Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

torri,

Something that's been pointed out to him quite often. His Get Out of Jail Free card though is this word "spiritual" (also incidentally undefined, unidentifiable, non-investigable etc), by which he means something like, "no matter how irrational my claims are they're "spiritual" so anything I assert them to be must be true cos it's magic innit!"

Haven't you contradicted yourself here?
If spiritual claims are non investigable how have you decided his are irrational? What is your working out?

[Alan Burns]

Stop playing word games.  There is no such thing as physical cause and effect.  There is just cause and effect. Adding in 'physical' will not make something logical, illogical, or vice versa.  If we were to be free from cause and effect then our behaviours would be random.  This is simple undeniable logic.

Well, this is an inevitable conclusion if you refuse to accept that there can be anything derived from the non physical, or spiritual.

But spiritual is a word, it has meaning - you can't just dismiss it as though it was something I had invented to suite my own personal view:

adjective: spiritual

    1.
    relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

Once you accept the possibility of a spiritual nature, It presents an obvious option to differentiate between the concept of physically determined and spiritually determined.  The former can have no source of control other than the laws of physics.  The latter offers the more realistic alternative which gives us freedom to choose according to our spiritual will. 

I am often  being accused of dishonesty.  But to be dishonest would involve me deliberately choosing to put forward a point of view which I know to be wrong.  Yet my accusers put forward arguments which effectively deny me any freedom to deliberately choose, because their arguments assign any form of control to be a consequence of physically predetermined reactions.

I am told that my freedom to consciously choose is just a perceived experience, and that (limited) evidence points to the fact that I have no such freedom.  But I contest this view by saying that our freedom to choose is evidence of our spiritual nature, because such freedom cannot exist in a physically predetermined environment.

[Enki]

Well, this is an inevitable conclusion if you refuse to accept that there can be anything derived from the non physical, or spiritual.

But spiritual is a word, it has meaning - you can't just dismiss it as though it was something I had invented to suite my own personal view:

adjective: spiritual

    1.
    relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

Once you accept the possibility of a spiritual nature, It presents an obvious option to differentiate between the concept of physically determined and spiritually determined.  The former can have no source of control other than the laws of physics.  The latter offers the more realistic alternative which gives us freedom to choose according to our spiritual will. 

I am often  being accused of dishonesty.  But to be dishonest would involve me deliberately choosing to put forward a point of view which I know to be wrong.  Yet my accusers put forward arguments which effectively deny me any freedom to deliberately choose, because their arguments assign any form of control to be a consequence of physically predetermined reactions.

I am told that my freedom to consciously choose is just a perceived experience, and that (limited) evidence points to the fact that I have no such freedom.  But I contest this view by saying that our freedom to choose is evidence of our spiritual nature, because such freedom cannot exist in a physically predetermined environment.

As the same dictionary goes on to describe the physical and material as a contrast to the mind, I have no problem with this at all.
physical: Relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
material: Denoting or consisting of physical objects rather than the mind or spirit.

I have consistently said that I am basically the product of my brain(I.E. my mind). Hence, in this sense, I can happily regard myself as having spiritual qualities.

The argument of course still stands. Making choices can only be a product of one of two processes or a mixture of both. 1) a deterministic process which has to rely on causes/reasons for its choices 2) a random process where there is no reliance on anything. Your dictionary definition of the word spiritual simply seems to confirm that this process happens in the mind, Again, as you have so often been asked, if you have knowledge of a third process, please describe what it is and how it works.(e.g. just saying a 'soul' is no answer at all)

May I, at this point. also remind you again of the dictionary definitions for the words  'freedom' and 'choice'.

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 which is inconsistent with a deterministic process as you well know.

[wigginhall]

Yes, exactly.  Freedom to choose is obviously compatible with determinism.  Everything else is semantics.

[Stranger]

Well, this is an inevitable conclusion if you refuse to accept that there can be anything derived from the non physical, or spiritual.

It has nothing at all to do with that, Alan; YET AGAIN: cause and effect (or determinism) is about the logic of how things develop over time. It has to apply (or not, which means there is some randomness) to anything that changes state (say from not having made a choice to having made one), regardless of whether it's physical or not.

Let's try again...

A mind (whether it involves a soul or not) comes into existence in some initial state and then experiences its life. Either what it subsequently does is entirely due to its initial state and subsequent life (including any 'spiritual' aspect of its life) or it isn't. If it isn't, then to some extent it must do things that have nothing at all to do with its initial state and subsequent life. That is to say, some part of what it does is totally unrelated to its basic nature or any part of its life (memories, experience, skills, etc.) or circumstances. Since it must be unrelated to anything either internal to it or anything it perceives externally, there is nothing left, and that part of what it does must be random.

Once you accept the possibility of a spiritual nature...  [blah, blah...]

All of this has been answered countless times before and you continue to totally ignore the answers. What's the point of this mindless repetition? Are you a real thinking, conscious mind, or just a software bot (as your endless repetition suggests)?

[wigginhall]

It's just spam.

[Alan Burns]

It has nothing at all to do with that, Alan; YET AGAIN: cause and effect (or determinism) is about the logic of how things develop over time. It has to apply (or not, which means there is some randomness) to anything that changes state (say from not having made a choice to having made one), regardless of whether it's physical or not.

Let's try again...

A mind (whether it involves a soul or not) comes into existence in some initial state and then experiences its life. Either what it subsequently does is entirely due to its initial state and subsequent life (including any 'spiritual' aspect of its life) or it isn't. If it isn't, then to some extent it must do things that have nothing at all to do with its initial state and subsequent life. That is to say, some part of what it does is totally unrelated to its basic nature or any part of its life (memories, experience, skills, etc.) or circumstances. Since it must be unrelated to anything either internal to it or anything it perceives externally, there is nothing left, and that part of what it does must be random.

All of this has been answered countless times before and you continue to totally ignore the answers. What's the point of this mindless repetition? Are you a real thinking, conscious mind, or just a software bot (as your endless repetition suggests)?

But the logic you keep espousing is stuck in a mechanistic, physically predetermined cause and effect syndrome.  You refuse to accept the possibility of a dynamic, free thinking entity which is self determined within the present state of consciousness and not entirely predefined by past events.

[Stranger]

But the logic you keep espousing is stuck in a mechanistic, physically predetermined cause and effect syndrome.

In what way, exactly? What part of the argument is reliant on that, and how would the logic change if it wasn't?

You refuse to accept the possibility of a dynamic, free thinking entity which is self determined within the present state of consciousness...

That's because it's meaningless waffle. If you want to be in the least bit convincing, you need to address the actual logic of the situation; word salad doesn't do that.

...and not entirely predefined by past events.

If it is not "entirely predefined by past events", then, to the extent it isn't, it is random, as I and many others have argued.

I'm waiting for you to provide even the hint of a counterargument...

...and waiting...

...and waiting...

...and waiting...

...and waiting...

[torridon]

Well, this is an inevitable conclusion if you refuse to accept that there can be anything derived from the non physical, or spiritual.

But spiritual is a word, it has meaning - you can't just dismiss it as though it was something I had invented to suite my own personal view:

adjective: spiritual

    1.
    relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

Once you accept the possibility of a spiritual nature, It presents an obvious option to differentiate between the concept of physically determined and spiritually determined.  The former can have no source of control other than the laws of physics.  The latter offers the more realistic alternative which gives us freedom to choose according to our spiritual will. 
...

People mean different things by 'spiritual'.  I have no problems with 'spiritual' referring to contemplative aspects of mind.  It is the contention that this is something distinct and supernatural 'inhabiting' a body that is unwarranted and unevidenced.  And even if such a thing exists it doesn't get you out of the binary determined/random nature of choice - as has been pointed out this is to do with logic, not to do with the 'laws of physics'.  We don't have separate principals of logic for non physical things.  Imagine you go back in time to the moment when you chose what to eat for breakfast this morning and make the choice again.  It makes no difference if it is a mind making the choice or a 'spiritual soul', the plain fact is that given identical circumstances you would make the identical same choice again because if you were to make a different choice second time around that would mean that your choice is random because there is no reason for it to be different.  Don't you see, splicing 'souls' in as the owner of the process makes no difference, the outcome of a process of making a choice has to be deterministic (no 'freedom') or random.  This is the nature of choice itself, regardless of the maker or the mechanism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Well, this is an inevitable conclusion if you refuse to accept that there can be anything derived from the non physical, or spiritual.

First, you cannot accept even the possibility of something that’s logically impossible, as your concept of freedom is. Do you accept the possibility of four-sided triangles? Why not?

Second, even if you did have a coherent explanation for the term you continue to get your basic critique wrong: I would then accept the possibility of your conjecture, just as I accept the possibility of the Loch Ness Monster, or of tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri. Your mistake here though is then to jump straight from the possibility of something to its probability, with no connecting logic of any kind. If nothing else, could you at lest finally try to sort out the difference between possible and probable? How hard can that be? 

But spiritual is a word, it has meaning - you can't just dismiss it as though it was something I had invented to suite my own personal view:

adjective: spiritual

    1.
    relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

Which is precisely as helpful as my telling you that “lerprechaunal” has a meaning too, ie “relating to or affecting leprechauns”. An adjective that describes a vapid term is in other words no less vapid than the term it relates to.

Oh, and yes you have invented it to suit your personal view inasmuch as what you actually mean by it is “it’s magic” (but you know that it would give the games away if you said "magic", so you say "spiritual" instead and hope no-one notices), which is epistemically worthless for reasons I’ve explained to you many times already but that you just ignore nonetheless.   

Once you accept the possibility of a spiritual nature,…

Nope. See above.

…It presents an obvious option to differentiate between the concept of physically determined and spiritually determined.

That’s called circular reasoning – yet another of your logical errors. “If you accept “spiritual” then that validates claims about the spiritual” isn’t an argument of any kind.

Oh, and even if it was you’d still just have jumped from a possible to a probable with nothing whatever to connect them.   

The former can have no source of control other than the laws of physics.  The latter offers the more realistic alternative which gives us freedom to choose according to our spiritual will.

It’s utterly unrealistic for reasons that should be obvious even to you by now, and (as I’ve explained many times and you just ignore) if you want to allow “it’s magic” into rational discussion, then you have no basis to deny anything I happen to make up and called “spiritual” (or leprechaunal for that matter) too. Can you really not see your problem here? When you place the evidence bar so low that “spiritual/it’s magic” is the point of entry, nothing else – literally nothing else – can be excluded.     

I am often  being accused of dishonesty.

Yes, and rightly so.

But to be dishonest would involve me deliberately choosing to put forward a point of view which I know to be wrong.  Yet my accusers put forward arguments which effectively deny me any freedom to deliberately choose, because their arguments assign any form of control to be a consequence of physically predetermined reactions.

Wrong again. You can tell lies by commission and by omission. When you attempt an argument that’s a logical howler and someone corrects you on it, it’s still dishonest when you just ignore the correction (repeatedly in fact) in order to post exactly the same error over and over again. The end of the paragraph above is an example of that - one of your most egregious in fact.

That makes you a liar for Jesus. If it’s any comfort to you though, lots of other people are liars for Jesus too.

I am told that my freedom to consciously choose is just a perceived experience, and that (limited) evidence points to the fact that I have no such freedom.  But I contest this view by saying that our freedom to choose is evidence of our spiritual nature, because such freedom cannot exist in a physically predetermined environment.

See above. This is just repeated idiocy, as you’d know if ever you bothered to address the countless explanations you’ve been given for why it’s idiotic. What are you so terrified of that you cannot bring yourself to engage with an argument you don't like?

[torridon]

I am told that my freedom to consciously choose is just a perceived experience, and that (limited) evidence points to the fact that I have no such freedom.  But I contest this view by saying that our freedom to choose is evidence of our spiritual nature, because such freedom cannot exist in a physically predetermined environment.

The feeling of freedom can exist and we feel free mostly because of the absence of external constraints obstructing us. I am 'free' to do what I want because nobody is stopping me.  So much, so obvious.  But more profoundly, I am not free to choose what to want in the first place; not because it is difficult, not because it is costly, but because it makes no sense to claim such.  That feeling of freedom arises out of doing what I want whilst, admittedly, having no control over what I want.  The fact that we do not choose things that we don't want anyway does not bother us, does it ?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

First, you cannot accept even the possibility of something that’s logically impossible, as your concept of freedom is. Do you accept the possibility of four-sided triangles? Why not?

My freedom, and yours is demonstrably real
Four sided triangles are not.

Second, even if you did have a coherent explanation for the term you continue to get your basic critique wrong: I would then accept the possibility of your conjecture, just as I accept the possibility of the Loch Ness Monster, or of tap dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri. Your mistake here though is then to jump straight from the possibility of something to its probability, with no connecting logic of any kind. If nothing else, could you at lest finally try to sort out the difference between possible and probable? How hard can that be?

Your posts continue to demonstrate your admirable ability to choose what you reply.

Which is precisely as helpful as my telling you that “lerprechaunal” has a meaning too, ie “relating to or affecting leprechauns”. An adjective that describes a vapid term is in other words no less vapid than the term it relates to.

Does anyone else apart from you compare leprechauns to human souls?

Oh, and yes you have invented it to suit your personal view inasmuch as what you actually mean by it is “it’s magic” (but you know that it would give the games away if you said "magic", so you say "spiritual" instead and hope no-one notices), which is epistemically worthless for reasons I’ve explained to you many times already but that you just ignore nonetheless.   

The phrase "its magic" is your personal interpretation - not mine.

That’s called circular reasoning – yet another of your logical errors. “If you accept “spiritual” then that validates claims about the spiritual” isn’t an argument of any kind.

Oh, and even if it was you’d still just have jumped from a possible to a probable with nothing whatever to connect them. 

 
Apart from explaining the demonstrable reality of our freedom to choose.

It’s utterly unrealistic for reasons that should be obvious even to you by now, and (as I’ve explained many times and you just ignore) if you want to allow “it’s magic” into rational discussion, then you have no basis to deny anything I happen to make up and called “spiritual” (or leprechaunal for that matter) too. Can you really not see your problem here? When you place the evidence bar so low that “spiritual/it’s magic” is the point of entry, nothing else – literally nothing else – can be excluded.   

My arguments have absolutely nothing to do with magic or leprechauns.  These are just attempts at ridicule instead of constructive argument.

Wrong again. You can tell lies by commission and by omission. When you attempt an argument that’s a logical howler and someone corrects you on it, it’s still dishonest when you just ignore the correction (repeatedly in fact) in order to post exactly the same error over and over again. The end of the paragraph above is an example of that - one of your most egregious in fact.

But how can I possibly be accused of deliberate dishonesty if everthing I do or say is entirely predetermined before I say it?

That makes you a liar for Jesus. If it’s any comfort to you though, lots of other people are liars for Jesus too.

I do not tell lies - it is against the rules.

See above. This is just repeated idiocy, as you’d know if ever you bothered to address the countless explanations you’ve been given for why it’s idiotic. What are you so terrified of that you cannot bring yourself to engage with an argument you don't like?

I find the explanations totally divorced from reality

[Stranger]

My freedom, and yours is demonstrably real
Four sided triangles are not.

Actually our freedom isn't demonstrable at all. Think about it. If you weren't free to say what you want, you'd say something else, how could anybody else tell the difference?

Having said that, we all experience freedom in the sense (as torridon said) that we are unconstrained by anything outside of ourselves. We can do as we wish. This is the normal dictionary definition of freedom.

On the other had, when you insist on saying that this freedom must involve choices that are not fully determined by the past and yet involve no randomness, that is exactly the same level of contradiction as four sided triangles. We really can (practical considerations apart) do whatever we want, but we can't be "free" from what we want to do. To even suggest that it would represent any sort of additional freedom, even if we could, is patently absurd and contradictory (as has been explained, in detail, many times).

Our ability to as we wish is NOT the same thing as your absurd and contradictory assertions about how it works.

I find the explanations totally divorced from reality

I find your ridiculous assertions to be totally divorced from reality but I'm prepared to actually engage with what you say, point out the problems as I see them, and ask you do point out any problems you see with what I say (I have done so many, many times now); but you never do.

You appear to think that an answer to any counterargument to what you claim, is just to repeat the same claims - effectively saying "but you must be wrong because I'm right". Most of the time you don't even bother to acknowledge that the counterargument has been presented and just indulge in bot-like repetition of the same empty assertions and inane questions that have been addressed countless times before.

The logic of the situation has been presented to you multiple times and by several people, just insisting that you are right and that your 'perception' somehow negates it all is, in itself, absurd.

You either have counterarguments to the logic or you don't, and if you don't, it really is about time you admitted that all you have is blind faith...

[Alan Burns]

Actually our freedom isn't demonstrable at all. Think about it. If you weren't free to say what you want, you'd say something else, how could anybody else tell the difference?

Having said that, we all experience freedom in the sense (as torridon said) that we are unconstrained by anything outside of ourselves. We can do as we wish. This is the normal dictionary definition of freedom.

On the other had, when you insist on saying that this freedom must involve choices that are not fully determined by the past and yet involve no randomness, that is exactly the same level of contradiction as four sided triangles. We really can (practical considerations apart) do whatever we want, but we can't be "free" from what we want to do. To even suggest that it would represent any sort of additional freedom, even if we could, is patently absurd and contradictory (as has been explained, in detail, many times).

Our ability to as we wish is NOT the same thing as your absurd and contradictory assertions about how it works.

I find your ridiculous assertions to be totally divorced from reality but I'm prepared to actually engage with what you say, point out the problems as I see them, and ask you do point out any problems you see with what I say (I have done so many, many times now); but you never do.

You appear to think that an answer to any counterargument to what you claim, is just to repeat the same claims - effectively saying "but you must be wrong because I'm right". Most of the time you don't even bother to acknowledge that the counterargument has been presented and just indulge in bot-like repetition of the same empty assertions and inane questions that have been addressed countless times before.

The logic of the situation has been presented to you multiple times and by several people, just insisting that you are right and that your 'perception' somehow negates it all is, in itself, absurd.

You either have counterarguments to the logic or you don't, and if you don't, it really is about time you admitted that all you have is blind faith...

You have just demonstrated beyond any possible doubt that you have the freedom to consciously choose what you have posted.

[Stranger]

You have just demonstrated beyond any possible doubt that you have the freedom to consciously choose what you have posted.

You have just demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you that you didn't even bother to read, let alone think about, what I said.

[Alan Burns]

The feeling of freedom can exist and we feel free mostly because of the absence of external constraints obstructing us. I am 'free' to do what I want because nobody is stopping me.  So much, so obvious.  But more profoundly, I am not free to choose what to want in the first place; not because it is difficult, not because it is costly, but because it makes no sense to claim such.  That feeling of freedom arises out of doing what I want whilst, admittedly, having no control over what I want.  The fact that we do not choose things that we don't want anyway does not bother us, does it ?

It is profoundly obvious that you had freedom to choose what you have just posted.

[Alan Burns]

You have just demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you that you didn't even bother to read, let alone think about, what I said.

And what do you presume was the ultimate cause of me "not bothering" to read your post?
Was it a deliberate act?
Or was it the inevitable consequence to every event which has occurred since the beginning of time?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My freedom, and yours is demonstrably real

More dishonesty. They’re not “demonstrably real” in the sense you assert at all, and even if they were presumably by now you would have bothered to provide that demonstration rather than just assert it.

Four sided triangles are not.

Way to miss the point. Four-sided triangles are impossible because they’re fundamentally self-contradictory – either they’re four-sided or they're triangles, but they can’t be both. Which is why they’re analogous to your assertions about freedom – nether deterministic nor random. You can have either, but you can’t have both. That's why you have to play your Get Out of Jail Free card of "spiritual" which you think means that anything goes, however irrational.   

Your posts continue to demonstrate your admirable ability to choose what you reply.

Do you remember that I just explained to you lying by omission? This assertion is idiotic – it’s idiotic for the reason that you’ve been given scores of times, but that you continue to omit to bother to address.

What does this dishonesty say about you do you think?

Does anyone else apart from you compare leprechauns to human souls?

Your inability to grasp even a basic argument is desperate. No-one does compare leprechauns to “souls”. What I actually do is to explain that the two are analogous if we are to follow your assertions – in this case your notion that “spiritual” is meaningful because it means, “relating to souls” or some such. “Leprechaunal” also means “related to leprechauns”, so even you should be able to see that having an adjective related to an idiocy does not make that adjective meaningful.

This isn’t difficult stuff AB, it really isn’t. Perhaps if you asked someone capable of basic thinking she could help you here?
 

The phrase "its magic" is your personal interpretation - not mine.

So as you’ve never bothered to tell us, what then do you think the word “spiritual” means other than, “magic”?

Apart from explaining the demonstrable reality of our freedom to choose.

Circular reasoning explains nothing – it’s just circular reasoning. I took the time a few posts ago to explain the basics of logic to you. Entirely predictably you just ignored that, and then went on to commit the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

What does this dishonesty say about you do you think?

My arguments…

What arguments? You’ve never made any (or at least none that aren't logically false).

…have absolutely nothing to do with magic or leprechauns.  These are just attempts at ridicule instead of constructive argument.

Wrong again. Yet again – when you set the bar for evidence so low (by calling it spiritual/magic/leprechaunal etc) that anything goes, then anything can be called evidence for anything. It’s a simple enough point I’d have though – why then can’t or won’t you deal with it?

But how can I possibly be accused of deliberate dishonesty if everthing I do or say is entirely predetermined before I say it?

Why are you asking this again? The answer is the same as it has been every other time you’ve asked it, even though you completely ignored it and repeated endlessly the same mistake.

What does this dishonesty say about you do you think?

I do not tell lies - it is against the rules.

Then stop doing it. Lying by omission is as much a lie as lying by commission. Every time you just ignore the reasoning that undoes you and repeat exactly the same mistake that’s been corrected that's a type of lying.

What does this dishonesty say about you do you think?

I find the explanations totally divorced from reality

Your reality AB, your reality – which as you’ve repeatedly (if unwittingly) shown us is an exceptionally superficial one.

If you really think that you’re incapable of thinking any further than the end of your nose why not (finally) be honest about that and just say so?

[torridon]

It is profoundly obvious that you had freedom to choose what you have just posted.

Read the post Alan; I had the freedom to read because nobody was stopping me from doing what I wanted, not because I had some freedom from cause and effect or freedom from being myself.  Such freedoms would be meaningless; we all express ourselves with our choices but we cannot choose what to be.

[torridon]

And what do you presume was the ultimate cause of me "not bothering" to read your post?
Was it a deliberate act?
Or was it the inevitable consequence to every event which has occurred since the beginning of time?

I don't know about 'ultimate' cause, but clearly there are chains of cause leading up to you valuing simplistic bald repetition over real engagement with others and with ideas.  Not everyone is like that so others will continue to express themselves, encouraging you to enjoin and develop a more nuanced and thoughtful understanding of life.

[Stranger]

And what do you presume was the ultimate cause of me "not bothering" to read your post?
Was it a deliberate act?
Or was it the inevitable consequence to every event which has occurred since the beginning of time?

My answers are the same as they were all the (many, many) other times you've asked these dim-witted questions.

It is profoundly obvious that you had freedom to choose what you have just posted.

Untrue (see #33062, which you apparently couldn't be arsed to read).

Doubly untrue with regard to your own nonsense version of 'freedom'.

I do not tell lies - it is against the rules.

Pretending that our ability to think about and compose posts is the same as your 'explanation' of that ability, is tantamount to a lie. This has been explained multiple times and you've never responded and said why you think it could possibly be an honest thing to do.

If these sorts of responses (that have been addressed countless times before) are not examples of deliberate dishonesty and evasion, then there really aren't many other options I can think of. Are you simply not understanding what is being said to you? Are you too afraid to think about what is being said? Too lazy to think about it? Are you really a software bot, with no ability to think at all?

Why the apparently thought-free, evasive, and endlessly repeated 'responses'? Why won't you face up to and engage with the arguments people have presented?

[Alan Burns]

My answers are the same as they were all the (many, many) other times you've asked these dim-witted questions.

But your answers amount to nothing more than meaningless word garbage, trying to explain the reality of my freedom to choose within the context of a physically predetermined regime

Pretending that our ability to think about and compose posts is the same as your 'explanation' of that ability, is tantamount to a lie. This has been explained multiple times and you've never responded and said why you think it could possibly be an honest thing to do.

If these sorts of responses (that have been addressed countless times before) are not examples of deliberate dishonesty and evasion, then there really aren't many other options I can think of. Are you simply not understanding what is being said to you? Are you too afraid to think about what is being said? Too lazy to think about it? Are you really a software bot, with no ability to think at all?

Why the apparently thought-free, evasive, and endlessly repeated 'responses'? Why won't you face up to and engage with the arguments people have presented?

Of course I fully understand what has been said to me.

But by freely choosing to contradict your flawed logic I demonstrate the reality of my freedom to do so.  And I will continue to use my God given freedom to witness to the truth.

[Alan Burns]

I don't know about 'ultimate' cause, but clearly there are chains of cause leading up to you valuing simplistic bald repetition over real engagement with others and with ideas.  Not everyone is like that so others will continue to express themselves, encouraging you to enjoin and develop a more nuanced and thoughtful understanding of life.

Can you not see the irony in that you are asking me to consciously choose to move over to your way of thinking, but your way of thinking actually denies me the freedom to do so?

For me to develop a more nuanced and thoughtful understanding of life would require my freedom to drive my own thought processes.  A freedom which you deny exists.

[Stranger]

But your answers amount to nothing more than meaningless word garbage, trying to explain the reality of my freedom to choose within the context of a physically predetermined regime

This is simply untrue.

I (and several others) have explained exactly what I mean and exactly how such a freedom (dictionary definition) works. You have never even tried to explain how your version of 'freedom' can possibly get over the obvious contradictions.

I (and several others) have also explained why your version is self-contradictory.

I (and several others) have also explained that the problem you have has nothing at all to do with the physical universe.

I  (and several others) are still waiting for a logical response.

Of course I fully understand what has been said to me.

Really? That is basically an admission of dishonesty and evasion.

But by freely choosing to contradict your flawed logic I demonstrate the reality of my freedom to do so.

If you've understood what has been said, you would know why I consider this to be little different to a barefaced lie. So why repeat it? If you disagree, why aren't you telling me why you disagree?

And I will continue to use my God given freedom to witness to the truth.

By telling lies...?

Can you not see the irony in that you are asking me to consciously choose to move over to your way of thinking, but your way of thinking actually denies me the freedom to do so?

For me to develop a more nuanced and thoughtful understanding of life would require my freedom to drive my own thought processes.  A freedom which you deny exists.

You must know (if you've been paying any attention at all) that nobody is denying your ability to think things through and make choices (real world definition).

Unless you are stupid, not paying attention, or unable to understand, I can only conclude that this is a deliberate misrepresentation - a lie.

[torridon]

Can you not see the irony in that you are asking me to consciously choose to move over to your way of thinking, but your way of thinking actually denies me the freedom to do so?

For me to develop a more nuanced and thoughtful understanding of life would require my freedom to drive my own thought processes.  A freedom which you deny exists.

Of course you can develop a more thoughtful understanding of life.  I haven't said you couldn't, stop playing word games and concentrate. You just need to want to do it; hopefully someday you will come to understand it a better attitude worth investing in.