Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

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.

Silly you, right enough!

[torridon]

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.

These things have been covered ad nauseam already on this thread.  If you cannot understand it by now, we'll have to put it down to failure of imagination on your part.  Either that or some sort of obstinate desire to avoid understanding. One or the other.

[Sebastian Toe]

. Silly me.

At last, something we can agree on!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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.

Any event happens either deterministically or, to some degree at least, randomly. The contradiction is asserting a “soul” that apparently functions outwith that binary paradigm.       

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

In the way that’s been explained to you many times already, and that you continue to ignore. 

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.

Your usual litany of untruths and logical fallacies there, so there’s no point in correcting you on them yet again. If you’re uneducable then you’re uneducable – there’s nothing people here can do to fix that.   

[ippy]

Alan, if the stuff you keep on repeating were in fact viable evidence that unquestionably supports your god idea, you know, souls and all of the other stuff that up to now is only nonsense, how come you're not internationally famous?

Isn't the fact that you are not the Alan Burns of international fame telling you something? If not Why not?

Commiserations Alan, ippy.

[Alan Burns]

Alan, if the stuff you keep on repeating were in fact viable evidence that unquestionably supports your god idea, you know, souls and all of the other stuff that up to now is only nonsense, how come you're not internationally famous?

I leave it to other fellow believers who have far greater talents than myself speak up for the truth on the international stage.
The disturbing fact is that they get similar contrived replies from those who consciously use their creative writing abilities to explain away their conscious freedom.

[torridon]

I leave it to other fellow believers who have far greater talents than myself speak up for the truth on the international stage.
The disturbing fact is that they get similar contrived honest replies from those who consciously use their creative writing abilities to explain away their conscious freedom.

There you go, FIFY

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I leave it to other fellow believers who have far greater talents than myself speak up for the truth on the international stage.

Not the truth Alan, just their (various) truths. To justify a claim of the truth, you need to produce an argument to take you from subjective perception to objective validation – you know, the question you keep avoiding.

The disturbing fact is that they get similar contrived replies from those who consciously use their creative writing abilities to explain away their conscious freedom.

No Alan, the “disturbing fact” is that someone apparently capable of holding down a responsible job can simultaneously have his critical faculties so compromised that no reason or argument can ever be allowed to penetrate his wilful ignorance.   

[SusanDoris]

What irks me considerably, and could, if I wasn't a rational, thinking person, cause me sadness, is the fact that powerful religious leaders, in the face of zero objective evidence, have the gall to continue to tell billions of people falsehoods. None of the present ones will receive their come-uppance in their lifetimes, though, because things are not going to change quickly enough for that to happen; and of course when they die, that will be the end for them, since the possible heaven or such-like they hope for does not exist … … unless of course someone can show definitively otherwise.

[ippy]

I leave it to other fellow believers who have far greater talents than myself speak up for the truth on the international stage.
The disturbing fact is that they get similar contrived replies from those who consciously use their creative writing abilities to explain away their conscious freedom.

Well Alan, these of supposedly 'greater talent', fellow travellers of yours, how likely do you think they're going to rock the media any more than Mr & Ms Nobody has managed to do so right up to this present time.

I wonder why you refuse to see that if there were any viable evidence worth knowing about, reference, your imaginary friend, world fame would be sure to follow, a dead cert for whoever revealed it and then when you're reminded about the fact this has never happened it seems to be your Que for eyes shut and so on, something you can't twist and turn your way out of.

Nothing contrived about that lot Alan, all facts none of your magical, mystical and superstition based nonsense.

Commiserations Alan, ippy.

[Alan Burns]

No Alan, the “disturbing fact” is that someone apparently capable of holding down a responsible job can simultaneously have his critical faculties so compromised that no reason or argument can ever be allowed to penetrate his wilful ignorance.   

Wilful ignorance of what?
I fully understand all the arguments used to deny our spiritual nature.
You seem unable to comprehend how an intelligent person can be unconvinced by your well thought out arguments.
I understand what you say.
I understand how you come to your conclusions.
But there is a bigger picture.
You seem unable to accept or even consider any argument put forward which is indicative of our spiritual nature.

[Nearly Sane]

Wilful ignorance of what?
I fully understand all the arguments used to deny our spiritual nature.
You seem unable to comprehend how an intelligent person can be unconvinced by your well thought out arguments.
I understand what you say.
I understand how you come to your conclusions.
But there is a bigger picture.
You seem unable to accept or even consider any argument put forward which is indicative of our spiritual nature.

You haven't put any logical argument.

[torridon]

Wilful ignorance of what?
I fully understand all the arguments used to deny our spiritual nature.
You seem unable to comprehend how an intelligent person can be unconvinced by your well thought out arguments.
I understand what you say.
I understand how you come to your conclusions.
..

Clearly you have not understood many aspects of this argument yet.  Only yesterday you posted up

"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."

which demonstrates beyond any doubt, that as of yesterday, you still had not got your head round the issue of consciousness and its relevance or not to decision making and to creativity.  The fact of a fraction of a second consciousness lag does not rob us of creativity, and neither does it enable to us to make uncaused choices that are not random.

[Alan Burns]

....... and neither does it enable to us to make uncaused choices that are not random.

I have never denied that choices have a cause.
Where we differ is in what causes a conscious choice.
In all the replies I get, there is no apparent differentiation between choice and reaction.
Yet the difference in meaning is profound.
Reactions are not conscious choices.

[Nearly Sane]

I have never denied that choices have a cause.
Where we differ is in what causes a conscious choice.
In all the replies I get, there is no apparent differentiation between choice and reaction.
Yet the difference in meaning is profound.
Reactions are not conscious choices.

This just shows you haven't understood the many replies.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Wilful ignorance of what?

Logic mostly.

I fully understand all the arguments used to deny our spiritual nature.

That sentence itself betrays the fact that you don’t. The arguments you receive falsify the arguments you attempt to justify your belief “spiritual nature”, not the supposed “spiritual assertion” itself. Assuming your conclusion like this is (yet another) logical fallacy, called begging the question. This has been explained to you countless times, yet you make exactly the same mistake over and over again.

Why?
 

You seem unable to comprehend how an intelligent person can be unconvinced by your well thought out arguments.

To the contrary, of course I comprehend it: you remain unconvinced because you will never, ever engage openly and honestly (or even at all) with those arguments. Your mind is so fogged with reason-free convictions that you cannot permit anything to disturb them, no matter what it is.   

I understand what you say.

As you’ve never shown any evidence of that, I’ll have to take your word for it.

I understand how you come to your conclusions.

As you’ve never shown any evidence of that, I’ll have to take your word for it.

But there is a bigger picture.

Than our current state of knowledge? Yes I know – that’s why we have people trying to find out more using well-understood and tested methods and tools.

You seem unable to accept or even consider any argument put forward which is indicative of our spiritual nature.

How would you know that as you’ve never made any? The closest you’ve come is to attempt one or several basic logical fallacies, so – so far at least – there’s been nothing to consider. That’s one of the many problems you’ve given yourself here.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have never denied that choices have a cause.
Where we differ is in what causes a conscious choice.
In all the replies I get, there is no apparent differentiation between choice and reaction.
Yet the difference in meaning is profound.
Reactions are not conscious choices.

There is "no apparent differentiation between choice and reaction" because in many ways there isn't one (however much you assert that there is with no argument to support the claim). Yet again, you're just assuming your subjective perception of something to be the objective explanation for it with no connecting logic to take you from the former to the latter.

Perhaps if you stopped ignoring that problem you'd be on the fist step at least to making some progress? 

[torridon]

I have never denied that choices have a cause.
Where we differ is in what causes a conscious choice.
In all the replies I get, there is no apparent differentiation between choice and reaction.
Yet the difference in meaning is profound.
Reactions are not conscious choices.

There is a relationship between reaction and choice.  Typically in behavioural terms a reaction would be an instant, or near instant, response without any prolonged consideration. A child steps out in the road, you react by hitting the brake pedal.  A choice might typically be something that takes place over a period of time as a result of weighing up multiple factors.  Which house should I buy ? I might spend weeks deliberating over it.

However, the fact of a long period of deliberation does not dissolve the binary nature of the random / deterministic problem.  It will still be true that whatever conclusion I reach will be due to causes, all of which are in the past when I finally make up my mind.  If that were not the case, then I am buying a house at random.  I'm pretty sure I don't buy houses randomly, so my resulting choice must owe to reasons.  And that choice is something that has emerged from multiple reactions over a period of time, individual moments of realisation along the way, all adding up to eventually resolving my preference.

[ippy]

Wilful ignorance of what?
I fully understand all the arguments used to deny our spiritual nature.
You seem unable to comprehend how an intelligent person can be unconvinced by your well thought out arguments.
I understand what you say.
I understand how you come to your conclusions.
But there is a bigger picture.
You seem unable to accept or even consider any argument put forward which is indicative of our spiritual nature.

Bigger picture? Bloody cheek?

[Alan Burns]

You may well think you have won the argument, but at what cost?

Luke 9:25 (NIV)
What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?

[Nearly Sane]

You may well think you have won the argument, but at what cost?

Luke 9:25 (NIV)
What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?

As long as it's not just for Wales.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You may well think you have won the argument, but at what cost?

Luke 9:25 (NIV)
What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?

As the argument that’s been won encompasses the position that there’s no good reason to take Biblical faith claims seriously you appear to have snookered yourself here.   

[Enki]

You may well think you have won the argument, but at what cost?

Luke 9:25 (NIV)
What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?

From my point of view, I immediately thought that the Biblical deepity you quote is much more appropriate to your good self. I see no reason to change my mind.

[torridon]

You may well think you have won the argument, but at what cost?

Luke 9:25 (NIV)
What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?

There is nothing to be lost by being honest.

[Alan Burns]

There is nothing to be lost by being honest.

I entirely agree.
But what is honesty?
What does it derive from?
For honesty to exist, there must also be the concept of dishonesty.
Can the concepts of honesty and dishonesty exist within an entirely physically determined world.
Can the laws of physics be held responsible?
If not, then what?
The answer of course is you.
Can you honestly claim that what you deem to be honesty is just an inevitable consequence of material reactions?
Or is there something else involved .................................................................