Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

They are all perceived though our conscious awareness of the physical state of the many neurons in our brain.

What utter drivel. Nobody is aware of the state of their neurons.

There is no definition for how our awareness of the state of neurons actually works.

Because it doesn't exist.

Neurons can produce reactions, but reactions alone do not define awareness.

Baseless assertion.

Coupled with our awareness of such things as taste, beauty, music, smell etc is our freedom to choose how to react to them.

That 'freedom' consists of figuring out how we most want to react to them. We cannot, however, change what we want most. Such an ability leads directly to an infinite regress of wants; what do we want to want most? How do we decide that? By what we want to want to want most. How do we decide that? And so on, and so on. This is clearly impossible (and no, stamping your little foot and asserting it's 'you' that decides, doesn't even begin to address the problem - we are talking about how 'you' makes choices).

Your view of freedom is just self-contradictory gibberish; a foolish, superficial assumption that disappears as soon as you apply the least bit of rational thought to it.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Wrong.

Thank you for your succinct reply.

So I am deemed to be wrong by you.

But what comprises the "I" and the "you" ?

In your eyes, are we not both just channels through which physically driven material reactions pass?
If so, can you not see how bizarre is the concept of one channel of material reactions deeming another channel of material reactions to be "wrong".

The concept of one of us being right or wrong can only make sense if there is a source of control which is accountable, but where can this accountable source lie within the endless chains of physically driven reactions which pass through us both?

You constantly dismiss the concept of the power of the human soul being the underlying, consciously driven cause behind our thoughts, words and actions, but without it we can claim no personal responsibility for what we do.

[Stranger]

The concept of one of us being right or wrong can only make sense if there is a source of control which is accountable, but where can this accountable source lie within the endless chains of physically driven reactions which pass through us both?

You constantly dismiss the concept of the power of the human soul being the underlying, consciously driven cause behind our thoughts, words and actions, but without it we can claim no personal responsibility for what we do.

Utter nonsense - for reasons that have been explained to you multiple times by several people.

How many times now have you claimed to have logic to back up your ideas? Why is it still only notable by its total absence from your posts?

[Sebastian Toe]

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.

If a sunset, for example is beautiful to you then it is beautiful to you...full stop!
You are aware it is beautiful.
You did not make it beautiful.
You can choose to "react" by stating it is such or you can lie and state the
opposite or you can choose to share it with someone else who may or may
 not agree with your opinion.

What you cannot do is make it not beautiful to yourself......
...regardless of definitions or lack of definitions as to how neuron states
make us aware of things.

[torridon]

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.

If we cannot freely choose whether to like something, how can we freely choose how to react to it ?  Our reaction is definitionally the reaction that we most like, and we cannot freely choose whether (or how much) to like something. 

Whatever my course of action is in the next moment, it is always definitionally the course of action that I most want to take.

QED

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Thank you for your succinct reply.

So I am deemed to be wrong by you.

You're welcome, and actually wrong by reasons but as those reasons have been given to you many times here already and as you consistently ignore them, what point would there be in repeating them?

But what comprises the "I" and the "you" ?

Biology. Plus this is just another argument from personal incredulity.

In your eyes, are we not both just channels through which physically driven material reactions pass?

There’s no such thing as “physically driven material reactions” – just interactions. 

If so, can you not see how bizarre is the concept of one channel of material reactions deeming another channel of material reactions to be "wrong".

“Bizarre” only to you, and no.

The concept of one of us being right or wrong can only make sense if there is a source of control which is accountable, but where can this accountable source lie within the endless chains of physically driven reactions which pass through us both?

Wrong again. “The concept of one of us being right or wrong” makes perfect sense within the materialistic and determinative paradigm.

You constantly dismiss the concept of the power of the human soul being the underlying, consciously driven cause behind our thoughts, words and actions,…

Yes, because there’s definition of it, no requirement for it in the materialistic model we already have, and no way to argue for it without collapsing into fallacious reasoning (or no reasoning at all).

… but without it we can claim no personal responsibility for what we do.

Argumentum ad consequentiam, and of course “we” can provided you don’t reinvent what “we” entails so as to justify some very bad a priori religious convictions. 

[Alan Burns]

Wrong again. “The concept of one of us being right or wrong” makes perfect sense within the materialistic and determinative paradigm.

So within a materialistic and determinative paradigm, where does this concept exist?
And what precisely defines "perfect sense"?
It may well make "perfect sense" to you, but what defines "you"?

In essence, what can possibly be an objective judge about what is right or wrong within a scenario entirely determined by past events over which there is no control other than physically defined material reactions?

[torridon]

So within a materialistic and determinative paradigm, where does this concept exist?
And what precisely defines "perfect sense"?
It may well make "perfect sense" to you, but what defines "you"?

In essence, what can possibly be an objective judge about what is right or wrong within a scenario entirely determined by past events over which there is no control other than physically defined material reactions?

Maybe there is no such thing as 'objective judge', just personal opinions. Everyone has their own personal opinions deriving from their personal prior experience

[Stranger]

So within a materialistic and determinative paradigm, where does this concept exist?
And what precisely defines "perfect sense"?
It may well make "perfect sense" to you, but what defines "you"?

Since all this has been explained to you multiple times and you don't have any explanations yourself that don't invoke magic and lapse into self-contradictory gibberish, asking again is both disingenuous and hypocritical.

How about you answer the question you never have and tell us how your impossible, nonsense version of 'freedom' (being able to have done differently without randomness) would help with anything at all that humans do (like thinking things through and arguing)?

And before you regurgitate one of your meaningless mantras like "the freedom to consciously control our thought processes", the role of consciousness and how much it is in control doesn't matter, this isn't a dichotomy between 'conscious control' and 'reaction'. The logic of determinism applies just as much to the entire contents of consciousness as it does to anything else. Neither can you assume some separate 'you' and try to set up a dichotomy between 'you' making choices and chains of reactions (with your usual misrepresentation of adding 'physical' and 'uncontrollable', no doubt). The logic would apply just as much to some undefined 'you'. You also need to avoid gibberish like the 'ever present state of conscious awareness', unless you're actually going to provide a (non-circular) definition of 'present'.

What you need to do is start from the basics, the fact that you claim we could have made different choices in exactly the same situation (as this is basically the only concrete difference you've come up with) and tell us how that leads to anything that helps in the slightest way with anything humans can do. How about you use that logic you keep on telling us you have?

[Alan Burns]

Since all this has been explained to you multiple times and you don't have any explanations yourself that don't invoke magic and lapse into self-contradictory gibberish, asking again is both disingenuous and hypocritical.

How about you answer the question you never have and tell us how your impossible, nonsense version of 'freedom' (being able to have done differently without randomness) would help with anything at all that humans do (like thinking things through and arguing)?

And before you regurgitate one of your meaningless mantras like "the freedom to consciously control our thought processes", the role of consciousness and how much it is in control doesn't matter, this isn't a dichotomy between 'conscious control' and 'reaction'. The logic of determinism applies just as much to the entire contents of consciousness as it does to anything else. Neither can you assume some separate 'you' and try to set up a dichotomy between 'you' making choices and chains of reactions (with your usual misrepresentation of adding 'physical' and 'uncontrollable', no doubt). The logic would apply just as much to some undefined 'you'. You also need to avoid gibberish like the 'ever present state of conscious awareness', unless you're actually going to provide a (non-circular) definition of 'present'.

What you need to do is start from the basics, the fact that you claim we could have made different choices in exactly the same situation (as this is basically the only concrete difference you've come up with) and tell us how that leads to anything that helps in the slightest way with anything humans can do. How about you use that logic you keep on telling us you have?

May I sum up what I believe to be our main source of contention -

You believe that everything involved in our thoughts, words and actions are all direct consequences of past events.

I believe that it involves a combination of past events and human will.

No doubt you will contend that our conscious human will is in itself a consequence of past events, and as such it is just a meaningless label.

My contention is about the logical impossibility of past events alone being capable of actively controlling the conscious contemplation of said events and the ability to manipulate our thought processes to reach validated conclusions.  I know you label this contention as "personal incredulity", which leads to your contention that acts of conscious contemplation and manipulation of thought processes are somehow entirely defined by past events which are beyond conscious control.

My contention is backed up by the reality that I do have the awareness of past events, and the ability to actively contemplate such events with a conscious aim to make sense of the reality in which I exist by manipulating my thoughts to reach valid conclusions.  I contend that active contemplation and manipulation of thoughts cannot be entirely driven by past events outside our conscious control.

We both exist and act in our present state of conscious awareness.  In essence, we have no idea what comprises conscious awareness or how it works - we just know what it does.

[Stranger]

It's incredible that even when I point out how meaningless some of your stock phrases are, you still can't even be arsed to think of new ways of expressing them, let alone stop and THINK about it.

You believe that everything involved in our thoughts, words and actions are all direct consequences of past events.

If we exclude a genuine random element, yes.

I believe that it involves a combination of past events and human will.

No doubt you will contend that our conscious human will is in itself a consequence of past events, and as such it is just a meaningless label.

It's very far from a meaningless label (where on earth did you get that idea?) but, without randomness, the only alternative is that it is due to past events (nature, nurture, and experience right up to the present).

My contention is about the logical impossibility of past events alone being capable of actively controlling the conscious contemplation of said events and the ability to manipulate our thought processes to reach validated conclusions.

Firstly, you can't just assert something into being logically impossible. You need to show your working. You know (well, apparently you don't), actually provide the logic that demonstrates some sort of contradiction. Secondly, what did I say about phrases like "the freedom to consciously control our thought processes"?

I know you label this contention as "personal incredulity"...

What else? You've provided zero reasoning or logic.

My contention is backed up by the reality that I do have the awareness of past events, and the ability to actively contemplate such events with a conscious aim to make sense of the reality in which I exist by manipulating my thoughts to reach valid conclusions.

To the (limited) extent this makes sense, why on earth do you think it backs up your self-contradictory contention? Again, this appears to be an assertion based on nothing but incredulity.

We both exist and act in our present state of conscious awareness.

Drivel. The "present state of conscious awareness" has no logically relevant meaning.

In essence, we have no idea what comprises conscious awareness or how it works - we just know what it does.

What we can know about it is that it can't do the logically self-contradictory. Yet again, we have not the first hint of the tiniest suggestion of logic or reasoning from you, just the same old assertions and the same old vacuous phrases.

[Gordon]

May I sum up what I believe to be our main source of contention -

You believe that everything involved in our thoughts, words and actions are all direct consequences of past events.

I believe that it involves a combination of past events and human will.

No doubt you will contend that our conscious human will is in itself a consequence of past events, and as such it is just a meaningless label.

My contention is about the logical impossibility of past events alone being capable of actively controlling the conscious contemplation of said events and the ability to manipulate our thought processes to reach validated conclusions.  I know you label this contention as "personal incredulity", which leads to your contention that acts of conscious contemplation and manipulation of thought processes are somehow entirely defined by past events which are beyond conscious control.

My contention is backed up by the reality that I do have the awareness of past events, and the ability to actively contemplate such events with a conscious aim to make sense of the reality in which I exist by manipulating my thoughts to reach valid conclusions.  I contend that active contemplation and manipulation of thoughts cannot be entirely driven by past events outside our conscious control.

We both exist and act in our present state of conscious awareness.  In essence, we have no idea what comprises conscious awareness or how it works - we just know what it does.

The problem you have, Alan, is a simple one: you have a bad case of 'God'.

However, you want your belief in 'God' to appear rational and reasonable and not mindless blind faith so you've created a bespoke narrative ('souls', 'conscious awareness' etc) that you think to be rational and reasonable: but what you actually demonstrate is that you are indeed marooned in mindless blind faith and that you've yet to realise this.

[torridon]

..
My contention is about the logical impossibility of past events alone being capable of actively controlling the conscious contemplation of said events and the ability to manipulate our thought processes to reach validated conclusions.  I know you label this contention as "personal incredulity", which leads to your contention that acts of conscious contemplation and manipulation of thought processes are somehow entirely defined by past events which are beyond conscious control.

My contention is backed up by the reality that I do have the awareness of past events, and the ability to actively contemplate such events with a conscious aim to make sense of the reality in which I exist by manipulating my thoughts to reach valid conclusions.  I contend that active contemplation and manipulation of thoughts cannot be entirely driven by past events outside our conscious control.
..

We don't 'manipulate our thoughts', we think them.  Ie thoughts happen, they occur, they flow, but we cannot control them in the sense that we are something separate to our thought processes. 

All thoughts must have some derivation in the past, or else they would be random.  You can contend and assert till the cows come home, but all your contending and asserting are no match for this simple undeniable logic.

[Alan Burns]

The problem you have, Alan, is a simple one: you have a bad case of 'God'.

However, you want your belief in 'God' to appear rational and reasonable and not mindless blind faith so you've created a bespoke narrative ('souls', 'conscious awareness' etc) that you think to be rational and reasonable: but what you actually demonstrate is that you are indeed marooned in mindless blind faith and that you've yet to realise this.

As I have previously said, my case for God comprises prayer, the divine revelations of scripture, personal experiences of miracles and listening to many other witnesses about how God works in their lives.

I also witness to the fact that the freedom we all enjoy can't possibly be derived from the time related cause and effect events perceived in material behaviour.  Without this freedom, I would be unable to pray, to witness or to consciously differentiate miracles from natural events.

And just to add to my apparently never ending list of personal incredulities - the true probability of the unfathomable mysteries of the human mind being generated by the unguided, purposeless forces of nature is as good a definition of absolute zero as you will ever get.

[Stranger]

As I have previously said, my case for God comprises prayer, the divine revelations of scripture, personal experiences of miracles and listening to many other witnesses about how God works in their lives.

The bible is often horrifyingly morally repugnant and is riddled with contradictions. The rest can be found in any number of other superstitions.

I also witness to the fact that the freedom we all enjoy can't possibly be derived from the time related cause and effect events perceived in material behaviour.

You don't 'witness' to it, Alan, you just endlessly assert it. What's more you then (apparently) shamelessly lie about having logic to back it up.

Without this freedom, I would be unable to pray, to witness or to consciously differentiate miracles from natural events.

There you go again - yet another logic-free assertion. Added to which, of course, yet another baseless claim that you can recognise miracles.

And just to add to my apparently never ending list of personal incredulities - the true probability of the unfathomable mysteries of the human mind being generated by the unguided, purposeless forces of nature is as good a definition of absolute zero as you will ever get.

You said it; more incredulity. So why do you keep on lying about having logic? If you aren't lying, why do you keep the logic such a closely guarded secret?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I have previously said, my case for God comprises prayer,…

Anyone can pray to anything. The day you can demonstrate an answered prayer rather than just events that would have occurred anyway is the day we can think of it as evidence rather than wishful thinking.

…the divine revelations of scripture,…

See above. There's no evidence for “revelations”, divine or otherwise.

…personal experiences of miracles…

But no means to show that they were in fact “miracles” rather than just surprising outcomes.

…and listening to many other witnesses about how God works in their lives.

But not to “witnesses” who think equally fervently that different gods, spirits and assorted wotnots are “working” in their lives too. Funny that. 

I also witness to the fact that the freedom we all enjoy can't possibly be derived from the time related cause and effect events perceived in material behaviour.  Without this freedom, I would be unable to pray, to witness or to consciously differentiate miracles from natural events.

You don’t “witness” that, you just assert it – but you can never provide any reasoning to justify the assertion

And just to add to my apparently never ending list of personal incredulities - the true probability of the unfathomable mysteries of the human mind being generated by the unguided, purposeless forces of nature is as good a definition of absolute zero as you will ever get.

That’s because you don’t understand the reference point error – a basic mistake in reasoning – even though I’ve explained it to you several times. Perhaps if you didn’t just ignore the explanation each time and tried instead to address it you wouldn’t keep going so obviously wrong about this? 

[Alan Burns]

Pause for thought -

Strip away all the complex arguments and justifications.

What is left?

What motivates the heart?

[Outrider]

Pause for thought -

Strip away all the complex arguments and justifications.

What is left?

What motivates the heart?

Empathy. A desire to spread decency and humanity.

O.

[torridon]

Pause for thought -

Strip away all the complex arguments and justifications.

What is left?

What motivates the heart?

What motivates a bird to defend its chicks against predators ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Pause for thought -…

I wish you would Alan, I really do.

Strip away all the complex arguments and justifications.

What is left?

They're not complex, and what is left are unjustified assertions. That’s your problem.

What motivates the heart?

Hearts aren’t “motivated” (other than by electro-chemical impulses), but if you’re trying to ask something like, “why do people behave altruistically?” the answer is most likely enlightened self-interest borne of evolutionary advantage. 

[Stranger]

Pause for thought -

Strip away all the complex arguments and justifications.

What is left?

What motivates the heart?

In your case, it's pretty obviously preservation of deep-seated superstition, at least as far as this subject goes. Personally, I'd rather understand as much as we can about it through evidence and reasoning.

[Alan Burns]

There’s no such thing as “physically driven material reactions” – just interactions. 

Please explain 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Please explain 

"Physically driven" implies a "driver "- ie, purpose, intention, goal setting etc. So far as we can tell though, "reality" as a system runs on rails. If you knew every possible data point in the universe at a given point in time, then in principle at least you could work out what the universe would be like at any future point in time - and that universe includes you I'm afraid.   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

"Physically driven" implies a "driver "- ie, purpose, intention, goal setting etc. So far as we can tell though, "reality" as a system runs on rails. If you knew every possible data point in the universe at a given point in time, then in principle at least you could work out what the universe would be like at any future point in time - and that universe includes you I'm afraid.

So in your view of the universe, the concepts of purpose, intention and goals cannot exist, because there are no drivers - just inevitable roller coasters along the paths of life.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So in your view of the universe, the concepts of purpose, intention and goals cannot exist, because there are no drivers - just inevitable roller coasters along the paths of life.

No. At a lived experience level we plan, set goals etc all the time and that’s good enough to function in the everyday world readily enough. Reason and evidence though tell us that the way these things feel cannot be the way they are at a more profound level – unless you introduce magic thinking into the system they must in fact be determinative processes.

You’ve had this explained to you thousands of times now though, so I really don’t know why you’re asking the same question again.