Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You and I are the verifiable evidence.

No, "you and I" are facts. To be evidence for something you need to show how the fact leads to a conclusion.

As NS (robustly) said, you really should stop raping the word "evidence".

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You and I are the verifiable evidence.

How are you and I verifiable evidence for the existence of Allah?

[Roses]

You and I are the verifiable evidence.

Now that is one of your crazier statements!

[Alan Burns]

How are you and I verifiable evidence for the existence of Allah?

I know enough about myself, my existence, my conscious awareness, my capabilities, my unfathomable complexity, my freedom …  to know beyond any doubt that I am not an unintended consequence of the unguided forces of nature.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I know enough about myself, my existence, my conscious awareness, my capabilities, my unfathomable complexity, my freedom …  to know beyond any doubt that I am not an unintended consequence of the unguided forces of nature.

No doubt you believe that to be true, no matter how unqualified the assertion. The question you were asked and avoided though was HOW you know that. In other words, what sound reasoning do you have to justify the assertion?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I know enough about myself, my existence, my conscious awareness, my capabilities, my unfathomable complexity, my freedom …  to know beyond any doubt that I am not an unintended consequence of the unguided forces of nature.

Therefore, because of all those reasons..... Allah?

[Alan Burns]

Therefore, because of all those reasons..... Allah?

I would say "Creator"

[Roses]

I would say "Creator"

Just supposing there was some form of creator, it is highly unlikely to be anything like the Biblical god. That entity appears to be a very human creation with all the worst human characteristics.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No doubt you believe that to be true, no matter how unqualified the assertion. The question you were asked and avoided though was HOW you know that. In other words, what sound reasoning do you have to justify the assertion?

Well, for a start, the fact that I have the conscious freedom to make these so called "assertions" is evidence.  But I know you deny such freedom exists and choose to imply that it is all just some form of "experience" of freedom, which is where we must agree to differ.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I would say "Creator"

Yes, we know you would. You keep telling us. That an assertion of a WHAT. What you’re being asked though is a HOW question: HOW do you justify the assertion you keep giving us about WHAT you believe?

Would it help if I explained to you the difference between “what” and “how” perhaps?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Well, for a start, the fact that I have the conscious freedom to make these so called "assertions" is evidence.

No it isn't - its just an assertion. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that for a fact to be evidence for an explanation you need some connecting logic between them? 

But I know you deny such freedom exists and choose to imply that it is all just some form of "experience" of freedom...

It's not that I deny it, it's that the only available reasoning and evidence denies it. Rather than engage with that reasoning and evidence though, you just repeat the same asserted denial over and over again as if in some way that constitutes an argument. It doesn't though. Not even close. 

...which is where we must agree to differ

Just as if you say that rainbows are caused by the reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in water droplets resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky and I say over and over again "it's leprechauns" we must agree to differ too.

And that's the problem with the dishonest stupidity you keep essaying here: I can justify my beliefs with sound reasoning; you can't.

[Stranger]

Well, for a start, the fact that I have the conscious freedom to make these so called "assertions" is evidence.

So you keep stamping your little foot and baselessly asserting.

I'll ask for about the 30,000th time: in what way is anything you do (let alone your silly assertions) evidence for your contradictory notion of "freedom" (could have done differently and no randomness)? How do you resolve the contradiction?

Where is the "sound logic" you claimed to have, or will you at last admit that you have none?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I would say "Creator"

So getting to what I interpret as the point of this thread - some theists say they can sense some kind of internal feeling of a Creator and that is their subjective evidence for buying into the idea of a Creator/ intelligent designer/ First Cause that has influence on the rest of the world we perceive and sense.

Presumably people who don't have this internal feeling or desire to believe in a Creator cannot summon a desire to believe by some kind of act of will. 

Based on the idea of cause and effect, there must have been a cause for this feeling but no one actually knows what mix of circumstances caused a theist to have this internal feeling and interpret it the way they did. Maybe there could be a theist came across an Alan and found him convincing - who knows. Those theists who profess this idea don't choose to have this internal feeling - and depending on your perspective the feeling is because of some combination of nature/nurture/ randomness in the brain or the feeling is due to the Holy Spirit or in Islam Nūr (Arabic: النور‎)) or the soul or some other word depending on your geographical location. It all becomes very circular as you cannot control the interpretation - is the reason for the interpretation due to nature/nurture/ randomness in the brain or due to the Holy Spirit or in Islam Nūr (Arabic: النور‎)) or the soul or some other word depending on your geographical location.

And assuming theists can't choose a desire to deny this feeling because of the argument put forward here that people can't choose their desires; and assuming theists can't choose how they perceive and interpret this feeling because the desire to perceive it as a Creator seems to be the uppermost  desire produced by the sub-conscious brain; and assuming some theists can't choose to not express this belief on this forum because the desire to express it in this particular section of this message board seems to be the uppermost desire that their cognitive brain has identified from the mass of desires thrown up by the sub-conscious mind.....what are we arguing about again?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just say it. Really, just say it. Look, I’ll help you: “OK, after a period of reflection I now realise that I Alan Burns have no sound arguments of any kind to justify my religious beliefs, either to myself or to anyone else. Nonetheless I believe them to be true, and moreover I will assert them to others too”.

Do you know, I reckon you might actually feel better for embracing a sudden outbreak of honesty. Endlessly avoiding questions, misrepresenting what others say, making the same mistakes of fact and logic and then repeating them over and over again must be such a weight on your shoulders – imagine if that were lifted at a stroke just by doing the right thing!

You’re welcome.

[Alan Burns]

It's not that I deny it, it's that the only available reasoning and evidence denies it. Rather than engage with that reasoning and evidence though, you just repeat the same asserted denial over and over again as if in some way that constitutes an argument. It doesn't though. Not even close. 

Perhaps I have missed something.
Can you please explain again how I can have the conscious freedom to continue to choose to make these so called assertions over and over again if such freedom is "just an experience of the way it seems".
If it is just an experience of freedom, how come I still have the freedom to consciously choose to carry on with my "assertions"?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Perhaps I have missed something.

You can say that again.

Can you please explain again how I can have the conscious freedom to continue to choose to make these so called assertions over and over again if such freedom is "just an experience of the way it seems".

Seriously? Because YET AGAIN whether “conscious freedom” is as you imagine it to be (ie, logically impossible magic) or are reason dictates it to be (ie, logically sound deterministic), THE EXPERIENCE OF IT WOULD FEEL EXACTLY THE SAME.

Now write that down 100 times. No, make it 1,000.

If it is just an experience of freedom, how come I still have the freedom to consciously choose to carry on with my "assertions"?

You haven’t in the sense you imply “freedom” to mean (neither deterministic nor random), but you have in the sense that “freedom” actually is.

Why is this so difficult for you, even at a conceptual level?

[Stranger]

Perhaps I have missed something.
Can you please explain again how I can have the conscious freedom to continue to choose to make these so called assertions over and over again if such freedom is "just an experience of the way it seems".
If it is just an experience of freedom, how come I still have the freedom to consciously choose to carry on with my "assertions"?

Oh for fuck's sake, not again. Please try to concentrate.

• For a start, nobody has ever denied that you have the ability to make endless baseless assertions.
  
  
• You have not said why that would need what you call "freedom" - not deterministic (could have done differently) and not random.
  
  
• You have not said why there should be any connection at all between that ability and the role of consciousness in the choice, so your assertion of "conscious freedom" is not even relevant.
  
  
• You have not come close to any answer to the obvious contradiction involved.

The unanswered questions are all yours. You are making the claims, it's your burden of proof, you have claimed to have logic and evidence, and you have supplied none of either.

[Outrider]

I would say "Creator"

Can we not go for something a little more specific? I'm a fan of 'Dungeon Master' myself...

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Outy,

Can we not go for something a little more specific? I'm a fan of 'Dungeon Master' myself...

Ah, but who created the Dungeon Master then?

[torridon]

Perhaps I have missed something.
Can you please explain again how I can have the conscious freedom to continue to choose to make these so called assertions over and over again if such freedom is "just an experience of the way it seems".
If it is just an experience of freedom, how come I still have the freedom to consciously choose to carry on with my "assertions"?

You are free to make assertions because there is nothing stopping you.  That doesn't imply anything spooky going on.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Perhaps I have missed something.
Can you please explain again how I can have the conscious freedom to continue to choose to make these so called assertions over and over again if such freedom is "just an experience of the way it seems".
If it is just an experience of freedom, how come I still have the freedom to consciously choose to carry on with my "assertions"?

The explanation is that you have a subconscious desire based on nature/nurture/ randomness to make these assertions and this desire is stronger than your desire to not post these assertions, and one part of your brain has become aware of the uppermost desire, which is to post the assertions, and then has sent signals to the relevant bits of your anatomy to use the words you have learned and stored in your brain to type your reply.

And when the desire to stop posting your assertions becomes the strongest desire, you'll stop posting them. (Or if you lose your internet connection). No one knows what causes one desire to be stronger than another desire - the cause is based on your nature/nurture / randomness.

Nature/nurture / randomness also causes you to believe that it is not nature/nurture/ randomness that is causing your beliefs.

Research is ongoing to come up with an accurate model of human cognitive architecture and processes operating in it, the possibility of variation in human cognition, and the influence of culture on biological evolution to buffer natural selection. 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/tops.12449

Are you inserting the Holy Spirit / God as the cause of a particular desire that gains primacy in your brain but doesn't gain traction or maybe doesn't even exist in someone's else's brain?

[ippy]

You and I are the verifiable evidence.

OK Alan, please start at the beginning and please give us all the long awaited stage by stage breakdown on exactly how you have come to this conclusion that, as you have just conveyed to LR, 'You and I are the verifiable evidence'. 

You'll be needing to supply sufficient evidence to back up each stage of your explanation.   

I have to admit I didn't think you would ever be able to supply us with any verifiable evidence in support of your belief in this god figure you're always on about so it looks like we'll all be having to take on some form of religious belief or other now you've found some evidence, should be interesting.

Oh yes have you got yourself ready for the media storm you'll certainly be facing Alan, only after all of this time you're the only one out of the whole of the human race that's managed to acquire this definitive evidence that this god of yours does definitely exist, we'll be seeing you on all of the media outlets and to think we've been in communication with this amazingly famous person for years.

Go on Alan, make it a good answer we're all waiting!!

ippy. (without the commiserations this time Alan).

[Alan Burns]

You are free to make assertions because there is nothing stopping you.  That doesn't imply anything spooky going on.

But my contention is over the defining ultimate cause for each assertion.  The absence of constraints can't be deemed to be the cause.

And Bluehillside's view that there would be no perceived difference if it was just an "experience" of freedom still says nothing about the ultimate cause of my so called assertions.

[Alan Burns]

So getting to what I interpret as the point of this thread - some theists say they can sense some kind of internal feeling of a Creator and that is their subjective evidence for buying into the idea of a Creator/ intelligent designer/ First Cause that has influence on the rest of the world we perceive and sense.

Presumably people who don't have this internal feeling or desire to believe in a Creator cannot summon a desire to believe by some kind of act of will. 

Based on the idea of cause and effect, there must have been a cause for this feeling but no one actually knows what mix of circumstances caused a theist to have this internal feeling and interpret it the way they did. Maybe there could be a theist came across an Alan and found him convincing - who knows. Those theists who profess this idea don't choose to have this internal feeling - and depending on your perspective the feeling is because of some combination of nature/nurture/ randomness in the brain or the feeling is due to the Holy Spirit or in Islam Nūr (Arabic: النور‎)) or the soul or some other word depending on your geographical location. It all becomes very circular as you cannot control the interpretation - is the reason for the interpretation due to nature/nurture/ randomness in the brain or due to the Holy Spirit or in Islam Nūr (Arabic: النور‎)) or the soul or some other word depending on your geographical location.

And assuming theists can't choose a desire to deny this feeling because of the argument put forward here that people can't choose their desires; and assuming theists can't choose how they perceive and interpret this feeling because the desire to perceive it as a Creator seems to be the uppermost  desire produced by the sub-conscious brain; and assuming some theists can't choose to not express this belief on this forum because the desire to express it in this particular section of this message board seems to be the uppermost desire that their cognitive brain has identified from the mass of desires thrown up by the sub-conscious mind.....what are we arguing about again?

It looks like your own subconscious brain activity must have been working overtime to have come up with this very detailed analysis of how you think it all works.    

[torridon]

But my contention is over the defining ultimate cause for each assertion.  The absence of constraints can't be deemed to be the cause.

That's what I've been saying; freedom is circumstantial, not causal, so it's not really useful to keep on claiming you did x, y or z because you were free. You did them because you wanted to and you cannot be free of your wants.  That freedom is an incoherent claim.