Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

It is not foot stamping to deduce that you need a consciously invoked effort to start contemplating the reality behind your own existence.
It is all down to our conscious human will.

And when a wolf starts trying to chase down a bison, it is down to the wolf's will. Wolves never hunt whilst unconscious or sleeping, it involves a conscious effort.  There is nothing supernatural about this, it is merely the ubiquitous operation of mammalian mind, addressing perceived need through behavioural response.

[Stranger]

More foot stamping doesn't help.

Why does that "freedom" need to be not fully deterministic (the "inevitable consequence of previous events") and involving no randomness, rather than simply free from external constraints?

It is not foot stamping to deduce that you need a consciously invoked effort to start contemplating the reality behind your own existence.
It is all down to our conscious human will.

Why quote a question if you're going to totally ignore it?

Why does a "consciously invoked effort" need to be not fully deterministic (the "inevitable consequence of previous events") and involving no randomness?

Why does "conscious human will" need to be not fully deterministic (the "inevitable consequence of previous events") and involving no randomness?

[Outrider]

But it is not a conclusion.

It is

Our freedom to guide our own thoughts is the reality which enables us to start contemplating the logic behind this reality.

Our feeling of freedom is the reality.  Whether that feeling is justified is the enquiry, and evidence and first principles don't support the idea.

O.

[Alan Burns]

And when a wolf starts trying to chase down a bison, it is down to the wolf's will. Wolves never hunt whilst unconscious or sleeping, it involves a conscious effort.  There is nothing supernatural about this, it is merely the ubiquitous operation of mammalian mind, addressing perceived need through behavioural response.

There is a huge difference between choosing to contemplate the reality of your own existence and a wolf chasing down a bison.
One is an instinctive reaction derived from the need for survival.  The other is not.

[Gordon]

There is a huge difference between choosing to contemplate the reality of your own existence and a wolf chasing down a bison.
One is an instinctive reaction derived from the need for survival.  The other is not.

How do you know that "to contemplate the reality of your own existence" isn't an instinctive reaction of humans?

[Alan Burns]

It is not foot stamping to deduce that you need a consciously invoked effort to start contemplating the reality behind your own existence.
It is all down to our conscious human will.


Why quote a question if you're going to totally ignore it?

Why does a "consciously invoked effort" need to be not fully deterministic (the "inevitable consequence of previous events") and involving no randomness?

Why does "conscious human will" need to be not fully deterministic (the "inevitable consequence of previous events") and involving no randomness?

The question revolves around what actually determines and drives a conscious act of will to contemplate one's own existence.
I fully agree that there is something which determines such an act of will, and it certainly is not random.  Does it derive as an inevitable result of endless chains of PHYSICALLY DEFINED cause and effect?
Or is there a non physical cause which is not bound by the laws of physics, generated from within the present state of our conscious awareness?

You can't just proclaim that the laws of physics are irrelevant.  Physical reactions are part of the time dependent material behaviour of our universe, and we can exert no control over the laws which define them.

The divinely inspired words from the Christian bible allude to our soul being not of this universe and existing in a timeless (eternal) state.  Such a timeless, ever present state would explain how our soul can invoke a choice at will from this present state which is not just an inevitable reaction to past events.

[Alan Burns]

How do you know that "to contemplate the reality of your own existence" isn't an instinctive reaction of humans?

You are free to make this assumption if you so wish, but can you be certain that the act of making such an assumption was itself just an inevitable instinctive reaction?  Or was it your own consciously driven choice?

[Gordon]

You are free to make this assumption if you so wish, but can you be certain that the act of making such an assumption was itself just an inevitable instinctive reaction?  Or was it your own consciously driven choice?

I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply asking how you know that it isn't just human instinctive behaviour that is akin to wolves chasing bison: you made the distinction so tell us on what basis you said what you did.

[torridon]

There is a huge difference between choosing to contemplate the reality of your own existence and a wolf chasing down a bison.
One is an instinctive reaction derived from the need for survival.  The other is not.

A wolf does not know instinctively how hunt bison any more than a human infant knows instinctively how to drive a car.  It is something that has to be learned and it takes a wolf years of practice to be able to hunt effectively.  I think I must have explained this a dozen times already, but it seems if goes in one ear and out the other with you.

And even if it was a purely instinctive behaviour, that does not discount the fact that the chase arises as a consequence of the wolf's will. When a human baby suckles on Mum, that is baby's instinct to suckle satisfying its need for food. Likewise, when baby piglets suckle on Mum, that too is their instinct kicking in to satisfy their need for food.  In both cases truly instinctive behaviours are expressing the individual's will.  Will is not merely confined to abstract contemplation as you seem to think.  There is nothing supernatural about will. All higher animals express will, this is how they stay alive.

[Stranger]

Why quote a question if you're going to totally ignore it?

Why does a "consciously invoked effort" need to be not fully deterministic (the "inevitable consequence of previous events") and involving no randomness?

Why does "conscious human will" need to be not fully deterministic (the "inevitable consequence of previous events") and involving no randomness?

The question revolves around what actually determines and drives a conscious act of will to contemplate one's own existence.
I fully agree that there is something which determines such an act of will, and it certainly is not random.  Does it derive as an inevitable result of endless chains of PHYSICALLY DEFINED cause and effect?
Or is there a non physical cause which is not bound by the laws of physics, generated from within the present state of our conscious awareness?

You can't just proclaim that the laws of physics are irrelevant.  Physical reactions are part of the time dependent material behaviour of our universe, and we can exert no control over the laws which define them.

The divinely inspired words from the Christian bible allude to our soul being not of this universe and existing in a timeless (eternal) state.  Such a timeless, ever present state would explain how our soul can invoke a choice at will from this present state which is not just an inevitable reaction to past events.

Firstly:

• Please, please stop the utterly dishonest attempt to pretend that the term "deterministic" just means "determined by". You are not agreeing with me at all.
  
  
• No matter how many times you try to emphasise the physical, it is still logically irrelevant because we make choices at times and contemplate them over time, so our minds are either operating as deterministic systems or not, and if not, they involve randomness. It's totally irrelevant that we can't control the physical laws - we can't control the way our minds works regardless. It is also a blatant falsehood to claim that my argument (about determinism or randomness) rests on the assumption of a physical mind - it simply does not.
  
  
• Just repeating your gibberish about the "present state of our conscious awareness", isn't going to magically turn it into sound logical reasoning. If it's ever going to make sense, you have to do the intellectual work and properly define what you mean.

Anyway, to summarise...

The answer to my question is that you have no actual argument at all that our "conscious human will" cannot also be "the inevitable consequence of previous events". All you have presented is a daft assertion about the relevance of the physical, gibberish, and preaching.

So - you have shown that you don't understand what sound, logical reasoning entails and now we've learned that, to the extent you have a staring point or premiss, it is actually one of your main contentions, namely that somehow the square circle of not deterministic and no randomness exists in human thought - but you have absolutely nothing in the way of reasoning or evidence to back up this (prima facie) self-contradictory "starting point".

Can we know, at last, expect you to stop claiming that you have logic to support your views or for you to go away, learn something about logic, and try again?

[torridon]

The question revolves around what actually determines and drives a conscious act of will to contemplate one's own existence.
I fully agree that there is something which determines such an act of will, and it certainly is not random.  Does it derive as an inevitable result of endless chains of PHYSICALLY DEFINED cause and effect?
Or is there a non physical cause which is not bound by the laws of physics, generated from within the present state of our conscious awareness?

You can't just proclaim that the laws of physics are irrelevant.  Physical reactions are part of the time dependent material behaviour of our universe, and we can exert no control over the laws which define them.

This is ignorant nonsense.  Ignorant, because it has been explained ad nauseum already that cause and effect is a principle of logic, not merely a law of 'material' science.  If something is uncaused then it is random, irrespective of whether you are talking of 'physical' phenomena or not.  This is what the words mean, this is what the concepts mean. In trying to redefine the meaning of these terms you are fooling no one but yourself.

[torridon]

The divinely inspired words from the Christian bible allude to our soul being not of this universe and existing in a timeless (eternal) state.  Such a timeless, ever present state would explain how our soul can invoke a choice at will from this present state which is not just an inevitable reaction to past events.

Mumbo Jumbo.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The question revolves around what actually determines and drives a conscious act of will to contemplate one's own existence.

No it doesn’t. “drives” assumes something to do this supposed driving as a deliberative act, which you’ve yet to demonstrate as a necessary component of consciousness. What you’re doing here is called begging the questions, one of the various logical fallacies into which you generally collapse.

I fully agree that there is something which determines such an act of will,..

No-one has said that, at least not in the sense you imply. “determines” is a how question, not a why question – it’s “determined” only in the sense that the black ball going into the pocket is determined by being hit previously by the white ball travelling at the required angle and velocity. 

…and it certainly is not random.

Then it’s determined.

Does it derive as an inevitable result of endless chains of PHYSICALLY DEFINED cause and effect?

Not “physically defined”, just “cause and effect” and as that’s what all the coherent reasoning and evidence we have strongly implies then yes.

Or is there a non physical cause which is not bound by the laws of physics, generated from within the present state of our conscious awareness?

As there’s no definition of “non physical”, let alone any coherent reasoning or evidence that supports the assertion then probably not, no.

You can't just proclaim that the laws of physics are irrelevant.

Straw man. No-one does that – just the opposite in fact.

Physical reactions are part of the time dependent material behaviour of our universe, and we can exert no control over the laws which define them.

Irrelevant.

The divinely inspired words from the Christian bible…

Unqualified faith claim. If you want it to be taken seriously, demonstrate first a divine at all, second that this divinity is the one in which you happen to believe, and third that this divine something inspired anything.

…allude to our soul being not of this universe and existing in a timeless (eternal) state.

No doubt. And the Harry Potter books allude to people flying around on broomsticks. So?

Such a timeless, ever present state would explain how our soul can invoke a choice at will from this present state which is not just an inevitable reaction to past events.

No it wouldn’t, first because it’s incoherent gibberish, and second notwithstanding because whether physical or not (whatever the latter would mean) you’d still be stuck with the determined vs random binary options. “Miraculous”/”it’s magic innit?” (which amount to the same thing) answers nothing at all.

[Gordon]

The question revolves around what actually determines and drives a conscious act of will to contemplate one's own existence.
I fully agree that there is something which determines such an act of will, and it certainly is not random.  Does it derive as an inevitable result of endless chains of PHYSICALLY DEFINED cause and effect?
Or is there a non physical cause which is not bound by the laws of physics, generated from within the present state of our conscious awareness?

You can't just proclaim that the laws of physics are irrelevant.  Physical reactions are part of the time dependent material behaviour of our universe, and we can exert no control over the laws which define them.

The divinely inspired words from the Christian bible allude to our soul being not of this universe and existing in a timeless (eternal) state.  Such a timeless, ever present state would explain how our soul can invoke a choice at will from this present state which is not just an inevitable reaction to past events.

This is one of your better examples of mindless theobollocks, Alan, and since all this drivel has been repeatedly exposed as such it's a wonder your 'soul' hasn't as yet told you to stop making a fool of yourself.

[Alan Burns]

A wolf does not know instinctively how hunt bison any more than a human infant knows instinctively how to drive a car.  It is something that has to be learned and it takes a wolf years of practice to be able to hunt effectively.  I think I must have explained this a dozen times already, but it seems if goes in one ear and out the other with you.

And even if it was a purely instinctive behaviour, that does not discount the fact that the chase arises as a consequence of the wolf's will. When a human baby suckles on Mum, that is baby's instinct to suckle satisfying its need for food. Likewise, when baby piglets suckle on Mum, that too is their instinct kicking in to satisfy their need for food.  In both cases truly instinctive behaviours are expressing the individual's will.  Will is not merely confined to abstract contemplation as you seem to think.  There is nothing supernatural about will. All higher animals express will, this is how they stay alive.

But there is no evidence of higher animals being able to consciously contemplate the reality behind their own existence.  Such ability is evidence of our apparently unique power to drive our own thought processes.  Trying to compare ourselves with other animals explains nothing about the source which drives our human thoughts and imagination.

[Alan Burns]

This is one of your better examples of mindless theobollocks, Alan, and since all this drivel has been repeatedly exposed as such it's a wonder your 'soul' hasn't as yet told you to stop making a fool of yourself.

I make no apologies for referring to the Christian bible or considering the reality and relevance of our spiritual souls, because this is the Christian Topic part of this forum and these two aspects are highly relevant to this topic.  Just labeling such references as drivel or mindless theobollocks is somewhat insulting to the sincerely held faith of millions of devout Christians.

[Gordon]

I make no apologies for referring to the Christian bible or considering the reality and relevance of our spiritual souls, because this is the Christian Topic part of this forum and these two aspects are highly relevant to this topic.  Just labeling such references as drivel or mindless theobollocks is somewhat insulting to the sincerely held faith of millions of devout Christians.

No, Alan - my comments are clearly aimed at your particular and bespoke brand of Christianity, with all its associated mindless theobollocks, since as far as I can see you are ploughing a lone furrow.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But there is no evidence of higher animals being able to consciously contemplate the reality behind their own existence.

That's not a definition of consciousness. As ever, you confuse content with process.

Such ability is evidence of our apparently unique power to drive our own thought processes.

It's no such thing. It's just evidence that we have evolved cognitive abilities that are different from those of other species.

Trying to compare ourselves with other animals explains nothing about the source which drives our human thoughts and imagination.

Begging the question fallacy. Again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I make no apologies for referring to the Christian bible or considering the reality and relevance of our spiritual souls, because this is the Christian Topic part of this forum and these two aspects are highly relevant to this topic.

Then you should. This is a discussion forum, and as you clearly have no interest in discussing anything you should post your unqualified faith assertions in the faith sharing area.
 

Just labeling such references as drivel or mindless theobollocks is somewhat insulting to the sincerely held faith of millions of devout Christians.

No-one "just labels" anything. What they actually do is to falsify the various - and hopeless - attempts you make at justifying your faith beliefs as being true for anyone else. If you find that insulting, tough – that's what you must expect if you post on a discussion forum and then refuse to discuss anything.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just labeling such references as drivel or mindless theobollocks is somewhat insulting to the sincerely held faith of millions of devout Christians.

PS I think you do a disservice to those millions of devout Christians too by the way. There are (I assume) many among them who are capable of rational thought, who will engage openly and honestly with argument, who have the basic decency to not just ignore anything they find uncomfortable and instead repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

[ippy]

But there is no evidence of higher animals being able to consciously contemplate the reality behind their own existence.  Such ability is evidence of our apparently unique power to drive our own thought processes.  Trying to compare ourselves with other animals explains nothing about the source which drives our human thoughts and imagination.

You say Alan:
                    Trying to compare ourselves with other animals explains nothing about the source which drives our human thoughts and imagination.

Taking this sentence on its own I would say you've got this somewhere near right but knowing your good self I'll take a bet you'll be doing your best to insert a Mr Magic in there somewhere.

Why do you do this when you must be aware there is not a single piece of viable evidence anywhere that would come anywhere near to confirming that there's anything like this he she or it idea of something you like to refer to as a god?

If you do have some viable evidence for the existence of this god idea of yours why haven't you ever presented it here on this forum on this thread?

Doesn't it register with you that if someone, anyone did find some absolute, cast iron, solid evidence that proved the actual existence of this god idea of yours, it would almost set the world's media on fire on all outlets and it's unlikely we'd ever stop hearing about it morning noon and night.

Now I don't think you would mind me referring to you as being one of those people who would be more aware of this kind of a media explosion than most of the rest of the population doesn't the fact that there hasn't been a media explosion or revelation of the god proving kind, its never happened these facts stand there right in your way, in your path telling you something you probably already know but are reluctant to admit?

I wouldn't be what you call an atheist any more if you came up with viable evidence in support of this god idea of yours and I would think there would be quiet a few following me.

Commiserations Alan, ippy.

[Stranger]

But there is no evidence of higher animals being able to consciously contemplate the reality behind their own existence.  Such ability is evidence of our apparently unique power to drive our own thought processes.  Trying to compare ourselves with other animals explains nothing about the source which drives our human thoughts and imagination.

Says the guy who has yet to provide the slightest hint of any reason (incredulity aside) as to why he is going from our supposed "unique" abilities to the contradiction of not deterministic* and not random.

You said that was a "starting point" (premiss) yet none of those you are trying to convince accept it and you cannot offer any justification - hence any claim you make to "sound reasoning" is vacuous. Even if you could come up with a valid argument based on it (which you haven't), it would still not be sound.

* And please don't start the dishonesty about what "deterministic" means again.

[Alan Burns]

No, Alan - my comments are clearly aimed at your particular and bespoke brand of Christianity, with all its associated mindless theobollocks, since as far as I can see you are ploughing a lone furrow.

Absolutely wrong.
I witness to the existence of human free will.
I relate it to being sourced from the human soul.
The existence and power of human free will and the human soul is central to Christianity (and most other religions).

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Absolutely wrong.
I witness to the existence of human free will.

Wrong again. You can’t “witness to” something you’re unable to demonstrate exists (in the sense you mean it) in the first place.

I relate it to being sourced from the human soul.

No doubt you do, but that’s still an unqualified faith assertion (or, to use the vernacular, "theobollocks").

The esistence and power of human free will and the human soul is central to Christianity (and most other religions).

Perhaps, but either way that would still tell you nothing about whether such a logic- and evidence-denying conjecture was true.

[Stranger]

I witness to the existence of human free will.

You mean you assert a self-contradictory definition of it, then falsely claim you have "sound logic" to back it up but can come up with nothing but empty assertions, fallacies, and contradictions that tell us that you don't understand the first thing about logical reasoning.

In short, you make the whole idea look absurd.

I relate it to being sourced from the human soul.

You mean you just assert it.

The existence and power of human free will and the human soul is central to Christianity (and most other religions).

Your favourite superstition is not a substitute for evidence or reasoning.