Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

But you still have not addressed the fact that we have the consciously driven freedom to choose what to think about, what not to think about and how much depth to think about things.

That's untrue - I (and others) have addressed it repeatedly. You, on the other hand, have never once been able to refute the basic logic that any choice is either fully determined by what led up to it or not, and if not, then some part of it must be due to nothing that led up to it and is therefore random.

Not once. Just endless fallacies, assertion, misrepresentation, incredulity, and, quite often, total gibberish.

Going back to Sassy's opening post, it is abundantly obvious from this thread that our choices in such thought processes are selective in that we choose to think about topics which support what we want to believe.

That's probably why you never think about the arguments people put to you and endlessly repeat the same things as if nobody had said any of it.

Truly objective thought processes would be inclusive of supernatural possibilities rather than dismissive of them.

Just as soon as you can define "supernatural" and provide some objective reason (logic or evidence) to take it seriously, I'll happily think about it.

The fact is Alan, that people have addressed what you've claimed, often and in great detail, and all we get in response is the same old script over and over and over again.

[Alan Burns]

Nobody is saying that you don't feel free to think: however, that is just what it feels like but since your thinking isn't quite as free of influences, information and personal traits it isn't as 'free' as you imagine it to be, unless of course you think only random thoughts.
 

I have NEVER claimed that our conscious choices are free of influences.
I have NEVER claimed that our choices have any random element.

So, can you make yourself want to believe that Glasgow is a suburb of Warsaw?
 

Of course you can't change what you know to be true, even if you do not want it to be true.
I have NEVER made such claim.

Did you really mean to say something as stupid as that?

I repeat:
"Truly objective thought processes would be inclusive of supernatural possibilities rather than dismissive of them."
Why do you claim this to be stupid?
In this you are presuming there to be nothing outside what can be perceived by our limited human sensory organs and associated equipment.

[Gordon]

I have NEVER claimed that our conscious choices are free of influences.
I have NEVER claimed that our choices have any random element.

So, presuming that you now think are thoughts are at least in part due to influences or randomness, why do you keep banging on about 'souls' and by what method(s) do you apportion the role of the 'soul' in relation to determinants and apparent randomness?

Of course you can't change what you know to be true, even if you do not want it to be true. I have NEVER made such claim.

What about what you believe to be true but where the truth claims are suspect since they don't stand scrutiny? 
 

I repeat:
"Truly objective thought processes would be inclusive of supernatural possibilities rather than dismissive of them."
Why do you claim this to be stupid?

You haven't defined 'supernatural' and nor have you set out anything that would represent objective thinking about whatever 'supernatural' is or isn't.

In this you are presuming there to be nothing outside what can be perceived by our limited human sensory organs.

Nope: and don't be so silly.

[Outrider]

I agree that you cannot choose what to believe.

It's always nice to find common points

But you can choose to enact the thought processes that lead up to a belief. We all have freedom to choose what (or what not) to think about.

We can? Right now, don't think about fish.

Could you manage not to think about fish, at least for a moment? Are you still managing it now?  What other random thoughts wander into your consciousness apparently unbidden in the quiet moments?  I know I get oddities suddenly spring up with no immediately obvious prompt, I suspect I'm not alone in that.

Some people may choose to look at the concept of emergent properties of material reactions. Some people may choose to think about how consequences of events are determined by previous events. Some people may choose to think about drawing false conclusions from logical fallacies. Some people may choose not to think about the possibility that they have consciously driven freedom to think such things.

That rather depends on how you interpret 'choose', but what doesn't appear to be happening is that act of choosing somehow being liberated from prior events that shaped the brain structure and thought patterns in such a way that there was no possibility of another alternative manifesting at that point in time.

O.

[ippy]

I have NEVER claimed that our conscious choices are free of influences.
I have NEVER claimed that our choices have any random element.Of course you can't change what you know to be true, even if you do not want it to be true.
I have NEVER made such claim.I repeat:
"Truly objective thought processes would be inclusive of supernatural possibilities rather than dismissive of them."
Why do you claim this to be stupid?
In this you are presuming there to be nothing outside what can be perceived by our limited human sensory organs and associated equipment.

   

There's quite a few of us that still seem to be able to think for ourselves in spite of the various religions doing their best to target their indoctrinational pollution on to as many of the youngest minds they can find, where they're most likely to succeed, they, it seems to me they have done a good job on you Alan, a good job in their terms, in your case.

They've got you hook line and sinker Alan.

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

   

There's quite a few of us that still seem to be able to think for ourselves in spite of the various religions doing their best to target their indoctrinational pollution on to as many of the youngest minds they can find, where they're most likely to succeed, they, it seems to me have done a good job on you Alan, a good job in their terms, in your case.

They've got you hook line and sinker Alan.

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.

When were you part of the 'us' who think for themselves? No evidence of you thinking for yourself or even that facts matter to you from your postings on Brexit. Certainly got you hook, line and sinker. My deepest commiserations to you Ippy for your self-delusion .

[ippy]

When were you part of the 'us' who think for themselves? No evidence of you thinking for yourself or even that facts matter to you from your postings on Brexit. Certainly got you hook, line and sinker. My deepest commiserations to you Ippy for your self-delusion .

Gabriella, I was  wondering If you can explain, that is if you want to explain of course, to me what the connection is between Brexit and religiously delusional people?

I have given a few reasons why I prefer to leave the EU and decided for the reasons I've repeated many times on this forum why I'm not entering the fray.

Do you think any remainer will be agreeing with a leaver or visa versa anytime soon?

'Us', would be those that base there ideas on rational evidence with a quantity of reason thrown in.

I'don't know if you keep up to date on this thread that seems to have been adopted by Allan, the poor bloke has never added a shred of evidence for any of his ramblings, he's full of that wonderful and precise new word, theobollocks'.

Oh yes if you want to have semanticist type debate about how I'm using my version of the English language, just don't bother with a reply of any kind, I'm just not going there, it's up to you.

Regards, ippy.
 

[Walter]

😱 the irony is strong with Gabriella today 😝

[torridon]

In today's Gospel reading, Jesus is asked by the followers of John the Baptist to let John know if He is the messiah. (John was in prison at the time).  Jesus replies by saying: Go back and tell John what you hear and see; the blind see again, and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised to life and the Good News is proclaimed to the poor; As often in the Gospels, Jesus does not directly proclaim His divinity when questioned about it.  He witnesses by His deeds and leaves the questioner to make up their mind.  It is an invitation to believe, not a forceful command.  We are all invited to believe in our Saviour, and we can use our God given freedom to accept or reject or ignore this invitation.  The choice is open to everyone.  The choice is yours to make.

What's this got to do with the price of fish ?  You have previously accepted that we cannot choose what to believe, and yet in the above you seem to be slip-sliding back into confusion on this point.  You need to revisit this for the sake of clarity, it seems.

[torridon]

"Truly objective thought processes would be inclusive of supernatural possibilities rather than dismissive of them."
Why do you claim this to be stupid?
In this you are presuming there to be nothing outside what can be perceived by our limited human sensory organs and associated equipment.

For 'supernatural', read 'impossible'.  If supernatural things were possible then they would be entirely natural. 'Supernatural' is just euphemism for people who want to believe in impossible things.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella, I was  wondering If you can explain, that is if you want to explain of course, to me what the connection is between Brexit and religiously delusional people?

I have given a few reasons why I prefer to leave the EU and decided for the reasons I've repeated many times on this forum why I'm not entering the fray.

Do you think any remainer will be agreeing with a leaver or visa versa anytime soon?

'Us', would be those that base there ideas on rational evidence with a quantity of reason thrown in.

I'don't know if you keep up to date on this thread that seems to have been adopted by Allan, the poor bloke has never added a shred of evidence for any of his ramblings, he's full of that wonderful and precise new word, theobollocks'.

Oh yes if you want to have semanticist type debate about how I'm using my version of the English language, just don't bother with a reply of any kind, I'm just not going there, it's up to you.

Regards, ippy.

Sure.

You have not given any rational evidence with a quantity of reason thrown in for supporting Brexit. Like Alan you just seem to fallen hook, line and sinker for an idea and then seek to justify your belief. In your case it's a political idea rather than a theological one, but it's still hard to take a person's claim to think for themselves seriously when they fall hook, line and sinker for slogans.

[Alan Burns]

For 'supernatural', read 'impossible'.  If supernatural things were possible then they would be entirely natural. 'Supernatural' is just euphemism for people who want to believe in impossible things.

Just to clarify,
By "supernatural" I am referring to things which are impossible to define within the natural behaviour of deterministic material reactions, such as the freedom of the human mind to make consciously driven choices - A freedom which you, of course, will deny exists because you cant come up with a natural explanation and you consciously refuse to believe in anything supernatural.

By denying the reality of our freedom to consciously choose what to think, say or do, you vastly underestimate the power of the human mind.  Our mind is not determined by the past - it determines our future.  We have all been given the conscious freedom to choose - it is an amazing supernatural gift which we need to use wisely. because our future depends on it. 

[Stranger]

Just to clarify,
By "supernatural" I am referring to things which are impossible to define within the natural behaviour of deterministic material reactions, such as the freedom of the human mind to make consciously driven choices - A freedom which you, of course, will deny exists because you cant come up with a natural explanation and you consciously refuse to believe in anything supernatural.

Are you just totally shameless when it comes to misrepresenting other people's views or is this all going way over your head?

The logical argument has nothing to do with the "material" world.

Your claims about what "freedom" means logically contradict each other and so cannot be true even if you invent the "supernatural", that is unless you are saying that "supernatural" can include the logically self-contradictory, in which case you can't possibly argue for it using logic or reasoning.

[torridon]

Just to clarify,
By "supernatural" I am referring to things which are impossible to define within the natural behaviour of deterministic material reactions, such as the freedom of the human mind to make consciously driven choices - A freedom which you, of course, will deny exists because you cant come up with a natural explanation and you consciously refuse to believe in anything supernatural.

Circular reasoning, you are simply defining 'supernatural' in a way that suits your argument here.  In other words, a spurious claim.  I don't see any justification for claiming the resolving of choice to be supernatural, it happens all the time, everywhere, it is perfectly natural.  Your idea that a choice can be free of determinants without being random is irrational, not supernatural.

[ippy]

Sure.

You have not given any rational evidence with a quantity of reason thrown in for supporting Brexit. Like Alan you just seem to fallen hook, line and sinker for an idea and then seek to justify your belief. In your case it's a political idea rather than a theological one, but it's still hard to take a person's claim to think for themselves seriously when they fall hook, line and sinker for slogans.

Gabriella, You say: 'You have not given any rational evidence with a quantity of reason thrown in for supporting Brexit'.

You're right for the reasons I have given many times within the Brexit thread, I can see what it is you mean but if you haven't read my reasons for not going into a discussion about Brexit with any one, not just you, I would be able to see some form of logic in what it is you're saying.

It's a good try to have me start discussing brexit, but I'm sticking to the reasons I have already given many times in the relevant thread stating why I'm not going there.

Now that thread is all about brexit, what do you feel you seem to need to talk about on this, 'Searching for God', thread?

Wish you well and regards, ippy.

[Roses]

As ghastly as the idea of Brexit is, it is a proven reality unfortunately, whereas there is no verifiable evidence to support the existence of any god.

[Alan Burns]

Circular reasoning, you are simply defining 'supernatural' in a way that suits your argument here.  In other words, a spurious claim.  I don't see any justification for claiming the resolving of choice to be supernatural, it happens all the time, everywhere, it is perfectly natural.  Your idea that a choice can be free of determinants without being random is irrational, not supernatural.

Please, please stop misrepresenting what I say.
Our choices are certainly not free of past determinant events.  Our conscious awareness allows us to perceive past events - we are consciously aware of them and their possible influences, but they do not dictate our choice.  Our conscious awareness has the freedom and power to invoke a conscious choice, not an inevitable reaction.  A conscious choice is not random.  It is not predetermined.  It is invoked by the supernatural power of your conscious will acting within the conscious awareness of your human soul.

[Gordon]

Please, please stop misrepresenting what I say.
Our choices are certainly not free of past determinant events.  Our conscious awareness allows us to perceive past events - we are consciously aware of them and their possible influences, but they do not dictate our choice.  Our conscious awareness has the freedom and power to invoke a conscious choice, not an inevitable reaction.  A conscious choice is not random.  It is not predetermined.  It is invoked by the supernatural power of your conscious will acting within the conscious awareness of your human soul.

Why then can't I 'will' myself to eat mayonnaise or like country music?

[Stranger]

Please, please stop misrepresenting what I say.

Oh the irony.

Our choices are certainly not free of past determinant events.  Our conscious awareness allows us to perceive past events - we are consciously aware of them and their possible influences, but they do not dictate our choice.  Our conscious awareness has the freedom and power to invoke a conscious choice, not an inevitable reaction.  A conscious choice is not random.  It is not predetermined.  It is invoked by the supernatural power of your conscious will acting within the conscious awareness of your human soul.

Just the same old tired, self-contradictory mantra that totally ignores the logic that has been put to you.

You are not being misrepresented, you are contradicting yourself.

To the extent that a choice is not determined by all the past events that led to it, it must be free of those determinants. In other words, to that extent, it is unconnected to anything that led to it and therefore, to that extent, due to nothing at all - random.

To what extent a choice is consciousness or not is irrelevant. Whether minds are entirely physical or not is irrelevant. The logic stands regardless.

[ippy]

Please, please stop misrepresenting what I say.
Our choices are certainly not free of past determinant events.  Our conscious awareness allows us to perceive past events - we are consciously aware of them and their possible influences, but they do not dictate our choice.  Our conscious awareness has the freedom and power to invoke a conscious choice, not an inevitable reaction.  A conscious choice is not random.  It is not predetermined.  It is invoked by the supernatural power of your conscious will acting within the conscious awareness of your human soul.

When people on the forum keep on telling you much the same and for example, you never answer a direct question asking you to back up any one of your many assertions, you remind me of a similar thing where an alcoholic that hasn't yet reached the stage where they have recognised their alcoholism for themselves which in turn would potentially be giving themselves a way out of their problem.


I believe the correct term for this problem of yours is cognitive dissonance, very similar to a that occasion where someone, anyone that, in its various forms, is a tobacco/nicotine addict and they keep on giving themselves irrational reasons to excuse themselves to themselves for continuing with their rather pointless stinky habit.

I have you in mind when I see anyone with a similar continuing penchant for delivering unsupportable assertions about this rather unsupportable belief of yours 
 
Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.
 

[torridon]

Please, please stop misrepresenting what I say.
Our choices are certainly not free of past determinant events.  Our conscious awareness allows us to perceive past events - we are consciously aware of them and their possible influences, but they do not dictate our choice.  Our conscious awareness has the freedom and power to invoke a conscious choice, not an inevitable reaction.  A conscious choice is not random.  It is not predetermined.  It is invoked by the supernatural power of your conscious will acting within the conscious awareness of your human soul.

Assertion without evidence.  There is no evidence of supernatural powers at work in 'conscious' decision making.  There is no evidence of anybody being able to prefer things they don't prefer or believe things they don't believe. We all act on our uppermost desire in the moment as does every rabbit, chaffinch and bullfrog and none of us can choose which desire to be uppermost.  This doesn't require supernatural powers, it requires the evolution of minds that can render perceptions and sensations in a common currency, ie emotion, so that choices can be efficiently resolved.  If humans, uniquely, were able to defy determinism, ie choose what to like and what to believe, then humans would be unable to resolve choice and we would have long ago gone extinct.  Incomprehensible chaos would be the nature of an indeterministic system.

[torridon]

Please, please stop misrepresenting what I say.
Our choices are certainly not free of past determinant events.  Our conscious awareness allows us to perceive past events - we are consciously aware of them and their possible influences, but they do not dictate our choice.  Our conscious awareness has the freedom and power to invoke a conscious choice, not an inevitable reaction.  A conscious choice is not random.  It is not predetermined.  It is invoked by the supernatural power of your conscious will acting within the conscious awareness of your human soul.

Just to clarify my previous response to this, and address the charge of 'misrepresenting' you, I was making a distinction between and influence and a determinant influence. I understand you accept we are not free of influences, however a determinant influence would be the dominant one, the one that collapses, or resolves, the indecision.  If there is no determining factor, then indecision persists and the choice is not resolved. The claim that a choice could be resolved without without a determining factor is incoherent - the 'choice' would be merely a random, unrelated event in that case.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella, You say: 'You have not given any rational evidence with a quantity of reason thrown in for supporting Brexit'.

You're right for the reasons I have given many times within the Brexit thread, I can see what it is you mean but if you haven't read my reasons for not going into a discussion about Brexit with any one, not just you, I would be able to see some form of logic in what it is you're saying.

It's a good try to have me start discussing brexit, but I'm sticking to the reasons I have already given many times in the relevant thread stating why I'm not going there.

Now that thread is all about brexit, what do you feel you seem to need to talk about on this, 'Searching for God', thread?

Wish you well and regards, ippy.

I do not want to discuss Brexit on this thread. I was just pointing out that it was difficult to take seriously your claim to Alan on this thread that you think for yourself, given the lack of rational evidence supporting your reasons for voting Brexit.

Yes I know, I know - you voted Brexit because you like the slogan "take back control", but there is no rational evidence behind such a slogan. The slogan is meaningless as it has been shown that Britain has control of its borders. So voting for a meaningless slogan is not evidence of thinking for yourself.

Anyway, we can continue this on the Brexit thread if you wish. Just making the point here that there is little evidence from your posts on Brexit that you think for yourself and are not indoctrinated so it was incorrect for you to claim that you do think for yourself.

Wishing you well too.

[Alan Burns]

Just to clarify my previous response to this, and address the charge of 'misrepresenting' you, I was making a distinction between and influence and a determinant influence. I understand you accept we are not free of influences, however a determinant influence would be the dominant one, the one that collapses, or resolves, the indecision.  If there is no determining factor, then indecision persists and the choice is not resolved. The claim that a choice could be resolved without without a determining factor is incoherent - the 'choice' would be merely a random, unrelated event in that case.

The determining factor is your consciously invoked human will.  Our conscious awareness allows us to override the determining factors of instinct and learnt experiences, because we are consciously aware of these factors before we invoke a conscious choice.  As I have previously mentioned, our conscious awareness always exists and acts in its own present.  It is aware of the past, and present, but not determined by it.  To discover the source of a conscious act of will, you need to be able to define what comprises conscious awareness and how it works.  I am certain that conscious awareness will never be defined by material reactions, because discrete material reactions alone are incapable of producing a single entity of awareness.  We are aware of material reactions, not driven by them.

[Gordon]

The determining factor is your consciously invoked human will.  Our conscious awareness allows us to override the determining factors of instinct and learnt experiences, because we are consciously aware of these factors before we invoke a conscious choice.

Why then can I not 'will' myself to ever eat mayonnaise?

As I have previously mentioned, our conscious awareness always exists and acts in its own present.

The 'present' doesn't really make sense though, Alan, though for everyday purposes it suffices - how can something have its 'own present'?

It is aware of the past, and present, but not determined by it.  To discover the source of a conscious act of will, you need to be able to define what comprises conscious awareness and how it works.

I've 'defined' it for you before, but I'll have another go: 'conscious acts of will are mental experiences arising from our biology'. Anyway, who says a definition is necessary?
 

I am certain that conscious awareness will never be defined by material reactions, because discrete material reactions alone are incapable of producing a single entity of awareness.  We are aware of material reactions, not driven by them.

No doubt you feel certain, but it seems to me that feeling you have is just a symptom of you having a particularly severe case of 'God'.