Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

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.

Alan asserted, without the slightest hint of any reasoning or evidence...   

[Alan Burns]

Furthermore, since your 'explanation' is ruled out by logic, it isn't even a possible explanation.

No logic can rule out the existence of the human soul.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No logic can rule out the existence of the human soul.

Or leprechauns. So?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Or leprechauns. So?

But you are not a leprechaun.
Neither am I.

[Stranger]

No logic can rule out the existence of the human soul.

But it can rule out what you call "freedom".

[Stranger]

But you are not a leprechaun.
Neither am I.

And, in much the same way as there is no evidence that there are leprechauns, there is no evidence that we have souls.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The last couple of posts of yours that I replied to contained a litany of mistakes that I took the time to identify and explain. As ever, you just ignored all that and have posted again as if nothing had happened. What does this profound dishonesty say about you do you think?

Briefly (as you’ll just ignore everything that’s said to you):

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

It doesn’t explain freedom as most people know it because, like you, most people don’t bother to think about it. That you always run away when asked how you’d get from your superficial experience of something to the more thoughtful explanation for it just tells us about your character, not about the quality of your assertion. 

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

Wrong again. Like your lack of thinking about the nature of freedom, there’s only a “present” in a colloquial sense. Were you able or willing to think about it though, you’d see why your superficial sense of something evaporates when you grasp its implications.   

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

How could I “search” for something you cannot define, you cannot identify, and about which you cannot provide any means of investigation? I can’t go looking for something that – so far at least – consists only of your assertion and wishful thinking.

If I said to you “perhaps it would help if you actually tried searching for leprechauns yourself, instead of trying to deny their existence” what would your response be?

Why?

[Enki]

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.

On the contrary, Alan, it's you that has a very limited view because you are not open to evidence and logic. Unfortunately it seems you aren't able to deal with logic easily, hence you call it 'flawed logic' , hoping, as if by some miracle, by simply saying this, it will then become flawed. It doesn't.  Unfortunately you have a track record of not answering points of logic. You either ignore them, or respond with empty assertions.

How on earth will I have to deny my existence? As far as I can see I am a living, functioning entity(given that I am not subject to various serious ailments) until the time comes when I cease to be. At that time I happily accept that I will 'blend back into the continuum' as you put it. No problem.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But you are not a leprechaun.
Neither am I.

Way to miss the point. You thought you were making a point when you said that logic cannot rule out the possibility of "soul". I merely explained that logic cannot rule out the possibility of any non-investigable conjecture.

As so often, you were just tilting at a windmill of your own invention.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just out of interest, what is your issue with logic – do you just not care how logically false the arguments you attempt may be, or can you not grasp why it matters? It’s a rare post from you that doesn’t contain at least one logical error, and usually there are several of them. Some of us take the time to explain where and why you go wrong, but you just ignore the corrections and proceed to make exactly the same mistakes over and over again in subsequent posts.

Do you not grasp that a logically false argument is necessarily a wrong argument? No matter how strongly, deeply, passionately etc you think something to be true, when you rely on logically false arguments to validate that belief all you do is to tell us that – so far at least – what you actually have is a personal faith belief but nothing more than that.   

If I were in your shoes I’d care about that. I really would. I’d think something like, “ah, I see now that I’ve attempted an argument from personal incredulity, an argumentum ad consequentiam, the fallacy of pejorative language etc and now I know that they’re all wrong arguments I will instead look for arguments that aren’t broken. That way I’d be less likely to have my claims and assertions dismissed out of hand.”

Surely if you sincerely believe your claims to be true and you want to evangelise for them it’d be in your best interest wouldn’t it if you didn’t use an approach that makes people possessed of functioning intellects think “this guy’s either dishonest or a fool, or perhaps both” and instead forced them to think, “OK, maybe he has something to say that’s worth considering”.

Wouldn’t it?     

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Way to miss the point. You thought you were making a point when you said that logic cannot rule out the possibility of "soul". I merely explained that logic cannot rule out the possibility of any non-investigable conjecture.

As so often, you were just tilting at a windmill of your own invention.

What I am saying is that the soul defines what I am.
The soul is that which perceives in my present.
The soul is that which invokes my choices in my present.

The only alternative which you can offer is that I just exist somewhere within the endless chains of physical cause and effect driving the material elements of my brain.  You have asked me to reply to your detailed responses, but in doing so I would need to make a conscious effort to break free of any predetermined chains of cause and effect in order to give you the replies you ask for.  Can you not see the obvious that you are asking "me" - a conscious entity of free will, not a predetermined self under the control of nature, to make a conscious choice to do what you ask?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Dear god but you’re slippery. You thought you were making a point when you said that logic cannot eliminate the possibility of “soul”. I explained why this was a non-point – logic cannot eliminate the possibility of any non-investigable conjecture, leprechauns included. Why not deal with that rather than immediately divert to something else?

What I am saying is that the soul defines what I am.
The soul is that which perceives in my present.
The soul is that which invokes my choices in my present.

You can say it all you like, but absent any reasoning to think you’re right about that what you actually mean is that your belief in “soul” does all those things, just as my belief in leprechauns may for all you know do the same for me.

So what?

The only alternative which you can offer is that I just exist somewhere within the endless chains of physical cause and effect driving the material elements of my brain.  You have asked me to reply to your detailed responses, but in doing so I would need to make a conscious effort to break free of any predetermined chains of cause and effect in order to give you the replies you ask for.  Can you not see the obvious that you are asking "me" - a conscious entity of free will, not a predetermined self under the control of nature, to make a conscious choice to do what you ask?

A piece of stupidity you’ve had corrected countless times but that you repeat endlessly nonetheless without ever once addressing the correction.

See my prevous post re your indifference to (or ignorance of) even basic logic, and why that so fatally undermines you. 

[Alan Burns]

See my prevous post re your indifference to (or ignorance of) even basic logic, and why that so fatally undermines you.

But despite all your claims to have explained it, you have not explained it at all.

I am free to choose.
You admit this by asking me asking me to make a conscious choice to reply to your posts.
Yet my freedom to choose has been declared a logical impossibility.
That is not an explantation.  It is a logical contradiction.

[torridon]

The only alternative which you can offer is that I just exist somewhere within the endless chains of physical cause and effect driving the material elements of my brain.  You have asked me to reply to your detailed responses, but in doing so I would need to make a conscious effort to break free of any predetermined chains of cause and effect in order to give you the replies you ask for. 

You cannot break free from cause and effect, that would be inconceivable, that would render our world incomprehensible, without meaning.  If we made choices for no reason the world of humans would be random chaos.  If I am angry, it is always because something has happened to make me angry.  If I am confused, it is always because something has happened to confuse me.  I really don't know why you find this simple point so hard to grasp.

[Stranger]

What I am saying asserting without reasoning or evidence is that the soul defines what I am.
The soul is that which perceives in my present.
The soul is that which invokes my choices in my present.

FIFY

The only alternative which you can offer is that I just exist somewhere within the endless chains of physical cause and effect driving the material elements of my brain.

YET AGAIN: argumentum ad consequentiam and YET AGAIN, the physical world isn't your problem, logic is.

You have asked me to reply to your detailed responses, but in doing so I would need to make a conscious effort to break free of any predetermined chains of cause and effect in order to give you the replies you ask for.

Drivel - for reasons that have been endlessly explained to you and you continue to ignore.

Can you not see the obvious that you are asking "me" - a conscious entity of free will, not a predetermined self under the control of nature, to make a conscious choice to do what you ask?

YET AGAIN: this is a false dichotomy. A "conscious entity of free will" is not an alternative to "predetermined self under the control of nature", they can be one and the same.

You have no evidence for what you say, you provide no reasoning to support it, you just keep on churning the endless streams of incredulity, while totally ignoring the logic that tells us that your alternative is impossible.

[Alan Burns]

You cannot break free from cause and effect, that would be inconceivable, that would render our world incomprehensible, without meaning.  If we made choices for no reason the world of humans would be random chaos.  If I am angry, it is always because something has happened to make me angry.  If I am confused, it is always because something has happened to confuse me.  I really don't know why you find this simple point so hard to grasp.

Once more -
Our spiritual self allows us to break free from physically predetermined cause and effect.
Otherwise I we have no freedom.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But despite all your claims to have explained it, you have not explained it at all.

I am free to choose.
You admit this by asking me asking me to make a conscious choice to reply to your posts.
Yet my freedom to choose has been declared a logical impossibility.
That is not an explantation.  It is a logical contradiction.

Are you deliberately avoiding the point, or can you genuinely not understand it?

Whether to not I have explained anything is a different matter. What I was actually explaining to you was that when you rely on logically false arguments then you necessarily make wrong arguments.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

If you do understand this, why on earth would you not want to know what logical fallacies are and then learn to avoid them in future - not least because then, finally, you might actually be able to post something that won't necessarily be dismissed out of hand?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Once more -
Our spiritual self allows us to break free from physically predetermined cause and effect.
Otherwise I we have no freedom.

That's two more logical errors, so I can safely dismiss out of hand whatever argument you think you're making.

[savillerow]

Msg 33015 AB You have got to stop this spirit/soul/spiritual approach. Its not working, its never going to work. Do you understand?

[Alan Burns]

A "conscious entity of free will" is not an alternative to "predetermined self under the control of nature", they can be one and the same.

How can you say this and claim it to be true?
Consciously driven choices are incompatible with predetermined physical reactions.

[Stranger]

But despite all your claims to have explained it, you have not explained it at all.

This is simply untrue. If you haven't understood the explanation or you disagree with it, you should be asking questions or providing counterarguments. Say it hasn't been explained is dishonest.

I am free to choose.
You admit this by asking me asking me to make a conscious choice to reply to your posts.
Yet my freedom to choose has been declared a logical impossibility.
That is not an explantation.  It is a logical contradiction.

Again, simply untrue.

You are switching between your experience of freedom (being able to do as you want) which nobody denies and your impossible, contradictory 'explanation' of how you think it works.

How many times do you need that explained? If you don't understand or disagree, then say so. Just ignoring it is rude/arrogant/stupid/dishonest (delete as applicable).

[Stranger]

How can you say this and claim it to be true?

I'm free to do so, after using my experience and background to assess the logic and the evidence.

Consciously driven choices are incompatible with predetermined physical reactions.

Only if you redefine the word 'choice' to mean your impossible contradictory 'explanation' of how conscious choices work. You are simply asserting your conclusion.

[torridon]

Once more -
Our spiritual self allows us to break free from physically predetermined cause and effect.
Otherwise I we have no freedom.

Freedom from cause and effect means random.  You are just playing with words.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Are you deliberately avoiding the point, or can you genuinely not understand it?

Whether to not I have explained anything is a different matter. What I was actually explaining to you was that when you rely on logically false arguments then you necessarily make wrong arguments.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

If you do understand this, why on earth would you not want to know what logical fallacies are, and then learn to avoid them in future - not least because then, finally, you might actually be able to post something that won't necessarily be dismissed out of hand?

It is you who have declared my arguments to be logically false.
I do not see this.
What I see is that I have the freedom to consciously choose, and no amount of so called logical argument can take away this freedom.  I do see that my freedom to choose can't be explained in any physical sense, because any physical explanation would take away this freedom.  So it is logical to presume that my freedom to choose emanates from a source which is not physically predetermined.  My logical conclusion is simply that my ability to make consciously driven choices emanates from the entity which is me.  This entity has freedom to make conscious choices which are not entirely predetermined by the past, but determined by my conscious self which exists in the present.  This is not a logical impossibility, just a feasible explanation of reality.

[Alan Burns]

Freedom from cause and effect means random.  You are just playing with words.

I have never claimed that our choices are free from cause and effect.
In order to enable freedom, they must be free from physical cause and effect.