Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

I simply provide evidence by consciously choosing to write this post.

Except that your capacity to post is equally valid under either concept, so it's evidence for or against neither.

Was this choice predetermined from the beginning of time?

To avoid the connotations of 'predetermined' (which merely puts back the consciousness from you to the predeterminer) I'd phrase it as 'inevitable', but it would certainly seem so.  Either it was entirely based upon the sum of the previous events in reality or there was something independent of the previous events involved; the former is not free, and the randomness of the latter precludes it being will.

Or was it invoked by my conscious awareness which exists and acts in the present?

The scientific measurements suggest that it was invoked by your subconscious, and you became aware of it in the transition between it percolating out of that complex processor and reaching the various actuary areas of the brain where it gets ejected into the broader reality by way of your thoughts, words and actions.

O.

[Stranger]

I simply provide evidence by consciously choosing to write this post.

This is tantamount to a lie - as has been pointed out to you countless times before. Nobody is proposing an explanation for our choices that doesn't attempt to explain our ability to choose, so pretending that said ability is evidence for your (self-contradictory) 'explanation' is either dishonesty or total lack of any logical thought.

Was this choice predetermined from the beginning of time?

See all the previous answers - and emotive and inaccurate language isn't a substitute for logic and evidence.

Or was it invoked by my conscious awareness which exists and acts in the present?

Meaningless waffle.

[Walter]

That isn't my idea of evidence!

LR

careful now !

[Christine]

Hi Alan,

I'm very keen to understand what is going on with life, the universe and everything.  It all seems really weird to me.  Your apparent determination to learn nothing and to keep repeating things that have been successfully shown to be fallacious and/or devoid of meaning isn't doing you any favours as far as I'm concerned.  Am I not your target audience?  I do sometimes wonder if religionists are like those scam emailers, only interested in hooking people too stupid to see through them, so they deliberately use useless arguments and debating techniques, but surely that's not the case with you or you wouldn't be here.

I read The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine a long time ago.  It debunks your particular God concept without referencing anything but your foundational text, just using good arguments, as I remember.  I looked for a refutation of it at the time, but there weren't any (well, I found one attempt, but it was full of lies and misrepresentations and failed to address any of the actual arguments).  I'll look The Age Of Reason out and present what I think is a particularly keen insight of Tom's, then you can explain why he's wrong, if you want to. 

Might be a bit of a wait, my access to this site is somewhat sporadic. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Christine,

I'm very keen to understand what is going on with life, the universe and everything.  It all seems really weird to me.  Your apparent determination to learn nothing and to keep repeating things that have been successfully shown to be fallacious and/or devoid of meaning isn't doing you any favours as far as I'm concerned.  Am I not your target audience?  I do sometimes wonder if religionists are like those scam emailers, only interested in hooking people too stupid to see through them, so they deliberately use useless arguments and debating techniques, but surely that's not the case with you or you wouldn't be here.

I read The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine a long time ago.  It debunks your particular God concept without referencing anything but your foundational text, just using good arguments, as I remember.  I looked for a refutation of it at the time, but there weren't any (well, I found one attempt, but it was full of lies and misrepresentations and failed to address any of the actual arguments).  I'll look The Age Of Reason out and present what I think is a particularly keen insight of Tom's, then you can explain why he's wrong, if you want to. 

Might be a bit of a wait, my access to this site is somewhat sporadic.

Nice post, but AB will never allow himself to move from thinking his experience of something necessarily provides the explanation for it, regardless of the falsifying logic and evidence that undoes him. Oddly he does it only for matters of his faith though. He knows for example that a sheet of glass feels completely smooth when he runs his fingers over it, but he’s also aware that seen under an electron microscope it’s full of peaks and troughs too small for him to sense. Thus in that case he’d accept that the way something is experienced provides a false explanation for the way it really is.

When the logic and evidence about consciousness and "free" will is presented to him though, he just ignores or misrepresents it – it’s as if I was a “glass is perfectly smooth” merchant and when the falsifying logic and evidence was given to me I just replied with, “the absolute smoothness of glass is amply demonstrated by the frictionless movement of my fingers across it”. When pushed I might throw in a few basic fallacies too – “but if glass wasn’t completely smooth, then…”, and perhaps too I’d throw in a few, “and no man-made so-called logic and supposed evidence will ever convince me otherwise”. And on and on he blunders, apparently convincing himself that he can’t have his mind changed because of the weakness of the arguments against him rather than because he cannot or will not engage with them.         

Still, decent chap that I am I will of course pray for you finally to grasp the truth of absolute glass smoothness... 

[Alan Burns]

The last few posts show beyond any conceivable doubt that human beings have the capacity to consciously choose the words they have posted.  To suggest that it all gets predetermined by subconscious brain activity before they become aware of it and claim this to be logical ….. how could such an idea possibly emerge if we have no conscious control over our thought processes? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Me:

"...it’s as if I was a “glass is perfectly smooth” merchant and when the falsifying logic and evidence was given to me I just replied with, “the absolute smoothness of glass is amply demonstrated by the frictionless movement of my fingers across it”" (Reply 36279)

AB:

The last few posts show beyond any conceivable doubt that human beings have the capacity to consciously choose the words they have posted.  To suggest that it all gets predetermined by subconscious brain activity before they become aware of it and claim this to be logical ….. how could such an idea possibly emerge if we have no conscious control over our thought processes? 

QED

[Stranger]

The last few posts show beyond any conceivable doubt that human beings have the capacity to consciously choose the words they have posted.  To suggest that it all gets predetermined by subconscious brain activity before they become aware of it and claim this to be logical ….. how could such an idea possibly emerge if we have no conscious control over our thought processes? 

• Once again we have the blatantly dishonest implication that our ability to compose posts is somehow evidence that your impossible, self-contradictory, nonsense version of freedom exists.
  
  
• Your impossible version of freedom falls foul of basic logic but to what extent consciousness is involved in a complex choice such as what words to use in a post, is a matter of evidence. The rather limited evidence we have, suggests that it is story after the fact, but there may or may not be feedback to subsequent steps in a choice making process. Even a small amount of honest introspection will tell you that it can't all be conscious.
  
  
• Regardless of the answer to point 2, your incredulity and your question are disingenuous. This isn't new to you - you've had it explained many, many times. Why do you keep pretending?
  
  
• You continue to use emotive language and totally ignore the logic that has been put to you. What's the point? If you can't or won't engage with the actual arguments, why do you think mindless repetition will achieve anything?

[Outrider]

The last few posts show beyond any conceivable doubt that human beings have the capacity to consciously choose the words they have posted.  To suggest that it all gets predetermined by subconscious brain activity before they become aware of it and claim this to be logical ….. how could such an idea possibly emerge if we have no conscious control over our thought processes? 

Inevitably, as a result of previous activity shaping the brain's pathways.  That you might see cogent (in most instances) thought as evidence of conscious choice doesn't mean that you're right in the deduction.  The process of thought is deterministic, but that doesn't make the conclusions infallible.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Me:

"...it’s as if I was a “glass is perfectly smooth” merchant and when the falsifying logic and evidence was given to me I just replied with, “the absolute smoothness of glass is amply demonstrated by the frictionless movement of my fingers across it”" (Reply 36279)

AB:

QED

The logic involved with perceiving the apparent smoothness of glass is trivial compared to the logic involved in how you came to consciously choose to make this comparison.  It just further confirms your freedom to drive your own conscious thought processes to conceive of an argument supporting your chosen point of view.

[Stranger]

The logic involved with perceiving the apparent smoothness of glass is trivial compared to the logic involved in how you came to consciously choose to make this comparison.

The logic Alan, tells us that your view of conscious choice is self-contradictory.

It just further confirms your freedom to drive your own conscious thought processes to conceive of an argument supporting your chosen point of view.

All the hypotheses and conjectures about consciousness and "freedom" are consistent with our abilities and what we experience. Please stop trying to claim they confirm or provide evidence for yours alone - that is fundamentally dishonest.

[Alan Burns]

Your impossible version of freedom falls foul of basic logic but to what extent consciousness is involved in a complex choice such as what words to use in a post, is a matter of evidence. The rather limited evidence we have, suggests that it is story after the fact, but there may or may not be feedback to subsequent steps in a choice making process. Even a small amount of honest introspection will tell you that it can't all be conscious.

I am fully aware of the evidence of measurable brain activity which occurs prior to a conscious choice.  Any feedback which may occur from conscious awareness to this brain activity would apparently involve going back in time.  This is physically impossible, but the conscious awareness of the human soul is not a physical entity.

[Outrider]

I am fully aware of the evidence of measurable brain activity which occurs prior to a conscious choice.  Any feedback which may occur from conscious awareness to this brain activity would apparently involve going back in time.  This is physically impossible, but the conscious awareness of the human soul is not a physical entity.

So in order to make the evidence fit into your preconception you're now allowing your magic to break the conventions of time as well as space...  if the evidence will not sway your claim, then what hope.  How free is your will if it can't respond to reality, but must cleave inviolate to the intangible rocks of a faith system.

You talk of a free will considering the evidence, but when the evidence comes you are irretrievably bound to fudge an excuse for why it doesn't apply - if that's 'free' will, I think you undermine your own case.

O.

[Stranger]

I am fully aware of the evidence of measurable brain activity which occurs prior to a conscious choice.  Any feedback which may occur from conscious awareness to this brain activity would apparently involve going back in time.

I think you misunderstood. A considered choice is likely to involve many steps. Of course the contents of consciousness can't feedback to the subconscious events that caused them, they could, on the other hand, influence the next step; if you draft and re-draft a post in your mind, for example. I have no idea if that is the case - it's just logically possible.

This is physically impossible, but the conscious awareness of the human soul is not a physical entity.

Are you actually serious here? It doesn't even make any sense. Apart from the obvious desperate straw-clutching to try to fit the evidence, what would even be the point?

[Gordon]

I am fully aware of the evidence of measurable brain activity which occurs prior to a conscious choice.  Any feedback which may occur from conscious awareness to this brain activity would apparently involve going back in time.  This is physically impossible, but the conscious awareness of the human soul is not a physical entity.

So, if this 'soul' is something non-physical then a) how do you know it is real, and b) how does it interact with the physical (such as our brains)?

Since you seem so sure of your claim you should have answers immediately to hand.

[Alan Burns]

So, if this 'soul' is something non-physical then a) how do you know it is real, and b) how does it interact with the physical (such as our brains)?

Since you seem so sure of your claim you should have answers immediately to hand.

The only reality I know stems from my conscious awareness and my ability to think and invoke conscious choices through interaction with my body.  Science alone cannot explain my conscious awareness, nor can it explain my ability to invoke conscious choices.  So I have to conclude that any explanations for my conscious awareness and ability to think and invoke choices must lie outside the realms of current scientific knowledge.  To try to shoehorn my reality to fit in with current science renders my freedom to think and choose to be an illusion.

The divine revelations of the Christian bible offer a far more feasible explanation of reality of the human soul than current science.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The logic involved with perceiving the apparent smoothness of glass is trivial compared to the logic involved in how you came to consciously choose to make this comparison.  It just further confirms your freedom to drive your own conscious thought processes to conceive of an argument supporting your chosen point of view.

Way to miss the point. I was merely explaining to you that the way experiences appear to be ("free" will/smooth glass) does not necessarily provide an accurate explanation of the phenomenon being experienced. Limiting your thinking to "free will feels like non-deterministic decision-making, therefore it must be non-deterministic decision-making" isn't thinking at all. As actually thinking would wash away a sand foundation on which your faith beliefs rest though, you'll never allow yourself to do it.       

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Way to miss the point. I was merely explaining to you that the way experiences appear to be ("free" will/smooth glass) does not necessarily provide an accurate explanation of the phenomenon being experienced. Limiting your thinking to "free will feels like non-deterministic decision-making, therefore it must be non-deterministic decision-making" isn't thinking at all. As actually thinking would wash away a sand foundation on which your faith beliefs rest though, you'll never allow yourself to do it.       

No.  Actual thinking about my ability to think does not wash away my perception of freedom - it confirms it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No.  Actual thinking about my ability to think does not wash away my perception of freedom - it confirms it.

Yes, for you I know it does. For me though the price you pay for that "confirmation" of evidence denial and logical impossibility would be too high. 

[Stranger]

The only reality I know stems from my conscious awareness and my ability to think and invoke conscious choices through interaction with my body.  Science alone cannot explain my conscious awareness, nor can it explain my ability to invoke conscious choices.  So I have to conclude that any explanations for my conscious awareness and ability to think and invoke choices must lie outside the realms of current scientific knowledge.  To try to shoehorn my reality to fit in with current science renders my freedom to think and choose to be an illusion.

The divine revelations of the Christian bible offer a far more feasible explanation of reality of the human soul than current science.

Wow, just look at those double standards! The bible offers no explanation whatsoever (magic isn't an explanation). Current science at least has a partial explanation and some reasonable hypotheses.

However, Alan Burn's version of "freedom" and conscious choice is, as has been explained multiple times, totally impossible because it is self-contradictory.

[Gordon]

The only reality I know stems from my conscious awareness and my ability to think and invoke conscious choices through interaction with my body.  Science alone cannot explain my conscious awareness, nor can it explain my ability to invoke conscious choices.  So I have to conclude that any explanations for my conscious awareness and ability to think and invoke choices must lie outside the realms of current scientific knowledge.  To try to shoehorn my reality to fit in with current science renders my freedom to think and choose to be an illusion.

The divine revelations of the Christian bible offer a far more feasible explanation of reality of the human soul than current science.

The, Alan, you 'know' bugger-all and, as such, your conclusions are uninformed by any 'reality'.

[Alan Burns]

Hi Alan,

I'm very keen to understand what is going on with life, the universe and everything.  It all seems really weird to me.  Your apparent determination to learn nothing and to keep repeating things that have been successfully shown to be fallacious and/or devoid of meaning isn't doing you any favours as far as I'm concerned.  Am I not your target audience?  I do sometimes wonder if religionists are like those scam emailers, only interested in hooking people too stupid to see through them, so they deliberately use useless arguments and debating techniques, but surely that's not the case with you or you wouldn't be here.

I read The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine a long time ago.  It debunks your particular God concept without referencing anything but your foundational text, just using good arguments, as I remember.  I looked for a refutation of it at the time, but there weren't any (well, I found one attempt, but it was full of lies and misrepresentations and failed to address any of the actual arguments).  I'll look The Age Of Reason out and present what I think is a particularly keen insight of Tom's, then you can explain why he's wrong, if you want to. 

Might be a bit of a wait, my access to this site is somewhat sporadic.

Thanks for your message, Christine.  Many of my posts on this forum are merely pointing out some of the false ideas that some people have concerning the notion that science can be used to explain why there is no God.  I am not sure how many of my posts you have read, so forgive me if I am perceived as repeating myself.  Much of my reasoning stems from a eureka moment I had over forty years ago when I realised that any conscious freedom I have to make choices can't be derived from the physically predetermined reactions in an entirely material brain.  My freedom to think and choose is the reality I live in - a reality which can't be explained in physical terms without concluding that such a reality is an illusion.  But the consciously driven thought processes needed to reach such a conclusion effectively prove that the conclusion must be wrong.

So I find through my Christian faith that life has far more purpose and meaning than anything derived entirely from meaningless unguided material reactions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Thanks for your message, Christine.  Many of my posts on this forum are merely pointing out some of the false ideas that some people have concerning the notion that science can be used to explain why there is no God.

At what point do your misrepresentations become so frequent that we can reasonably conclude that you’re actively lying? No-one says that “science can be used to explain why there is no god”, any more that people say “science can be used to explain why there are no leprechauns”. What science actually does though is to provide testably more cogent explanations for various observable phenomena than does religious faith – re the age of the Earth for example. 

I am not sure how many of my posts you have read, so forgive me if I am perceived as repeating myself.  Much of my reasoning stems from a eureka moment I had over forty years ago when I realised that any conscious freedom I have to make choices can't be derived from the physically predetermined reactions in an entirely material brain.

That wasn’t a eureka moment of realisation. It was a basic error in thinking that you’ve clung to ever since as a man clings to a concrete lifebelt while refusing ever to engage with the reasoning and evidence that falsifies it.   

My freedom to think and choose is the reality I live in - a reality which can't be explained in physical terms without concluding that such a reality is an illusion.

So?

But the consciously driven thought processes needed to reach such a conclusion effectively prove that the conclusion must be wrong.

Gibberish. You’d have exactly the same apparent experience in a deterministic universe. It’s not hard to grasp if only you’d try.

So I find through my Christian faith that life has far more purpose and meaning than anything derived entirely from meaningless unguided material reactions.

And the argumentum ad consequentiam to finish – one of your favourite fallacies that one. For what it’s worth though, many people find as much “purpose and meaning” from the model of reality that’s rational and evidence-based than as you do from the beginning and end of your thinking of “it’s magic”.   

[Alan Burns]

Gibberish. You’d have exactly the same apparent experience in a deterministic universe. It’s not hard to grasp if only you’d try.

But to consciously "try" implies that I have the ability to invoke such an action.  Where in the endless chains of physically predefined cause and effect can such an act of deliberation occur?

[Stranger]

But to consciously "try" implies that I have the ability to invoke such an action.  Where in the endless chains of physically predefined cause and effect can such an act of deliberation occur?

In your brain, just as it was on the approximately 468,251 previous occasions when you asked this damn fool question.