Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Of course, Alan still didn't answer the question, but another one that he preferred.

Of course I answered your question.
I have stated quite clearly that I can't possibly choose to believe in something which I know is not true.

I recognise that atheism might offer many attractions compared to a life of devotion to faith.  And I recognise that I have the freedom to choose to live my life as an atheist and ignore my religious belief.  But I can never choose to deny what I know to be the truth.

[Alan Burns]

You seem to be saying here that you can choose to think about what you belief but that your beliefs are immune to any thoughts you may have about them: no wonder you are so hopelessly stuck.
 

No.
My belief is based upon what my conscious thought processes discern to be the truth.  I can certainly choose what to think about, but I can't choose the logical consequences of what my thoughts discern.

[ippy]

No.
My belief is based upon what my conscious thought processes discern to be the truth.  I can certainly choose what to think about, but I can't choose the logical consequences of what my thoughts discern.

How anyone can expect to be taken seriously when they insist on coming out with such pointless and meaningless statements?

No there's nothing deep and all knowing about this silly post of yours it's just exactly that, silly.

My commiserations to you Sad Alan, ippy.

[Gordon]

No.
My belief is based upon what my conscious thought processes discern to be the truth.  I can certainly choose what to think about, but I can't choose the logical consequences of what my thoughts discern.

So, presumably, when presented with other or new information, and after consideration of this information, your beliefs might change - yes?

[torridon]

Of course I answered your question.
I have stated quite clearly that I can't possibly choose to believe in something which I know is not true.

I recognise that atheism might offer many attractions compared to a life of devotion to faith.  And I recognise that I have the freedom to choose to live my life as an atheist and ignore my religious belief.  But I can never choose to deny what I know to be the truth.

Isn't it the truth that random = not determined and determined = not random ?

Yet somehow you keep managing to deny that simple truth over and over and over again.

[torridon]

Beliefs are defined by what we perceive to be true - it is not a personal preference.
Belief is based on what we discern to be the truth.
We have no freedom to choose what to believe - the truth is out there to be discovered, not chosen.

So if you can understand that, then you should also be able to understand that we cannot choose what to want. It comes down to the same principle. In every interaction we have with the wider world we are querying a new situation against our internal model. If the situation is a proposition then we query it against our current understanding to discover whether or not the proposition strikes us as plausible.  If the situation is a optional choice to make then we query it against our current preferences to discover whether or not the option appeals to us. We cannot force something that is implausible to somehow become plausible. We cannot force something that is unappealing to somehow become appealing.  We have no control over these things.

[Alan Burns]

So, presumably, when presented with other or new information, and after consideration of this information, your beliefs might change - yes?

Yes of course, but I honestly can't imagine what such information would comprise in order to change my belief in God.  It would certainly have to be something far more profound than anything I have come across on this forum.

[Alan Burns]

Isn't it the truth that random = not determined and determined = not random ?

Yet somehow you keep managing to deny that simple truth over and over and over again.

Here we go again!
Our freedom to consciously choose is determined  - by our God given free will - not pre determined by past physical events.

[Gordon]

Yes of course, but I honestly can't imagine what such information would comprise in order to change my belief in God.

Then your beliefs can be amended by your thinking, and by extension what you are thinking about: that you think it unlikely your current beliefs would change doesn't negate that your current beliefs aren't fixed.

It would certainly have to be something far more profound than anything I have come across on this forum.

Doesn't matter: what matters is that your beliefs are not mutually exclusive from your thinking. How effective you are at thinking is a separate matter. 

[Maeght]

Here we go again!
Our freedom to consciously choose is determined  - by our God given free will - not pre determined by past physical events.

You're right ......... in saying 'here we go again' because here you go again just making assertions.

[Alan Burns]

So if you can understand that, then you should also be able to understand that we cannot choose what to want. It comes down to the same principle. In every interaction we have with the wider world we are querying a new situation against our internal model. If the situation is a proposition then we query it against our current understanding to discover whether or not the proposition strikes us as plausible.  If the situation is a optional choice to make then we query it against our current preferences to discover whether or not the option appeals to us. We cannot force something that is implausible to somehow become plausible. We cannot force something that is unappealing to somehow become appealing.  We have no control over these things.

But after careful consideration of things such as plausibility and its appeal to us, we are still free to consciously choose whether or not to invoke an action.   Our actions are influenced, not dictated by our conscious preferences.

[torridon]

But after careful consideration of things such as plausibility and its appeal to us, we are still free to consciously choose whether or not to invoke an action.   Our actions are influenced, not dictated by our conscious preferences.

That makes no sense.  I've explained the principle of how choice works, and all you do is blithely come back with 'we can then choose whether or not to choose'. Can't you see that your logic is circular ?  If we can choose whether or not to act on a choice then presumably we can choose whether or not to act on the choice of whether not to act on the choice ....

All you have with your logic is infinite regress.  In reality that is not how minds work.

[Alan Burns]

That makes no sense.  I've explained the principle of how choice works, and all you do is blithely come back with 'we can then choose whether or not to choose'. Can't you see that your logic is circular ?  If we can choose whether or not to act on a choice then presumably we can choose whether or not to act on the choice of whether not to act on the choice ..

A choice only occurs when we consciously invoke that choice.  Prior to the choice being made we have conscious awareness of the options available. 

[torridon]

A choice only occurs when we consciously invoke that choice.  Prior to the choice being made we have conscious awareness of the options available.

Incorrect Mr Serial Denier, we have long known (and pointed out to you) that conscious awareness follows, not precedes, the making of a choice.

[wigginhall]

But Alan knows that while atheists have unconscious desires and decisions, Christians are super-conscious at all times!

[Alan Burns]

I wonder if, during the next few years,  there's even the faintest possible  chance of any world-known personality who will pipe up and say, 'But the Emperor has no clothes' or whatever  phrase is suitable for religious faith beliefs! Maybe Prince George, ;if he comes into contact with enough critical thinkers during his education, might do it...
Well, I'm going to remain an optimist.

But how deep does your conception of "critical thinking" go?

We have determined that our material universe began with an immense explosion of energy and will end when all this energy eventually burns out.    In between these two events, we have the emergence of conscious entities of perception (ourselves).  Are we just an unintended consequence of unguided natural forces acting upon material elements?  And under the deterministic control of this material universe, how can the concepts of meaning and purpose come into existence? And what about creativity?  In a purely materialistic scenario where every event is a naturally defined consequence of previous events, we can have nothing but inevitable, uncontrollable reactions.  Yet each one of us has the ability to consciously conceive, plan and implement.  We have freedom to achieve objectives and create works from our imagination.  We have the ability of critical thought.

From science, at the atomic level, we can perceive predictably defined reactions of material elements to events.  We can demonstrate how an event is a pre defined consequence to previous physical events.  But at the sub atomic level, we do not have such predictability.  We perceive quantum events which have no apparent cause, but there is a quandary in that the stable predictability at the atomic level depends upon the probability of specific quantum events occurring at precise times and places.  So we may conclude that the apparently uncaused quantum events are not random, but controlled by a means beyond our detection or understanding.  I once saw a BBC horizon program in which a quantum physicist claimed that under certain quantum conditions, it would be possible for a human being to walk through a solid brick wall unscathed.  Just imagine what could be achieved by having control of quantum events ..... (food for thought).

[Alan Burns]

Incorrect Mr Serial Denier, we have long known (and pointed out to you) that conscious awareness follows, not precedes, the making of a choice.

I know that specific physical brain activity can be detected before the conscious choice is made, but this correlation just adds to the mystery of our conscious awareness - it does not explain it.  What we can't detect is the spiritual nature of that which gives us the freedom to choose.  Our soul does whatever in needed to invoke our spiritually determined choice within the workings of the physical brain.

[Gordon]

But how deep does your conception of "critical thinking" go?

We have determined that our material universe began with an immense explosion of energy and will end when all this energy eventually burns out.    In between these two events, we have the emergence of conscious entities of perception (ourselves).  Are we just an unintended consequence of unguided natural forces acting upon material elements?

Quite possibly.

And under the deterministic control of this material universe, how can the concepts of meaning and purpose come into existence? And what about creativity?

Just biology, Alan: we might be creative but we can't fly unaided.

In a purely materialistic scenario where every event is a naturally defined consequence of previous events, we can have nothing but inevitable, uncontrollable reactions.

Argumentum ad consequentium.

Yet each one of us has the ability to consciously conceive, plan and implement.  We have freedom to achieve objectives and create works from our imagination.  We have the ability of critical thought.

So what! Even so, we can't flying unaided.

From science, at the atomic level, we can perceive predictably defined reactions of material elements to events.  We can demonstrate how an event is a pre defined consequence to previous physical events.  But at the sub atomic level, we do not have such predictability.  We perceive quantum events which have no apparent cause, but there is a quandary in that the stable predictability at the atomic level depends upon the probability of specific quantum events occurring at precise times and places.  So we may conclude that the apparently uncaused quantum events are not random, but controlled by a means beyond our detection or understanding.  I once saw a BBC horizon program in which a quantum physicist claimed that under certain quantum conditions, it would be possible for a human being to walk through a solid brick wall unscathed.  Just imagine what could be achieved by having control of quantum events ..... (food for thought).

Arguments from incredulity yet again, with an added dash of ignorance.

[Gordon]

What we can't detect is the spiritual nature of that which gives us the freedom to choose.

Nice to see begging the question getting an airing.

Our soul does whatever in needed to invoke our spiritually determined choice within the workings of the physical brain.

Really: and its mode of operation is what exactly?

[Alan Burns]

    In a purely materialistic scenario where every event is a naturally defined consequence of previous events, we can have nothing but inevitable, uncontrollable reactions.

Argumentum ad consequentium.

Why?

[Gordon]

Argumentum ad consequentium.


Why?

You clearly don't like the consequences of your portrayal of naturalism, as indicated by your 'we can have nothing but inevitable, uncontrollable reactions'.

[torridon]

We have determined that our material universe began with an immense explosion of energy and will end when all this energy eventually burns out.    In between these two events, we have the emergence of conscious entities of perception (ourselves).  Are we just an unintended consequence of unguided natural forces acting upon material elements?  And under the deterministic control of this material universe, how can the concepts of meaning and purpose come into existence? And what about creativity?  In a purely materialistic scenario where every event is a naturally defined consequence of previous events, we can have nothing but inevitable, uncontrollable reactions.  Yet each one of us has the ability to consciously conceive, plan and implement.  We have freedom to achieve objectives and create works from our imagination.  We have the ability of critical thought.

We have no evidence to suggest that thoughts, meaning, intentions, feelings, creativity etc are anything other than purely natural phenomena.  It might not be easy to trace the development from simple matter configurations to complex mental states, but that has clearly happened, and it is a challenge we can rise to to conceptualise and understand it.  Merely labelling it magic under some or other term simply ducks the challenge rather than facing it.  Magic explains nothing, it is a cop out.

[torridon]

I know that specific physical brain activity can be detected before the conscious choice is made, but this correlation just adds to the mystery of our conscious awareness - it does not explain it.  What we can't detect is the spiritual nature of that which gives us the freedom to choose.  Our soul does whatever in needed to invoke our spiritually determined choice within the workings of the physical brain.

'Spiritual nature' is just some flim-flam calculated to avoid and deny what we have learned about mind.  Fact is, most of our mental activity goes on under the hood; that doesn't justify us in imagining something spooky going on there that science cannot see.  It just means what the terms already in use mean - subconscious means below the level of our conscious awareness; preconscious means cerebral activity preceding fully conscious mental states.  The science is there for anyone to engage with, then we can drop all the mystical nonsense and come to understand the true wonder of mind.

[Alan Burns]

You clearly don't like the consequences of your portrayal of naturalism, as indicated by your 'we can have nothing but inevitable, uncontrollable reactions'.

I did not specify whether I liked this consequence or not - it was just a statement of fact.

What precisely is wrong with this statement?

[Gordon]

I did not specify whether I liked this consequence or not - it was just a statement of fact.

What precisely is wrong with this statement?

It is clearly, and bearing in mind your copious previous comments of a similar sentiment, an indication that you find determinism unacceptable because of how you regard the consequences: as in 'nothing but inevitable, uncontrollable reactions'.