Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

My consciously determined disbelief arises from trying to imagine how my subconscious brain activity can be engaging in a dispute with your subconscious brain activity.

Absolutely, and you get to disbelieve if your particular brain can't parse the concept, but you don't get to extrapolate from your brain's inability to 'therefore it can't possibly be'.

The fact is that I do not see you as a lump of reconstituted star debris.

Regardless of whether you think it's mandated by a deity or not, regardless of whether you believe my consciousness has some divine spark of freedom, the evidence suggests that we are 'reconstituted star debris'.  Or, as I think it's infinitely better expressed: "We are starstuff. We are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out. And as we have both learned, sometimes the universe requires a change of perspective." - Bablyon 5 (for those of you who are interested, still one of the best sci-fi shows ever to have been messed up by scheduling).

I see you as a fellow human being with a consciously controlled will of your own, arising from a God given soul which is the real you.

And I can neither change that opinion nor claim the right to stop you believing it.  However, I can continue to point out that it's an article of faith, a position held not because of the evidence available but regardless of the evidence available and to some extent in defiance of it.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Absolutely, and you get to disbelieve if your particular brain can't parse the concept, but you don't get to extrapolate from your brain's inability to 'therefore it can't possibly be'.

But what is accountable for this extrapolation?  Is it yet more unavoidable subconscious brain activity?  And if so, what gives your subconscious brain activity the right to claim some form of perceived superiority over the output of my subconscious brain activity?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But what is accountable for this extrapolation?  Is it yet more unavoidable subconscious brain activity?

That’s what the evidence suggests, yes. “Subconscious brain activity” is by definition “unavoidable” because there’s no separate “we” with the means to reach in and change it – that would be just incoherent.

And if so, what gives your subconscious brain activity the right to claim some form of perceived superiority over the output of my subconscious brain activity?

Rights are human constructs, and we ascribe them according to the social circumstances that pertain. You have the right not to be killed on the street for example because you live in a society that has decided that such a thing would be unlawful. It’s not difficult.

[Outrider]

But what is accountable for this extrapolation?

How do you mean 'accountable'?  Nothing is 'accountable' for the way your brain has developed, it's the result of an inordinate number of influences over time working upon a certain set of inherent traits that we have no direct control over.

Is it yet more unavoidable subconscious brain activity?

Is it the result of that, you mean? Yes, it would seem so.

And if so, what gives your subconscious brain activity the right to claim some form of perceived superiority over the output of my subconscious brain activity?

The fact the conclusion my subconscious comes to doesn't contradict the evidence or rely on unevidenced elements in the way that yours does.

O.

[Stranger]

But what is accountable for this extrapolation?  Is it yet more unavoidable subconscious brain activity?  And if so, what gives your subconscious brain activity the right to claim some form of perceived superiority over the output of my subconscious brain activity?

Because we all have the ability to analyse and think about things and some people are better at it than others and can make their cases logically and without fallacies, assertions, and blind faith.

And you are still confusing the central issue here. You have made two claims about "free will":

• It is not deterministic (no, what you are proposing is not deterministic, see #32591 and #32601).
  
  
• It does not involve randomness.

They logically contradict each other and cannot possibly both be true. The role of the conscious mind in choice making (as opposed to the subconscious) is simply irrelevant. Even if all you say about consciousness being in total control was true, your claims about freedom are still just as contradictory.

[ippy]

Well, I think you are very generous even to consider commiserations! I cringe at every one of AB's posts and shake my head in disbelief that anyone can continue to hide behind such a jjust about impenetrable barrier of theo-babblingly cloying smugness and  drivel. 

I do, however, support and cheer from the sidelines the strong, well-structured posts by the rational thinkers hereabouts.

Susan it does 'genuinely' make me feel sad for examples like Alan, he seems to be a reasonably intelligent guy and yet he's so totally taken in by such an obviously man made belief, the Catholics, one of the most blindingly obvious examples of 'man made' there is starting with its building of the Vatican city alone was mainly financed by it's infamous indulgences, about one of the most plain as daylight ways of committing a fraud and Alan can't see it?

I know there are still a few around that don't believe in 'Star Trek', I don't know why but when I try to explain this belief to non-believers they don't seem to hang around for too long after I've started to tell them about it.

Alright, 'Star Trek' again, but when you think about it why not it's equally as logical as Alan's projections and I'm not adding in the Magic element, just in case you missed that last bit and might have thought I'd lost it.

Regards, ippy

[SusanDoris]

Susan it does 'genuinely' make me feel sad for examples like Alan, he seems to be a reasonably intelligent guy and yet he's so totally taken in by such an obviously man made belief, the Catholics, one of the most blindingly obvious examples of 'man made' there is starting with its building of the Vatican city alone was mainly financed by it's infamous indulgences, about one of the most plain as daylight ways of commuting a fraud and Alan can't see it?

I know there are still a few around that don't believe in 'Star Trek', I don't know why but when I try to explain this belief to non-believers they don't seem to hang around for too long after I've started to tell them about it.

Alright, 'Star Trek' again, but when you think about it why not it's equally as logical as Alan's projections and I'm not adding in the Magic element, just in case you missed that last bit and might have thought I'd lost it.

Regards, ippy

Yes, it is sad, but to just carry on the way he has for the whole time this topic has been running without a single word of any kind that he might be even slightly mistaken, or responding with any kind of argument, reasoning, point of interest in discussion, and I'm sure I'll think later of a few more things to add here, is downright rude and in my opinion shows a lack of respect or consideration for anyone else's rational - easily more rational - posts. It goes way beyond an indoctrination. I wonder if his family feel the same, tolerate his views, don't know how he writes here, or what. 

If he was amusing or demonstrated anything other than total indoctrination and all above-mentioned faults, then there might be a gap for hope, but I see none of it.

And he'll read this and come back with yet another of the interminable reiterations of his confirmation bias etc etc and, presumably, feel proud of his writings and
clock up one more post-for-God.-

On a positive note, more power to those with the patience and words to write posts to lift the spirits and which I wouldn't miss for anything!!

[Alan Burns]

Yes, it is sad, but to just carry on the way he has for the whole time this topic has been running without a single word of any kind that he might be even slightly mistaken, or responding with any kind of argument, reasoning, point of interest in discussion, and I'm sure I'll think later of a few more things to add here, is downright rude and in my opinion shows a lack of respect or consideration for anyone else's rational - easily more rational - posts. It goes way beyond an indoctrination. I wonder if his family feel the same, tolerate his views, don't know how he writes here, or what. 

If he was amusing or demonstrated anything other than total indoctrination and all above-mentioned faults, then there might be a gap for hope, but I see none of it.

And he'll read this and come back with yet another of the interminable reiterations of his confirmation bias etc etc and, presumably, feel proud of his writings and
clock up one more post-for-God.-

On a positive note, more power to those with the patience and words to write posts to lift the spirits and which I wouldn't miss for anything!!

The fact that many people who do not have Christian faith continue to post on this topic gives me hope that they do have some interest in the subject.  So I will continue to witness to the truth for those who wish to read and respond to it in the hope that they may eventually discover the Love that God holds for them.  I continue to remember you in my prayers, Susan.

[ippy]

Yes, it is sad, but to just carry on the way he has for the whole time this topic has been running without a single word of any kind that he might be even slightly mistaken, or responding with any kind of argument, reasoning, point of interest in discussion, and I'm sure I'll think later of a few more things to add here, is downright rude and in my opinion shows a lack of respect or consideration for anyone else's rational - easily more rational - posts. It goes way beyond an indoctrination. I wonder if his family feel the same, tolerate his views, don't know how he writes here, or what. 

If he was amusing or demonstrated anything other than total indoctrination and all above-mentioned faults, then there might be a gap for hope, but I see none of it.

And he'll read this and come back with yet another of the interminable reiterations of his confirmation bias etc etc and, presumably, feel proud of his writings and
clock up one more post-for-God.-

On a positive note, more power to those with the patience and words to write posts to lift the spirits and which I wouldn't miss for anything!!

I hear what you say Susan, but I really don't think he's deliberately rude and dismissive, I really don't think the poor bloke can help it because when anyone not just Alan has been so heavily sucked in by his indoctrination he doesn't even recognise that he has been indoctrinated that's why the, poor Alan, he has no way out no matter what is thrown at him or to him in an attempt to rescue him.

I suppose it's something like I'm told it is with hypnotism there are some just a snap of the fingers is enough and at the other end of the scale there are some that can't be hypnotised whatever is done to them.

Having said that lot Susan the one thing I don't think we've been taking in to consideration is where we have forgotten that our attitudes and words must be directed at us by the devil, I think if you were to go through his writings he has actually indicated something like this lot about the devil somewhere? Really.

Regards, ippy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The fact that many people who do not have Christian faith continue to post on this topic gives me hope that they do have some interest in the subject.

But you misunderstand what “the subject” is. Religious belief as a widespread cultural phenomenon and investigating the arguments attempted to justify it are in themselves interesting to some of us. The objects of your beliefs on the other hand (god, souls etc) are of no more interest to me than the objects of my beliefs (leprechauns, shape-shifting alien lizards etc) are to you.   

So I will continue to witness…

No Alan – you assert, not “witness”.

…to the truth…

No Alan, it's “my" truth, not “the” truth remember?

… for those who wish to read and respond to it in the hope that they may eventually discover the Love that God holds for them.

Even though the effort is necessarily wasted until and unless you finally manage to find a sound argument to justify your beliefs – to take you in other words from belief to knowledge?

I continue to remember you in my prayers, Susan.

Well intentioned no doubt, and if you get something from it then why not. In turn though rest assured that when I make my supplications to the great god of the missing TV remote Sony the Terrible by creeping bent double round the living room and ceremoniously lifting all the cushions from the sofas while intoning “For god’s sake!” I shall have you at the forefront of my remembrances too. For is it not written that when Mrs B gave me a universal remote control for my birthday I did cry out, “This changes everything!”?...

[Stranger]

The fact that many people who do not have Christian faith continue to post on this topic gives me hope that they do have some interest in the subject.

More a kind of horrible fascination with how faith can cripple the reasoning abilities even of those with some aptitude for rational thought, a desire to make sure that the foolishness that you post doesn't go unchallenged, and the slim chance that you might still be rescued from your horrible affliction, as many others have been.

So I will continue to witness to the truth for those who wish to read and respond to it in the hope that they may eventually discover the Love that God holds for them.

All you are actually witnessing to is how trapped you are by your faith that you dare not think about it rationally. It's actually quite distressing to watch you occasionally start to engage with what is being said only to see you retreat a few posts later and scuttle back to your comfort zone of just robotically repeating your reasoning-free script as if nobody had ever pointed out its multiple flaws and glaring contradictions.

[ippy]

More a kind of horrible fascination with how faith can cripple the reasoning abilities even of those with some aptitude for rational thought, a desire to make sure that the foolishness that you post doesn't go unchallenged, and the slim chance that you might still be rescued from your horrible affliction, as many others have been.

All you are actually witnessing to is how trapped you are by your faith that you dare not think about it rationally. It's actually quite distressing to watch you occasionally start to engage with what is being said only to see you retreat a few posts later and scuttle back to your comfort zone of just robotically repeating your reasoning-free script as if nobody had ever pointed out its multiple flaws and glaring contradictions.

Your his use of witnessing, the love god holds for us, I'm praying for you, all meaningless 'theobabble', that word again and yes we do take an interest, it's now the 21st century where amazingly we still have people like those cartographers of the old days that used to mark their maps with things like here ye be dragons, people like you Alan, which on its own wouldn't be that bad if it wasn't for the fact you keep on about things that are little more than if not supposedly pure magic they're supposedly magical events etc then the next thing is you expect is to be taken seriously?

Commiserations Alan, ippy.
 

[torridon]

The real sadness is that many on this forum, and probably throughout the whole world, are in denial of the amazing gift of human free will.  It is a power which admittedly is beyond human understanding, but this does not mean it is not real.  We all have the conscious power to choose what we do with our precious gift of life.  The choices we make will determine our ultimate destiny.

No one has the power to believe things they don't believe or choose to like things they don't like.  Such a capability would not be an amazing gift, rather the claim of it is an irrational, nonsense, claim.  If we could choose what to believe or what to like, on what basis could we do that ?

[torridon]

The fact that many people who do not have Christian faith continue to post on this topic gives me hope that they do have some interest in the subject.  So I will continue to witness to the truth for those who wish to read and respond to it in the hope that they may eventually discover the Love that God holds for them.

People who are 'searching for God' would more likely be found in churches, temples and mosques.  This is a place for debate, in case you hadn't noticed, and most posters on the thread I think are more inclined towards debunking irrational faith claims than endorsing them.

[Alan Burns]

No one has the power to believe things they don't believe or choose to like things they don't like.  Such a capability would not be an amazing gift, rather the claim of it is an irrational, nonsense, claim.  If we could choose what to believe or what to like, on what basis could we do that ?

You can't choose what to believe, but you can choose to search for meaning in your life.  What you find may well change what you believe in.

[torridon]

You can't choose what to believe, but you can choose to search for meaning in your life.  What you find may well change what you believe in.

Is there anybody who does not already do that ?  I would have counted that broadly a human universal. People vary, people find meaning in diverse ways.  There is no one-size-fits-all route to meaning.

[Gordon]

The real sadness is that many on this forum, and probably throughout the whole world, are in denial of the amazing gift of human free will.

Nope - this is just another example of your lazy thinking: there is a difference between denying something specific and dismissing an incoherent idea.

It is a power which admittedly is beyond human understanding, but this does not mean it is not real.

If it is "beyond human understanding" how do you know it is real? I can't see that you can, so this is you begging the question again.

We all have the conscious power to choose what we do with our precious gift of life.  The choices we make will determine our ultimate destiny.

I'd agree that we are free to make choices and these choices have consequences, though your use of "ultimate destiny" is yet more of your silly hyperbole, but these choices aren't 'free' in the sense you mean 'free' because your notion of 'free' is illogical.

[Gordon]

You can't choose what to believe, but you can choose to search for meaning in your life.

That rather depends on what you mean by "meaning": if you mean something that involves a personal sense of value or fulfilment then, for me, that description applies to motorcycles - so what? 

What you find may well change what you believe in.

It may indeed, and I'd say we must all be open to revision, but only when there are reasons to do so that are sound independently of our personal preferences or biases.

[Nearly Sane]

You can't choose what to believe, but you can choose to search for meaning in your life.  What you find may well change what you believe in.

'Choosing' to search for meaning in your life is a belief, so you are contradicting yourself in the above post

[ekim]

'Choosing' to search for meaning in your life is a belief, so you are contradicting yourself in the above piat

Not only that, you still end up with a belief, not the truth.  'The truth will set you free' (John 8 : 32) from belief.

[Gordon]

On the subject of Free Will the latest Philosophy Bites piece is worth a listen.

https://philosophybites.com/2020/02/christian-list-on-free-will.html

This chap defends Free Will, which he sees as having three components: intentional agency, alternative possibilities, and causal control and thinks that looking at the minutiae of the physical is looking in the wrong place - he seems to see Free Will as being an emergent property, with no mention of interactions with 'souls' or anything supernatural or divine.

Given the discussions in this thread I'd suggest it is probably well worth a listen - I'd be interested to hear Alan's take.

[Stranger]

On the subject of Free Will the latest Philosophy Bites piece is worth a listen.

https://philosophybites.com/2020/02/christian-list-on-free-will.html

This chap defends Free Will, which he sees as having three components: intentional agency, alternative possibilities, and causal control and thinks that looking at the minutiae of the physical is looking in the wrong place - he seems to see Free Will as being an emergent property, with no mention of interactions with 'souls' or anything supernatural or divine.

Given the discussions in this thread I'd suggest it is probably well worth a listen - I'd be interested to hear Alan's take.

I thought he rather skirted round the issues rather than faced them head-on. He eventually concludes that "free will" is an emergent phenomenon but doesn't really then face up to what that means for the criteria he outlined at the start. For example, strictly speaking and if the underlying processes are deterministic, we couldn't have "chosen differently". He seems to be talking about compatibilism but doesn't even mention it.

He's right of course in saying that trying to analyse human behaviour using the low-level interactions of neurons or whatever is not useful and that we need to use emergent phenomena like intentional agency.

[Gordon]

Now you mention it he didn't mention compatibilism: I missed that. He does seem to accept determinism and evidence from neurology, but sees Free Will as being best thought of as something that is only meaningful further up the food chain, so to speak.

I thought he might have said something about personal traits and biases, since these too aren't apparent at the level of synapses but are influences over choices, and it may be that we may not always be conscious of them. For example, when intentional agency, alternative possibilities, and causal control are deployed when raiding the fridge for something to eat of an evening, what is available in our fridge will already have been influenced by my (and Mrs G's) preferences and food phobias.

[jeremyp]

So I will continue to witness to the truth

Is it possible for you to accept that other people might have a different idea on what the truth is?

Is it possible for you to accept that a neutral person has no way to tell whether your version of the truth is correct or somebody else's?

[Outrider]

The fact that many people who do not have Christian faith continue to post on this topic gives me hope that they do have some interest in the subject.

At the risk of being flippant, to a degree it's a case of 'know your enemy'.  We have Christian fundamentalists increasing their influence in the US government at the same time that the UK government appears to be looking to their populist nature as a blueprint - it's a time to worry about the influence of pernicious Christianity.

So I will continue to witness to the truth for those who wish to read and respond to it in the hope that they may eventually discover the Love that God holds for them.  I continue to remember you in my prayers, Susan.

Which is not to say, of course, that all who believe are malignant in either intent or influence - you keep on fighting for what you think is right, AB, and we'll try and keep taking it in the spirit that it's meant.

O.