Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

It is the processes leading up to an act of judgment which require consciously driven control.
What determines the judgement?
In your deterministic scenario where every event is entirely determined by prior events, what can possibly be responsible for an act of judgement?
You need consciously driven freedom to analyse what you are judging.

Think of it this way.

1. In scenario A: a circumstance that combines any prevailing details external to you along with 'you' (which includes your subconscious traits, personal preferences and your physical/mental state at that exact time (were you hungry; did you have a headache, were you late for something etc) at that time - and you chose outcome B.

2. If you re-ran scenario A and everything was exactly the same as above (which is impossible) then it would be reasonable to suppose you'd get exactly the same result and you'd chose outcome B.

3. If you re-ran scenario A and you got a different result then clearly something was different this time and it wasn't a repeat of scenario A any more: it could be something random that you haven't even recognised that was only a factor once, or it could be a very subtle change in circumstances or in 'you' that you are unaware of that is sufficient to determine a different outcome.

Your idea that in exactly the same circumstances you'd make a different choice is problematic since that would imply a different set of circumstances applied or that your choices are neither determined or random, which is plain silly.   

[Alan Burns]

Any break in those chains of inevitability would manifest as random events.  Does your world consist of random chaos ?  Mine certainly doesn't, it seems sort of orderly, predictable.

The point is that we have the conscious ability to deliberately interact with these otherwise physically determined chains of cause and effect.  Deliberate interaction is not random - neither is is an inevitable reaction to past events beyond your control.  Our freedom and power to interact with this world emerges from our conscious awareness, which is where we make choices, manipulate thoughts, come to logical conclusions and pass judgements.

[torridon]

The point is that we have the conscious ability to deliberately interact with these otherwise physically determined chains of cause and effect.  Deliberate interaction is not random - neither is is an inevitable reaction to past events beyond your control.  Our freedom and power to interact with this world emerges from our conscious awareness, which is where we make choices, manipulate thoughts, come to logical conclusions and pass judgements.

well, focus on these words of yours : Deliberate interaction is not random - neither is it an inevitable reaction.  This is where logic breaks down in your claims.  I'd agree our interactions' are not random; but, 'not random' implies that a causal relationship pertains instead, and our interaction is in fact therefore a predictable, consequential outcome; this is what being not random means. Merely interacting 'consciously' will not get you out of this logical paradox.  Not even god and all his angels put together would be able to draw a square circle,  but it is just this sort of unintelligible impossibility you are claiming consciousness to be capable of.

[Alan Burns]

Your idea that in exactly the same circumstances you'd make a different choice is problematic since that would imply a different set of circumstances applied or that your choices are neither determined or random, which is plain silly.   

In exactly the same circumstances, I am certainly under the same external influences, but I am in control and have the final say.  If I was to react in exactly the same way to identical circumstances, that would indicate that I have no will of my own.  My conscious will is certainly not random, nor is it an unavoidable reaction to past events.  My will defines me as the free spirit which God has created.

[Nearly Sane]

In exactly the same circumstances, I am certainly under the same external influences, but I am in control and have the final say.  It I was to react in exactly the same way to identical circumstances, that would indicate that I have no will of my own.  My conscious will is certainly not random, nor is it an unavoidable reaction to past events.  My will defines me as the free spirit which God has created.

But why could there be any different decision?

[Gordon]

In exactly the same circumstances, I am certainly under the same external influences, but I am in control and have the final say.  If I was to react in exactly the same way to identical circumstances, that would indicate that I have no will of my own.  My conscious will is certainly not random, nor is it an unavoidable reaction to past events.  My will defines me as the free spirit which God has created.

If the circumstances and your internal state (both conscious and unconscious) were exactly the same then on what basis would you come to a different decision?

If you did come to a different decision then the the most likely explanation is surely that things weren't exactly the same even if you weren't consciously aware of any differences.   

[Alan Burns]

If the circumstances and your internal state (both conscious and unconscious) were exactly the same then on what basis would you come to a different decision?

My internal state is not subject to the same cause and effect rules as a machine.  I am not a machine.  I am a conscious human being with a will of my own which is not entirely dictated by past cause and effect.

If you did come to a different decision then the the most likely explanation is surely that things weren't exactly the same even if you weren't consciously aware of any differences.

The explanation is simply due to my God given gift of free will.

[Nearly Sane]

My internal state is not subject to the same cause and effect rules as a machine.  I am not a machine.  I have a will of my own which is not entirely dictated by cause and effect.The explanation is simply due to my God given gift of free will.

So how can a different decision be made?

[Alan Burns]

So how can a different decision be made?

I have the conscious freedom to choose rather than react.  And so do you.

[Stranger]

My internal state is not subject to the same cause and effect rules as a machine.  I am not a machine.

Regardless of how much reasoning-free foot-stamping you do, your internal state changes with time and is therefore either a deterministic system or it isn't. It can't both be one (no randomness) and not be one (could have done differently) at the same time.

The explanation is simply due to my God given gift of free will.

So, it's just reasoning-free, self-contradictory magical magic that does things with very magical magic that magically frees it from any logical constraints with magic.... magically... with magic.

Where is the logic you said you had had?

[Stranger]

I have the conscious freedom to choose rather than react.  And so do you.

Meaningless.

[Gordon]

My internal state is not subject to the same cause and effect rules as a machine.  I am not a machine.  I am a conscious human being with a will of my own which is not entirely dictated by past cause and effect.

Don't be so utterly silly: your internal state is directly affected by many things, where the most obvious one is the need for sleep. There are also many studies that show the effects of fatigue and substances on capabilities and concentration (such as driving) that affect the biological machine that is our species: you are not immune from cause and effect no matter much you protest otherwise.

The explanation is simply due to my God given gift of free will.

Which is no explanation at all (being meaningless white noise).

[Nearly Sane]

I have the conscious freedom to choose rather than react.  And so do you.

That didn't answer the question. Read it again .

[Alan Burns]

Regardless of how much reasoning-free foot-stamping you do, your internal state changes with time and is therefore either a deterministic system or it isn't. It can't both be one (no randomness) and not be one (could have done differently) at the same time.

I have never denied that there is a cause behind our human ability to choose our thoughts words or actions.
The cause is you.
Not the past.

[Nearly Sane]

I have never denied that there is a cause behind our human ability to choose our thoughts words or actions.
The cause is you.
Not the past.

And what causes 'you' to chose?

[torridon]

I have never denied that there is a cause behind our human ability to choose our thoughts words or actions.
The cause is you.
Not the past.

The idea that a cause can be its own cause is non-sensical.

[Gordon]

I have never denied that there is a cause behind our human ability to choose our thoughts words or actions.
The cause is you.
Not the past.

Infantile nonsense.

[Stranger]

I have never denied that there is a cause behind our human ability to choose our thoughts words or actions.
The cause is you.
Not the past.

Once again you've totally ignored the point I made in favour of repeating this simplistic drivel. A cause that isn't itself the effect of previous causes is necessarily random.

You've claimed recently both that you have a logical argument and that you've thought deeply about this, so why are you ignoring the actual points being made and just repeating trite assertions that you've posted countless times before? Your posts are neither thoughtful nor logical.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I have never denied that there is a cause behind our human ability to choose our thoughts words or actions.
The cause is you.
Not the past.

It still brings us back to the point that the 2, 3, 10 or 100 different thoughts, words or actions you make a choice from are all determined by your past. Your eventual choice is a complex interaction of sub-conscious and conscious reactions to past experiences/ input from your environment (nurture) and genetics - maybe you could sum it up as an interaction of preferences/ emotion and reason.

Sure you can believe and assert that the parts of your brain that consciously observes and processes these interactions is a part called the soul. But the point being made is that asserting your beliefs does not demonstrate that there is a soul. Also, your assertions about the soul's decision-making process is that it chooses its responses based on inputs from the past i.e your nature and nurture.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It still brings us back to the point that the 2, 3, 10 or 100 different thoughts, words or actions you make a choice from are all determined by your past. Your eventual choice is a complex interaction of sub-conscious and conscious reactions to past experiences/ input from your environment (nurture) and genetics - maybe you could sum it up as an interaction of preferences/ emotion and reason.

Sure you can believe and assert that the parts of your brain that consciously observes and processes these interactions is a part called the soul. But the point being made is that asserting your beliefs does not demonstrate that there is a soul. Also, your assertions about the soul's decision-making process is that it chooses its responses based on inputs from the past i.e your nature and nurture.

It seems to me that none of the theories proposed on this thread over the aeons has been demonstrated.
Two priorities exist here.
Firstly the handling of novel situations and secondly the status of spiritual or eternal decisions.

[Nearly Sane]

It seems to me that none of the theories proposed on this thread over the aeons has been demonstrated.
Two priorities exist here.
Firstly the handling of novel situations and secondly the status of spiritual or eternal decisions.

What do you mean by 'spiritual or eternal decisions'?

[Alan Burns]

Once again you've totally ignored the point I made in favour of repeating this simplistic drivel. A cause that isn't itself the effect of previous causes is necessarily random.

As I have pointed out numerous times, human will is certainly not random, but it is capable of far more than what can be determined from physical reactions alone.

The fact that we have the unique ability to generate a physical cause from within our conscious awareness is what distinguishes us from being biological machines driven by inevitable cause and effect with no will of our own.

[Alan Burns]

It still brings us back to the point that the 2, 3, 10 or 100 different thoughts, words or actions you make a choice from are all determined by your past. Your eventual choice is a complex interaction of sub-conscious and conscious reactions to past experiences/ input from your environment (nurture) and genetics - maybe you could sum it up as an interaction of preferences/ emotion and reason.

Sure you can believe and assert that the parts of your brain that consciously observes and processes these interactions is a part called the soul. But the point being made is that asserting your beliefs does not demonstrate that there is a soul. Also, your assertions about the soul's decision-making process is that it chooses its responses based on inputs from the past i.e your nature and nurture.

I fully agree that our awareness and instincts built up from past nature and nurture will influence the choices we consciously invoke.  The point I make is that these influences do not automate our conscious choice - they influence it, and our human will has the power to do whatever is needed to implement our choice from within our conscious awareness.  The mystery behind this is what comprises conscious awareness and how it works - which I believe to be beyond the capabilities of predefined physical reactions in material elements.

[torridon]

As I have pointed out numerous times, human will is certainly not random, but it is capable of far more than what can be determined from physical reactions alone.

The fact that we have the unique ability to generate a physical cause from within our conscious awareness is what distinguishes us from being biological machines driven by inevitable cause and effect with no will of our own.

This reads like gibberish.  How can anything 'generate a cause' ?  If something just generates a cause for no reason, then it would be a random event and what use would that be to a conscious agent ?

[Alan Burns]

This reads like gibberish.  How can anything 'generate a cause' ?  If something just generates a cause for no reason, then it would be a random event and what use would that be to a conscious agent ?

We do not generate causes for no reason.  Reasons exist in our conscious awareness where we have the freedom to contemplate and formulate reasons.

As I said, our ability to consciously generate a cause rather than just automatically react to past causes is what frees us from being a biological machine with no will of our own.  I fully agree that this would be a logical impossibility in a scenario where every event is determined by physically driven reactions to past events, which is why I consider it to be evidence for the existence and the power of our human soul.