Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

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

Categorising all religious belief as superstition betrays your profound ignorance of the subject.

[Gordon]

Categorising all religious belief as superstition betrays your profound ignorance of the subject.

Religious beliefs that involve miracle claims, are based on anecdotal stories in holy books dating from antiquity that have uncertain provenance and are indistinguishable from fiction, where the proponents such as yourself can advance no credible case but lots of incoherent and/or fallacious arguments and where adherents have developed special behaviours seems pretty much like superstition to me.

Were it the case that religion was a private activity it wouldn't matter so much: but it isn't, and since an aim of some religious people is to evangelise so that religion(s) have an active role in general society and social policy then it is as reasonable for the likes of myself to express concern regarding what some religious beliefs entail - your own contributions to this Forum highlight the problem. 

There are, thankfully, religious people who are far more nuanced than you are and who don't seek to evangelise or promote as fact that which clearly isn't.   

[torridon]

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

Read the posts and engage brain please.  Your 'logic and reasoning' has nothing to do with 'material reactions'.  It is not about the properties of matter, it is logic and reasoning that are offended by your claim.  It is not logically possible for the result of a decision making process to be not determined by causal factors without being random.  The core of your problem is that you claim is conceptually inconceivable, inherently self-contraditory.  You seem to have some immovable fixation with 'matter' and 'physical' as if this makes some difference to the logic.  It doesn't.  You need to look inward to find the origins of this mental block you seem to have.

[torridon]

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.

It is a worthy principal that we take findings seriously so far as the evidence is strong for it. We can never have full knowledge, we work always with partial knowledge and use that as the best guide we have to date whilst bearing in mind that future findings may indeed prove us wrong. Evidence from multiple channels suggest human lifestyles are the root cause of current climate change, so we act on that to decarbonise our economy knowing that as yet undiscovered factors may alter our understandings of climate science in the future.

Your description of free will is inherently irrational, so that is hardly a good starting point to question our understanding of fundamental reality.  You need to have observations with an underlying rationale that stands up to scrutiny.

[Stranger]

Categorising all religious belief as superstition betrays your profound ignorance of the subject.

superstition Excessively credulous belief in and reverence for the supernatural.

I think that covers religion perfectly.

[Stranger]

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.

Of course it's the output of a process: the process of you consciously thinking about it.

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

I do wish you'd actually think about this. It's the process of you arriving at your conscious choice that is the point. It is that process, the act of consciously thinking about the choice and then making it, that must happen entirely because of reasons or not.

And it's very silly to deny the processes exists, that would mean you never think about anything.... err....

[SusanDoris]

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.

And you expect others to sit back and just take your word for it? Don't bother to answer that.

You sound like one of the street megaphone preachers who talk non-stop [ and as loudly as they can to passers-by and spoil my day if I happen to be one of them.

[Alan Burns]

Read the posts and engage brain please.  Your 'logic and reasoning' has nothing to do with 'material reactions'.  It is not about the properties of matter, it is logic and reasoning that are offended by your claim.  It is not logically possible for the result of a decision making process to be not determined by causal factors without being random.  The core of your problem is that you claim is conceptually inconceivable, inherently self-contraditory.  You seem to have some immovable fixation with 'matter' and 'physical' as if this makes some difference to the logic.  It doesn't.  You need to look inward to find the origins of this mental block you seem to have.

But I have never claimed that our freedom to choose does not have a cause.
So please stop misrepresenting me.

Is the cause pre defined by past events?
If so it is a reaction in which we have no freedom - not a conscious choice.

Or is it defined in the present by an act of conscious will?
You may continue to try deny the capability of our conscious awareness (our soul) to consciously interact at will, but in doing so you are demonstrating your capability of doing precisely what you attempt to deny.

[Stranger]

But I have never claimed that our freedom to choose does not have a cause.
So please stop misrepresenting me.

Is the cause pre defined by past events?
If so it is a reaction in which we have no freedom - not a conscious choice.

Or is it defined in the present by an act of conscious will?

That's just silly.

It it's defined in the present and not entirely due to pre-exiting reasons, then it is, to some extent, random. FFS that isn't complicated - just think about it!

To the extent the past doesn't determine the present, then something has happened that wasn't determined by anything that came before it - and that means that it must be random.

You may continue to try deny the capability of our conscious awareness (our soul) to consciously interact at will, but in doing so you are demonstrating your capability of doing precisely what you attempt to deny.

This a blatantly dishonest claim that there are no other explanations than yours. Doubly dishonest since you don't have an explanation, just an illogical contradiction.

[torridon]

But I have never claimed that our freedom to choose does not have a cause.
So please stop misrepresenting me.

Is the cause pre defined by past events?
If so it is a reaction in which we have no freedom - not a conscious choice.

Or is it defined in the present by an act of conscious will?
You may continue to try deny the capability of our conscious awareness (our soul) to consciously interact at will, but in doing so you are demonstrating your capability of doing precisely what you attempt to deny.

Conscious will is not its own cause.  Your conscious will resolves choice by identifying the option with the greatest appeal in the moment. We do not choose how much something external appeals to us, we merely identify it and act on it.   This is fully consistent with a deterministic system.

[Alan Burns]

That's just silly.

It it's defined in the present and not entirely due to pre-exiting reasons, then it is, to some extent, random. FFS that isn't complicated - just think about it!

To the extent the past doesn't determine the present, then something has happened that wasn't determined by anything that came before it - and that means that it must be random.

This a blatantly dishonest claim that there are no other explanations than yours. Doubly dishonest since you don't have an explanation, just an illogical contradiction.

You are stuck in thinking that reality is entirely defined by mechanistic cause and effect consequences to past events.  If we lived in an entirely material world, you would be correct in this logical assumption.  But you fail to appreciate that you have the conscious capability to act according to your conscious will at the present moment.  You will is certainly influenced by memories of past events, but it is not entirely defined by them.  Your will exists in the present, and acts in the present.  I do not have an explanation for how it acts, but I have lots of evidence that I can consciously interact with this world, and not just react to it.

[Alan Burns]

Conscious will is not its own cause.  Your conscious will resolves choice by identifying the option with the greatest appeal in the moment. We do not choose how much something external appeals to us, we merely identify it and act on it.   This is fully consistent with a deterministic system.

But it is not consistent with our freedom to choose, rather than react.

[Stranger]

You are stuck in thinking that reality is entirely defined by mechanistic cause and effect consequences to past events.  If we lived in an entirely material world, you would be correct in this logical assumption.

It has nothing at all to do with the material world - this is just logic.

But you fail to appreciate that you have the conscious capability to act according to your conscious will at the present moment.

That simply isn't an alternative - it's just hand-waving waffle that tries to sidestep the question of how you make a choice. When you make a choice you think about it and, in the end, you make up your mind and choose one option or another. That is a process and it either proceeds deterministically - every part of it is because of some previous reason - or not. If not, then some part of it must have been for no reason at all.

That's it - there is no possibility of a part of it being for a reason but not for a reason.

I do not have an explanation for how it acts, but I have lots of evidence that I can consciously interact with this world, and not just react to it.

You have no evidence at all because consciously interacting is a sort of reacting, unless there is some randomness.

[torridon]

But it is not consistent with our freedom to choose, rather than react.

It is your notion of freedom that is incoherent.  Nothing is going to be consistent with that.  The freedom to make a meaningful choice that is free of its determinant factors cannot exist.  It is a nonsense. One or other of the determinants must determine the outcome otherwise the outcome is a random event, not a meaningful choice.

[Alan Burns]

It is your notion of freedom that is incoherent.  Nothing is going to be consistent with that.  The freedom to make a meaningful choice that is free of its determinant factors cannot exist.  It is a nonsense. One or other of the determinants must determine the outcome otherwise the outcome is a random event, not a meaningful choice.

But it is not just a notion is it?
And yet again I have to remind you that I have never claimed our freedom to choose is free from any determining factors.  Human will is the determining factor - not the uncontrollable reactions to previous events.
We are all capable of making consciously driven choices.

[torridon]

But it is not just a notion is it?
And yet again I have to remind you that I have never claimed our freedom to choose is free from any determining factors.  Human will is the determining factor - not the uncontrollable reactions to previous events.
We are all capable of making consciously driven choices.

Conscious choice cannot be its own reason. This is a circular portrayal of choice that fails to address the mechanism.  If you were defending your shoplifting charge in front of a jury you wouldn't make much of an impression if all you said was " I stole it because I stole it; but why did you do that, oh, because I did it".  In reality there are reasons for things and choice is the resolution of competing alternatives by identifying the option with the greatest appeal in the moment.  And yes, our reactions to external things are 'uncontrollable' to use your favourite wording. I look at the sky and I have no control over whether I experience blueness or not. I look at the fruit in the basket and I have no control over how attractive the apricot looks today. These things are external to me and I cannot 'control' how I perceive them, and hence I cannot 'control' the resolution of choice between uncontrollable alternatives.  This is actually what is happening when we are faced with choice; the winner is the (uncontrolled) option that makes the biggest emotional impact on me. 

[Alan Burns]

It has nothing at all to do with the material world - this is just logic.

But I am not alone in disputing the logic of this compatible flavour of determinism.
I would tend to agree with Kant's view:
Kant's argument turns on the view that, while all empirical phenomena must result from determining causes, human thought introduces something seemingly not found elsewhere in nature—the ability to conceive of the world in terms of how it ought to be, or how it might otherwise be. For Kant, subjective reasoning is necessarily distinct from how the world is empirically. Because of its capacity to distinguish is from ought, reasoning can 'spontaneously' originate new events without being itself determined by what already exists

[Stranger]

But it is not just a notion is it?

No, it's an obvious self-contradiction.

And yet again I have to remind you that I have never claimed our freedom to choose is free from any determining factors.  Human will is the determining factor - not the uncontrollable reactions to previous events.

Human will cannot be the determining factor for human will - even you must see the circularity in that. Human will needs to make up its mind somehow and you seem to be refusing to think about how that happens.

We are all capable of making consciously driven choices.

Yes - but it can't possibly be in the self-contradictory, circular way you are suggesting. It's literally nonsense; not even wrong.

[Alan Burns]

Conscious choice cannot be its own reason. This is a circular portrayal of choice that fails to address the mechanism ......

But the human soul is not a mechanism.  It is the central entity comprising you, which is capable of consciously perceiving and interacting with this material world.  No mechanism could achieve this.

[Alan Burns]

Human will cannot be the determining factor for human will .....

It is the determining factor for consciously driven choices.

[Stranger]

But I am not alone in disputing the logic of this compatible flavour of determinism.
I would tend to agree with Kant's view:
Kant's argument turns on the view that, while all empirical phenomena must result from determining causes, human thought introduces something seemingly not found elsewhere in nature—the ability to conceive of the world in terms of how it ought to be, or how it might otherwise be. For Kant, subjective reasoning is necessarily distinct from how the world is empirically. Because of its capacity to distinguish is from ought, reasoning can 'spontaneously' originate new events without being itself determined by what already exists

So how did Kant think that we decide on ought, because of reasons, or, in part, for no reason? Yes human thought is different in that sense but it simply doesn't follow that our sense of ought is for no pre-existing reason - we can now see how such a sense has evolved - something Kant can't have known.

Just because Kant said it doesn't make it any less of a nonsense.

[Stranger]

It is the determining factor for consciously driven choices.

This is just silly - you keep on insisting that we make choices because we make choices, because of the choices that we make and that's how we make a choice.

It's daft.

[Alan Burns]

This is just silly - you keep on insisting that we make choices because we make choices, because of the choices that we make and that's how we make a choice.

It's daft.

In this, you do not understand the nature of conscious awareness.  Before we make any choice, we are consciously aware of any influencing factors, but these factors do not drive the choice.  We still need an act of consciously driven will to make the choice.  And our conscious awareness also gives us the freedom to choose when to invoke our chosen option.

[Stranger]

In this, you do not understand the nature of conscious awareness.

You keep on insisting that it can do the logically impossible. There is nothing to understand, you just keep rewording the same contradiction.

Before we make any choice, we are consciously aware of any influencing factors, but these factors do not drive the choice.  We need an act of conscious will to make the choice.

This is just circular again. In order to arrive at an act of concious will we need to make a choice. We can't make a choice because we make a choice, we think about the options and go through a decision making process in our minds.

It is that process that must either proceed deterministically - every step is entirely due to previous reasons - or not. And if not then some part of it must be for no reason.

[torridon]

But the human soul is not a mechanism.  It is the central entity comprising you, which is capable of consciously perceiving and interacting with this material world.  No mechanism could achieve this.

There has to be a mechanism for resolving choice; there has to be a method.  If we are stuck with no method to resolve choice then we end up with indecision and we quickly die.  This is why brains evolved, to make resolve choices.  'Conscious Will' has to have some means to do this, it is not going to happen by magic, it happens by method, it happens by reason.  This is the founding origins of consciousness, it is at base an affective state which renders all perceptions, both inner state and outward perceptions on a scale of biological value - that toe is hurting, that peach looks tasty, that bloke over there is ugly; all aspects of conscious experience are rendered in terms of emotional content, good or bad, pleasant or unpleasant, and these values form the basis for decision making. At every moment of every day, your mind is deriving the optimal action to take informed by the totality of conscious experience (meaning this includes content that is 'subconscious').