Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Your mind. And, yet again, deliberation is either a deterministic system or it isn't (and therefore involves randomness).

Do you really not have anything new to ask or contribute? Why just pretend that you haven't had all this explained to you endless times before?

Sorry but the explanation is sadly lacking credibility.
An act of deliberation is certainly determined by something, but if it is determined by an inevitable end reaction to chains of physically determined chains of cause and effect, the word "deliberation" becomes meaningless.
An act of deliberation requires a source which is not pre determined by past events, but determined from your present state of conscious awareness.  You consistently deny any reference to the power of the present, or even the existence of the present.  But this is where our conscious awareness exists and from which it invokes acts.  Awareness of the past does not lead to conclusions that you are determined by the past. 

To quote Lewis again:

The Future is, of all things, the thing least like eternity. It is the most temporal part of time--for the Past is frozen and no longer flows, and the Present is all lit up with eternal rays.

For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity

[torridon]

I go back to C.S. Lewis who puts it succinctly:
You can't go back and change the beginning but you can start where you are and change the ending

That doesn't help explain how free will could emerge from the deterministic functioning of biological cells.  You are just side-stepping the question rather than facing up to it. I doubt C S Lewis had any grasp of neuroscience anyway, or about what we have learned of the nature of mind.

[torridon]

Sorry but the explanation is sadly lacking credibility.
An act of deliberation is certainly determined by something, but if it is determined by an inevitable end reaction to chains of physically determined chains of cause and effect, the word "deliberation" becomes meaningless.
An act of deliberation requires a source which is not pre determined by past events, but determined from your present state of conscious awareness.  You consistently deny any reference to the power of the present, or even the existence of the present.  But this is where our conscious awareness exists and from which it invokes acts.  Awareness of the past does not lead to conclusions that you are determined by the past. 

The present moment does not really exist.  Can you measure how long it lasts ? We have a sense of the present, but even of our sense of 'now' is not truly now, it is always actually a memory, formed from recent past by the workings of mind. So, 'now' is not some magical domain that is free of the flow of cause and effect.  If you want to start a period of deliberation, that desire must be triggered by something otherwise it would be a random event. Whatever led to your desire must precede your acting on that desire.  You can't escape the flow of time.

[Gordon]

To quote Lewis again:

The Future is, of all things, the thing least like eternity. It is the most temporal part of time--for the Past is frozen and no longer flows, and the Present is all lit up with eternal rays.

For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity

Citing these quotes is no more than a fallacious argument from authority (albeit the silly deepity variety): and if you think Lewis to be authoritative then no wonder you seem so confused.

The 'present' is no more than a handy illusion that gets us through the day.

[Stranger]

Sorry but the explanation is sadly lacking credibility.

Matthew 7:5.

An act of deliberation is certainly determined by something, but if it is determined by an inevitable end reaction to chains of physically determined chains of cause and effect, the word "deliberation" becomes meaningless.

Daft attempt to redefine words. There is nothing in the meaning of the word that precludes a deterministic system.

An act of deliberation requires a source which is not pre determined by past events, but determined from your present state of conscious awareness.  You consistently deny any reference to the power of the present, or even the existence of the present.  But this is where our conscious awareness exists and from which it invokes acts.

A baseless assertion that doesn't even mean anything. Total gibberish. The present is utterly meaningless in this context. It's just a vague concept of a period of time happening now.

Stamping your foot and endlessly repeating the same thing, while sticking your fingers in your ears to ignore the answers, is just infantile. FFS, grow up, and actually make some attempt to make a logical case for any version of 'the present' that makes the slightest logical difference, or just give up on the idea.

Awareness of the past does not lead to conclusions that you are determined by the past. 

Then you are, to some degree, acting randomly. In your case it seems more like you are predetermined to spend the rest of your life repeating the same mindless, illogical nonsense and ignoring all the answers for fear of having your baseless, blind faith undermined.

To quote Lewis again:

The Future is, of all things, the thing least like eternity. It is the most temporal part of time--for the Past is frozen and no longer flows, and the Present is all lit up with eternal rays.

For the Present is the point at which time touches eternity

I have no idea why you keep on quoting lewis's idiotic deepity.

Are you really just going to repeat the same nonsenses all over again (with added Lewis deepity)? Have you made no progress at all at finding some small hint of the 'sound logic' you claimed to have?

[Alan Burns]

The present moment does not really exist.  Can you measure how long it lasts ? We have a sense of the present, but even of our sense of 'now' is not truly now, it is always actually a memory, formed from recent past by the workings of mind. So, 'now' is not some magical domain that is free of the flow of cause and effect.  If you want to start a period of deliberation, that desire must be triggered by something otherwise it would be a random event. Whatever led to your desire must precede your acting on that desire.  You can't escape the flow of time.

I agree that in material terms there is no definition of the present.  And you can't investigate the present in scientific terms because whatever you perceive with human senses will have already occurred before it is perceived.  It is the act of conscious perception which defines the present in the human mind.  However if every thought is entirely defined by unavoidable reaction to previous events, the concept of conscious control of our thoughts cannot exist.  It was fifty years ago when I realised that my ability to think was incompatible with time dependent material behaviour, and that any attempt to reconcile human thought processes with materialism would render our freedom to think to be an illusion.  But my ability think about this concept and draw validated conclusions is no illusion.  It was some years later when I discovered that Lewis came to similar conclusions in his book "Miracles".  The progress made with neuroscience does not alter the time dependent nature of cause and effect which renders any concept of freedom to be an illusion.  True freedom can only exist in the ever present spiritual nature of the human soul which is not shackled to unavoidable reaction to past events.  I make no apologies for repeating these points made several times, but my freedom to deliberately invoke the act of repeating them offers validation that such freedom is a reality - not an illusion.

[Stranger]

I agree that in material terms there is no definition of the present.  And you can't investigate the present in scientific terms because whatever you perceive with human senses will have already occurred before it is perceived.

This has nothing at all to do with the logical irrelevance of the notion of the present. The present (to the extent it means anything) is just a short period of time that is happening at the moment being talked about. You could also define it as a single instant but that automatically means that nothing at all can happen "in the present".

It's a term that relates to time, Outside of that, it's just meaningless.

It is the act of conscious perception which defines the present in the human mind.

You can define it as a single moment at which you become conscious of something if you want (although that's somewhat problematic with some models of consciousness) but it still doesn't help you, because it still means that nothing can happen in a single moment.

However if every thought is entirely defined by unavoidable reaction to previous events, the concept of conscious control of our thoughts cannot exist.

Mindless foot-stamping. If "conscious control" means something, it's totally irrelevant as to whether it's entirely a reaction to past events. You seem to be hung up on the idea that if something passes through consciousness, it can't be deterministic (fully defined by the past). You have never, ever, even once, given the slightest hint as to why there would be any contradiction (other that stupid attempts to redefine the word 'control')

It was fifty years ago when I realised that my ability to think was incompatible with time dependent material behaviour, and that any attempt to reconcile human thought processes with materialism would render our freedom to think to be an illusion.  But my ability think about this concept and draw validated conclusions is no illusion.  It was some years later when I discovered that Lewis came to similar conclusions in his book "Miracles".  The progress made with neuroscience does not alter the time dependent nature of cause and effect which renders any concept of freedom to be an illusion.  True freedom can only exist in the ever present spiritual nature of the human soul which is not shackled to unavoidable reaction to past events. 

Logic-free gibbering.

There is no conflict between determinism (and please can we not have the stupid diversion into what 'determinism' means again) and being able to do whatever you want, which is all we ever experience. The incompatibility which you speak about just incredulity.

I make no apologies for repeating these points made several times, but my freedom to deliberately invoke the act of repeating them offers validation that such freedom is a reality - not an illusion.

This is a particularly idiotic assertion. Your actions in doing this seem to be entirely mechanistic. I could write a pretty simple software bot that would be as good at mindlessly repeating the same drivel over and over again, as you do.

As I asked before, have you made no progress at all in this? No hint of the 'sound logic' you claimed so often to have?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just out of interest, do you have any concept of what logical fallacies entail? A logical fallacy is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid. Here for example:

However if every thought is entirely defined by unavoidable reaction to previous events, the concept of conscious control of our thoughts cannot exist.

…you try a fallacy called the argumentum ad consequentiam (“argument from consequences”). An argumentum ad consequentiam is the argument that something cannot be true when it leads to undesirable consequences. Of course the concept of “conscious control” exists in the deterministic model for reasons that have been explained to you over and over again – what doesn’t exist though is the logically contradictory and impossible version of it you keep trying the peddle here. 
 

It was fifty years ago when I realised that my ability to think was incompatible with time dependent material behaviour, and that any attempt to reconcile human thought processes with materialism would render our freedom to think to be an illusion.{/quote]

Not an illusion, just not what you would like it to be. You had a wrong idea 50 years ago and it remains a wrong idea now. Just repeating now exactly the same wrong idea you had then doesn’t change that.     

[Alan Burns]

Mindless foot-stamping. If "conscious control" means something, it's totally irrelevant as to whether it's entirely a reaction to past events. You seem to be hung up on the idea that if something passes through consciousness, it can't be deterministic (fully defined by the past). You have never, ever, even once, given the slightest hint as to why there would be any contradiction (other that stupid attempts to redefine the word 'control')

My thoughts do not merely "pass through consciousness".  If they did, there could be no role for consciousness.
The contradiction lies in the control I consciously exert to guide my thoughts rather than just be aware of them - such conscious control is entirely incompatible with the time related chains of cause and effect involved in your narrow minded interpretation of determinism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My thoughts do not merely "pass through consciousness".

On the basis of the reason and evidence available to us, yes they do.

If they did, there could be no role for consciousness.

Yes there could, but not the ill-informed version of it that you’d really like to be the case.

The contradiction lies in the control I consciously exert to guide my thoughts rather than just be aware of them - such conscious control is entirely incompatible with the time related chains of cause and effect involved in your narrow minded interpretation of determinism.

No, the contradiction is that you really, really want a logically impossible version of consciousness to apply because it just feels that way and thus supports various supernatural claims you also want to be true so you ignore all the arguments that tell you why you’re wrong about that.   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just out of interest, do you have any concept of what logical fallacies entail? A logical fallacy is a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid. Here for example:

…you try a fallacy called the argumentum ad consequentiam (“argument from consequences”). An argumentum ad consequentiam is the argument that something cannot be true when it leads to undesirable consequences.

This works both ways.
My own perception is that many people search for reasons to dismiss arguments for the existence of God because they fear the consequences of accepting the reality that God must exist.

[Stranger]

My thoughts do not merely "pass through consciousness".  If they did, there could be no role for consciousness.

Maybe a poor choice or words, I meant part of the process, is concious. It still makes no difference at all if all of the process of choice-making is done in the conscious mind, there is still no conflict with determinism.

The contradiction lies in the control I consciously exert to guide my thoughts rather than just be aware of them - such conscious control is entirely incompatible with the time related chains of cause and effect involved in your narrow minded interpretation of determinism.

Just more foot-stamping. It simply doesn't matter to what extent "you" consciously control anything, there is still no conflict with "you" acting deterministically.

Just asserting that a contradiction exists, doesn't make it so. You appear to be begging the question by just assuming that if "you" do something consciously, it can't be that "you" are a deterministic system.  Why not? Where is the actual contradiction?

[Stranger]

My own perception is that many people search for reasons to dismiss arguments for the existence of God because they fear the consequences of accepting the reality that God must exist.

The problem is that you continue to make obviously flawed arguments because, apparently, you don't understand logic, critical thinking, and fallacies. How about stopping the mindless repetition, and learn something about those subjects? That way, you might stop making your beliefs look so foolish.

At the moment, nobody (who understands anything of critical thinking) needs to search for reasons to dismiss your arguments because the problems with them are blindingly obvious. Shooting fish in a barrel springs to mind.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

This works both ways.

No it doesn’t. When you rely on an argument that’s logically false then it’s a wrong argument. There’s no two ways about that.

My own perception is that many people search for reasons to dismiss arguments for the existence of God because they fear the consequences of accepting the reality that God must exist.

Irrelevant, but in case any people “search for” reasons to dismiss arguments for the existence of “god” for the same reason they search for reasons to dismiss any arguments for the existence of anything. The alternative is the uncritical acceptance of bad arguments anyone makes for anything.       

Does that seem like a good idea to you?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No it doesn’t. When you rely on an argument that’s logically false then it’s a wrong argument. There’s no two ways about that.

It all depends on the basis on which your presumed logic is formed.
If reality contradicts your logical conclusions, the basis of your logic must be flawed.
My arguments concern the impossibility of any validated logical conclusions being drawn from a process entirely driven by uncontrollable, physically determined material reactions.  For any validated logical thought process to be drawn, it is essential that such thought processes are consciously driven rather than just being a fall out from uncontrollable reactions to past events.
The reality is that we are able to form logical conclusions from our consciously driven thought processes.  The challenge is to determine the basis on which this reality can exist.

Irrelevant, but in case any people “search for” reasons to dismiss arguments for the existence of “god” for the same reason they search for reasons to dismiss any arguments for the existence of anything. The alternative is the uncritical acceptance of bad arguments anyone makes for anything.       

Does that seem like a good idea to you?

I do not make bad arguments.
I point out the problems involved in trying to force reality to fit in with the limitations of current scientific knowledge.

[jeremyp]

This works both ways.
My own perception is that many people search for reasons to dismiss arguments for the existence of God because they fear the consequences of accepting the reality that God must exist.

Why must God exist?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It all depends on the basis on which your presumed logic is formed.

No it doesn’t. Either you accept that logically false arguments are wrong arguments, or you don’t. If you don’t though, then you have no defence against any logically false arguments used to justify anything. 

If reality contradicts your logical conclusions, the basis of your logic must be flawed.

Wrong again because what you call “reality” here is just your experiential perception of reality. How do you know that what you call reality actually is reality without arguments to justify that claim? Does “the Earth must be flat because that’s the way I experience it” seem like a good argument to you? Why not?   

My arguments…

You don’t have arguments, just assertions but ok…

…concern the impossibility of any validated logical conclusions being drawn from a process entirely driven by uncontrollable, physically determined material reactions.  For any validated logical thought process to be drawn, it is essential that such thought processes are consciously driven rather than just being a fall out from uncontrollable reactions to past events.

Which is a very bad argument for reasons that have been explained to you countless times here. Your “consciously driven” is just the process of thinking being experienced as if there’s somehow a magic decision-maker floating free of time and of antecedent events. Just because that’s the way it feels though though does not mean that that’s the way it is, especially when the deterministic explanation is the only reason- and evidenced-based one available to us.         

The reality is that we are able to form logical conclusions from our consciously driven thought processes.  The challenge is to determine the basis on which this reality can exist.

That may be your reality (justified with various false arguments) but you have all your work ahead of you to show it to be the reality too. Your first step to doing that should be finally attempting at least to rebut the arguments that currently undo you rather than ignoring them and repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

I do not make bad arguments.

Yes you do. Logically false arguments are wrong arguments. Wrong arguments are “bad” arguments. Bad arguments are all you have. QED
 

I point out the problems involved in trying to force reality to fit in with the limitations of current scientific knowledge.

No you don’t. All you “point out” (ie, make unqualified assertions about) is that for you the way an experience feels must also be its own explanation. When occasionally you attempt an argument to justify that claim you routinely collapse into one or several logical fallacies. Until and unless you finally find the honesty to address the fallacies you commit (and have explained to you) your claims here are worthless.     

[Stranger]

It all depends on the basis on which your presumed logic is formed.

If your premises are wrong then you'll be wrong even if your logic is valid but if your logic itself is flawed (invalid), then it's a bad argument regardless (even if the conclusion is true). Your problem is that you are both working from false premises and don't appear to have the first clue how to construct a valid argument.

My arguments concern the impossibility of any validated logical conclusions being drawn from a process entirely driven by uncontrollable, physically determined material reactions.

Back with stupid and irrelevant 'uncontrollable' and 'physically' nonsense, I see.   

Regardless, you have never once been able to logically demonstrate this 'impossibility'.

For any validated logical thought process to be drawn, it is essential that such thought processes are consciously driven rather than just being a fall out from uncontrollable reactions to past events.

Both a baseless assertion and false dichotomy fallacy. You have shown no reason why they can't be both, neither have you shown that being "consciously driven" makes any difference to validity.

I do not make bad arguments.

ROTFLMAO! Seriously Alan, why can't you even be bothered to learn how to do logical arguments? Is this simply not important enough to you to spend a few hours studying? Is it that you're afraid to do so, in case you undermine your faith? What is it? Why just repeat the same illogical nonsense that has already been addressed countless times before?

[Enki]

It all depends on the basis on which your presumed logic is formed.
If reality contradicts your logical conclusions, the basis of your logic must be flawed.
My arguments concern the impossibility of any validated logical conclusions being drawn from a process entirely driven by uncontrollable, physically determined material reactions.  For any validated logical thought process to be drawn, it is essential that such thought processes are consciously driven rather than just being a fall out from uncontrollable reactions to past events.
The reality is that we are able to form logical conclusions from our consciously driven thought processes.  The challenge is to determine the basis on which this reality can exist.I do not make bad arguments.
I point out the problems involved in trying to force reality to fit in with the limitations of current scientific knowledge.

You say,'impossibility'. Why?

Surely, whatever logical thoughts are produced, and whatever logical conclusions are drawn, their validity would depend on their reliability rather than how they are produced.  And, surely, one way of testing the invalidity of a person's logic would be through the use of fallacies, a point which is especially pertinent for you, Alan.

[Outrider]

It all depends on the basis on which your presumed logic is formed.

I'm presuming, from that, you're meaning the presumptions and assumptions you make prior to making logical deductions, in which case yes, I'd agree.

If reality contradicts your logical conclusions, the basis of your logic must be flawed.

Yes. However, you have to have a basis for thinking that your ideas of 'reality' are justified. If your perception of reality doesn't match up to the logical conclusions then there may be a flaw in the logic, but there may equally be a flaw in your perception.

My arguments concern the impossibility of any validated logical conclusions being drawn from a process entirely driven by uncontrollable, physically determined material reactions.  For any validated logical thought process to be drawn, it is essential that such thought processes are consciously driven rather than just being a fall out from uncontrollable reactions to past events.

And that would appear to be the flaw in your perception - it is not definitive that consciousness does emerge as a result of entirely causitive, mechanistic processes, but it does seem to be entirely possible. Your reluctance or inability to countenance means that the precepts with which you're entering the discussion are flawed, and any logical sequence founded upon that is at least questionable.

The reality is that we are able to form logical conclusions from our consciously driven thought processes.

That seems to be the everyday experience, yes; however, some studies have called into question whether we 'form' logical conclusions, or become aware of them as a sort of post-hoc rationalisation of activities that our subconscious has already perpetrated on 'our' behalf.

The challenge is to determine the basis on which this reality can exist.

Part of that challenge is understanding that reality; part of that challenge is putting aside the inherent biases and presumptions that we come to the assessment with and proceeding from the available evidence.

I do not make bad arguments.

We all make bad arguments at some point, the trick is to recognise when someone points out the flaws and to assess and analyse to criticisms.

I point out the problems involved in trying to force reality to fit in with the limitations of current scientific knowledge.

No, you point out the problem you have with your understanding of reality, when contrasted with what the available evidence tells us about reality.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Wrong again because what you call “reality” here is just your experiential perception of reality. How do you know that what you call reality actually is reality without arguments to justify that claim? Does “the Earth must be flat because that’s the way I experience it” seem like a good argument to you? Why not?   

The reality I refer to is more than just an experience.  Our ability to think and consciously guide our thoughts to meaningful conclusions is an undeniable reality.  Your problem is to come up with a plausible explanation for how such conscious guidance can be invoked from within the endless chains of uncontrollable, physically determined reactions in a material brain.

[Outrider]

The reality I refer to is more than just an experience. 

Absolutely - which is why you should consider that your experience is not definitive. The fact that you think something - say, free will - is self-evident should not be enough for you to presume that it is definitely the case.

Our ability to think and consciously guide our thoughts to meaningful conclusions is an undeniable reality.

No, our feeling that we think consciously and guide our thoughts is an undeniable reality, but we have any number of demonstrations that what we think and feel about reality are not reliable indicators of reality.

Your problem is to come up with a plausible explanation for how such conscious guidance can be invoked from within the endless chains of uncontrollable, physically determined reactions in a material brain.

And any number of possibilities are out there - that's not anyone's problem, that's an opportunity for people to start trying to test the ideas to see which ones are most likely to be correct. Your problem is to come up with some reason to think that your impression of reality is somehow superior to everyone else's and can be trusted not just more than their's, but in contradiction of the apparent evidence as well.

O

[torridon]

I agree that in material terms there is no definition of the present.  And you can't investigate the present in scientific terms because whatever you perceive with human senses will have already occurred before it is perceived.  It is the act of conscious perception which defines the present in the human mind.  However if every thought is entirely defined by unavoidable reaction to previous events, the concept of conscious control of our thoughts cannot exist.

As pointed out before, we do not, and can not, control our thoughts in a fundamental way.  Thoughts occur, we do not choose which thoughts to have.  This is a very simple observation not requiring any in depth understanding of science to realise its truth.  Just a little introspection is all that is required.  If it were not the case that are thoughts are consequential to whatever gives rise to them, then our thinking would be random, pretty much a definition of insanity.  It is good that our minds conform to base principles of logic.

  It was fifty years ago when I realised that my ability to think was incompatible with time dependent material behaviour, and that any attempt to reconcile human thought processes with materialism would render our freedom to think to be an illusion.  But my ability think about this concept and draw validated conclusions is no illusion.  It was some years later when I discovered that Lewis came to similar conclusions in his book "Miracles".  The progress made with neuroscience does not alter the time dependent nature of cause and effect which renders any concept of freedom to be an illusion.  True freedom can only exist in the ever present spiritual nature of the human soul which is not shackled to unavoidable reaction to past events.  I make no apologies for repeating these points made several times, but my freedom to deliberately invoke the act of repeating them offers validation that such freedom is a reality - not an illusion.

A lot has changed in 50 years, new evidence of how minds work has come to light and you've yet to take these insights onboard.

[Stranger]

The reality I refer to is more than just an experience.  Our ability to think and consciously guide our thoughts to meaningful conclusions is an undeniable reality.  Your problem is to come up with a plausible explanation for how such conscious guidance can be invoked from within the endless chains of uncontrollable, physically determined reactions in a material brain.

Another massive failure to understand logic (and your subject matter). Logically it is you who is making the claim (that what we do is impossible for chains of cause and effect) so it's not up to anybody else to do anything. This is called the philosophical burden of proof.

It's also highly questionable to what degree we can or do "consciously guide our thoughts". There are all sorts of things that just occur to us some time and not others, for example. Not to mention the hypotheses that regard conciousness as a narrative we make up after the events. So the claim of "undeniable reality" doesn't stand at all, as there are many that do deny it.

You are also still dishonestly misrepresenting the logical argument against you with the use of words like "uncontrollable" and "physically determined".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Another massive failure to understand logic (and your subject matter). Logically it is you who is making the claim (that what we do is impossible for chains of cause and effect) so it's not up to anybody else to do anything. This is called the philosophical burden of proof.

What do you think is the default position here? What is the status quo?