Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And you too have failed to answer:
So what possible mechanism would you suggest for me to be able to rectify these mistakes (and consciously choose to ditch God) if I can't control what you deem to be the ultimate underlying cause?

Presumably because there doesn't need to be an "ultimate underlying cause", or at least not a conscious one.

Naturally you'll just jump straight from your personal incredulity about that to "therefore it's impossible" with no connecting argument of any kind, but hey-ho that's what happens when you rely entirely on logical fallacies to support you.   

[SusanDoris]

And you too have failed to answer:

And there it is again:  the one who has continuously wriggled out of coming up with direct responses, let alone ones' which refute the sense of and objective information posted,  supplied by rational thinkers, worded in many different ways, has the nerve to appear affronted because one of his questions is not answered in the way that he thinks it ought to be.

[Alan Burns]

“you” is a temporal, localised phenomenon that arises from underlying components that themselves aren’t conscious at all. “You” in other words are an emergent property of countless bits of stuff and forces interacting to form a system. That system (ie, consciousness) derives meaning and makes decisions, but does so necessarily only within its own, relatively narrow level of abstraction. Consciousness cannot be a more fundamental phenomenon than that though because beneath the system there is no “you” – just lots and lots of sub-atomic particles.
Or is “I just know” seriously all you have to say about that?

And how would you explain to a chess grand master that every step involved in carefully choosing his next move was already defined by the predetermined consequences to physically controlled reactions of these sub-atomic particles before he becomes consciously aware of them?

Can you not see the simple truth that he must have the power to exert conscious control within these physical reactions in order to achieve his consciously chosen goal?  To presume that it all happens within the underlying sub conscious activity before it reaches the level of conscious awareness does not fit reality. 

[Sebastian Toe]

To presume that it all happens within the underlying sub conscious activity before it reaches the level of conscious awareness does not fit reality.

..
It fits my reality very well thank you, however....an undefined, unevidenced, illogical, magic requiring soul does not fit reality and never will.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And how would you explain to a chess grand master that every step involved in carefully choosing his next move was already defined by the predetermined consequences to physically controlled reactions of these sub-atomic particles before he becomes consciously aware of them?

Can you not see the simple truth that he must have the power to exert conscious control within these physical reactions in order to achieve his consciously chosen goal?  To presume that it all happens within the underlying sub conscious activity before it reaches the level of conscious awareness does not fit reality.

FFS! Can you just not see the words that explain this, or are you determined to ignore them so as to repeat the same mistake over and over again?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

PS Any thoughts yet on why it's fine to dismiss a large body of explanatory evidence because of the gaps in it but it's not ok to dismiss a claim about which you have no definition, no information, no evidence, no means of investigation, no anything of any kind?

Or is that yet another of your problems about which you're determined to remain forever silent?

[Gordon]

in all this you have failed to answer my question:
So what possible mechanism would you suggest for me to be able to rectify these mistakes if I can't control what you deem to be the ultimate underlying cause?

You could try thinking without diving head-first into your usual collection of favourite fallacies (such as in presuming that I've indicated an 'ultimate underlying cause').

[torridon]

And how would you explain to a chess grand master that every step involved in carefully choosing his next move was already defined by the predetermined consequences to physically controlled reactions of these sub-atomic particles before he becomes consciously aware of them?

Can you not see the simple truth that he must have the power to exert conscious control within these physical reactions in order to achieve his consciously chosen goal?  To presume that it all happens within the underlying sub conscious activity before it reaches the level of conscious awareness does not fit reality.

You could remind him about the arrow of time. If you want to ride a bike, you have learn how to do it first.  If you want to follow Jesus, it helps if you have already heard of him first.  In considering your next chess move, your thoughts can only be a consequence of the mental skills you have already acquired, the range of thoughts and ideas you have are limited by the sum state of your knowledge at that moment.  If this were not the case, then a grand master could be beaten by a complete newbie.  There are reasons why some people excel at chess and others don't; if that weren't the case, our lives would be devoid of meaning.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

FFS! Can you just not see the words that explain this, or are you determined to ignore them so as to repeat the same mistake over and over again?

I concede that you have made a valiant attempt to explain, but your words totally fail to explain the reality.  We both have consciously driven power to choose.  It is certainly not a subconscious power which creeps to the surface to convince our conscious awareness that it has made a choice.  The choice is made by and within our conscious awareness, not just perceived by it.

[wigginhall]

AB is obsessed with sub-atomic particles, as he is trying to avoid emergence, or different levels.  As the old joke says, if I'm eating chocolate it doesn't mean that neurons taste chocolatey.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I concede that you have made a valiant attempt to explain, but your words totally fail to explain the reality.

Only to you Alan, and that's only your personal reality. More thinking people though have a different reality. Why you can't even address the arguments is a matter for you, but no words can explain anything if you're determined not to be honest about them.     

We both have consciously driven power to choose.  It is certainly not a subconscious power which creeps to the surface to convince our conscious awareness that it has made a choice.  The choice is made by and within our conscious awareness, not just perceived by it.

Just using the word "certainly" doesn't make an unqualified, irrational assertion into an argument. You do know that right?

Oh, and as it seems to have skipped your attention again maybe now you can tell us why it's fine to dismiss a large body of explanatory evidence because of the gaps in it but it's not ok to dismiss a claim ("soul") about which you have no definition, no information, no evidence, no means of investigation, no anything of any kind?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Only to you Alan, and that's only your personal reality. More thinking people though have a different reality. Why you can't even address the arguments is a matter for you, but no words can explain anything if you're determined not to be honest about them.     

Just using the word "certainly" doesn't make an unqualified, irrational assertion into an argument. You do know that right?

Oh, and as it seems to have skipped your attention again maybe now you can tell us why it's fine to dismiss a large body of explanatory evidence because of the gaps in it but it's not ok to dismiss a claim ("soul") about which you have no definition, no information, no evidence, no means of investigation, no anything of any kind?

But your arguments do not just contain gaps, they contain logical impossibilities, such as the impossibility of a chess player being able to conceive of his next move without the freedom to consciously control his own thought processing in order to be able to think several moves ahead.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But your arguments do not just contain gaps, they contain logical impossibilities, such as the impossibility of a chess player being able to conceive of his next move without the freedom to consciously control his own thought processing in order to be able to think several moves ahead.

When you get things ass-backwards you really go all in don't you. There's nothing logically impossible at all about a deterministic model that the subject perceives as meaningful and "free" and so proceeds accordingly. What is logically impossible though is a "free" will that's neither deterministic nor random. That's why you have to invent "spiritually driven" or some such guff to get you off the hook, only it fails too because what you're actually claiming is a Magicland where reason and logic don't apply, only you're not honest enough to call it magic.

And still by the way you claim a "soul" about which you have no definition, no information, no evidence, no means of investigation, no anything of any kind and expect the claim to be taken seriously. What incoherent madness is this you're peddling?

[torridon]

But your arguments do not just contain gaps, they contain logical impossibilities, such as the impossibility of a chess player being able to conceive of his next move without the freedom to consciously control his own thought processing in order to be able to think several moves ahead.

He isn't 'controlling' his thoughts, it is more a case of exploring the thoughts.  Thoughts and ideas come to us, we do not 'choose' them, that makes no sense.

[torridon]

We both have consciously driven power to choose.  It is certainly not a subconscious power which creeps to the surface to convince our conscious awareness that it has made a choice.  The choice is made by and within our conscious awareness, not just perceived by it.

I know it feels that way, casually.  But that's not the way it is, actually.  Our conscious awareness is essentially a near term memory and we cannot execute actions in the past.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Correctly so.

Oh Dear......... I think you might even believe that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Oh Dear......... I think you might even believe that.

Yes, and so in the absence of any other method to validate the claim (the question you always run away from remember?) should you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, and so in the absence of any other method to validate the claim (the question you always run away from remember?) should you.

So much for your claim earlier that this is to do with logic not materialism.

I fear you are wrong to equate atheism with logic and now logic with methodological materialism.

Another shitshow.

[bluehillside Retd.]

It was a question. A question can't be a "shitshow". The only shit show here is you throwing at it irrelevant words and concepts that you barely understand in the hope people don't notice that you're still still running away from the question. Funny that.

By all means at least try to answer it though in the highly unlikely event you ever feel a bout of honesty coming on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your equation of reason and logic with atheism might of course be a straight case of linguistic appropriation or imperialism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Your equation of reason and logic with atheism might of course be a straight case of linguistic appropriation or imperialism.

Not unless you have no idea what those terms mean it can't. So anyways. any thoughts yet on what, but for logic, you would suggest people use to evaluate claims of religious experiences?

Or do you intend permanently to run away from answering that?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, and so in the absence of any other method to validate the claim (the question you always run away from remember?) should you.

Oh dear, let's go through the drill

1,2,3 by the right....OK MR ANTI THEIST WHAT OTH ER METHOD OLOGY IS THERE OTH ER THAN SCI ENCE?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Oh dear, let's go through the drill

1,2,3 by the right....OK MR ANTI THEIST WHAT OTH ER METHOD OLOGY IS THERE OTH ER THAN SCI ENCE?

It's logic, not science, and why are you still running away from answering? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's logic, not science, and why are you still running away from answering?
[/qu

Not unless you have no idea what those terms mean it can't. So anyways. any thoughts yet on what, but for logic, you would suggest people use to evaluate claims of religious experiences?

Or do you intend permanently to run away from answering that?

Logic has never been successfully used to establish a God free cosmos Hillside.

Logic has never taken down the case for God.

Things and the state of things are either a) necessary or b) contingent.

That is a logical statement. Please get to naturalism, materialism or render theism illogical or as Gordon would put it an incoherent mess from that?


Of course logic can bring down certain arguments for theism but that is true of anything....and then of course an eminent turdpolisher can gussy that into a statement like theistic claims fail logical tests.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's logic, not science, and why are you still running away from answering?

Sorry my fault by I suppose I couldn't believe that people are so stupid to equate logic with atheism.