Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

So are you implying that there is nothing driving you to write the content of your post?
Does it all just happen naturally?

How many times have people answered questions like this for you, Alan? Do you imagine one day somebody's going to think differently just because you ignore all the answers and just keep on mindlessly repeating the same questions and assertions over and over again?

Humans are perfectly capable of composing their own posts and there is no evidence or logic that there is anything happening that isn't natural.

You seem to have found one very unfortunate victim who could not see beyond the TOE and realise that it exposes more questions than it answers.

Such as....?

Fortunately there are millions who realise that this theory can't be used to disprove the existence of God or our own spiritual nature.

Nobody said the ToE disproves god. On the other hand, your conception of "spiritual nature" is self-contradictory and hence disproved by logic.

[Alan Burns]

What have you got? A belief that there is a god who has masterminded everything, not even any god, but one particular god. And what evidence have you that he/she/it exists?

An awareness of God is common throughout the history of human civilisation.
It is quite natural to believe in God.  You have to ask yourself if this ability to believe is divinely inspired.

And we have evidence of divine revelation in scripture.
Could mere humans have thought it all up?
Can it all be attributed to wishful thinking?

And we have evidence of many miracles and answers to prayer attributed to God's divine power.
Can you honestly write every one of them off as lies, mistakes or illusions?

And we have personal testimonies from many who have discovered God and been inspired to do truly marvellous works in God's name, which they attribute to God working in their lives..

None at all, except your personal beliefs and experiences.

No - see above.

As to a spiritual nature, which I assume is associated with your 'soul' idea(please correct me if it isn't,) there again is no evidence whatsoever, only your personal beliefs and experiences.

My own awareness, freewill, ability to believe, ability to pray, ability to bear witness ....
Can you honestly believe that all these attributes stem from predetermined material reactions?

[Alan Burns]

How many times have people answered questions like this for you,

But your answers amount to just playing with words, not logic.
You claim that we have freedom, but then you claim this supposed freedom to be entirely predetermined by factors and events beyond our control.  So it is not freedom - just inevitable, predefined reaction to the past.

Our freedom is determined in the present, not predetermined by the past, using the God given freedom we all have to choose our own destiny.

[torridon]

An awareness of God is common throughout the history of human civilisation.
It is quite natural to believe in God.  You have to ask yourself if this ability to believe is divinely inspired.
..

It could be largely to do with our cognitive and perceptual biases.  Given we haven't found any (real) evidence for gods, I'm going with cognitive biases.

[Stranger]

An awareness of God is common throughout the history of human civilisation.
It is quite natural to believe in God.  You have to ask yourself if this ability to believe is divinely inspired.

Nonsense. Calling it an "awareness" is begging the question and "God", as in monotheism, is vary far from universal. In fact, humans have made up endless gods together with other spirts, ghosts, daemons, fairies, vampires, and so on and so on.

As has been suggested we probably have "hyperactive agency detection" because, in evolutionary terms, a false positive is not generally dangerous, whereas a false negative could be fatal.

And we have evidence of divine revelation in scripture.

Where? The bible is an incoherent, contradictory mess. If it's a message from a god, then said god has serious communication problems.

Could mere humans have thought it all up?

Easily and they rather obviously did.

And we have evidence of many miracles and answers to prayer attributed to God's divine power.
Can you honestly write every one of them off as lies, mistakes or illusions

There is no objective evidence for answered prayer.

My own awareness, freewill, ability to believe, ability to pray, ability to bear witness ....
Can you honestly believe that all these attributes stem from predetermined material reactions?

Yes. This is just your personal incredulity again. Let's not forget that your alternative is self-contradictory and hence impossible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

An awareness of God is…

Fallacy 1: reification. “An awareness of” assumes there to be a god at all. What you meant was, “beliefs in gods are” etc.

Also, it’s not “God” in any case – it’s tens of thousands of different gods.

…common throughout the history of human civilisation.

Fallacy 2: argumentum ad populum.

So what?

It is quite natural to believe in God.

Fallacy 3: The appeal to nature. It is “quite natural” to believe in lots of things – we’re a pattern- and explanation-seeking species. That tells you nothing though about whether or not the objects of these beliefs are true.
   

You have to ask yourself if this ability to believe is divinely inspired.

Why?

And we have evidence of divine revelation in scripture.

Fallacy 4: circular reasoning. “It’s in a book that says it’s true so it must be true because it’s in a book that says it’s true…” etc.
 

Could mere humans have thought it all up?

Of course we could, just as we made up lots of other “holy” texts that you think to be wrong.

Can it all be attributed to wishful thinking?

Yes.

And we have evidence of many miracles and answers to prayer attributed to God's divine power.

No we don’t. Any such attribution of a “miracle” evaporates the moment you apply logical analysis to it.

Can you honestly write every one of them off as lies, mistakes or illusions

Yes, because “every one of them” fails even cursory analysis.

And we have personal testimonies from many who have discovered God and been inspired to do truly marvellous works in God's name, which they attribute to God working in their lives.

Fallacy 5: use of anecdote as evidence. “Personal testimonies” are epistemically worthless because that’s all they are – personal.

No - see above.

Yes – see above.

My own awareness, freewill, ability to believe, ability to pray, ability to bear witness ....
Can you honestly believe that all these attributes stem from predetermined material reactions?

Fallacy 6: argument from personal incredulity. As underneath the superficial level that’s essentially what the evidence says, yes. I have asked you many times what logical path you think there to be to take you from your personal experience of something to the underlying explanation for it, but as you always run away when I do the same problem continues to undo you here.

Poor effort AB, even for you.

[Stranger]

But your answers amount to just playing with words, not logic.

You have never once been able to point to a flaw in the argument, Alan. Until you can, dismissing it as "playing with words" and "not logic" are just baseless assertions.

YET AGAIN: I've pointed out two logical contradictions. First, you can't have anything that happens that isn't entirely due to pre-existing causes without introducing something that happened for no pre-existing cause and must therefore be random. Second, you can't choose your wants without an infinite regress.

For once, why not tackle those points?

You claim that we have freedom, but then you claim this supposed freedom to be entirely predetermined by factors and events beyond our control.  So it is not freedom - just inevitable, predefined reaction to the past.

That is playing with words. YET AGAIN: Freedom is being able to do as you want and is therefore fully compatible with a deterministic* mind. Control is the power to influence the course of events - something a deterministic mind can also do.

If you insist on your personal definitions of the words, then 'control' and 'freedom' are simply impossible.

Your description of the actions of a deterministic mind as "just inevitable, predefined reaction to the past" is more games with language. The past is what makes us into choice-makers. It's what gives us values, likes, dislikes, opinions and so on. Without those, making a free choice is a total nonsense; we can't be free of who we are.

Our freedom is determined in the present, not predetermined by the past, using the God given freedom we all have to choose our own destiny.

Baseless, self-contradictory assertion (again).   

* No, your ideas about freedom are not deterministic: #32591

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But your answers amount to just playing with words, not logic.

That’s flatly not true. We must have words (or numbers) to express logic, but using them plainly and with their correct meanings isn’t “playing” with them at all. It’s just using them properly. If you think the logic ranged against you to be flawed then finally attempt at least to identify the flaws without relying on a string of logical fallacies.

You claim that we have freedom, but then you claim this supposed freedom to be entirely predetermined by factors and events beyond our control.  So it is not freedom - just inevitable, predefined reaction to the past.

Why do you keep returning to this same stupidity when it’s been explained to you countless times already? We do have “freedom” of a type, but it cannot be your logically impossible version of it.

Would it really kill you just for once to try to understand what’s being explained and to respond to that rather than your current practice of just ignoring everything you can’t or won’t understand?

Our freedom is determined in the present…

Wrong. There is no “present” so this would be impossible.

…not predetermined by the past,…

Wrong. This is just mindless assertion with neither logic nor evidence to support it. 

…using the God given…

Not even wrong. “God” is just white noise here, and will remain so until and unless finally you can define it, identify it, provide a method to investigate the claim etc. You know, the questions you always run away from when asked.

…freedom we all have to choose our own destiny.

Not even wrong. What do you even think you mean by that?

[Alan Burns]

Let's not forget that your alternative is self-contradictory and hence impossible.

So you keep asserting.
And I will continue to refute this assertion by freely choosing to point out that you are wrong, and in doing so, prove that your assertion is wrong.

The past is gone.
We can't change the past.
Yet you assert that what we do is defined by the past.
And you still claim that we have the freedom to make choices.
This is your own self contradictory, logically impossible scenario.

[Stranger]

So you keep asserting.

I've not just asserted it, I've argued (most recently in #32981) it and you have never once attempted a counterargument.

And I will continue to refute this assertion by freely choosing to point out that you are wrong, and in doing so, prove that your assertion is wrong.

Once again, what is effectively the barefaced lie that our abilities and experience can only be due to your impossible, contradictory 'explanation' for it.

You have never once responded to that either. What's the matter? Do you not grasp that everybody who has ever put forward an idea about free will and consciousness has done so in order to explain our experience and abilities?

The past is gone.
We can't change the past.
Yet you assert that what we do is defined by the past.
And you still claim that we have the freedom to make choices.
This is your own self contradictory, logically impossible scenario.

YET AGAIN: freedom - The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants.

I (and others) have presented you with actual arguments as to why your position is contradictory, ones that you have never even bothered to try to address. Just labelling mine the same because you have redefined the word "freedom", does not make it true.

As I've already said, if you insist on your personal definition, then freedom is impossible.

• By your definition of freedom, nothing and nobody is free, because freedom itself is self-contradictory.
  
  
• By the dictionary definition above, we are free and it's perfectly compatible with deterministic minds (and our abilities and experience).

Take your pick, but there is no contradiction involved in either. My arguments as to why your version of 'freedom' is contradictory stand, and you haven't even attempted to address them...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So you keep asserting.

No, he keeps explaining using reason and logic. Just asserting is what you do re “god”, “soul” etc

And I will continue to refute…

You haven't refuted anything. Refutation requires counter-argument, not assertions. To my recollection you’ve never once managed a counter-argument that doesn’t rely on fallacies and that isn’t therefore necessarily wrong.

-  this assertion by freely choosing to point out that you are wrong, and in doing so, prove that your assertion is wrong.

Another lie. You can’t “freely” choose anything in the sense you intend it because such freedom would be logically impossible remember?

The past is gone.

Finally, you’ve got something right.

We can't change the past.

And that’s twice in a row (though we can change what we understand the past to have been).

Blimey!

Yet you assert that what we do is defined by the past.

That “yet” is a non sequitur – yet anther fallacy. The past determining the future doesn’t require changing the past.

And you still claim that we have the freedom to make choices.

Of course but a type of freedom bounded by logic, not your logically impossible version of it.

This is your own self contradictory, logically impossible scenario.

Flat wrong for reasons that have been explained to you hundreds of times now but that you insist on ignoring.

Wy do you think lying for Jesus is an acceptable tactic?

[Enki]

An awareness of God is common throughout the history of human civilisation.
It is quite natural to believe in God.  You have to ask yourself if this ability to believe is divinely inspired.

And we have evidence of divine revelation in scripture.
Could mere humans have thought it all up?
Can it all be attributed to wishful thinking?

And we have evidence of many miracles and answers to prayer attributed to God's divine power.
Can you honestly write every one of them off as lies, mistakes or illusions?

And we have personal testimonies from many who have discovered God and been inspired to do truly marvellous works in God's name, which they attribute to God working in their lives..
No - see above.My own awareness, freewill, ability to believe, ability to pray, ability to bear witness ....
Can you honestly believe that all these attributes stem from predetermined material reactions?

Although this has been responded to in detail by others who have covered just about all the points I would wish to make, as it was directed towards me, I will simply respond to  the  actual questions you asked.

It is quite natural to believe in God.  You have to ask yourself if this ability to believe is divinely inspired.

I have, and the answer is that if it were divinely inspired that would presuppose one or more of the many gods available exists/existed. As I see no evidence whatever for any god, then my answer would be no.

And we have evidence of divine revelation in scripture Could mere humans have thought it all up? Can it all be attributed to wishful thinking?

Yes humans could undoubtedly have thought it all up. I don't see that your scripture is evidence for the existence of your God at all.

And we have evidence of many miracles and answers to prayer attributed to God's divine power. Can you honestly write every one of them off as lies, mistakes or illusions?

,
In the absence of any objective, testable evidence of the above  yes, I can quite easily write them off.

My own awareness, freewill, ability to believe, ability to pray, ability to bear
witness ....Can you honestly believe that all these attributes stem from predetermined material reactions?

Your own assertions have no evidence to support them and you have given no logic or argument to support them so they can easily be discounted. Hence I have no reason to think that they are not from a deterministic system, and I have no reason to think that they are not a result of brain activity. That's where the evidence and logic leads.
 

[Alan Burns]

Why do you keep returning to this same stupidity when it’s been explained to you countless times already? We do have “freedom” of a type, but it cannot be your logically impossible version of it.

The explanations do not explain freedom as I know it.
I do not recognise freedom in your definition.

Wrong. There is no “present” so this would be impossible.

Of course there is a present.
It is where we all live
(unless you are Jethro Tull  )

Not even wrong. “God” is just white noise here, and will remain so until and unless finally you can define it, identify it, provide a method to investigate the claim etc. You know, the questions you always run away from when asked.

Perhaps it would help if you actually tried searching for Gog yourself, instead of trying to deny His existence.

[Alan Burns]

Another lie. You can’t “freely” choose anything in the sense you intend it because such freedom would be logically impossible remember?

So why can I keep doing it?

[Sebastian Toe]

But your answers amount to just playing with words, not logic.


Our freedom is determined in the present, not predetermined by the past, using the God given freedom we all have to choose our own destiny.

The explanations do not explain freedom as I know it.
I do not recognise freedom in your definition.

[Stranger]

The explanations do not explain freedom as I know it.
I do not recognise freedom in your definition.

This is basically just more incredulity. You experience thinking and doing as you want and you can't imagine how it could be entirely due to the past (who you are, what your life has made you, the circumstances, and so on), so you conclude that it can't be.

Unfortunately for you, you've then invested in a faith position that requires you to stick to your conclusion. Hence, you apparently can't even bear to try to face the logic that says that your conclusion is self-contradictory and so impossible. So you just ignore it and keep on asserting that it doesn't match how you feel about it, as if that was an argument.

Blind faith and denial.

Of course there is a present.

Not in any sense that helps your impossible version of freedom, there isn't.

It is where we all live
(unless you are Jethro Tull  )

Yes, that is the colloquial and logically irrelevant sense of "the present". 

Perhaps it would help if you actually tried searching for Gog yourself, instead of trying to deny His existence.

Quite apart from the total lack of any reason to take the idea of a god seriously and of any objective method that could be used to undertake such a search, why would a god, with an important message for its creation, play silly games of hide-and-seek?

[Gordon]

So why can I keep doing it?

Have you considered that what is happening when you choose isn't what you think (and would prefer) is happening because what you think is happening (as expressed by you) is illogical.

You still haven't explained, despite my asking, how this soul thing that you say exists in another dimension interacts with our brains in this one, so rather than regurgitate your favourite cliches you might do some explaining for a change: after all you are always banging on about 'defining', so how about actually doing some defining of your own (like explaining how 'souls' operate).   

[Stranger]

So why can I keep doing it?

You can't and aren't. 'Freedom' according to your definition is literally meaningless.

[Alan Burns]

Your own assertions have no evidence to support them and you have given no logic or argument to support them so they can easily be discounted. Hence I have no reason to think that they are not from a deterministic system, and I have no reason to think that they are not a result of brain activity. That's where the evidence and logic leads.

But in following where this very limited view of available evidence and flawed logic leads, you will eventually have to deny your own existence as a single entity as you blend back into the continuum of the physically predetermined cause and effect regime in a material universe.

[Alan Burns]

You can't and aren't. 'Freedom' according to your definition is literally meaningless.

Quite the opposite.
My freedom enables me to choose my own destiny.
What could possibly be more meaningful?

[Gordon]

But in following your where this very limited view of available evidence and flawed logic leads, you will eventually have to deny your own existence as a single entity as you blend back into the continuum of the physically predetermined cause and effect regime of a material universe.

I think you have got to the point now, Alan, where is one sentence you can weave together multiple fallacies: you've invented fallacy knitting!

Of course, as a result, you make no sense whatsoever.

[Maeght]

But your answers amount to just playing with words, not logic.
You claim that we have freedom, but then you claim this supposed freedom to be entirely predetermined by factors and events beyond our control.  So it is not freedom - just inevitable, predefined reaction to the past.

Our freedom is determined in the present, not predetermined by the past, using the God given freedom we all have to choose our own destiny.

No logic in that statement, just playing with words to support your beliefs.

[torridon]

So why can I keep doing it?

Because you want to keep on doing it and there is nothing external stopping you.  We are free to do what we want, in the trivial sense, but in a more profound sense, we are not free to choose what to want in the first place; we inevitably make choices that reflect the person we have become at the moment of making a choice; we can do no other.  This deterministic model makes sense, it faithfully reflects the reality we observe around us without affectations such as 'free'.

[Stranger]

But in following your where this very limited view of available evidence and flawed logic leads...

Why is the view of the evidence limited? You haven't produced the smallest hint of any evidence for your views.

And yet again, where are the flaws in the logic?

...you will eventually have to deny your own existence as a single entity as you blend back into the continuum of the physically predetermined cause and effect regime in a material universe.

That's just silly.

Quite the opposite.
My freedom enables me to choose my own destiny.
What could possibly be more meaningful?

Your freedom (standard definition) does, but you have not demonstrated or argued that this freedom that you experience is the same as your nonsensical, contradictory 'explanation' for it. And yet again claiming that it is, when there are many explanations consistent with the experience, amounts to a lie. Furthermore, since your 'explanation' is ruled out by logic, it isn't even a possible explanation.

Your concept of freedom is literally devoid of meaning in that it is an incoherent concept that can't refer to a real situation.

[Alan Burns]

Wrong. There is no “present” so this would be impossible.

The present is where I exist.
It is where I perceive.
It is where I invoke my choices.
It is where I perceive the consequences of my choices.
I define the present.
Of course, you can't detect the present in your material world, because you can't detect the "I" within the endless chains of cause and effect which have no beginning and no end.
Because the "I" is a spiritual self, not a material self.