Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

Fingers crossed that the post count is not held in a 16 bit signed integer.

[jjohnjil]

Alan doesn't strike me as a fanatical religionist, and some of his opponents do strike me as fanatical anti-religionists: and the constant sarcasm, and finding, or pretending to find, logical fallacies is indeed a form of bullying, to which I've been subjected as well.

Steve

I used 'fanatical' in its usual sense.  Look it up.

.  fanatical
(fəˈnætɪkəl)
adj
surpassing what is normal or accepted in enthusiasm for or belief in something; excessively or unusually dedicated or devoted
faˈnatically adv
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

[torridon]

But in the materialistic scenario, there can be no such thing as "intended".  For something to be intended, you need a consciously conceived intention.  But such intentions only exist in conscious awareness, and fulfilment of such intentions requires the freedom to consciously drive thought processes and actions to achieve the intended goal.

In this quote, you are highlighting the logical presumption that our brain functionality was the intended goal of a much higher conscious awareness than ours.

of course intentionally is widespread in  nature. It is not magic,  it is entirely natural.  A lion stalking an antelope has formed an intention to kill.  Did you really think this was merely accidental ?

[SusanDoris]

You know, what really, really annoys me is the way AB never answers such straightforward, clearly posed, questions. Perhaps he thinks it is somehow clever, but I think it is inconsiderate, not to mention dishonest.

[Alan Burns]

of course intentionally is widespread in  nature. It is not magic,  it is entirely natural.  A lion stalking an antelope has formed an intention to kill.  Did you really think this was merely accidental ?

No - just instinctive.

[SusanDoris]

No - just instinctive.

That is an answer beginning with the word, no, however, you will now have to explain what you mean by instinctive, and why you think the brain is not making that intention to act.
It is an evolved behaviour of the brain and, as we are also animals - much as you obviously hate to think of us in that way - we too have instinctive as many as, or more than, behaviours as all other mammals, such as fight or flight,  we too do the same.

Not elegantly expressed, but what would be the point in re-composing it? You have such a closed mind about your soul thingy that I'll spend the time working on the cryptic crossword instead.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Susan,

You know, what really, really annoys me is the way AB never answers such straightforward, clearly posed, questions. Perhaps he thinks it is somehow clever, but I think it is inconsiderate, not to mention dishonest.

It’s tempting to see AB’s dishonesty as deliberate – “OK, I get the arguments that undo me but I’m just going to ignore them and keep repeating my faith mantras instead anyway in the hope they’ll go away” type of thing. I’m not sure that’s it though – rather there seems to be a sort of “reason blindness” at play. Having decided decades ago that a really bad idea is a good one he simply can’t process anything that falsifies it. He's so heavily invested in his mistake that the price of backing out of it would be too high. You can for example ask until you’re blue in the face what logical path he thinks there is from  “this is my deepest feeling about how I experience X” to, “therefore that deepest feeling explains what causes X” but you’ll never, ever get an answer.

The jaw-dropping irony is that he then has the front to tell us that “the truth will set you free” when his every fibre is geared to rejecting what the truth (or at least deeper and richer truths) might actually be.

Oh well.     

[ippy]

Susan,

It’s tempting to see AB’s dishonesty as deliberate – “OK, I get the arguments that undo me but I’m just going to ignore them and keep repeating my faith mantras instead anyway in the hope they’ll go away” type of thing. I’m not sure that’s it though – rather there seems to be a sort of “reason blindness” at play. Having decided decades ago that a really bad idea is a good one he simply can’t process anything that falsifies it. He's so heavily invested in his mistake that the price of backing out of it would be too high. You can for example ask until you’re blue in the face what logical path he thinks there is from  “this is my deepest feeling about how I experience X” to, “therefore that deepest feeling explains what causes X” but you’ll never, ever get an answer.

The jaw-dropping irony is that he then has the front to tell us that “the truth will set you free” when his every fibre is geared to rejecting what the truth (or at least deeper and richer truths) might actually be.

Oh well.     

More than likely heavily indoctrinated when young, (I think this indoctrination is abundantly obvious), however giving the benefit of the doubt to that I would have thought a series of probably weekly reinforcement meetings with the like minded sharing the knowing looks and many other bonding moments involved with these multiple reinforcements etc. plus the inevitable percentage of some being far more susceptible to these forms of indoctrinational, could be looked on as, a form seduction, it's inevitable there will always be an Alan Burns crop up from time to time, it's also, looking on the bright side these people are on their way out, at least here in the U K and most of Europe.

It's a shame for him in one way but then these religionists apart from their continual head down miserable utterance sessions, they do get around and manage a reasonable form of social life etc. 

ippy

[Alan Burns]

That is an answer beginning with the word, no, however, you will now have to explain what you mean by instinctive, and why you think the brain is not making that intention to act.
It is an evolved behaviour of the brain and, as we are also animals - much as you obviously hate to think of us in that way - we too have instinctive as many as, or more than, behaviours as all other mammals, such as fight or flight,  we too do the same.

Not elegantly expressed, but what would be the point in re-composing it? You have such a closed mind about your soul thingy that I'll spend the time working on the cryptic crossword instead.

Susan,
No matter how much evolution is involved, it can't introduce any functionality which contradicts the fundamental laws of material science which define all events to be direct consequences of previous events.  You may not wish accept this logic which effectively denies any form of freedom and requires us to accept that our apparent freedom to choose is just an illusion.  The only way to come to terms with the reality of our consciously driven freedom to make choices is to concede that there is something non physical involved in the human ability to make consciously driven choices.

I have been accused of deliberate dishonesty in my replies to the posters whose views you personally support.  But these posters you support offer views which effectively deny that I have any consciously driven freedom to choose because it all happens in my subconscious.  So there is an obvious contradiction involved in me personally being accused of any deliberate acts of dishonesty when those same accusers claim that all my choices are predefined in my subconscious before I become aware of them.

[Alan Burns]

Fingers crossed that the post count is not held in a 16 bit signed integer.

presumably this will be tested if we reach the magic number of 32768 ?

[wigginhall]

Is it the laws of science that determine that events have consequences?   I thought it was logic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No matter how much evolution is involved, it can't introduce any functionality which contradicts the fundamental laws of material science which define all events to be direct consequences of previous events.  You may not wish accept this logic…

Why would anyone “deny” this determinism?

…which effectively denies any form of freedom…

Same old stupidity, endlessly repeated. It doesn’t deny “any form of freedom” at all, as you’ve been told countless times already. All it “denies” is your personal and deeply irrational definition of “freedom”.

…and requires us to accept that our apparent freedom to choose is just an illusion.

More or less. So?

The only way to come to terms with the reality of our consciously driven freedom to make choices is to concede that there is something non physical involved in the human ability to make consciously driven choices.

Don’t be ridiculous. The only way to “come to terms with the reality” is to stop denying the logic and evidence that undoes you but that you can’t rebut. Why are you so dishonest about this?

You have accused me of deliberate dishonesty in my replies to the posters whose views you personally support.  But these posters you support offer views which effectively deny that I have any consciously driven freedom to choose because it all happens in my subconscious.  So there is an obvious contradiction involved in me personally being accused of any deliberate acts of dishonesty when those same accusers claim that all my choices are predefined in my subconscious before I become aware of them.

No there isn’t and your dishonesty concerns your refusal ever to engage with the reasoning and evidence that undo you. Look, I’ll ask you the same question again that you keep ignoring to show you: you tell us that you feel at the deepest level various experiences that you have. You also tell us that in some way you think the depth of these feelings is also a reliable guide to the causes of those experiences. Yet you also know that lots of things in life are felt a certain way but the explanations for them are different – the earth feels flat, your fingers feel as though they touch the keyboard, blood in your veins looks blue etc. What logical path then do you think there to be about the depth of your experience of consciousness and the explanation for it?

Go on, surprise us all – just for once actually try at least to answer a straight question with a straight answer.   

[Alan Burns]

The jaw-dropping irony is that he then has the front to tell us that “the truth will set you free” when his every fibre is geared to rejecting what the truth (or at least deeper and richer truths) might actually be.

What I reject is the simplistic logic based on materialism which effectively denies me the freedom to consciously choose to make this reply.

My perception of truth goes far deeper than the short sighted vision based upon mankind's limited knowledge of how the human mind works.

[Alan Burns]

Is it the laws of science that determine that events have consequences?   I thought it was logic.

All physical events have logically defined consequences.
But this does not imply that all physical events must be the consequences of previous physical events.

In order to break free from the uncontrollable consequences of physically determined cause and effect there must be a means of exerting control by invoking physical events from a non physical source.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What I reject is the simplistic logic based on materialism which effectively denies me the freedom to consciously choose to make this reply.

It’s not simplistic (it’s actually more nuanced than you’re capable of), and it doesn’t deny that freedom at all. All it denies is the irrational definition of it that you keep asserting.

My perception of truth goes far deeper than the short sighted vision based upon mankind's limited knowledge of how the human mind works.

Wow, that’s some kind of massively inflated ego to think that little old you has a “perception” so much deeper than the rest of “mankind’s” reasoning and evidence that shows you to be flat wrong. What makes you so special do you think that logic no longer applies to your unqualified assertions and claims?   

[wigginhall]

Oh wow, this is a "far deeper truth" kind of guy.     We are deeply honoured to be in your presence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Oh wow, this is a "far deeper truth" kind of guy.     We are deeply honoured to be in your presence.

Apparently he knows more than all of mankind too. All hail AB - tremble before his mighty righteousness I tell ye lest he strike you down with his god-given freedom and inerant perceptions of reality!

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Why would anyone “deny” this determinism?

Because I have the consciously driven freedom to do so.

Same old stupidity, endlessly repeated. It doesn’t deny “any form of freedom” at all, as you’ve been told countless times already. All it “denies” is your personal and deeply irrational definition of “freedom”.

Yet I am able to demonstrate my freedom to contradict your short sighted material based logic.

More or less. So?

My freedom to deliberately contradict you is no illusion.  How else could I do it?

Don’t be ridiculous. The only way to “come to terms with the reality” is to stop denying the logic and evidence that undoes you but that you can’t rebut. Why are you so dishonest about this?

But the evidence you use to contradict me effectively denies you the freedom to choose to contradict me.

No there isn’t and your dishonesty concerns your refusal ever to engage with the reasoning and evidence that undo you. Look, I’ll ask you the same question again that you keep ignoring to show you: you tell us that you feel at the deepest level various experiences that you have. You also tell us that in some way you think the depth of these feelings is also a reliable guide to the causes of those experiences. Yet you also know that lots of things in life are felt a certain way but the explanations for them are different – the earth feels flat, your fingers feel as though they touch the keyboard, blood in your veins looks blue etc. What logical path then do you think there to be about the depth of your experience of consciousness and the explanation for it?

As I have previously explained, your freedom to compose your detailed reply is what undoes your arguments.

[ippy]

What I reject is the simplistic logic based on materialism which effectively denies me the freedom to consciously choose to make this reply.

My perception of truth goes far deeper than the short sighted vision based upon mankind's limited knowledge of how the human mind works.

Yes Alan, but you still haven't related/answered this on this forum in any kind of evidence based, rational or other form of a logical immediately understandable by all manner and have always run away from answering or is it more probably as you see it that you've had the roots of your belief challenged?

I suppose bronze age deep would necessarily be exceptionally deep?

Commiserations Alan, ippy 

[Stranger]

Because I have the consciously driven freedom to do so.
...
Yet I am able to demonstrate my freedom to contradict your short sighted material based logic.
...
My freedom to deliberately contradict you is no illusion.  How else could I do it?
...
But the evidence you use to contradict me effectively denies you the freedom to choose to contradict me.
...
As I have previously explained, your freedom to compose your detailed reply is what undoes your arguments.

It's depressing that you are still mindlessly repeating the same old empty mantras as if you have no free will and no ability to consciously consider the impossibility of your position.

Your posts are completely devoid or thought, logic, and evidence. They are just endlessly repeated nonsense. Nobody denies your experience and your ability to compose posts that contradict what other people are saying and your pretence that your they somehow refute the logic and evidence that undoes your foolish fantasy version of 'freedom' is tantamount to lying.

It is impossible to make a choice that is not entirely due to pre-existing reasons without introducing randomness. It is impossible because of logic not the physical universe and is just as impossible for a mind made of essence of unicorn and pixie dust existing in magic la-la land as it is for a physical brain or your imaginary soul.

At least have to courage to face the arguments as presented to you instead of pretending that your experience and abilities contradict them, which is fundamentally dishonest.

For example,

What I reject is the simplistic logic based on materialism which effectively denies me the freedom to consciously choose to make this reply.

Every part of this statement is untrue. The logic is not simplistic, it is not based on materialism, and in no sense does not deny you the freedom to consciously choose to make replies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Because I have the consciously driven freedom to do so.

Except we know this to be idiotic for reasons that keep being explained to you and you keep ignoring.

Yet I am able to demonstrate my freedom to contradict your short sighted material based logic.

No, you’re only able to demonstrate one level of freedom, but that tells you nothing about deeper realities that lie beneath. Oh, and calling the logic you can’t rebut “short-sighted” doesn’t make it so - it just exposes your inability to think. 

My freedom to deliberately contradict you is no illusion.  How else could I do it?

Easily – as you’d know if ever you’d bother to read the countless posts that explain it to you.

But the evidence you use to contradict me effectively denies you the freedom to choose to contradict me.

FFS! NO IT DOES NOT! Will you finally at least try to get this through your skull? All it denies is YOUR PERSONAL AND IRRATIONAL DEFINITION OF “freedom”. 

Why is this sentence so hard for you to grasp that all you can do is to repeat endlessly the mistake that it rebuts? Why though?

As I have previously explained, your freedom to compose your detailed reply is what undoes your arguments.

Thank you for proving your dishonesty again. I explained that you always ignore simple questions that are put to you and instead just repeat endlessly the same idiotic mantras, I said I’d prove it by asking you a straightforward question once more, and sure enough you just ignored it and repeated the same idiotic mantra.

Still, as apparently you know more than all of mankind I guess I should just assume that your reliance on dishonesty and terrible arguments is in fact a deeply subtle way of making your case that’s necessarily lost on us mere mortals eh?

[Sebastian Toe]

Because I have the consciously driven freedom to do so.Yet

......yet you are unable or is it unwilling to describe how it is that the freedom of someone who's "soul" states, without any doubt, that it is that of the reincarnated (Christ, Napoleon, Ra etc) is any less or more valid than the rest of us who make no such claims. Is it a faulty physical brain or a faulty spiritual soul?

[jjohnjil]

What I reject is the simplistic logic based on materialism which effectively denies me the freedom to consciously choose to make this reply.

My perception of truth goes far deeper than the short sighted vision based upon mankind's limited knowledge of how the human mind works.

Alan

The problem with your scenario is that surely a soul has to choose an option based on something. 

If it somehow weighs up the options the brain’s memory offers it, then it is no different from a bird choosing a good nesting place or a spider deciding where to start its web.  And yet you say only humans have souls.

If it chooses from some other source of information, what is that source?

If it chooses with no input from anywhere, then it just makes wild guesses, not exactly a recipe for survival!

In your mind, which is it?

[Alan Burns]

It is impossible to make a choice that is not entirely due to pre-existing reasons ...

So you assert,
But I have just done it!

without introducing randomness.

My choice certainly was not random, it was deliberate.
So what determined my conscious choice to contradict you?

[Alan Burns]

Alan

The problem with your scenario is that surely a soul has to choose an option based on something. 

Yes, it may well be influenced by my awareness of past events, but I have the ability to invoke a choice based upon my consciously driven will at the moment I make the choice.  If my choice was entirely based on past events, it would just be an inevitable reaction based upon the unavoidable consequences to those events.