Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

You continue to ignore the power of the present to invoke deliberate interaction with the otherwise pre determined chains of cause and effect we perceive in material reactions.

This remains utterly meaningless word salad. There's no such thing as 'the present' in any logically meaningful sense.

How else could we have the freedom to consciously guide our thought processes to reach valid conclusions?

In what way do valid conclusions rely on meaningless gibberish about a non-existent 'present'?

Such guidance would not be possible in a scenario in which conscious perception of thoughts can only occur after the chemical reactions which define our thoughts.

Baseless assertion. Are we really going to have to go through all your silly assertions all over again?

Where is the logic you said you had? What are your premises? What are the logical steps?

[Alan Burns]

You are confusing logic with the understanding of logic. A logical argument is either true or it is not true irrespective of any individual's cognitive capacities in understanding it. A right angled triangle found by a Neanderthal man would still have a hypotenuse whose square equaled the sum of the squares of the other two sides whether or not the truth of that was apparent to him.

It is deemed to be true because our human perception can consciously confirm it to be true - so any logical truth relies entirely on our perception of reality as seen through our human senses and the power of the human brain to make conscious deductions about what is perceived.  So it is entirely correct to label it as "human logic".

[torridon]

Quite wrong.
You continue to ignore the power of the present to invoke deliberate interaction with the otherwise pre determined chains of cause and effect we perceive in material reactions.

How else could we have the freedom to consciously guide our thought processes to reach valid conclusions?  Such guidance would not be possible in a scenario in which conscious perception of thoughts can only occur after the chemical reactions which define our thoughts.

If 'deliberate interaction' were a phenomenon free from the paradigm of cause and effect, then it would be random.  That's what is meant by 'free from cause and effect'.  It's definitional, you can't argue with it, no matter what.

[Alan Burns]

This remains utterly meaningless word salad. There's no such thing as 'the present' in any logically meaningful sense.

As I have pointed out numerous times -
The present is where you or I exist as a conscious entity.  We do not exist in the past - neither do we exist in the future.
Our conscious awareness is not a physically definable entity - it is the spiritual reality in which we exist and interact with this material world and is entirely compatible with the concept and power of the human soul as depicted in the divine revelations of scripture.

By claiming there is no such thing as the present, you are effectively trying to deny your own existence.

[torridon]

It is deemed to be true because our human perception can consciously confirm it to be true - so any logical truth relies entirely on our perception of reality as seen through our human senses and the power of the human brain to make conscious deductions about what is perceived.  So it is entirely correct to label it as "human logic".

No, the inherent truth of something is not dependent on our (or anyone's ) ability to understand it. That triangle would still be a triangle whether or not the Neanderthal had the intellectual capacity to realise the significance of it.

[Stranger]

As I have pointed out numerous times -
The present is where you or I exist as a conscious entity.

As you've asserted many times and your silly assertions can't make nonsense into sense.

We do not exist in the past - neither do we exist in the future.

Only in the logically meaningless colloquial sense. In fact every sense input takes time, every thought takes time, so we don't, in any literal sense, exist in the present. Our minds are a process that requires time to do anything.

Our conscious awareness is not a physically definable entity - it is the spiritual reality in which we exist and interact with this material world and is entirely compatible with the concept and power of the human soul as depicted in the divine revelations of scripture.

Another baseless assertion.   

By claiming there is no such thing as the present, you are effectively trying to deny your own existence.

Drivel. You have never once even managed to define the present in any meaningful and non-circular way.

Sill waiting for any hint of the 'sound logic' you said you had....

[Alan Burns]

If 'deliberate interaction' were a phenomenon free from the paradigm of cause and effect, then it would be random.  That's what is meant by 'free from cause and effect'.  It's definitional, you can't argue with it, no matter what.

If deliberate interaction is shackled to the time dependent observation of cause and effect as seen in material entities, then it is not deliberate interaction - just inevitable reaction.  Deliberation is the power to invoke a cause - not react to past causes.  It must emanate from the power of the present - not the past.  It is a power which defies any physical explanation, but which offers evidence for the existence of the human soul.

[Stranger]

...the power of the present...

!! Meaningless nonsense alert !!

[torridon]

If deliberate interaction is shackled to the time dependent observation of cause and effect as seen in material entities, then it is not deliberate interaction - just inevitable reaction.  Deliberation is the power to invoke a cause - not react to past causes.  It must emanate from the power of the present - not the past.  It is a power which defies any physical explanation, but which offers evidence for the existence of the human soul.

Ah, just like old times, this, in'it ?

If there is no cause for a 'deliberate interaction', then that deliberate interaction would be a random event. If you do something for no reason, then you would be acting randomly.  This is simply definitional.  You haven't grasped that 'cause and effect' is a profound principle of logic, transcending superficial mental phenomena like mind states.

[Gordon]

If deliberate interaction is shackled to the time dependent observation of cause and effect as seen in material entities, then it is not deliberate interaction - just inevitable reaction.  Deliberation is the power to invoke a cause - not react to past causes.  It must emanate from the power of the present - not the past.  It is a power which defies any physical explanation, but which offers evidence for the existence of the human soul.

I'm assuming that over the festive period you took the time to top-up your fallacy dispenser.

[ekim]

If deliberate interaction is shackled to the time dependent observation of cause and effect as seen in material entities, then it is not deliberate interaction - just inevitable reaction.  Deliberation is the power to invoke a cause - not react to past causes.  It must emanate from the power of the present - not the past.  It is a power which defies any physical explanation, but which offers evidence for the existence of the human soul.

I think what you are doing is choosing words to suit your cause.  It could just as easily be said that 'Deliberation is dependant upon the desire to act or not act'  Its power comes from its attachment to a desire and as such is not really free.  If, as a Christian, you choose to surrender your will to your God's Will then you are not free from God's Will.

[Outrider]

If deliberate interaction is shackled to the time dependent observation of cause and effect as seen in material entities, then it is not deliberate interaction - just inevitable reaction.

See, you do understand.

Deliberation is the power to invoke a cause - not react to past causes.

No, deliberation is the sensation of one of those deliberate interactions happening in real time.

It must emanate from the power of the present - not the past.

Except that you don't become aware of it until after it's happened somewhere else in your brain.  It happens in one area, and then as the signals from that event emanate out, you become aware that it's happened later - a really short time later, but it's an effect traceable back to that proximate cause.

It is a power which defies any physical explanation, but which offers evidence for the existence of the human soul.

No, it's bioelectrical transmission across neuronal connections, it doesn't defy physical explanation at all.

As an aside, anything which 'defies explanation' by definition doesn't provide evidence for anything - that's an attempt at a false dichotomy where you suggest that if one party can't definitively prove their case then your case, regardless of a dearth of evidence, must be true.  It can't be proven tells us exactly that, that this can't be proven - it doesn't show that it's wrong, it certainly doesn't therefore stand as evidence in favour of something else.  Something not being definitively peas doesn't mean that therefore they are carrots.

O.

[Owlswing]

Oh dear! "The Little Scroll" must have shut down!

Welcome back! (NOT!)

[Alan Burns]

Ah, just like old times, this, in'it ?

If there is no cause for a 'deliberate interaction', then that deliberate interaction would be a random event. If you do something for no reason, then you would be acting randomly.  This is simply definitional.  You haven't grasped that 'cause and effect' is a profound principle of logic, transcending superficial mental phenomena like mind states.

You still do not get it.
The act of deliberation comes from you - you are not a machine - You are in control of the biological machine which is your physical body.  You are made on God's image with God's creative powers.  How else could you have the power to control the thought processes which are needed bring you to any viable conclusion?

[Stranger]

You still do not get it.

It's you who are struggling here. Goodness knows why, it's been explained to you over and over again.

The act of deliberation comes from you - you are not a machine - You are in control of the biological machine which is your physical body.  You are made on God's image with God's creative powers.

Foot-stamping. 

How else could you have the power to control the thought processes which are needed bring you to any viable conclusion?

Why do you think there's a problem without your self-contradictory magic and how, exactly, would your self-contradictory magic help with reaching 'viable' (whatever you mean by that) conclusions?

Come on, aren't you at least going to try some sound logic (which is what you claimed you had), rather then the endless (ironically) machine-like repetition? You know, list your premises, then the steps to the conclusion...?

[torridon]

You still do not get it.
The act of deliberation comes from you - you are not a machine - You are in control of the biological machine which is your physical body.  You are made on God's image with God's creative powers.  How else could you have the power to control the thought processes which are needed bring you to any viable conclusion?

Ah, your usual mish mash of logical fallacies all of which we have debunked over and over again.  Let's take them one at a time, shall we ?

1. Whether there is a 'me' that is doing the deliberating, or even if it were a AI bot, is utterly irrelevant to the simple logic of the observation that you replied to, namely, that should this act of deliberation be somehow free of the principle of cause and effect, then the outcome of all that deliberating would inevitably be random. If you break the chain from cause to effect, then your effects are random.  Period.  No ifs, no buts, this is simply definitional.

2. That we might be made in God's image is merely assertion without justification.  You'd need to find some evidence for that, which in its turn would require evidence that said God exists at all.

3. That there is a 'me' that is in control of the body is debatable. Consider, when was the last time 'you' decided to hiccup ? when was the last time 'you' decided to beat your heart or make some new red blood cells ? I've probably made several hundred million of those in the course of writing this post without 'me' even knowing anything about it. The vast majority of mind functioning actually goes on below the level of our conscious awareness, and the contents of my conscious awareness, such as they are, are not principally chosen by me but rather closer to the truth is that 'I' consist of the contents of that conscious awareness. So, although it might be somewhat counterintuitive at first, the reality is not that there is a 'me' controlling my body but rather, my body is producing a virtual 'me' as an apparent controller. This sense of self that we all have is an aspect of the way deeper levels of mind synthesise consciousness. We cannot control this process because 'we' are the outcome of the process.

[Enki]

You still do not get it.
The act of deliberation comes from you - you are not a machine - You are in control of the biological machine which is your physical body.  You are made on God's image with God's creative powers.  How else could you have the power to control the thought processes which are needed bring you to any viable conclusion?

You so disappoint me, Alan. I expected something of substance from you after your absence from the forum. Instead you simply regurgitate your usual views, with no recourse to logic and argument. All you seem to have in your armoury is constant assertion, with no answers at all to the logical points made against you.

Obviously you have a deeply held view that there is a 'you' that is distinct from the multi-celled organism that makes up a human being, but, without the slightest evidence to back this up, your protestations don't seem to make much sense at all. And when you follow this with your religious deepities, then all you seem to be doing is wallowing in the protective aspects of your religion without any recourse to argument whatever. Surely you can do better than this!

[Alan Burns]

See, you do understand.

No, deliberation is the sensation of one of those deliberate interactions happening in real time.

Except that you don't become aware of it until after it's happened somewhere else in your brain.  It happens in one area, and then as the signals from that event emanate out, you become aware that it's happened later - a really short time later, but it's an effect traceable back to that proximate cause.

No, it's bioelectrical transmission across neuronal connections, it doesn't defy physical explanation at all.

As an aside, anything which 'defies explanation' by definition doesn't provide evidence for anything - that's an attempt at a false dichotomy where you suggest that if one party can't definitively prove their case then your case, regardless of a dearth of evidence, must be true.  It can't be proven tells us exactly that, that this can't be proven - it doesn't show that it's wrong, it certainly doesn't therefore stand as evidence in favour of something else.  Something not being definitively peas doesn't mean that therefore they are carrots.

O.

Your apparent denial of the power of human free will - and trying to reclassify it as just a "sensation", is based upon human scientific knowledge which is limited to what we can perceive with our physical senses and man made machines.  Can you not see the abundant evidence that there is far more to reality than what has been discovered by human scientific investigation to date.  Something which defies explanation cannot be presumed to not exist or be an illusion just because current science can't explain it.  You can't redefine reality to fit in with short sighted human logic.

[Stranger]

Your apparent denial of the power of human free will - and trying to reclassify it as just a "sensation", is based upon human scientific knowledge...

Your problem really has nothing to do with science, it's the simple logic that, to the extent a choice is not fully determined by its antecedents, it must be random (#40759). There is no third option (including your gibberish about 'the present' or insisting that it's 'you').

You can't redefine reality to fit in with short sighted human logic.

You can't redefine reality to fit your irrational and illogical wishful thinking and blind faith.   

You have yet to point out a single solitary contradiction between reality and the logical view of determinism* (with, perhaps, some randomness).

Still waiting for the sound logic you claimed to have. Surely after all your time away you've been able to make some sort of attempt at putting together something that at least looks as if it might be a logical argument, rather than just empty assertion and nonsense?

* And, please, please, please, don't make us go through all the "but I've never denied determinism..." and us having to point out to you yet again what the word means, nonsense again!

[torridon]

Your apparent denial of the power of human free will - and trying to reclassify it as just a "sensation", is based upon human scientific knowledge which is limited to what we can perceive with our physical senses and man made machines.  Can you not see the abundant evidence that there is far more to reality than what has been discovered by human scientific investigation to date.  Something which defies explanation cannot be presumed to not exist or be an illusion just because current science can't explain it.  You can't redefine reality to fit in with short sighted human logic.

Science doesn't need to explain free will any more than it needs to explain four sided triangles; it is not in the business of explaining inherently self-contradictory claims. Something that was free in the sense you use the word would in fact be random and random is not consistent with will. What science can investigate, using the sciences of the mind, is why we feel free, even when we aren't.

[Alan Burns]

You can't redefine reality to fit your irrational and illogical wishful thinking and blind faith.   

Acts of wishful thinking and blind faith (and foot stamping!) offer ample evidence for the truth that deliberate acts emanating from the power of human free will are a reality - not an illusion.

[Stranger]

Acts of wishful thinking and blind faith (and foot stamping!) offer ample evidence for the truth that deliberate acts emanating from the power of human free will are a reality - not an illusion.

No, they don't (except in the compatibilist sense).   

Seriously, you can't just assert that something is evidence - especially evidence of something self-contradictory and logically impossible.

Still waiting for anything that even looks like logic, let alone the 'sound logic' you claimed you had....

[Alan Burns]

Science doesn't need to explain free will any more than it needs to explain four sided triangles; it is not in the business of explaining inherently self-contradictory claims. Something that was free in the sense you use the word would in fact be random and random is not consistent with will. What science can investigate, using the sciences of the mind, is why we feel free, even when we aren't.

You always produce well thought out replies to my posts, Torri.
But can the thinking process behind these replies be devoid of consciously driven input?
You have previously quoted evidence of the science behind the claim that our conscious awareness lags behind the events in our brain cells which define our apparently consciously driven choices.
While you think about how to reply to this post, try to imagine how such thought processes could be just the consequence of endless chains of physically driven cause and effect with no source of control.  Or try to contemplate the obvious reality that you are in control.

[Stranger]

While you think about how to reply to this post, try to imagine how such thought processes could be just the consequence of endless chains of physically driven cause and effect with no source of control.

[silly and rather dishonest misrepresentation struck out]

Everybody else seems to have thought about it and engaged their imaginations a great deal more than you have, Alan, with your simplistic, reasoning-free assertions.

Or try to contemplate the obvious reality that you are in control.

False dichotomy again. It's both the person and cause and effect. We are part of the chains of cause and effect, otherwise we'd be doing random things.

Still waiting for anything that even looks like logic, let alone the 'sound logic' you claimed you had....

[Alan Burns]

I think what you are doing is choosing words to suit your cause.  It could just as easily be said that 'Deliberation is dependant upon the desire to act or not act'  Its power comes from its attachment to a desire and as such is not really free.  If, as a Christian, you choose to surrender your will to your God's Will then you are not free from God's Will.

But as you said in your opening sentence, I am able to choose words to suit my cause.  I desire many things, but I am free to choose how, when and where to act upon those desires - or not to act.  I am not controlled by my conscious desires.  God's will can certainly influence my choices, but I am still free to make such choices - the choices are mine not God's and I am fully accountable for the choices I make.