Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

There is evidence in abundance for the existence of God.

No there isn't, since if there were 'God' would be a fact and faith would be unnecessary.

But the intellectual freedom you use to try to dismiss this evidence is itself evidence of your own spiritual nature, for such freedom can't exist in a physically deterministic material universe.

I see you're still using redundant terms, which simply adds an additional level of meaninglessness to an already meaningless assertion.

You need to discern the difference between the human attempts to find and define God, and the God who has made Himself known to humans.

Nope - otherwise we would all know this 'God' as being a fact in this bit of the universe: like how we know there are kangaroos in this bit of the universe.

To discover the true meaning and purpose behind our existence.

Begging the question (another fallacy).

And seek the eternal salvation of the human soul.

Ditto.

The soul being defined as that which consciously perceives information in our material brains, and that which facilitates our freedom to make conscious choices.

Easy for you to say, since you can 'define' things anyway you want when you make stuff up. Tolkien 'defined' Hobbits as having hairy feet but that doesn't mean that Hobbits exist. No doubt you'll say that Hobbits are fictional, and they are: I've asked you before how you've excluded the risks of lies, exaggeration ans mistake in the NT accounts of Jesus, since if you can't the NT is indistinguishable from fiction - I don't think you've answered yet!
 

God has not made Himself hidden.  He made Himself known to us by becoming one of us, in the name of Jesus Christ.

So the story goes - see my preceding comment.

You could start with a prayer.
Listen to personal testimonies.
Read and contemplate on the New Testament.
Read the historical evidence of the saints.
Try opening the door to allow God into your life.

Or I could treat your list of steps with the disdain it deserves given there is no evidence that any of these things are any more than ingrained superstitious behaviour. It might make you feel good if that kind of thing floats your boat - but by being utterly unconvincing it doesn't float mine.

[Alan Burns]

AB When are you going to crack? After 1200 pages there must be a whiff of doubt about something you believe in. Surely. Anything? Or that bloody annoying alternative IE someone like you is just a lost cause to all the clues, answers, best guesses and having an open mind. Must be really frustrating for you to peddle the things you do.

Can you not see that every reply to my posts provides more evidence for our human ability to consciously drive and control our own thoughts?

In particular we have the mental gymnastics performed by people like Stranger to try to define some form of freedom of choice within a material world entirely controlled by the deterministic nature of particle physics.

[savillerow]

AB Your "mental gymnastics" for denial are off the scale.

[Gordon]

Can you not see that every reply to my posts provides more evidence for our human ability to consciously drive and control our own thoughts?

Those who reply to your posts do have a functioning brain: we already know this.

In particular we have the mental gymnastics performed by people like Stranger to try to define some form of freedom of choice within a material world entirely controlled by the deterministic nature of particle physics.

Brains are the best (and only) option we have for mental gymnastics: three cheers for functioning biology!

[Alan Burns]

Baseless assertion. Your own version of 'freedom' is contradictory and hence impossible. And once again: claiming our experience as evidence for your particular view of consciousness is tantamount to lying.
 

As I have explained earlier, my own concept of freedom is based on the dynamic ability of our conscious awareness to invoke a choice driven by the present state of mind, not the past.  Your constant assertions about spiritually determined events (if they exist) being pre determined in the same way as physically determined events is totally unfounded, because you can't define what controls our spiritual nature in the same way as we can define what controls physical processes.  Physically defined processes can have no source of control other than previous physically defined processes, with no possibility for consciously driven interaction.

[Alan Burns]

AB Your "mental gymnastics" for denial are off the scale.

But how can any form of mental gymnastics be performed in a physically pre determined material brain under the control of nothing but the laws of physics?

[Stranger]

As I have explained earlier, my own concept of freedom is based on the dynamic ability of our conscious awareness to invoke a choice driven by the present state of mind, not the past.

Alan, do we really have to go through it all over again?

Any present state of mind is either entirely due to previous reasons for it to arrive at that state, or not, and to the extent it isn't, it is in that state for no reasons at all, which means random.

You can't generate a new reason in the instant of the present unless it's random. You can't add the output of another choice making entity because that entity's choice is subject to the same logic.

[Gordon]

As I have explained earlier, my own concept of freedom is based on the dynamic ability of our conscious awareness to invoke a choice driven by the present state of mind, not the past.

You 'own concept' of freedom is flawed since it includes supernatural agency you can say nothing about that isn't fallacious or incoherent.
 

Your constant assertions about spiritually determined events (if they exist) being pre determined in the same way as physically determined events is totally unfounded, because you can't define what controls our spiritual nature in the same way as we can define what controls physical processes.

Here we go again: you add redundant qualifiers, then you add some begging the question, then you mix well and then wrap up it all up in the pastry of your own personal incredulity - congratulations: you've just created the first truly fallacious sausage-roll.

Physically defined processes can have no source of control other than previous physically defined processes, with no possibility for consciously driven interaction.

Yet we are still able to think with just our biological equipment: is there not something in your holy book about leaving childish things behind, Alan?

[Stranger]

But how can any form of mental gymnastics be performed in a physically pre determined material brain under the control of nothing but the laws of physics?

Apart from meaningless assertions about your own private meaning of the word 'control' and incredulity, what is the problem?

And your alternative is self-contradictory. The statement "A choice is made entirely due to pre-existing reasons" has to be both true (to avoid any randomness) and false (to avoid being 'predetermined').

It's impossible.

[Alan Burns]

Those who reply to your posts do have a functioning brain: we already know this.

Brains are the best (and only) option we have for mental gymnastics: three cheers for functioning biology!

Brains certainly provide the mechanisms for functioning biology, but within these physically pre determined mechanisms there is nothing in control other than the laws of physics.  So do you conclude that our mental gymnastics are driven by nothing else but physically controlled reactions?  Or could there be something else responsible for controlling these physical mechanisms?

[Alan Burns]

Yet we are still able to think with just our biological equipment

You can't just assert this without having a physical definition of what comprises our conscious thoughts.

Can you not conceive the possibility that conscious thought is beyond any physical definition?

[SteveH]

AB When are you going to crack? After 1200 pages there must be a whiff of doubt about something you believe in. Surely. Anything? Or that bloody annoying alternative IE someone like you is just a lost cause to all the clues, answers, best guesses and having an open mind. Must be really frustrating for you to peddle the things you do.

Your own mind doesn't sound terribly open. Why is it ok for you to be certain of your beliefs, but not for AB?

[Alan Burns]

Alan, do we really have to go through it all over again?

Any present state of mind is either entirely due to previous reasons for it to arrive at that state, or not, and to the extent it isn't, it is in that state for no reasons at all, which means random.

You can't generate a new reason in the instant of the present unless it's random. You can't add the output of another choice making entity because that entity's choice is subject to the same logic.

So you constantly assert, without having any knowledge of what controls our spiritual nature or how it works and interacts with our physical presence.

[Gordon]

Brains certainly provide the mechanisms for functioning biology, but within these physically pre determined mechanisms there is nothing in control other than the laws of physics.

Leaving aside your redundant 'pre-determined', biology is physical - but we know this already. 

So do you conclude that our mental gymnastics are driven by nothing else but physically controlled reactions?

It is a complex area that isn't yet fully understood, but it does seem likely that brains operate in the physical realm: get used to it, Alan, and stop making stuff up that you can't support with either evidence or logic.
 

Or could there be something else responsible for controlling these physical mechanisms?

There could be anything: but your personal incredulity isn't a sufficient basis to think that your unevidenced and illogical ramblings here constitute anything that is logical or investigable. 

[Gordon]

You can't just assert this without having a physical definition of what comprises our conscious thoughts.

Why not? It clearly fits the evidence to date that thinking is a biological process, and as far as I know neuroscience concentrates solely on the physical. Ironic that you assert the 'spiritual' without being able to 'define' it without recourse to fallacious reasoning.

Can you not conceive the possibility that conscious thought is beyond any physical definition?

It could be but I can see no basis, as things stand, to think that: such as a clear statement of what you mean when you say 'beyond any physical definition'. It sounds like more of your trademark incredulity.

[Stranger]

So you constantly assert...

It's not an assertion, it's logic. If you think you can make a choice that isn't entirely due to pre-existing reasons without introducing randomness (which is what doing things without a reason is), then you need to say how you avoid the contradiction.

...without having any knowledge of what controls our spiritual nature or how it works and interacts with our physical presence.

It simply doesn't matter. Unless you are going to say it's so magic it can be self-contradictory, what you are suggesting is logically impossible.

[Gordon]

So you constantly assert, without having any knowledge of what controls our spiritual nature or how it works and interacts with our physical presence.

Aside from yet more begging the question here, perhaps it is time you presented something investigable or logical in support of this 'spiritual nature' and how it 'interacts with our physical presence': the parameters of what the 'spiritual' comprises and the mode of operation involved in its 'interaction' with the physical would be good.

Variations around 'it's magic' are insufficient.

[Alan Burns]

Leaving aside your redundant 'pre-determined', biology is physical - but we know this already. 

The words "predetermined" and "determined" both exist as separate words in our language, so you can't just dismiss one of them as being redundant.

Physical events are predetermined by definition of complying with the laws of physics.

It is a complex area that isn't yet fully understood, but it does seem likely that brains operate in the physical realm: get used to it, Alan, and stop making stuff up that you can't support with either evidence or logic.

The evidence and logic exist in my own ability, and yours, to control and drive your own thought processes.  I am not making up this quite obvious evidence.

 
There could be anything: but your personal incredulity isn't a sufficient basis to think that your unevidenced and illogical ramblings here constitute anything that is logical or investigable.

Yes, our ability to make consciously driven choices and control our own thoughts within a physically pre determined material world demands some form of incredulity.  But we have the ability to look beyond this illogical scenario to discover the true nature within each one of us, given to us by our Creator.

[Gordon]

The words "predetermined" and "determined" both exist as separate words in our language, so you can't just dismiss one of them as being redundant.

So they do: the problem is your use of them in certain contexts.

Physical events are predetermined by definition of complying with the laws of physics.

Super.

The evidence and logic exist in my own ability, and yours, to control and drive your own thought processes.

Even more super: aren't the laws of physics wonderful at times.

I am not making up this quite obvious evidence.

Yes you are, and you seem to have your own definition of 'obvious'.

Yes, our ability to make consciously driven choices and control our own thoughts within a physically pre determined material world demands some form of incredulity.

That depends on how you are using the term 'incredulity' - in what way are you using it?

But we have the ability to look beyond this illogical scenario to discover the true nature within each one of us, given to us by our Creator.

There is nothing illogical about the laws of physics being applicable to our biology, and related phenomena such as thinking, as we understand them to date: that you think them illogical or insufficient doesn't matter when you descend, as you do here, into yet more begging the question (which is your fallacy du jour it seems).

[Stranger]

The words "predetermined" and "determined" both exist as separate words in our language, so you can't just dismiss one of them as being redundant.

They do but in the context of a discussion about whether decision making is a deterministic system or not, they mean exactly the same thing.

The evidence and logic exist in my own ability, and yours, to control and drive your own thought processes.  I am not making up this quite obvious evidence.

It is not evidence Alan and your attempt to make it so is dishonest. Every conjecture about consciousness seeks to explain our experience, nobody is denying what it's like to be human.

But we have the ability to look beyond this illogical scenario to discover the true nature within each one of us, given to us by our Creator.

You have failed to say what's illogical about it and you will not face the glaring logical contradiction in your own ideas.

[torridon]

This post is a work of pathological macho reduction and frank dehumanisation. Atrocious.

That's rather your bias showing I'm afraid.  The workings of the limbic system to mediate behaviours through various neuropeptides is well known and uncontroversial in science.  All our choices and behaviours are implicated up in this paleomammalian cortical functionality.  If you want to remain ignorant and in the dark about the neurophysiological basis of behaviour that is your choice.

[Alan Burns]

They do but in the context of a discussion about whether decision making is a deterministic system or not, they mean exactly the same thing.

It is not evidence Alan and your attempt to make it so is dishonest. Every conjecture about consciousness seeks to explain our experience, nobody is denying what it's like to be human.

You have failed to say what's illogical about it and you will not face the glaring logical contradiction in your own ideas.

The contradiction is in your own flawed logic which can never be used to explain what determines our ability to consciously compose these message exchanges between us.  Somewhere in the process you need the ability to consciously guide and control your own thought patterns, otherwise they can't be deemed to be your personal thoughts.  Such control is not possible in a physically predetermined cause and effect scenario in which you can have no personal input.

[torridon]

You can't just assert this without having a physical definition of what comprises our conscious thoughts.

Can you not conceive the possibility that conscious thought is beyond any physical definition?

The evidence is clear, thoughts are a neurological phenomenon.  This is the 21st century, time to stop believing in magic Alan.

[SusanDoris]

So you constantly assert, without having any knowledge of what controls our spiritual nature or how it works and interacts with our physical presence.

The one without the noledge is you, AB, and your overwhelming conceited self-delusion - it is correct to call it that, since you never produce one fact that will stand up to scrutiny, or any argument which will refute or replace the growing body of knowledge available. How anyone can live life enjoying such a mind closed to rational argument and reality is incomprehensible to me.

[torridon]

Brains certainly provide the mechanisms for functioning biology, but within these physically pre determined mechanisms there is nothing in control other than the laws of physics.  So do you conclude that our mental gymnastics are driven by nothing else but physically controlled reactions?  Or could there be something else responsible for controlling these physical mechanisms?

No, we don't need to invoke supernatural or magic explanations; such ideas inevitably contradict themselves and lead to logical absurdities as people have demonstrated on this thread over and over again. Do the right thing, observe, and try to understand; magic explains nothing.