Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

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.

Baseless assertion and dishonest misrepresentation - I didn't say anything about "physical".

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.

Mindless nonsense that continues to misrepresent the point ("physical cause") and ignore the logic. If we "generate" a cause, "within our conscious awareness" or otherwise, that isn't entirely the effect of previous causes (physical or spiritual or magical or whatever else) then it is, to some extent, not due to anything and is therefore random.

[Stranger]

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.

It would be good if you could at least stop lying about the argument you are facing.

The contradiction that has been put to you has nothing at all to do with the physical world, it is a purely logical contradiction.

You've also totally ignored this point at least five times now: if your version of "freedom" wasn't logically impossible, you could not claim that it cannot be physical without claiming that you know everything about the physical world.

This is yet another gaping logical hole in the car crash of illogical nonsense that appears to be your "argument".

[Owlswing]

It would be good if you could at least stop lying about the argument you are facing.

This is yet another gaping logical hole in the car crash of illogical nonsense that appears to be your "argument".

He doesn't have an argument, he has a delusion! A delusion resulting from and based upon brain-washing!

[Alan Burns]

Baseless assertion and dishonest misrepresentation - I didn't say anything about "physical".

Mindless nonsense that continues to misrepresent the point ("physical cause") and ignore the logic. If we "generate" a cause, "within our conscious awareness" or otherwise, that isn't entirely the effect of previous causes (physical or spiritual or magical or whatever else) then it is, to some extent, not due to anything and is therefore random.

The logic you keep quoting is obviously an extrapolation based upon human observance of physical reactions within material elements.  I am not saying that things can happen without a cause.  Where we seem to differ is in the nature and origin of causes generated from the human mind.  You appear to believe that every event within the processing of the human mind must be a direct result of a previous cause - which makes the human mind just a mechanical processor based on inevitable reactions within it.  My contention is that our conscious awareness comprises more than can be achieved by cause and effect alone.  We have the power to consciously drive our own processes rather than be subject to inevitable reactions to past events which are beyond our conscious control.

[Sebastian Toe]

and our human will has the power to do whatever is needed to implement our choice from within our conscious awareness. 

Have you even considered what is actually needed to implement those choices?
To get an action driven from your only-visiting-spacetime-whilst-you-are-concious, non-physical-soul to your physical body, what needs to happen?

Surely in all of your years of promoting this, you have formulated some logical explanation as to how it works?

Haven't you?

[torridon]

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.

Still gibberish, you are just floundering around trying to find some form of words to disguise the illogical nature of your claim. We cannot 'generate a cause' or 'formulate a reason' in some way that locates human thinking in some other realm of reality somehow disconnected from the rest of reality.  Why don't you give a real world example of what you mean.

[Stranger]

The logic you keep quoting is obviously an extrapolation based upon human observance of physical reactions within material elements.

No, it is not.

It's an entirely logical argument about anything that changes its state over time. We don't even know whether the physical world is a deterministic system or not.

What's more (YET AGAIN, FOR YOU TO IGNORE), if you can come up with some logically self-consistent way in which minds can work that is not a deterministic system and yet does not involve randomness, then it's impossible to rule out a physical explanation (because we don't know everything about the physical world).

I am not saying that things can happen without a cause.

Except that you repeatedly do just that. Here you go again:-

Where we seem to differ is in the nature and origin of causes generated from the human mind.  You appear to believe that every event within the processing of the human mind must be a direct result of a previous cause...

And if that isn't the case, that means that some part of its operation is not the direct result of previous causes and therefore happens for no reason (randomly).

My contention is that our conscious awareness comprises more than can be achieved by cause and effect alone.  We have the power to consciously drive our own processes rather than be subject to inevitable reactions to past events which are beyond our conscious control.

Just hand-waving assertions that ignore the logic. And once again you seem to be assuming that just because it's "consciously driven" that somehow magically frees it from the logic of cause and effect. It doesn't.

You have still not logically made any connection between consciousness and your nonsense version of "freedom".

[Sassy]

I think it's called cognitive dissonance Alan, something very similar to when smokers work out all sorts of illogical reasons to justify themselves to themselves for continuing with a destructive habit, in your case a daft imaginary habit.

Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.

Smoking is an action but faith in God is spiritual.

You can see one but not the other. So how to you work our illogical reasoning in the case of God as justification?

[Alan Burns]

It's an entirely logical argument about anything that changes its state over time.

I presumed it was about the causes of the change of state.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Stranger]

I presumed it was about the causes of the change of state.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Not really, no. We can do it as a purely logical or mathematical exercise.

Let's say the state of something ('system' in the broadest sense, we don't care what it is exactly) that changes over time is S_t at some time t. Let's say its environment (anything external that can affect it) at that time is E_t. How consider some small time later t+dt at which the system has state S_t+dt. We can consider the limit as dt approaches zero (as in calculus), or take it to be the Planck time or some representation of how fast the system can possibly change or react.

Now, we don't care what S is or what rules apply to it, we don't care if it's a physical system or operates under entirely different rules that we just made up or under rules that we have no idea about. In any case, we can ask a simple question, namely, given S_t and E_t is there always only one possible S_t+dt?

This is a question that will always have a yes/no answer (whether we know the answer or not) for any system that changes its state over time, regardless of the complexity or of the rules that it operates under.

If the answer is yes, then we have a deterministic system, if it is no, then there must be some randomness in how the system is changing.

Note that there are no assumptions or observations of the physical world needed. All we assumed was something (anything) that sits in some environment (which again could be anything, or nothing for that matter) and changes over time.

In fact, it's so general, we could even replace time with any other variable and see if our something varies deterministically with that.

[Alan Burns]

Not really, no. We can do it as a purely logical or mathematical exercise.

Let's say the state of something ('system' in the broadest sense, we don't care what it is exactly) that changes over time is S_t at some time t. Let's say its environment (anything external that can affect it) at that time is E_t. How consider some small time later t+dt at which the system has state S_t+dt. We can consider the limit as dt approaches zero (as in calculus), or take it to be the Planck time or some representation of how fast the system can possibly change or react.

Now, we don't care what S is or what rules apply to it, we don't care if it's a physical system or operates under entirely different rules that we just made up or under rules that we have no idea about. In any case, we can ask a simple question, namely, given S_t and E_t is there always only one possible S_t+dt?

This is a question that will always have a yes/no answer (whether we know the answer or not) for any system that changes its state over time, regardless of the complexity or of the rules that it operates under.

If the answer is yes, then we have a deterministic system, if it is no, then there must be some randomness in how the system is changing.

Note that there are no assumptions or observations of the physical world needed. All we assumed was something (anything) that sits in some environment (which again could be anything, or nothing for that matter) and changes over time.

In fact, it's so general, we could even replace time with any other variable and see if our something varies deterministically with that.

I follow the logic, but I feel you are over simplifying premiss on which it is based.

I do not see how you can possibly apply such logic to our spiritual nature.
How does it apply to God making Himself known within the innermost depths of my soul?
Can my profound awareness of God be subject to the changes in state you put forward?

[Stranger]

I follow the logic, but I feel you are over simplifying premiss on which it is based.

The fewer the assumptions, the more generally applicable the conclusion will be. In what way do you think it was over simplified?

I do not see how you can possibly apply such logic to our spiritual nature.

Why not?

How does it apply to God making Himself known within the innermost depths of my soul?

If we take you to be the 'system' S, then the "innermost depths of your soul" would be included (remember that there were no assumptions about what exactly S was or what it included) and any god making itself known would be part of the environment E (again, there were no assumptions about what it was).

Can my profound awareness of God be subject to the changes in state you put forward?

An awareness is either constant or it changes with time. Staying constant over time is just a special case of change over time (the rate of change being exactly zero).

[Enki]

I follow the logic, but I feel you are over simplifying premiss on which it is based.

I do not see how you can possibly apply such logic to our spiritual nature.
How does it apply to God making Himself known within the innermost depths of my soul?
Can my profound awareness of God be subject to the changes in state you put forward?

I don't think it is a problem of over simplification at all.

What you seem to be suggesting is that this logic doesn't apply to our spiritual nature, which you feel comes from God. Therefore you seem to be saying that God is above logic in some way and that He is able to do things which are contrary to logic. Unfortunately you don't say how He accomplishes such things, hence the word 'magic' comes to mind.

Your two questions are based upon the belief that your God exists. They pose no problem to the unbeliever. That paradox is for you to solve, explain and demonstrate, all of which you have been completely unable to do.

[Alan Burns]

The fewer the assumptions, the more generally applicable the conclusion will be. In what way do you think it was over simplified?

You presume there is only one environment and one associated time scale.  My perception is that reality comprises both a physical and a spiritual environment with interaction between the two.  Time as we know it relates to the physical.   We will not know how time relates to the spiritual until we fully enter that environment with our soul.

[Stranger]

You presume there is only one environment and one associated time scale.  My perception is that reality comprises both a physical and a spiritual environment with interaction between the two.

Having more than one environment makes no sense because we can always combine them to make a single one that encompasses both. The same goes for any system.

Time as we know it relates to the physical.   We will not know how time relates to the spiritual until we fully enter that environment with our soul.

Waffle. Your mind is something that exists in time. Any choice or act of will occurs within time, therefore the logic applies.

[Alan Burns]

Waffle. Your mind is something that exists in time. Any choice or act of will occurs within time, therefore the logic applies.

Can you not envisage that our conscious mind perceives and interacts with time from its ever present state?

[Gordon]

You presume there is only one environment and one associated time scale.  My perception is that reality comprises both a physical and a spiritual environment with interaction between the two.  Time as we know it relates to the physical.   We will not know how time relates to the spiritual until we fully enter that environment with our soul.

Perhaps your perception is screwy, Alan.

[Stranger]

Can you not envisage that our conscious mind perceives and interacts with time from its ever present state?

No, because, as has been explained to you many times before, the "present" is strictly non-existent and colloquially irrelevant.

[Alan Burns]

No, because, as has been explained to you many times before, the "present" is strictly non-existent and colloquially irrelevant.

It may well be non existent in the physical regime.
However, the present is where my conscious state of mind exists - my mind defines the present.

[Stranger]

It may well be non existent in the physical regime.
However, the present is where my conscious state of mind exists - my mind defines the present.

Both circular and absurd. Nonsensical gibberish about how you exist in some mythical "present" is not logic. You might as well have just said that you were magically able to do the self-contradictory, which contains just as much reasoning and at least has the advantage of not being circular.

[Alan Burns]

Both circular and absurd. Nonsensical gibberish about how you exist in some mythical "present" is not logic. You might as well have just said that you were magically able to do the self-contradictory, which contains just as much reasoning and at least has the advantage of not being circular.

I am not alone in considering our spiritual self to be ever present.

John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

[Roses]

I am not alone in considering our spiritual self to be ever present.

John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

Which can hardly be considered proof of anything. Jesus is reported to have said a lot of things, some sensible, some silly. If he actually said that, which is questionable, it was silly.

[Stranger]

I am not alone in considering our spiritual self to be ever present.

John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

Quoting your favourite book of myths isn't logic either, especially when the quote doesn't really directly relate to the discussion.

[Gordon]

I am not alone in considering our spiritual self to be ever present.

John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

So the story goes: not only is this pearl of wisdom indistinguishable from fiction, it is utterly irrelevant to the matter in hand.

[Alan Burns]

So the story goes: not only is this pearl of wisdom indistinguishable from fiction, it is utterly irrelevant to the matter in hand.

I have no doubt all will be revealed when the biological machine ceases to function and we see ourselves as we really are.