Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

Closed mind.

[Alan Burns]

Because you demonstrate an unwillingness. It is a description of your behaviour.  It doesn't imply freedom to choose.

But according to materialist theory, it is not my behaviour but just the unavoidable consequences of lots of deterministic cause and effect events in material entities.

[Alan Burns]

Because as has been covered many times now, you are making a category error based on different used is language. How often has the whole question of touch been brought up but you continually ignore it?

But the question I am asking is not about the mechanics of touch, but about the root cause of what is deemed to be my personal incredulity.

[Maeght]

But according to materialist theory, it is not my behaviour but just the unavoidable consequences of lots of deterministic cause and effect events in material entities.

No, its your behaviour regardless of the root cause.

[Nearly Sane]

But the question I am asking is not about the mechanics of touch, but about the root cause of what is deemed to be my personal incredulity.

And if my answer is I don't know, it gives you nothing for your claim.

I note you evaded the question of touch yet again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Does this mean that everyone who believes in souls and God must have faulty logic circuits

No. It just mean that people who rely on broken logic to validate their beliefs in "god" and "souls" have faulty logic circuits. You're a prime example of it.

To my knowledge there are no arguments for "god" or "souls" that aren't logically false. If there were any you'd think by now someone here at least would have brought it to this mb.

What that leaves is belief in "god" or "souls" because of faith. Which is fine for those who like that kind of thing, but comes at a big price for the evangelist, namely that "but that's my faith" could apply to anything.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Totally irrelevant to the question:
How can I possibly be accused of personal incredulity if I have no personal control of myself?

No, it's not totally irrelevant at all. What it tells you is that "your perception of reality" on which you rely totally for you assertions is a construction of your mind. It's not just "yellow" by the way - the same it true of sound, touch, and pretty much anything you perceive as "out there" reality but probably isn't.

[torridon]

You continue to presume that I have personal control over myself by using words such as "unwilling".  If I have no freedom to choose my own paths of thought and actions, how can I possibly be accused of being unwilling to do something?

Will is entirely consistent with determinism.  This has already been explained countless times on this thread.  When was the last time you wanted something you didn't want ?  This is determinism manifesting through mental states.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No, it's not totally irrelevant at all. What it tells you is that "your perception of reality" on which you rely totally for you assertions is a construction of your mind. It's not just "yellow" by the way - the same it true of sound, touch, and pretty much anything you perceive as "out there" reality but probably isn't.

I have been told on several occasions : "That's just the way it seems" on the question of my personal ability to control my thoughts and actions.

So I ask once more:
How can I possibly be accused of personal incredulity if I have no personal control of myself?

[Alan Burns]

No, its your behaviour regardless of the root cause.

If the root cause is out of my personal control, it cannot be classified as my behaviour.

[Alan Burns]

Will is entirely consistent with determinism.  This has already been explained countless times on this thread.  When was the last time you wanted something you didn't want ?  This is determinism manifesting through mental states.

That does not answer the question of how I can be accused of personal incredulity if my will is entirely determined by natural occurring events outside of my control.

[Sebastian Toe]

That does not answer the question of how I can be accused of personal incredulity if my will is entirely determined by natural occurring events outside of my control.

Not out of your control. Entirely within your control. Haven't you been paying attention?
Ps. No soul required.

[Alan Burns]

Not out of your control. Entirely within your control. Haven't you been paying attention?
Ps. No soul required.

Of course I have been paying attention.  I have been assured that any perceived ability to make my own consciously driven choices are "just the way it seems", and that in the materialistic scenario, every event in my brain is defined by the consequences to previous chains of physical cause and effect, governed entirely by the laws of nature.  So it must be nature which is in control - not me.

[Sebastian Toe]

Of course I have been paying attention.  I have been assured that any perceived ability to make my own consciously driven choices are "just the way it seems", and that in the materialistic scenario, every event in my brain is defined by the consequences to previous chains of physical cause and effect, governed entirely by the laws of nature.  So it must be nature which is in control - not me.

Nope. You are in control. Just not in the AB version of control. No soul required.

[Alan Burns]

Nope. You are in control. Just not in the AB version of control. No soul required.

So in a physically deterministic scenario where every event is determined by previous events, please explain how I can possibly be in control?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course I have been paying attention.  I have been assured that any perceived ability to make my own consciously driven choices are "just the way it seems", and that in the materialistic scenario, every event in my brain is defined by the consequences to previous chains of physical cause and effect, governed entirely by the laws of nature.  So it must be nature which is in control - not me.

No you haven't. The yellowness of the lemon in front of you is "just the way it seems". The touch of the keys at your fingertips is "just the way it seems". The sound of the Christian radio station you're listening too just now is "just the way it seems" etc. All these things are constructions the mind makes from sensory inputs - of lightwaves, of air pressure etc. You making unfettered decisions on a whim with no prior causal event are also "just the way it seems". Even a moment's thought would tell you that this is so because there's no alternative - arbitrary, chaotic, random decision-making would be impossible.

At heart here your problem is linguistic. You're hung up on terms like "free', "personal", "I" etc because you think they should have meanings that don't accord with the reality that's being explained to you: "How can I be really free if freedom is bounded by prior events?" etc. These words though (and others) work perfectly well for practical, everyday purposes but don't necessitate universal absolutes - the prisoner bounded by walls so far away he's not aware from them is, from his perspective, completely free and he behaves accordingly. It takes a deeper, richer understanding of his reality though to see that the underlying story is more nuanced. Essentially you (and everyone else) is that prisoner - you function just as you would if you were "free" in the sense you'd like it to mean and, if you don't think too hard about it, that provides for you your truth. The deeper truth on the other hand is more nuanced, and there's no need to invent incoherent and irrational little men at the controls to make sense of it.

[Maeght]

If the root cause is out of my personal control, it cannot be classified as my behaviour.

Yes it can. It is you who is behaving in such a way so it is your behaviour, no one else's.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

AB,

No. It just mean that people who rely on broken logic to validate their beliefs in "god" and "souls" have faulty logic circuits. You're a prime example of it.

To my knowledge there are no arguments for "god" or "souls" that aren't logically false. If there were any you'd think by now someone here at least would have brought it to this mb.

What that leaves is belief in "god" or "souls" because of faith. Which is fine for those who like that kind of thing, but comes at a big price for the evangelist, namely that "but that's my faith" could apply to anything.

Evangelists are aware that there are competing faith beliefs - so no "big price" - it's just the way ideas work in relation to the human conscience. The whole point is to try to persuade others that your particular non-religious belief or religious interpretation has a message that resonates on an ethical/ transcendental level.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-secular-conscience/200911/putting-god-out-the-ethics-business

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I’d add to that ignoring or lying about arguments that undo the troll, repeated use of the same fallacies, never, ever answering a question while simultaneously demanding answers from others, almost never mounting an argument for something (preferring instead to make poor attempts at falsifiying unwelcome arguments from others), relentless prevarication and obfuscation etc.

The rules here don’t allow us to identify trolling when it happens, but that doesn’t change the fact that your behaviour here nonetheless is precisely aligned to it.

Pejorative language on the other hand is just code for: “Yikes, I can’t or won’t engage with that argument because it’s too difficult or too uncomfortable for me, so instead I’ll describe it with an insulting term and hope no-one notices the difference".

Much of the above seems to be an accurate description of some of your posts on here BHS, even if you lack the self-awareness to acknowledge it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Evangelists are aware that there are competing faith beliefs - so no "big price" - it's just the way ideas work in relation to the human conscience. The whole point is to try to persuade others that your particular non-religious belief or religious interpretation has a message that resonates on an ethical/ transcendental level.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-secular-conscience/200911/putting-god-out-the-ethics-business

The big price is that they have no method to validate their claims. This is the problem some people here always run away from: If I line up ten people before breakfast, and the first one says "The Christian God is real for you and I know that because that's my faith", the next says "Allah is real for you and I know that because that's my faith", the third says, "Poseidon if real for you and I know that because that's my faith", the fourth says "there's an invisible dragon living in my garage and I know that because...." etc how then should anyone distinguish the truth value of any one such faith claim from any other?

In other words, abandoning reason and evidence for faith invites only a "meh" in response.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Much of the above seems to be an accurate description of some of your posts on here BHS, even if you lack the self-awareness to acknowledge it.

Not sure why you think that flat out lying helps you here, but it's up to you I guess.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No you haven't. The yellowness of the lemon in front of you is "just the way it seems". The touch of the keys at your fingertips is "just the way it seems". The sound of the Christian radio station you're listening too just now is "just the way it seems" etc. All these things are constructions the mind makes from sensory inputs - of lightwaves, of air pressure etc. You making unfettered decisions on a whim with no prior causal event are also "just the way it seems". Even a moment's thought would tell you that this is so because there's no alternative - arbitrary, chaotic, random decision-making would be impossible.

At heart here your problem is linguistic. You're hung up on terms like "free', "personal", "I" etc because you think they should have meanings that don't accord with the reality that's being explained to you: "How can I be really free if freedom is bounded by prior events?" etc. These words though (and others) work perfectly well for practical, everyday purposes but don't necessitate universal absolutes - the prisoner bounded by walls so far away he's not aware from them is, from his perspective, completely free and he behaves accordingly. It takes a deeper, richer understanding of his reality though to see that the underlying story is more nuanced. Essentially you (and everyone else) is that prisoner - you function just as you would if you were "free" in the sense you'd like it to mean and, if you don't think too hard about it, that provides for you your truth. The deeper truth on the other hand is more nuanced, and there's no need to invent incoherent and irrational little men at the controls to make sense of it.

I can accept most of what you are saying, but none of this answers the question:

How I can be accused of personal incredulity if everything I do is entirely determined by natural occurring events outside of my control?

[torridon]

I can accept most of what you are saying, but none of this answers the question:

How I can be accused of personal incredulity if everything I do is entirely determined by natural occurring events outside of my control?

Blue has given a very good and sufficient response for this already in #29117.

The 'I' that feels in control, makes choices, has feelings, is at a wholly different level of complexity and emergence from the underlying substrate of reality and at those higher levels it is useful to talk of such things as 'control' and 'choice'.  Nonetheless such concepts dissolve at more fundamental levels. Do you imagine that particle physicists refuse to buy apples from market stalls because they know that they can't really touch them.  Touch is a useful concept at our everyday levels of thinking, but it doesn't really happen.  So it is with 'control' and 'choice'

[Alan Burns]

Yes it can. It is you who is behaving in such a way so it is your behaviour, no one else's.

But in saying this, you imply that I am responsible for my behaviour.  But if I have no personal consciously driven control, I can't possibly be held responsible.  In order to assume responsibility, there must be something within me capable of asserting control - otherwise it is just down to nature and nothing else.  In the materialistic scenario, there are no grounds for accusing me of personal incredulity.

[Alan Burns]

Blue has given a very good and sufficient response for this already in #29117.

The 'I' that feels in control, makes choices, has feelings, is at a wholly different level of complexity and emergence from the underlying substrate of reality and at those higher levels it is useful to talk of such things as 'control' and 'choice'.  Nonetheless such concepts dissolve at more fundamental levels. Do you imagine that particle physicists refuse to buy apples from market stalls because they know that they can't really touch them.  Touch is a useful concept at our everyday levels of thinking, but it doesn't really happen.  So it is with 'control' and 'choice'

So if I have no control or choice, I get back to my original question of how I can possibly be held responsible for personal incredulity?