Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

Your contention that everything is defined by the combined effect of nature, nurture, and experience does not comply with a deliberate action, because it precludes the concept of conscious choice.

From the online dictionary:
deliberate
adjective: deliberate

    1.
    done consciously and intentionally.

That is not a contradiction. How can something be "done consciously and intentionally" if it is not done as a direct result of the nature of the person making the choice and the circumstances of the choice? Randomness (which is the only alternative) cannot contribute to  a deliberate act.

[Stranger]

All the factors you list influence a choice, but the final choice is determined by your conscious will.

Once again you've evaded the logic by saying what determines the choice rather than how the choice is made - is the distinction too difficult for you?

This is reality.  This is what makes us human.  Your above statement implies that there can be only one choice, but this, by definition, means there is effectively no choice.

Randomness cannot make us human. If our personality and our state of mind at the time, applied to the situation at hand, does not determine just one choice, then it is not us that is making the choice - it is just random noise.

[wigginhall]

It's interesting that religious ritual relies to an extent on rote repetition, for example, the Nicene  Creed in the Christian Eucharist.   I make no comment on how it works there, but you can see rote repetition in some arguments by Christians.   I suppose it's reassuring and non-challenging, a bit like saying a Hail Mary.

[Alan Burns]

That is not a contradiction. How can something be "done consciously and intentionally" if it is not done as a direct result of the nature of the person making the choice and the circumstances of the choice? Randomness (which is the only alternative) cannot contribute to  a deliberate act.

Not randomness but wilfulness

[Alan Burns]

That is not a contradiction. How can something be "done consciously and intentionally" if it is not done as a direct result of the nature of the person making the choice and the circumstances of the choice?

Because the nature of the person making the choice will include their God given freedom to make their conscious choice.  Otherwise the words "consciously and intentionally" are meaningless.

[Alan Burns]

It's interesting that religious ritual relies to an extent on rote repetition, for example, the Nicene  Creed in the Christian Eucharist.   I make no comment on how it works there, but you can see rote repetition in some arguments by Christians.   I suppose it's reassuring and non-challenging, a bit like saying a Hail Mary.

I detect abundant repetition in the arguments from the secular community.  In particular their blinkered denial of their freedom to make a conscious choice.

[ippy]

I detect abundant repetition in the arguments from the secular community.  In particular their blinkered denial of their freedom to make a conscious choice.

Of course we all have free will we have no choice about it it's there, you can't say to yourself, no I'm not having it any more, no more free will for me today thank you very much!

There isn't any evidence that we've free will because Mr Magic says so and the amount of times anyone spends asserting perhaps day and night that we have free will doesn't give any good evidentially supporting reason to think that there's any such thing as a Mr Magic sitting around dispencing free will on all and sundry.

Anyone can invent beliefs in anything they want such as any god you might like to think of or what was that other invention, oh yes a soul, something else that can't be proved to exist with any verifiable evidence that might support the idea if there were any such evidence.

Why don't you contact Sriram he's got at least a half a dozen various gods he could offer you Alan, what's wrong with them they're all equally as viable as any of yours? 

I wonder if they sit around all day giving out free will certificates too, what d'you think?

My commiseration to you Alan, ippy. 

[Gordon]

I detect abundant repetition in the arguments from the secular community.  In particular their blinkered denial of their freedom to make a conscious choice.

It has nothing to do with being 'secular' or not: it is simply a case of pointing out to you that your position is illogical and your arguments are incoherent and/or fallacious. Neither has this to do with whether or not there is a god: it is about how you personally argue for this god.

I have no idea why you cling limpet-like to to your soul/free will/consciousness position given the numerous rebuttals you've had when it seems your fellow Christians aren't queuing up to adopt your approach in order to justify their faith - perhaps it is time you faced facts, recognised the illogical aspects of your current arguments and conceded you've got it wrong!

 

[Alan Burns]

It has nothing to do with being 'secular' or not: it is simply a case of pointing out to you that your position is illogical and your arguments are incoherent and/or fallacious. Neither has this to do with whether or not there is a god: it is about how you personally argue for this god.

I have no idea why you cling limpet-like to to your soul/free will/consciousness position given the numerous rebuttals you've had when it seems your fellow Christians aren't queuing up to adopt your approach in order to justify their faith - perhaps it is time you faced facts, recognised the illogical aspects of your current arguments and conceded you've got it wrong!

But the alleged rebuttals amount to a denial of our ability to make conscious choices in order to shoehorn our reality to fit in with current human knowledge, and a presumption that there will eventually be an explanation of how conscious awareness can emerge from material particles reacting with each other.  (The same material particles which can be found in a piece of rock).  I could go on about the improbability of life coming into existence from random natural forces, and the demonstrable reality of the existence of intelligent design in this universe evidenced by human creativity.  And then there are miracles, answers to prayer, personal relationship with God.  And divine revelation in the Gospels which confirm all this.

But the most compelling evidence for God's existence is my awareness of my own existence.

[torridon]

Our freedom to choose is limited to what is feasible.  But this limitation does not take away our freedom to choose.  Choices are limited within feasible constrains, but they are still conscious choices.  And our freedom to choose and to manipulate our own thought patterns is evidenced by your ability to construct logical arguments to support your conclusions - even though they are obviously wrong - because your conclusions deny you the freedom of thought needed to reach those conclusions.

Clearly we can only choose from amongst feasible alternatives.  But even from amongst those feasible alternatives the option that is chosen is the one that appealed most to us, and we have no control over how much something appeals to us.  How can it be 'free' if we have no control over much the varying options appeal to us.

We don't really manipulate our thoughts.  Can you direct which areas of cortex to route a thought through ? Can you moderate its speed of transmission. Can you choose which thoughts to think ?  We can do none of these things; thoughts happen, and they happen in response to prior events, often prior thoughts.  If I choose to spend time thinking about Poland, that is because the idea of thinking about Poland came to me from somewhere, and the idea appealed more than other options.

[torridon]

Because the nature of the person making the choice will include their God given freedom to make their conscious choice.  Otherwise the words "consciously and intentionally" are meaningless.

Can you explain why people make different choices ? Some people have liberal views, others more conservative. Some are Brexiteers, others are Remainers.  Some children want to be a policeman when they grow up, others want to be a pop star.

All these might be 'feasible' possibilities.  What is your explanation for the diversity of choices made by 'spiritual souls'.  Why is it that some people like apricots whilst others prefer nectarines ?

[SusanDoris]

But the alleged rebuttals amount to a denial of our ability to make conscious choices in order to shoehorn our reality to fit in with current human knowledge, and a presumption that there will eventually be an explanation of how conscious awareness can emerge from material particles reacting with each other.  (The same material particles which can be found in a piece of rock).  I could go on about the improbability of life coming into existence from random natural forces, and the demonstrable reality of the existence of intelligent design in this universe evidenced by human creativity.  And then there are miracles, answers to prayer, personal relationship with God.  And divine revelation in the Gospels which confirm all this.

But the most compelling evidence for God's existence is my awareness of my own existence.

Do you think that Sir Cliff Richard's case went in his favour because, apparently, he prayed every night for four years for the outcome?

[torridon]

But the most compelling evidence for God's existence is my awareness of my own existence.

That's not compelling evidence, that is a fallacy, a non-sequitur.  If it were compelling evidence, then it would be the basis of the scientific theory of God. 

[Stranger]

Not randomness but wilfulness

The two are it totally different categories. Wilfulness isn't an alternative to determinism or randomness, wilfulness has to be deterministic, random, or a combination.

I detect abundant repetition in the arguments from the secular community.  In particular their blinkered denial of their freedom to make a conscious choice.

I for one, make no such denial.

Because the nature of the person making the choice will include their God given freedom to make their conscious choice.  Otherwise the words "consciously and intentionally" are meaningless.

But "God given freedom to make their conscious choice" is just a meaningless string or words unless you can say how it works.

Once again, you are ignoring the basic logic. If every single factor that could possibly contribute to making a choice (including the nature of the person making it and their current state of mind) do not result in only one possible choice, then any remaining choice must be based on nothing at all and therefore be random.

You have never even attempted to address that argument - I wonder why...

[Gordon]

But the alleged rebuttals amount to a denial of our ability to make conscious choices in order to shoehorn our reality to fit in with current human knowledge, and a presumption that there will eventually be an explanation of how conscious awareness can emerge from material particles reacting with each other. (The same material particles which can be found in a piece of rock).

That prospect utterly terrifies you: by the way you're using the fallacy of composition again.

I could go on about the improbability of life coming into existence from random natural forces, and the demonstrable reality of the existence of intelligent design in this universe evidenced by human creativity.

You could, but then you'd be indulging in the same daftness we see from creationists.

And then there are miracles, answers to prayer, personal relationship with God.  And divine revelation in the Gospels which confirm all this.

Miracles are anecdotal bunkum unless you can exclude mistakes and lies, as is answers to prayers - no supporting evidence in either case you see, and a high risk of bias from enthusiasts such as yourself. Your personal feelings about god are just that: your personal feelings, and the anecdotal accounts of Jesus in the gospels (though some of the place names are no doubt correct) are indistinguishable from fiction given the risks of mistake, exaggeration and lies.   

But the most compelling evidence for God's existence is my awareness of my own existence.

Leaving aside the grandiosity in your remark, your awareness of your own existence is compelling evidence only that you have a functioning brain, Alan.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That prospect utterly terrifies you: by the way you're using the fallacy of composition again.

The prospect doesn't terrify me....Dust to dust, ashes to ashes is after all a biblical concept. What I object to is the implicit claim that consciousness is finally explained when it hasn't in fact been teased from intelligence and as we know we can have intelligence without consciousness.

[Gordon]

The prospect doesn't terrify me....Dust to dust, ashes to ashes is after all a biblical concept. What I object to is the implicit claim that consciousness is finally explained when it hasn't in fact been teased from intelligence and as we know we can have intelligence without consciousness.

I haven't claimed that though: I take it the farmer has just delivered some more straw. Mind you, I suppose we do have examples of consciousness without intelligence 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I haven't claimed that though: I take it the farmer has just delivered some more straw. Mind you, I suppose we do have examples of consciousness without intelligence 

Gordon, all I'm doing is saying the prospect you raise is not terrifying (would you like it to be? Do you think it should be?) and what I see as an error on the part of those who suppose consciousness is explained especially those who explain it as intelligence. Did I mention your name? No...…..it's not all about you Gordon.


Alan makes the point that the link between material to consciousness are not yet adequately described, and has IMV been pressing you guys for them and been dissapointed by the usual antitheist 'Ve ask Ze questions!'' tactic.

[Alan Burns]

That prospect utterly terrifies you ......

How can I be terrified by something which I know is impossible?

The prospect of piece of reconstituted star debris generating its own terrified state

[Sebastian Toe]

Alan makes the point that the link between material to consciousness are not yet adequately described,

.....something which I know is impossible?

Do you think he will believe 'any' explanation? 

[Alan Burns]

Do you think that Sir Cliff Richard's case went in his favour because, apparently, he prayed every night for four years for the outcome?

I believe in the power of prayer.
So I will pray for your conversion, Susan.

[BeRational]

I believe in the power of prayer.
So I will pray for your conversion, Susan.

Why not pray to god to ask him what he would like you to write on here?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you think he will believe 'any' explanation? 

Come up with one and we would have to see.

[wigginhall]

Gordon, all I'm doing is saying the prospect you raise is not terrifying (would you like it to be? Do you think it should be?) and what I see as an error on the part of those who suppose consciousness is explained especially those who explain it as intelligence. Did I mention your name? No...…..it's not all about you Gordon.


Alan makes the point that the link between material to consciousness are not yet adequately described, and has IMV been pressing you guys for them and been dissapointed by the usual antitheist 'Ve ask Ze questions!'' tactic.

I don't think anyone is claiming that consciousness has been described, are they?  However, this is particularly droll, since Alan's purported solution has no detail given at all.   That's the trouble with the supernatural, it's a bit slippery.

[Nearly Sane]

I believe in the power of prayer.
So I will pray for your conversion, Susan.

'You pray for me, and I'll think for you'