Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

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.

The whole idea of an "ultimate cause", in the way you seem to mean it, is itself nonsensical. If something is just a cause and wasn't caused by anything else, it can only be random.

And how about you answer a few of the questions you have been studiously ignoring, instead of repeating your own trite and nonsensical ones that people have answered multiple times before?

Are you ever going to even attempt a logical argument?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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 now you’ve shifted ground again without addressing the problem about why you believe what you believe about “free” will when it would feel the same whether determined or magic. Silly of me to expect any better of you I suppose, but still your behaviour here does you no credit. What you’re trying now is called the Cosmological argument – it falls apart for several reasons, but I don’t see much point in telling you what they are as you’ll just ignore them and slide over to something else equally wrong won't you.     

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.

And Bluehillside’s view that germs cause disease tells you nothing about Morris dancing either. Why when you’ve have one of your car crash attempts at reasoning explained to you have you then complained that the explanation doesn’t deal with another of your car crash attempts at reasoning? If you want to shift ground now to the Cosmological argument in the hope that no-one notices knock yourself out, but that doesn’t remove the stinking pile of irrationality you left behind you.

You’re fooling no-one.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.    

That's one way of looking at it.

Or it could also look like the actual analysis is produced by parts of my brain (that are involved with reasoning, planning and goal-directed tasks) interacting with other parts of my brain involved with storing information, language, concepts etc to produce thoughts and send signals to my fingers to type my thoughts.

[Alan Burns]

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.

As my grandson says, "I can do what I want"
That is freedom.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As my grandson says, "I can do what I want"
That is freedom.

Feels like it doesn’t it.

[Gordon]

As my grandson says, "I can do what I want"
That is freedom.

But he can't, can he?

Though he has some scope for choices our 'freedom' isn't quite as 'free' as you're grandson thinks - but he has an excuse though, being a child: you don't!

[Stranger]

As my grandson says, "I can do what I want"
That is freedom.

Of course he can do what he wants, but he can't decide to want to do something that he doesn't want. He can only "do" that to the extent that he wanted to do it more, so he'd still actually be doing what he wants, not what he doesn't want.

Still waiting for some hint of the "sound logic" you claimed to have, or the honesty to admit you have none...

[torridon]

As my grandson says, "I can do what I want"
That is freedom.

Yes, and likewise so can every rabbit, raccoon and racing pigeon, to the extent that they are not inhibited by external constraints.  But what none of us can do, is choose which wants to have. This is the hallmark of determinism as it manifests in the workings of minds.

[Alan Burns]

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.

I want many things, Torri, but I can only choose one at a time.  The choice is mine, not the past.  I live in the present, not the past, because that is where my conscious awareness exists and acts.  The data which comes in to my conscious awareness may be from the past, but my awareness of it is in the present, as are my thoughts.  It is where I exist.  It is where I invoke conscious choices.

[torridon]

I want many things, Torri, but I can only choose one at a time.  The choice is mine, not the past.  I live in the present, not the past, because that is where my conscious awareness exists and acts.  The data which comes in to my conscious awareness may be from the past, but my awareness of it is in the present, as are my thoughts.  It is where I exist.  It is where I invoke conscious choices.

Granted, we seem to make conscious choices in an apparent 'now', although strictly speaking even that is not correct, we now understand that what seems to be happening 'now' is a really memory of what just happened a moment ago.

Notwithstanding that subtlety, it makes no difference to the logic of choice in that we resolve between options on the basis of emotional values and we cannot/do not choose what values to assign to options. The option we choose is always the one that that we most wanted.  Can you ever recall making a choice other than by reference to what you most wanted ?

[torridon]

Do your posted replies somehow bubble up from unintended subconscious brain activity?
Or do they begin with a consciously driven choice to reply followed up with consciously chosen words needed to fulfill your intention?

Out of the two, 'bubbling up' is closer to the truth.  The notion of some sort of top down thought-chooser surveying his portfolio of thoughts deciding which one to think next makes no sense. Minds don't work like that.

Think of the way storm systems arise out of background weather as an analogy. Weather is a chaotic system, always moving, and a storm system, like Ciara or Dennis that we had in February may have begun as a tiny perturbation, perhaps the flapping of a butterfly's wings in the Sahara to quote the cliche, and that develops over time into a significant phenomenon with a particular identity, such that we can talk about its strength, position, speed, direction, persistence, and so these phenomena become sufficiently distinct from the background weather as to merit naming.

Our thoughts are a bit like that; our minds may not be chaotic in quite the same manner as weather, but they are a venue of incessant activity.  Even when we are fast asleep, there are still millions of neural interactions happening every second. What occurs as a 'conscious' thought may have had a tiny beginning in the maelstrom of neural activity, but then which gathered momentum and particular character until it emerged into conscious mind as a distinct mental phenomenon of which 'we' are aware.  Like named storms, all our thoughts have origins.

[Stranger]

Back to the Alan comfort zone of just repeating the same script we've all heard countless times before...

I want many things, Torri, but I can only choose one at a time.  The choice is mine, not the past.

You choose the thing you want to do the most but you cannot possibly control which that is because then you'd have to want to do that more, so you'd still be doing what you want to do most. What you want to do must is because of who you are (it really is you making the choice) and that is because of the past (unless there is randomness).

Quite apart from the hard logic that's against you, your claim simply doesn't make sense on any number of levels.

I live in the present, not the past, because that is where my conscious awareness exists and acts.  The data which comes in to my conscious awareness may be from the past, but my awareness of it is in the present, as are my thoughts.  It is where I exist.  It is where I invoke conscious choices.

You do get that just repeating foolish gibberish over and over, while ignoring all the answers you've had, not only will not magically make it less nonsensical, it also makes you look like a moron?

Still waiting for some hint of the "sound logic" you claimed to have, or the honesty to admit you have none...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I want many things, Torri, but I can only choose one at a time.  The choice is mine, not the past.  I live in the present, not the past, because that is where my conscious awareness exists and acts.  The data which comes in to my conscious awareness may be from the past, but my awareness of it is in the present, as are my thoughts.  It is where I exist.  It is where I invoke conscious choices.

What’s bewildering about this boneheaded wrongness is that every time you assert it and others more knowledgeable and rational than you correct you, rather than engage with the corrections you just repeat over and over again exactly the same boneheaded wrongness as if nothing had been said to you. What do you hope to achieve by it? Argument-free assertions that that have their fingers in their ears to their falsifications aren’t going to convince anyone that you’re right, so why bother making them? 

Your grandson's excuse for assuming the way things feel to be necessarily the way things actually are is that, presumably, he’s too young to know better. What’s yours?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

What’s bewildering about this boneheaded wrongness is that every time you assert it and others more knowledgeable and rational than you correct you, rather than engage with the corrections you just repeat over and over again exactly the same boneheaded wrongness as if nothing had been said to you. What do you hope to achieve by it? Argument-free assertions that that have their fingers in their ears to their falsifications aren’t going to convince anyone that you’re right, so why bother making them? 

Your grandson's excuse for assuming the way things feel to be necessarily the way things actually are is that, presumably, he’s too young to know better. What’s yours?

I can offer no excuse for continuing to witness to the reality of our God given freedom.  A freedom which enables us to freely accept (or reject) Jesus as our Lord and Saviour.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I can offer no excuse for continuing to witness to the reality of our God given freedom.

Yes you can – your excuse is that you cannot or will not make a sound argument to justify your claim that you’re a witness to anything except your own wishful thinking. That’s why your assertions can safely be dismissed out of hand.

A freedom which enables us to freely accept (or reject) Jesus as our Lord and Saviour.

And on the mindless trolling goes…

[Alan Burns]

Out of the two, 'bubbling up' is closer to the truth.  The notion of some sort of top down thought-chooser surveying his portfolio of thoughts deciding which one to think next makes no sense. Minds don't work like that.

Mine does

Think of the way storm systems arise out of background weather as an analogy. Weather is a chaotic system, always moving, and a storm system, like Ciara or Dennis that we had in February may have begun as a tiny perturbation, perhaps the flapping of a butterfly's wings in the Sahara to quote the cliche, and that develops over time into a significant phenomenon with a particular identity, such that we can talk about its strength, position, speed, direction, persistence, and so these phenomena become sufficiently distinct from the background weather as to merit naming.

Sorry, but I see no viable similarity between what emerges from chaotic weather systems and the choosing of my own conscious thoughts, words and actions.  Our conscious recognition of the properties of a storm arise from our freedom to contemplate the nature of the storm

Our thoughts are a bit like that; our minds may not be chaotic in quite the same manner as weather, but they are a venue of incessant activity.  Even when we are fast asleep, there are still millions of neural interactions happening every second. What occurs as a 'conscious' thought may have had a tiny beginning in the maelstrom of neural activity, but then which gathered momentum and particular character until it emerged into conscious mind as a distinct mental phenomenon of which 'we' are aware.  Like named storms, all our thoughts have origins.

And where does the actual naming of a recognised storm originate?

[Stranger]

I can offer no excuse for continuing to witness to the reality of our God given freedom.

Except you're not witnessing to any reality other than (apparently) that your faith requires a stubborn refusal to think logically or rationally, while having the stunning levels of dishonesty and/or self-delusion needed to claim that you are doing just that, and endless, pointless repetition of foolish nonsense in the face of actual reasoning and logic.

Perhaps you could recover at least some semblance of basic human honesty by admitting to not having the "sound logic" that you claimed to have and are instead just telling us your personal faith position?

[ippy]

I can offer no excuse for continuing to witness to the reality of our God given freedom.  A freedom which enables us to freely accept (or reject) Jesus as our Lord and Saviour.

Yes Alan I suppose you can offer no excuses for continuing to witness what it is you think you're seeing as a god given reality and some sort of freedom , as you say, to either accept or reject this Jesus bloke you often refer to.

Well that lot's all very well but you've never given any realistic reason why anyone should be going along with these ideas of yours or taking them seriously, a large number of fellow posters keep on asking you to give us a break down as to how you've managed to arrive at these conclusions something to which you never give an answer and then in a very similar way you have never substantiated one of your innumerable assertions in a post to the forum, why's that Alan?

Commiserations Alan, ippy.

[torridon]

Mine does.  Sorry, but I see no viable similarity between what emerges from chaotic weather systems and the choosing of my own conscious thoughts, words and actions.

OK, if you think you can choose which thought to think next, talk us through it.  Sit down, clear your mind as far as possible, and then pick a thought to think.  Did you have a bunch of thoughts there hoping to be picked ?  If that was the case, then at least we can say your effort to clear your mind of all thoughts had not been successful.  And if there were still some thoughts in mind, how did you resolve which one to choose ? Did you choose it freely, or did you have a preference, for some reason ?  Suppose you had managed to banish all thoughts from conscious mind, then you cannot choose a thought consciously and you would first have to recall some things from memory to think about.  How did you choose which ones to recall and which ones to not recall from memory ?

[Stranger]

I can offer no excuse for continuing to witness to the reality of our God given freedom.

I thought after I made my last post that this is an interesting way to phrase it, especially when we consider that most of your posts aren't directly connected to your god or faith but rather to your supposed argument for them via free will.

You're a curiosity Alan, because many of the Christians I know, both online and in real life (some in my own family), are reasonable and honest people. Not all of them want to discuss the intellectual reasons for their faith (if indeed they claim to have any) but those that do will at least try to engage with the points I raise in response. The kind of robotic repetition, evasion, and complete refusal to accept that they might be wrong in any respect at all that you exhibit seems to be associated with the extremists like literal six day, 6,000 years ago creationists.

The literalists make bold claims about having science on their side and then go on to demonstrate that they don't know the first thing about science, let alone have any scientific evidence. Compare with your bold claims about a "logical analysis" and "sound logic", when it's clear you don't have the first clue about logic and critical thinking.

The thing is that for the literalists, it really is a part of the faith that they've adopted (often a specific doctrine of their church), and to concede it would call everything into question. What's more they've been fed propaganda, by people they trust, that tells them that science really is on their side.

So what can we make of your complete refusal to question any aspect of the own argument for free will? It's not like it's the belief in free-will itself, you could just believe it by faith. I doubt very much that your church has a formal doctrine of the "Alan Burns argument from free will", yet you cling to your pseudo-logic with all the desperation of the literalists clinging to their pseudo-science.

Are you really witnessing to "the reality of our God given freedom" or to "Alan Burns' Perfect Argument for God"?

[SteveH]

Humans have evolved very well since we climbed out of the primeval swamp.

Obviously true, but completely irrelevant to the post from AB that it was answering.

[Alan Burns]

I thought after I made my last post that this is an interesting way to phrase it, especially when we consider that most of your posts aren't directly connected to your god or faith but rather to your supposed argument for them via free will.

You're a curiosity Alan, because many of the Christians I know, both online and in real life (some in my own family), are reasonable and honest people. Not all of them want to discuss the intellectual reasons for their faith (if indeed they claim to have any) but those that do will at least try to engage with the points I raise in response. The kind of robotic repetition, evasion, and complete refusal to accept that they might be wrong in any respect at all that you exhibit seems to be associated with the extremists like literal six day, 6,000 years ago creationists.

The literalists make bold claims about having science on their side and then go on to demonstrate that they don't know the first thing about science, let alone have any scientific evidence. Compare with your bold claims about a "logical analysis" and "sound logic", when it's clear you don't have the first clue about logic and critical thinking.

The thing is that for the literalists, it really is a part of the faith that they've adopted (often a specific doctrine of their church), and to concede it would call everything into question. What's more they've been fed propaganda, by people they trust, that tells them that science really is on their side.

So what can we make of your complete refusal to question any aspect of the own argument for free will? It's not like it's the belief in free-will itself, you could just believe it by faith. I doubt very much that your church has a formal doctrine of the "Alan Burns argument from free will", yet you cling to your pseudo-logic with all the desperation of the literalists clinging to their pseudo-science.

Are you really witnessing to "the reality of our God given freedom" or to "Alan Burns' Perfect Argument for God"?

I witness to the freedom essential for any person to adopt a meaningful faith in God.  You cannot compare this notion of freedom with minority fundamentalists.  Our freedom to consciously choose between good and evil is universal throughout all mainstream Christian denominations.

If the source of such freedom was not the human soul, it would make a mockery of Christian belief in salvation.

[Roses]

I witness to the freedom essential for any person to adopt a meaningful faith in God.  You cannot compare this notion of freedom with minority fundamentalists.  Our freedom to consciously choose between good and evil is universal throughout all mainstream Christian denominations.

All you are doing is stating your take on faith, without any evidence to back it up.

[Stranger]

I witness to the freedom essential for any person to adopt a meaningful faith in God.  You cannot compare this notion of freedom with minority fundamentalists.  Our freedom to consciously choose between good and evil is universal throughout all mainstream Christian denominations.

Either another example of avoiding the point or a total lack of attention.   

I didn't compare belief in free will with belief in a young Earth, I compared your pseudo-logic, that you keep peddling here: your argument for free will to a soul and god, with the creationists' pseudo-science, that is, their arguments for a young Earth. I also compared your attitude of refusing to engage with counterarguments, evasion, and repetition with their, pretty much identical, approach.

I don't think you are "witnessing" to your faith about "free will", you are trying to peddle your own pseudo-logic.

[Stranger]

If the source of such freedom was not the human soul, it would make a mockery of Christian belief in salvation.

As a statement of your faith, that's fine. Why do you have to pretend to have (or delude yourself into thinking you have) logic and evidence to back it up and use all the avoidance, evasion, misrepresentation, and endless repetition favoured by the literalists pretending to have science?