Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Come on Alan, seriously? Do you never read what has been said? This has been explained multiple times and you've never faced up to it.

"Controlled by conscious will" tells us nothing at all about how the conscious will makes its choice and it's the actual choice making process that must be deterministic or not.

There are the inputs to a choice: the whole character of the person making it, her experience and state of mind, and all the circumstances of the choice. Then, somehow (in some magical spiritual realm or not), a choice is made and we have an output.

If the output depends only on the input, it is a deterministic process (if we could produce the exactly the same inputs, we'd get the same output), if not, then some part of the process must have been random.

There are no other options and it has nothing to do with the physical or whether it involves consciousness, because consciousness needs to work somehow too.

Your version of conscious human will is self-contradictory because you keep on pretending that the above logic does not apply to it because it isn't physical - which is nonsense.

All of which is perfectly consistent with deterministic minds. And adding spiritual or physical to the determinism makes no difference at all (you're just making that up), there is only determinism or randomness, because the very definition of a deterministic system is that there is no randomness.

As I have previously explained,  before making any choice I am consciously aware of things which can influence the choice.  But these influences do not dictate my choice.  In the end it is simply a consciously driven act of will - nothing else.  I am free to make my own choices - they are not dictated by reasons, but invoked by conscious will.  And because it is a conscious act of will, it is certainly not random.

[Stranger]

As I have previously explained,  before making any choice I am consciously aware of things which can influence the choice.  But these influences do not dictate my choice.

And if your final choice is not dictated by all the reasons, then that part must be for no reason, which means it's random.

In the end it is simply a consciously driven act of will - nothing else.  I am free to make my own choices - they are not dictated by reasons, but invoked by conscious will.

Once again you are simply pretending that logic doesn't apply to your will.

In order for consciousness to 'drive' a wilful act, it needs to make a choice - the act itself is the result of a choice and that choice is either dictated by the reasons (including all the characteristics of the person making the choice) or it involves randomness (by definition).

[torridon]

As I have previously explained,  before making any choice I am consciously aware of things which can influence the choice.  But these influences do not dictate my choice.  In the end it is simply a consciously driven act of will - nothing else.  I am free to make my own choices - they are not dictated by reasons, but invoked by conscious will.  And because it is a conscious act of will, it is certainly not random.

So, still not explaining how conscious will can resolve a choice.  Par for the course for Mr Evasive.

[Alan Burns]

You are like someone at risk of drowning who, while screaming 'I'm here', ignores all the lifebelts being thrown within his grasp from various helpful onlookers in order to continue thrashing about in increasingly choppy waters.

If I were you, Alan, I'd start examining the lifebelts more closely instead of just ignoring them.

What keeps me going, Gordon, is the certainty that my faith in the living God is far greater than any belief in the capabilities of biology, unguided evolution, physical determinism, emergent properties etc could ever achieve.

[Gordon]

As I have previously explained,  before making any choice I am consciously aware of things which can influence the choice.  But these influences do not dictate my choice.

Don't be silly: unless you are making random choices then your choices are dependent on any influences and prevailing circumstances, some of which you may not be conscious of.

In the end it is simply a consciously driven act of will - nothing else.  I am free to make my own choices - they are not dictated by reasons, but invoked by conscious will.  And because it is a conscious act of will, it is certainly not random.

All this nonsense, Alan, is just so you can preserve the even dafter notion that your choices involve supernatural agency yet you can say nothing substantive whatsoever about how this supernatural agent operates: so let me ask you how, specifically, do 'souls' make choices.

[Alan Burns]

And if your final choice is not dictated by all the reasons, then that part must be for no reason, which means it's random.

In the end there is only one reason - my conscious will.  Not random.

[Gordon]

What keeps me going, Gordon, is the certainty that my faith in the living God is far greater than any belief in the capabilities of biology, unguided evolution, physical determinism, emergent properties etc could ever achieve.

That is just you, Alan: most of the rest of us are far less certain and don't have your need for a god-shaped comfort blanket.

By the way the likes of evolution, determinism and emergent properties are not 'beliefs' in the same sense that your 'god' is a belief. They, unlike 'god', are underpinned by theory, evidence and logic.

[Stranger]

In the end there is only one reason - my conscious will.  Not random.

More evasion. That isn't a reason Alan, your conscious will is the result of a choice that is either dictated by the reasons (including who you are as a person) or is (to some extent) for no reason (random).

Flat denial of simple logic is a frightening consequence of blind faith.

[Alan Burns]

By the way the likes of evolution, determinism and emergent properties are not 'beliefs' in the same sense that your 'god' is a belief. They, unlike 'god', are underpinned by theory, evidence and logic.

I do not deny the existence of biology, evolution, physical determinism and emergent properties.  My arguments are based upon the incredibly over optimistic opinions of what can be achieved by these unguided processes alone, compared with what God has achieved in bringing us into existence, imbuing us with the amazing gifts of freewill, creative powers and conscious awareness

[Alan Burns]

More evasion. That isn't a reason Alan, your conscious will is the result of a choice that is either dictated by the reasons (including who you are as a person) or is (to some extent) for no reason (random).

Flat denial of simple logic is a frightening consequence of blind faith.

My flat denial of your misplaced logic is evidence of my freewill. 

[Maeght]

My flat denial of your misplaced logic is evidence of my freewill.

Oh no its not.

Oh yes it is.

Oh no its not...........

[Sebastian Toe]

My flat denial of your misplaced logic is evidence of my freewill.

Your flat denial is the result of a choice that is either dictated by the reasons (including who you are as a person) or is (to some extent) for no reason (random).
No magic required.

[Alan Burns]

Your flat denial is the result of a choice that is either dictated by the reasons (including who you are as a person) or is (to some extent) for no reason (random).
No magic required.

It was dictated by my consciously driven will.  Nothing else.

If it was dictated by anything else, it would have been just an inevitable reaction driven by things beyond my control.

[BeRational]

It was dictated by my consciously driven will.  Nothing else.

If it was dictated by anything else, it would have been just an inevitable reaction driven by things beyond my control.

But you do this every time in a completely automatic way.

You could almost be a computer simulation that does not have the capacity to take on new ideas, and you just follow your programming.

[Alan Burns]

But you do this every time in a completely automatic way.

You could almost be a computer simulation that does not have the capacity to take on new ideas, and you just follow your programming.

That would indeed be the inevitable conclusion if we are nothing but physically determined lumps of reconstituted star debris.

But we have all been imbued with the attributes of conscious awareness and freewill which frees us from the physically predetermined control of this material universe.

[BeRational]

That would indeed be the inevitable conclusion if we are nothing but physically determined lumps of reconstituted star debris.

But we have all been imbued with the attributes of conscious awareness and freewill which frees us from the physically predetermined control of this material universe.

You are not demonstrating this.

You look like a computer program, as you just repeat the same things without taking into consideration the points put to you.

Also, you lost this argument when you said miracles are real!

[Alan Burns]

You are not demonstrating this.

You look like a computer program, as you just repeat the same things without taking into consideration the points put to you.

Also, you lost this argument when you said miracles are real!

My argument was based upon the reality of my miraculous gift of freewill, without which I would never have had the conscious freedom to reach such a conclusion.

The fact that other creatures seem to unable to contemplate the idea of freewill provides evidence that these other creatures do not have this amazing gift .

[BeRational]

My argument was based upon the reality of my miraculous gift of freewill, without which I would never have had the conscious freedom to reach such a conclusion.

So says the repeating computer programme.

Demonstrate a miracle. Can you compute that?

By default miracles to not happen, so if you have evidence of one, please share.

[Gordon]

My argument was based upon the reality of my miraculous gift of freewill, without which I would never have had the conscious freedom to reach such a conclusion.

If your argument depends on miracles then you don''t have much of an argument given the fallacies that invariably accompany your attempts at argument.

[Alan Burns]

If your argument depends on miracles then you don''t have much of an argument given the fallacies that invariably accompany your attempts at argument.

My faith is based upon the miracle of life itself.

[Gordon]

My faith is based upon the miracle of life itself.

That, Alan, is the nub of your problem.

[Alan Burns]

So says the repeating computer programme.

Demonstrate a miracle. Can you compute that?

By default miracles to not happen, so if you have evidence of one, please share.

You have just demonstrated a miracle yourself by consciously choosing to reply to my post.

[Alan Burns]

That, Alan, is the nub of your problem.

But you seem unable to contemplate the possibility that life as we know it comprises far, far more than anything which can be achieved by the unguided, physically determined events within an entirely closed material universe.

[Gordon]

But you seem unable to contemplate the possibility that life as we know it comprises far, far more than anything which can be achieved by the unguided, physically determined events within an entirely closed material universe.

Not so: I recognise that there are unknown unknowns, but that doesn't lead me to conclude 'therefore god'.

[torridon]

My flat denial of your misplaced logic is evidence of my freewill.

Rather it is evidence of your evasiveness and unwillingness to engage with people and ideas. Evasiveness does not require magic, merely an ignorant attitude.