Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

So let us stick to what I do know, which is my own conscious ability to control what I do, think or say.

Ok, lets stick with what I know which is know, which is my own conscious ability to control what I do, think or say, but no soul required.

[Alan Burns]

Ok, lets stick with what I know which is know, which is my own conscious ability to control what I do, think or say, but no soul required.

So I presume you must think that the source of your control is defined by physically controlled reactions which are beyond your conscious control.  So no "you" required.

[Alan Burns]

This is just begging the question - your "conscious awareness" itself is either the result of the past or it is, in part, random. You are just assuming your conclusion that "conscious awareness" is something separate from chains cause and effect  that go back to the past.

So what do you presume to be capable of deliberately begging the question?
And what do you presume to be capable of deliberately accusing me of begging the question?
Is it just one physically controlled lump of material versus another physically controlled lump of material?
Is it random?
Or is it chains of cause and effect dating back to the beginning of time?
Or is there something else involved?

[Alan Burns]

If the regress stops with human mind, that would define human mind as random.  You're just dancing around rather facing straightforward logic.

If your presumed straightforward logic points to endless chains of cause and effect, what deems my thought out conclusions to be so different to yours?
What is it that determines yours to be correct and mine to be wrong?

[torridon]

If your presumed straightforward logic points to endless chains of cause and effect, what deems my thought out conclusions to be so different to yours?
What is it that determines your to be correct and mine to be wrong?

My rationale is consistent, yours is self-contradictory.  You keep claiming we are not random, which is correct as far as I am concerned, but then you keep contradicting yourself with statements such as in reply #41891 'The regress stops with the power of my human soul to invoke a conscious act of will', which if you unpick it, boils down to the human soul making random choices.

[Alan Burns]

My rationale is consistent, yours is self-contradictory.  You keep claiming we are not random, which is correct as far as I am concerned, but then you keep contradicting yourself with statements such as in reply #41891 'The regress stops with the power of my human soul to invoke a conscious act of will', which if you unpick it, boils down to the human soul making random choices.

Why do you assume the will of the human soul to be random?
Can you not accept the possibility that human will can exist as an unexplained reality rather than be an illusion driven by the result of unavoidable chains of cause and effect?

[Nearly Sane]

Why do you assume the will of the human soul to be random?
Can you not accept the possibility that human will can exist as an unexplained reality rather than be an illusion driven by the result of unavoidable chains of cause and effect?

He didn't assume that. Why can't you read stuff without getting it wrong? Why is the bot broken?

[Gordon]

Why do you assume the will of the human soul to be random?

You're begging the question again, which means that your point is, er, pointless (and therefore fallacious).

Can you not accept the possibility that human will can exist as an unexplained reality rather than be an illusion driven by the result of unavoidable chains of cause and effect?

The evidence suggests that this 'human will' is just biology doing what it does, Alan, even if the processes involved aren't fully understood. Your fear of the consequences will cease to trouble you as soon as you are able divest yourself of nonsensical religious superstitions.

[Sebastian Toe]

So I presume you must think that the source of your control is defined by physically controlled reactions which are beyond your conscious control.  So no "you" required.

Nope

[Alan Burns]

You're begging the question again, which means that your point is, er, pointless (and therefore fallacious).

The evidence suggests that this 'human will' is just biology doing what it does, Alan, even if the processes involved aren't fully understood. Your fear of the consequences will cease to trouble you as soon as you are able divest yourself of nonsensical religious superstitions.

If the only evidence you accept is based upon biological research, then it is inevitable that you will come to the conclusion that biology will somehow provide the explanation for human free will.

So what is it within biology which can be deemed responsible for begging the question?

[torridon]

Why do you assume the will of the human soul to be random?
Can you not accept the possibility that human will can exist as an unexplained reality rather than be an illusion driven by the result of unavoidable chains of cause and effect?

I don't assume anything about souls, as far as I am concerned, there is no such thing in reality.  What we do have is minds, whereas 'soul' is a concept that persists in religion, popular culture and superstition, but it has no place in a scientific understanding of life.

It is your contradictory position that souls are responsible for decision making in humans (only) and are non random whilst you continue to describe them in ways that indicate that they are in fact random.  This confusion and contradiction is entirely in your camp and of your own making and trying to hand waive away this muddle of your own making as an 'unexplained reality' impresses no one.  It's not some mysterious unexplained reality, it is wrong. This nonsense is the outcome of your seemingly being in deep denial about the fundamental nature of life.

[Gordon]

If the only evidence you accept is based upon biological research, then it is inevitable that you will come to the conclusion that biology will somehow provide the explanation for human free will.

If you have alternative evidence that is backed by a relevant methodology, so as to allow critique and investigation, then feel free to produce it: until then the only reliable evidence to hand is acquired via the application of science (and not religious superstitions).

So what is it within biology which can be deemed responsible for begging the question?

You, Alan: you are your biology (whether you like it or not), but unfortunately for you your critical thinking capabilities have been skewed by your adherence to said religious superstitions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you have alternative evidence that is backed by a relevant methodology, so as to allow critique and investigation, then feel free to produce it: until then the only reliable evidence to hand is acquired via the application of science (and not religious superstitions).

You, Alan: you are your biology (whether you like it or not), but unfortunately for you your critical thinking capabilities have been skewed by your adherence to said religious superstitions.

You are what you eat Gordon.

[ekim]

It's not some mysterious unexplained reality, it is wrong. This nonsense is the outcome of your seemingly being in deep denial about the fundamental nature of life.

Does anybody really know what the fundamental nature of life is?  Bios is the Greek word for life and biology was supposed to be the study of 'life' but it seems more concerned about the study of life forms.  The word 'Soul' has a Germanic origin and meant' life'.  Jesus is supposed to have said 'I am the Life' rather than the life form or body.  Perhaps the question should be ... Is there a fundamental nature of life and if so, does it exist beyond a life form e.g. in a formless state?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If the only evidence you accept is based upon biological research, then it is inevitable that you will come to the conclusion that biology will somehow provide the explanation for human free will.

So here's another question for you to ignore: if you don't like the method of biology to research you notion "soul", what method of research should people employ instead?

Oh, and while I'm here here's a supplementary question for you to ignore too: if you do have an alternative method of research, why has it failed you to the extent that it's given you precisely no information whatsoever about this supposed soul? 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

So here's another question for you to ignore: if you don't like the method of biology to research you notion "soul", what method of research should people employ instead?

Oh, and while I'm here here's a supplementary question for you to ignore too: if you do have an alternative method of research, why has it failed you to the extent that it's given you precisely no information whatsoever about this supposed soul?

You do not need to seek information from the outside to discover the existence of your soul.
Why would a human soul actively need to seek evidence of its own existence?
Do you honestly believe that you would have the power to seek such evidence without the divine gift of free will?
Do you suppose that whatever emerges from physically predetermined activity in a material brain could choose to seek evidence of its own existence?

[Gordon]

You do not need to seek information from the outside to discover the existence of your soul.
Why would a human soul actively need to seek evidence of its own existence?
Do you honestly believe that you would have the power to seek such evidence without the divine gift of free will?
Do you suppose that whatever emerges from physically predetermined activity in a material brain could choose to seek evidence of its own existence?

Four sentences and each one fallacious: well done you.

[torridon]

You do not need to seek information from the outside to discover the existence of your soul.
Why would a human soul actively need to seek evidence of its own existence?
Do you honestly believe that you would have the power to seek such evidence without the divine gift of free will?
Do you suppose that whatever emerges from physically predetermined activity in a material brain could choose to seek evidence of its own existence?

So, we have inquisitive minds.  That's hardly empirical evidence for souls.  Must try harder !

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You do not need to seek information from the outside to discover the existence of your soul.

Then how would you know whether your belief “soul” was justified? Fallacy of reification.

Why would a human soul actively need to seek evidence of its own existence?

That’s the fallacy of begging the question. What we’re trying to establish here is why you’d think there to be a “soul” at all. Asking why a supposed soul would want to verify its own existence has no relevance to that question. 

Do you honestly believe that you would have the power to seek such evidence without the divine gift of free will?

Of course, and that’s called the fallacy of personal incredulity.

Do you suppose that whatever emerges from physically predetermined activity in a material brain could choose to seek evidence of its own existence?

As that's what the only reason and evidence available to me indicates (not least because you've completely failed to produce the "sound logic" you claimed to have), yes.

Anyway – what you were actually asked and have avoided answering was, if not for the method of biology, what other method would you propose instead to research your claim “soul”?

You were also asked by the way why, if you did have some means of justifying your belief "soul", you still know precisely nothing whatsoever about it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My rationale is consistent, yours is self-contradictory.  You keep claiming we are not random, which is correct as far as I am concerned, but then you keep contradicting yourself with statements such as in reply #41891 'The regress stops with the power of my human soul to invoke a conscious act of will', which if you unpick it, boils down to the human soul making random choices.

Perhaps you'd like to give us a breakdown of what you mean perhaps giving an exmple of a choice and where and how the randomness comes in, why it doesn't work and then where and how the determinism comes in or if you have given us example for those who aren't regulars on here give us the reference.

[torridon]

Perhaps you'd like to give us a breakdown of what you mean perhaps giving an exmple of a choice and where and how the randomness comes in, why it doesn't work and then where and how the determinism comes in or if you have given us example for those who aren't regulars on here give us the reference.

In a nutshell : either things that happen are due to a cause, or they are not, in which case they are random.  Alan argues for a third option where human choice is neither deterministic nor random, but a special case.  The rest of us don't buy that, seeing it as merely special pleading to get an exemption from logic for human souls.

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

In a nutshell : either things that happen are due to a cause, or they are not, in which case they are random.  Alan argues for a third option where human choice is neither deterministic nor random, but a special case.  The rest of us don't buy that, seeing it as merely special pleading to get an exemption from logic for human souls.

Quite so. Worse yet though, the “sound logic” he claimed to have to justify this belief turns out to be just that the way he “perceives” things must also be the way they are, no matter what the contradictions this gives him. 

[Alan Burns]

torri,

Quite so. Worse yet though, the “sound logic” he claimed to have to justify this belief turns out to be just that the way he “perceives” things must also be the way they are, no matter what the contradictions this gives him.

I see no contradiction at all with the concept of the human soul being able to consciously interact with this otherwise deterministic world driven by the inevitable consequences of physically defined reactions.  How else could the creative intentions of our conscious minds come to fruition?

I have yet to come across a feasible explanation for how consciously perceived intentions can be carried out if every event in our human brain is entirely determined by reaction to past events.    Our conscious awareness can have no control over what has already occurred.  So how does my conscious intention get to be carried out ?  The only explanation offered would appear to be a presumption that our conscious intention was already determined by past events before we become aware of the intention, which reduces us all to being mere spectators over what has already occurred before we were aware of it.  Yet the evidence for the reality of consciously determined human creativity it truly overwhelming.  So I remain convinced that our unique ability to creatively interact with this material world is no illusion, but a reality which reflects the creative power of the Creator Himself.

[Gordon]

I see no contradiction at all with the concept of the human soul being able to consciously interact with this otherwise deterministic world driven by the inevitable consequences of physically defined reactions.

So, what mechanisms are involved then, and how can we check that you are correct?

How else could the creative intentions of our conscious minds come to fruition?

Biology, Alan.

I have yet to come across a feasible explanation for how consciously perceived intentions can be carried out if every event in our human brain is entirely determined by reaction to past events.

That would be due to your personal incredulity.

Our conscious awareness can have no control over what has already occurred.

That would be because it has already occurred - silly you.
 

So how does my conscious intention get to be carried out ?

That would be biology again: intentions are mental events, and mental events happen in living brains - this really should be obvious.

The only explanation offered would appear to be a presumption that our conscious intention was already determined by past events before we become aware of the intention, which reduces us all to being mere spectators over what has already occurred before we were aware of it.

That is what the evidence to date suggests: that you don't like the implications is your problem.

Yet the evidence for the reality of consciously determined human creativity it truly overwhelming.

Some people are talented, but even then I've heard some say that inspiration isn't just a matter of conscious intent.

So I remain convinced that our unique ability to creatively interact with this material world is no illusion, but a reality which reflects the creative power of the Creator Himself.

Which is worthless theobollocks, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

So, what mechanisms are involved then, and how can we check that you are correct?

Biology, Alan.

That would be due to your personal incredulity.

That would be because it has already occurred - silly you.
 
That would be biology again: intentions are mental events, and mental events happen in living brains - this really should be obvious.

That is what the evidence to date suggests: that you don't like the implications is your problem.

Some people are talented, but even then I've heard some say that inspiration isn't just a matter of conscious intent.

Which is worthless theobollocks, Alan.

You put your faith in biology, Gordon.
My faith remains with the ultimate source of all existence which made us what we are - entities of awareness with our own consciously driven willpower and ability to believe.
Can material reactions generate conscious belief?

Yes of course - I forgot! Biology did it. Silly me.