Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

Your logic is short sighted because it denies the reality of my conscious freedom to choose my own thoughts, words and actions.

You've not shown that your perception of conscious freedom is a reality - indeed, you've not even, as yet, shown that it's a logical possibility.

It denies my conscious freedom to witness to the reality of human free will.

You've not shown that your perception of human free will is a reality - indeed, you've not even, as yet, shown that it's a logical possibility.

It denies my conscious freedom to choose Jesus as my Lord and Saviour.

You need to explain how 'conscious freedom' isn't a combination of random and deterministic events, and that magical Jesus is somehow a real thing, and you've done neither of those.

It denies my conscious freedom to make what you choose to label as unevidenced assertions.

So many unevidenced claims it's like fallacy bingo.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Drivel.

It does not deny your ability to make these baseless assertions.

It does not deny your freedom to make these baseless assertions in the normal sense of the word. That is, you are free to assert whatever you want to because there is nothing stopping you.

The only thing it does deny is your nonsensical, incoherent, and self-contradictory assertions about how "freedom" works.

Remember you said you had sound logic? Still waiting for the first hint of it........

You do not seem to appreciate the conscious freedom we all enjoy.
Your flawed logic states that I could not have made any other choice at the time I made it.  This is not the freedom I know or experience - it is just unavoidable reaction.
Your flawed logic means that every step you took to come up with your postulated logic was just unavoidable reaction to past events.
Your notion of freedom shackles life's direction to be that of a roller coaster over which we have no choice.

[Stranger]

You do not seem to appreciate the conscious freedom we all enjoy.

Says the guy who is so trapped by blind faith that he's stuck mindlessly repeating the same phrases over and over and over again because he can't bring himself to even try to engage with the logic of the situation.

Your flawed logic...

Where is the flaw?

...states that I could not have made any other choice at the time I made it.

If you could have made a different choice at that time, then it couldn't possibly have been for any reason at all, because all the reasons would have been exactly the same. Therefore to assert that you could have made a different choice is to assert that there is a part of the choice-making that is for no reason at all, which can only mean that it is random.

This is not the freedom I know or experience...

"It doesn't feel like that so it can't be like that" is an 'argument' at the level of flat-earthers.

Still waiting for any hint of the logic you said you had......

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your flawed logic...

Again you assert that if logic falsifies some personal beliefs you happen to have then the logic must be "flawed". That's not how reason works though: reason work by taking logically sound arguments and accepting the outcomes, whether or not they align with or falsify our personal beliefs. 

For your claim to stand, you'd have to show that the logic that leads you to conclude "the way it feels must also be the way it is" is more robust than the logic that shows the claim to be false. Trouble is though, not only do you not have logic to support you that's more robust than the logic that falsifies you, you don't have any logic to support you at all. Just asserting over and over again, "the way it feels must be the way it is" isn't a logical argument of any kind, and your occasional forays into attempts at supporting logic always collapse into fallacy. 

Short version: it's not Stranger et als' logic that's flawed, it's your conclusions.     

[Alan Burns]

If you could have made a different choice at that time, then it couldn't possibly have been for any reason at all, because all the reasons would have been exactly the same.

Apart from my own conscious will.
The will which determined this post

[ippy]

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that there are so many people that post here that all keep on trying to explain where you are going wrong at length. When there are so many doing their best to explain and there is no one supporting you, surly this must be telling you something?

Can't remember who off hand but there are even some of your fellow followers were trying to explain some of your short Cummings to you.

The way you think you can assert things into being, don't you realise what you're doing it's as though you really think this is a reasonable thing to do surly you must have some feelings of embarrassment especially when it's explained to you by so many and even worse than that you never learn from anything you have had fully explained to you.

Commiserations to the man that never learns no matter what Alan Burns, what a sad man, ippy 

[Alan Burns]

Hasn't it ever occurred to you that there are so many people that post here that all keep on trying to explain where you are going wrong at length. When there are so many doing their best to explain and there is no one supporting you, surly this must be telling you something?

Yes.
It tells me that all these people are using their free will to try to explain why there is no such thing as free will.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes.
It tells me that all these people are using their free will to try to explain why there is no such thing as free will.

A position you can maintain only if you completely ignore the clear, coherent, cogent arguments you're given for why you're wrong about that.

What does this behaviour say about you do you think?   

[Stranger]

Apart from my own conscious will.

There is no "apart from" about it. Either your "conscious will" refers to your final decision, in which case the logic applies: if it could have been different then it couldn't be for any reason and so involves randomness, or it refers to one of the reasons that was already present at the time the choice was made, in which case it was what it was at the time, so you couldn't have done differently.

The will which determined this post

What appears to be determining your posts is desperation and fear of facing up to the logic of the situation because it would call into question the blind faith and superstitions you've built your life around.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

A position you can maintain only if you completely ignore the clear, coherent, cogent arguments you're given for why you're wrong about that.

What do all these "free will deniers" have in common?
Is it clear, coherent, cogent arguments?
I think not.
What commonality I do see is a will to seek reasons to deny any evidence of God.

[Nearly Sane]

What do all these "free will deniers" have in common?
Is it clear, coherent, cogent arguments?
I think not.
What commonality I do see is a will to seek reasons to deny any evidence of God.

This is you using your usual trope of saying people are lying about their motivation. It is tedious in the extreme, as well as rude, and an attempt to use the begging the question fallacy.

[Gordon]

What do all these "free will deniers" have in common?
Is it clear, coherent, cogent arguments?
I think not.
What commonality I do see is a will to seek reasons to deny any evidence of God.

Then you see it wrong, yet again - there being no 'evidence' for God to be denied, since there is no method that could be used to obtain sound 'evidence' of God in the first place, so you are actually misrepresenting people like me when you post nonsense like this.

Your version of 'God' is predicated on there being 'free will' but your proposals for 'free will' have been exposed at logically vacuous and, as such, they fail: therefore, you have already falsified your own version of 'God' but you are so entrenched in your personal fallacy-fest that, as yet, you lack the insight to understand where you are going so foolishly wrong.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What do all these "free will deniers" have in common?

Clear, coherent, cogent arguments.

Is it clear, coherent, cogent arguments?

Yes.

I think not.

You can say that again, but in any case the fact that you never engage with the arguments that show your assertions to be wrong and just repeat the same assertions instead says more about you than you’d wish.   

What commonality I do see is a will to seek reasons to deny any evidence of God.

That’s because there isn’t any. You’ve been told why there isn’t any (or rather why what you think to be evidence is no such thing) but you just ignore that too remember?   

[torridon]

You do not seem to appreciate the conscious freedom we all enjoy.
Your flawed logic states that I could not have made any other choice at the time I made it.  This is not the freedom I know or experience - it is just unavoidable reaction.
..

The claim that you could have made a different choice (in the same circumstance) is identical to the claim that your choice was random. So if you insist your choice was 'free' you cannot then add that 'human will is certainly not random' as is your wont.  Your position on this is incomprehensible.

[torridon]

What do all these "free will deniers" have in common?
Is it clear, coherent, cogent arguments?
I think not.
What commonality I do see is a will to seek reasons to deny any evidence of God.

God has scarcely come into it, despite this being the 'Searching for God' thread.  God has been a non-issue so far.  Bring it on if you want.

[SusanDoris]

Yes.
It tells me that all these people are using their free will to try to explain why there is no such thing as free will.

And you are so bound up, trapped and enclosed in your need to avoid all rational responses that all you can do is come up with repetitious drivel, drivel and more drivel.

[Stranger]

What do all these "free will deniers" have in common?
Is it clear, coherent, cogent arguments?

Well, not everybody who's posted here who disagreed with you has used clear, coherent, cogent arguments in every post, but clear, coherent, cogent arguments have been presented to you countless times and by several different people. Your response has been to either to totally ignore them, or indulge in an almost comical stream of illogical nonsense: empty assertions, total gibberish, and your extensive collection of logical fallacies.

I think not.

Thinking doesn't appear to be your strong suit.

What commonality I do see is a will to seek reasons to deny any evidence of God.

This is just absurd. If you think your antics on this thread are evidence for your god, you're living in a fantasy world. They appear to be strong evidence that your faith has crippled your intellect and made you dishonest.

The evidence against your view is all over this thread. The clear logical problems you face have been explained to you in detail and people have pointed out the problems in your "argument", and yet

• You have never managed to address the basic contradiction in your position.
  
  
• You seem totally unconcerned that you're relying well known, recognised logical fallacies.
  
  
• You have never managed to back up your absurd claims that what people post is evidence for your impossible contradiction - yet you go on repeating it regardless. This is tantamount to lying.
  
  
• You endlessly misrepresent the opposing arguments. Which is a kind of lie.
  
  
• You endlessly repeat the same things, often in the same words, and totally ignore the answers you've already been given.
  
  
• You said you had sound logic and you have produced nothing that even looks like a logical argument.

The second point alone should act as a strong warning to anybody with any serious intention to use reasoning - yet you simply ignore it when people point out your fallacies. I can only conclude that you are either arrogant, complacent, or too dim or ill-informed to understand the significance.

[ippy]

Yes.
It tells me that all these people are using their free will to try to explain why there is no such thing as free will.

You know Alan I completely forgot about that compendium of set assertions/phrases you have set up on your computer.

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

The evidence against your view is all over this thread. The clear logical problems you face have been explained to you in detail and people have pointed out the problems in your "argument", and yet

•   You have never managed to address the basic contradiction in your position.

•   You seem totally unconcerned that you're relying well known, recognised logical fallacies.

•   You have never managed to back up your absurd claims that what people post is evidence for your impossible contradiction - yet you go on repeating it regardless. This is tantamount to lying.

•   You endlessly misrepresent the opposing arguments. Which is a kind of lie.

•   You endlessly repeat the same things, often in the same words, and totally ignore the answers you've already been given.

•   You said you had sound logic and you have produced nothing that even looks like a logical argument.

The second point alone should act as a strong warning to anybody with any serious intention to use reasoning - yet you simply ignore it when people point out your fallacies. I can only conclude that you are either arrogant, complacent, or too dim or ill-informed to understand the significance.

Yes, but apart from all that what do you think of his arguments? 

[Alan Burns]

For those who think religion is dying -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUtll3mNj5U

(preferably on a big screen with hifi sound)

[Gordon]

For those who think religion is dying -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUtll3mNj5U

(preferably on a big screen with hifi sound)

For those who like that sort of thing, no doubt that is the sort of think thing they like (borrowed from Muriel Spark) - but what makes you think that those of us who don't like that sort of thing would be impressed by this?

I'm afraid that organised Christianity is dying, here in the UK anyway, since that is what surveys confirm and a small bunch of  enthusiasts isn't sufficient to counter that: and to think otherwise would be over-egging the pudding. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB

For those who think religion is dying -…

It is:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/11/uk-secularism-on-rise-as-more-than-half-say-they-have-no-religion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUtll3mNj5U

(preferably on a big screen with hifi sound)

More logic- and evidence-free faith sharing. So what? 

[Alan Burns]

For those who like that sort of thing, no doubt that is the sort of think thing they like (borrowed from Muriel Spark) - but what makes you think that those of us who don't like that sort of thing would be impressed by this?

Just look at the faces of those taking part - would you not wish to discover the inner peace and joy they all share?
Many who have watched it have confessed that it brought them tears of joy!
Or do you wish to dismiss it all with a "Bah humbug!"

[Stranger]

For those who think religion is dying -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUtll3mNj5U

(preferably on a big screen with hifi sound)

Another example of your inability to think logically. A bunch of people singing does nothing to counter the claim that religion is dying. Who was making this claim anyway?

Is this just a distraction from the fact that you have no logical argument to offer?

[Gordon]

Just look at the faces of those taking part - would you not wish to discover the inner peace and joy they all share?
Many who have watched it have confessed that it brought them tears of joy!
Or do you wish to dismiss it all with a "Bah humbug!"

Which is your confirmation bias showing again.

Personally I think the video is cringeworthy (and I have watched it), but then again I find videos of ABBA or the BeeGees equally cringeworthy. The enthusiasm of this particular bunch signifies nothing other than that they are enthusiastic.

Similar levels of enthusiasm may be found (in normal times) in various football stadia, but that alone wouldn't encourage me that I must 'discover' what enthuses them.