Searching for GOD...

[Sebastian Toe]

I suggest you try defining "Love" entirely as a consequence of material reactions.

I suggest you try to define how the soul, which seemingly makes all decisions.........decides who or what you love.

[Stranger]

How can Love exist without the truly amazing gift of freedom which God has given us?

Out here in the real world.

Love not freely given is no love at all - just a meaningless, unavoidable consequence.

And your assertions about what 'freedom' means are self-contradictory and hence meaningless and impossible.

...you will not find love in material reactions.

Baseless assertion - and you certainly won't find it in meaningless gibberish about things happening for no reason without being random.

Which you no doubt presume to comprise entirely of material reactions.

That's what the evidence (not presumption) tells us - but it's totally irrelevant to why your notion of freedom is meaningless gibberish.

I suggest you try defining "Love" entirely as a consequence of material reactions.

Now back to the hypocrisy, not to mention an argument from ignorance fallacy. You cannot define anything at all about your gibberish version of reality.

[Alan Burns]

To all recent posters:

If the only admissible evidence you consider is that of human scientific knowledge to date, it will be an inevitable conclusion that "Love" is just an unavoidable biological reaction to past events over which we can have no control.

But human scientific knowledge is far from providing a full understanding of the reality we all live in.

We all have the precious gift of life, but it is tragic how many do not realise how precious this amazing gift is.  To try to define ourselves as being nothing more than biological robots driven entirely by uncontrollable physically defined reactions is a gross misconception of what our life is about.

The human capacity to love and be loved goes far beyond the capabilities of physically defined material reactions.

[Gordon]

To all recent posters:

If the only admissible evidence you consider is that of human scientific knowledge to date, it will be an inevitable conclusion that "Love" is just an unavoidable biological reaction to past events over which we can have no control.

Pretty much.

But human scientific knowledge is far from providing a full understanding of the reality we all live in.

We know that, and the knowledge we do have is provisional: but not having a full understanding does not open the door to baseless woo, such as 'God'.

We all have the precious gift of life, but it is tragic how many do not realise how precious this amazing gift is.  To try to define ourselves as being nothing more than biological robots driven entirely by uncontrollable physically defined reactions is a gross misconception of what our life is about.

You have an amazing ability to pile multiple fallacies into a single paragraph: I see the fallacies of reification, consequences and ignorance after just a quick read.

The human capacity to love and be loved goes far beyond the capabilities of physically defined material reactions.

And an added dash of incredulity to end with.

[Stranger]

If the only admissible evidence you consider is that of human scientific knowledge to date, it will be an inevitable conclusion that "Love" is just an unavoidable biological reaction to past events over which we can have no control.

Firstly, it's actually the only evidence we have. Certainly there has been none provided in your endless inane, fallacy and baseless assertion ridden postings here.

Secondly, even if you could provide evidence for something else, that wouldn't change the purely logical conclusion that either everything we do is a reaction to our our nature, nurture, and life experiences, or there is a part of what we do that is random. The description of 'unavoidable' is also something of a misrepresentation as it implies fatalism (that something will happen regardless of what we want or do), rather than determinism (what we want and do is the logical result of the past).

But human scientific knowledge is far from providing a full understanding of the reality we all live in.

True. However, concluding that such an understanding is therefore impossible, would be an argument from ignorance fallacy - and we know (because you've told us) that you never base your views on fallacies, only on logic....

....oh, except that's actually completely false.

We all have the precious gift of life, but it is tragic how many do not realise how precious this amazing gift is.  To try to define ourselves as being nothing more than biological robots driven entirely by uncontrollable physically defined reactions is a gross misconception of what our life is about.

The human capacity to love and be loved goes far beyond the capabilities of physically defined material reactions.

Finishing off with a string of utterly baseless assertions. 

[Sebastian Toe]

To all recent Alan Burns


If I understand your assertions correctly

. Your soul resides in a timeless "realm"
It "visits" our spacetime universe, and experiences time here.
Whilst it us here it interrogates our universe through the medium of our biological brain,.
In "real time" it makes all of our "concious" decisions.



Am I close so far?

[Alan Burns]

To all recent Alan Burns


If I understand your assertions correctly

. Your soul resides in a timeless "realm"
It "visits" our spacetime universe, and experiences time here.
Whilst it us here it interrogates our universe through the medium of our biological brain,.
In "real time" it makes all of our "concious" decisions.



Am I close so far?

It comes closer to a viable explanation for the reality we all enjoy than any postulation based on uncontrollable material reactions which offer no explanation for our conscious awareness or freedom of choice.

[torridon]

To all recent posters:

If the only admissible evidence you consider is that of human scientific knowledge to date, it will be an inevitable conclusion that "Love" is just an unavoidable biological reaction to past events over which we can have no control.
..

That fits with the evidence.  We do not have control over what we love or not love.  Can you choose to hate something that you dearly love ? Doesn't work that way and it couldn't possibly work that way.  Once you grasp the truth of that you will come to understand what people have been explaining to you on this thread for the past six years.

[Stranger]

It comes closer to a viable explanation for the reality we all enjoy than any postulation based on uncontrollable material reactions...

What utter drivel. Nothing you've said about a soul comes close to any sort of explanation. "It's magic, innit?" is not an explanation, especially when said magic is described as being self-contradictory.

...which offer no explanation for our conscious awareness...

Argument from ignorance fallacy. A gap in our knowledge does not make your favourite fantasy any more believable.

...or freedom of choice.

We obviously don't have 'freedom of choice' in the way you have described it. It's meaningless, self-contradictory gibberish. It makes no more sense than a square circle and is equally unimaginable.

[Outrider]

It comes closer to a viable explanation for the reality we all enjoy than any postulation based on uncontrollable material reactions which offer no explanation for our conscious awareness or freedom of choice.

Claims of a supernatural creator do not explain anything, they either move the need for an explanation one step backwards (where did the creator come from) or they just handwave some magic in and pretend that's an answer.

What a supernatural creator does do, given what we understand about time, is remove the possibility of freedom of choice or individual agency entirely.

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

Your soul resides in a timeless "realm"
It "visits" our spacetime universe, and experiences time here.
Whilst it us here it interrogates our universe through the medium of our biological brain,.
In "real time" it makes all of our "concious" decisions.

It comes closer to a viable explanation for the reality we all enjoy than any postulation based on uncontrollable material reactions which offer no explanation for our conscious awareness or freedom of choice.

That might be so, but to answer my question....do those statements accurately describe your views?

If not, please correct me.

[Alan Burns]

Your soul resides in a timeless "realm"
It "visits" our spacetime universe, and experiences time here.
Whilst it us here it interrogates our universe through the medium of our biological brain,.
In "real time" it makes all of our "concious" decisions.
That might be so, but to answer my question....do those statements accurately describe your views?

If not, please correct me.

In essence it does reflect my views, but I would choose slightly different wording to clarify.

I do not claim these views to reflect the absolute truth - no one could do that.
I am just postulating a viable explanation for the conscious freedom we all enjoy (whether or not we believe it exists).

If we adhere to there being nothing but a time dependent cause and effect scenario for our existence, we inevitably come to a conclusion which reduces us all to being mechanistic reactions to past events over which we have no control.  I fail to see how any validated logical deductions can just fall out from uncontrollable reactions in a material brain.  Our freedom to consciously control our thought processes is an essential component in our ability to make logical deductions, but such control is denied in the time dependent cause and effect scenario observed in material reactions.  So I believe the source of any conscious control cannot be entirely shackled to past events over which there can be no control - just inevitable reaction.  In order to break free from this restriction, the ultimate source of control must exist within our present state of conscious awareness.

The above deduction is entirely based upon finding a viable explanation for the reality in which I exist and act - it is not derived from religious faith.

My faith comes from the divine revelations of scripture combined with prayer and my own and other people's witness of God working in their lives.

The fact that the concept of an immortal soul fits in with my deductions about the reality and source of human free will is evidence that our spiritual nature is a reality rather than just a belief.

[Sebastian Toe]

In essence it does reflect my views, but I would choose slightly different wording to clarify.

I do not claim these views to reflect the absolute truth - no one could do that.
I am just postulating a viable explanation for the conscious freedom we all enjoy (whether or not we believe it exists).

If we adhere to there being nothing but a time dependent cause and effect scenario for our existence, we inevitably come to a conclusion which reduces us all to being mechanistic reactions to past events over which we have no control.  I fail to see how any validated logical deductions can just fall out from uncontrollable reactions in a material brain.  Our freedom to consciously control our thought processes is an essential component in our ability to make logical deductions, but such control is denied in the time dependent cause and effect scenario observed in material reactions.  So I believe the source of any conscious control cannot be entirely shackled to past events over which there can be no control - just inevitable reaction.  In order to break free from this restriction, the ultimate source of control must exist within our present state of conscious awareness.

The above deduction is entirely based upon finding a viable explanation for the reality in which I exist and act - it is not derived from religious faith.

My faith comes from the divine revelations of scripture combined with prayer and my own and other people's witness of God working in their lives.

The fact that the concept of an immortal soul fits in with my deductions about the reality and source of human free will is evidence that our spiritual nature is a reality rather than just a belief.

Thanks for the reply.
To clarify , everything that we experience and in order to make decisions , comes via the medium of our physical body/brain, through to your soul.
This is then , in real time, used by the soul in order to make real time free will decisions?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In essence it does reflect my views, but I would choose slightly different wording to clarify.

I do not claim these views to reflect the absolute truth - no one could do that.
I am just postulating a viable explanation for the conscious freedom we all enjoy (whether or not we believe it exists).

If we adhere to there being nothing but a time dependent cause and effect scenario for our existence, we inevitably come to a conclusion which reduces us all to being mechanistic reactions to past events over which we have no control.  I fail to see how any validated logical deductions can just fall out from uncontrollable reactions in a material brain.  Our freedom to consciously control our thought processes is an essential component in our ability to make logical deductions, but such control is denied in the time dependent cause and effect scenario observed in material reactions.  So I believe the source of any conscious control cannot be entirely shackled to past events over which there can be no control - just inevitable reaction.  In order to break free from this restriction, the ultimate source of control must exist within our present state of conscious awareness.

The above deduction is entirely based upon finding a viable explanation for the reality in which I exist and act - it is not derived from religious faith.

My faith comes from the divine revelations of scripture combined with prayer and my own and other people's witness of God working in their lives.

The fact that the concept of an immortal soul fits in with my deductions about the reality and source of human free will is evidence that our spiritual nature is a reality rather than just a belief.

You're not postulating a viable explanation at all - you're just asserting a mad, incoherent, reason- and evidence-free, self-contradictory and therefore impossible very, very, very bad idea that made sense you as an adolescent and that you're now so invested in that you've locked the door and thrown away the key to anything that shows you to be wrong.

So let's try a different tack. What are you posting this stuff here? Seriously though. If people want to post "postulations" they're offering ideas that can be examined and tested - which means an exchange of ideas. You though have told us - apparently with some pride - that you have a closed mind, that no argument of any kind could ever show you to be wrong, in short that you have no interest in any ideas at all other than unquestioning acceptance of your assertions.

So here's the point: you're wrong. I and others can tell you exactly why you're wrong just as we have done many times already, but there would be no point would there because you don't want to hear it. So wrong you are and wrong you will remain, the victim of a closed mind of your own making.         

[Stranger]

I am just postulating a viable explanation for the conscious freedom we all enjoy (whether or not we believe it exists).

Except that it isn't viable because it's self-contradictory.

If we adhere to there being nothing but a time dependent cause and effect scenario for our existence, we inevitably come to a conclusion which reduces us all to being mechanistic reactions to past events over which we have no control.

Except there is no 'reduced' about it and it's not that we have no control - it's that what we want to do with our control is because of reasons that go back into the past (nature, nurture, and experience). There is no other possibility except randomness.

I fail to see how any validated logical deductions can just fall out from uncontrollable reactions in a material brain.

Argument from personal incredulity.

Our freedom to consciously control our thought processes is an essential component in our ability to make logical deductions, but such control is denied in the time dependent cause and effect scenario observed in material reactions.

Drivel. The role of consciousness is irrelevant to the argument against your nonsense version of 'free will'. It applies regardless of whether consciousness is fully in control, all the way through to it being entirely an epiphenomena.

This is not a consciousness versus reaction issue.

Why do you just mindlessly repeat this stuff that has already been addressed countless times before? Are you really too dimwitted to grasp it, too afraid to think about it, or are you deliberately ignoring it?

So I believe the source of any conscious control cannot be entirely shackled to past events over which there can be no control - just inevitable reaction.  In order to break free from this restriction, the ultimate source of control must exist within our present state of conscious awareness.

Stamping your little foot really, really hard and repeating the same nonsense over and over, is not going to change the logic. There is no logically relevant meaning of 'the present'. The 'present state of conscious awareness' is just gibberish. It literally has no meaning.

The above deduction...

Genuine laugh out loud! Deduction!? You stared with incredulity and misrepresentation, ended with meaningless gibberish, and all without the slightest hint of valid logic to link the two. It's basically "I can't see how it can be like this, so I'll make up some nonsense phrase and pretend it's an answer".

A logical deduction, as I and others have explained before, starts with premises, follows valid logical steps (maybe categorical or truth-functional logic) and reaches a conclusion.

...is entirely based upon finding a viable explanation for the reality in which I exist and act - it is not derived from religious faith.

Yeah, and I'm a world class footballer. 

The fact that the concept of an immortal soul fits in with my deductions about the reality and source of human free will is evidence that our spiritual nature is a reality rather than just a belief.

And you don't understand evidence any better than you understand logic...

[Alan Burns]

Thanks for the reply.
To clarify , everything that we experience and in order to make decisions , comes via the medium of our physical body/brain, through to your soul.
This is then , in real time, used by the soul in order to make real time free will decisions?

Yes, I believe the sensory data provided through our brain and body feeds the ever present state of conscious awareness from which we are able to invoke conscious choices and guide our thoughts.

When the sensory data shuts down during sleep, our awareness of time will no longer exist because the spiritual source our conscious awareness is not part of the time dimension of this material world.

Our material brain effectively provides a window into this material world through which we can perceive and consciously interact without the restrictions of being entirely driven by time dependent cause and effect events beyond our control.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes, I believe the sensory data provided through our brain and body feeds the ever present state of conscious awareness from which we are able to invoke conscious choices and guide our thoughts.

When the sensory data shuts down during sleep, our awareness of time will no longer exist because the spiritual source our conscious awareness is not part of the time dimension of this material world.

Our material brain effectively provides a window into this material world through which we can perceive and consciously interact without the restrictions of being entirely driven by time dependent cause and effect events beyond our control.

Wrong.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You're not postulating a viable explanation at all - you're just asserting a mad, incoherent, reason- and evidence-free, self-contradictory and therefore impossible very, very, very bad idea that made sense you as an adolescent and that you're now so invested in that you've locked the door and thrown away the key to anything that shows you to be wrong.

So let's try a different tack. What are you posting this stuff here? Seriously though. If people want to post "postulations" they're offering ideas that can be examined and tested - which means an exchange of ideas. You though have told us - apparently with some pride - that you have a closed mind, that no argument of any kind could ever show you to be wrong, in short that you have no interest in any ideas at all other than unquestioning acceptance of your assertions.

So here's the point: you're wrong. I and others can tell you exactly why you're wrong just as we have done many times already, but there would be no point would there because you don't want to hear it. So wrong you are and wrong you will remain, the victim of a closed mind of your own making.         

No matter how many superlatives you use to express your disagreement with my views, nothing can change the reality of our conscious freedom to express and defend our own views.  Your conclusions that our apparent freedom is just an "experience" may well fit in with your materialistic viewpoint, but it does not fit in with the reality of what we can actually achieve.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

No matter how many superlatives you use to express your disagreement with my views, nothing can change the reality of our conscious freedom to express and defend our own views.  Your conclusions that our apparent freedom is just an "experience" may well fit in with your materialistic viewpoint, but it does not fit in with the reality of what we can actually achieve.

Your unqualified opinions here are idiotic. You've told us you have interest in knowing why they're idiotic. Therefore all we can do in reply is to remind you that they are idiotic.   

[Stranger]

...ever present state of conscious awareness...

Gibberish!

...from which we are able to invoke conscious choices and guide our thoughts.
...
Our material brain effectively provides a window into this material world through which we can perceive and consciously interact...

Invoking, making choices, perception, and interaction, are all things that require time.

...without the restrictions of being entirely driven by time dependent cause and effect events beyond our control.

The idea that any of the above could happen without time and the resulting 'restrictions' nothing short of barking, carpet-chewing mad. Get a grip! Stop and think about it for a few seconds - yes, thought (and reaching a conclusion) takes time!

[Stranger]

No matter how many superlatives you use to express your disagreement with my views, nothing can change the reality of our conscious freedom to express and defend our own views.

Nobody has ever suggested that we don't have freedom to express and defend our views. Fighting straw men is a kind of lying, Alan.

[Cue the mindless, automatic response along the lines of "but how can you accuse material reactions of lying..."]

Your conclusions that our apparent freedom is just an "experience" may well fit in with your materialistic viewpoint, but it does not fit in with the reality of what we can actually achieve.

Drivel.

[Sebastian Toe]

Yes, I believe the sensory data provided through our brain and body feeds the ever present state of conscious awareness from which we are able to invoke conscious choices and guide our thoughts.

Good, I think I had understood at least that bit.

How does it work when we taste something new and it tastes wonderful or revolting?
Your soul doesn't decide that it tastes wonderful or revolting, does it?

[Alan Burns]

Good, I think I had understood at least that bit.

How does it work when we taste something new and it tastes wonderful or revolting?
Your soul doesn't decide that it tastes wonderful or revolting, does it?

We cannot alter the taste, or our dislike or like of it.
But we still have the conscious freedom to choose how to react to the taste.

[Sebastian Toe]

We cannot alter the taste, or our dislike or like of it.

Correct, therefore taste, beauty, music, smell etc must all be the inevitable consequences of physical  events which are happening in our body, interpreted by our physical brain.
Do you agree?

[Alan Burns]

Correct, therefore taste, beauty, music, smell etc must all be the inevitable consequences of physical  events which are happening in our body, interpreted by our physical brain.
Do you agree?

They are all perceived though our conscious awareness of the physical state of the many neurons in our brain.
There is no definition for how our awareness of the state of neurons actually works.  Neurons can produce reactions, but reactions alone do not define awareness.
Coupled with our awareness of such things as taste, beauty, music, smell etc is our freedom to choose how to react to them.