Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

And if you want something else to be considered you need to justify why; we justify accepting evidence of the physical because it has been shown to be consistently replicable, and because it can be investigated to confirm or refute hypotheses; we justify logic because it proceeds inevitably and inescapably from premise to conclusion.  If you want to posit another stream of evidence or proof that's fine, but without some justification for accepting it its just postulation.

If the reality we perceive has no feasible physical explanation, then it is justifiable to consider the options of there being a non physical explanation, or that our perceived reality is an illusion.

The perceived reality in question is our freedom to consciously choose to direct our thoughts and actions according to our will.  If you consciously deduce that such freedom must be a logical impossibility, then you must presume that the conscious deduction itself was not freely driven from your awareness, but entirely driven by past events beyond your control.

If your perceived freedom to consciously choose to direct your thoughts is a reality, then you must consider the possibility that your presumption of it being a logical impossibility was wrong.

And you must consider whether such deductions are possible without consciously driven freedom to control events in your brain, rather than rely on their being a reaction to past events.

I disagree. In the mind-boggling complexity of the human mind's algorithmic development - both individual and evolutionarily - I can't imagine the hubris needed to suggest that isn't capable of any piece of imagination or creativity.  The complexity of the interconnections and feedback mechanisms and hormonal variations and multi-faceted influences of the neural network in our brain is almost infinitely more complicated than any individual piece of creativity would require.

No amount of complexity in a material object can take away the fact that an end result will be a reaction to previous events.  Is it feasible for all human works of art and creativity and exploration and investigative abilities to be reactions to past events?  And there is another question about the feasibility of such unfathomable complexity being generated from billions of apparently random mutations without any purposeful guidance, other than the concept of a survival filter.

The point of logic is that it doesn't require specific knowledge it follows deductively.  It's not a constraint of  the physical world that makes it illogical, it's the conflicting requirements of something being both will and free - the two cannot co-exist.  Free is random, otherwise the constraints placed upon it make it not free, and as soon as it's random it's no longer will.  Unless you can somehow conceive of a third option between random and determined by prior events?  If you can, you get to show the flaw in the logic, but if you can't then that's where you argument falls over.  You can claim that there might be a third path, but we don't need to know what it is, we need to know how it works logically to be both non-random and non-determined.

The whole question is not about determined vs random.  Our conscious will is not random
It is a question of what determines our will.

Can an event in your brain be determined from your current state of mind by the power of your conscious will?
Or are all events determined by past events, making them inevitable reactions.

The latter is the only option in any physically driven material scenario.
The former is entirely dependent on the nature and workings of our conscious human mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If the reality we perceive has no feasible physical explanation, then it is justifiable to consider the options of there being a non physical explanation, or that our perceived reality is an illusion.

First it has a “feasible physical explanation”. Second, even if it didn’t there’s no more reason to dismiss the “illusion” option than there is to dismiss the “illusion” of fingers touching the keys. Third, if you want to post a “non physical explanation” then you have a massive task to define, demonstrate and justify this supposed non-physical BEFORE you start populating it with phenomena.     

The perceived reality in question is our freedom to consciously choose to direct our thoughts and actions according to our will.  If you consciously deduce that such freedom must be a logical impossibility, then you must presume that the conscious deduction itself was not freely driven from your awareness, but entirely driven by past events beyond your control.

Apart from your implied mistake about what “you” consists of, effectively yes.

If your perceived freedom to consciously choose to direct your thoughts is a reality, then you must consider the possibility that your presumption of it being a logical impossibility was wrong.

No, you just have to accept that the word “perceived” means simply and only that – perceived. We perceive all sorts of truths and realities that more considered investigation tell us fail as explanations. There’s no reason to exclude the workaday perception of free will from that paradigm. 

And you must consider whether such deductions are possible without consciously driven freedom to control events in your brain, rather than rely on their being a reaction to past events.

Not without good reason to consider that there isn’t

No amount of complexity in a material object can take away the fact that an end result will be a reaction to previous events.

No-one denies that.

Is it feasible for all human works of art and creativity and exploration and investigative abilities to be reactions to past events?

Yes. Why wouldn’t it be given the complexity of the prior events?

And there is another question about the feasibility of such unfathomable complexity being generated from billions of apparently random mutations without any purposeful guidance, other than the concept of a survival filter.

What question? All you’re parading here is your incredulity – a very bad argument as you’ve been told countless times (but you’ve repeated nonetheless).

The whole question is not about determined vs random.

Yes it is.

Our conscious will is not random

Then it’s determined.

It is a question of what determines our will.

The unfathomably complex and interacting prior events that enabled the emergent property of consciousness.

Can an event in your brain be determined from your current state of mind by the power of your conscious will?

Gibberish.

Or are all events determined by past events, making them inevitable reactions.

Effectively yes.

The latter is the only option in any physically driven material scenario.

Yep.

The former is entirely dependent on the nature and workings of our conscious human mind.

No, the former is incoherent. There are complex feedback loops between the conscious and the subconscious (the combination of which comprises “you”) but that’s no reason to take seriously claims of invisible little creatures at the controls operating outside logical constraints by using magic/miracles.

[Outrider]

If the reality we perceive has no feasible physical explanation, then it is justifiable to consider the options of there being a non physical explanation, or that our perceived reality is an illusion.

Except that, if your position is that the current physical explanation isn't feasible then you have two possibilities with no current evidence for them, and have to wait for further information.  Meanwhile any number of people who make this study their life's work are perfectly content that the observed phenomena are explicable by the complex interaction of the physical systems they study - you aren't demonstrating that this is infeasible, you're telling us that you can't accept that explanation, and those are two very different things.  I don't accept the claim that there's a god, but I can't disprove the idea, I have to retain a degree of agnosticism about the issue, because my incredulity isn't an argument against the idea.

The perceived reality in question is our freedom to consciously choose to direct our thoughts and actions according to our will.

The perception of reality is just that, a perception - upon investigation and inspection, the evidence suggests that our perception is wrong.

If you consciously deduce that such freedom must be a logical impossibility, then you must presume that the conscious deduction itself was not freely driven from your awareness, but entirely driven by past events beyond your control.

Ultimately, yes.

If your perceived freedom to consciously choose to direct your thoughts is a reality, then you must consider the possibility that your presumption of it being a logical impossibility was wrong.

Evidently.

And you must consider whether such deductions are possible without consciously driven freedom to control events in your brain, rather than rely on their being a reaction to past events.

Why?  Has anyone shown that deduction requires free will?  I don't see how that follows.

No amount of complexity in a material object can take away the fact that an end result will be a reaction to previous events.

Right.

Is it feasible for all human works of art and creativity and exploration and investigative abilities to be reactions to past events?

Absolutely.

And there is another question about the feasibility of such unfathomable complexity being generated from billions of apparently random mutations without any purposeful guidance, other than the concept of a survival filter.

There really isn't that much of a question, any more.  Historically there was, but we've gathered enough supporting evidence for the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as to effectively make it a fact.

The whole question is not about determined vs random.  Our conscious will is not random. It is a question of what determines our will.

It is that exact question.  Any decision at our operational level - conversation, appreciation of art, watching a television show - any conscious activity is going to be a conglomerate of a number of individual thought processes, 'decisions' if you will of individual elements (to my mind, individual neurons firing or not firing, but you have a different model).  Each of those elements is either the inevitable reaction to a stimulus based on its status at the time, or it's independent of those stimuli and status.  It's either determined or random.  Our overall performance could, in theory, be a mixture of the two, but you want some third path that can diverge from prior events without being random, and that doesn't make sense.

If you want that third path you have to describe how that works, how something is not determined but not random - what else is there?

Can an event in your brain be determined from your current state of mind by the power of your conscious will?

Via measurement equipment, yes, but only after the fact.

Or are all events determined by past events, making them inevitable reactions.

That's the logical deduction, based upon the evidence available.

The latter is the only option in any physically driven material scenario.

And we currently have nothing to suggest another scenario is either more likely or in any way necessary.  Even if you somehow destroy the model of neurology that says consciousness is a product of the physical brain you've still not done anything to support any other model or to escape the inherent contradiction of free and will.

O.

[Stranger]

If the reality we perceive has no feasible physical explanation, then it is justifiable to consider the options of there being a non physical explanation, or that our perceived reality is an illusion.

The perceived reality in question is our freedom to consciously choose to direct our thoughts and actions according to our will.  If you consciously deduce that such freedom must be a logical impossibility, then you must presume that the conscious deduction itself was not freely driven from your awareness, but entirely driven by past events beyond your control.

If your perceived freedom to consciously choose to direct your thoughts is a reality, then you must consider the possibility that your presumption of it being a logical impossibility was wrong.

And you must consider whether such deductions are possible without consciously driven freedom to control events in your brain, rather than rely on their being a reaction to past events.

You are setting up a totally false dilemma - and completely ignoring the actual logic of the situation.

No matter how you cut it, "freedom", in the sense of "I could have done differently", means randomness. In other words, the ability to have done differently contradicts any possible notion of being able to "consciously choose to direct our thoughts and actions according to our will". In order for you to have a will, it must be for reasons and if those reasons were exactly the same and you could still have done differently, then your will means nothing - it must be swayed by total randomness.

No amount of complexity in a material object can take away the fact that an end result will be a reaction to previous events.

Actually this is nonsense. The question of whether the physical world it deterministic is open.

No amount of baseless assertion and idiotic non-logic can change the fact that if something is not a "reaction to previous events", it involves randomness.

Is it feasible for all human works of art and creativity and exploration and investigative abilities to be reactions to past events?

Yes.

And there is another question about the feasibility of such unfathomable complexity being generated from billions of apparently random mutations without any purposeful guidance, other than the concept of a survival filter.

Seriously?

The whole question is not about determined vs random.  Our conscious will is not random
It is a question of what determines our will.

For fuck's sake Alan, not again! It is about determinism (not being able to have done differently) versus random and, unless you come up with something coherent as a third option, the contradiction stands.

Why can't you at least have the basic honesty to stop trying to twist the language?

If you could have done differently in exactly the same circumstance and state of mind, there can be no reason why, so the difference can only be random.

Can an event in your brain be determined from your current state of mind by the power of your conscious will?
Or are all events determined by past events, making them inevitable reactions.

If you mean you meaningless gibberish about a timeless "present", then because it's still meaningless gibberish.

If you accept that the "current state of mind" got there entirely because of past events, you have given no reason at all why it can't be both.

The latter is the only option in any physically driven material scenario.

It's actually the only option in any self-consistent reality at all - and should you actually manage to find a logically self-consistent alternative, then, unless you are claiming omniscience, that could be "physically driven" too.

We continue to wait in vein for any hint of a meaningful set of premises, that reasonable people would accept, and a logically valid argument to get you to your conclusion.

You said you had sound logic, were you just lying? Where is it?

[Stranger]

If the reality we perceive has no feasible physical explanation...

Just to emphasise this point. Are you claiming to be omniscient? Are you actually claiming to be god?

If not, and you therefore, like the rest of us, don't know everything that there is to know about the physical world, how can you possibly conclude that something has "no feasible physical explanation"?

How do you tell the difference between some unknown physical process and "no feasible physical explanation"?

Even if you could manage to find a logically coherent way out of the determinism versus random problem, your conclusion still wouldn't follow.

You premises are contradictory and your "argument" isn't even valid.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Stranger,

Just to emphasise this point. Are you claiming to be omniscient? Are you actually claiming to be god?

If not, and you therefore, like the rest of us, don't know everything that there is to know about the physical world, how can you possibly conclude that something has "no feasible physical explanation"?

How do you tell the difference between some unknown physical process and "no feasible physical explanation"?

Quite. I’ve explained this to him several times, though predictably he just ignores the explanation. His “argument” is identical a Norseman telling us there’s no feasible explanation for thunder, therefore Thor. This basic error in reasoning seems to trouble him not at all though.

[torridon]

The whole question is not about determined vs random.  Our conscious will is not random
It is a question of what determines our will.

Can an event in your brain be determined from your current state of mind by the power of your conscious will?
Or are all events determined by past events, making them inevitable reactions.

The latter is the only option in any physically driven material scenario.
The former is entirely dependent on the nature and workings of our conscious human mind.

Can you 'will' your brain to do something it would not otherwise do ?  Give an example

[Alan Burns]

Today is ash Wednesday.  The first day of Lent.  Lent is a period in which many Christians freely choose to give up some of the things they normally enjoy doing.  It is a valid demonstration of our unique freedom to make consciously driven choices determined by an act of will, not driven by past events beyond our conscious control.

[Stranger]

Quite. I’ve explained this to him several times, though predictably he just ignores the explanation. His “argument” is identical a Norseman telling us there’s no feasible explanation for thunder, therefore Thor. This basic error in reasoning seems to trouble him not at all though.

I think that, amongst so, so many other things (like the basics of logic) he doesn't get the distinction between logically self-consistent, physically feasible, and what he can understand.

It's like "it seems to me like I'm not just acting because of the past and it isn't random, I can't imagine how that can be, so it must need magical miracles, and therefore not physical". Thus failing to get either that there may be more the the physical than he can imagine or that the reason he can't imagine it might be because it's logically impossible.

[Walter]

Today is ash Wednesday.  The first day of Lent.  Lent is a period in which many Christians freely choose to give up some of the things they normally enjoy doing.  It is a valid demonstration of our unique freedom to make consciously driven choices determined by an act of will, not driven by past events beyond our conscious control.

AB

 can YOU freely choose to give up Christianity?

[Stranger]

Today is ash Wednesday.  The first day of Lent.  Lent is a period in which many Christians freely choose to give up some of the things they normally enjoy doing.

That much is true.

It is a valid demonstration of our unique freedom to make consciously driven choices determined by an act of will, not driven by past events beyond our conscious control.

Still no hint of a reason from you as to why it can't be both - and still no hint of the "sound logic" you claimed to have.

How about giving up dishonesty, pretence, and misrepresentation for Lent?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Today is ash Wednesday.  The first day of Lent.  Lent is a period in which many Christians freely choose to give up some of the things they normally enjoy doing.  It is a valid demonstration of our unique freedom to make consciously driven choices determined by an act of will, not driven by past events beyond our conscious control.

No, it's just a demonstration of our perception of free will. As you're clearly not here to discuss anything and you won't post in the faith sharing area where you belong you're trolling. Stop trolling.

[torridon]

Today is ash Wednesday.  The first day of Lent.  Lent is a period in which many Christians freely choose to give up some of the things they normally enjoy doing.  It is a valid demonstration of our unique freedom to make consciously driven choices determined by an act of will, not driven by past events beyond our conscious control.

The 'freely' above merely refers to the absence of external constraint.   That does not require supernatural powers. People who give things up for Lent do so because they wish to, ie this is perfectly consistent with a deterministic account of mind. Everyone acts on their uppermost desire.  What you need to demonstrate is how we can be 'free' of that.

[ekim]

Today is ash Wednesday.  The first day of Lent.  Lent is a period in which many Christians freely choose to give up some of the things they normally enjoy doing.  It is a valid demonstration of our unique freedom to make consciously driven choices determined by an act of will, not driven by past events beyond our conscious control.

... but that decision is attached to the doctrine of Lent which has its roots in the past and is therefor not free from the past.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No, it's just a demonstration of our perception of free will. As you're clearly not here to discuss anything and you won't post in the faith sharing area where you belong you're trolling. Stop trolling.

I have to confess my ignorance - I have no idea what "trolling" means.  No doubt someone can explain.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have to confess my ignorance - I have no idea what "trolling" means.  No doubt someone can explain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

[Alan Burns]

... but that decision is attached to the doctrine of Lent which has its roots in the past and is therefor not free from the past.

Of course my Lenten observance is not free from the past.
I am consciously aware of the doctrines of the past, and I am consciously aware that I am not controlled by them.
I am consciously aware of several things which I enjoy doing and which I can choose to give up, and I am consciously aware that the choice is mine to make.
It is all determined by my conscious will acting from within my conscious awareness. The concept of it all happening within my subconscious brain activity is not a realistic option.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Of course my Lenten observance is not free from the past.
I am consciously aware of the doctrines of the past, and I am consciously aware that I am not controlled by them.
I am consciously aware of several things which I enjoy doing and which I can choose to give up, and I am consciously aware that the choice is mine to make.
It is all determined by my conscious will acting from within my conscious awareness. The concept of it all happening within my subconscious brain activity is not a realistic option.

It’s not “all”, and why not?

[Stranger]

Of course my Lenten observance is not free from the past.
I am consciously aware of the doctrines of the past, and I am consciously aware that I am not controlled by them.
I am consciously aware of several things which I enjoy doing and which I can choose to give up, and I am consciously aware that the choice is mine to make.
It is all determined by my conscious will acting from within my conscious awareness. The concept of it all happening within my subconscious brain activity is not a realistic option.

Perhaps repeating this foolish mantra to yourself provides you with some sort of personal comfort, but publicly repeating it over and over again, when its contradictions, absurdities, and obvious misunderstandings have been pointed out countless times and you continue to totally ignore them, just makes you look like an idiot.

You said you had sound logic. What you have posted isn't even valid, were you just lying?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

So you are accusing me of "aiming to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community"

Can I remind you that this is one of the Christian topics which is entitled "Searching for God".  The aim of my posting on this thread is simply to remove some of the false barriers which prevent many people from even starting to search for God.  You will no doubt claim that (in your opinion) I have failed in my quest to remove such barriers, but this is not for the want of trying.  I at least hope that I have given some food for thought to those who may genuinely wish to begin a search for God but find it difficult.  And I will continue to do what I genuinely believe God wants me to do - simply witness to the truth of His existence, and to the evidence of our own spiritual nature which allows us the freedom to seek the truth.

[torridon]

Of course my Lenten observance is not free from the past.
I am consciously aware of the doctrines of the past, and I am consciously aware that I am not controlled by them.
I am consciously aware of several things which I enjoy doing and which I can choose to give up, and I am consciously aware that the choice is mine to make.
It is all determined by my conscious will acting from within my conscious awareness. The concept of it all happening within my subconscious brain activity is not a realistic option.

So, how does your conscious will resolve the choice ? What is the principle ?

[torridon]

So you are accusing me of "aiming to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community"

Can I remind you that this is one of the Christian topics which is entitled "Searching for God".  The aim of my posing on this thread is simply to remove some of the false barriers which prevent many people from even starting to search for God.  You will no doubt claim that (in your opinion) I have failed in my quest to remove such barriers, but this is not for the want of trying.  I at least hope that I have given some food for thought to those who may genuinely wish to begin a search for God but find it difficult.  And I will continue to do what I genuinely believe God wants me to do - simply witness to the truth of His existence, and to the evidence of our own spiritual nature which allows us the freedom to seek the truth.

If God wanted to witness to the truth of His existence, he could and should take that on himself.  You are just a human, like the rest of us, merely arguing your corner, like the rest of us.  You don't have any powers and you are just as likely to be flawed in your understanding as the next man or woman.

[ekim]

Of course my Lenten observance is not free from the past.
I am consciously aware of the doctrines of the past, and I am consciously aware that I am not controlled by them.
I am consciously aware of several things which I enjoy doing and which I can choose to give up, and I am consciously aware that the choice is mine to make.
It is all determined by my conscious will acting from within my conscious awareness. The concept of it all happening within my subconscious brain activity is not a realistic option.

OK, so you admit to being attached to observances related to the past which indicates that your will (intention to act or not act) is not free in this instance.  Now perhaps you could say why you would choose to give up something you enjoy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So you are accusing me of "aiming to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community"

Some of that, yes. This is supposed to be a discussion board – why do you refuse point blank to discuss anything?

Can I remind you that this is one of the Christian topics which is entitled "Searching for God".

Can I remind you that this is a discussion area, not a faith sharing area?

The aim of my posing on this thread is simply to remove some of the false barriers which prevent many people from even starting to search for God.

Then perhaps you should start by demonstrating that some of those barrier are false, rather than just asserting them to be so with no coherent argument of any kind to justify the claim.

You will no doubt claim that (in your opinion) I have failed in my quest to remove such barriers, but this is not for the want of trying.

Yes it is. If you can’t show these “barriers” to be false to start with, how do you expect to remove them?

I at least hope that I have given some food for thought to those who may genuinely wish to begin a search for God but find it difficult.

Perhaps you have. Sadly though you’ve given no food for thought to anyone possessed of a functioning intellect who wants to know whether you can justify the assertion “God” in the first place.

And I will continue to do what I genuinely believe God wants me to do - simply witness to the truth of His existence, and to the evidence of our own spiritual nature which allows us the freedom to seek the truth.

Then you will continue to troll because you have no intention of discussing anything. Making assertions with no reasoning to justify them, or sometimes attempting reasoning that’s immediately falsified and then ignoring the falsifications isn’t “witnessing” anything – it’s just behaving dishonestly. Why not try at least to redeem yourself and instead of ignoring the falsifications you’re given finally attempt to engage with them?

[Stranger]

Can I remind you that this is one of the Christian topics which is entitled "Searching for God".  The aim of my posing on this thread is simply to remove some of the false barriers which prevent many people from even starting to search for God.

So, you think claiming to have "sound logic" when you clearly hadn't been arsed to even find out what that meant, misrepresenting or totally ignoring the arguments against you, mindlessly repeating the same points that have been addressed countless times before, and basically demonstrating to the world that you are yet another totally clueless and arrogant theist who can't grasp the basics of rational argument or evidence and won't even try (despite the grand claims of having a "logical analysis"), is removing "barriers which prevent many people from even starting to search for God", do you?

Is that a joke?

And that's before we get to the total absurdity of the idea of a just and fair god who requires us to search for it in the first place, which is yet another point you've done nothing but avoid.

If you actually want to remove barriers, don't you think that having basic human decency and honesty in discussion would be a good start? Aren't you supposed to be saying that your way is better than we can expect of ordinary human fallibility? Why can't you even engage in a discussion in an honest and straightforward way?