Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Which is just another reaction whether or not we are fully aware of all that is influencing our reactions: it may feel 'free' but it really isn't.

Have you seriously considered the consequences of it not just being a feeling, but a reality?
Does your ability to consciously consider such consequences not confirm this reality?

[Gordon]

Have you seriously considered the consequences of it not just being a feeling, but a reality?
Does your ability to consciously consider such consequences not confirm this reality?

It may feel like reality, but it just feels that way: for all practical purposes it is sufficient to feel 'free', but just a little consideration suggests otherwise since 'freedom', as you envisage it, would be illogical and chaotic - and of course I don't have the problem of finding a place to squeeze in a need for 'God'.

Ironically, though I doubt you'll see the irony, your need for 'God' probably isn't your 'free' choice and is a consequence of your various intrinsic personal traits, be they conscious or unconscious, and in that respect is no different to my intrinsic revulsion of foods I've never actually tasted.

[torridon]

Have you seriously considered the consequences of it not just being a feeling, but a reality?
Does your ability to consciously consider such consequences not confirm this reality?

No one disputes the ability to think.  There is nothing supernatural about thinking, it is entirely natural. All our thinking is bounded by the limits of our cognitive abilities and is a consequence of our state of mind. 

Many of us have indeed considered your conceptualisation of freedom and found it to be flawed and irrational.  The fact that we can consider a claim does not validate the claim.

[Stranger]

Have you seriously considered the consequences of it not just being a feeling, but a reality?
Does your ability to consciously consider such consequences not confirm this reality?

And the pointless repetition just goes on and on.

Your version of freedom is, for reasons that have been explained many times, self-contradictory, so it cannot possibly be a reality. That's it - end of story. It is not only incompatible with what we experience, it's literal nonsense. It's a concept that simply disappears when you think logically about it.

It literally has no meaning.

[ippy]

Have you seriously considered the consequences of it not just being a feeling, but a reality?
Does your ability to consciously consider such consequences not confirm this reality?

Most that post to you Alan, have not had their free will compromised by such willingly given misplaced blind servitude to such a morally bankrupt organisation as your R C C.

I see the R C C's still hiding Child abusing Catholic Bishops at the Vatican an Argentinian one this time Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta, it must make you feel really proud of being associated with the catholic church Alan.

Many commiserations to you Alan, ippy

[Roses]

Most that post to you Alan, have not had their free will compromised by such willingly given misplaced blind servitude to such a morally bankrupt organisation as your R C C.

I see the R C C's still hiding Child abusing Catholic Bishops at the Vatican an Argentinian one this time Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta, it must make you feel really proud of being associated with the catholic church Alan.

Many commiserations to you Alan, ippy

I agree with you, I doubt AB will take it on board, though.

[Alan Burns]

There is nothing supernatural about thinking,....

Until you get a natural explanation for conscious thought, and what drives it, you can't discount a supernatural explanation.

[Roses]

Until you get a natural explanation for conscious thought, and what drives it, you can't discount a supernatural explanation.

It is much more likely that there is a natural explanation, than a less than credible god figure wot dun it!

[Alan Burns]

Your version of freedom is, for reasons that have been explained many times, self-contradictory, so it cannot possibly be a reality. That's it - end of story. It is not only incompatible with what we experience, it's literal nonsense. It's a concept that simply disappears when you think logically about it.

But can you try thinking about human freedom without being constrained by the short sighted logic which restricts our freedom to be nothing more than inevitable reaction to past events?

I am constantly being accused of making assertions with no evidence to back them up.  But the evidence for human freedom is there in abundance.  You will not find it within the limited perception coming from our sensory data, but in the depths of your own conscious self.  To recall the eloquent words from Chesterton's quote -

You need to allow yourself to be illuminated by the free spirit which exists deep within you.  And in this new season of Advent, use this new found freedom to reveal your own epiphany where you will discover that the truth really does set you free.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Until you get a natural explanation for conscious thought, and what drives it, you can't discount a supernatural explanation.

First, there already is a natural explanation for conscious thought.  It's incomplete (as are most explanations for observed phenomena, for example gravity) but it's still an explanation whether or not it conflicts with a superstitious belief you happen to hold.

Second, if by "discount" you mean something like, "show to be definitively wrong" then no-one does that. If though you mean something like, "have been given no good reason to think to be true" then yes of course you can discount it.

Third, you cannot reject one explanation on the ground that it's incomplete to replace it with a explanation that's entirely devoid of content of any kind. Thunder isn't entirely understood either, but that does not me justify me asserting Thor to be the correct explanation instead.

By the way, any progress yet on finally coming up with even one argument for god that isn't logically false?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But can you try thinking about human freedom without being constrained by the short sighted logic which restricts our freedom to be nothing more than inevitable reaction to past events?

Logic doesn’t become “short-sighted” just because you’re unable to find any that supports your assertions (that’s another of your lies), and no – the explanation for free will must be deterministic regardless of how it feels because the alternative is logically impossible.

I am constantly being accused of making assertions with no evidence to back them up.

Not only evidence, logic too. That’s your problem.

But the evidence for human freedom is there in abundance.  You will not find it within the limited perception coming from our sensory data, but in the depths of your own conscious self.  To recall the eloquent words from Chesterton's quote -

You need to allow yourself to be illuminated by the free spirit which exists deep within you.  And in this new season of Advent, use this new found freedom to reveal your own epiphany where you will discover that the truth really does set you free.

Theobabble white noise. Try again, only bring some honesty to the table this time.

PS Any progress yet on finally coming up with even one argument for god that isn't logically false?

[Gordon]

Until you get a natural explanation for conscious thought, and what drives it, you can't discount a supernatural explanation.

The former is probably biological, and in the case of the latter it is easy to dismiss incoherent nonsense.

[torridon]

Until you get a natural explanation for conscious thought, and what drives it, you can't discount a supernatural explanation.

There is no reason to assume a supernatural explanation for thought.  We've got brains for that, already in place and fully wired up.  There'd be no point in having a brain if our thinking got done by some sort of god-magic.  Your suggestion is baseless and preposterous. Do you imagine gravity to be supernatural too, since we don't fully understand that ?

[Stranger]

But can you try thinking about human freedom without being constrained by the short sighted logic which restricts our freedom to be nothing more than inevitable reaction to past events?

I have thought about it Alan, that's why I have a logical, self-consistent view. Why don't you try thinking about it for a change? There is no restriction going on here, the only way freedom can make any sense at all, is if it is a person's reaction based on who they are (what the past has made them) and the choice at hand.

I am constantly being accused of making assertions with no evidence to back them up.  But the evidence for human freedom is there in abundance. 

You simply can't have evidence for something that is itself incoherent nonsense. Your version of "freedom" isn't even wrong - it's gibberish, nonsense, senseless gobbledygook. It literally makes no sense.

[ippy]

I have thought about it Alan, that's why I have a logical, self-consistent view. Why don't you try thinking about it for a change? There is no restriction going on here, the only way freedom can make any sense at all, is if it is a person's reaction based on who they are (what the past has made them) and the choice at hand.

You simply can't have evidence for something that is itself incoherent nonsense. Your version of "freedom" isn't even wrong - it's gibberish, nonsense, senseless gobbledygook. It literally makes no sense.

My favourite post of the last half dozen absolutely hits the nail full square on the head Stranger

Additionally Alan can't answer because either he's totally indoctrinated with the usual RCC nonsense, he doesn't understand, he knows there is zero evidence to support his invisible friend theories or he's determined to keep on lying even to himself.   

Talk about irrational, anyway commiserations for the total absence of conversions you've been trying to achieve on this forum, ippy

[BeRational]

Until you get a natural explanation for conscious thought, and what drives it, you can't discount a supernatural explanation.

Even I know that's a logical fallacy!

[Alan Burns]

You simply can't have evidence for something that is itself incoherent nonsense. Your version of "freedom" isn't even wrong - it's gibberish, nonsense, senseless gobbledygook. It literally makes no sense.

The evidence exists in my conscious awareness.  This is the only reality I perceive, and it verifies my conscious freedom to choose what I do, think or say.

[torridon]

The evidence exists in my conscious awareness.  This is the only reality I perceive, and it verifies my conscious freedom to choose what I do, think or say.

Firstly, our conscious awareness is a constructed thing, the outcome of subliminal processes of mind that we are not aware of and have no control over.   Conscious awareness itself is not primary or fundamental, it is derivative and we have no control over its derivation.

Secondly, notwithstanding the subtleties of conscious mind, we are still only choosing what we already want, with no control in a moment of choice over which wants to have. In other words we are merely acting on our uppermost desire.  In this respect humans are no different to rabbits or penguins or kangaroos.

[Stranger]

The evidence exists in my conscious awareness.

Endlessly repeating foolish nonsense does not make it less fooish or nonsensical. Your version of "freedom" doesn't mean anything - there cannot, even in principle, be any evidence of it.

This is the only reality I perceive, and it verifies my conscious freedom to choose what I do, think or say.

Of course you can choose what you do, think, and say - by choosing the option that you want the most - but you can't be free from being the person you are, that makes no sense. You cannot choose what you want the most because that would lead to an infinite regress, and you cannot make a choice that isn't entirely due to all the reasons that led up to it without some part of it being for no reason (random).

You do not, and cannot possibly, perceive your incoherent, nonsense, gobbledygook version of freedom because it is literally unimaginable. It's not even possible to form a coherent picture of what it would be like.

[Alan Burns]

Endlessly repeating foolish nonsense does not make it less fooish or nonsensical. Your version of "freedom" doesn't mean anything - there cannot, even in principle, be any evidence of it.

Of course you can choose what you do, think, and say - by choosing the option that you want the most - but you can't be free from being the person you are, that makes no sense. You cannot choose what you want the most because that would lead to an infinite regress, and you cannot make a choice that isn't entirely due to all the reasons that led up to it without some part of it being for no reason (random).

You do not, and cannot possibly, perceive your incoherent, nonsense, gobbledygook version of freedom because it is literally unimaginable. It's not even possible to form a coherent picture of what it would be like.

But none of this can deny me the ability to make consciously driven choices which are not entirely predetermined by physically defined reactions.  Nor can it deny me the freedom to consciously contemplate the reality of my own existence, and realise that I am more than an unintended consequence of a material universe totally indifferent to life and conscious awareness.  It is my ability to consciously think which frees me from any physically predetermined scenario over which I can have no control.  You should try going to a quiet place away from the artificial distractions of this modern world (dare I suggest a church!) and allow yourself to contemplate the amazing reality of your own existence and your ability to consciously think far beyond anything which can be predetermined by past events.  Rejoice in your freedom - it is an amazing gift beyond human understanding, but it is there to be used, not to be misunderstood by our limited capabilities.

[Roses]

But none of this can deny me the ability to make consciously driven choices which are not entirely predetermined by physically defined reactions.  Nor can it deny me the freedom to consciously contemplate the reality of my own existence, and realise that I am more than an unintended consequence of a material universe totally indifferent to life and conscious awareness.  It is my ability to consciously think which frees me from any physically predetermined scenario over which I can have no control.  You should try going to a quiet place away from the artificial distractions of this modern world (dare I suggest a church!) and allow yourself to contemplate the amazing reality of your own existence and your ability to consciously think far beyond anything which can be predetermined by past events.  Rejoice in your freedom - it is an amazing gift beyond human understanding, but it is there to be used, not to be misunderstood by our limited capabilities.

The capabilities of animals of other species are amazing too. The human animal's capabilities are not limited at all, when you think where we were when climbed out of the primeval swamp, and where we are today. I am sure we will keep on developing, and maybe one day we will be able to prove exactly how the universe was formed. I suspect when we do no supernatural entity will have been involved in its creation.

[torridon]

..  It is my ability to consciously think which frees me from any physically predetermined scenario over which I can have no control.  ..

Thoughts are not somehow free from the paradigm of cause and effect.  Thoughts have origins, they derive from something, they cannot be free from derivation and influence without being random. 'Free' thoughts, as you imagine them to be, would in fact be random thoughts.

[Alan Burns]

The capabilities of animals of other species are amazing too. The human animal's capabilities are not limited at all, when you think where we were when climbed out of the primeval swamp, and where we are today. I am sure we will keep on developing, and maybe one be able to prove exactly how the universe was formed. I suspect when we do no supernatural entity will have been involved in its creation.

The blip of life's existence on this journey to ever increasing entropy and chaos will never be able to achieve this impossible goal before all organic matter is totally obliterated.

[BeRational]

The blip of life's existence on this journey to ever increasing entropy and chaos will never be able to achieve this impossible goal before all organic matter is totally obliterated.

Never?

Please show how you can possibly know this?

This again is pure assertion.

[Alan Burns]

Thoughts are not somehow free from the paradigm of cause and effect.  Thoughts have origins, they derive from something, they cannot be free from derivation and influence without being random. 'Free' thoughts, as you imagine them to be, would in fact be random thoughts.

They are free from total control of past events because they are determined by the conscious will of the human soul which always exists and acts in the present - and this consciously driven will is certainly not random.  As I said in a previous post, our conscious thoughts are capable of reaching far beyond anything which can be derived from predetermined physically controlled reactions.