Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

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.

You do not seem to understand that our Christian faith is centred around our ability to make a conscious choice between good and evil, the definitions of which are explained in detail in the Christian bible.  It is our soul which will be held to account for this choice.  It is not an easy choice - we all fail in some way.  But the central tenet of Christianity is that we are able to acknowledge our failures and accept the power of loving forgiveness which Jesus enabled by His suffering, death and resurrection.  This is not my own pseudo-logic.  It is Christian faith.  The free will attributable to the human soul is central to this faith

[Roses]

You do not seem to understand that our Christian faith is centred around our ability to make a conscious choice between good and evil, the definitions of which are explained in detail in the Christian bible.  It is our soul which will be held to account for this choice.  It is not an easy choice - we all fail in some way.  But the central tenant of Christianity is that we are able to acknowledge our failures and accept the power of loving forgiveness which Jesus enabled by His suffering, death and resurrection.  This is not my own pseudo-logic.  It is Christian faith.  The free will attributable to the human soul is central to this faith

It is a pity some Christians don't appear to know the different between good and bad!

BTW what is your take on the RCC in England and Wales preparing to suspend mass because of the coronavirus?

[Stranger]

You do not seem to understand that our Christian faith is centred around our ability to make a conscious choice between good and evil, the definitions of which are explained in detail in the Christian bible.  It is our soul which will be held to account for this choice.

I find myself asking you yet again: what's the point of quoting a post if you aren't going to take any notice at all of what it says? This is yet another example of what I mean: more avoiding the point.

I'm not talking about your beliefs or whether or not they are necessary to Christianity, I'm talking about your attitude and how you choose to present those beliefs. You don't need to indulge in evasion, misrepresentation, and endless repetition. You can believe in "free will" without pretending to have done a "logical analysis" or have "sound logic", when you clearly haven't and don't, and don't seem to understand what that would even mean. I'm sure the vast majority of Christians do just that.

This is not my own pseudo-logic.  It is Christian faith.

Indeed (well your version anyway) but when you claim posts are evidence of your version/the Christian version of "freedom" or declare that what we do is "beyond anything that can be achieved by material reactions" or any of the other non-arguments you post, that is pseudo-logic.

You are pretending that your statements of faith are based on logic and evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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

Probably. So?

You do understand that having to conjure up one faith belief in order to justify another faith belief tells you nothing about reality right?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You do not seem to understand that our Christian faith is centred around our ability to make a conscious choice between good and evil, the definitions of which are explained in detail in the Christian bible.

So? What your “Christian faith is centred around” has no relevance at all to whether that thing is real, let alone logically coherent. If your faith beliefs contradict reality then it's your your faith beliefs that are wrong, not reality.   

It is our soul which will be held to account for this choice.

So your faith belief asserts.

It is not an easy choice - we all fail in some way.  But the central tenant of Christianity is that we are able to acknowledge our failures and accept the power of loving forgiveness which Jesus enabled by His suffering, death and resurrection.

It’s “tenet”, not "tenant” and if your faith thinks there was a man/god whose death for a bit was necessary for you to behave decently knock yourself out, however morally contemptible the whole conceit seems to some of us. Fortunately some of us too though are quite capable of behaving that way without needing ancient myths to tell us what to do.   

This is not my own pseudo-logic.

You're right – it’s not ANY logic, pseudo or otherwise. It’s just assertions of some faith beliefs.

It is Christian faith.

Quite.
 

The free will attributable to the human soul is central to this faith

If this “free” will is your reason- and evidence-denying misunderstanding of it then your faith is wrong.

So to sum up: you claimed to have "sound logic" to justify your faith beliefs; you've been asked many times to tell us what it is; you've never been able to do so. Now you've decided that it's actually the other way around – the faith beliefs justify the assertions because you really think the faith beliefs are true, therefore the arguments you attempt to support them must be correct.

Doesn't work though does it? See whether you can work out why for yourself. (Carts and horses may help you a little though...)

[Gordon]

I witness to the freedom essential for any person to adopt a meaningful faith in God.

I am 'witness' to the freedom of people to believe whatever they like, and provided that for the most part they keep it to themselves (I can cope with them parking outside churches), and that others have freedom from their beliefs, they can do what they like.

You cannot compare this notion of freedom with minority fundamentalists.

Yes you can.

  Our freedom to consciously choose between good and evil is universal throughout all mainstream Christian denominations.

Leaving aside how you define 'good and evil', then other religious groups and those of us who aren't religious are no less 'free' to decide on what morality we adopt - resisting 'evil' and doing 'good' is not limited to Christians.

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

Since the 'human soul' is meaningless nonsense, given you haven't been able to present a sound case for it, then the "Christian belief in salvation" can be justifiably mocked.

[ippy]

You do not seem to understand that our Christian faith is centred around our ability to make a conscious choice between good and evil, the definitions of which are explained in detail in the Christian bible.  It is our soul which will be held to account for this choice.  It is not an easy choice - we all fail in some way.  But the central tenant of Christianity is that we are able to acknowledge our failures and accept the power of loving forgiveness which Jesus enabled by His suffering, death and resurrection.  This is not my own pseudo-logic.  It is Christian faith.  The free will attributable to the human soul is central to this faith

NM/Sparky, was always coming up with that one Alan, the bible proves the bible, very deep man!!

Commiserations Alan, ippy.

[Alan Burns]

You do understand that having to conjure up one faith belief in order to justify another faith belief tells you nothing about reality right?

I am not conjuring up free will - I am using it.
I am simply observing that the existence of human free will provides evidence of our own spiritual nature.
And I continue to point out that your consciously driven attempts to think up reasons not to believe in the existence of free will merely add to the evidence that it is a reality.

[Alan Burns]

BTW what is your take on the RCC in England and Wales preparing to suspend mass because of the coronavirus?

We already have restrictions in place - no hymn books or Mass sheets.  No use of the water font.  No shaking of hands.  No communion wine. No gatherings after Mass.

Friends in Germany have told us that Cologne Cathedral will be broadcasting their service this Sunday.

It seems likely that local services will be suspended in the short term, and our Sunday obligation to attend will no longer apply.  Instead we will be encouraged to pray from home.  I feel that prayers are much needed at present.

[Stranger]

So Alan, this post of yours is a perfect example of the pseudo-logic I was talking about that is directly comparable with literal creationist pseudo-science.

I am not conjuring up free will - I am using it.

Given your contradictory claims about "free-will", this is a just an empty assertion that is actually less credible that saying "I'm an alien from another galaxy" (which would at least be logically possible).

I am simply observing that the existence of human free will provides evidence of our own spiritual nature.

This is not an observation. Again assuming your claims about free will (could have done differently, no randomness), you have provided no reason whatsoever to either accept that it exists or, if it does (you could somehow resolve the contradiction), that it would provide any evidence at all of a "spiritual nature".

And I continue to point out that your consciously driven attempts to think up reasons not to believe in the existence of free will merely add to the evidence that it is a reality.

Another totally vacuous assertion. All you are actually telling us about is the power of the pernicious meme you've managed to install in your own mind.

All of this is about as credible as a literalist telling us that lizards never give birth to cats, so evolution must be wrong. No matter how many times it's explained to such literalists that that isn't what evolution would predict, they go on repeating the same nonsense over and over again, in exactly the same way that you go on repeating the equally absurd claims that you've made here, no matter how many times it's pointed out why they are wrong.

Once again, for the record, I'm not comparing your belief in free will with literal creationism, I'm comparing your approach and tactics with theirs.

You are entitled to believe in your version of free will, but your ridiculous pseudo-logic does not and cannot support that belief. People's posts and human abilities to reason and make choices are not evidence for it, no matter how many times you stamp your foot and assert that they are.

If you want to make that claim, you need to provide an actual logical argument - you know, like you (apparently falsely) claimed to have.

[Nearly Sane]

We already have restrictions in place - no hymn books or Mass sheets.  No use of the water font.  No shaking of hands.  No communion wine. No gatherings after Mass.

Friends in Germany have told us that Cologne Cathedral will be broadcasting their service this Sunday.

It seems likely that local services will be suspended in the short term, and our Sunday obligation to attend will no longer apply.  Instead we will be encouraged to pray from home.  I feel that prayers are much needed at present.

Though a vaccine would be better

[wigginhall]

Yes, any chance that God could stop the spread of the virus, Alan?

[torridon]

I am not conjuring up free will - I am using it.
I am simply observing that the existence of human free will provides evidence of our own spiritual nature.
And I continue to point out that your consciously driven attempts to think up reasons not to believe in the existence of free will merely add to the evidence that it is a reality.

Incorrect.  People doing what they want is not evidence that they could have done otherwise.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not conjuring up free will - I am using it.
I am simply observing that the existence of human free will provides evidence of our own spiritual nature.
And I continue to point out that your consciously driven attempts to think up reasons not to believe in the existence of free will merely add to the evidence that it is a reality.

First, as so often you’ve completely missed the point. You were attempting to argue that, if your reasons for justifying your faith beliefs were wrong then your faith beliefs would be wrong and therefore the reasons can’t be wrong (“You do not seem to understand that our Christian faith is centred around our ability to…” etc). This is ass-backwards, cart before the horse stuff. The logic is supposed to lead to the conclusion (no matter what it happens to be); the conclusion can’t be used to justify the logic. 

Second, what you’re “conjuring up” is your narrative of what “free” will entails relying only on your feeling about it, but with no connecting logic of any kind: “It FEELS this way, therefore it must BE this way”. You know already though that sometimes the way things feel and the way things are can be very different – that’s what the “fingers touching the keyboard” analogy explains – so you should by now understand at least in principle that the way your decision-making feels to you may not necessarily give you a true explanation for what it actually is.

Third, if you want to argue for a “spiritual nature” then you have an epic task ahead of you FIRST to explain what you mean by it, to demonstrate its existence at all, and to explain how the claim could be investigated and verified. You know, the vital stuff you always run away from then the problem is explained to you. So far all you offer is the white noise of “spiritual”, which is epistemically identical to me claiming Y(^%^TTI to be true. It’s a vapid non-explanation for the simple-minded or gullible. You need to do much, much better than that if you want your assertions to be taken seriously.

Of course you will ignore all of this as you always do, but that doesn’t mean the vast and multifarious problems your unqualified claims and assertions give you have gone away – they’ll keep smacking you right in the chops for as long as you keep pretending they’re not there. Sorry, but there it is. Your faith beliefs are (almost certainly) nonsense, and your reasons for justifying them are (certainly) wrong. Make of that what you will.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

First, as so often you’ve completely missed the point. You were attempting to argue that, if your reasons for justifying your faith beliefs were wrong then your faith beliefs would be wrong and therefore the reasons can’t be wrong (“You do not seem to understand that our Christian faith is centred around our ability to…” etc). This is ass-backwards, cart before the horse stuff. The logic is supposed to lead to the conclusion (no matter what it happens to be); the conclusion can’t be used to justify the logic. 

Second, what you’re “conjuring up” is your narrative of what “free” will entails relying only on your feeling about it, but with no connecting logic of any kind: “It FEELS this way, therefore it must BE this way”. You know already though that sometimes the way things feel and the way things are can be very different – that’s what the “fingers touching the keyboard” analogy explains – so you should by now understand at least in principle that the way your decision-making feels to you may not necessarily give you a true explanation for what it actually is.

Third, if you want to argue for a “spiritual nature” then you have an epic task ahead of you FIRST to explain what you mean by it, to demonstrate its existence at all, and to explain how the claim could be investigated and verified. You know, the vital stuff you always run away from then the problem is explained to you. So far all you offer is the white noise of “spiritual”, which is epistemically identical to me claiming Y(^%^TTI to be true. It’s a vapid non-explanation for the simple-minded or gullible. You need to do much, much better than that if you want your assertions to be taken seriously.

Of course you will ignore all of this as you always do, but that doesn’t mean the vast and multifarious problems your unqualified claims and assertions give you have gone away – they’ll keep smacking you right in the chops for as long as you keep pretending they’re not there. Sorry, but there it is. Your faith beliefs are (almost certainly) nonsense, and your reasons for justifying them are (certainly) wrong. Make of that what you will.

You consciously choose to justify your point of view.
I consciously choose to justify my point of view.
Regardless of our points of view, we are both demonstrating the reality that we have consciously driven freedom.

[Stranger]

You consciously choose to justify your point of view.
I consciously choose to justify my point of view.
Regardless of our points of view, we are both demonstrating the reality that we have consciously driven freedom.

Pure pseudo-logic. Every bit as dishonest/delusional as any literal creationist's pseudo-science.

You are pretending (or deluded yourself into believing) that your utterly baseless, reasoning-free assertions constitute logic.

[Gordon]

You consciously choose to justify your point of view.
I consciously choose to justify my point of view.
Regardless of our points of view, we are both demonstrating the reality that we have consciously driven freedom.

The problem is that you don't justify your views, Alan: your fallacious and/or meaningless assertions fail as justifications.

Of course, you probably can't help yourself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good moaning ivveribuddy.

[Gordon]

Good moaning ivveribuddy.

Welcome back, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thank you,good sir.

[Stranger]

Good moaning ivveribuddy.

Good moaning, I was just pissing by and saw your post. Good to see you back!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks.I look forward to chewing the fat with you again.

[Nearly Sane]

Good moaning ivveribuddy.

Glad to know you are ok. You had us worried.

[Sebastian Toe]

I am not conjuring up free will - I am using it.
I am simply observing that the existence of human free will provides evidence of our own spiritual nature.
And I continue to point out that your consciously driven attempts to think up reasons not to believe in the existence of free will merely add to the evidence that it is a reality.

.....and your posts add to the reality of us all using our biological brain, following deterministic principles.
No logic free, magic requiring, extra dimentional, timeless within time....soul, required.

[Sebastian Toe]

Good moaning ivveribuddy.

..are you staying.....indefinitely?