Searching for GOD...

[Roses]

The soul is what defines you and me.  Reasons exist in our minds, but they do not drive us.  We are driven by our own independent will - the spiritual power of my soul defines me and what I choose in life.My freedom is real - it is not just a perception of freedom.
I am free to choose my own destiny.
I cannot bring myself to deny the reality of my freedom in order to fit in with logical assumptions based on the non existence of God or my own spiritual nature.

Your reality, not mine.

[Roses]

I was just highlighting the absurdity of Stranger implying that the evidence in the New Testament is "laughable".

The NT doesn't offer any verifiable evidence.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The soul is what defines you and me.

So is that a yes? In your opinion, that it is an evil person's soul that is a lover of evil?

Reasons exist in our minds, but they do not drive us.  We are driven by our own independent will - the spiritual power of my soul defines me and what I choose in life.My freedom is real - it is not just a perception of freedom.

Given you are human, and therefore everything you experience, think and believe is based on your perceptions, it makes sense to say you, along with everyone else, are perceiving freedom.

I am free to choose my own destiny.
I cannot bring myself to deny the reality of my freedom in order to fit in with logical assumptions based on the non existence of God or my own spiritual nature.

If thinking that works for you  - sure.

[Stranger]

I was just highlighting the absurdity of Stranger implying that the evidence in the New Testament is "laughable".

As evidence for a god, it is laughable. It's a set of religious stories selected by believers. I wonder how many "highly intelligent Christians" actually think the NT is counts as objective evidence for their beliefs. One also has to ask: why doesn't everyone who says they believe the NT agree with each other?

[ProfessorDavey]

And as I already pointed out, you can certainly object to it but you have no mechanism to prevent people from using the word "truth" or "true" to describe personal conviction - it happens a lot.

I have no problem with using 'true' to convey a subjective view on a subjective matter - for example 'it is true that I think Mozart is the greatest composer'. That's fine. What isn't fine is for people to imply that their subjective opinion or belief is a matter of objective truth - people might say it, and you are correct that I cannot stop that, but that doesn't make it right.

So it is fine to say that 'it is the truth that I don't believe that god exists' (a claim about a subjective claim "my belief")

However it is no more correct for me to say that 'it is the truth that god does not exist' (implying an objective truth about a subjective matter, an opinion or belief) than it is for religious people to say that 'it is the truth that god exists' - both are completely inappropriate uses of the word truth. An appeal to the nature (religious vs non religious) of the personal conviction, nor the strength of that personal conviction makes no difference.

Continuing to rely on a BBC website aimed at GCSE level kids really isn't helping your cause - particularly as the BBC themselves have deleted it as they deem it to be out of date!

[BeRational]

If we're following that line of thought, then I personally don't have any experience of being argued into believing in god. My beliefs seem to have an emotional component and I then think of reasons why holding that belief might or might not benefit me, based on my personal experience.

When I said "who knows what different people connect with or see and interpret meaning in that influences their beliefs", I was thinking of possible emotional responses that got people thinking about why they might be interested in looking into their interpretation of a religious message they come across.

I do not use emotion as a basis for my beliefs.

I care if they are true, and emotion is not a reliable pathway to truth.

[BeRational]

God revealed all we need to know in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

FAIL.

This is a story, and by default it is NOT true.

Demonstrate that it actually happened.

Even if a person called Jesus died and then came back to life, this still does not demonstrate a god.

[BeRational]

I was just highlighting the absurdity of Stranger implying that the evidence in the New Testament is "laughable".

What evidence.

Stories are not evidence.

For example, I have a book revealed to me yesterday by god, that says everything in the bible is wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

I do not use emotion as a basis for my beliefs.

I care if they are true, and emotion is not a reliable pathway to truth.

'Care' is an emotion

[Nearly Sane]

If we're following that line of thought, then I personally don't have any experience of being argued into believing in god. My beliefs seem to have an emotional component and I then think of reasons why holding that belief might or might not benefit me, based on my personal experience.

I pretty well agree with this. The question is whether 'emotional' is an accurate description of it. It's almost non rational rather than about emotion, but I feel things to be true/false and then as you say add in the reasons afterwards.

Also there are different types of belief. I know what time the train is due to arrive, and based on my usage the likelihood of it arriving. But as to morality or beauty, I don't have that derived in the same way. Religion seems to start in the area of beauty/ugliness and then in the cases of some religions move into the area of trains in making objective claims to truth. I know you have had an ongoing discussion about what people mean when they use the term truth, and I agree that some religious people use it in an almost mystical sense rather than the objective idea that is more common, but it's difficult to see that AB is using it in a way that isn't a claim to objective truth. That said, how AB uses it is a discussion to be had with him, here I'm just using him as a possible example.


I am reminded of John 18:37-38
"You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” “What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.”

[Alan Burns]

and yet the choices we make reflect our desires and if we cannot choose which preferences or desires to have, that freedom is illusory.  We are all following our desires, not choosing them.  If we feel free, that feeling arises when we are happy that no one is preventing us from getting what we want, it is external coercion that irritates.  Even after all these years, your understanding of this remains as thin as the morning mist.

I do fully understand your posts.
But understanding does not lead me to believe they explain the reality of my freedom to choose.

In order to accept your arguments I would have to concede that my choices are all predetermined by past events before I make them.  But this is not reality.

I am consciously aware of my desires, but they do not dictate my choices.
I am consciously aware of reasons before making a choice, but the reasons themselves do not make the choice.

Ultimately it is me that makes the choice.  I have the power to choose, not just react.

[Stranger]

I do fully understand your posts.
But understanding does not lead me to believe they explain the reality of my freedom to choose.

In order to accept your arguments I would have to concede that my choices are all predetermined by past events before I make them.  But this is not reality.

I am consciously aware of my desires, but they do not dictate my choices.
I am consciously aware of reasons before making a choice, but the reasons themselves do not make the choice.

Ultimately it is me that makes the choice.  I have the power to choose, not just react.

And once again we find you totally ignoring logic. You try to sidestep the obvious by insisting that it is you that makes the choice as if this were a way of saying how you arrive at your choice - it isn't.

Either you arrive at your choice entirely due to all the reasons, desires, and circumstances of the choice, that you are aware of and all the deeper ones that you may not be (your entire life of experience, the person you are) or not.

There are only two options: entirely because of those things or not entirely due to those things.

If the answer is not, then there must be some part of the choice making process that has nothing at all to do with you (your personality, nature, nurture), your desires, the reasons, and the circumstances of the choice. In other words, it is totally random; it has nothing to do with you or the choice you are making.

Cue more more baseless assertions, totally ignoring the logic, evasion, and distraction tactics...

[ekim]

I do not use emotion as a basis for my beliefs.

I care if they are true, and emotion is not a reliable pathway to truth.

I think what Gabriella is saying is that personal experience is the basis of her belief practice and that it has an emotional component.  The truth that she might be seeking could that of love, joy, peace, ummah where intellect and rationality might not be a reliable pathway but in her experience her religious practice is.

[torridon]

I do fully understand your posts.
But understanding does not lead me to believe they explain the reality of my freedom to choose.

In order to accept your arguments I would have to concede that my choices are all predetermined by past events before I make them.  But this is not reality.

I am consciously aware of my desires, but they do not dictate my choices.
I am consciously aware of reasons before making a choice, but the reasons themselves do not make the choice.

Ultimately it is me that makes the choice.  I have the power to choose, not just react.

To put it as simply as possible :

we are free to do what we want; but we are not free to choose which wants to have

not because it is difficult, not because of circumstances, not because of external coercion; we are not free to choose which wants to have because this is an incoherent claim implying an infinite regress of wants.

We are free to act out our desires, but if we have no control over which desires to have where is the real freedom ? Have you ever tried wanting something you do not want ? Ultimately, it cannot be done, by definition.

[ekim]

To put it as simply as possible :

we are free to do what we want; but we are not free to choose which wants to have

Let's assume that Alan is not claiming omnipotence when he said "I have the power to choose, not just react."  then it might be better to say that with training one can exercise the power to choose between desires e.g. the desire for revenge and the desire for forgiveness, or the desire to exercise  power corruptly or to exercise compassion.  It is also possible to lose the power of choice if one becomes indoctrinated into a particular persuasion or through addiction.

[Stranger]

Let's assume that Alan is not claiming omnipotence when he said "I have the power to choose, not just react."  then it might be better to say that with training one can exercise the power to choose between desires...

How do you choose between desires? Ultimately, it's just sorting out which you desire more - and you have no control over that. You cannot choose what you want more. How would you do it except by what you want to want more? Then how do you choose that except by what you want to want to want more? See the problem?

[Alan Burns]

And once again we find you totally ignoring logic. You try to sidestep the obvious by insisting that it is you that makes the choice as if this were a way of saying how you arrive at your choice - it isn't.

Either you arrive at your choice entirely due to all the reasons, desires, and circumstances of the choice, that you are aware of and all the deeper ones that you may not be (your entire life of experience, the person you are) or not.

There are only two options: entirely because of those things or not entirely due to those things.

If the answer is not, then there must be some part of the choice making process that has nothing at all to do with you (your personality, nature, nurture), your desires, the reasons, and the circumstances of the choice. In other words, it is totally random; it has nothing to do with you or the choice you are making.

Cue more more baseless assertions, totally ignoring the logic, evasion, and distraction tactics...

I simply have the demonstrable power to choose how, when or where to indulge my desires - or not indulge them at all.   The choice is determined by my conscious will which invokes the choice.  This is my most basic concept of the reality I live in, and no amount of short sighted logic can take away this freedom.

Your supposed logic effectively removes me from the equation and reduces the concept of "me" to be just an inevitable, unavoidable consequence of the past.

You claim to have logic on your side, but as I have said before, I have reality on my side.  A reality which enables me to consciously choose to point out the errors in your logic.  A reality which also enables you to consciously choose arguments to support your logic, but in doing so you prove your logic to be false.

[Gordon]

I simply have the demonstrable power to choose how, when or where to indulge my desires - or not indulge them at all.

All that means is that your desire to not indulge your other desires was stronger than these other desires.

The choice is determined by my conscious will which invokes the choice.  This is my most basic concept of the reality I live in, and no amount of short sighted logic can take away this freedom.

Thank you, Mel.

Your supposed logic effectively removes me from the equation and reduces the concept of "me" to be just an inevitable, unavoidable consequence of the past.

Which is your oft-used fallacious argument from consequences.

You claim to have logic on your side, but as I have said before, I have reality on my side.  A reality which enables me to consciously choose to point out the errors in your logic.  A reality which also enables you to consciously choose arguments to support your logic, but in doing so you prove your logic to be false.

I rather suspect your understanding of logic is, ironically, illogical.

[Stranger]

I simply have the demonstrable power to choose how, when or where to indulge my desires - or not indulge them at all.   The choice is determined by my conscious will which invokes the choice.  This is my most basic concept of the reality I live in, and no amount of short sighted logic can take away this freedom.

You cannot possibly demonstrate your version of freedom because it's logically incoherent. You make the choices you want to make and that is something nobody is disputing.

As I predicted - you've simply ignored the logic and asserted that it's "short sighted" without being able to say in what way.

You claim to have logic on your side, but as I have said before, I have reality on my side.

Nonsense - you have baseless assertion, obviously illogical intuition, and equally obvious self-contradiction.

A reality which enables me to consciously choose to point out the errors in your logic.

Why have you never once been able to point out an error, then?

A reality which also enables you to consciously choose arguments to support your logic, but in doing so you prove your logic to be false.

Doing what you want proves nothing about the logic. Do you have any grasp of what logic even is?

[Alan Burns]

Have you ever tried wanting something you do not want ? Ultimately, it cannot be done, by definition.

Your statement is meaningless.
I have the freedom to choose what I want to do in a moment in time.
Once I have made a conscious choice, I can't revoke it because it has already been made.

[Stranger]

I have the freedom to choose what I want to do in a moment in time.

You can choose what to do based on what you want. You cannot choose to want something you don't want. You can't choose your wants - it leads to an infinite regress.

This is another logical argument you keep on totally ignoring...

[torridon]

Your statement is meaningless.
I have the freedom to choose what I want to do in a moment in time.
Once I have made a conscious choice, I can't revoke it because it has already been made.

My statement was not meaningless at all; understanding this simple but profound point is key to understanding all behaviours, not just human.  In making a choice we are identifying which desire is the strongest; we do not choose that one desire should be stronger than another.  We act on the strongest but we cannot control which desires or hopes or fears to have or how strong they should be.

We are free to act on our desires, but we are not free to choose which desires to have.

[Alan Burns]

All that means is that your desire to not indulge your other desires was stronger than these other desires.

If that were true, I would have to concede my obvious freedom to whatever constitutes my desire.
No matter how strong my desires are, I still have conscious control.  I am not controlled by my desires.  I am controlled by me, myself, I.

[SusanDoris]

AB

And the conceit that you show, i.e. that you think you know better than anyone else with only your personal and subjective assertions and claims to put forward is actually quite worrying. I was going
to write 'shocking', but at my age I think one is past being surprised or shocked at things. One is sad about them.

[Stranger]

If that were true, I would have to concede my obvious freedom to whatever constitutes my desire.

One of your favourite fallacies: argumentum ad consequentiam.

No matter how strong my desires are, I still have conscious control.  I am not controlled by my desires.  I am controlled by me, myself, I.

Once again ignoring the infinite regress. How do you, yourself make up your mind, if not by what you want to do the most?