Searching for GOD...

[Roses]

AB,

You have no idea whether you have a “personal relationship”. You just believe that you do.

Not “every”, but even if that was true so what? That should just tell you that there’s more to discover.

No, but for as long as you choose to keep this supposed evidence a secret there’s no reason to think you’re right.

If you claim to be able to demonstrate it then – finally – actually demonstrate it. So far all you’ve given us is mindless assertion – when (and how) do you propose to do some actual demonstrating?

Yes.

Obviously, yes.

Also obviously, yes.

I agree with you.

[torridon]

Just watched this and it would appear to be a young Torri repeating all the arguments he has put forward on this forum to claim that you can't choose your own "wants".

I find the quoted example of choosing between vanilla or chocolate excruciatingly trivial when compared to essential freedom needed to guide our thoughts to contemplate the reality behind our existence.  I suppose the conclusions made in this video are inevitable if you choose to ignore the possibility and nature and evidence for our spiritual self.  So if you want to ignore evidence of your own spirituality you will reach these conclusions - but can you use your freedom to contemplate the possibility and implications of your freedom being a reality?

Yes, the reason why we have to reduce it to the most trivial of examples is to make it simple to understand.  If you cannot understand the nature of choice in its simplest manifestations how will you understand it in more complex situations where there are multiple competing considerations in the mix ?  Yet despite us having reduced choice to its barest bones over and over again on this thread you still seem unable to grasp it, as evidenced in the above thought-free insight-free post indicating it is still flying way over your head. I am not ignoring 'evidence of spirituality' - whatever that is, it will also be subject to the fundamental mechanism that mind has evolved to resolve choice. We don't have a separate mind for 'spiritual' things.

[torridon]

..
Why do I need to explain it when I can demonstrate it (free will that is).
..

You cannot demonstrate free will, as has been exhaustively explained on this thread multiple times.  To demonstrate it, you would need to be able to rewind time to show that you could have made a different choice; and even if you could have done such a thing, all you would really demonstrate would be that your original choice was a random one.

Either you haven't been paying attention or you are lying.  Which is it ?

[Alan Burns]

You cannot demonstrate free will, as has been exhaustively explained on this thread multiple times.  To demonstrate it, you would need to be able to rewind time to show that you could have made a different choice; and even if you could have done such a thing, all you would really demonstrate would be that your original choice was a random one.

Either you haven't been paying attention or you are lying.  Which is it ?

I just witness to the truth that human free will is the reality which enables us to choose our own destiny.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I just witness to the truth that human free will is the reality which enables us to choose our own destiny.

You may be fooling yourself but you’re fooling no-one else. You cannot “witness to” a "truth" you’re unable to show to be true to begin with.

Perhaps if rather than ignore the explanations that people take the time to give you had the basic decency to engage with them you’d stop embarrassing yourself here.   

[torridon]

I just witness to the truth that human free will is the reality which enables us to choose our own destiny.

and we choose our own 'destiny' freely in as much as no one obstructs us in that. But we cannot choose which 'destiny' to want or which 'destiny' to believe in; no one can do that, no one can choose what will to have, such a claim invites an infinite regress.

[SusanDoris]

Just watched this and it would appear to be a young Torri repeating all the arguments he has put forward on this forum to claim that you can't choose your own "wants".

I find the quoted example of choosing between vanilla or chocolate excruciatingly trivial when compared to essential freedom needed to guide our thoughts to contemplate the reality behind our existence.  I suppose the conclusions made in this video are inevitable if you choose to ignore the possibility and nature and evidence for our spiritual self.  So if you want to ignore evidence of your own spirituality you will reach these conclusions - but can you use your freedom to contemplate the possibility and implications of your freedom being a reality?

That must be one of the most smug and self-satisfied posts you have written in these many pages. I cringe, as usual.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Susan,

That must be one of the most smug and self-satisfied posts you have written in these many pages. I cringe, as usual.

Quite so. “Witness” is one of those faux ever so ‘umble, slightly creepy words some religious people use when what they actually mean is “express my opinion”. The cheat is that it begs the question – ie, it just assumes there’s something to be witnessed – and allows the person saying it to appear legit because, well, he’s just being honest about his “witnessing” right?

Cringe indeed.         

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I just witness to the truth that human free will is the reality which enables us to choose our own destiny.

This just won't do.

A few posts ago you said you could demonstrate free will.

So go on then. We are all waiting.

[Alan Burns]

This just won't do.

A few posts ago you said you could demonstrate free will.

So go on then. We are all waiting.

You just did it for me

[Gordon]

You just did it for me

I knew you'd say that: you could do no other.

[Alan Burns]

and we choose our own 'destiny' freely in as much as no one obstructs us in that. But we cannot choose which 'destiny' to want or which 'destiny' to believe in; no one can do that, no one can choose what will to have, such a claim invites an infinite regress.

This thread is full of evidence that many posters want to seek reasons not to believe in God.
What do you think determines this "want".
Is it just an inevitable biological reaction?
Or is it a consciously driven choice?
If you want to seek reasons to believe in God, they are there in abundance, but you are free to seek reasons to not believe if you so wish.  The choice is yours - but there is only one truth.

[Alan Burns]

I knew you'd say that: you could do no other.

I had the freedom to choose what to say, as did you Gordon.

[torridon]

I had the freedom to choose what to say, as did you Gordon.

Since no one was stopping you.

Three cheers for free speech 

[torridon]

This thread is full of evidence that many posters want to seek reasons not to believe in God.

That would be all in your mind, I am thinking, otherwise I would have noticed.

Post up an example

[torridon]

This thread is full of evidence that many posters want to seek reasons not to believe in God.
What do you think determines this "want".
Is it just an inevitable biological reaction?
Or is it a consciously driven choice?

If you paid any attention whatsoever, you'd already understand this by now, that we cannot choose which wants to have.  Please don't say you still have not grasped this point of simple basic human psychology ?

[Alan Burns]

That would be all in your mind, I am thinking, otherwise I would have noticed.

Post up an example

The prime example of thinking up a reason not to believe in God is to try to deny your own freedom to do so.

[Gordon]

I had the freedom to choose what to say, as did you Gordon.

Nobody has yet stopped you from making a fool of yourself, Alan: and you repeatedly do so with unerring and predictable precision which was, of course, my point - and which, true to form, you missed.

[Alan Burns]

If you paid any attention whatsoever, you'd already understand this by now, that we cannot choose which wants to have

However you are free to choose which "wants" to indulge in.
We cannot chose our basic desires, but we are free to choose how to satisfy those desires.
Perhaps you do not recognise the most fundamental of all human desires - to love and be loved.
Can love be defined within your cold "cause and effect" deterministic scenario in which we have no conscious power to choose?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

You just did it for me

How?

How did what I wrote demonstrate that I could have wrote otherwise at that moment in time without being random?

[Nearly Sane]

You just did it for me

a bot writes

[Nearly Sane]

This thread is full of evidence that many posters want to seek reasons not to believe in God.
What do you think determines this "want".
Is it just an inevitable biological reaction?
Or is it a consciously driven choice?
If you want to seek reasons to believe in God, they are there in abundance, but you are free to seek reasons to not believe if you so wish.  The choice is yours - but there is only one truth.

calling lots of people liars again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You just did it for me

As you seem to have omitted to post the logical steps that led you to that conclusion, perhaps you’d finally like to share them now?

This thread is full of evidence that many posters want to seek reasons not to believe in God.

You fundamentally misunderstand epistemology. Knowledge isn’t a process of deciding first that something is true and then asserting
that others look for reasons to not believe you. Rather knowledge is acquired by starting with speculations and conjectures and then looking for evidence to verify them. So far though your speculation “god” is only that – a speculation (or, if you prefer, a guess). You haven’t even tried to construct a cogent or coherent argument to justify that claim.
       

What do you think determines this "want".

Reason and evidence suggests the answer to be biology.

Is it just an inevitable biological reaction?

That “inevitable” is above your pay grade, but essentially yes.

Or is it a consciously driven choice?

As the claim is incoherent, the answer to that must be “not even no”.

If you want to seek reasons to believe in God,…

Why would you do that as it’s just an open invitation to confirmation bias? What someone "wants" the answer to be tends to corrupt the process - that's why science has techniques like double blind trials that try to eliminate bias.   

…they are there in abundance,…

But so far at least they’ve all been very, very bad arguments. Do you have any reasons that aren’t plainly wrong?

…but you are free to seek reasons to not believe if you so wish.

Another basic mistake – “god” is your claim, so the burden of proof is with you to justify it.

The choice is yours –

As a colloquial description of an experience it feels that way, yes. But that’s all it is – a description on an experience with no explanatory value at all.

…but there is only one truth.

So you assert. How then would you propose to identify what it might be?

However you are free to choose which "wants" to indulge in.

Other than in the colloquial but non-explanatory sense of “choose”, how?

We cannot chose our basic desires, but we are free to choose how to satisfy those desires.

Again, how (without resorting to “it’s magic innit” for your answer)?

Perhaps you do not recognise the most fundamental of all human desires - to love and be loved.

A doubtful assertion, but in any case an entirely irrelevant one.

Can love be defined within your cold "cause and effect" deterministic scenario in which we have no conscious power to choose?

That’s called an appeal to emotion (another fallacy - the "argumentum ad passiones"), but essentially yes.

Your beliefs may or may not be idiotic (though it seems likely that they are), but your attempts at justifying them certainly are.   

Perhaps a little less hubris and a lot more honesty would serve you well in future.

[Stranger]

Why do I need to explain it when I can demonstrate it (free will that is).

Alan, nobody can possibly demonstrate free will (in the sense of being able to have done differently). Suggesting they can is either dishonest or incredibly stupid.

How can I demonstrate that I could have written different words from the ones I'm choosing to write now, in exactly the same circumstance?

[Stranger]

However you are free to choose which "wants" to indulge in.
We cannot chose our basic desires, but we are free to choose how to satisfy those desires.

That's just off into an infinite regress again. You can't choose which want to indulge without wanting to indulge one more than the others.

This is yet another reason to conclude that you've never thought about any of this at all because the first, most simplistic and superficial intuition about it 'confirmed' your pre-existing superstitions and now you dare not think about the rational arguments people are giving you because that would threaten you faith. Hence the endless, thought-free repetition of foolishness, nonsense, and dishonesty.