Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In Reply 39361 you consciously chose words to support your chosen point of view.  This demonstrates the conscious freedom which is essential to engage in any argument.  Without such conscious freedom you would have no more ability to argue than a rabbit.

Nope. I just told you why in Reply 39361.

See, your major problem here is that your premise is wrong. People keep explaining to you why it’s wrong, but rather than engage with the explanations you just repeat the same wrong premise over and over again. It’s like me asserting “thunder is real, therefore Thor is real”, you correcting me, and me replying, “thunder is real, therefore Thor is real” over and over and over again like a stuck speak your weight machine.

If you had any interest at all in understanding the problem you’d say something like, “OK, you say that the fact of making an argument at all doesn’t justify my premise. Why is that exactly…?” and away we’d go. You won’t do that though will you. Instead you just parrot the same mistake endlessly so as never to have to examine the reasons you think justify it. 

I really don’t know how to put this any more clearly for you.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Nope. I just told you why in Reply 39361.

See, your major problem here is that your premise is wrong. People keep explaining to you why it’s wrong,  ….
 

The simple truth is that they would not have the ability to make such explanations without the conscious freedom being denied by the content of their so called explanations.

[Alan Burns]

Says who?

anyone with an ounce of common sense, and the freedom to use it.

[Gordon]

anyone with an ounce of common sense, and the freedom to use it.

Nope: anyone with an ounce of common sense doesn't think that their thoughts and choices are being constantly 'driven' by a supernatural agent.

[Stranger]

The simple truth is that they would not have the ability to make such explanations without the conscious freedom being denied by the content of their so called explanations.

The (only) thing that is being denied is non-determinism (could have done differently) without randomness.

In what way is that necessary in order to make logical arguments?

Unless you can answer this question (which isn't about the role of consciousness), these assertions that the ability to argue supports you're contradictory idea of freedom are nothing but mindless foot-stamping.

Time to put up or shut up, either you can make a rational case as to why people's arguments need this particular sort of "freedom" or you should admit that you cannot and stop making these obviously false claims.

[Gordon]

The simple truth is that they would not have the ability to make such explanations without the conscious freedom being denied by the content of their so called explanations.

Do put a sock in it, Alan: how about addressing the logical problem you've created for yourself (that you painstakingly avoid addressing).

[Alan Burns]

Do put a sock in it, Alan: how about addressing the logical problem you've created for yourself (that you painstakingly avoid addressing).

I see no logical problem with our spiritual soul giving us the freedom to choose what we do, think or say.

What is illogical is the concept that our freedom can be produced solely from physical reactions

[Stranger]

I see no logical problem with our spiritual soul giving us the freedom to choose what we do, think or say.

It's been pointed out enough times. Have you not been reading posts, too dimwitted to understand, simply ignoring it because you dare not allow yourself to face up to it, or what?

What is illogical is the concept that our freedom can be produced solely from physical reactions

Why? Where is your actual logic?

If you haven't got any, please stop lying about it.

[Enki]

I see no logical problem with our spiritual soul giving us the freedom to choose what we do, think or say.

What is illogical is the concept that our freedom can be produced solely from physical reactions

As ever, Alan, you just keep saying 'freedom to choose' without giving any idea at all  how our 'spiritual soul' makes its mind up.

As ever, Alan, you just keep saying that it is illogical that 'freedom' can't be solely a product of physical reactions without giving any logical argument as to why it is illogical.

Just empty words and meaningless assertions. I have to put it down to your brain which seems to be in some sort of recursive loop which it can't break out of.

Sad though it is, I suppose it's all we can expect from you.

[Alan Burns]

As ever, Alan, you just keep saying 'freedom to choose' without giving any idea at all  how our 'spiritual soul' makes its mind up.

Our spiritual soul is simply free to make up its own mind.  The only alternative would be to presume that we are entirely constrained by unavoidable reactions to past events and any feeling of freedom is an illusion.  But our ability to contemplate such phenomena would indicate that we have the consciously driven freedom to carry out such abstract contemplation.  The presumption that it can all be driven by chains of unavoidable physical reactions does not reflect the reality of the capabilities of the human mind.

[Gordon]

I see no logical problem with our spiritual soul giving us the freedom to choose what we do, think or say.

In that case you clearly aren't paying attention, and especially to what Stranger has been saying.

What is illogical is the concept that our freedom can be produced solely from physical reactions

Then show that is illogical by presenting a contrary logical argument: an actual argument mind, and not just more assertion, and if you can't then please stop lying about you having logic on your side.

[Gordon]

Our spiritual soul is simply free to make up its own mind.  The only alternative would be to presume that we are entirely constrained by unavoidable reactions to past events and any feeling of freedom is an illusion.  But our ability to contemplate such phenomena would indicate that we have the consciously driven freedom to carry out such abstract contemplation.  The presumption that it can all be driven by chains of unavoidable physical reactions does not reflect the reality of the capabilities of the human mind.

And the fallacy-fest continues unabated.

[Alan Burns]

It's been pointed out enough times. Have you not been reading posts, too dimwitted to understand, simply ignoring it because you dare not allow yourself to face up to it, or what?

What has been pointed out to me is the blatantly flawed logic which implies that everything I choose to do, think or say has been entirely determined by past events before I make the choice, in which case it would be just an unavoidable reaction.  The fact is that I am free to point out the flaw in this logic.  It is flawed because it does not reflect the reality of my consciously driven freedom to choose to point out this flaw.

[Stranger]

What has been pointed out to me is the blatantly flawed logic...

You can't assert something into being flawed - you have to point out the actual flaw.

...which implies that everything I choose to do, think or say has been entirely determined by past events before I make the choice, in which case it would be just an unavoidable reaction.

So what?

The fact is that I am free to point out the flaw in this logic.

Nobody is denying your freedom to assert nonsense. Why would it need the ability to have done differently without randomness?

It is flawed because it does not reflect the reality of my consciously driven freedom to choose to point out this flaw.

Just another assertion. What exactly is it about reality that conflicts with it? Apart from the entirely subjective feeling - how do you know that you could have done differently without any randomness?

You can't assert reality into being the way you want it to be.

Where is your logic?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The simple truth is that they would not have the ability to make such explanations without the conscious freedom being denied by the content of their so called explanations.

Ah, so when in Reply 39375 I said:

...See, your major problem here is that your premise is wrong. People keep explaining to you why it’s wrong, but rather than engage with the explanations you just repeat the same wrong premise over and over again. It’s like me asserting “thunder is real, therefore Thor is real”, you correcting me, and me replying, “thunder is real, therefore Thor is real” over and over and over again like a stuck speak your weight machine.

If you had any interest at all in understanding the problem you’d say something like, “OK, you say that the fact of making an argument at all doesn’t justify my premise. Why is that exactly…?” and away we’d go. You won’t do that though will you. Instead you just parrot the same mistake endlessly so as never to have to examine the reasons you think justify it.

I really don’t know how to put this any more clearly for you.

..you thought it was just fine to edit out all the argument, and then to repeat exactly the same mistake I’d explained that you make in the part you edited out. Presumably you think that lying like this is fine so long as it’s lying for Jesus, but it isn’t. It really isn’t.

So here’s your mistake again:

See, your major problem here is that your premise is wrong. People keep explaining to you why it’s wrong, but rather than engage with the explanations you just repeat the same wrong premise over and over again. It’s like me asserting “thunder is real, therefore Thor is real”, you correcting me, and me replying, “thunder is real, therefore Thor is real” over and over and over again like a stuck speak your weight machine.

If you had any interest at all in understanding the problem you’d say something like, “OK, you say that the fact of making an argument at all doesn’t justify my premise. Why is that exactly…?” and away we’d go. You won’t do that though will you. Instead you just parrot the same mistake endlessly so as never to have to examine the reasons you think justify it.

   

You can edit out your basic problem once more and hope no-one notices if you want to, but if you do it’s still contemptible behaviour nonetheless.

[Enki]

Our spiritual soul is simply free to make up its own mind.  The only alternative would be to presume that we are entirely constrained by unavoidable reactions to past events and any feeling of freedom is an illusion.  But our ability to contemplate such phenomena would indicate that we have the consciously driven freedom to carry out such abstract contemplation.  The presumption that it can all be driven by chains of unavoidable physical reactions does not reflect the reality of the capabilities of the human mind.

As usual, assertion after assertion, empty of any evidence or logic.

You haven't even the good sense or integrity to quote and respond to my statements in full, simply selecting one part where you think you can let loose your proselytising bent, even though it remains bankrupt of any argument or logic whatever.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

anyone with an ounce of common sense, and the freedom to use it.

Oh of course, common sense. Why didn’t you tell us that you had that killer argument all along? It would have saved sooo much time! Never mind logic or reason or evidence or any of that – old “Crashes and” Burns has common sense on his side, so that’s the end for the matter right?

Now we’re relying on common sense, can we agree the absolute truth of all the other common sense conclusions people reach too though – you know, the earth is flat because it seems that way, the sun orbits the earth because it seems that way, we actually touch the keys on the keyboard because it seems that way etc. What could be more common sensical than all these things, and more?  “Common sense – kills 99.9% of all known arguments” right?

[ippy]

You can't assert something into being flawed - you have to point out the actual flaw.

So what?

Nobody is denying your freedom to assert nonsense. Why would it need the ability to have done differently without randomness?

Just another assertion. What exactly is it about reality that conflicts with it? Apart from the entirely subjective feeling - how do you know that you could have done differently without any randomness?

You can't assert reality into being the way you want it to be.

Where is your logic?

Alan has given you all of the logic he able to provide, I'm sure that he is limited by his past which, in my opinion, has to involve one of most outstanding example of one of the most successful victims of a complete indoctrination performed by his church.

I'll take a bet that outside of the many utterances/assertions he makes about his religious beliefs he has a very similar ability to be as rational as any other average person. 

ippy

[ippy]

AB,

Oh of course, common sense. Why didn’t you tell us that you had that killer argument all along? It would have saved sooo much time! Never mind logic or reason or evidence or any of that – old “Crashes and” Burns has common sense on his side, so that’s the end for the matter right?

Now we’re relying on common sense, can we agree the absolute truth of all the other common sense conclusions people reach too though – you know, the earth is flat because it seems that way, the sun orbits the earth because it seems that way, we actually touch the keys on the keyboard because it seems that way etc. What could be more common sensical than all these things, and more?  “Common sense – kills 99.9% of all known arguments” right?

Don't forget to take one of your hypertension pills Blue!

Regards, ippy.

[Nearly Sane]

AB,

Oh of course, common sense. Why didn’t you tell us that you had that killer argument all along? It would have saved sooo much time! Never mind logic or reason or evidence or any of that – old “Crashes and” Burns has common sense on his side, so that’s the end for the matter right?

Now we’re relying on common sense, can we agree the absolute truth of all the other common sense conclusions people reach too though – you know, the earth is flat because it seems that way, the sun orbits the earth because it seems that way, we actually touch the keys on the keyboard because it seems that way etc. What could be more common sensical than all these things, and more?  “Common sense – kills 99.9% of all known arguments” right?

I am reminded of this

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=67Mr-fhfZmQC&printsec=frontcover&dq="the+unnatural+nature+of+science"&hl=en&ei=dUngTKndIIqecJfN3JcM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

Where is your logic?

Turns out Alan's "logic" is a mix of "common sense" and calling the logic that falsifies his efforts "blatantly flawed" without ever actually getting around to explaining why it's blatantly flawed at all. And that's it. There is nothing else. Zip. Zilch. The cupboard is bare. Feelings triumph over reason. Lie, lie and lie again - it doesn't matter so long as he's lying for Jesus. It troubles him not at all either it seems this dishonest fuckwittery does such an appalling PR job for the faith he clings to so desperately.

Alan Burns: atheism's recruiting sergeant.

[torridon]

What has been pointed out to me is the blatantly flawed logic which implies that everything I choose to do, think or say has been entirely determined by past events before I make the choice, in which case it would be just an unavoidable reaction. 

The alternative, if our choices are not consequential to what went before, is that they are random.  You can't have it both ways and you've made no effort to address this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

Don't forget to take one of your hypertension pills Blue!

I know, but really though! ; - )

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

The alternative, if our choices are not consequential to what went before, is that they are random.  You can't have it both ways and you've made no effort to address this.

Au contraire! Why just a few posts ago he told us quite clearly that, “I see no logical problem with our spiritual soul giving us the freedom to choose what we do, think or say”. See? He’s addressed it by “seeing no problem” with it! That’s it. Job done. Case closed. Move along folks, nothing to see here. AB can’t see the problem, therefore THERE IS NO PROBLEM! “It’s magic innit” carries the day, and there’s no more to be said on the matter.

It matters not a jot that he has no idea what a "soul" might be, how anyone might locate it, how it functions outside of logical constraints - the fact that he just asserts there to be no problem with it means there is no problem with it!   

So what shall we talk about now then? I'm thinking maybe we should put him in charge of the anti-coronavirus effort. All he has to say is, "I see no problem with it" and it'll all go away! Fantastic right?

[torridon]

Our spiritual soul is simply free to make up its own mind....

Sure, but that does not say how it makes up its mind.  Merely observing it is 'free' does not address the paradox of how a choice can be uncaused without being random.