Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

We've been over all this before. Firstly, changing state over time is absolutely necessary for a mind in general and making choices in particular. Each thought takes time and changes the state from not having had that thought to having had it and a choice is a change of state from not having made it to having made it.

The validity of any logical conclusion is entirely dependent upon the accuracy of the premiss from which it is derived.

The logic you insist on adhering to is based on the premiss that everything is defined as a consequence to past events, otherwise it would be classed as random.  So based on this premiss you come to the inevitable conclusion that every thought you or I make is defined by a reaction to past events and therefore we could not have chosen to think differently.

Of course I agree that our perceived thoughts change state over time, but the question is what causes that change in state?  If all causes are a reaction to past events then your logical conclusion must be correct.  But science shows that some events do not have a perceivable cause from past events.  You may well categorise these events as random, but if all events arising from quantum indeterminacy were random, the stability and predictability we perceive at the molecular level would not exist.  So the basic premiss on which your logic is based is flawed.  If they are not random, these underlying quantum events must have a cause which we cannot perceive.  The fact that we cannot perceive a cause from past events means that we cannot make assumptions about how, when and where the cause originates, nor can we make presumptions about the nature of the cause.  It blows a hole into the premiss on which your logical conclusions concerning the nature of determinism are based.

So without a solid basis for everything being determined by past events, how are you able to declare that the freedom perceived and demonstrated by every sane human being must be an illusion - or "just the way it seems"?

Our perception is that human freedom to choose emanates from the conscious mind, not from unavoidable reactions to past events.  And the ability of the human mind to consciously invoke choices rather than react is born out by the vast evidence of human creativity, imaginative thinking and consciously driven scientific exploration which sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

We do not know how the human mind works, but we know what it does.
Can the unfathomable workings of the human mind have emanated from the purposeless, unguided forces of nature?
Or is the human mind evidence of a creative power beyond our understanding?
Is the creative power of the human mind a reflection of the creative power of God?

And after all these thousands of words if intense discussion, can we honestly find fault with these simple but profound teachings learnt from childhood:

 1. Who made you?
God made me.

2. Why did God make you?
God made me to know Him, love Him, and serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in the next.

3. To whose image and likeness did God make you?
God made me to His own image and likeness.

4. Is this likeness to God in your body or in your soul?
This likeness to God is chiefly in my soul.

5. How is your soul like to God?
My soul is like to God because it is a spirit, and is immortal.

(the first five questions in the Penny Catechism)

Matthew 18:3:
And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven

[BeRational]

The validity of any logical conclusion is entirely dependent upon the accuracy of the premiss from which it is derived.

The logic you insist on adhering to is based on the premiss that everything is defined as a consequence to past events, otherwise it would be classed as random.  So based on this premiss you come to the inevitable conclusion that every thought you or I make is defined by a reaction to past events and therefore we could not have chosen to think differently.

Of course I agree that our perceived thoughts change state over time, but the question is what causes that change in state?  If all causes are a reaction to past events then your logical conclusion must be correct.  But science shows that some events do not have a perceivable cause from past events.  You may well categorise these events as random, but if all events arising from quantum indeterminacy were random, the stability and predictability we perceive at the molecular level would not exist.  So the basic premiss on which your logic is based is flawed.  If they are not random, these underlying quantum events must have a cause which we cannot perceive.  The fact that we cannot perceive a cause from past events means that we cannot make assumptions about how, when and where the cause originates, nor can we make presumptions about the nature of the cause.  It blows a hole into the premiss on which your logical conclusions concerning the nature of determinism are based.

So without a solid basis for everything being determined by past events, how are you able to declare that the freedom perceived and demonstrated by every sane human being must be an illusion - or "just the way it seems"?

Our perception is that human freedom to choose emanates from the conscious mind, not from unavoidable reactions to past events.  And the ability of the human mind to consciously invoke choices rather than react is born out by the vast evidence of human creativity, imaginative thinking and consciously driven scientific exploration which sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

We do not know how the human mind works, but we know what it does.
Can the unfathomable workings of the human mind have emanated from the purposeless, unguided forces of nature?
Or is the human mind evidence of a creative power beyond our understanding?
Is the creative power of the human mind a reflection of the creative power of God?

And after all these thousands of words if intense discussion, can we honestly find fault with these simple but profound teachings learnt from childhood:

 1. Who made you?
God made me.

2. Why did God make you?
God made me to know Him, love Him, and serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in the next.

3. To whose image and likeness did God make you?
God made me to His own image and likeness.

4. Is this likeness to God in your body or in your soul?
This likeness to God is chiefly in my soul.

5. How is your soul like to God?
My soul is like to God because it is a spirit, and is immortal.

(the first five questions in the Penny Catechism)

Matthew 18:3:
And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven

It fails at number 1. No need to continue

[ekim]

Alan
(1)..... teachings learnt from childhood:
(2)..... God made me to know Him, love Him, and serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in the next.

This seems to knock on the head your notion of free will as (1) indicates determined by childhood teaching and (2) determined by your God.

[torridon]

The validity of any logical conclusion is entirely dependent upon the accuracy of the premiss from which it is derived.

The logic you insist on adhering to is based on the premiss that everything is defined as a consequence to past events, otherwise it would be classed as random.  So based on this premiss you come to the inevitable conclusion that every thought you or I make is defined by a reaction to past events and therefore we could not have chosen to think differently.

Of course I agree that our perceived thoughts change state over time, but the question is what causes that change in state?  If all causes are a reaction to past events then your logical conclusion must be correct.  But science shows that some events do not have a perceivable cause from past events.  You may well categorise these events as random, but if all events arising from quantum indeterminacy were random, the stability and predictability we perceive at the molecular level would not exist.  So the basic premiss on which your logic is based is flawed.  If they are not random, these underlying quantum events must have a cause which we cannot perceive.  The fact that we cannot perceive a cause from past events means that we cannot make assumptions about how, when and where the cause originates, nor can we make presumptions about the nature of the cause.  It blows a hole into the premiss on which your logical conclusions concerning the nature of determinism are based.
..

No it doesn't, no such hole is blown.  The possibility of randomness does nothing to negate the principle of causality - either things that happen do so because of a cause or they do not, in which case they are random events. We cannot rule out true randomness in the universe, but the existence of randomness arising out of the quantum world and whether or not that manifests in the world of atomic matter is irrelevant to the question of free will.

The claim of free will merely arises out of a fundamental failure to grasp logic - that to be 'free' of cause and effect means being random, and being random is not consistent with the concept of 'will'. It is nothing to do with particles of matter, it is a matter of clear headed thinking.

[Gordon]

The validity of any logical conclusion is entirely dependent upon the accuracy of the premiss from which it is derived.

The logic you insist on adhering to is based on the premiss that everything is defined as a consequence to past events, otherwise it would be classed as random.  So based on this premiss you come to the inevitable conclusion that every thought you or I make is defined by a reaction to past events and therefore we could not have chosen to think differently.

Of course I agree that our perceived thoughts change state over time, but the question is what causes that change in state?  If all causes are a reaction to past events then your logical conclusion must be correct.  But science shows that some events do not have a perceivable cause from past events.  You may well categorise these events as random, but if all events arising from quantum indeterminacy were random, the stability and predictability we perceive at the molecular level would not exist.  So the basic premiss on which your logic is based is flawed.  If they are not random, these underlying quantum events must have a cause which we cannot perceive.  The fact that we cannot perceive a cause from past events means that we cannot make assumptions about how, when and where the cause originates, nor can we make presumptions about the nature of the cause.  It blows a hole into the premiss on which your logical conclusions concerning the nature of determinism are based.

So without a solid basis for everything being determined by past events, how are you able to declare that the freedom perceived and demonstrated by every sane human being must be an illusion - or "just the way it seems"?

Our perception is that human freedom to choose emanates from the conscious mind, not from unavoidable reactions to past events.  And the ability of the human mind to consciously invoke choices rather than react is born out by the vast evidence of human creativity, imaginative thinking and consciously driven scientific exploration which sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.

We do not know how the human mind works, but we know what it does.
Can the unfathomable workings of the human mind have emanated from the purposeless, unguided forces of nature?
Or is the human mind evidence of a creative power beyond our understanding?
Is the creative power of the human mind a reflection of the creative power of God?

And after all these thousands of words if intense discussion, can we honestly find fault with these simple but profound teachings learnt from childhood:

 1. Who made you?
God made me.

2. Why did God make you?
God made me to know Him, love Him, and serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in the next.

3. To whose image and likeness did God make you?
God made me to His own image and likeness.

4. Is this likeness to God in your body or in your soul?
This likeness to God is chiefly in my soul.

5. How is your soul like to God?
My soul is like to God because it is a spirit, and is immortal.

(the first five questions in the Penny Catechism)

Matthew 18:3:
And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven

The text prior to '1.' is just your personal incredulity screwing up your thinking the again, and the bits from '1.' down are more examples of infantile theobabble: that you mistake this superstitious theobabble as being credible reasoning is astonishing to me.

[Alan Burns]

No it doesn't, no such hole is blown.  The possibility of randomness does nothing to negate the principle of causality - either things that happen do so because of a cause or they do not, in which case they are random events. We cannot rule out true randomness in the universe, but the existence of randomness arising out of the quantum world and whether or not that manifests in the world of atomic matter is irrelevant to the question of free will.

You have misunderstood the point.
For randomness read "no discernable cause".  Please acknowledge the difference.

The claim of free will merely arises out of a fundamental failure to grasp logic - that to be 'free' of cause and effect means being random, and being random is not consistent with the concept of 'will'. It is nothing to do with particles of matter, it is a matter of clear headed thinking.

I have never claimed human will is free from cause.
Human will is certainly not random, but we do not know the underlining cause of an act of human will.  Without knowing the underlying cause you cannot presume that it will be entirely derived from the endless chains of physically defined cause and effect evident in the world we can perceive.  And the "clear headed thinking" you refer to would not be possible in such an uncontrollable scenario where everything is entirely derived from the past events driven by forces which have no remit to arrive at clearly thought out conclusions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have misunderstood the point.
For randomness read "no discernable cause".  Please acknowledge the difference.

Actually for this purpose it arguably means something more like “producing no discernible patterns”. Whether there’s “true” randomness in the sense of producing no patterns at all (rather than just those we’re capable of discerning) is another matter, but that’s a more fundamental definition.   

I have never claimed human will is free from cause.

But you have claimed that the experience of apparent “free” will must also map to its explanation, though you’ve never been able to explain why. 

Human will is certainly not random,…

Or even “free” in the sense you intend, but ok…

…but we do not know the underlining cause of an act of human will.

Depends what you mean by “know”. We have strong reasons derived from logic and from evidence to conclude that it’s highly likely be a determinative process (there being no other explanation with any evidence at all), so for most purposes that counts as “know”.   

Without knowing the underlying cause you cannot presume that it will be entirely derived from the endless chains of physically defined cause and effect evident in the world we can perceive.

You’re using “presume” there pejoratively. Do we “presume” that germs cause diseases, or do we accept the conclusion the evidence gives us?

And the "clear headed thinking" you refer to would not be possible in such an uncontrollable scenario where everything is entirely derived from the past events driven by forces which have no remit to arrive at clearly thought out conclusions.

You’ve tried this daftness many, many times before and had it falsified just as many. Why do you continue to ignore the falsification you’re given? Of course it would be possible – is possible if the evidence is to be believed – because this claim relies on the same mistake of just assuming the way “free” will feels as an experience must also be the way "free” will is as a process. 

[torridon]

You have misunderstood the point.
For randomness read "no discernable cause".  Please acknowledge the difference.I have never claimed human will is free from cause.
Human will is certainly not random, but we do not know the underlining cause of an act of human will.  Without knowing the underlying cause you cannot presume that it will be entirely derived from the endless chains of physically defined cause and effect evident in the world we can perceive.  And the "clear headed thinking" you refer to would not be possible in such an uncontrollable scenario where everything is entirely derived from the past events driven by forces which have no remit to arrive at clearly thought out conclusions.

Whether a cause is discernible or not is merely a matter of computation, it is not a matter of principle.  The fact that we cannot in practice tie that hurricane in Florida back to a butterfly beating its wings in Morocco 12 months earlier does nothing to negate the principle of causality.  Likewise, the observation that we cannot necessarily trace the sequence of causes that might lead up to me developing a preference for the banana over the apple does nothing to challenge the principle of causality operating through brains.  That we are unable to map out all those chains of cause and effect is merely a problem of computation

[Alan Burns]

You’ve tried this daftness many, many times before and had it falsified just as many. Why do you continue to ignore the falsification you’re given? Of course it would be possible – is possible if the evidence is to be believed – because this claim relies on the same mistake of just assuming the way “free” will feels as an experience must also be the way "free” will is as a process.

So you are claiming that the apparent freedom we employ to consciously drive our own thought processes involved in the process of "clear headed thinking" is "just the way it feels as an experience."  So if we do not have the conscious freedom to drive our own thought processes, what precisely can be held to account for the quantitative value of "clear headed thinking"?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So you are claiming that the apparent freedom we employ to consciously drive our own thought processes involved in the process of "clear headed thinking" is "just the way it feels as an experience."

It’s just appearance that “we employ to consciously drive our own etc” but essentially yes.

So if we do not have the conscious freedom to drive our own thought processes, what precisely can be held to account for the quantitative value of "clear headed thinking"

Simply put, the “quantitative value of clear-headed thinking” is the positive feedback we receive when we do it. We reason that 2+2=4, we confirm the hypotheses with real world evidence, and we deem our reasoning thereby to be “clear-headed”. None of this though requires some kind of separate entity to “drive” the process in some unknown and mysterious way – it all happens under the bonnet regardless of whether or not we’re aware of the process.         

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It’s just appearance that “we employ to consciously drive our own etc” but essentially yes.

Simply put, the “quantitative value of clear-headed thinking” is the positive feedback we receive when we do it. We reason that 2+2=4, we confirm the hypotheses with real world evidence, and we deem our reasoning thereby to be “clear-headed”. None of this though requires some kind of separate entity to “drive” the process in some unknown and mysterious way – it all happens under the bonnet regardless of whether or not we’re aware of the process.         

Without the conscious control of a driver, the chances of your thought processes (driven entirely by reactions to past events beyond conscious control) reaching the correct destination are pretty slim.  And what controls the "confirmation of the hypothesis with real world events"? 

[Gordon]

Without the conscious control of a driver, the chances of your thought processes (driven entirely by reactions to past events beyond conscious control) reaching the correct destination are pretty slim.  And what controls the "confirmation of the hypothesis with real world events"?

You are your own driver, Alan: you just need to get used to that idea.

I have just successfully made myself a cup of coffee: my first of the day, and the most important due to my feeling that I am better prepared to face the day after my first coffee of the day. While I can certainly control my thinking as regards how to successfully make a cup of coffee my inherent need for that first coffee of the day seems to be an intrinsic need/want since I don't have to 'consciously drive' my thinking in favour of 'coffee'. Moreover, since I don't like tea, in the absence of coffee I would be unable to 'consciously drive' my thinking in favour of tea.       

[torridon]

Without the conscious control of a driver, the chances of your thought processes (driven entirely by reactions to past events beyond conscious control) reaching the correct destination are pretty slim.  And what controls the "confirmation of the hypothesis with real world events"?

Sure, you need to be conscious to be doing things like deductive logic.  Likewise you don't see a wolf trying to bring down a bison while it is fast asleep. Consciousness is involved in these things.  But that doesn't mean that consciousness stands somehow outside the flow of cause and effect, independent of the principle of causality.  It is part of that flow. We exercise our agency through conscious mind states, but our conscious experience is itself a product of preconscious processes, and those preconscious processes are not something we can consciously control, obviously.

[Alan Burns]

You are your own driver, Alan: you just need to get used to that idea.

Of course you are your own driver, Gordon.
But what comprises the "you"?
Are you nothing more than the uncontrollable consequence of material reactions?
The eureka moment I experienced fifty years ago when I came to the realisation that I was far more than material reactions could ever produce has been confirmed in so many ways.

There is no going back. 

[Gordon]

Of course you are your own driver, Gordon.
But what comprises the "you"?

My biology (such as it is).

Are you nothing more than the uncontrollable consequence of material reactions?

Although your phraseology is intended as pejorative, I think that your description is, in essence, likely to be the case. 

The eureka moment I experienced fifty years ago when I came to the realisation that I was far more than material reactions could ever produce has been confirmed in so many ways.

There is no going back. 

Based on what you post here I suspect your "eureka moment" has seen you jump to an irrational and illogical conclusion.

[Enki]

Of course you are your own driver, Gordon.
But what comprises the "you"?
Are you nothing more than the uncontrollable consequence of material reactions?
The eureka moment I experienced fifty years ago when I came to the realisation that I was far more than material reactions could ever produce has been confirmed in so many ways.

There is no going back. 

It seems that you cannot accept that the 'you' is essentially the workings of your brain  because you experience the feeling of a 'you' as something more akin to a 'soul'. As I see it, your eureka moment was simply a feeling which you took on board to be reality.

For myself, I don't have an eureka moment, I wouldn't necessarily trust one if I did, unless it fulfilled the remits of rationalty and logic. I simply go along with the evidence which suggests that we are basically a functioning deterministic brain. I would suggest that this is the rational approach that may or may not be modified as new evidence arises.

Indeed, I would say that, by applying reason, the effects have been shown to be more reliable than irrational decisions and hence more likely to be true than not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Are you nothing more than the uncontrollable consequence of material reactions?

Essentially, yes. Desert Island Discs this week featured Professor Brian Greene, the American theoretical physicist, mathematician and string theorist. Have a listen to him from 24.30 when he says pretty much just that (“…but in the end we’re just particles governed by laws”):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000w3lf
 

The eureka moment I experienced fifty years ago when I came to the realisation that I was far more than material reactions could ever produce has been confirmed in so many ways.

Unfortunately though your “eureka moment” was actually just a very bad idea that you then used in the following decades to justify your religious faith. The “confirmation” you think you’ve had is called confirmation bias – you relate desirable outcomes to the underlying idea and ignore the undesirable ones.     

There is no going back.   

That’s because you’re so heavily invested in the bad idea that you cannot allow yourself to abandon it no matter how comprehensively it’s falsified. To some extend I can understand that – when you’ve defined your life by a suite of beliefs that are actually nonsense, the void their abandonment would create would I suppose be existentially difficult for you to accept. 

Sadly for you though, your huge investment in a bad idea doesn’t change the fact of it being a bad idea. 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Essentially, yes. Desert Island Discs this week featured Professor Brian Greene, the American theoretical physicist, mathematician and string theorist. Have a listen to him from 24.30 when he says pretty much just that (“…but in the end we’re just particles governed by laws”):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000w3lf

I listened to this, and I entirely agree with his logic, that based on the presumption that we comprise nothing more than particles governed by the laws of physics we can have no freedom to guide our own thoughts.  My contention remains that the premiss from which he makes his deductions is flawed, because the deductions he makes could not be arrived at without the power to direct his own thought processes - a power which is denied by his conclusion.  Can you honestly believe that your power to contemplate the nature and origin of your own thought processes is entirely driven by the uncontrollable laws of particle physics?  It is not just a matter of personal incredulity - it concerns the reality of your own ability to think, to contemplate, to draw conclusions ...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I listened to this, and I entirely agree with his logic, that based on the presumption that we comprise nothing more than particles governed by the laws of physics we can have no freedom to guide our own thoughts.

“Presumption” is pejorative – “reason-based conclusion absent any evidence to the contrary” is better, but ok…

My contention remains that the premiss from which he makes his deductions is flawed, because the deductions he makes could not be arrived at without the power to direct his own thought processes - a power which is denied by his conclusion.

Can you genuinely not see what’s wrong with that? Seriously though? Of course they could be made in a deterministic system for the reasons that keep being explained to you. There’s no known process by which a separate “you” could somehow manipulate the particles and forces at play – your sense of decision-making is just those particles and forces playing out, made manifest in the emergent property of consciousness. 

Can you honestly believe that your power to contemplate the nature and origin of your own thought processes is entirely driven by the uncontrollable laws of particle physics?

Yes. More to the point though, why can’t you given that that’s what the only available evidence tells us?

It is not just a matter of personal incredulity - it concerns the reality of your own ability to think, to contemplate, to draw conclusions ...

It’s precisely a matter of (your) personal incredulity. You really don’t like the conclusion the evidence leads to (not least because it sweeps away the cornerstone of the religious belief that relies on it) so you just assert “your own ability to think, to contemplate, to draw conclusions” as a fact with nothing to justify the claim. All of the experience of “your own ability to….” etc fits readily in the deterministic model of reality, and all you have to deny it is the wish that reality was otherwise.

That’s your problem.   

[torridon]

I listened to this, and I entirely agree with his logic, that based on the presumption that we comprise nothing more than particles governed by the laws of physics we can have no freedom to guide our own thoughts.  My contention remains that the premiss from which he makes his deductions is flawed, because the deductions he makes could not be arrived at without the power to direct his own thought processes - a power which is denied by his conclusion.  Can you honestly believe that your power to contemplate the nature and origin of your own thought processes is entirely driven by the uncontrollable laws of particle physics?  It is not just a matter of personal incredulity - it concerns the reality of your own ability to think, to contemplate, to draw conclusions ...

What you're still not getting in this, is, 'guiding your own thoughts' would itself be a thought process.  Our thoughts flow, there is not a separate 'me' that stands outside the flow of thoughts that is choosing which thought to think next.  Thoughts occur, they happen, they flow, we do not choose which thoughts to have.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Nope. Optimism is the hope or wish that something will turn out as someone wishes it to turn out. It's not a claim of fact. The argument from personal incredulity on the other hand is the claim that something actually is the case, albeit based on the claimant’s inability to conceive of an alternative. You for example routinely collapse into the argument from personal incredulity fallacy because you cannot (or will not) ever engage with the explanations that falsify your notion of what is.

A prime example of personal optimism is the presumption that the process of contemplating the reasons and nature behind your own existence can be successfully accomplished by unguided physical reactions in a material brain.  Do you honestly believe that Einstein's theory of relativity just pops into his conscious awareness after being developed by unguided subconscious brain activity, and that his perceived ability to guide his own thoughts was "just the way it seems"?

No, you’ve been "accused" correctly of that – many, many times in fact.

In your somewhat biassed opinion. 

To my knowledge you have be never once offered a “substantial, well thought out reason” at all. No matter how many times your mistakes are explained to you, rather than engage with those explanations and attempt to rebut them you just repeat the same mistakes over and over again. Look, I’ll show you: can you think of any reason at all to justify your claim of a necessary “driver” for decision-making that isn’t:

1. Just a description of how the experience feels; or

see above  - Was Einstein just feeling the experience of developing his theory?

2. Something you really, really want to be true because it’s the cornerstone of your religious beliefs?

Belief in personal freedom to think things out is not just an attempt to sustain my religious faith.
My Christian faith is rock solid and I do not need to cling on to anything to sustain it

It’s OK, you can say it – “no” is the answer isn’t it.

And that’s your problem.

I have no problem in witnessing to the reality of of human beings having the freedom to consciously guide their own thought processes.
The problem arises when this reality is denied by trying to fit everything into a materialistic version of determinism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

A prime example of personal optimism is the presumption that the process of contemplating the reasons and nature behind your own existence can be successfully accomplished by unguided physical reactions in a material brain.  Do you honestly believe that Einstein's theory of relativity just pops into his conscious awareness after being developed by unguided subconscious brain activity, and that his perceived ability to guide his own thoughts was "just the way it seems"?

First, you’ve entirely missed the point. Again, optimism is the hope or expectation that something will turn out to occur in the way someone would like it to occur. In logic, there is no fallacy there. The fallacy of personal incredulity on the other hand entails a claim of fact, justified by the inability of the claimant to grasp an alternative explanation.

Can you see now where you went wrong with your “so is optimism” mistake, and at least acknowledge that mistake?

Second, you have framed your Einstein question exactly as another argument from personal incredulity. Einstein experienced decision making just as much as you or I experience decision making when we choose tea or coffee. What that experience actually entails though are deeper, underlying processes of which we have no conscious awareness and over which we have no means of control. Thinking in other words is essentially our experience of our brains processing data.

Your problem here is that you cannot reason your way beyond the experience being its own explanation (“what “free” will feels like must be what’s happening”) to a deeper, more rational and evidence-based explanation for what’s actually going on. The question here should be not “Do you honestly believe that Einstein's theory of relativity…” etc but rather it’s why can’t you believe that given the reason and evidence that supports it?       

In your somewhat biassed opinion.   

Wrong again. I don’t need an opinion, “biassed” (sic) or otherwise. All I have to do is to explain why your arguments align exactly with the construction of an argument from personal incredulity – something that’s trivially simple to do. Each time you try a “can you really believe” for example (as above), that’s not an argument. It’s just another way of saying “I can’t believe” with not even an attempt at reasoning to justify your positioning.
   

see above  - Was Einstein just feeling the experience of developing his theory?

See above. He was experiencing decision-making as everyone else does, but that experience of decision-making is just a narrative that works at one (very important but essentially false) level of abstraction, but fails entirely when reason and evidence is applied to that narrative. This has been explained you many, many times but you seem entirely unable or unwilling to address these explanations and prefer instead just repeating the same unqualified slogans over and over again. It’s as if someone kept explaining the germ theory of disease to you and you kept replying with, “can you honestly not see that diseases are caused by evil spirits?”.

Until and unless you even show any sign of understanding the arguments that undo you, simply repeating the equivalent of “evil spirits” in response like a broken speak your weight machine is worthless.         

Belief in personal freedom to think things out is not just an attempt to sustain my religious faith.

Yes it is. Why else would you refuse ever to address the arguments and evidence that show that belief to be wrong?

My Christian faith is rock solid and I do not need to cling on to anything to sustain it

Depressingly, I believe the first part of that. You absolutely must cling to mindless assertions about “free” will though because if you pulled away that cornerstone then your faith would rest on even shakier foundations than it already has. 

I have no problem in witnessing to the reality of of human beings having the freedom to consciously guide their own thought processes.

The term “witnessing” is a particularly pernicious corruption that Christians often try. You’re not witnessing anything unless you can establish first the thing to be witnessed. So far your attempts at doing that have been pitiful – essentially vapid and unqualified claims and assertions – so until and unless you can finally present some of this “well thought out” reasoning you claim to have but can never produce, you give none of us any reason at all to take your claims seriously.

Sorry, but there it is.     

[Alan Burns]

Why else would you refuse ever to address the arguments and evidence that show that belief to be wrong?

To put it simply, the more you contrive to make these arguments to say that I am wrong, the  more evidence I perceive to confirm that I am right about my belief in the conscious freedom needed to make such arguments.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

To put it simply, the more you contrive to make these arguments to say that I am wrong, the  more evidence I perceive to confirm that I am right about my belief in the conscious freedom needed to make such arguments.

To put it more simply still: the reason that's flat wrong is contained in the arguments you refuse ever to address. 

[Enki]

A prime example of personal optimism is the presumption that the process of contemplating the reasons and nature behind your own existence can be successfully accomplished by unguided physical reactions in a material brain.

That's where the evidence leads, whether I like it or not. How is that an example of personal optimism? How is that a presumption?

Do you honestly believe that Einstein's theory of relativity just pops into his conscious awareness after being developed by unguided subconscious brain activity, and that his perceived ability to guide his own thoughts was "just the way it seems"?

Whether it  'popped' into his consciousness or not,  it was  almost certainly the result of his brain activity. Indeed, he suggests as much when he said:

I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am.

It was when he developed these ideas that they became the stuff of science.

In your somewhat biassed opinion.

How many times have you started your assertion with words like "Can you not see..."? You often try this tack of appealing to our judgement to be able to see something simply because you feel it is impossible or absurd. These are simply expressions of your incredulity  and your appeals almost always fail because you give no reason to think something is wrong or absurd.

see above  - Was Einstein just feeling the experience of developing his theory?

That's no answer to the question as to whether Enstein had a 'necessary 'driver'' at all. The evidence suggests that he developed it through the workings of his brain.

Belief in personal freedom to think things out is not just an attempt to sustain my religious faith.
My Christian faith is rock solid and I do not need to cling on to anything to sustain it

Fair enough. You were asked a question. I get it that you feel your Christian faith to be 'rock solid'. Personally, I think that all manner of things sustain it which are pertinent to you.

I have no problem in witnessing to the reality of of human beings having the freedom to consciously guide their own thought processes.
The problem arises when this reality is denied by trying to fit everything into a materialistic version of determinism.

Assuming you are using your own idea of freedom here(the presence of our soul which allows us to make choices), you are simply using the word 'witness' to emphasise your own assertions. You don't  know it's reality, you simply feel it is. And, as usual, you don't present any evidence or logic to back it up.

PS In your next post, 42597, you demonstrate this by simply suggesting that the evidence is that which you perceive. That's not evidence, that's your perception and perceptiion can be wrong. Evidence is much more than this.