Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Motte-and-bailey again. What is being disputed is the ability to have done differently without randomness - not our ability to consciously contemplate.

Can you not see that within chains of pre determined cause and effect there is no mechanism for consciously controlled manipulation?
If we can't have done anything differently, that infers that every step involved in everything we do, think or say could not have been changed without randomness.  Yet we have the ability to deliberate from within our conscious awareness.  What is the ultimate source of this deliberation?  Your proposed scenario in which we could not have done differently removes any definitive source of deliberation and infers that everything is just an unavoidable consequence to past events.  Our conscious awareness is determined by events from the past, but it exists in the present, from where it has the freedom to interact.  A freedom which may well be beyond human understanding, but which is demonstrably real.

[torridon]

Can you not understand the difference between choice and reaction?
Our choices are certainly not free from the past.
Neither are they random.
They are influence by the past, but not entirely defined by the past.
Our conscious awareness of the past gives us the freedom to choose how to react to it.

OK, well if our choices are not 'entirely defined by the past', then to the extent that they are not, they are random.  For instance, if there was no reason that led me to prefer option A over option B, then my choice of A was random.

[Stranger]

Can you not understand the difference between choice and reaction?

A choice is a reaction. You have never once provided the slightest hint of an argument that it can be otherwise.

Our choices are certainly not free from the past.
Neither are they random.
They are influence by the past, but not entirely defined by the past.
Our conscious awareness of the past gives us the freedom to choose how to react to it.

And the mindless repetition of the reasoning-free script just goes on and on...

To the extent our choices are not entirely defined by the past, they must be random. There is no third option (#40759).

[Alan Burns]

OK, well if our choices are not 'entirely defined by the past', then to the extent that they are not, they are random.  For instance, if there was no reason that led me to prefer option A over option B, then my choice of A was random.

Reasons exist in our conscious awareness, Torri.  They are not pre determined reactions.  Our conscious awareness allows us the freedom to formulate and contemplate reasons before we choose how to act upon them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I fully understand the logic you propose.
But it is flawed because it fails to reflect our reality.

It’s very simple: if logic falsifies your perception of reality then it’s your perception of reality that’s wrong, not logic. No ifs, no buts.

[Stranger]

Can you not see that within chains of pre determined cause and effect there is no mechanism for consciously controlled manipulation?

No.

If we can't have done anything differently, that infers that every step involved in everything we do, think or say could not have been changed without randomness.

Yes.

Yet we have the ability to deliberate from within our conscious awareness.

Yes.

What is the ultimate source of this deliberation?  Your proposed scenario in which we could not have done differently removes any definitive source of deliberation and infers that everything is just an unavoidable consequence to past events.

The source of deliberation is called a "mind". And you're back to your favourite false dilemma, why can't a deliberation also be "an unavoidable consequence to past events". You are what the past has made you (nature, nurture, experience), so the way you deliberate is because of the past - the only other alternative is randomness.

Our conscious awareness is determined by events from the past, but it exists in the present, from where it has the freedom to interact.  A freedom which may well be beyond human understanding...

Yes - gibberish is always beyond understanding.

...but which is demonstrably real.

Don't be so utterly daft, of course it isn't demonstable. How are you going to demonstrate that you could have done differently, let alone without randomness? What you have demonstrated, yet again, is your total inability to construct anything remotely like a logical argument.

[torridon]

Can you not see that within chains of pre determined cause and effect there is no mechanism for consciously controlled manipulation?
If we can't have done anything differently, that infers that every step involved in everything we do, think or say could not have been changed without randomness.  Yet we have the ability to deliberate from within our conscious awareness.  What is the ultimate source of this deliberation?  Your proposed scenario in which we could not have done differently removes any definitive source of deliberation and infers that everything is just an unavoidable consequence to past events.  Our conscious awareness is determined by events from the past, but it exists in the present, from where it has the freedom to interact.  A freedom which may well be beyond human understanding, but which is demonstrably real.

You've gotten your simplistic presentation of mind function out for a ride again. 

A deterministic account of mind has no quarrel with the evolution of consciousness, it presents no challenge to our being capable of conscious contemplation. Indeed, these things would be impossible in a non-deterministic universe.  Brain function relies on the predictability of neuronal transmission and synaptic behaviour.  You're just peddling this really naive idea that merely thinking thoughts is somehow contrary to the principle of cause and effect.  Well it isn't, it is consistent with it - we have thoughts for reasons, if this were not the case then humanity would not be a viable species.

[Alan Burns]

A choice is a reaction. You have never once provided the slightest hint of an argument that it can be otherwise.

And the mindless repetition of the reasoning-free script just goes on and on...

To the extent our choices are not entirely defined by the past, they must be random. There is no third option (#40759).

The third option involves the God given power of the human soul which gives us the freedom to consciously choose rather than be subject to the unavoidable consequences of physically determined material reactions.

[torridon]

Reasons exist in our conscious awareness, Torri.  They are not pre determined reactions.  Our conscious awareness allows us the freedom to formulate and contemplate reasons before we choose how to act upon them.

And how do such phenomena appear in our conscious awareness ?  Do you imagine they just pop up with no provenance, for no reason ?

[Stranger]

The third option involves the God given power of the human soul which gives us the freedom to consciously choose rather than be subject to the unavoidable consequences of physically determined material reactions.

Reasoning-free, nonsensical, baseless assertion (and the usual false dilemma).

[torridon]

The third option involves the God given power of the human soul which gives us the freedom to consciously choose rather than be subject to the unavoidable consequences of physically determined material reactions.

That does not solve your logic problem, you've merely relocated the problem from mind to soul.  If there is no causal reason chain leading to why your soul chose option A rather than option B, then your resulting choice is random.

[ippy]

Ever contemplated giving Matt Dillahunty a bell Alan?

I was wondering who would convert whom, I doubt Matt would break into a sweat if he was having an exchange with you Alan, go on I'm sure I'm not the only one that would enjoy hearing you on his show.

If you're worried about the cost I'd gladly contribute a fiver, in my view it'd be money well spent.

Matt's number:   1-512-991-9242 

[Alan Burns]

That does not solve your logic problem, you've merely relocated the problem from mind to soul.  If there is no causal reason chain leading to why your soul chose option A rather than option B, then your resulting choice is random.

The cause is our consciously driven human willpower, which is not just an unavoidable consequence to the past, but the source of our God given human freedom which enables us to invoke conscious choices rather than be subject to inevitable reactions.

In the materialistic world I fully agree with the logic which dictates that there can be no real freedom to choose, which is why I am convinced that we are spiritual beings with the power to wilfully interact within this otherwise physically predetermined world

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It’s very simple: if logic falsifies your perception of reality then it’s your perception of reality that’s wrong, not logic. No ifs, no buts.

Any logic we conceive of will have been derived from what we consciously perceive with our senses, so if our perception of reality can be deemed to be wrong, any logic based upon this perception of reality can surely be fallible.

Instead of trying to define yourself from what we perceive on the outside, try looking within yourself to discover the spiritual nature which defines you - your human soul.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The cause is our consciously driven human willpower, which is not just an unavoidable consequence to the past, but the source of our God given human freedom which enables us to invoke conscious choices rather than be subject to inevitable reactions.

Assertion, not argument.

In the materialistic world I fully agree with the logic which dictates that there can be no real freedom to choose, which is why I am convinced that we are spiritual beings with the power to wilfully interact within this otherwise physically predetermined world

Non sequitur – a basic failure in reasoning.

Again: if logic falsifies your perception of reality then it’s your perception of reality that’s wrong, not logic. No ifs, no buts.

Write that down and repeat it twice before breakfast and three times before bed until it sinks in.

[Stranger]

The cause is our consciously driven human willpower, which is not just an unavoidable consequence to the past, but the source of our God given human freedom which enables us to invoke conscious choices rather than be subject to inevitable reactions.

And the mindless, thought-free repetition just goes on and on. Once again you are trying to answer a how question with a what answer. Either our conscious will is entirely the result of pre-existing causes, or it involves randomness, for reasons that have been explained over and over again.

And you still haven't given any hint as to why a conscious choice cannot also be an inevitable reaction.

In the materialistic world I fully agree with the logic which dictates that there can be no real freedom to choose...

And the utter, shameless dishonesty also just goes on and on as well. The logic has nothing to do with material world. Our minds, as any choice making entity must be, are things that change state over time, and that is the only assumption that the logic makes.

Why do you think thoughtlessly repeating the same words over and over again is going to convince anybody? What's the point? Do you want to make you and your faith look irrational, stupid, and dishonest - because that is what you are achieving.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Any logic we conceive of will have been derived from what we consciously perceive with our senses, so if our perception of reality can be deemed to be wrong, any logic based upon this perception of reality can surely be fallible.

Logic can be fallible inasmuch as it’s not cogent. I may for example think it “logical” to conclude that not walking on the cracks in the pavement means I’ll have egg and chips for tea because that’s always happened in the past. More cogent logic however tells me that that’s not logical at all, and in fact it’s an example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. This doesn’t help you though – when you seek to justify your beliefs with arguments you don’t come up with more cogent logic of your own. Rather you just commit a string of fallacies and refuse to deal with the problem that gives you. Effectively you’re saying, “but not walking on the cracks in the pavement does mean I’ll have and chips for tea because that’s my perception of reality”.

Can you see what’s wrong with that approach?           

Instead of trying to define yourself from what we perceive on the outside, try looking within yourself to discover the spiritual nature which defines you - your human soul.

Gibberish. I might feel any number of explanatory narratives to be real “from the inside” but that’s all they are – feelings. If I’m to sort the real from the imaginary though, then I need a method to do it. Reason is the only testable one I know of, but if you insist on driving a coach and horses through reason then – finally – you’ll have to provide some other method to do the job. Absent that, all you have is “whatever pops into my head as an explanation must be the explanation”, which doesn’t help you at all.

Try again, but this time think about what’s being said to you and try responding to that.

[Stranger]

Any logic we conceive of will have been derived from what we consciously perceive with our senses, so if our perception of reality can be deemed to be wrong, any logic based upon this perception of reality can surely be fallible.

Logic is only based on what we perceive to the same extent that mathematics is. Sure, we can say that 1 + 1 = 2 is based on observing the world but the system itself can be defined in an entirely abstract way and is universally applicable and accepted. Nobody is going to accept that, in some special cases, 1 + 1 = 38, are they?

In much the same way as arithmetic is universal, so is logic. It is the premises of logical arguments that generally refer to observations of the world. Fallacies are equivalent to getting your sums wrong in maths.

And remember that you have claimed to have "sound logic" on your side - are you now prepared to withdraw that claim? You seem to want to claim logic when you feel like it and then retreat into "it's beyond human understanding" but "demonstrable" (even when it obviously isn't), when you fail (yet again) to make a sound logical case.

Instead of trying to define yourself from what we perceive on the outside, try looking within yourself to discover the spiritual nature which defines you - your human soul.

You mean abandon reasoning an rely on what it feels like to you? And I do mean to you because I think it is you who have failed to do any honest introspection here. It seems to me that you've taken the most superficial, shallow, and simplistic interpretation of how things seem and elevated it to an unquestionable truth because it suits your own ego to think that you can then argue for your god from it.

It certainly doesn't feel to me like I do things that don't have reasons that exist in the past. I don't consciously control what thoughts pop into my head next, but they must get there for some reason. I don't experience making a choice in any other way than by evaluating what course of action is the most appealing to me - and that is not something I can choose, because it comes from my basic personality, which is they way it is because of my past.

And once again, are you going to abandon your claim to have logic? You really can't have it both ways. Either you have some logic to support your view, or you are asserting that your own (apparently shallow and simplistic) intuition should be accepted by everybody else just because you say so.

[Gordon]

Instead of trying to define yourself from what we perceive on the outside, try looking within yourself to discover the spiritual nature which defines you - your human soul.

No thanks: you've clearly picked up something nasty along the way, and on seeing what it's done (and continues to do) to you I'm rather keen to avoid becoming similarly afflicted.

[Enki]

Any logic we conceive of will have been derived from what we consciously perceive with our senses, so if our perception of reality can be deemed to be wrong, any logic based upon this perception of reality can surely be fallible.

Instead of trying to define yourself from what we perceive on the outside, try looking within yourself to discover the spiritual nature which defines you - your human soul.

On Feb. 19th 2016 I wrote this on this very same thread:

My overriding problem with Alan's ideas is that they never involve any sort of explanation. To simply assert a 'soul' seems to me to be attempting to fill a gap(if indeed it actually exists) with a word which has no explanatory value. We are never told how the soul explains consciousness, how it reacts to/informs the brain, where it is located, how it functions etc. As I see it, it could just as well be named x the unknown for all the use it is.

It seems that you are utterly incapable of answering such questions even though you have had over 4 years in which to do so.

Hence you simply assert your mantra ad nauseum as if repetition is the only response that's left in your armoury. Perhaps this is so, but what a sorry response it is, akin to bailing water constantly out of a boat but never seeing the hole that's causing it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ever contemplated giving Matt Dillahunty a bell Alan?

I was wondering who would convert whom, I doubt Matt would break into a sweat if he was having an exchange with you Alan, go on I'm sure I'm not the only one that would enjoy hearing you on his show.

If you're worried about the cost I'd gladly contribute a fiver, in my view it'd be money well spent.

Matt's number:   1-512-991-9242

The idea of atheist saints and apostles or their equivalent of a priestly class fascinates me.
From what I have seen of Dillahunty he is far more mature a figure than the Fourhorseman and their immediate entourage.

However it isn’t my job to praise but to criticise so here is a list of “to watch its ” with Dillahunty as far as I am concerned.

1. His show is called the atheist experience......given we are told continuously that atheism is “the great non “ and the great “lack of” what is it that atheists are experiencing?

2. He majors in fundamentalists. In other words he is running a bit of a freak show and so I think it is fair to say Dillahunty’s show is a bit wank foddery.

3. He’s a big one for The Christians and slavery Schtick. Firstly Christians have been the first to rigorously question this in Roman and 18th century imperialist times. Secondly Christians no longer have slaves. Thirdly and for me more importantly he has failed to make a rational case for why slavery is bad.

Not a good look for someone who is promoting rationality.

4. When the Atheist experience was challenged over why religious people were more charitable statistically than atheists they said that this is because religion has been going longer than atheists and has a far greater banker of good deeds.............they failed to see that by the same logic atheists hasn’t had time to build up as many bad deeds.

5. Dillahunty most definitely believes in atheist communities and community seriously undermining those who deny there is one.

6. Like Religion ethics Dillahunty has a posse of atheists to attack Christianity....That’s where we meet him.......The leader of the pack.

[torridon]

The cause is our consciously driven human willpower, which is not just an unavoidable consequence to the past, but the source of our God given human freedom which enables us to invoke conscious choices rather than be subject to inevitable reactions.

In the materialistic world I fully agree with the logic which dictates that there can be no real freedom to choose, which is why I am convinced that we are spiritual beings with the power to wilfully interact within this otherwise physically predetermined world

Our willpower is not a cause.  All living things have some sort of will, but that says nothing about how they resolve choice. 

Is this how it goes in the Burns household - Mrs Burns : "Alan dear why did you change the TV channel ?"  Mr Burns : "Because I used my willpower, dear".

Your reply is just your usual sidestep chosen in preference to acknowledging sound logic that you don't like.  Even spiritual beings would still have to contend with the logic of resolving choice if they are in the business of making choices.

[Alan Burns]

Your reply is just your usual sidestep chosen in preference to acknowledging sound logic that you don't like.  Even spiritual beings would still have to contend with the logic of resolving choice if they are in the business of making choices.

The phrase "sidestep chosen in preference to acknowledging sound logic" surely acknowledges my power to choose.  A power derived from the conscious self which comprises "me" as opposed to being an unavoidable consequence to the chains of material reactions dating back to the beginning of time.

[Stranger]

The phrase "sidestep chosen in preference to acknowledging sound logic" surely acknowledges my power to choose.

FFS Alan, nobody is disputing your power to choose or think (well, you obviously have difficulty with thinking logically, but generally speaking) or do anything else that humans do. What is missing is any argument from you that takes us from any human ability to your nonsense, self-contradictory version of "freedom" - the ability to have done differently.

A power derived from the conscious self which comprises "me" as opposed to being an unavoidable consequence to the chains of material reactions dating back to the beginning of time.

Why do they need to be different things? Where is any hint of an argument as to why this is a dichotomy? And why are you still dishonestly misrepresenting the argument as being about the "material", when it's just been pointed out, yet again, that it would apply just as to "spiritual beings" if they were to make choices? The argument is about the logical constraints of any choice-making.

[ippy]

The idea of atheist saints and apostles or their equivalent of a priestly class fascinates me.
From what I have seen of Dillahunty he is far more mature a figure than the Fourhorseman and their immediate entourage.

However it isn’t my job to praise but to criticise so here is a list of “to watch its ” with Dillahunty as far as I am concerned.

1. His show is called the atheist experience......given we are told continuously that atheism is “the great non “ and the great “lack of” what is it that atheists are experiencing?

2. He majors in fundamentalists. In other words he is running a bit of a freak show and so I think it is fair to say Dillahunty’s show is a bit wank foddery.

3. He’s a big one for The Christians and slavery Schtick. Firstly Christians have been the first to rigorously question this in Roman and 18th century imperialist times. Secondly Christians no longer have slaves. Thirdly and for me more importantly he has failed to make a rational case for why slavery is bad.

Not a good look for someone who is promoting rationality.

4. When the Atheist experience was challenged over why religious people were more charitable statistically than atheists they said that this is because religion has been going longer than atheists and has a far greater banker of good deeds.............they failed to see that by the same logic atheists hasn’t had time to build up as many bad deeds.

5. Dillahunty most definitely believes in atheist communities and community seriously undermining those who deny there is one.

6. Like Religion ethics Dillahunty has a posse of atheists to attack Christianity....That’s where we meet him.......The leader of the pack.

You really have no idea of how it is to not believe in gods, there's no point trying to enlighten you, when considering the amount of posts you've made and have received on this forum and you still keep on demonstrating, almost daily, that you haven't even begun to grasp the slightest understanding of why some of us choose to not take up any of the religious beliefs?