Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

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

I've never questioned your free will - but this is just more silly thought-free evasion of the points I raised.

In what way is my logic misplaced?

[Alan Burns]

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

What you deem to be evasiveness is my continued witness to what I sincerely believe to be the truth.  A belief which has been enhanced by the shallow arguments put forward to deny the evidence of God's existence and our own spiritual nature.

[Alan Burns]

I've never questioned your free will - but this is just more silly thought-free evasion of the points I raised.

In what way is my logic misplaced?

The logic which denies my ability to make a consciously driven choice of my own free will

[Stranger]

The logic which denies my ability to make a consciously driven choice of my own free will

I have never denied that. You really aren't paying attention at all, are you?

ETA: And you didn't even answer the question. I didn't ask which logic was misplaced, I asked in what way it was. You have never once come up with a counterargument.

[Gordon]

What you deem to be evasiveness is my continued witness to what I sincerely believe to be the truth.

Might you be sincerely wrong?

A belief which has been enhanced by the shallow arguments put forward to deny the evidence of God's existence and our own spiritual nature.

Nobody is denying the existence of 'god': people are just pointing out that those advancing the idea of 'god' are to date depending on flawed arguments and spurious claims of evidence, all of which are easily dismissed.

There may well be a 'god' but, as things stand, there are no good reasons to think so.

[torridon]

What you deem to be evasiveness is my continued witness to what I sincerely believe to be the truth.  A belief which has been enhanced by the shallow arguments put forward to deny the evidence of God's existence and our own spiritual nature.

That just demonstrates you aren't paying attention to what is being said. You haven't put evidence for God into the ring, and so nobody has denied it.  We merely point out the contradictory nature of your claims about free will, and your confusion about how minds have evolved and work.

[Alan Burns]

Might you be sincerely wrong?

Nobody is denying the existence of 'god': people are just pointing out that those advancing the idea of 'god' are to date depending on flawed arguments and spurious claims of evidence, all of which are easily dismissed.

There may well be a 'god' but, as things stand, there are no good reasons to think so.

That is your opinion, Gordon.

But my opinion is that you are deliberately looking for reasons to dismiss the evidence, rather than objectively consider whether it could be true.

[Stranger]

A belief which has been enhanced by the shallow arguments put forward to deny the evidence of God's existence and our own spiritual nature.

You have spectacularly failed to show that they are shallow by your continued evasion. I'm left with the impression that you simply can't bring yourself to think about the central point at all.

[Stranger]

But my opinion is that you are deliberately looking for reasons to dismiss the evidence...

What evidence? You haven't posted any evidence to dismiss.

[BeRational]

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

That does not demonstrate it at all.

[Sebastian Toe]

How does the soul and free will work?

AB,
It's magic innit. The end!

[BeRational]

How does the soul and free will work?

AB,
It's magic innit. The end!

Or, it's a miracle (don't question it)

[Alan Burns]

I have never denied that. You really aren't paying attention at all, are you?

But you have insisted that conscious will alone can't be a reason for choice.

If a choice is dependent on anything other than conscious will, then it is no longer a free choice, but something determined from outside our own conscious will.

[BeRational]

But you have insisted that conscious will alone can't be a reason for choice.

If a choice is dependent on anything other than conscious will, then it is no longer a free choice, but something determined from outside our own conscious will.

All the evidence so far, shows that the brain is able to do all this without the need for anything external.

Can you show that the brain alone cannot do it?

[Stranger]

But you have insisted that conscious will alone can't be a reason for choice.

That's because conscious will is the output of a choice making process, it can't be its own reason. You can't will something if you haven't (somehow) decided what you want to will.

If a choice is dependent on anything other than conscious will, then it is no longer a free choice, but something determined from outside our own conscious will.

Once again you are refusing to consider how conscious will arrives at its choice. Either it does so because of its own nature and the circumstances or there is some part of the choice that is for no reason at all (random).

[Gordon]

That is your opinion, Gordon.

But my opinion is that you are deliberately looking for reasons to dismiss the evidence, rather than objectively consider whether it could be true.

Nope - I can only look at what proponents of 'god' cite as arguments or evidence, and when they cite obviously flawed arguments and can offer no verifiable evidence whatsoever, since evidence requires a relevant methodology and all current methods are naturalistic, then 'god' can just be dismissed out of hand pending any new and different grounds to take the notion seriously.

[SusanDoris]

I weep silently for all the children and young people who are being and have been indoctrinated with all the sort of  stuff that AB produces over and over and over again on this thread. Scientific ignorance must be one of the nightmares of the future.

I continue to admire the patience of those who respond to AB with facts and teaching which are constantly ignored.

[BeRational]

I weep silently for all the children and young people who are being and have been indoctrinated with all the sort of  stuff that AB produces over and over and over again on this thread. Scientific ignorance must be one of the nightmares of the future.

I continue to admire the patience of those who respond to AB with facts and teaching which are constantly ignored.

It does also show though, that the religious brain can protect or shut itself off from logic and reason.
This is a very bad thing.

[wigginhall]

That is your opinion, Gordon.

But my opinion is that you are deliberately looking for reasons to dismiss the evidence, rather than objectively consider whether it could be true.

In fact, if someone could produce genuine evidence for any god, they would be showered with glittering prizes, wealth, possibly a Nobel prize.   Tempting, isn't it?

[Alan Burns]

It does also show though, that the religious brain can protect or shut itself off from logic and reason.
This is a very bad thing.

My logic and reasoning goes beyond what can be achieved by material reactions alone.

[Alan Burns]

I weep silently for all the children and young people who are being and have been indoctrinated with all the sort of  stuff that AB produces over and over and over again on this thread. Scientific ignorance must be one of the nightmares of the future.

I continue to admire the patience of those who respond to AB with facts and teaching which are constantly ignored.

I do not deny any of the science discovered to date.  I just point out the limitations of what is achievable by material science alone.

[Alan Burns]

Nope - I can only look at what proponents of 'god' cite as arguments or evidence, and when they cite obviously flawed arguments and can offer no verifiable evidence whatsoever, since evidence requires a relevant methodology and all current methods are naturalistic, then 'god' can just be dismissed out of hand pending any new and different grounds to take the notion seriously.

But if you only allow yourself to consider only evidence that can be verified by science, you are limiting what can be discovered to fit with the limited human scientific knowledge to date.  No one can say how limited this knowledge is, because no one knows the full reality behind our existence.  Trying to shoehorn reality to fit within limited knowledge is bound to bring up false conclusions - such as the denial of human freewill.  The evidence of our spiritual nature is there for all to see.

[Alan Burns]

That's because conscious will is the output of a choice making process, it can't be its own reason. You can't will something if you haven't (somehow) decided what you want to will.

If our conscious will is just the outcome of a process, it can be likened to a mechanistic reaction rather than a consciously invoked choice.

Once again you are refusing to consider how conscious will arrives at its choice. Either it does so because of its own nature and the circumstances or there is some part of the choice that is for no reason at all (random).

The reason behind the choice is consciously invoked will - otherwise it is not a choice, just an inevitable reaction.

[Gordon]

But if you only allow yourself to consider only evidence that can be verified by science, you are limiting what can be discovered to fit with the limited human scientific knowledge to date.

Then you need to provide a method that can be used to verify what you claim as evidence.

No one can say how limited this knowledge is, because no one knows the full reality behind our existence.

So we keep looking, but using suitable methods - highly credulous magical thinking isn't a suitable method.
 

Trying to shoehorn reality to fit within limited knowledge is bound to bring up false conclusions - such as the denial of human freewill.

Trying to shoehorn reality so that it fits particular religious superstitions is bound to result in false conclusions.

The evidence of our spiritual nature is there for all to see.

No it isn't.

[BeRational]

My logic and reasoning goes beyond what can be achieved by material reactions alone.

I think you have demonstrated that you are immune to logic and reason.

You are now starting to be a sum with your repeated assertions, totally lacking logic and reason.

You think miracles are real, which shows the level of your reasoning.