Searching for GOD...

[jeremyp]

If we have no free will, we can never know it, because we were destined from all eternity to believe what we believe, and logic has nothing to do with it. "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” George Orwell. "We know our wills are free, and there's an end on't." Samuel Johnson

Quite the contrary. We know free will does not exist. Either your will is determined - if you roll back time to just before you make a decision and then when you roll it forward, you always  make the same decision  - or there is some element of randomness. In neither case, can you say there is free will.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Over this Easter season I have become more aware than ever of my deepening relationship with God.  Words of scripture take on more profound meanings.  Twice during the past week I have come across these words from John 14:27 - " … a peace that the world cannot give".  No matter what troubles and strife this world brings me to endure, the peace and joy which comes from knowing God's love is always present.  A peace that the world cannot give.  A peace which I am certain cannot come from physically predetermined activity in my material brain.

So I pray that this peace will be found by many more people.

I don't doubt that you find your belief that there is a god to be a comforting one. You have though fallen yet again into the same problem as ever re "free" will - if you're certain it's not determined, it must be (wholly or in part) random. Magicking up a "soul" to fix it just transfers the same problem to that soul. 

[Sriram]

We know that there is nothing called true randomness. Why do you keep insisting on these 'random'  influences?  How do you even know that they are truly random?

'Randomness of the gaps' is a real thing, quite clearly!

[torridon]

We know that there is nothing called true randomness. Why do you keep insisting on these 'random'  influences?  How do you even know that they are truly random?

'Randomness of the gaps' is a real thing, quite clearly!

We don't know that at all.  True randomness is something we cannot rule and we cannot rule in.  We have to live with it as a possibility, but we can never prove it.

[Sriram]

We don't know that at all.  True randomness is something we cannot rule and we cannot rule in.  We have to live with it as a possibility, but we can never prove it.

Well..fine.  Similarly then, we can never rule out intelligent intervention nor rule in.  It is a possibility that we can never prove or disprove.

If someone can keep saying 'random...random' for every unknown thing, someone else can equally say 'God...God' for every unknown thing!

[SteveH]

Well..fine.  Similarly then, we can never rule out intelligent intervention nor rule in.  It is a possibility that we can never prove or disprove.

If someone can keep saying 'random...random' for every unknown thing, someone else can equally say 'God...God' for every unknown thing!

Occam's razor.

[Roses]

The holy spirit can be some use.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48431612

[Walter]

The holy spirit can be some use.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48431612

well spotted Lr

[Sebastian Toe]

The holy spirit can be some use.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48431612

Possibly Vic Reeves driving? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Well..fine.  Similarly then, we can never rule out intelligent intervention nor rule in.  It is a possibility that we can never prove or disprove.

If someone can keep saying 'random...random' for every unknown thing, someone else can equally say 'God...God' for every unknown thing!

Wrong again. Randomness is a point in logic – if an event isn’t determined, then it’s random. If there’s no “true” randomness then it’s all determined.

By contrast claims about god(s) (or leprechauns) are in a different category – they’re not “ruled out” in the sense that they cannot be shown not to be true, but the arguments made for them can be shown to be false.     

[Roses]

Possibly Vic Reeves driving? 

Who?

[Dicky Underpants]

Who?

Vic Reeves is a vastly overrated 'comedian' who presented, with his co-star Bob Mortimer, a uniquely unmemorable and unfunny show called Shooting Stars. In it, a large animated prop called "The Dove From Above" would be summoned down by the presenters and various guest celebrities. Fortunately, there is little else I remember about the show apart from this and Matt Lucas* in a romper suit.

Shooting Stars (TV series) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_Stars_(TV_series)


*nearly got my Matthews and Marks mixed up there - very biblical

[Alan Burns]

Quite the contrary. We know free will does not exist. Either your will is determined - if you roll back time to just before you make a decision and then when you roll it forward, you always  make the same decision  - or there is some element of randomness. In neither case, can you say there is free will.

This is a dreadfully naïve view which consciously chooses to categorise all human mental processes to be mechanistic reactions - thus deliberately ignoring any possibility for the spiritual nature of human awareness to invoke consciously driven choices.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This is a dreadfully naïve view which consciously chooses to categorise all human mental processes to be mechanistic reactions - thus deliberately ignoring any possibility for the spiritual nature of human awareness to invoke consciously driven choices.

It doesn't "ignore the possibility" at all - what it actually does is to identify that the term "spiritual" is incoherent, and that the arguments attempted for it are hopeless. Finally address these problems and then perhaps you'll have something to say that's worth listening to. Why not for example begin by explaining how, if an event is neither determined nor random, it does in fact occur?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It doesn't "ignore the possibility" at all - what it actually does is to identify that the term "spiritual" is incoherent, and that the arguments attempted for it are hopeless. Finally address these problems and then perhaps you'll have something to say that's worth listening to. Why not for example begin by explaining how, if an event is neither determined nor random, it does in fact occur?

You appear to consciously choose to ignore the difference between "determined" and "predetermined".  Just as you fail to differentiate between "choice" and "reaction".

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

you appear to consciously choose to ignore the difference between "determined" and "predetermined".  Just as you fail to differentiate between "choice" and "reaction".

Have you really not learned by now that the way things appear and the way they are do not necessarily tally? Really though?

So anyway, if neither determined nor random how would you propose that events occur? 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Have you really not learned by now that the way things appear and the way they are do not necessarily tally? Really though?

So anyway, if neither determined nor random how would you propose that events occur?

Some events are predictable reactions to previous events. (predetermined)
Some events may be determined from sources which are not entirely predictable, and certainly not random.

[SteveH]

Vic Reeves is a vastly overrated 'comedian' who presented, with his co-star Bob Mortimer, a uniquely unmemorable and unfunny show called Shooting Stars. In it, a large animated prop called "The Dove From Above" would be summoned down by the presenters and various guest celebrities. Fortunately, there is little else I remember about the show apart from this and Matt Lucas* in a romper suit.

Shooting Stars (TV series) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_Stars_(TV_series)

Shooting Stars was brilliant, but you needed the right kind of sense of humour.

[Walter]

Shooting Stars was brilliant, but you needed the right kind of sense of humour.

well I enjoyed it , especially after a few pints on a Friday night 

[torridon]

Some events are predictable reactions to previous events. (predetermined)
Some events may be determined from sources which are not entirely predictable, and certainly not random.

That makes no sense. An event which is not predictable, in principle, is random by definition. This is just plain, undeniable, logic.

[SteveH]

That makes no sense. An event which is not predictable, in principal, is random by definition. This is just plain, undeniable, logic.

Nonsense. I can't predict who'll be the next tory leader, but it won't be random.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Some events are predictable reactions to previous events. (predetermined)
Some events may be determined from sources which are not entirely predictable, and certainly not random.

This is incoherent. If a "source" does not function deterministically then it's random; if it doesn't function randomly, then it's deterministic. Your way out of that is essentially "it's magic", which is epistemically worthless.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Nonsense. I can't predict who'll be the next tory leader, but it won't be random.

Suggest you read what torri actually said. Events are either deterministic in principle, or they're random. That you personally happen not to have enough information or processing power to predict the next leader of the tories doesn't change that.   

[torridon]

Nonsense. I can't predict who'll be the next tory leader, but it won't be random.

I'd agree the next tory leader probably won't be a random event.  That doesn't equate to unpredictable in principal, it just means unpredictable in practice.  Too difficult to call, in other words. It's a bit like forecasting the weather, we have some limited success in it, but we can never have 100% accuracy because we don't have access to all the data.

[SteveH]

Fair point. As Former Azure Slope said, I should have read your post more carefully.
However, even if we accept that all events must be either determined or fandom, surely a conscious decision can be a determining factor, and so free-will exists.