Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

But to put even more effort to try to understand your logic would require freedom to consciously make this effort, and such freedom to act would contradict the logic you try to propose with your carefully chosen words.

Where is the contradiction?

And I do fully understand what you are saying...

Why the mindless, bot-like repetition, then? Why do you never even try to directly answer the arguments presented to you?

[Alan Burns]

Where is the contradiction?

Why the mindless, bot-like repetition, then? Why do you never even try to directly answer the arguments presented to you?

The contradiction lies in your own self contradictory logic which tries to shoehorn human freewill into an entirely predetermined material world where everything is governed by the uncontrollable laws of physics and chemistry.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And I do fully understand what you are saying, but it all falls apart when I contemplate the impossibility that...

It doesn't fall apart because you have no argument at all to support your assertion that it is impossible. Contradicting a personal faith you happen to hold does not make something impossible.

[Stranger]

The contradiction lies in your own self contradictory logic which tries to shoehorn human freewill into an entirely predetermined material world where everything is governed by the uncontrollable laws of physics and chemistry.

You didn't answer the question. Where is the contradiction?

I (and others) have repeatedly pointed out the contradiction in your view of freedom, just asserting that my logic is self-contradictory isn't the same as pointing out a contradiction.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB: Here’s my concept of freedom.

Reasoning people: But that concept is logically impossible, and here’s why…

AB: But your reasoning is contradictory.

Rational people: Why?

AB: Because it contradicts my logically impossible concept of freedom. 

Reasoning people: FFS!

[Alan Burns]

AB: Here’s my concept of freedom.

Reasoning people: But that concept is logically impossible, and here’s why…

AB: But your reasoning is contradictory.

Rational people: Why?

AB: Because it contradicts my logically impossible concept of freedom. 

Reasoning people: FFS!

My concept of freedom is not logically impossible, because I am exercising it right now.
As does every sane human being that I know.
My argument is simply that conscious freedom to choose is an attribute which is impossible to define within the predetermined physical reactions of material elements, therefore it must have a non physical cause.

[wigginhall]

My concept of freedom is not logically impossible, because I am exercising it right now.
As does every sane human being that I know.
My argument is simply that conscious freedom to choose is physically impossible, therefore it must have a non physical cause.

I was going to ask some questions, but have learned that you will simply repeat the same mantras, so no point.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My concept of freedom is not logically impossible, because I am exercising it right now.
As does every sane human being that I know.

Your inability to think is astonishing. I’d ask you whether you could work out for yourself why that “because” is a disastrous error in reasoning, but we both know there’d be no point don’t we. 

My argument is simply that conscious freedom to choose is physically impossible, therefore it must have a non physical cause.

It’s a wrong argument, even though you point blank cannot or will not even try to understand why.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Your inability to think is astonishing. I’d ask you whether you could work out for yourself why that “because” is a disastrous error in reasoning, but we both know there’d be no point don’t we. 

It’s a wrong argument, even though you point blank cannot or will not even try to understand why.

No.
It is my ability to think which destroys your short sighted reasoning.

[Stranger]

My concept of freedom is not logically impossible, because I am exercising it right now.
As does every sane human being that I know.

You're definitely not exercising your version of freedom because it's logically impossible.

There is an actual logical argument (oft repeated here) as to why it's impossible and you have responded with noting but silly assertions and incredulity.

My argument is simply that conscious freedom to choose is physically impossible, therefore it must have a non physical cause.

That's not an argument, it's an assertion. What's more your "reasoning" as to why it can't be physical is laughable because the "problem" you identify with the physical is actually a logical problem that has nothing to do with the physical but you're too stupid/blinded by faith/inattentive/indoctrinated/scared [delete as applicable] to notice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is my ability to think which destroys your short sighted reasoning.

In which AB demonstrates more clearly than he knows precisely his inability to think.

"But that contradicts my personal faith beliefs" does not make reasoning "short-sighted". At some point you're going to have to try at least to grasp that.

[Stranger]

It is my ability to think which destroys your short sighted reasoning.

Where is your reasoning? Why is the logic you've been presented with shortsighted? Where are the flaws?

You really don't seem to be displaying much ability to think...

[Enki]

Reasons for abandoning naturalism?
Circular argument.
Not established by methodological naturalism and thus incoherent.
Needs either to be eternal or to have popped out of nothing to exist but naturalism refuses to assign these qualities to anything and is thus incoherent.

To which one might add that it postulates that everything is derived but nothing appears to be the source of derivation.

What's wrong with you? I haven't 'abandoned' naturalism. I simply have no particular interest in it.

Haven't a clue what you mean by 'circular argument' as I haven't given any argument.

Haven't a clue what you mean by 'Not established by methodological naturalism and thus incoherent.' Carry on saying that to yourself if you need to, it has nothing to do with me.

What 'needs to be eternal or to have popped out of nothing to exist', the universe, my big toe, your thought processes? Beats me what on earth you're trying to say.

Finally you can add anything you like. If it makes sense to you, great.  However I'll stick with the original idea that started this, which is that it is to me nonsensical that I could be running away from a god that I don't believe in.

So, the offer still stands, If you would like to suggest any argument for the existence of this God that you find convincing, I will tell you whether I agree with you or not, and give my reasons.

[bluehillside Retd.]

enki,

What's wrong with you?

It's Vlad. He posts ludicrous statements, misrepresentations of what people say, incomprehensible and semi-literate gibberish etc to try to get a reaction. That's what he does. I have no idea what he gets from it.

[Alan Burns]

Where is your reasoning? Why is the logic you've been presented with shortsighted? Where are the flaws?

You really don't seem to be displaying much ability to think...

You can't even define conscious thought - what it comprises or what determines it.
Yet you claim that it must somehow be entirely predetermined by past events.
But I have the ability to consciously manipulate and control my own thought processes.
I have the power to consciously choose to contradict your reasoning - a power which is obviously incompatible with your concept that all thoughts are entirely predetermined.

[Stranger]

You can't even define conscious thought - what it comprises or what determines it.

Neither can you.

Yet you claim that it must somehow be entirely predetermined by past events.

That and randomness are the only logical options, for reasons that have been explained to you many, many times...

But I have the ability to consciously manipulate and control my own thought processes.

Don't be silly.

I have the power to consciously choose to contradict your reasoning - a power which is obviously incompatible with your concept that all thoughts are entirely predetermined.

In what way is it incompatible?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You can't even define conscious thought - what it comprises or what determines it.

Wrong again. To a meaningful degree we can "define" (as you wrongly put it) these things. An incomplete understanding is not however the same thing as no understanding at all. No understanding at all is what you have re your fatuous claims "god", "soul", "spiritual" etc.

But then again you know this don't you as it's been explained to you countless times already.

Yet you claim that it must somehow be entirely predetermined by past events.

If it's not to be random, then substantially yes - at least down to the quantum field level. Your answer of magic (or "spiritual" as you call it) doesn't get you of that hook.

But then again you know this don't you as it's been explained to you countless times already.

But I have the ability to consciously manipulate and control my own thought processes.

No you probably haven't because you have no argument of any kind to demonstrate an "I" that's separate from the rest of you to do this "controlling".

But then again you know this don't you as it's been explained to you countless times already.

I have the power to consciously choose to contradict your reasoning - a power which is obviously incompatible with your concept that all thoughts are entirely predetermined.

No you probably haven't because you still have no argument of any kind to demonstrate an "I" that's separate from the rest of you to do this "controlling".

But then again you know this don't you as it's been explained to you countless times already.

So to summarise: you have no reasoning at all worthy of the name to offer.

Who'd have thought it eh?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

enki,

It's Vlad. He posts ludicrous statements, misrepresentations of what people say, incomprehensible and semi-literate gibberish etc to try to get a reaction. That's what he does. I have no idea what he gets from it.

More projection than a Star Wars marathon showing at the local Odeon.

[Alan Burns]

That and randomness are the only logical options, for reasons that have been explained to you many, many times...

But using your limited logic, you repeatedly ignore the possibility of anything being determined in the present rather than predetermined by the past.  You can't just deny this possibility without knowing the nature of conscious human thought and how it works and what determines it.  And it is a distinct possibility because it is how we all perceive the nature of our thoughts to be.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Wrong again. To a meaningful degree we can "define" (as you wrongly put it) these things. An incomplete understanding is not however the same thing as no understanding at all. No understanding at all is what you have re your fatuous claims "god", "soul", "spiritual" etc.

But then again you know this don't you as it's been explained to you countless times already.

But your explanations fall far short of explaining reality

If it's not to be random, then substantially yes - at least down to the quantum field level. Your answer of magic (or "spiritual" as you call it) doesn't get you of that hook.

But then again you know this don't you as it's been explained to you countless times already.

But your explanations fall far short of explaining reality

No you probably haven't because you have no argument of any kind to demonstrate an "I" that's separate from the rest of you to do this "controlling".

But then again you know this don't you as it's been explained to you countless times already.

But your explanations fall far short of explaining reality

No you probably haven't because you still have no argument of any kind to demonstrate an "I" that's separate from the rest of you to do this "controlling".

But then again you know this don't you as it's been explained to you countless times already.

But your explanations fall far short of explaining reality

So to summarise: you have no reasoning at all worthy of the name to offer.

My reasoning is based on the reality of my God given freedom, my knowledge of God obtained from divine revelation, prayer, miracles, personal witnesses and the fact that nothing else comes close to explaining the reality and purpose behind our existence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But…

Aw no – not again…

…using your limited logic,

To establish a logical limitation you need to demonstrate it using more robust logic of your own. You know, the bit you never bother with.

…you repeatedly ignore the possibility of anything being determined in the present rather than predetermined by the past.

Stop lying. He doesn’t ignore that at all – he just explains why it cannot be unless you’re going with randomness.

You can't just deny this possibility without knowing the nature of conscious human thought and how it works and what determines it.

Yes he can and all he needs to do it is a grasp of simple logic. There’s no such thing as “the present” except in colloquial terms, and even if there was you’d have to show how something could make decisions within it without immediately finding itself in the past.
 

And it is a distinct possibility because it is how we all perceive the nature of our thoughts to be.

Nothing that’s logically possible is a distinct possibility, and that’s not how we perceive the nature of our thoughts at all as you’d know if you’d bother to pay even the slightest attention to those who have taken the time here to explain it to you. Repeatedly.

Apart from all that though good try buddy.

[Stranger]

But using your limited logic, you repeatedly ignore the possibility of anything being determined in the present rather than predetermined by the past.  You can't just deny this possibility without knowing the nature of conscious human thought and how it works and what determines it.  And it is a distinct possibility because it is how we all perceive the nature of our thoughts to be.

What's the point, Alan? If you've actually been reading and understanding what has been said to you, you'll know exactly what my answer to this would be. If this is the case why, aren't you addressing my answer and answering the associated question?

So, have you not been reading and understanding, or is this simply a dishonest diversion tactic?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But your explanations fall far short of explaining reality

How on earth would you think you know that given that you have no means at all to tell how far “short of reality” the findings of neuroscience especially fall?

And even if you did have a means to know that, on what possible basis do you think dropping in your personal faith beliefs with no definition, no logic and no evidence of any kind would fill the gaps in knowledge?

But your explanations fall far short of explaining reality

Your reality. See above.

But your explanations fall far short of explaining reality

Your reality. See above.

But your explanations fall far short of explaining reality

Your reality. See above.

My reasoning is based on the reality of my God given freedom, my knowledge of God obtained from divine revelation, prayer, miracles, personal witnesses and the fact that nothing else comes close to explaining the reality and purpose behind our existence.

That’s not reasoning it’s faith, and the rest is just mindless assertion.

[Stranger]

But your explanations fall far short of explaining reality

And yours are self-contradictory.

My reasoning is based on the reality of my God given freedom, my knowledge of God obtained from divine revelation, prayer, miracles, personal witnesses and the fact that nothing else comes close to explaining the reality and purpose behind our existence.

A statement of blind faith in the face of reason, evidence, and logic.

[Alan Burns]

Yes he can and all he needs to do it is a grasp of simple logic. There’s no such thing as “the present” except in colloquial terms, and even if there was you’d have to show how something could make decisions within it without immediately finding itself in the past.
 

Once a conscious choice is invoked, of course the moment of making that choice will exist in the past, but this does not mean that the choice was predetermined by past events.  You still do not seem to grasp the difference between choice and reaction.