Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

I don't think we 'perceive' our thoughts; we have thoughts, we experience thoughts.  Concepts of self may be slippery, see triggers broom, but does that justify us regressing back into magical thinking ?  Understanding reality may challenge us, but where is the justification that difficult things are supernatural ?

Perhaps when you acknowledge that such difficult things are impossible to define in material terms.

[Sebastian Toe]

Even if you can define a thought pattern in terms of material particles, you have the problem of defining what it is that can perceive the thought pattern.

Is that as big a problem as you have in describing the timeless realm in which your "soul" resides? Or how a timeless entity can interact with this universe?

[torridon]

Perhaps when you acknowledge that such difficult things are impossible to define in material terms.

Since when does difficult mean impossible ?  If you have some evidence to justify that, then share it.

[Alan Burns]

Appearing like a mindless bot, regurgitating bald and baseless assertions

But the alternative explanations given to my so called bald and baseless assertions render us all to be biological robots with no will of our own. 

So I will continue to witness to the truth pertaining to our God given gift of freewill.

[Alan Burns]

Since when does difficult mean impossible ?  If you have some evidence to justify that, then share it.

I did not imply that difficult means impossible.

But if something is impossible, you cannot render it to be possible just by labelling it difficult.  Such an impossibility is trying to produce perception from material reactions.

[torridon]

But the alternative explanations given to my so called bald and baseless assertions render us all to be biological robots with no will of our own. 

So I will continue to witness to the truth pertaining to our God given gift of freewill.

argumentum ad consequentiam.

in other words, you don't like the truth that logic and observation reveal, so you take refuge in fantasy beliefs instead.

We do have will, but it is not some magic thing out of nowhere with no explanation.  It has derivation, in the interconnectedness of all things.  What is so hard to swallow about that ?

[torridon]

But if something is impossible, you cannot render it to be possible just by labelling it difficult.  Such an impossibility is trying to produce perception from material reactions.

Why is that impossible ?

[Gordon]

Perhaps when you acknowledge that such difficult things are impossible to define in material terms.

Says the guy who claims that supernatural agents routinely interact with our biology - I think we're into exploding irony meter territory.

[Alan Burns]

Why is that impossible ?

Try thinking about it.
How can you turn a physical reaction into perception?
What is perception?

[jeremyp]

I am not controlled by the past.

Yes you are. Unless you are claiming you pull all of your decisions out of your spiritual arse.

[Gordon]

How can you turn a physical reaction into perception?

Use relevant biology.

What is perception?

A biological process.

[torridon]

Try thinking about it.
How can you turn a physical reaction into perception?
What is perception?

So, no answer then.

When a gazelle sees a lion creeping up, that is perception in action.  It is visual perception and it happens everywhere in nature.  Without perception nothing and nobody would be able to hear, see, smell or touch.  This is what perception is.  It happens, it is not magic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I start with recognising what we are, what we do and in particular our mental capability to think, analyse and conclude.  I presume many humans in history have done the same.  I then analyse my perception of myself in material terms, and realise that what I perceive with my physical senses, together with what has been discovered by human investigation cannot possibly produce the reality within myself because I have a freedom which can't be defined within the physically predetermined behaviour of material elements.

Except you don’t “realise” that at all – you just assume it to be the case because your incredulity prevents you from thinking otherwise. Once that door is locked you've created the gap you need to fill with your faith belief “God”. And you really, really like that belief so no amount of reason or evidence can ever be allowed to falsify the assumption it relies on.   

You, on the other hand, start with what you perceive with your physical senses, together with what has been discovered by human investigation and then try to imagine how the reality of your own being can fit in with this perceived material world.

More or less, yes – that’s how reason and logic work when you don’t put the cart before the horse.

And in trying to do this you have to sacrifice your obvious freedom to think (which ironically you have had to use to reach this conclusion) and presume that it is only a perceived freedom.

Oh dear. You don’t have to “sacrifice” anything because there’s nothing “obvious’ about your fundamentally irrational assertion about “freedom”.

This is your basic problem that you always run away from when you’re challenged. You start and end with how things seem to you. Your decision-making feels “free” at an experiential level, so you conclude that the experience of what’s happening must also provide the explanation for it. Then you just attach to it words like “obvious”, et voilŕ – job done. No logic, no thinking, no investigation, no hard yards of trying at least to see what’s wrong with your assumption, no anything. “It seems that way to me, therefore that must be how it is” is all you have.

Yet you also know that lots of explanations for experiences seem contradict how they are – physically touching objects for example – so at some level at least you can grasp that how things seem may not necessarily give the answer to how they are. Yet for some reason, your “freedom” gets a free pass – presumably because you’re terrified that actually thinking about where you’ve gone wrong would bring the whole tottering edifice of superstitious piffle tumbling down.

Do you remember that I asked you about this a while ago over and over again but you always ran away? You know, when I kept asking you what logical path you think there is from how things seem to you to how they are. Why not finally have a go at showing that you’re not utterly dishonest after all and have a go at least at answering that now?

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

Appearing like a mindless bot, regurgitating bald and baseless assertions hardly demonstrates divine inspiration.  Quite the opposite.  If I had a supernatural agent on my side I would be coming up with mind blowing original material that would take everyone's breath away.

Here's a proof for god for you using Burnsian "logic":

1. God exists, but "He" is an idiot.

2. This god does does some "calling", but the people he calls can only mouth the idiocies he tells them to assert.

3. AB asserts idiocies.

4. Therefore "God".

Yeah I know it's circular and all that but as AB seems to think that any amount of logical fallacies are fine provided they're used to lie for Jesus what's sauce for the goose and all that...
 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

torri,

Here's a proof for god for you using Burnsian "logic":

1. God exists, but "He" is an idiot.

2. This god does does some "calling", but the people he calls can only mouth the idiocies he tells them to assert.

3. AB asserts idiocies.

4. Therefore "God".

Yeah I know it's circular and all that but as AB seems to think that any amount of logical fallacies are fine provided they're used to lie for Jesus what's sauce for the goose and all that...
 

This post looks like the product of finding a bottle Harveys Bristol Cream at the back of a cupboard.

[Sebastian Toe]

This post looks like the product of finding a bottle Harveys Bristol Cream at the back of a cupboard.

Strangely, I feel compelled to go look at the back of my cupboards now.

[Alan Burns]

More or less, yes – that’s how reason and logic work when you don’t put the cart before the horse.

But what you are doing is to deliberately ignore any evidence outside the scope of what can be discovered from human scientific investigation.

You ignore the evidence of your own free will and presume it is an illusion.

Your freewill is not evidence of leprechauns or fairies.  It is evidence of what comprises and defines you.  You are far more than an emergent property of physically predetermined electro chemical activity.

[Gordon]

But what you are doing is to deliberately ignore any evidence outside the scope of what can be discovered from human scientific investigation.

You have no such evidence because evidence requires a relevant methodology: and you don't have a relevant methodology.

You ignore the evidence of your own free will and presume it is an illusion.

Your version of free will certainly is, but the common or garden 'freedom to act' type is sufficient to get us through the average life.

Your freewill is not evidence of leprechauns or fairies.

Aside from you begging the question here, if your version of 'free will' is sufficient for your 'God' then it is also sufficient for fairies - else it is insufficient in both cases (which is my guess).

It is evidence of what comprises and defines you.

Nope - your version of free will is illogical, so we can just dismiss it.
 

You are far more than an emergent property of physically predetermined electro chemical activity.

Leaving aside your usual hyperbole, I suspect we really are, more or less, what you'd rather we weren't (which clearly terrifies you).

[torridon]

But what you are doing is to deliberately ignore any evidence outside the scope of what can be discovered from human scientific investigation.
..

makes no sense.  How can something that cannot be discovered be evidence ?  Irrational nonsense.

[torridon]

You ignore the evidence of your own free will and presume it is an illusion.

there is no evidence for free will, at least not for the curious absurdity you keep promoting on here.

[Roses]

But what you are doing is to deliberately ignore any evidence outside the scope of what can be discovered from human scientific investigation.

You ignore the evidence of your own free will and presume it is an illusion.

Your freewill is not evidence of leprechauns or fairies.  It is evidence of what comprises and defines you.  You are far more than an emergent property of physically predetermined electro chemical activity.

In which case it isn't evidence but speculation.

[Alan Burns]

Leaving aside your usual hyperbole, I suspect we really are, more or less, what you'd rather we weren't (which clearly terrifies you).

How can I possibly be terrified of what I perceive to be an obvious contradiction of reality?

It seems to me that anyone who tries to deny the obvious reality of their own freewill would appear to be terrified of the consequences of admitting to this reality.  For the act of trying to consciously deny freewill is evidence for its existence.

[torridon]

It seems to me that anyone who tries to deny the obvious reality of their own freewill would appear to be terrified of the consequences of admitting to this reality.  For the act of trying to consciously deny freewill is evidence for its existence.

Doh !

No it isn't.  Trying to do anything is evidence of the desire to do that thing. That's all.

[Gordon]

How can I possibly be terrified of what I perceive to be an obvious contradiction of reality?

Because of the threat posed to your religious convictions.

It seems to me that anyone who tries to deny the obvious reality of their own freewill would appear to be terrified of the consequences of admitting to this reality.  For the act of trying to consciously deny freewill is evidence for its existence.

Don't be silly: your version of 'free will' is irrational nonsense and poses no more fear than does the risk of encountering a 4-sided triangle.

[Sebastian Toe]

How can I possibly be terrified of what I perceive to be an obvious contradiction of reality?

It seems to me that anyone who tries to deny the obvious reality of their own freewill would appear to be terrified of the consequences of admitting to this reality.  For the act of trying to consciously deny freewill is evidence for its existence.

It seems to me that anyone who tries to deny the obvious reality of their own biological brain making choices entirely under deterministic principles with no magic, logic free, fantasy ridden soul required, would appear to be terrified of the consequences of admitting to this reality.