Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

It is certainly not random - nor is it an inevitable reaction beyond my control.  I am consciously aware of reasons, and I am consciously aware of possible consequences, and I am consciously aware of my ability to make my own choice rather than just react.

So, by, 'aware of reasons' you admit now that there would be a reason (or reasons) for your choices. Your previous post claimed you had the ability to 'consciously generate a cause', hence locating your decision making outwith the principle of cause and effect. I think it has to be either in or out, you are just fudging the issue rather than addressing it. Either we make choices for a reason, or we make random choices.

[Sebastian Toe]

It is certainly not random - nor is it an inevitable reaction beyond my control.  I am consciously aware of reasons, and I am consciously aware of possible consequences, and I am consciously aware of my ability to make my own choice rather than just react.

...and having made that choice, how does your non physical soul interact with your physical body to complete any physical actions required?

[Gordon]

It is certainly not random - nor is it an inevitable reaction beyond my control.  I am consciously aware of reasons, and I am consciously aware of possible consequences, and I am consciously aware of my ability to make my own choice rather than just react.

In order for you to become consciously aware of these reasons it follows that said reasons must in some sense precede your conscious awareness of them  - yes?

[Alan Burns]

So, by, 'aware of reasons' you admit now that there would be a reason (or reasons) for your choices. Your previous post claimed you had the ability to 'consciously generate a cause', hence locating your decision making outwith the principle of cause and effect. I think it has to be either in or out, you are just fudging the issue rather than addressing it. Either we make choices for a reason, or we make random choices.

I am just illustrating the power of human will acting in conjunction with conscious awareness.  Reasons exist.  They exist within our conscious awareness, and so does the power of human will.  Your are currently demonstrating your conscious freedom to contemplate reasons and how we can choose to act upon them.

[Alan Burns]

In order for you to become consciously aware of these reasons it follows that said reasons must in some sense precede your conscious awareness of them  - yes?

I have the conscious freedom to formulate reasons and contemplate them before I act upon them.  It is what I do.

[torridon]

I am just illustrating the power of human will acting in conjunction with conscious awareness.  Reasons exist.  They exist within our conscious awareness, and so does the power of human will.  Your are currently demonstrating your conscious freedom to contemplate reasons and how we can choose to act upon them.

Reasons in our mind do not exist in some sort of isolation, they derive from real world events, from cause and effect.  This idea of yours that we can just 'generate a cause' makes no sense. We are always responding to something that has happened.  The power of human will, as you put it, therefore consists in the ability to resolve between rival possible courses of action, and we do this by evaluating options to see which leads to the outcome with the most favourable result.  My point is, we cannot choose how to define 'most favourable', it is something not under our control.  I don't get to choose to like the taste of durian fruit if I hate it. I don't get to choose to believe Moscow is in Finland if I don't believe it is.  We can only resolve between rival choices because we have no control over our desires and beliefs.

[Gordon]

I have the conscious freedom to formulate reasons and contemplate them before I act upon them.  It is what I do.

You haven't answered the question I asked.

But - you're saying that you can consciously formulate reasons prior to contemplating them - yes?

[Stranger]

Your are currently demonstrating your conscious freedom to contemplate reasons and how we can choose to act upon them.

What is being demonstrating here (by most posters, anyway) is the ability to think and reason, what is NOT being demonstrated, and what is impossible to demonstrate (in the absence of the ability to literally rewind time) is that anybody could have thought or posted anything differently, let alone that any difference would not have been random.

This has been explained to you countless times before, so why do you keep (apparently) lying about it? If you think that it is possible to demonstrate that you could have thought or posted differently, then come up with an argument and the actual demonstration.

You are hiding behind ambiguous phrases like "conscious freedom to contemplate" which conflate conscious contemplation with your nonsense version of "freedom". It's mindless, simplistic 'thinking', it's shamelessly dishonest, or you actually have the logic you claimed to have and are, for some bizarre reason, not posting even the first hint of it.

Which is it?

[Alan Burns]

What is being demonstrating here (by most posters, anyway) is the ability to think and reason, what is NOT being demonstrated, and what is impossible to demonstrate (in the absence of the ability to literally rewind time) is that anybody could have thought or posted anything differently, let alone that any difference would not have been random.

This has been explained to you countless times before, so why do you keep (apparently) lying about it? If you think that it is possible to demonstrate that you could have thought or posted differently, then come up with an argument and the actual demonstration.

You are hiding behind ambiguous phrases like "conscious freedom to contemplate" which conflate conscious contemplation with your nonsense version of "freedom". It's mindless, simplistic 'thinking', it's shamelessly dishonest, or you actually have the logic you claimed to have and are, for some bizarre reason, not posting even the first hint of it.

Which is it?

You have previously admitted that it would be impossible to demonstrate our freedom by turning back time.  The fact that it is impossible to perform such a demonstration in no way shows freedom to be the logical impossibility you claim it to be.  The fact that you can contemplate such an impossibility indicates your conscious freedom to think.  And by accusing me of making up deliberate lies you imply that I could have chosen not to make such deliberations - putting "me" as the source of deliberation rather than past events beyond my control.  My notion of freedom is not the mindless, simplistic thought process you claim - it is just a reification of the conscious freedom we all use and enjoy as human beings with a will of our own.

[Stranger]

You have previously admitted that it would be impossible to demonstrate our freedom by turning back time.

Misrepresentation.

The fact that it is impossible to perform such a demonstration in no way shows freedom to be the logical impossibility you claim it to be.

I never said that it did - more misrepresentation. However, yet again, turning back time would be the only way you could demonstrate that you could have chosen differently.

Jeez Alan, why won't you pay some fucking attention to what is actually said?

The fact that you can contemplate such an impossibility indicates your conscious freedom to think.

There you go again, trying to conflate conscious contemplation with your nonsensical version of freedom. You have presented not the first hint of a logical connection between the ability to contemplate and being able to have done differently with no randomness - nothing, zilch, nada, zero, diddly-squat, nil, bugger-all - yet you keep on pretending that such a connection exists.

And by accusing me of making up deliberate...

Back to the mindless repetition. 

WHERE IS THE FIRST HINT OF THE LOGIC YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE?

[Sebastian Toe]

I have the conscious freedom to formulate reasons and contemplate them before I act upon them.  It is what I do.

...and how exactly do you act upon them?
How, precisely does your non-physical soul make your physical body, act?

[Alan Burns]

However, yet again, turning back time would be the only way you could demonstrate that you could have chosen differently.

But you must understand that turning back time is impossible, so why do you keep quoting this impossible scenario to back up your theory that we could not possibly have made any different choice?  Our freedom to choose rather than react is aptly demonstrated by what we do with our precious gift of life.

[Nearly Sane]

But you must understand that turning back time is impossible, so why do you keep quoting this impossible scenario to back up your theory that we could not possibly have made any different choice?  Our freedom to choose rather than react is aptly demonstrated by what we do with our precious gift of life.

Drivel.

[Stranger]

But you must understand that turning back time is impossible, so why do you keep quoting this impossible scenario to back up your theory that we could not possibly have made any different choice?

Will you actually read what I said!?

Just because I'm talking about turning back time, doesn't mean that I'm making the same argument as I did last time I referred to it (not that you seem to have grasped that point either).

You are claiming we could have done differently, and you keep on claiming that this "freedom" is demonstrable. The only way you could possibly actually demonstrate that is by literally turning back time, which is impossible.

Therefore, your claim of your version of "freedom" (being able to have done differently) is NOT demonstrable.

Our freedom to choose rather than react is aptly demonstrated by what we do with our precious gift of life.

No - your version of "freedom" (being able to have done differently), cannot possibly be demonstrated by anything we actually do exactly because we only have one example of each choice.

To demonstrate that we could have done differently, we would need more than one sample of each choice to show that they could be different.

[Alan Burns]

To demonstrate that we could have done differently, we would need more than one sample of each choice to show that they could be different.

And we only have one chance to demonstrate what we can do with our lives, so why not make the most of it?

[Nearly Sane]

And we only have one chance to demonstrate what we can do with our lives, so why not make the most of it?

Vacuous pish

[Owlswing]

I hear that the Christian churches are discussing prohibiting circumcised men from becoming priests on the ground that to do the job of priest, bishop, cardinal, whatever, properly you have to be a

complete prick!

[torridon]

But you must understand that turning back time is impossible, so why do you keep quoting this impossible scenario to back up your theory that we could not possibly have made any different choice?  Our freedom to choose rather than react is aptly demonstrated by what we do with our precious gift of life.

The inability to reverse time merely signifies that the claim of free will can never be justified empirically.  Like 'God', therefore, it can only ever be a matter of faith, and both beliefs, God and free will. are inherently irrational and so fail on purely philosophical ground imv.  You'll only make any progress on these issues by engagement with the ideas and concepts.

[torridon]

And we only have one chance to demonstrate what we can do with our lives, so why not make the most of it?

Irrelevant platitudes are not going to enhance your standing here.  The exact same exhortation could be aimed at you, you've only got one life, why not use it to develop clear headed thinking ? See, easy peasy

[ekim]

Remove grace, and you have nothing whereby to be saved. Remove free will and you have nothing that could be saved."
-- Anselm of Canterbury

Introduce grace and you have no free will.  Remove self will and you have no need of grace.
-- Ekim of Canterbury

[Stranger]

And we only have one chance to demonstrate what we can do with our lives, so why not make the most of it?

Why not indeed? How about starting with some baby steps towards basic honesty?

Will you acknowledge that your version of "freedom" is not demonstrable or offer a coherent counterargument?

Will you stop misrepresenting the arguments against you?

Will you attempt the logical argument you claimed to have or admit that you can't?

Take your time.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It is certainly not random - nor is it an inevitable reaction beyond my control.  I am consciously aware of reasons, and I am consciously aware of possible consequences, and I am consciously aware of my ability to make my own choice rather than just react.

Ok. I am just trying to clarify if in your beliefs on the subject of souls you think your soul is all-knowing?

Do you think the reasons and consequences that you are consciously aware of and are contemplating are reasons and consequences that your brain has come up with based on its nature/ nurture? By "nurture" I mean environmental influences eg. based on your brain's perceptions of experiences, knowledge, ideas it has previously encountered or been exposed to e.g Bible passages, this forum etc.

Or if you believe the soul is all-knowing then you would presumably believe that it has access to all knowledge and experiences everywhere that ever existed even if your brain has never been exposed to those ideas or experiences or knowledge?

[Alan Burns]

The inability to reverse time merely signifies that the claim of free will can never be justified empirically.  Like 'God', therefore, it can only ever be a matter of faith, and both beliefs, God and free will. are inherently irrational and so fail on purely philosophical ground imv.  You'll only make any progress on these issues by engagement with the ideas and concepts.

Can you not rely on your own ability to perceive the reality of our freedom, rather than seek reasons to deny it?

[torridon]

Can you not rely on your own ability to perceive the reality of our freedom, rather than seek reasons to deny it?

Your conceptualisation of freedom makes no sense to me.  The only way in which 'freedom' makes sense is in the true sense of the word, ie we are free from coercion or oppression.  The idea that you could be free from cause and effect or free from yourself in unintelligible.  I always feel that I make choices that are for reasons, and my choices are always in line with my preferences, over which I cannot exercise any control. We can only have meaning in our lives by virtue of the fact that we are deterministic agents within a deterministic system. To be otherwise would be random chaos, and there can be no such thing as 'meaning' in chaos.

[Alan Burns]

Your conceptualisation of freedom makes no sense to me.  The only way in which 'freedom' makes sense is in the true sense of the word, ie we are free from coercion or oppression.  The idea that you could be free from cause and effect or free from yourself in unintelligible.  I always feel that I make choices that are for reasons, and my choices are always in line with my preferences, over which I cannot exercise any control. We can only have meaning in our lives by virtue of the fact that we are deterministic agents within a deterministic system. To be otherwise would be random chaos, and there can be no such thing as 'meaning' in chaos.

I fully agree that we are not free from cause and effect, but we are more than just an insignificant link in the endless chain of cause and effect.  We have the ability to wilfully interact within these chains rather than just act as a transmitter with nothing to add to the messages we react to.  Our conscious ability to wilfully interact opens up endless opportunities to seek and fulfil our true purpose in life.