps you here. You do have “free” will, only not of the logically incoherent, random, chaotic, pig-ignorant type you keep asserting here with not one shred of sensible argument or evidence to support you.

Deal with it.

[torridon]

But the act of claiming this is in itself a demonstration of my freedom to do so.

Free in as much as noone is stopping you, this is a free country blah blah blah.  You cannot be free of yourself though; the choices you make reflect what you have become and exactly the same is true of rabbits and racehorses and everything that moves under the sun. Above the level of quantum fields and possibly excluding inside black holes, natural law is deterministic and we are natural beings acting within that context.

[SusanDoris]

AB

As has been said above, you are acting the victim.

And, as I and others say, the idea that you and those like you who are inculcating any child with the falsehoods you do is deeply saddening.

[Alan Burns]

So are you doing it on purpose to get your own back?

But how can  I possibly do anything "on purpose" if I am entirely under the unavoidable, uncontrollable deterministic control of past physical events?

[Alan Burns]

...an unfathomably large chain of cause and effect events.

You may not like it but that is what it is.

You claim this because it is the only possible explanation if you insist that there is nothing else but physically induced causes of events.  But you can't possibly know this for certain, and the evidence for spiritually induced acts of free will in human beings is truly overwhelming - as evidenced from my ability to consciously compose this message.

[Alan Burns]

So let’s unpack that:
......................................
......................................
     

Well I thank you for yet another very detailed response, Blue, but in essence it all boils down to a lot of "don't knows" or "that's just the way it seems" concerning the lack of physical explanations about the nature of human conscious awareness and free will.  As I have explained in previous posts, I am not claiming to have absolute proof about our spiritual nature, but just trying to open the door to people accepting the possibility, and thus being able to take that very important first step in faith.  And once that first step is taken it could lead to a whole new awareness about God and our spiritual nature - the details of which will be beyond the understanding of those who are unable to take this first very important step.  I am able to claim absolute certainty about God's existence because my own journey in faith has gone far beyond that first step and into a very personal relationship - which you can't possibly understand until you experience it yourself.

[torridon]

You claim this because it is the only possible explanation if you insist that there is nothing else but physically induced causes of events.  But you can't possibly know this for certain, and the evidence for spiritually induced acts of free will in human beings is truly overwhelming - as evidenced from my ability to consciously compose this message.

Why is that evidence ?  You would have composed the message anyway, naturally.  Evidence is something that distinguishes between rival explanations.  You can't just go around claiming entirely natural behaviours as evidence for something supernatural. 

[Gordon]

Well I thank you for yet another very detailed response, Blue, but in essence it all boils down to a lot of "don't knows" or "that's just the way it seems" concerning the lack of physical explanations about the nature of human conscious awareness and free will.

'Don't fully know as yet' is a perfectly reasonable position to take - yet it seems to be beyond your ken.
 

As I have explained in previous posts, I am not claiming to have absolute proof about our spiritual nature, but just trying to open the door to people accepting the possibility, and thus being able to take that very important first step in faith.

A better first step would be some sort of verifiable evidence, since as used by you 'faith' seems like a recipe for the suspension of any form of critical thinking.

And once that first step is taken it could lead to a whole new awareness about God and our spiritual nature - the details of which will be beyond the understanding of those who are unable to take this first very important step.

So, your first step involves surrendering to 'faith', which as you describe it involves insulating yourself from threats and labelling those without faith as having inadequate understanding - not an inviting prospect, Alan.

I am able to claim absolute certainty about God's existence because my own journey in faith has gone far beyond that first step and into a very personal relationship - which you can't possibly understand until you experience it yourself.

If you claim absolute certainty, Alan, then you are a fool: a sincere fool, and a civil one, but a fool nonetheless - since in doing so you are concluding that you can't possibly be wrong. 

[ippy]

Well I thank you for yet another very detailed response, Blue, but in essence it all boils down to a lot of "don't knows" or "that's just the way it seems" concerning the lack of physical explanations about the nature of human conscious awareness and free will.  As I have explained in previous posts, I am not claiming to have absolute proof about our spiritual nature, but just trying to open the door to people accepting the possibility, and thus being able to take that very important first step in faith.  And once that first step is taken it could lead to a whole new awareness about God and our spiritual nature - the details of which will be beyond the understanding of those who are unable to take this first very important step.  I am able to claim absolute certainty about God's existence because my own journey in faith has gone far beyond that first step and into a very personal relationship - which you can't possibly understand until you experience it yourself.

100% fatuous Alan, you and your invisible friend; grow up.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Well I thank you for yet another very detailed response, Blue,…

Which it seems has yet again been entirely wasted on you. Oh well. At least when you go wrong again we’ll have a reference point for you to ignore or misrepresent all over again.

…but in essence it all boils down to a lot of "don't knows"…

Why are you so dishonest do you think? It very plainly does no such thing – what it actually does is to explain why EVEN IF AN ANSWER HAPPENS TO BE “DON’T KNOW” that tells you nothing whatever about whatever conjecture you want to propose to fill the knowledge gap. It’s a perfectly simple piece of logic yet you refuse point blank to engage with it.

Why? 

…or "that's just the way it seems"…

Yes, we “feel” as though we make decisions unfettered by prior events because that’s the way it seems when we’re asked whether we’d like tea of coffee. Even a moment’s reflection though would tell you that this impression is fundamentally illusory – the “decision” is the expression of a want that emerges unbidden from our sub-conscious. And you can’t control your sub-conscious.

…concerning the lack of physical explanations about the nature of human conscious awareness and free will.

More misrepresentation. As I explained to you perfectly clearly, “incomplete” and “absent” are not the same thing at all yet you insist on pretending otherwise. Why? We already know a great deal about consciousness, all of which points to it being a natural, emergent property. Why would anyone abandon that evidence in favour of an assertion from someone who appears to know nothing at all about the subject he presumes to dismiss? 

As I have explained in previous posts…

Just to be clear, evidence-denying assertions explain nothing but ok…

I am not claiming to have absolute proof about our spiritual nature, but just trying to open the door to people accepting the possibility,…

Another piece of dishonesty you’ve tried several times before. Most of us have minds already open to the “possibility” of anything. The problem here though is that your mind is closed – apparently proudly so – to the possibility that you could be wrong. Can you not see the hypocrisy of demanding that others behave in a certain way (which they do anyway) while refusing to behave the same way yourself?

…and thus being able to take that very important first step in faith.

The “first step in faith” is the privileging of guessing – a collapse into unreason. We know that because, so far at least, neither you nor anyone else can produce cogent reasoning that would justify your faith claims. Why would anyone want to do that? 

And once that first step is taken it could lead to a whole new awareness about God and our spiritual nature - the details of which will be beyond the understanding of those who are unable to take this first very important step.

It could also lead to a whole new "understanding" of leprechauns. Or of anything else that pops out when you decide that “faith” is any more reliable a guide to truth than just guessing. 

I am able to claim absolute certainty…

Ah, there’s that closed mind again. So you want others to be “open to the possibility” that they’re wrong, but you refuse to be open to the same possibility about your faith claims?

Really?

…about God's existence because my own journey in faith has gone far beyond that first step and into a very personal relationship - which you can't possibly understand until you experience it yourself.

Which tells you and the rest of us only that you have a belief that there’s a “God”. It tells us (and you) absolutely nothing though about whether there actually is a god at the other end of your affections. Even a moment’s reflection will tell you that – countless people over the millennia have felt just as strongly as you do about countless gods, ghosts, deities, spooks and ghoulies that you think to be entirely false. What makes your personal experience any more truth-bearing for the rest of us than theirs?

So what have we learned here? What we’ve learned is that even when very simple reasoning that undoes your attempts at argument is shown to you you just cannot or will not process or engage with it. Instead you just ignore or misrepresent it, then return to your mindless assertions as a dog returns to its vomit.

Why do you do that do you think?

[ippy]

Any likely reaction from AB to post 28614 can only be taken as some sort of greasy, fingers to the back of the throat, shame faced no answer just a response, nothing more, Blue, you've near enough closed off the usual things he seems to think of as escape routes.

Neat!

Regards ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi ipster,

Any likely reaction from AB to post 28614 can only be taken as some sort of greasy, fingers to the back of the throat, shame faced no answer just a response, nothing more, Blue, you've near enoughclosed off the usual things he seems to think of as escape routes.

Neat!

I know (and thanks), but it’s just so bloody frustrating dealing with people like this because, no matter what, they never engage with what’s actually being said. In 28614 I made various points about the hopelessness of the arguments he attempts and his reply either ignored or plain misrepresented all of it. Is he fundamentally deliberately dishonest, or can he just not process anything that he sees as chipping away at the edifice of faith beliefs he’s built for himself over the decades? 

I can see – just I think – that if I really, really found a faith belief to be as meaningful to me as AB’s faith belief is to him I’d want to protect it, but I cannot imagine the internal convolutions it would require for me then to mangle or run away from the falsifications of the arguments I thought supported it so as to do that.

It’s very weird and almost incomprehensible behaviour I find, and a bit chilling too when seen close up. It’s the same misplaced certainty and contempt for reason that’s underpinned the worst of humanity through the ages and, as if religion didn’t have enough to answer for already, this corrupting of (presumably otherwise able) minds is just one more charge to add to the rap sheet.

Depressing innit?

[SusanDoris]

Yes, it is depressing - and what I also find chilling is the probable fact that there were all these people with similarly smug, daft ideas whom we did not know about, hear, or contact. It is the internet which has brought them all out into the open. The only optimistic thing I can think of about that is that better they are in full view rather than beavering away, harnessing new recruits.

ruits so that they can bolster up their credit accpimt wotj tjeor particular religion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Well put, torridon. Our animal nature is actually something to celebrate. We should revel in our connection to nature, to the earth, and to the amazing creatures that we share it with. We should nurture it because of our connection, because we need it far more than it needs us. Alan doctrine of disconnection is dangerous; it leads to the slaughter of pregnant whales, to the destruction of rainforests and ancient forests, to plastic pollution, to climate change. And the only solution that Alan can offer for this folly is seeking out his god and asking for mercy.

Still, in the meantime he makes sure Alan doesn’t get a parking ticket.

Alan's "doctrine of disconnection is dangerous; it leads to slaughter of pregnant whales, to the destruction of rainforests and ancient forests, to plastic pollution, to climate change" etc etc?

Very poetic but a complete load of crap. It's beyond ridiculous to link those negative outcomes to anything Alan has said about humans having souls or free will. Unless you can demonstrate how his posts on free-will lead to his support for any of these outcomes, your post is as much a flight of fantasy as Alan's posts on his particular beliefs.

I hope you are not indoctrinating any vulnerable children with your dangerous belief that deciding humans have a soul and animals don't is what leads to climate change. 

I think you will find that it is greedy human beings looking for corporate profit or short-sighted technological advances that are responsible for the outcomes you have listed. Greedy humans don't mind that corporate profit, pollution and climate change leads to human deaths - so I don't think it is disconnection from the animal world due to non-belief in animal souls that is the problem. If you actually want to do anything constructive about climate change etc rather than show-off on a forum, I suggest you focus on the actual causes. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Alan's "doctrine of disconnection is dangerous; it leads to slaughter of pregnant whales, to the destruction of rainforests and ancient forests, to plastic pollution, to climate change" etc etc?

Very poetic but a complete load of crap. It's beyond ridiculous to link those negative outcomes to anything Alan has said about humans having souls or free will. Unless you can demonstrate how his posts on free-will lead to his support for any of these outcomes, your post is as much a flight of fantasy as Alan's posts on his particular beliefs.

I hope you are not indoctrinating any vulnerable children with your dangerous belief that deciding humans have a soul and animals don't is what leads to these climate change.

I think you will find that it is greedy human beings looking for corporate profit or short-sighted technological advances that are responsible for the outcomes you have listed. Greedy humans don't mind that corporate profit, pollution and climate change leads to human deaths - so I don't think it is disconnection from the animal world due to non-belief in animal souls that is the problem. If you actually want to do anything constructive about climate change etc rather than show-off on a forum, I suggest you focus on the actual causes.

Charming.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Charming.

BHS

Hypocritical much.

Also - I was taking the piss out of Ippy. Forgot my smiley - thanks for reminding me - will go back and insert it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

BHS

Hypocritical much.

No. You seem to very very angry in your wrongness, but I have no interest in finding out why - it's behaviour I prefer to steer clear of.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

No. You seem to very very angry in your wrongness, but I have no interest in finding out why - it's behaviour I prefer to steer clear of.

Nope, not very angry. Just blunt. Anything else you perceive is just your over-active imagination - a bit like your over-active imagination when you read things into the Catholic schools R.E. document that weren't there.

By the way, you're deluded if you think your posts are charming or that you steer clear of coming across as angry in some of your posts.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Nope, not very angry.

You're deluded if you think your posts are charming or that you steer clear of coming across as angry in your some of your posts.

Bitter? Resentful? Venomous? You choose.

Re your mistake by the way, no-one suggested that AB's anthrocentrism would lead him to club a panda to death for the fun of it. The argument was instead that privileging our species over other because we supposedly have a magic "soul" whereas, say, dolphins and gorillas just "react" (yes I know it's utterly bonkers, but that's AB's position nonetheless) will tend to diminish the value we place on non-human animals. Simple and obvious enough I'd have thought.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

...a bit like your over-active imagination when you read things into the Catholic schools R.E. document that weren't there.

And dishonest too. If you keep pretending that plain English says something else then you're lost to any reasoned discussion.

Have a nice day.