Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

An assertion  which would be impossible for me to make without the power being denied.

No it wouldn't for the reasons that have been given to you countless times but that you seem pathologically unable or unwilling to address.

[torridon]

An assertion  which would be impossible for me to make without the power being denied.

All that demonstrates is that you haven't read the last five posts on the topic, or if you have read them, then you haven't yet understood them.

Or, thirdly, you might be just trolling.

I'm going with #3.

[Stranger]

An assertion  which would be impossible for me to make without the power being denied.

Why? Where is your logic?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No it wouldn't for the reasons that have been given to you countless times but that you seem pathologically unable or unwilling to address.

Just for a moment, try to analyse the word "unwilling"
Does it not imply that I have a will of my own?
A will which is not just a predetermined reaction, but determined from the consciously driven freedom of my own mind?

[Stranger]

Just for a moment, try to analyse the word "unwilling"
Does it not imply that I have a will of my own?

You do have a will of your own.

A will which is not just a predetermined reaction, but determined from the consciously driven freedom of my own mind?

[Idiotic language deleted.]

Why can't what you call your "consciously driven freedom" also be a deterministic reaction?

You have posted the same utter nonsense, while totally ignoring the contradictions and counterarguments, countless times here - do you really think anybody is going to suddenly agree and just drop their objections because you repeating it for the 84th time or whatever?

Where is the logic you claimed you had?

[torridon]

Just for a moment, try to analyse the word "unwilling"
Does it not imply that I have a will of my own?
A will which is not just a predetermined reaction, but determined from the consciously driven freedom of my own mind?

My will derives from the things that led to it.  If this were not the case, then my will would be a random thing.  if there is no reason for me to choose the apple rather than the pear, then my choice is random. Is this really that hard ? There is something I could refer to as 'me' and something I could refer to as 'my will', but they are not independent of the wider world, as if I were somehow disconnected.  They are products of the wider world, and products of the past.

[Alan Burns]

My will derives from the things that led to it.  If this were not the case, then my will would be a random thing.  if there is no reason for me to choose the apple rather than the pear, then my choice is random. Is this really that hard ? There is something I could refer to as 'me' and something I could refer to as 'my will', but they are not independent of the wider world, as if I were somehow disconnected.  They are products of the wider world, and products of the past.

My will is certainly not random.
I fully agree that I am not independent of the past - I am aware of it, I am influenced by it, but I am not entirely controlled by it.
My will involves far more than the trivial choice between apples and pears.
It controls my thoughts, my imagination, my creativity, my ability to contemplate, my prayers, ...
If it was just a product of the past, then I have no will of my own, because I do not own the past and I can have no control of the past.  The past does not determine my will - I do.

Your flawed logic based on nothing but material reactions reduces me to be just a spectator of what has already been predetermined.  This is not the reality in which I exist.  I know you deem this to be a combination of personal incredulity and unevidenced assertion - but in both these accusations you will be conceding the simple truth that I have consciously driven freedom to concoct what I am being accused of.

[Outrider]

My will is certainly not random.

Excellent.

I fully agree that I am not independent of the past - I am aware of it, I am influenced by it, but I am not entirely controlled by it.

Also good.

My will involves far more than the trivial choice between apples and pears.

As an example, though, it's a usefully simple depiction of the issue.

It controls my thoughts, my imagination, my creativity, my ability to contemplate, my prayers, ...

That's what we're trying to establish - does it control those? Imagination, for instance, is not something that in most people is an entirely conscious process.

If it was just a product of the past, then I have no will of my own, because I do not own the past and I can have no control of the past.

No.  You have a will of your own - arguably you are that will - but the point is that it's not free of the constraints of your past.

The past does not determine my will - I do.

Except in as far as you are determined by your past...

Your flawed logic based on nothing but material reactions reduces me to be just a spectator of what has already been predetermined.

You keep falling back on this attempt to make the discussion about a split between materialism and your notional 'spiritual' element - but that's not the issue.  You've agreed that will is not random - so, therefore, what's it dependent upon?  In this you seem to say 'a soul' or some other spiritual component of a human being - correct me if I'm getting this wrong - but you don't explain how that is both not random but also not dependent upon prior events.

This is not the reality in which I exist.

It's not your perception of the reality in which you exist, but so far you've not done anything to show that your perception is accurate.

I know you deem this to be a combination of personal incredulity and unevidenced assertion - but in both these accusations you will be conceding the simple truth that I have consciously driven freedom to concoct what I am being accused of.

No, we'll be acknowledging that you're still too far under the influence of your religious teachings to look at the world  for what it is.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Why can't what you call your "consciously driven freedom" also be a deterministic reaction?

The two are incompatible.
The only freedom implicated in deterministic reactions would be that of a boulder rolling down a mountain whose direction and destination are entirely determined by universal rules outside any personal control of the boulder.  My freedom to choose my own path in life and my own destiny may well be deemed to be a logical impossibility by your flawed materialistic logic - but it is the reality in  which I exist.

[torridon]

My will is certainly not random.
I fully agree that I am not independent of the past - I am aware of it, I am influenced by it, but I am not entirely controlled by it.
My will involves far more than the trivial choice between apples and pears.
It controls my thoughts, my imagination, my creativity, my ability to contemplate, my prayers, ...

My will involves more than simple decisions also, but we have to pare the problem down to the bare bones to get down to the root of the dispute, no ?

The past does not determine my will - I do

Do you choose which desires to have ?  No, you don't, and you have admitted this in the past and yet here you are again, denying it. Confused, or what ?  if you are faced with a simple choice, such as an apple or a pear, you act on your preference but you cannot choose which preference to have.  This is the logic of choice at its simplest, and if you cannot get past this however would we get to more complex scenarios ?

[torridon]

The two are incompatible.
The only freedom implicated in deterministic reactions would be that of a boulder rolling down a mountain whose direction and destination are entirely determined by universal rules outside any personal control of the boulder.  My freedom to choose my own path in life and my own destiny may well be deemed to be a logical impossibility by your flawed materialistic logic - but it is the reality in  which I exist.

That is just empty assertion claiming that your illogical view of things is 'reality'.  A human is more complex than a boulder, but being more complex does not run to operating outside the laws of logic, we still have play by the deepest rules of reality.  Were our thoughts and intentions free from determinism that would mean that our thoughts and intentions are random.  That is what indeterminism means.

[Stranger]

My will is certainly not random.
I fully agree that I am not independent of the past - I am aware of it, I am influenced by it, but I am not entirely controlled by it.

Those two statements contradict each other just as they did the previous 10,000 or so times you posted this mindless mantra. Either your choices are entirely due to all the reasons that led up to them or they are not and are therefore, to some extent, random.

If it was just a product of the past, then I have no will of my own, because I do not own the past and I can have no control of the past.  The past does not determine my will - I do.

There is no contradiction in it being both. You are the product of the past (or you are partly random).

Your flawed logic based on nothing but material reactions...

It is not based on material reactions - stop lying.

...reduces me to be just a spectator of what has already been predetermined.

Drivel.

This is not the reality in which I exist.  I know you deem this to be a combination of personal incredulity and unevidenced assertion - but in both these accusations you will be conceding the simple truth that I have consciously driven freedom to concoct what I am being accused of.

And you still haven't said why making silly, illogical assertions needs the self-contradictory, impossible sort of "freedom" you keep on gibbering on about. That in itself is just another empty assertion.

The two are incompatible.

So you keep asserting, without any hint of reasoning or logic.

The only freedom implicated in deterministic reactions would be that of a boulder rolling down a mountain whose direction and destination are entirely determined by universal rules outside any personal control of the boulder.

Not only is this an argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy (one of your favourites) but it really isn't accurate. You are able to think, process information and act. A computer isn't the same as a boulder, neither are non-human animals.

My freedom to choose my own path in life and my own destiny...

You can choose my own path, nobody is denying that. What is it about that that needs the contradictory, nonsensical sort of "freedom" that you could have done differently (with no randomness)?

...may well be deemed to be a logical impossibility by your flawed materialistic logic...

The logic isn't materialistic - that is dishonest. Saying it's flawed is just another baseless assertion.

...but it is the reality in  which I exist.

Foot stamping.

Where is the logic you said you had?

[wigginhall]

That is just empty assertion claiming that your illogical view of things is 'reality'.  A human is more complex than a boulder, but being more complex does not run to operating outside the laws of logic, we still have play by the deepest rules of reality.  Were our thoughts and intentions free from determinism that would mean that our thoughts and intentions are random.  That is what indeterminism means.

It's interesting that some Asian religions celebrate the lack of personal control, or really, ego control, as being a kind of liberation.  Everything goes along, without me lifting a finger.   And in fact, Christianity has tinges of this, but Alan's theism is heavily into control and divine fiat really, and this splits reality into the enforcer and the enforced.  Of course, the Asian religions like this are non-theistic, since God is the prime enforcer.

[Alan Burns]

You keep falling back on this attempt to make the discussion about a split between materialism and your notional 'spiritual' element - but that's not the issue.  You've agreed that will is not random - so, therefore, what's it dependent upon?  In this you seem to say 'a soul' or some other spiritual component of a human being - correct me if I'm getting this wrong - but you don't explain how that is both not random but also not dependent upon prior events.

My spiritual soul is not a product of prior events.  It exists and acts in the present.  I am consciously aware of prior events, and I am consciously aware of the present.  Within my conscious awareness, I have the ability to recall memories at will.  I also have the conscious ability to foresee possible consequences and implications for choices I am about to make.  I can recall previous choices with the knowledge that I could have chosen differently if I so wished.  All this happens in the present state of my conscious awareness.  But in material terms, what is my conscious awareness? What is a recalled memory? What is a conscious thought?  Can it all be defined entirely in terms of deterministic electro chemical activity?  The fact that we have no means of detecting non material entities does not imply that they do not exist, but when faced with the improbability of our conscious human will being defined by nothing but material reactions then you have to concede the possibility of a non material entity being involved.

[torridon]

My spiritual soul is not a product of prior events.  ...

Well what is it a product of then ? Can you give a description ?

[wigginhall]

The fact that we have no means of detecting pink rhinos on Mars, doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Gordon]

My spiritual soul is not a product of prior events.  It exists and acts in the present.  I am consciously aware of prior events, and I am consciously aware of the present.  Within my conscious awareness, I have the ability to recall memories at will.  I also have the conscious ability to foresee possible consequences and implications for choices I am about to make.  I can recall previous choices with the knowledge that I could have chosen differently if I so wished.  All this happens in the present state of my conscious awareness.  But in material terms, what is my conscious awareness? What is a recalled memory? What is a conscious thought?  Can it all be defined entirely in terms of deterministic electro chemical activity?  The fact that we have no means of detecting non material entities does not imply that they do not exist, but when faced with the improbability of our conscious human will being defined by nothing but material reactions then you have to concede the possibility of a non material entity being involved.

This is just another embarrassing farrago of fallacies, Alan: too many to even bother mentioning which ones.

[Stranger]

My spiritual soul is not a product of prior events.

Then it is partly random.

It exists and acts in the present.

Still gibberish.

I am consciously aware of prior events, and I am consciously aware of the present.  Within my conscious awareness, I have the ability to recall memories at will.  I also have the conscious ability to foresee possible consequences and implications for choices I am about to make.

All of which is entirely compatible with you being a deterministic system.

I can recall previous choices with the knowledge that I could have chosen differently if I so wished.

This means that your choice was partly for none of the reasons that pertained at the time and was therefore random.

All this happens in the present state of my conscious awareness.

Still gibberish.

But in material terms, what is my conscious awareness? What is a recalled memory? What is a conscious thought?

Asks the guy who thinks impossible, self-contradictory magic is an 'explanation'...

Can it all be defined entirely in terms of deterministic electro chemical activity?

Still not the first hint of a reasoned argument from you as to why not.

The fact that we have no means of detecting non material entities does not imply that they do not exist, but when faced with the improbability of our conscious human will being defined by nothing but material reactions then you have to concede the possibility of a non material entity being involved.

What improbability? Either "conscious human will" is logically self-consistent, in which case you cannot possibly say that it can't be material (without claiming to know everything about the physical world), or it isn't, and it's impossible in non-material la-la magic land too.

Where is the logic you said you had?

[ekim]

I can recall previous choices with the knowledge that I could have chosen differently if I so wished.  All this happens in the present state of my conscious awareness. 

"if I so wished" implies 'desire' for an outcome, which suggests that your choice is not free from 'desire' but more likely attached to the predominant desire at the time.

[torridon]

I can recall previous choices with the knowledge that I could have chosen differently if I so wished.

No one disputes that we do what we wish.  That you could have chosen differently if you had wished differently says nothing of interest; that describes a different circumstance to the choice made previously.  It is the claim that you could have chosen differently in the same circumstance that is not evidenced or logically tenable.

[ippy]

My spiritual soul is not a product of prior events.  It exists and acts in the present.  I am consciously aware of prior events, and I am consciously aware of the present.  Within my conscious awareness, I have the ability to recall memories at will.  I also have the conscious ability to foresee possible consequences and implications for choices I am about to make.  I can recall previous choices with the knowledge that I could have chosen differently if I so wished.  All this happens in the present state of my conscious awareness.  But in material terms, what is my conscious awareness? What is a recalled memory? What is a conscious thought?  Can it all be defined entirely in terms of deterministic electro chemical activity?  The fact that we have no means of detecting non material entities does not imply that they do not exist, but when faced with the improbability of our conscious human will being defined by nothing but material reactions then you have to concede the possibility of a non material entity being involved.

Your stuff always sounds like someone that doesn't know when to stop digging.

Most of the stuff you've had indoctrinated in to you consists of some predecessors of yours trying to justify the unjustifiable using the 2000 year old Bronze Age version of bullshit baffles brains, it obviously does work, it manages to get a few drawn in, you've got to hand it to those bible writing lads in the day they've managed to draw you in too. 

Well there you go Alan, Commiserations, from ippy.

[torridon]

The New Testament is written as a historical document by at least seven independent writers, and contains many eye witness testimonies...

That's a very naive view. The New Testament as is stands now is an outcome of the battles between factions of the early church, between literalists and gnostics.  No one knows who wrote the four gospels but they almost certainly weren't eye witnesses, they were recounting second hand stories several decades later, and the many contradictions between them testify to the confusion and the factionalism of their provenence. And that's before we even get on to the many gnostic gospels that were successfully excised from the canon by the literalist faction, who eventually won the day.

[SteveH]

Just as an aside, a theologian called John Mill devoted 30 years to looking at circa 100 extant Greek New Testament manuscripts and produced a work of textual criticism which came out in 1707 on the New testament. This work noted over 30,000 discrepancies between the manuscripts.

That might be a problem for biblical literalists, but for the majority of Christians, who take a more intelligent, nuanced view of the bible, it's "so what?" territory.

[Roses]

That might be a problem for biblical literalists, but for the majority of Christians, who take a more intelligent, nuanced view of the bible, it's "so what?" territory.

That rules you out, your approach is not intelligent.

[ippy]

That rules you out, your approach is not intelligent.

Just when you think it can't get any worse!

ippy