Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

You need to show it.

We all show it NS.
We are in control - not the uncontrollable laws of physics.

[Nearly Sane]

We all show it NS.
We are in control - not the uncontrollable laws of physics.

  Idiotic assertion. You can't help doing it. It's just a reaction?

[torridon]

You need to figure out the profound difference between conscious control and inevitable reaction.

You mean like the difference between an elephant beating its heart (unconscious, autonomic, involuntary) and elephant sucking up some water with its trunk (conscious) ?

[torridon]

Gladly: The Goldilocks zone, which is the distance from the sun at which water can exist in a liquid state. Earth is in that zone. Also Earth has a near-circular orbit around the sun, so that temperature fluctuations are small enough to allow life to survive. ..

This just shows you haven't grasped Adam's puddle analogy.  It is absurd to imagine that some supernatural being has contrived this planet in such a stellar orbit such that H²O can exists in all three states of matter. You might as well claim that each an every hole in the world was also exactly calibrated by this being such that the volume of rainwater in it would exactly match the capacity of the hole.  Baffling.

[torridon]

Add to that, Everything Reproduces after its Kind - we never observe bacteria evolving into anything that aren't still bacteria, for example.

Oh dear, this is so elementary, did they never teach biology in your schools ? Clearly individual organisms do not evolve into something different, that is not what happens and that is not what the ToE claims to happen.  Evolution is a phenomenon of populations, not of individuals, and we do observe variation within individuals and it is that variation that natural selection will act upon, naturally, producing distinct patterns in life forms over time that mirror wider ecological conditions.

[Stranger]

You need to figure out the profound difference between conscious control and inevitable reaction.

If you have (as you have repeatedly claimed) some logical argument that shows such a difference, then produce it, otherwise, stop being such a dishonest disgrace to your faith.

We all show it NS.

Absurd assertion. How can anybody show that they could have done something differently, let alone that such a difference would not have been random?

You would have to literally rewind time even to show that you could have done differently, which, as you keep on pointing out, is impossible (one of the very limited number of things you seem to be able to get right). Hence, every time you claim people are showing free will (as you've defined it), you are either being dishonest or stupid.

What people are showing is the ability to think and make choices - something nobody has ever disputed.

We are in control - not the uncontrollable laws of physics.

Prejudicial language ('uncontrollable') and false dilemma fallacies.

The use of fallacies means that you have no grasp at all of how logical arguments work - why don't you even seem to care? Why do you keep claiming to have logic when you obviously (use of fallacies) don't understand it?

[Alan Burns]

  Idiotic assertion. You can't help doing it. It's just a reaction?

It is my own conscious choice to continue to witness to the reality of my own freedom to do so.  A reality which will never be entirely defined by the uncontrollable laws of physics acting on material elements.

[Stranger]

Gladly: The Goldilocks zone, which is the distance from the sun at which water can exist in a liquid state. Earth is in that zone. Also Earth has a near-circular orbit around the sun, so that temperature fluctuations are small enough to allow life to survive.

Given the size of even just the observable universe, and how common planets seem to be, the miracle would be if there weren't such planets, and the fact that life like ours exists on one of them is hardly surprising as life like ours is adapted to those conditions.

If you want to address my example of bacteria, then I'll have a go at yours.

It's just a special case of the daft 'kind' argument. If you're interested in how multicellular life evolved, however, there is some experimental evidence, for example: Experimental evolution of multicellularity (pdf).

[Alan Burns]

Absurd assertion. How can anybody show that they could have done something differently, let alone that such a difference would not have been random?

We can't rewind time, but we are free to contemplate the vast improbability that everything we say, think or do was entirely predefined by past events before we did them.

[Stranger]

It is my own conscious choice to continue to witness to the reality of my own freedom to do so.

A 'freedom' that nobody denies. It says nothing whatsoever about you having free will in the sense that you could have done differently.

A reality which will never be entirely defined by the uncontrollable laws of physics acting on material elements.

Baseless assertion, prejudicial language, and a claim of omniscience (do you think you are god?)

We can't rewind time, but we can contemplate the vast improbability that everything we say, think or do was entirely predefined by past events before we did them.

Yet another baseless claim. How do you know it's a vast improbability? Where is your logic?

You seem to have resorted to your your silly foot-stamping mode without any attempt to even try to make a coherent argument.

[Alan Burns]

Yet another baseless claim. How do you know it's a vast improbability? Where is your logic?

However, I put it to you that your repeated attempts to justify your denial of your conscious freedom, combined with my repeated choice to witness to the reality of our conscious freedom offers ample evidence that it is not just a baseless claim.

[Stranger]

However, I put it to you that your repeated attempts to justify your denial of your conscious freedom, combined with my repeated choice to witness to the reality of our conscious freedom offers ample evidence that it is not just a baseless claim.

More dishonest drivel. This is a motte-and-bailey fallacy. You are attempting to conflate our abilities to produce arguments to justify our positions (well, mine, anyway, all you ever do is repeat empty and often dishonest assertions that have been addressed endless times before), with your nonsense version of free will, namely, the ability to have done differently (without randomness).

There is not, nor can there be, even in principle, any evidence in anybody's posts that they could have done differently.

Please, at least stop repeating this blatant lie.

[Alan Burns]

More dishonest drivel. This is a motte-and-bailey fallacy. You are attempting to conflate our abilities to produce arguments to justify our positions (well, mine, anyway, all you ever do is repeat empty and often dishonest assertions that have been addressed endless times before), with your nonsense version of free will, namely, the ability to have done differently (without randomness).

There is not, nor can there be, even in principle, any evidence in anybody's posts that they could have done differently.

Please, at least stop repeating this blatant lie.

Nobody would be guilty of deliberately making a blatant lie if they did not have the conscious freedom needed to do so.
As I have repeatedly pointed out - we have no control over past events.
So is it the past events (which I have no control over) being blamed for making deliberate lies?
Can you not see how absurd your accusation is if you insist that your concept of determinism is true?

[Sebastian Toe]

However, I put it to you that your repeated attempts to justify your denial of your conscious freedom, combined with my repeated choice to witness to the reality of our conscious freedom offers ample evidence that it is not just a baseless claim.

However, I put it to you that your repeated attempts to justify your denial of your biologically controlled conciousness, combined with my repeated choice to witness to the reality of our biologically conscious freedom , based on deterministic principles, offers ample evidence that no soul is required.

[SusanDoris]

However, I put it to you that your repeated attempts to justify your denial of your conscious freedom, combined with my repeated choice to witness to the reality of our conscious freedom offers ample evidence that it is not just a baseless claim.

To think your personal opinion, totally unsupported by any logic* or rational reasoning, is better than everyone elses's is very arrogant of you.

*Your personal "logic" has been shown over and over again to be worthless.

[ippy]

More dishonest drivel. This is a motte-and-bailey fallacy. You are attempting to conflate our abilities to produce arguments to justify our positions (well, mine, anyway, all you ever do is repeat empty and often dishonest assertions that have been addressed endless times before), with your nonsense version of free will, namely, the ability to have done differently (without randomness).

There is not, nor can there be, even in principle, any evidence in anybody's posts that they could have done differently.

Please, at least stop repeating this blatant lie.

I've just read your post N T S, and it brought to my mind a scene I've often seen in various Science Fiction films where a robot has been given an instruction that conflicts with its original programmed orders, they either blow themselves up or freeze with puffs of smoke rising from their heads, now I shouldn't need to say any more I'm sure you're more than able to follow that line of thought through_____

Regards, ippy.

[Stranger]

Nobody would be guilty of deliberately making a blatant lie if they did not have the conscious freedom needed to do so.
As I have repeatedly pointed out - we have no control over past events.
So is it the past events (which I have no control over) being blamed for making deliberate lies?
Can you not see how absurd your accusation is if you insist that your concept of determinism is true?

Yes, your totally predicable, standard response (inevitable reaction) for whenever you're caught telling blatant lies.

I have repeatedly explained the false dilemma involved - you are not being "pushed about" by the past into doing things that you don't want to do. You are the product of the past. You can't not be the person you are, even if you are right and I am wrong. Either way, you are acting as only you can.

Regardless of all that, you think you have free will and are answerable to your god, so why won't you commit to stop telling blatant lies about people's posts containing evidence that they could have done differently? Doesn't your god have something to say about bearing false witness - because insisting that there is evidence where there cannot possibly be any, is definitely bearing false witness.

Do you really think that appealing to a distorted version of what I think, excuses you from the direct responsibility you think you have? Do you think your god would accept that as an excuse? Or perhaps you spend hours in confession about your dishonesty here, and you think that makes it all right?

[ippy]

ippy

Thank you for mentioning the moth. The woo lot will, however, find any way they can to need an outside agency for evolution.

Brings to mind that old saying, 'none so blind as those that don't want to see', ref my post to T B S a few minutes ago 'robots'.

Kind regards, ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

We can't rewind time, but we are free to contemplate the vast improbability that everything we say, think or do was entirely predefined by past events before we did them.

What significance do you think the idea of something being vastly improbable has, and why?

[torridon]

We can't rewind time, but we are free to contemplate the vast improbability that everything we say, think or do was entirely predefined by past events before we did them.

The alternative being, if we are free of past events, is that we are essentially random beings.  Which is the more improbable ?  That we are random seems the option that has to go; my experience tells me that things happen for a reason.

[Alan Burns]

The alternative being, if we are free of past events, is that we are essentially random beings.  Which is the more improbable ?  That we are random seems the option that has to go; my experience tells me that things happen for a reason.

There is another alternative, Torri -
We are not entirely free of past events.
We are consciously aware of past events. 
We are consciously aware of reasons.
We are not driven by random events.
We are not entirely driven by inevitable reactions to the past.
We are free to choose, to think, to imagine, to contemplate, to draw conclusions, to compose posts, to worship, to make assertions, to argue, to discuss ....
Do you seriously think it is all just driven by uncontrollable reactions to past events over which you can have no control?
Can you not see the evidence that our conscious awareness gives us the freedom to choose rather than just react?

[Alan Burns]

Yes, your totally predicable, standard response (inevitable reaction) for whenever you're caught telling blatant lies.

I could never consider my witnessing to the truth of our conscious freedom to be a blatent lie.

I have repeatedly explained the false dilemma involved - you are not being "pushed about" by the past into doing things that you don't want to do. You are the product of the past. You can't not be the person you are, even if you are right and I am wrong. Either way, you are acting as only you can.

Your repeated explanations fail to explain the reality of the freedom we all enjoy.
If we are entirely shackled to reactions driven by past events there can be no concept of freedom.

Regardless of all that, you think you have free will and are answerable to your god, so why won't you commit to stop telling blatant lies about people's posts containing evidence that they could have done differently? Doesn't your god have something to say about bearing false witness - because insisting that there is evidence where there cannot possibly be any, is definitely bearing false witness.

How could I possibly deny the freedom God has given me to accept Jesus Christ as my Saviour?

[torridon]

There is another alternative, Torri -
We are not entirely free of past events.
We are consciously aware of past events. 
We are consciously aware of reasons.
We are not driven by random events.
We are not entirely driven by inevitable reactions to the past.
We are free to choose, to think, to imagine, to contemplate, to draw conclusions, to compose posts, to worship, to make assertions, to argue, to discuss ....
Do you seriously think it is all just driven by uncontrollable reactions to past events over which you can have no control?
Can you not see the evidence that our conscious awareness gives us the freedom to choose rather than just react?

That's not really a logical alternative, more of a superficial account clung to in preference to a more profound account. Notwithstanding all the mysteries of conscious  experience, we still have to resolve choice one way or another and we can only do this by reference to things over which we have no control.  If I could control how strawberry tastes or whether I believe Jeremy Corbyn is PM then humanity would not be viable. We can only resolve because we are deterministic agents in a deterministic system.  For the same reason, trade would not be possible in a market where weighing scales were of variable calibration and traders could just choose how much their pound of potatoes weighed.  All of our ponderings and deliberations must take place with a context that is ultimately true to such non-negotiable underlying principles of logic.

[torridon]

I could never consider my witnessing to the truth of our conscious freedom to be a blatent lie.Your repeated explanations fail to explain the reality of the freedom we all enjoy...

You concept of freedom is misconceived though.  Freedom means absence of oppression, absence of coercion.  It does not mean freedom from yourself, freedom from your preferences.  These are non-sensical freedom claims.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Again, what do you think the significance of something being very improbable to be and why?