Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That's because you refuse point blank to address their reasons for doing so, presumably because you're terrified of what you might find out if you did. Your being at a loss about this is in other words wilful.

I am just reiterating the simple reality of what I am capable of doing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Where does this freedom to think come from?
What is driving your thought patterns?
What is driving my thought patterns?
Do you or I have control?
Or are we just predetermined by the unavoidable physical reactions involved in the electrochemical activity in our brain cells?

The answers to these questions are exactly the same as those given to you many times already, and that you have always ignored.

Why then are you here as you clearly have no intention ever of actually discussing anything?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

When someone makes a basic error in reasoning the principle of charity suggests that others should treat the error as an honest mistake. When he's been corrected countless times though, just ignores the corrections, and still repeats the error then there are two options: either he lacks the intellectual wherewithal to grasp the arguments that falsify him, or he's a liar. You choose.

But the action of consciously trying to correct my reasoning betrays the error in the logic that is being espoused.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am just reiterating the simple reality of what I am capable of doing.

While resolutely ignoring the arguments that explain why your "simple reality" is functionally helpful but epistemically worthless. Unless you can ever scratch beneath the surface of, "the way stuff feels to me must provide the explanations for that stuff" you'll be forever locked into this mistake.

But then again, you really don't want to escape it do you because the consequences would be far too painful for you to contemplate.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But the action of consciously trying to correct my reasoning betrays the error in the logic that is being espoused.

Either try to find out something about logic and reason, or stop lying.

[Gordon]

I am just reiterating the simple reality of what I am capable of doing.

No - at best you're reiterating what you'd like to think you are doing, since what you like to think is that 'God' must always have a slice of the action (even when it comes to everyday trivia).

[Stranger]

Where does this freedom to think come from?
What is driving your thought patterns?
What is driving my thought patterns?
Do you or I have control?
Or are we just predetermined by the unavoidable physical reactions involved in the electrochemical activity in our brain cells?

And the shameless dishonesty continues. All of these questions have been answered countless times - what's the point in the pretence that they haven't? If you think the answers are wrong, then engage in an argument about them. Just pretending that they haven't been answered is dishonest, rude, and pointless.

[Stranger]

But the action of consciously trying to correct my reasoning betrays the error in the logic that is being espoused.

No it doesn't - for the reasons that have been explained countless times. This endless repetition is like the message board equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting your empty assertions, over and over and over again, at the top of your voice...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

While resolutely ignoring the arguments that explain why your "simple reality" is functionally helpful but epistemically worthless. Unless you can ever scratch beneath the surface of, "the way stuff feels to me must provide the explanations for that stuff" you'll be forever locked into this mistake.

But then again, you really don't want to escape it do you because the consequences would be far too painful for you to contemplate.

This thread offers ample evidence for people having the freedom to approve the arguments which support what they want to believe, whilst having the freedom to reject the arguments which deny what they want to believe.   The choice is yours.  See Sassy's opening post.

[Alan Burns]

No it doesn't - for the reasons that have been explained countless times. This endless repetition is like the message board equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting your empty assertions, over and over and over again, at the top of your voice...

But nothing in these so called explanations actually explains the source of our freedom to make conscious choices.  To categorise them as "illusionary" or "just the way it seems" is not an explanation for the reality of our conscious ability to choose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This thread offers ample evidence for people having the freedom to approve the arguments which support what they want to believe, whilst having the freedom to reject the arguments which deny what they want to believe.   The choice is yours.  See Sassy's opening post.

Stop lying. Didn't Jesus have something to say about people who bear false witness?

But nothing in these so called explanations actually explains the source of our freedom to make conscious choices.  To categorise them as "illusionary" or "just the way it seems" is not an explanation for the reality of our conscious ability to choose.

Stop lying. Didn't Jesus have something to say about people who bear false witness?

[torridon]

But the simple logic is that in order to contemplate whether or not you have freewill, you need to have freedom to control your own thoughts.  Can you suggest any other animal which shows capability of considering the question of freewill? Perhaps it is because they do not have this gift.

The thousands of posts on this thread offer ample evidence of the human capability of having the freedom to think.

"freedom to think" - I think we feel free because of the absence of external constraints on our thoughts.  I'm happy to live in a 'free' country, because there are no arbitrary restrictions stopping me from doing what I want to do.  However we do not have the freedom to be free from ourselves; we are always acting out our desires and we feel no infringement on that.

If you think you can control your thoughts, give us an example of a thought you had and how and in what way you controlled it.

[Stranger]

But nothing in these so called explanations actually explains the source of our freedom to make conscious choices.

Untrue. If there's something about all the explanations that you find confusing, then ask about them specifically, but to claim that it hasn't been explained is, once again, dishonest. The key point you need to understand is that our experience of freedom is not the same thing as your illogical and self-contradictory explanation of how it works.

To categorise them as "illusionary" or "just the way it seems" is not an explanation for the reality of our conscious ability to choose.

Yet you want us to accept self-contradictory magic, with no actual explanation at all...

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Stop lying. Didn't Jesus have something to say about people who bear false witness?

Stop lying. Didn't Jesus have something to say about people who bear false witness?

I have never deliberately lied on this forum.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have never deliberately lied on this forum.

Then how would you describe the behaviour of someone who never, ever engages with the counter-arguments he's repeatedly given and instead repeats endlessly evidence- and logic-free mantras as if in some way he was making an argument?

[Alan Burns]

Yet you want us to accept self-contradictory magic, with no actual explanation at all...

Apart from the consciously driven power of human freewill, which you consciously refuse to accept as a possible explanation

[Stranger]

I have never deliberately lied on this forum.

Claiming that our experience is evidence of your own explanation for it, while totally ignoring all the other explanations of it that humankind has proposed, seems pretty much like lying to me...

[Stranger]

Apart from the consciously driven power of human freewill, which you consciously refuse to accept as a possible explanation

That's what I said; "consciously driven power of human freewill" is one of your labels for self-contradictory magic that explains nothing.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Then how would you describe the behaviour of someone who never, ever engages with the counter-arguments he's repeatedly given and instead repeats endlessly evidence- and logic-free mantras as if in some way he was making an argument?

I cannot not accept that my arguments are free of logic.  It would appear that only logic acceptable to you is based entirely on the limited human scientific discoveries made to date.   My logical analysis indicates that reality comprises far more than human scientific investigations will ever discover.

[Alan Burns]

That's what I said; "consciously driven power of human freewill" is one of your labels for self-contradictory magic that explains nothing.

It adequately explains what drove you to reply to my post.

[Stranger]

It adequately explains what drove you to reply to my post.

Of course it doesn't. It's logically equivalent to "it's magic"...

...err,... no, sorry, it isn't even that good, because it's inherently self-contradictory.

[SusanDoris]

I cannot not accept that my arguments are free of logic.  It would appear that only logic acceptable to you is based entirely on the limited human scientific discoveries made to date.   My logical analysis indicates that reality comprises far more than human scientific investigations will ever discover.

What overwhelming conceit to think that you know more about us humans than the best scientist, evolutionary biologists etc.

[Stranger]

I cannot not accept that my arguments are free of logic.

Perhaps you don't understand what logic is?

It would appear that only logic acceptable to you is based entirely on the limited human scientific discoveries made to date.

Here's the dishonesty again. The basic problem you have, isn't with science, it's with logic. This has been pointed out countless times, and in detail, and you have never pointed out any flaw in the logic.

Your only response has been to insist that there must be a flaw, because you are right!

My logical analysis indicates that reality comprises far more than human scientific investigations will ever discover.

Where is the logical analysis? Fallacies, baseless assertions, and endless repetition (while ignoring all counterargument) really don't constitute a logical analysis...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I cannot not accept that my arguments…

You don’t have any arguments. The term “argument” actually means something, and your unqualified claims fail that definition. What you have is assertions, and only that.

…are free of logic.

But you should, as you’d grasp if ever you bothered to engage with the (actual) arguments that falsify your assertions.

It would appear that only logic acceptable to you is based entirely on the limited human scientific discoveries made to date.

No it would not. Logic is logic – science is one manifestation of it, but there are others (philosophy for example). The only logic that’s “acceptable” to me is in fact logic. When you abandon that (a magic soul etc) then you give me no reason whatever to think you’re right. 

My logical analysis indicates that reality comprises far more than human scientific investigations will ever discover.

That may or may not be true, but it tells you nothing whatever about the legitimacy of asserting as facts supposed explanations that are profoundly illogical and so explain nothing at all.

Why is this so difficult for you?

[Alan Burns]

Perhaps you don't understand what logic is?

Here's the dishonesty again. The basic problem you have, isn't with science, it's with logic.

but the logic you espouse is apparently based on the cause and effect scenario evidenced in material science.
You seem unable to accept the evidence for a self determined spiritual cause for human freewill.