Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

The reason for our choices emanates from our conscious self.

Of course it does but that isn't an alternative to (pre)determined or random. Saying what makes the choice just ignores how the choice is made.

If the conscious self is a spiritual entity, you can't presume to know that it works by the same predetermined cause and effect rules of our material universe.

For the umpteenth time, logically (without assuming anything except self-consistency) it must either make its choices entirely due to reasons (internal and external, and that must exist just prior to when the choice is made) or not.

This is not dishonest - it is a postulation which makes sense of the reality we all experience as human beings.

It is dishonest to say that a logical argument that does not make any reference to the physical world is about the physical world.

There is no freedom within a physically deterministic system.

The English definition of the word is compatible with a deterministic system.

If we live in a physically defined deterministic world, then the nature, nurture and experiences which define each individual are themselves fully predetermined entities which effectively removes any concept of freedom in our thoughts, words and actions.

Only if you redefine the word freedom to mean your logically impossible, self-contradictory notion of it.

This has all been said before.

You are just mindlessly repeating your baseless dogmas and totally ignoring all the counterarguments. What's the point?

[Stranger]

Whether our views are correct or not, they are still personal views which offer evidence of our freedom to consciously communicate what we have consciously deduced.  Every post provides this evidence of this freedom, not just my own posts.

They only provide evidence of freedom in the sensible, rational, self-consistent sense of the word that is given in the dictionary - not your own illogical, self-contradictory, impossible definition.

As I said, trying to imply that they are evidence for your ideas is effectively lying.

ETA: Did you misunderstand? When I said "only yours can do so", I meant only your views of freedom can explain people's posts, not only your posts.

[Sebastian Toe]

The reason for our choices emanates from our conscious self.  If the conscious self is a spiritual entity, you can't presume to know that it works by the same predetermined cause and effect rules of our material universe. 

What is the difference between spiritual world logic and our material world logic.
Examples would be good.
Thanks.

[Alan Burns]

For the umpteenth time, logically (without assuming anything except self-consistency) it must either make its choices entirely due to reasons (internal and external, and that must exist just prior to when the choice is made) or not.

So you admit that the reasons for choice occur just prior to the choice being made.

I agree with this.

But in your fully deterministic scenario, the word "just" is effectively meaningless because whatever causes this reason will have a previous cause "just" before the reason is formed, so we then get an infinite regression of causes with no definitive source which defines a conscious choice, effectively reducing the so called choice to be an inevitable reaction to all that has gone before.

[Alan Burns]

What is the difference between spiritual world logic and our material world logic.
Examples would be good.
Thanks.

In one word - freedom.

[Gordon]

In one word - freedom.

You are Mel Gibson and I claim my £5.

[torridon]

In one word - freedom.

Freedom from logic would be - illogic.  Our world is comprehensible because it is logical, ultimately.  If there is some being inside me that is fundamentally illogical, ie free from logic, then my behaviours would be routinely irrational.

[Stranger]

But in your fully deterministic scenario, the word "just" is effectively meaningless because whatever causes this reason will have a previous cause "just" before the reason is formed, so we then get an infinite regression of causes with no definitive source which defines a conscious choice, effectively reducing the so called choice to be an inevitable reaction to all that has gone before.

Firstly (yet again), the "source which defines a conscious choice" would be part of the deterministic world.

Secondly (yet again), as soon as something happens that isn't entirely due to what exists just before it did, then it happened for no reason, which is random.

Thirdly (yet again), a choice and, at the basic underlying level, an "inevitable reaction" are not conflicting descriptions, they are just different levels of abstraction.

Yet again, you have just repeated the same stuff and completely ignored the multiple counterarguments that show why what you are asserting makes no logical sense.

[Alan Burns]

Freedom from logic would be - illogic.  Our world is comprehensible because it is logical, ultimately.  If there is some being inside me that is fundamentally illogical, ie free from logic, then my behaviours would be routinely irrational.

But if the logic fails to address the reality of our freedom to make conscious choices, that logic is obviously flawed.

[Stranger]

But if the logic fails to address the reality of our freedom to make conscious choices, that logic is obviously flawed.

You have spectacularly failed to show that logic has any problem explaining our freedom to make conscious choices. Redefining the words "freedom" and "choice" to make them inherently logically impossible says absolutely nothing about the real world, or our actual experiences of choosing, at all.

[Sebastian Toe]

In one word - freedom.

You have not specified what that means.

Freedom, refers to which version of logic and how does it explain the difference(s)?
Examples would help perhaps?

[Sebastian Toe]

But if the logic fails to address the reality of our freedom to make conscious choices, that logic is obviously flawed.

How is it flawed?
If you don't know, then your logic could be flawed.

[Gordon]

But if the logic fails to address the reality of our freedom to make conscious choices, that logic is obviously flawed.

The logic is fine, Alan: what is flawed here is your bespoke interpretation of 'freedom', which is why you are having trouble understanding what is being said to you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But if the logic fails to address the reality of our freedom to make conscious choices, that logic is obviously flawed.

No, what's "obviously flawed" is the logic (or lack of it) that leads you to assert your understanding of "our freedom to make conscious choices". Once again, you completely overreach by assuming your intuitive experience of something necessarily to provide the explanation for it.

 

[Alan Burns]

Firstly (yet again), the "source which defines a conscious choice" would be part of the deterministic world.

But not necessarily part of an entirely predetermined world

Secondly (yet again), as soon as something happens that isn't entirely due to what exists just before it did, then it happened for no reason, which is random.

But the contention is what is involved in defining the reason for the choice?

Thirdly (yet again), a choice and, at the basic underlying level, an "inevitable reaction" are not conflicting descriptions, they are just different levels of abstraction.

Which implies no freedom to choose

Yet again, you have just repeated the same stuff and completely ignored the multiple counterarguments that show why what you are asserting makes no logical sense.

My posts make sense to me.  I fail to understand how any person can deny their conscious freedom to make a choice.

[ekim]

I have never denied that past events have influence on our conscious choices.  But the reality is that we have the ability to consciously consider these influences prior to making a choice.  This ability to consciously consider influences allows us the freedom to choose, rather than just react.  Stranger's version of freedom seems to centre around having this power to consciously consider things, but then indicates that the conscious consideration itself must be predetermined, which effectively negates any form of freedom.  As I have previously indicated, every post on this forum is offers evidence of our conscious freedom to think and act and choose what we write.  The only alternative would be to presume that our freedom to consciously choose to do all this is just an illusion.

Do you then accept that what you call 'influencing events' are the same as a variety of prior determining factors which any creature with intelligence can assess and choose between?  As regards your "conscious freedom to think and act and choose what we write", wouldn't this be determined by having the appropriate brain cells intact, not being paralysed from the neck down and having learnt how to read and write in the past?  As regards a soul with conscious freedom, isn't this freedom from attachments a condition to work towards rather than a God given state?  Linking this to the topic "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God".

[Stranger]

But not necessarily part of an entirely predetermined world
...
But the contention is what is involved in defining the reason for the choice?
...
Which implies no freedom to choose

All these points have been answered multiple times. What's the point in posting if you never respond to the answers you get? You are just making yourself look stupid and/or unbelievably arrogant.

Yet again, you have just repeated the same stuff and completely ignored the multiple counterarguments that show why what you are asserting makes no logical sense.

My posts make sense to me.

So why are you ignoring the counterarguments? If they make sense, defend them. Ignoring the answers you get implies that you can't.

I fail to understand how any person can deny their conscious freedom to make a choice.

Please get it into your tiny mind that people are not denying their freedom to make conscious choices - they are only denying your own, personal, incoherent, illogical, self-contradictory, and impossible idea of what "freedom" means.

AND FFS, STOP IGNORING THE ANSWERS YOU ARE GETTING!

Hint: just reasserting your own 'arguments' is not addressing the answers. People have explained over and over why your position is flawed and you've never addressed the arguments. Even when you've started off with "your logic is obviously flawed..." all you've done afterwards is restate your own dogmas, not pointed out any actual flaw.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Please get it into your tiny mind that people are not denying their freedom to make conscious choices - they are only denying your own, personal, incoherent, illogical, self-contradictory, and impossible idea of what "freedom" means.

AND FFS, STOP IGNORING THE ANSWERS YOU ARE GETTING!

Hint: just reasserting your own 'arguments' is not addressing the answers. People have explained over and over why your position is flawed and you've never addressed the arguments. Even when you've started off with "your logic is obviously flawed..." all you've done afterwards is restate your own dogmas, not pointed out any actual flaw.

It's actually worse than that I think - after resolutely ignoring all the rebuttals and counter-arguments that undo him every now and again he'll proudly tell us that nothing posted here so far has caused (or apparently could ever be allowed to cause) him to change his mind, therefore he must have been right all along! In other words he elides ignoring the arguments into finding them wrong and uses that as a reinforcement technique for his faith beliefs.     

[Alan Burns]

AND FFS, STOP IGNORING THE ANSWERS YOU ARE GETTING!

Just out of interest, what do you deem to be the ultimate cause of my apparent deliberation to ignore these answers?

[Stranger]

Just out of interest, what do you deem to be the ultimate cause of my apparent deliberation to ignore these answers?

You're lying Alan. Sorry, but I don't believe for one minute that you have any interest in my answer. For one thing, if you did, you would have taken some notice when I and others have answered it (or very similar questions) multiple times before.

You are not asking "just out of interest", it's childish and transparent evasion.

#32030

I am constantly being accused of deliberate actions such as evasion, dishonesty, assertions, ignoring, ... etc. Yet these same accusers tell me that my apparently conscious choices are entirely predetermined by past events.  So I ask them,  Who or what is ultimately responsible for the deliberation involved in such actions?

And you've been answered multiple times but you just ignore it. For example here: #31926 (after the fourth quote).

#31926

But in your opinion, what defined the originating events which determined the content of this reply?
You did not just seem to compose this reply, you actually did it.

How many more times?

Seriously Alan, I'm not going to just keep on answering these silly repetitive questions over and other just because you pretend to have not had an answer before. You are being very childish. By all means address what I've said in my answers but just 'forgetting' them and asking the same things over and over is dishonest in the extreme.

Yes I did compose the reply. I did so using my experience, knowledge, beliefs, and state of mind. All of those things are due to my lifetime of experience, nature, and nurture. There was also what happened to occur to me to say at the time (something over which I have no conscious control but was, no doubt, also due to the factors already mentioned).

This isn't a difficult concept; it's really, really simple.

[Enki]

Freedom   the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.

Choice    the act of choosing between two or more possibilities


Neither of these definitions rule out a deterministic framework at all.

[Gordon]

Just out of interest, what do you deem to be the ultimate cause of my apparent deliberation to ignore these answers?

It's just you, Alan: your brain thinking to be more precise (albeit not very well at times).

[Alan Burns]

The logic is fine, Alan: what is flawed here is your bespoke interpretation of 'freedom', which is why you are having trouble understanding what is being said to you.

Yet I can exercise my God given freedom to contradict what has been said to me.

[Alan Burns]

You have spectacularly failed to show that logic has any problem explaining our freedom to make conscious choices. Redefining the words "freedom" and "choice" to make them inherently logically impossible says absolutely nothing about the real world, or our actual experiences of choosing, at all.

Sorry, but my understanding is that other posters have redefined the words "freedom" and "choice" to mean nothing more than inevitable reactions to previous events.

[SusanDoris]

You're lying Alan. Sorry, but I don't believe for one minute that you have any interest in my answer. For one thing, if you did, you would have taken some notice when I and others have answered it (or very similar questions) multiple times before.

I most definitely agree with this post of yours, Stranger.