Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

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).

Nope - this is you, Alan.

My experience of your fellow theists, even though I think they are all barking up the wrong tree, is that many of them are far more nuanced than you and they don't, for example, insist that there is ongoing interaction between supernatural agents and their biology every time they make a choice and then claim that this is beyond the realms of knowledge: this is your faith belief and you seem utterly unable to avoid conflating your faith belief with knowledge while, at the same time, you say your faith beliefs are out-of-scope as regards science - therefore your beliefs are confused and incoherent, and this is evidenced by all the reasoning errors you make.

I'm afraid to say, Alan, that you are inhabiting the same outer fringes of religiosity as those who contend the Earth is only 6,000 years old etc.

[ippy]

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).

Absolute nonsense Alan, you haven't at any time established that this soul you like to refer to actually exists, you would need to establish that this sole idea of yours is in fact a part of reality before it would make any of your, at the moment, pointless theobabble worth taking seriously.

Commiserations Alan, ippy.

[SusanDoris]

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.

Just when I think your posts could not possibly get any sillier, ore more daft, up comes one which indeed does just that. I don't know how anyone could stand being so obtuse and illogical etc.

[Gordon]

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

Being able to contemplate your own existence were you dropped into, say, Alaska in mid-winter wouldn't help you survive - being able to chase down bison might.
 

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

How do you know it is unique, Dr Doolittle? Even if it is, so what? I can't fly unaided, but of course I don't have the biology for it.
 

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

Then why do you do so?

Moreover, your 'source' may well be just biology doing what it does, so my brain supports my thoughts whereas my pancreas supports the regulation of my blood sugar - again, so what.

[torridon]

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.

So what ?  Is the ability to contemplate abstract concepts supposed to be some indicator of supernatural powers ? If that is what you think, explain why, show your reasoning so we can follow along.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

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

The fact that I am free to choose to witness is in itself a demonstration of the human free will you choose to deny.

[Alan Burns]

So what ?  Is the ability to contemplate abstract concepts supposed to be some indicator of supernatural powers ?

It is an indication that the conscious freedom we have to contemplate such abstract concepts is driven by something more than can be accomplished by physically controlled reactions alone.

[Alan Burns]

Nope - this is you, Alan.

My experience of your fellow theists, even though I think they are all barking up the wrong tree, is that many of them are far more nuanced than you and they don't, for example, insist that there is ongoing interaction between supernatural agents and their biology every time they make a choice and then claim that this is beyond the realms of knowledge: this is your faith belief and you seem utterly unable to avoid conflating your faith belief with knowledge while, at the same time, you say your faith beliefs are out-of-scope as regards science - therefore your beliefs are confused and incoherent, and this is evidenced by all the reasoning errors you make.

I'm afraid to say, Alan, that you are inhabiting the same outer fringes of religiosity as those who contend the Earth is only 6,000 years old etc.

No Gordon.
My contention is that the human free will considered essential by all Christian  believers is not compatible with the materialist views supported by non believers.  The materialist view that such free will does not exist has been profoundly supported my many posters on this thread.  However the fact is that the vast majority of people, believers and non believers alike, take the existence of their freedom to consciously choose as a fundamental reality beyond question.  I fully support this view that it is a fundamental reality - a reality which is indeed incompatible with an entirely material human brain driven only by inevitable physically controlled reactions.

[torridon]

It is an indication that the conscious freedom we have to contemplate such abstract concepts is driven by something more than can be accomplished by physically controlled reactions alone.

That is just reformulating your assertion as another assertion.  What evidence do you have to suggest that might be true ?  Explain why, show your reasoning so we can follow along.

[Gordon]

No Gordon.
My contention is that the human free will considered essential by all Christian  believers is not compatible with the materialist views supported by non believers.  The materialist view that such free will does not exist has been profoundly supported my many posters on this thread.  However the fact is that the vast majority of people, believers and non believers alike, take the existence of their freedom to consciously choose as a fundamental reality beyond question.  I fully support this view that it is a fundamental reality - a reality which is indeed incompatible with an entirely material human brain driven only by inevitable physically controlled reactions.

This is just you rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, Alan, and to continue with this analogy your contention (i.e. your bespoke take on 'free will') has long since been holed below the water-line but you've yet to observe that the ship is sinking.

Moreover, you continue misrepresent what others say to you: nobody denies that we can make choices, but these choices aren't 'free' in the incoherent sense that you use the term.

[Stranger]

The fact that I am free to choose to witness is in itself a demonstration of the human free will you choose to deny.

It is an indication that the conscious freedom we have to contemplate such abstract concepts is driven by something more than can be accomplished by physically controlled reactions alone.

You keep on making these bold assertions but when asked to back them up you are totally unable to do so. You have established no connection at all between experienced and observed human abilities and and your contradictory not deterministic* and not random claim.

So (apart from personal incredulity) what is the connection - where is your reasoning?

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

[Outrider]

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

No, that's begging the question 'is conscious act of will actually a thing'...

I fully agree that there is something which determines such an act of will, and it certainly is not random.

In which case, logically, it's dependent upon something - that something is, itself, a conclusion to prior events, and so on and so on.

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

You are merging two separate strings of argument here, both of which are valid, but when you merge them you lose some of the important distinctions.  One of those threads is whether everything in thought and consciousness is the result of physical activity, the other is whether the activity of thought and consciousness are somehow 'free will'.

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?

If there is, a case needs to be made for that conclusion - incredulity on your part about whether a purely physical explanation is sufficient isn't actually any sort of evidence in favour of this idea.  At best that just results in a 'it's impossible to say' conclusion.

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.

I'm not sure where you're going with this - to my mind, when we have a valid explanation that comports with our current understanding of physics, it's you citing unevidenced 'spiritual' components to consciousness that's ignoring the science.

The divinely inspired words from the Christian bible allude to our soul being not of this universe and existing in a timeless (eternal) state.

So much unevidenced assertion in there.  The (possibly) divinely inspired words from the (selectively edited) Christian Bible (of questionable initial veracity, even before the editing and poetic translations) allude (but not clearly state) to our soul (for which there's no evidence) being not of this universe (but without information of where it might be from) and existing in a timeless (we cannot parse a timeless existence; our entire conception of everything is evolved to exist in a mindscape where time is an inevitable reality) 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.

No, it wouldn't.  At best it would raise a possibility, but you'd need to establish some sort of allegory for physics that operates in that reality - how can a timeless state meaningfully interact with a time-dependent one, how can an entity 'do' anything where time isn't?  'Doing', activity of any sort, implies change, and without time you can't have change, because change is variation of state over a period of time.  A timeless state, on examination, is as ultimately incomprehensible to a human mind as concepts of god or spirit, we just don't have an intellectual framework in which to build such a notion.

O.

[Outrider]

My contention is that the human free will considered essential by all Christian  believers is not compatible with the materialist views supported by non believers.

Unfortunately, more fundamentally, it doesn't seem to be compatible with the evidence that those materialists base their understanding upon.

The materialist view that such free will does not exist has been profoundly supported my many posters on this thread.  However the fact is that the vast majority of people, believers and non believers alike, take the existence of their freedom to consciously choose as a fundamental reality beyond question.

Actually, I suspect the reality is that the vast majority of them don't question it to ever find out.

I fully support this view that it is a fundamental reality - a reality which is indeed incompatible with an entirely material human brain driven only by inevitable physically controlled reactions.

And you have that right... what you've not been able to do, though, is support that conclusion.  You still haven't actually supported that view in any meaningful way, all you've done is cite your incredulity about the materialist view.  You've not explained why a purely physical account of consciousness isn't viable without resorting to a claim of free will that you're trying to establish in the fist place; you've not been able to reconcile the fundamental clash between 'freedom' and 'will' without imagining timeless alternate realities* that just don't make any sense.

O.

* 'alternate realitites' for want of a better phrase; I appreciate that sounds dismissive, and that's not the intent, but I can't think of a better phrase to define the idea

[Stranger]

My contention is that the human free will considered essential by all Christian  believers is not compatible with the materialist views supported by non believers.

No, this is just misrepresentation - your definition of "free will" is not compatible with logic.

However the fact is that the vast majority of people, believers and non believers alike, take the existence of their freedom to consciously choose as a fundamental reality beyond question.

This is just an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

I fully support this view that it is a fundamental reality...

But can provide no evidence or reasoning to support it and have never been able to address its self-contradiction without lapsing into gibberish.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The fact that I am free to choose to witness is in itself a demonstration of the human free will you choose to deny.

Wrong for reasons that have been explained to you countless times, but in response to which you just stick your fingers in your ears and repeat the same idiocies.

AB: 2+2=5

Me: No it doesn’t, and here’s why.

AB: 2+2=5

Me: No it doesn’t, and here’s why.

AB: 2+2=5

Me: Look, I’ve just explained to you where you’ve gone wrong. Why haven’t you addressed the problem?

AB: I have addressed it, and 2+2=5

Me: You haven’t addressed it at all. What do you hope to achieve when you have no intention of discussing anything, and instead you just repeat the same unqualified assertions and wrong arguments to justify them?

AB: 2+2=5

Me: Do you even realise that repeatedly posting idiocies has no chance of converting anyone with a functioning intellect to your faith beliefs right?

AB: 2=2=5

Me: FFS!

[Alan Burns]

No, it wouldn't.  At best it would raise a possibility, but you'd need to establish some sort of allegory for physics that operates in that reality - how can a timeless state meaningfully interact with a time-dependent one, how can an entity 'do' anything where time isn't?  'Doing', activity of any sort, implies change, and without time you can't have change, because change is variation of state over a period of time.  A timeless state, on examination, is as ultimately incomprehensible to a human mind as concepts of god or spirit, we just don't have an intellectual framework in which to build such a notion.

O.

I agree that a timeless state is difficult to comprehend.  But so is a conscious state.  Our conscious state gives us awareness of time, and awareness of information, but such awareness proves very elusive when trying to define it in material terms.  The only way it makes sense to me is to see my conscious awareness as a window into this material world, and the entity of awareness, which is me, exists outside the window.  I have an awareness of time as a spectator, but I exist as an ever present conscious entity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I agree that a timeless state is difficult to comprehend.  But so is a conscious state.  Our conscious state gives us awareness of time, and awareness of information, but such awareness proves very elusive when trying to define it in material terms.  The only way it makes sense to me is to see my conscious awareness as a window into this material world, and the entity of awareness, which is me, exists outside the window.  I have an awareness of time as a spectator, but I exist as an ever present conscious entity.

That’s nice for you. Do you have any arguments that aren’t logically wrong to justify that belief? On the assumption that you haven’t, why should anyone else to take the claim seriously?

[Gordon]

I agree that a timeless state is difficult to comprehend.

I'd say it was near impossible, but even if you could it would bear no relationship to anyone's experience (since the whole rigmarole began).
 

But so is a conscious state.

No it isn't - I'm doing it now, since being conscious helps enormously: whether my comprehension is sufficiently comprehensive is another matter entirely.
 

Our conscious state gives us awareness of time, and awareness of information, but such awareness proves very elusive when trying to define it in material terms.

No it doesn't - I've just finished a can of Guinness and I'm going to have another because I like Guinness and I feel I want another.
 

The only way it makes sense to me is to see my conscious awareness as a window into this material world, and the entity of awareness, which is me, exists outside the window.  I have an awareness of time as a spectator, but I exist as an ever present conscious entity.

That is just you, Alan, and we already know your reasoning has been screwed-up by your odd suite of religious beliefs - have a Guinness, old chap. 

[Stranger]

No, it wouldn't.  At best it would raise a possibility, but you'd need to establish some sort of allegory for physics that operates in that reality - how can a timeless state meaningfully interact with a time-dependent one, how can an entity 'do' anything where time isn't?  'Doing', activity of any sort, implies change, and without time you can't have change, because change is variation of state over a period of time.  A timeless state, on examination, is as ultimately incomprehensible to a human mind as concepts of god or spirit, we just don't have an intellectual framework in which to build such a notion.

O.

I agree that a timeless state is difficult to comprehend.  But so is a conscious state.  Our conscious state gives us awareness of time, and awareness of information, but such awareness proves very elusive when trying to define it in material terms.  The only way it makes sense to me is to see my conscious awareness as a window into this material world, and the entity of awareness, which is me, exists outside the window.  I have an awareness of time as a spectator, but I exist as an ever present conscious entity.

It would be utterly hilarious if it weren't so terribly sad.

Over the last few days, it's been shown that you have no clue about what "sound logic" (that you claimed) actually entails, and, to the extent the concept has managed sink in to that part of your mind that hasn't been totally atrophied by blind faith, your only stated "starting point" or premiss is actually one of your main claims (choices being not deterministic* and no randomness). And it's not as if you've even managed to produce a valid argument from that (hopelessly flawed) premiss.

Do you show any glimmering of self-awareness (oh, the irony!) of how utterly out of your depth you are? No, you've just scuttled back to your tiny comfort zone of mindlessly repeating your logic- and evidence-free script as if nothing had happened. So here we have you (yet again) quoting a post and then totally ignoring its content in favour of repeating the trite, meaningless nonsense that has been addressed countless times before.

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

[ippy]

I agree that a timeless state is difficult to comprehend.  But so is a conscious state.  Our conscious state gives us awareness of time, and awareness of information, but such awareness proves very elusive when trying to define it in material terms.  The only way it makes sense to me is to see my conscious awareness as a window into this material world, and the entity of awareness, which is me, exists outside the window.  I have an awareness of time as a spectator, but I exist as an ever present conscious entity.


It would be utterly hilarious if it weren't so terribly sad.

Over the last few days, it's been shown that you have no clue about what "sound logic" (that you claimed) actually entails, and, to the extent the concept has managed sink in to that part of your mind that hasn't been totally atrophied by blind faith, your only stated "starting point" or premiss is actually one of your main claims (choices being not deterministic* and no randomness). And it's not as if you've even managed to produce a valid argument from that (hopelessly flawed) premiss.

Do you show any glimmering of self-awareness (oh, the irony!) of how utterly out of your depth you are? No, you've just scuttled back to your tiny comfort zone of mindlessly repeating your logic- and evidence-free script as if nothing had happened. So here we have you (yet again) quoting a post and then totally ignoring its content in favour of repeating the trite, meaningless nonsense that has been addressed countless times before.

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

It shows the power of indoctrination inflicted on pre seven year old children has over their whole lives, there are a few that get away from the usual religious nonsense but I'd put my money on at least two examples on this forum that are lifelong cases of how effective indoctrination can be.

ippy

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Wrong for reasons that have been explained to you countless times, but in response to which you just stick your fingers in your ears and repeat the same idiocies.

AB: 2+2=5

Me: No it doesn’t, and here’s why.

AB: 2+2=5

Me: No it doesn’t, and here’s why.

AB: 2+2=5

Me: Look, I’ve just explained to you where you’ve gone wrong. Why haven’t you addressed the problem?

AB: I have addressed it, and 2+2=5

Me: You haven’t addressed it at all. What do you hope to achieve when you have no intention of discussing anything, and instead you just repeat the same unqualified assertions and wrong arguments to justify them?

AB: 2+2=5

Me: Do you even realise that repeatedly posting idiocies has no chance of converting anyone with a functioning intellect to your faith beliefs right?

AB: 2=2=5

Me: FFS!

I do appreciate your efforts, Blue, but no amount of theorising can possibly take away the reality of my freedom to drive my own thoughts.  Can you not see that for an accusation of personal incredulity to be true, the accused must have the personal freedom to assert such incredulity?

[torridon]

I do appreciate your efforts, Blue, but no amount of theorising can possibly take away the reality of my freedom to drive my own thoughts.  Can you not see that for an accusation of personal incredulity to be true, the accused must have the personal freedom to assert such incredulity?

That freedom is circumstantial.  I am also free, to write, look, I am writing some words now, and I am free in that since nobody is stopping me from writing currently.  That freedom is circumstantial, it is not some supernatural power I am exercising.  But I am not free in the sense that i am free from the limits of my cognition, memory, capabilities.  I only get to choose words that come to me and that set is bounded and defined by my personal experience to date and although I can choose words within that set, that choice, again, is resolved by preferences and tastes that are themselves products of my experience of life to date. To be free of past experience would result in random word choice and this post would be essentially meaningless, either to me, or to you.  You cannot disconnect yourself from the past, the past has constituted you to be what you are right now and it is only in this context that our lives can have meaning.  Your concept of free will would divorce us from relevant context and leave us all as null beings with no reason to choose one way or the other.

[Stranger]

I do appreciate your efforts, Blue, but no amount of theorising can possibly take away the reality of my freedom to drive my own thoughts.  Can you not see that for an accusation of personal incredulity to be true, the accused must have the personal freedom to assert such incredulity?

So just asserting that 2+2=5 again.

Childish foot-stamping, sticking your fingers in your ears, and repeating the same silly assertions and dimwitted questions, is not logic, let alone sound logic. Are you going to at least acknowledge that you have none?

[Alan Burns]

That freedom is circumstantial.  I am also free, to write, look, I am writing some words now, and I am free in that since nobody is stopping me from writing currently.  That freedom is circumstantial, it is not some supernatural power I am exercising.  But I am not free in the sense that i am free from the limits of my cognition, memory, capabilities.  I only get to choose words that come to me and that set is bounded and defined by my personal experience to date and although I can choose words within that set, that choice, again, is resolved by preferences and tastes that are themselves products of my experience of life to date. To be free of past experience would result in random word choice and this post would be essentially meaningless, either to me, or to you.  You cannot disconnect yourself from the past, the past has constituted you to be what you are right now and it is only in this context that our lives can have meaning.  Your concept of free will would divorce us from relevant context and leave us all as null beings with no reason to choose one way or the other.

I am not disconnected from the past.  I am consciously aware of the past, but the past does not control me.  I am free to contemplate, to think, to discover, to explore, to choose, to pray, to create, to discuss, to imagine  … .  To try to define such freedom within the context of physically defined reactions is an impossible task, because any physical explanation would deny such freedom.  Such consciously driven freedom cannot exist within endless chains of physical reactions.

[Stranger]

I am not disconnected from the past.  I am consciously aware of the past, but the past does not control me.  I am free to contemplate, to think, to discover, to explore, to choose, to pray, to create, to discuss, to imagine  … .

Dishonest misrepresentation. Your mental abilities are not being denied.

To try to define such freedom within the context of physically defined reactions is an impossible task, because any physical explanation would deny such freedom.  Such consciously driven freedom cannot exist within endless chains of physical reactions.

More dishonest misrepresentation (yet again) of a logical problem as if it were a physical one and more pointless repetition of baseless, reasoning-free assertions.

Come on Alan, at least have the basic honesty to apologise for claiming to have "sound logic".