Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

There are powers of evil which blind people to the truth.

What are these powers?
How exactly do they blind people to the truth?

We need to know.

Forewarned is forearmed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ah, NS talks sense!
Now I understand.

Oh dear, I'm absolutely clutching my sides trying to start them shaking with mirth.

[Alan Burns]

Instead of trying to pretend that the argument is based on the physical universe, how about having the intellectual courage to address it as it is actually being presented? What is your alternative?

It is you who persist in claiming that your perceived logic transcends what is observed in this physical material universe and applies to everything including any spiritual regime (which you obviously do not believe in).

If we did comprise nothing but material entities, then your quoted logic would apply, and every event would be a direct consequence of previous events. 

But look at the reality of your own ability to think outside the box - to contemplate the reality behind your own existence.  Wht drives these thought processes?  What invokes a thought?  What is a thought?  Can a thought be entirely predetermined before you think it?

Your quoted logic applies to things which change state over time, but what is time outside a material environment?  Can time exist when there are no material entities to define its direction?  I put it to you that time as we know it does not apply to a spiritual regime which can interact with this material world, but is not part of this material world.  A timeless eternity may well be beyond our human understanding, but the evidence that time as we know it began when our universe came into existence is evidence of such a timeless regime beyond our universe invoking an ultimate cause.

[Stranger]

It is you who persist in claiming that your perceived logic transcends what is observed in this physical material universe and applies to everything including any spiritual regime (which you obviously do not believe in).

For the very good reason that minds must exist in time in order to think or decide anything. You can't even will anything at all, let alone have any notion of "free will" without time. Either you can address the logic as I presented it and tell us why something "spiritual" makes a substantive logical difference or you can't, and you've yet again failed to do so here.

And you've ignored yet again - if you could make it logically self-consistent, then you couldn't rule out a physical explanation (without claiming to know everything about the physical world).

But look at the reality of your own ability to think outside the box - to contemplate the reality behind your own existence.  Wht drives these thought processes?  What invokes a thought?  What is a thought?  Can a thought be entirely predetermined before you think it?

More hypocritical questions - impossible self-contradictory magic is not an answer.

Your quoted logic applies to things which change state over time, but what is time outside a material environment?  Can time exist when there are no material entities to define its direction?  I put it to you that time as we know it does not apply to a spiritual regime which can interact with this material world, but is not part of this material world.

Regardless of any other realm you may want to make up, our minds do change state over time, therefore the logic applies. If something interacts with the material world, it must also change state over time because an interaction requires time too.

You can posit a different time dimension, but that just moves the problem. If something doesn't change over some sort of time dimension, it can't do anything at all, so would be useless in any process of choice making.

A timeless eternity may well be beyond our human understanding, but the evidence that time as we know it began when our universe came into existence is evidence of such a timeless regime beyond our universe invoking an ultimate cause.

No it isn't.

[torridon]

But look at the reality of your own ability to think outside the box - to contemplate the reality behind your own existence.  Wht drives these thought processes?  What invokes a thought?  What is a thought?  Can a thought be entirely predetermined before you think it?

This has been covered umpteen times already.  This is not reasoning, or evidence, it is just your incredulity bubbling up in the face of logical reasoning,

[torridon]

Your quoted logic applies to things which change state over time, but what is time outside a material environment?  Can time exist when there are no material entities to define its direction?  I put it to you that time as we know it does not apply to a spiritual regime which can interact with this material world, but is not part of this material world.  A timeless eternity may well be beyond our human understanding, but the evidence that time as we know it began when our universe came into existence is evidence of such a timeless regime beyond our universe invoking an ultimate cause.

Desperate gibberish born of a desire to nullify honest reasoning.  No one is buying this nonsense Alan.  The concept of time applies to change, to events, not necessarily just matter.  If you make a choice, that is a change in mind state.  If your mind existed in some sort of timeless state it would be unable to register change, it would be unable to make choices.  You need to take a step back at look at the depth of this nonsense you are coming up with to avoid simple rational honest conclusions.

[Alan Burns]

Desperate gibberish born of a desire to nullify honest reasoning.  No one is buying this nonsense Alan.  The concept of time applies to change, to events, not necessarily just matter.  If you make a choice, that is a change in mind state.  If your mind existed in some sort of timeless state it would be unable to register change, it would be unable to make choices.  You need to take a step back at look at the depth of this nonsense you are coming up with to avoid simple rational honest conclusions.

I do not claim that what I am postulating must be true.  I am just offering a possible explanation for our perception of freedom to be a reality rather than an illusion.  The whole truth concerning our free will may well be beyond our comprehension, but it is certainly not an illusion, nor is it definable by physically controlled reactions alone.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is you who persist in claiming that your perceived logic transcends what is observed in this physical material universe and applies to everything including any spiritual regime (which you obviously do not believe in).

If we did comprise nothing but material entities, then your quoted logic would apply, and every event would be a direct consequence of previous events.

But look at the reality of your own ability to think outside the box - to contemplate the reality behind your own existence.  Wht drives these thought processes?  What invokes a thought?  What is a thought?  Can a thought be entirely predetermined before you think it?

Your quoted logic applies to things which change state over time, but what is time outside a material environment?  Can time exist when there are no material entities to define its direction?  I put it to you that time as we know it does not apply to a spiritual regime which can interact with this material world, but is not part of this material world.  A timeless eternity may well be beyond our human understanding, but the evidence that time as we know it began when our universe came into existence is evidence of such a timeless regime beyond our universe invoking an ultimate cause.

Your usual farrago of errors, non sequiturs, backwards thinking etc here that no doubt others will address. On one issue in particular though, one of your more egregious mistakes is to refer to “your perceived logic”, “your logic” etc. Logic isn’t specific to an individual – it’s just logic and it applies to arguments no matter who makes them. The people here who so easily falsify your efforts can do so because the logic they employ is sound – all you’d have to do to show it to be otherwise would be to find some arguments of your own that falsify it. That’s not what you do though. What you do is variously to ignore the arguments, to dismiss them with pejorative language, to repeat exactly the same logical fallacies over and over again, and even on occasion to dismiss logic as a process entirely (while apparently oblivious to the problem this gives you of attempting, albeit incompetently, the very process you assert to be illegitimate).

Why do you behave this way? Presumably it’s because you’re so utterly, incontrovertibly, irrevocably certain that you're right even though you cannot justify your assertions with reasoned argument of your own that you feel compelled to behave so dishonestly. “I know I’m right, therefore anything anyone says that demonstrates that I’m not must be wrong and so I can dismiss it all out of hand” is the unspoken mantra you cling to as a man might cling to a lead parachute, and it does you no credit. It also means you’re wasting your time here entirely peddling your bullshit to people more able to reason than you are. Your only prospect of evangelising successfully is to find an audience of the credulous or the gullible or the very young who lack the critical faculties to identify where you go wrong. Short version: reasoning people aren’t your demographic, so why bother trying?             

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not claim that what I am postulating must be true…

That’s a lie. You’ve told us on several occasions that no argument or evidence could ever persuade you that you’re wrong. That’s as good a definition of “what I say must be true no matter what” as there is. 

[SusanDoris]

AB,

Your usual farrago of errors, non sequiturs, backwards thinking etc here that no doubt others will address. On one issue in particular though, one of your more egregious mistakes is to refer to “your perceived logic”, “your logic” etc. Logic isn’t specific to an individual – it’s just logic and it applies to arguments no matter who makes them. The people here who so easily falsify your efforts can do so because the logic they employ is sound – all you’d have to do to show it to be otherwise would be to find some arguments of your own that falsify it. That’s not what you do though. What you do is variously to ignore the arguments, to dismiss them with pejorative language, to repeat exactly the same logical fallacies over and over again, and even on occasion to dismiss logic as a process entirely (while apparently oblivious to the problem this gives you of attempting, albeit incompetently, the very process you assert to be illegitimate).

Why do you behave this way? Presumably it’s because you’re so utterly, incontrovertibly, irrevocably certain that you're right even though you cannot justify your assertions with reasoned argument of your own that you feel compelled to behave so dishonestly. “I know I’m right, therefore anything anyone says that demonstrates that I’m not must be wrong and so I can dismiss it all out of hand” is the unspoken mantra you cling to as a man might cling to a lead parachute, and it does you no credit. It also means you’re wasting your time here entirely peddling your bullshit to people more able to reason than you are. Your only prospect of evangelising successfully is to find an audience of the credulous or the gullible or the very young who lack the critical faculties to identify where you go wrong. Short version: reasoning people aren’t your demographic, so why bother trying?           

I'm just about to turn off the computer for today. Thank goodness the last post I read today will be this one of yours and not one of the so-well-described here drivel posts by AB!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm just about to turn off the computer for today. Thank goodness the last post I read today will be this one of yours and not one of the so-well-described here drivel posts by AB!

I think that just comes down to being on R and E so long any sense of perspective atrophied ages ago.  I often wonder what psychiatry make good this interminable thread and its eternal Dantesque repiitition. Friars exiting diabolical rectums if you ask me.

[Stranger]

I do not claim that what I am postulating must be true.

So, will you now specifically withdraw your claim of having "sound logic"? In effect you just have, but I'm wondering if you even have enough grasp of the subject to realise that.

I am just offering a possible explanation for our perception of freedom to be a reality rather than an illusion.

It continues to amaze me how much illogical nonsense you can cram into so few words. First, all anybody actually perceives is the ability to do as they wish. Nobody has ever directly perceived the ability to have chosen differently, let alone without randomness. Concluding that what we perceive is what you call "freedom", is just sloppy thinking, not an illusion. Secondly, you haven't provided any sort of "possible explanation" for your impossible version of "freedom". Myself, and others, have put forward a logical argument that you have been totally unable to counter.

...nor is it definable by physically controlled reactions alone.

And ounce again you've totally ignored the fact that if you could make your nonsense view of "freedom" make logical sense, then you couldn't dismiss a physical explanation without claiming to know everything about the physical world.

I've now lost count of how many times I've made this point, only to have you completely ignore it. Are you really too afraid to even acknowledge that I've made a point and make some sort of attempt at an answer? It's not like making a totally inept an illogical attempt to counter it would stand out from the other nonsense you post or anything...

[ekim]

I am just offering a possible explanation for our perception of freedom to be a reality rather than an illusion.  The whole truth concerning our free will may well be beyond our comprehension, but it is certainly not an illusion, nor is it definable by physically controlled reactions alone.

Perhaps it is an illusion, especially so if you pray 'Thy Will be done on Earth' rather than 'my will'.

[Dicky Underpants]

Perhaps it is an illusion, especially so if you pray 'Thy Will be done on Earth' rather than 'my will'.

Hmm. Yes, isn't there a text about "the Spirit bloweth wheresoever it listeth"? Not much individual autonomy in that either.

[Alan Burns]

AB,
 

That’s a lie. You’ve told us on several occasions that no argument or evidence could ever persuade you that you’re wrong. That’s as good a definition of “what I say must be true no matter what” as there is.

I am not wrong about God's existence or the reality of human free will.
What I am offering are possible explanations.

[Alan Burns]

So, will you now specifically withdraw your claim of having "sound logic"? In effect you just have, but I'm wondering if you even have enough grasp of the subject to realise that.

The logic I was referring to was that human free will cannot be defined by physical material reactions.

[Nearly Sane]

The logic I was referring to was that human free will cannot be defined by physical material reactions.

That isn't logic, that's assertion.

[Nearly Sane]

I am not wrong about God's existence or the reality of human free will.
What I am offering are possible explanations.

Your two sentences are contradictory.

[Stranger]

I am not wrong about God's existence or the reality of human free will.

Logic tells us otherwise.

What I am offering are possible explanations.

None of your 'explanations' have been logically possible, and some of them don't even make sense.

The logic I was referring to was that human free will cannot be defined by physical material reactions.

You seem to be confusing "mindless repetition of baseless assertions" with "sound logic". Where is this sound logic?

And what do I have to do to get you to even acknowledge this point? Obviously you can go on studiously ignoring things you find inconvenient, no matter how often they're repeated (so why you think your own repetition of points that have been already addressed is going to work, is a total mystery).

How about big red letters?

If you could make your version of free will logically self-consistent, then you could NOT rule out a physical explanation without claiming to know everything about the physical world.

If we imagine for a moment we could step into a parallel universe in which you were actually capable of logical thought, and further imagine that (for example) you constructed some logic that meant that "the ever present state of conscious awareness" actually meant something (I know I'm asking a lot of suspension of disbelief, but bear with me). Now, how could you possibly deduce that such a state could not arise through some, as yet unknown, physical effect? You'd have to claim to know literally everything about physics in order to do that. Much greater thinkers than you have suggested exotic physics may be involved in consciousness.

Your whole 'argument' is based on a fundamental confusion between logical impossibility and the limits of the physical world.

[torridon]

I am not wrong about God's existence or the reality of human free will.
What I am offering are possible explanations.

I don't recall seeing an explanation for the existence of God from you.  And your 'reality' of free will boils down to a misconceptualisation of what 'free' means; that is sloppy, lazy, incoherent thinking, not genuine explanation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not wrong about God's existence or the reality of human free will.
What I am offering are possible explanations.

If you assert yourself to be not wrong about something you’re certain about it; if you’re also telling us the claim is only a possible explanation, you’ve introduced uncertainty. 

Which is it?

The logic I was referring to was that human free will cannot be defined by physical material reactions.

That’s not logic – it’s just an assertion, on which you build a string of logically false or unsupportable conclusions.

[Gordon]

The logic I was referring to was that human free will cannot be defined by physical material reactions.

There is no logical pathway to that conclusion, Alan.

The problem you have is that for you to accept that all mental activity (both conscious and unconscious) is the result of biological processes occurring within a deterministic scenario, which is where the evidence to date points, would negate your claims about 'God' - therefore your range of fallacies kick in: particularly those involving ignorance, incredulity and consequences. 

[Alan Burns]

That isn't logic, that's assertion.

The logic is simple.
Our conscious freedom cannot exist within physically predefined reactions.
If you insist that consciousness is entirely defined by physical reactions, then the concept of conscious freedom must be an illusion.
But then - where does the conscious ability to insist come from?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The logic is simple.

Then why not, after all these times of asking, finally tells us what that logic is?

Our conscious freedom cannot exist within physically predefined reactions.

Unqualified assertion, but no logic yet…

If you insist that consciousness is entirely defined by physical reactions,…

Well, that’s what the logic rather than a person "insists" but ok…

…then the concept of conscious freedom must be an illusion.

Your concept of it is, yes.

But then - where does the conscious ability to insist come from?

It “comes from” a sense of control that works at one level of abstraction as a means of navigating the world. When you bother to think about it though, you realise that without throwing magic in to get you off the hook of incoherence the concept must be wrong.

So to summarise: still no sight of the sound logic you claimed to have then.

Funny that.

Oh, and have you made you mind up yet incidentally – are “God” and your concept of “free” will certainly true to your mind or are they just possibilities?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As you insist that you have sound logic to justify your claims but never produce it perhaps the problem here is that you don’t understand what logic entails. To helps you here’s an extract from Rationalwiki:

“A logical argument has a conclusion which follows from its premises. Arguments come in two types, deductive and inductive.
In a good inductive argument the truth of the premises renders the conclusion likely, though not certain. Such an argument is described as strong. But further evidence could be added which would weaken an inductive argument so that even if the premises were true the conclusion would no longer be likely.

In a good deductive argument the truth of the premises absolutely guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Such an argument is valid. It is literally impossible for the premises of a valid argument to be true while the conclusion is false. No matter what other facts crop up, the premises imply the conclusion, thus a valid argument is a good deal more powerful than a merely strong one.”

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logic

What you do though is to make assertions (ie, your premise and your conclusion are the same thing), try various logical fallacies (the argumentum ad consquentium being a particular favourite) and ask open questions (“how do you explain X then?”). At no stage though do you ever produce the sound logic for your beliefs you claimed to have. If you still think you have it nonetheless, why not set it out? Start by junking the behaviours I just explained to you, then set out your premises, then explain how your conclusions follow from those premises.   

Then – but only then – would you have set out the argument in logic you claim to have. 

What’s stopping you?