Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It would appear that many are using it without realising they are using it.

No-one uses it (at least not here). It's just another soldier in Vlad's army of straw men.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That would be your (illusory) self that is subject to the illusion that it exists as a distinct ontological entity.

So something is having the illusion but that which has the illusion doesn't exist.
So it's illusions having their own illusions now.

What arrant bollocks is this?!?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

No-one uses it (at least not here). It's just another soldier in Vlad's army of straw men.

That's bollocks Hillside. In fact it surprises me that religionethics hasn't held the philosophical naturalism Olympics yet. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Of course the notion that there is no such thing as the self because it cannot be explained naturalistically or demonstrated by science...

No-one says that. Doesn't the endless lying get to be tiring after a while? It's certainly tiresome for the rest of us.

What's actually said of course is that the experience of "self" cannot be as it appears to be - ie, agency independent of the body - because such a thing is logically impossible no matter how many appeals to magic its proponent tries. We know this because the logic is unimpeachable and because the evidence of emergence as a universal phenomenon provides a perfectly plausible explanation for what's actually going on.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That's bollocks Hillside. In fact it surprises me that religionethics hasn't held the philosophical naturalism Olympics yet.

You're caught out in yet another straw man and your only reply is "that's bollocks". Why not go full Trump and call it "fake news" while you're about it - so much easier than actually finding an example of anyone here ever, ever arguing for (your misunderstanding of) "philosophical naturalism" (by which you actually mean physicalism) eh?

[Nearly Sane]

That's bollocks Hillside. In fact it surprises me that religionethics hasn't held the philosophical naturalism Olympics yet.

tedious liar lies tediously

[Stranger]

In fact it surprises me that religionethics hasn't held the philosophical naturalism Olympics yet.

Yet you still haven't come up with even one actual example...

[Outrider]

If it is not an inevitable reaction to past events, it must be determined by something which exists and acts in the present - God's gift of the human soul.

That's both begging the question - it's entirely conceivable (even likely) that it is entirely an inevitable consequence of past events - and failing to address the enquiry.  Whether it's God, soul, spirit, cosmic fairy dust or good, old-fashioned magic, what is the third path that is neither deterministic nor random?

Putting a name to an alleged source for a concept that you can't logically explain doesn't in any way change the fact that the concept you're espousing is logically incoherent.

O.

[Alan Burns]

It really doesn't matter what it is (physical, spiritual, magic, or whatever), it changes its state over time and is therefore either operating as a deterministic system or not (and therefore involves randomness).

What do you presume to be the source of whatever it is that determines changes in its state?

[Nearly Sane]

What do you presume to be the source of whatever it is that determines changes in its state?

More begging the question with the idea of a 'source'.

[torridon]

So something is having the illusion but that which has the illusion doesn't exist.
So it's illusions having their own illusions now.

What arrant bollocks is this?!?

it doesn't exist as a thing; it exists as an emergent phenomenon of mind. All mental phenomena are constructions of mind, that includes your sense of self.

[torridon]

What do you presume to be the source of whatever it is that determines changes in its state?

Anything and everything can induce a change in state.  We are not islands, we are constantly bombarded by the rest of the the cosmos, change is incessant.

[Stranger]

What do you presume to be the source of whatever it is that determines changes in its state?

That doesn't even make sense - we are talking out how minds work and make choices. It's about how come you wished to do what you did at the time you made your choice - as in your previous statement about how you could have done differently if you'd so wished. We're talking about why you didn't wish to do differently.

You keep on insisting that it's "you" that is making the choice and seem unable to grasp that "you" isn't a magic black box that we are forbidden from asking questions about. Your choices, your wishes, are what they are at a particular point in time for reasons (unless they are random).

Because your state of mind (what you wish to do and think) is changing over time, it is either operating as a deterministic system or not. There is no "source" other than your own mind (its ever changing state) and the external inputs.

In other words, your state of mind now is either entirely because of what it was just before now and its current perception of the world, or it isn't, in which case its current state is partly for no reason at all.

And no, having a non-physical soul with a "conscious will" makes not a jot of difference to that because its state and its will would be part (or all, if you like) of "you", that is, your state of mind.

[Alan Burns]

More begging the question with the idea of a 'source'.

The word "source" would appear to make atheists uncomfortable when contemplating such things as:
The source of time
The source of our universe
The source of existence
The source of human thought
The source of human conscious awareness
The source of human will

[Nearly Sane]

The word "source" would appear to make atheists uncomfortable when contemplating such things as:
The source of time
The source of our universe
The source of existence
The source of human thought
The source of human conscious awareness
The source of human will

It doesn't make me uncomfortable at all. It is just you using the logical fallacy of begging the question and assuming such a thing as a source.

[Stranger]

The word "source" would appear to make atheists uncomfortable when contemplating such things as:
The source of time
The source of our universe
The source of existence
The source of human thought
The source of human conscious awareness
The source of human will

So, once again you've run away from actually addressing the logic of the situation and just employed an obvious distraction tactic. It looks to me like you're the one suffering from not being comfortable dealing with certain concepts and lines of reasoning.

The word "source" doesn't make me in the least bit uncomfortable. We can give evidence based answers to the last three (it's called a "brain"). The first is actually part of the second, so isn't even a separate question. The second is unknown and may not even be a meaningful question, which leaves us with the "source of existence", which postulating a god totally fails to answer.

Now - how about addressing the logic you've been given or finally producing the logic you said you had?

[Sebastian Toe]

I will ask you again. If the self is an illusion......what is it that is having the illusion?

If the self us not an illusion,, then what exactly is it?

Mr A Burns states that it is in fact a God given soul.
Said soul resides outwith the space time continuum where our physical bodies exist.
The place where the soul resides is without time but not to worry because it experiences time on every visit here as it rummages through our physical brain cells in real time, making real time decisions.

Does that align with your thoughts?
Or do you have another explanation?

[Alan Burns]

Anything and everything can induce a change in state.  We are not islands, we are constantly bombarded by the rest of the the cosmos, change is incessant.

And within this bombardment from the rest of the cosmos, there appear to be acts of conscious deliberation.  My question pertains to the source of such acts.  If there is no definable source, what is it that deliberates?

[torridon]

And within this bombardment from the rest of the cosmos, there appear to be acts of conscious deliberation.  My question pertains to the source of such acts.  If there is no definable source, what is it that deliberates?

OK, it is my mind that deliberates.  Is that a satisfactory answer ?

[Stranger]

And within this bombardment from the rest of the cosmos, there appear to be acts of conscious deliberation.  My question pertains to the source of such acts.  If there is no definable source, what is it that deliberates?

And once again Alan runs scared from actually tackling the logic of the situation to ask the same dimwitted question that he's asked and received answers to (all of which he's totally ignored) about 10,000 times before.

Where is the logic you said you had? Were you just lying?

[Gordon]

And within this bombardment from the rest of the cosmos, there appear to be acts of conscious deliberation.  My question pertains to the source of such acts.  If there is no definable source, what is it that deliberates?

Your fucking brain, Alan - try coming up with a way of 'deliberating' without one and let us know how you get on.

[Alan Burns]

Your fucking brain, Alan - try coming up with a way of 'deliberating' without one and let us know how you get on.

And within all these chains of physically determined reactions going on in a material brain, I ask again - what is it that deliberates?  What is the source of deliberation?

[Nearly Sane]

And within all these chains of physically determined reactions going on in a material brain, I ask again - what is it that deliberates?

bored now.

[Nearly Sane]

And within all these chains of physically determined reactions going on in a material brain, I ask again - what is it that deliberates?  What is the source of deliberation?

Woo, argument by making stuff bold! Any chance of you avoiding begging the question?

[Gordon]

And within all these chains of physically determined reactions going on in a material brain, I ask again - what is it that deliberates?  What is the source of deliberation?

You are undoubtedly our very own fallacymeister extrordinaire: you seem incapable of posting without in some way descending into fallacious theobollocks.