Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

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.

You keep calling my logic flawed but you never point out the flaw(s). Where is the flaw? How can a choice be made that isn't entirely due to pre-existing reasons without, to the extent that it isn't, being for no reasons?

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.

That's just sidestepping the question (again). You can't put yourself outside of the choice making process. It is how you and I make choices that is the point.

Such control is not possible in a physically predetermined cause and effect scenario in which you can have no personal input.

Begging the question fallacy (again).

[Gordon]

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.

Nope - you have a desperate need for there to be 'God': so much so that you've contrived all this 'soul' stuff to make it sound credible to yourself, but just yourself mind since I'm not aware of any of your fellow Christians rushing to plough the same furrow - and that should worry you. Makes me wonder why you aren't as nuanced as some of your fellow Christians, who seem able to retain their faith without painting themselves into a neurological corner.

What you see as a 'flaw' is any explanation or theory that doesn't require this 'God' of yours, and so you beaver about trying to contrive a gap that you can insert your 'God' into. The problem you have is that it is your attempts that are flawed since they are logically hopeless and unsupported by any evidence and, to be frank, come across as no more than fallacious and childish magical thinking that seems, as far as I can see, to be unique to you.     

[Alan Burns]

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.

A choice which has been physically predetermined by the laws of physics working in our brain?

If so, then it can't be deemed to be "your" choice, but just the end result of a series of uncontrollable cause and effect events under the control of nothing but laws of nature.

[SusanDoris]

A choice which has been physically predetermined by the laws of physics working in our brain?

If so, then it can't be deemed to be "your" choice, but just the end result of a series of uncontrollable cause and effect events under the control of nothing but laws of nature.

It appears evident that you feel not even the slightest embarrassment at continuing to demonstrate your ignorance of human biology, the facts of which are known and employed to excellent effect, especialy in countries like ours. Why is that?

[Stranger]

A choice which has been physically predetermined by the laws of physics working in our brain?

You're obsessed with physics when it's logic that prevents your notion of 'freedom' from being possible. You cannot make a choice that isn't entirely due to pre-existing reasons unless you introduce some element that isn't due to pre-existing reasons, which means that it's random.

It's logically impossible - it's impossibility has nothing whatsoever to do with physics.

If so, then it can't be deemed to be "your" choice, but just the end result of a series of uncontrollable cause and effect events under the control of nothing but laws of nature.

False dichotomy.

[wigginhall]

It's the same dichotomy that Alan has persevered with for most of this thread.  The brain, being physical, cannot produce the mental.   Reason?  Alan's incredulity.  But the soul, being supernatural, can.  Reason?  Alan's credulity.

[torridon]

A choice which has been physically predetermined by the laws of physics working in our brain?

Stranger has already given a response to this in #30329 that is succinct and accurate. He's right, you're wrong, the free will debate is about logic, not physics and your 'logic' isn't logical.

If so, then it can't be deemed to be "your" choice, but just the end result of a series of uncontrollable cause and effect events under the control of nothing but laws of nature.

The 'me' that makes the choice is itself an outcome of all the influences that have fashioned me to date.  A choice I make is a true reflection of what I have become. I have no control over whether I was born a human or a lobster, I have no control over what sort of childhood I had or which parents I had and this absence of real control features right into the detail of the last moment - I have no control over whether to experience the sky as blue or to find that girl next door attractive or to believe something I don't believe.

[Gordon]

A choice which has been physically predetermined by the laws of physics working in our brain?

If so, then it can't be deemed to be "your" choice, but just the end result of a series of uncontrollable cause and effect events under the control of nothing but laws of nature.

Some observations and related questions, Alan;

1. If you are correct then the neurologists and psychologists who study the likes of consciousness must be on a loser unless they factor in supernatural agency as part of the explanation - so, do they?

2. If you are correct then religious organisations, such as the RCC that you belong to, would be supporting research that looked at supernatural interaction ('souls') with human biology - so, do they?

3. If 'souls' interact with human biology as regards conscious awareness and decision making if, as you claim, 'souls' are 'God-given', then how do these 'souls' operate in children and young people as they mature as people?

[wigginhall]

Good points, Gordon.  Presumably, those studying brain damage, whether through disease or accident, should be studying the effect on the soul, and brain/soul interactions.  I wonder if Alan has suggested this to doctors and others?  How should they proceed?

[Alan Burns]

Stranger has already given a response to this in #30329 that is succinct and accurate. He's right, you're wrong, the free will debate is about logic, not physics and your 'logic' isn't logical.

The 'me' that makes the choice is itself an outcome of all the influences that have fashioned me to date.  A choice I make is a true reflection of what I have become. I have no control over whether I was born a human or a lobster, I have no control over what sort of childhood I had or which parents I had and this absence of real control features right into the detail of the last moment - I have no control over whether to experience the sky as blue or to find that girl next door attractive or to believe something I don't believe.

Once again the trivial examples you quote are matters of truth over which we can have no choice and displays your lack of understanding in the concept of choice.  Truth is determined, not chosen.  Where we do have choice is in the control and implementation of our thoughts, words and actions.  Without this freedom, nothing we do can be deemed as our personal responsibility, because if we have no consciously driven choices, it is beyond our personal control.

[Alan Burns]

Nope - you have a desperate need for there to be 'God': so much so that you've contrived all this 'soul' stuff to make it sound credible to yourself, but just yourself mind since I'm not aware of any of your fellow Christians rushing to plough the same furrow - and that should worry you. Makes me wonder why you aren't as nuanced as some of your fellow Christians, who seem able to retain their faith without painting themselves into a neurological corner.

As I have explained earlier, Gordon, our freedom to choose is absolutely central to Christian faith.  Most Christians take the existence of human free will as an undisputable truth.  It is the atheist community who try to question the existence of human free will in an attempt to make reality fit in with a Godless material world.

What you see as a 'flaw' is any explanation or theory that doesn't require this 'God' of yours, and so you beaver about trying to contrive a gap that you can insert your 'God' into. The problem you have is that it is your attempts that are flawed since they are logically hopeless and unsupported by any evidence and, to be frank, come across as no more than fallacious and childish magical thinking that seems, as far as I can see, to be unique to you.   

How can you possibly deem them to be my attempts if I have no free will of my own?

[Shaker]

As I have explained earlier, Gordon, our freedom to choose is absolutely central to Christian faith.  Most Christians take the existence of human free will as an undisputable truth.

And that is always a problem and, at least sometimes, downright pernicious.

[ippy]

Some observations and related questions, Alan;

1. If you are correct then the neurologists and psychologists who study the likes of consciousness must be on a loser unless they factor in supernatural agency as part of the explanation - so, do they?

2. If you are correct then religious organisations, such as the RCC that you belong to, would be supporting research that looked at supernatural interaction ('souls') with human biology - so, do they?

3. If 'souls' interact with human biology as regards conscious awareness and decision making if, as you claim, 'souls' are 'God-given', then how do these 'souls' operate in children and young people as they mature as people?

Just as a small add on to the shirt tail of this post of your's Gordon, my wife as well as other close relatives of mine that are well qualified in the area of psychology and they have all commented at various times about the same thing that psychology becomes a very fraught subject for anyone that has a strong religious belief.

It's not my subject so I can't give detailed examples of the problems these people have when studying psychology to gain their qualifications.

I can only pass on the things I repeatedly hear said where religious believers often dump their religious beliefs based on the conflicts they come across during their studies of psychology, some pass up on the courses presented because of the challenge psychology presents to their long held beliefs and the odd few that hang on in spite of the conflict psychology presents to their beliefs, I wouldn't know how that last lot manage coming to terms with their beliefs and psychology?

Having said the above it's always, virtually to a person, studying psychology gives a really strong challenge to religious believers, and that lot's from the horses mouth, direct from well read psychologists.

All power to your post Gordon.

Regards ip[py

[Alan Burns]

Just as a small add on to the shirt tail of this post of your's Gordon, my wife as well as other close relatives of mine that are well qualified in the area of psychology and they have all commented at various times about the same thing that psychology becomes a very fraught subject for anyone that has a strong religious belief.

It's not my subject so I can't give detailed examples of the problems these people have when studying psychology to gain their qualifications.

I can only pass on the things I repeatedly hear said where religious believers often dump their religious beliefs based on the conflicts they come across during their studies of psychology, some pass up on the courses presented because of the challenge psychology presents to their long held beliefs and the odd few that hang on in spite of the conflict psychology presents to their beliefs, I wouldn't know how that last lot manage coming to terms with their beliefs and psychology?

Having said the above it's always, virtually to a person, studying psychology gives a really strong challenge to religious believers, and that lot's from the horses mouth, direct from well read psychologists.

All power to your post Gordon.

Regards ip[py

As I have mentioned before, Ippy:

One of my closest Christian friends is a professor of psychology who is employed as a psychiatrist by the NHS.  He will verify that the study of psychology offers no conflict to Christian faith.

[Gordon]

As I have explained earlier, Gordon, our freedom to choose is absolutely central to Christian faith.

Is your 'wee man at the controls' view what most Christians consider to be 'free will'?

Most Christians take the existence of human free will as an undisputable truth.

Is it possible they are wrong?

It is the atheist community who try to question the existence of human free will in an attempt to make reality fit in with a Godless material world.

Leaving aside the pile of straw you've deployed here, is querying 'free will' a strictly atheist position?

How can you possibly deem them to be my attempts if I have no free will of my own?

Because I remain unconvinced that we have 'free will' as you portray it and I do think that people do have the ability to think critically, albeit in doing so they aren't completely free of personal traits, knowledge, experience, the actions of others, their assessment of  previous prevailing circumstances and their expectations regarding the likely future state of affairs.

[Alan Burns]

False dichotomy

So in a physically determined scenario, what else can control our thoughts, words and actions other than the physical laws of nature?

[Gordon]

As I have mentioned before, Ippy:

One of my closest Christian friends is a professor of psychology who is employed as a psychiatrist by the NHS.  He will verify that the study of psychology offers no conflict to Christian faith.

Is that psychology or psychiatry, Alan, they are different roles and professions, with the latter requiring a medical background? He could be both of course but since there may be other psychologists or psychiatrists who may think differently we'd need to know the basis of his assessment that there is no conflict between either of these disciplines and Christian faith.

As it stands you're just deploying an argument from (unspecified) authority.

[Gordon]

So in a physically determined scenario, what else can control our thoughts, words and actions other than the physical laws of nature?

Nothing that we know of - fortunately our biology does allow us to think (among all the other functions of our biology, some of which require no thought at all).

[Alan Burns]

Is that psychology or psychiatry, Alan, they are different roles and professions, with the latter requiring a medical background? He could be both of course but since there may be other psychologists or psychiatrists who think differently we'd need to know the basis of his assessment that there is no conflict between either of these disciplines and Christian faith.

As it stands you're just deploying an argument from (unspecified) authority.

I may be getting psychology mixed up with psychiatry - I will check this out with my Christian friend, but he is certainly a professor of one or the other.

In any case, I was just offering a counter argument to Ippy's point that psychology study presents conflicts with Christian faith.  I personally find no conflict between the mechanical working of the brain and the human ability to consciously drive it.

[Alan Burns]

Nothing that we know of - fortunately our biology does allow us to think (among all the other functions of our biology, some of which require no thought at all).

But as I informed you earlier, this is an assertion because we have no physical definition of what comprises conscious thought.  Our biological machine may well react to thoughts, but physical reactions do not define thoughts.

[Gordon]

I may be getting psychology mixed up with psychiatry - I will check this out with my Christian friend, but he is certainly a professor of one or the other.

Super: and how does either qualify him to pronounce that the Christian view of 'free will' doesn't conflict with psychology or psychiatry?

In any case, I was just offering a counter argument to Ippy's point that psychology study presents conflicts with Christian faith.

I can't clarify ippy's point but I would be very surprised if professional psychologists or psychiatrists confirmed the interaction of supernatural agency with human biology as a considered finding as part of their professional role, unless of course they wanted to stop being a professional psychologist or psychiatrist: perhaps they were simply offering their personal opinion and you are wrongly portraying this as authoritative professional opinion.

I personally find no conflict between the mechanical working of the brain and the human ability to consciously drive it.

As the Beatles (might have) said: 'All you need is love brains' (dum de dum de dum).

[Gordon]

But as I informed you earlier, this is an assertion because we have no physical definition of what comprises conscious thought.  Our biological machine may well react to thoughts, but physical reactions do not define thoughts.

Don't be silly: we know that thinking involves neurological activity in our brains (EEG's confirm this, as does asking people questions when they are undergoing some types of brain surgery to see how their response is affected), and we also know that dead people don't think at all: no neurological activity you see.

Stop being so infantile!

[ippy]

As I have mentioned before, Ippy:

One of my closest Christian friends is a professor of psychology who is employed as a psychiatrist by the NHS.  He will verify that the study of psychology offers no conflict to Christian faith.

As a christian he obviously has a bias, it's not as though this conflict with psychology isn't well known, have a check of this blokes credentials, my niece is a doctor of psychology, touche.

Regards ippy

[SteveH]

You're obsessed with physics when it's logic that prevents your notion of 'freedom' from being possible. You cannot make a choice that isn't entirely due to pre-existing reasons unless you introduce some element that isn't due to pre-existing reasons, which means that it's random.

It's logically impossible - it's impossibility has nothing whatsoever to do with physics.

False dichotomy.

You keep droning on about the impossibility of free-will, and repeating this argument, but it's a bit more complicated than that. See the "Compatiblism" section of this article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

[Alan Burns]

Don't be silly: we know that thinking involves neurological activity in our brains (EEG's confirm this, as does asking people questions when they are undergoing some types of brain surgery to see how their response is affected), and we also know that dead people don't think at all: no neurological activity you see.

Stop being so infantile!

Correlation can't be used to define cause.