Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Nothing about determinism implies that there is any such "box". That's just something you've made up.

Nothing about material based determinism implies that there can be such a thing as consciously driven abstract thoughts.

[ippy]

But the fact that you are able to contemplate such a question aptly demonstrates a profound ability to think outside the box of deterministic activity derived from material properties.

Ever heard of 'Cloud Cuckoo Land' Alan?

[Alan Burns]

What makes you think that ?  Show us your reasoning.

The onus is on the materialists to show how the conscious contemplation of such a thought can possibly be generated from deterministic electro chemical activity alone. 

[Alan Burns]

it just demonstrates the ability to think (about all sorts of things).

Correct.
And how do you define a conscious thought in material terms?

[Alan Burns]

No, that just shifts the goal posts to 'where did Joe Bloggs' come from.  That's not an explanation.

There is an ultimate source of all existence.

[Nearly Sane]

The onus is on the materialists to show how the conscious contemplation of such a thought can possibly be generated from deterministic electro chemical activity alone.

I'm not a materialist. The onus is on you to evidence your claim. Or even to define it in a logically coherent way, something you have failed to do.

[Nearly Sane]

There is an ultimate source of all existence.

oh no there isn't!

[torridon]

The onus is on the materialists to show how the conscious contemplation of such a thought can possibly be generated from deterministic electro chemical activity alone.

Evasion. goal post shifting, altering the burden of proof.  These are the tactics of someone running empty on assertion without any justification.

If anyone has discovered some evidence to substantiate your contention that abstract thoughts are incompatible with determinism then post it up so we can all follow along.  Until that time, all we have is your say-so.

[SusanDoris]

Correct.
And how do you define a conscious thought in material terms?

Ippy is right, AB, you are completely in cloud cuckoo land. You keep repeating the same assertions and are apparenty unable to see any other point of view at all.

[Gordon]

Correct.
And how do you define a conscious thought in material terms?

Easy-peasy: I 'define' it as bits of biology working (neurological activity etc).

[Alan Burns]

Ippy is right, AB, you are completely in cloud cuckoo land. You keep repeating the same assertions and are apparenty unable to see any other point of view at all.

But these other points of view make no sense of the reality I (and others) live in.  In particular my ability to drive my own conscious thought processes.

[Alan Burns]

Easy-peasy: I 'define' it as bits of biology working (neurological activity etc).

There is nothing easy peasy about understanding how electro chemical activity in brain cells gets perceived into a conscious thought.

[Nearly Sane]

There is nothing easy peasy about understanding how electro chemical activity in brain cells gets perceived into a conscious thought.

That's a different question - which makes this  read as if it's entirely dishonest.

[Alan Burns]

oh no there isn't!

Are you implying that it is "turtles all the way down"

[Nearly Sane]

But these other points of view make no sense of the reality I (and others) live in.  In particular my ability to drive my own conscious thought processes.

Which as has been pointed out in multiple occasions would create an infinite regress. Just one of the many areas of illogical thinking from you.

[Nearly Sane]

Are you implying that it is "turtles all the way down"

No, I was implying that your posts are pantomimic. I also think the phrase 'ultimate source of existence' is an illogical deepity, given that it is entirely circular. Again Alan, you are the one with the claim, albeit it's incoherent; someone pouring that out is not necessarily making the opposite claim. That you think it does shows your struggle with logic.

[Alan Burns]

That's a different question - which makes this  read as if it's entirely dishonest.

No
It is entirely relevant to the question of how the conscious contemplation about the source of our existence can be defined by deterministic activity of material entities alone.

[torridon]

There is an ultimate source of all existence.

When it suits you claim an 'ultimate source'.

So why deny that when talking about free will, where you claim that a spiritual soul does not need any source, or origin, for its desires.

Looks to me like you're chopping and changing, saying whatever appears to support your view without any coherent strategy of logic.

[Alan Burns]

No, I was implying that your posts are pantomimic. I also think the phrase 'ultimate source of existence' is an illogical deepity, given that it is entirely circular. Again Alan, you are the one with the claim, albeit it's incoherent; someone pouring that out is not necessarily making the opposite claim. That you think it does shows your struggle with logic.

Why do you consider the concept of an ultimate source of all existence to be illogical or circular?  I freely admit that our human minds can't cope with thinking about either an ultimate source or an infinite regression as a reality.  But the reality is that I have come into existence, and the only way I can cope with this reality is to presume that there is an ultimate creator of all existence, even though I can't fully understand it within the limitations of my own mind.

[torridon]

Why do you consider the concept of an ultimate source of all existence to be illogical or circular?  I freely admit that our human minds can't cope with thinking about either an ultimate source or an infinite regression as a reality.  But the reality is that I have come into existence, and the only way I can cope with this reality is to presume that there is an ultimate creator of all existence, even though I can't fully understand it within the limitations of my own mind.

  .. which stops short of wondering what created the creator. Unfinished line of thinking.

[Nearly Sane]

No
It is entirely relevant to the question of how the conscious contemplation about the source of our existence can be defined by deterministic activity of material entities alone.

No, that means that since we don't understand gravity completely we would not be able to define it.

[Nearly Sane]

Why do you consider the concept of an ultimate source of all existence to be illogical or circular?  I freely admit that our human minds can't cope with thinking about either an ultimate source or an infinite regression as a reality.  But the reality is that I have come into existence, and the only way I can cope with this reality is to presume that there is an ultimate creator of all existence, even though I can't fully understand it within the limitations of my own mind.

Did you mean to write that your idea cannot be understood and that you have no evidence for it, but you need to believe it even though you cannot think of it coherently, as you just did?


The reason the 'ultimate source of existence' is circular is that thing 'exists' so therefore must be the x source of its own existence.

[Alan Burns]

When it suits you claim an 'ultimate source'.

So why deny that when talking about free will, where you claim that a spiritual soul does not need any source, or origin, for its desires.

Looks to me like you're chopping and changing, saying whatever appears to support your view without any coherent strategy of logic.

But if the ultimate source of creation has the means to share this creative ability, it allows us to realise just what an amazing gift we have been blessed with.  It brings to mind the awesome opening words of John's gospel: "In the beginning was the word ...."  implying that the beginning was not a material entity, but simply a "will" which brought about everything.

[ippy]

But these other points of view make no sense of the reality I (and others) live in.  In particular my ability to drive my own conscious thought processes.

In reality, you and your others are very welcome to each others company.

I really do wonder why it is you can't see that asserting an idea and that's it job done isn't enough.

I wish, as I've said to you before I wish my bank would accept my assertion about the £200 million I'd like to think I have in my account; why do you think they wont/can't accept this assertion of mine?

The above, spoof comparison, is made in an exactly similar manner to the assertions you keep on making, it's not like you're completely brain dead what is it why do you keep on doing this?

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy

[Alan Burns]

Did you mean to write that your idea cannot be understood and that you have no evidence for it, but you need to believe it even though you cannot think of it coherently, as you just did?


The reason the 'ultimate source of existence' is circular is that thing 'exists' so therefore must be the x source of its own existence.

It just goes to show that there must be more to life than merely the deterministic electro chemical activity in our physical brains.