Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

See an answer from a physicist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpU_e3jh_FY

I totally agree with what this physicist is saying - that human free will cannot exist within the laws of nature.
There can be no natural explanation for our freedom to consciously control our thoughts words or actions, which is why I have to conclude that our freedom to consciously choose rather than react is a supernatural phenomenon.

[ekim]

I totally agree with what this physicist is saying - that human free will cannot exist within the laws of nature.
There can be no natural explanation for our freedom to consciously control our thoughts words or actions, which is why I have to conclude that our freedom to consciously choose rather than react is a supernatural phenomenon.

I think, Alan, that you keep mixing the word 'freedom' into your replies too readily without demonstrating 'freedom from what'.  I don't think that anybody on this site disputes the ability to choose, which is basically what intelligence is.  I doubt whether intelligence is limited to humans but humans have developed logic and scientific method to refine that choice.  What you seem to be missing out on is the need to demonstrate that those choices are free from any underlying attachment to a desired outcome.  Isn't the 'Free will' you refer to really 'free want' or 'free don't want'?

[Alan Burns]

I think, Alan, that you keep mixing the word 'freedom' into your replies too readily without demonstrating 'freedom from what'.  I don't think that anybody on this site disputes the ability to choose, which is basically what intelligence is.  I doubt whether intelligence is limited to humans but humans have developed logic and scientific method to refine that choice.  What you seem to be missing out on is the need to demonstrate that those choices are free from any underlying attachment to a desired outcome.  Isn't the 'Free will' you refer to really 'free want' or 'free don't want'?

All I am saying is that our freedom to make conscious choices and direct our own thought processes is not entirely dictated by past events.  The only way to achieve such freedom is to have an entity of conscious awareness with the power to interact at will with the workings of a material brain rather than be totally controlled by inevitable reactions to past events over which we can have no control.

[Outrider]

All I am saying is that our freedom to make conscious choices and direct our own thought processes is not entirely dictated by past events.

You keep saying it, but you've nothing either than your personal call to incredulity to explain why. The available evidence is that the feeling of 'choice' is a subjective illusion, and that we feel are choices are inevitable consequences.

The only way to achieve such freedom is to have an entity of conscious awareness with the power to interact at will with the workings of a material brain rather than be totally controlled by inevitable reactions to past events over which we can have no control.

You are begging the question - that you feel free does not mean that you are free. You have to demonstrate the freedom before you can come up with outlandish calls to magical entities to explain that freedom.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Because where are you going to be to observe the infinitude of the universe Hillside... How can you set up an experiment which demonstrates the universe started...How can you observe the universe popping out of nothing? You can't

Way to miss the point (again). It was your contention that materialism was incapable of answering certain profound questions, thereby legitimising supernaturalism. I explained to you that materialism reaching a don’t know, not having the tools to conduct an experiment, not being able to conceive of the tools necessary to conduct an experiment etc is neither here nor there: if you want to dismiss materialism in principle, then you need an argument to do it. Just pointing to practical difficulties with building experiments does not for one moment demonstrate that the answers must be therefore “supernatural”.   

Which brings us to God of the Gaps which in your hands assumes that there will always be and has to be a scientific answer.

No it doesn’t. What it actually does is to put the burden of proof firmly where it belongs: with the person who claims that science could never even in principle find a materialistic explanation – something you’ve never been able to do.   

If nothing else that assumes the principle of sufficient reason which atheists on here and your hero Sean M.Carroll have attempted to suspend.

Nope, no idea. What are you even trying to say here? 

All to a background of you flip flopping between  methodological materialism and philosophical materialism as explained by this Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io4fxdBEApc

Lying about this again won’t help you here. I’ve explained to you (with citations) many times the differences between materialism, physicalism, scientism etc (most recently just a few replies ago). There’s no “flip flopping” from me because I’ve always been consistent about the correct use of these terms. You on the other hand have always sought to blur the definitional lines between them so as to straw man your way out of trouble. Doesn’t work though does it.   

So again: how do you get from “materialism does not explain X” to “therefore X cannot be material”?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You keep missing the point.

Seems unlikely given your endless evasions, wrongheaded reasoning etc but let’s see…

It is not conscious awareness which I deem to be an impossibility.

No-one has suggested otherwise.

It is the demonstrable ability for an entity of conscious awareness to contemplate what they are aware of rather than just react to it.

Yes, I know that you “deem” that to be the case, but as the available reasoning and evidence says you’re wrong about that what you’re actually being asked to do is to justify your claim. That is, to explain WHY you “deem” that – ideally without recourse to further unqualified assertions, avoidance and false arguments.

Look, I’ll even ask you again: WHY do you think it’s a logical impossibility for consciousness to be a single, integrated, emergent property of vastly complex brains consisting of billions of interacting parts that requires no third party “driver” at all?
   

You demonstrate this ability in every post you consciously compose.

You demonstrate this ability by analysing what I post and finding reasons to disagree (or agree) with what I write.

You seem to suggest that all this can be automated by physically defined reactions - this is what I deem to be impossible.

To have control of what you write, you need an entity which can exert conscious control rather than an entity which is entirely driven by reactions defined by the laws of physics over which we can have no control.

But as you know (or should do by now) these folkloric declarations and assertions are flatly contradicted by reason and evidence. What you’re being asked to do therefore is to provide some rebuttals to that reason and evidence that don’t collapse in a heap of fallacies and contradiction as soon as they’re examined.

It seems clear to me that you cannot articulate such rebuttals, which is why all you post is statements of blind faith (“I deem”, “obvious truth” etc). Nonetheless, and with very little expectation of a cogent answer, why don’t I help you by suggesting you set out your principles, your consequent reasoning, and your resulting conclusions so that they can be examined? 

Go for it! (Finally.)   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

All I am saying is that our freedom to make conscious choices and direct our own thought processes is not entirely dictated by past events.  The only way to achieve such freedom is to have an entity of conscious awareness with the power to interact at will with the workings of a material brain rather than be totally controlled by inevitable reactions to past events over which we can have no control.

No it isn’t. Another way would be to have brains made up of interacting parts of such complexity that consciousness that only feels as though there's am independent (but logically impossible)) controller in play could emerge spontaneously.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I totally agree with what this physicist is saying - that human free will cannot exist within the laws of nature.
There can be no natural explanation for our freedom to consciously control our thoughts words or actions, which is why I have to conclude that our freedom to consciously choose rather than react is a supernatural phenomenon.

Coming next:

Physicist: “Black is black”.

Alan Burns: “I  totally agree with what the physicist is saying, that black is white.” 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Coming next:

Physicist: “Black is black”.

Alan Burns: “I  totally agree with what the physicist is saying, that black is white.”

Once again displaying your God given freedom to choose to ridicule in response to a legitimate claim that there is more to reality than automated physically driven reactions.

[Gordon]

Once again displaying your God given freedom to choose to ridicule in response to a legitimate claim that there is more to reality than automated physically driven reactions.

But your claim isn't "legitimate" at all: better descriptors would be 'illogical' and 'fallacious'.

[torridon]

Once again displaying your God given freedom to choose to ridicule in response to a legitimate claim that there is more to reality than automated physically driven reactions.

Unsupported assertion; we have no evidence for this God in the first place and we have no evidence for the sort of 'freedom' you claim it provides anyway.  There can never be any evidence in support of claims that are inherently irrational.

[Alan Burns]

Unsupported assertion; we have no evidence for this God in the first place and we have no evidence for the sort of 'freedom' you claim it provides anyway.  There can never be any evidence in support of claims that are inherently irrational.

Unsupported assertion:
we have no evidence for this God in the first place
we have miracles - the miracle of life, answers to prayer, personal testimonies, human awareness of God, divine revelations in scripture, historical evidence .....................

Unsupported assertion:
no evidence for the sort of 'freedom' you claim it provides
we have human creativity, imagination, ability to pray, ability to choose our own destiny by accepting Jesus as our saviour ....

[Enki]

Unsupported assertion:
we have no evidence for this God in the first place
we have miracles - the miracle of life, answers to prayer, personal testimonies, human awareness of God, divine revelations in scripture, historical evidence .....................

Unsupported assertion:
no evidence for the sort of 'freedom' you claim it provides
we have human creativity, imagination, ability to pray, ability to choose our own destiny by accepting Jesus as our saviour ....

None of which counts as valid evidence. As Torri said, 'unsupported assertion'.

[torridon]

Unsupported assertion:
we have no evidence for this God in the first place
we have miracles - the miracle of life, answers to prayer, personal testimonies, human awareness of God, divine revelations in scripture, historical evidence .....................

The above are not evidence in any real sense. Try invoking 'miracles' in a court of law and you'll get laughed at.  Only in religion does it seem that people are happy to suspend their critical thinking skills.

[torridon]

Unsupported assertion:
no evidence for the sort of 'freedom' you claim it provides
we have human creativity, imagination, ability to pray, ability to choose our own destiny by accepting Jesus as our saviour ....

Nobody denies that we have imagination. What we deny is your irrational definition of freedom involving decision making that is simultaneously random and non-random

[Alan Burns]

To all who find reasons not to search for God -
Take heed of a Chinese proverb:

When a finger points to the moon,

only a fool would keep looking at the finger


Today is Gaudete Sunday - it is indeed a time to rejoice (and forget the football!)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDc2FD-vy8M

[ekim]

To all who find reasons not to search for God -
Take heed of a Chinese proverb:

When a finger points to the moon,

only a fool would keep looking at the finger

..... and take heed of a Cornish proverb

When the finger of a deluded person points to a pixie,

only a fool would keep looking for the pixie

[Maeght]

Unsupported assertion:
we have no evidence for this God in the first place
we have miracles - the miracle of life, answers to prayer, personal testimonies, human awareness of God, divine revelations in scripture, historical evidence .....................

Unsupported assertion:
no evidence for the sort of 'freedom' you claim it provides
we have human creativity, imagination, ability to pray, ability to choose our own destiny by accepting Jesus as our saviour ....

What historical evidence?

[Alan Burns]

..... and take heed of a Cornish proverb

When the finger of a deluded person points to a pixie,

only a fool would keep looking for the pixie

There are millions of wise people whose finger points to God.
I know of none whose finger points to a pixie

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Once again displaying your God given freedom to choose to ridicule in response to a legitimate claim that there is more to reality than automated physically driven reactions.

As you seem to be either entirely unwilling or entirely unable to frame an argument to justify your unqualified assertions (“legitimate”, “obvious truth”, “I deem” etc) then what response other than ridicule would you suggest?

As the vapid idiocy of “Once again displaying your God given freedom to choose…”etc has been explained to you countless time without even a hint of a rebuttal, why would you ever expect the claim to be taken seriously?   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Unsupported assertion:
we have no evidence for this God in the first place
we have miracles - the miracle of life, answers to prayer, personal testimonies, human awareness of God, divine revelations in scripture, historical evidence .....................

None of these things are “miracles” in the sense you intend.   

Unsupported assertion:
no evidence for the sort of 'freedom' you claim it provides
we have human creativity, imagination, ability to pray, ability to choose our own destiny by accepting Jesus as our saviour ....

And nor are these. And “accepting Jesus as our saviour” is just a blind faith claim, not a “miracle”.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

There are millions of wise people whose finger points to God.

No, there are and have been many millions of people “whose fingers point to” different gods – all but one of which you think to be false.

Try to remember this.

I know of none whose finger points to a pixie

Given how often it’s been explained to you, you really should know by now that the argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

[Sebastian Toe]

There are millions of wise people whose finger points to God.
I know of none whose finger points to a pixie

Numbers eh? There are many millions more Muslims than Catholics in the world.
Maybe you should join them Alan. After all, Mohamed had his revelation after the bible was collated. That makes him more up to date!

[Alan Burns]

As the vapid idiocy of “Once again displaying your God given freedom to choose…”etc has been explained to you countless time without even a hint of a rebuttal, why would you ever expect the claim to be taken seriously?

Because the so called explanations come nowhere near to explaining the reality of the freedom we all enjoy.
You seem to have faith that the uncontrollable material reactions in your brain are sufficient to generate these so called explanations within your subconscious before you become aware of them.  I have faith in our God given freedom to be able to consciously manipulate our thoughts from within our present state of conscious awareness in order to arrive at verifiable conclusions.

And to accuse me yet again of personal incredulity - think about what it is that can be personally held to account - is it just a set of reactions governed by the laws of physics?  Are the laws of physics guilty of generating this incredulity?  Are physically controlled reactions alone capable of making the numerous unqualified assertions I get accused of?  If not, what is it that can be held to account, and how can it repeatedly generate such fallacious arguments without a "me" at the centre of the controls?

[Gordon]

And to accuse me yet again of personal incredulity - think about what it is that can be personally held to account - is it just a set of reactions governed by the laws of physics?

Yes.

Are the laws of physics guilty of generating this incredulity?

Yes (thought your use of "guilt" smacks of reficiation).

Are physically controlled reactions alone capable of making the numerous unqualified assertions I get accused of?

Yes.

If not, what is it that can be held to account, and how can it repeatedly generate such fallacious arguments without a "me" at the centre of the controls?

Nothing: your "if not" is misplaced. Your functioning biology is sufficient to do the job nicely enough, which includes any reasoning errors you/we may make, and also it produces this sense of 'I/me' in all of us (when we are awake and alert that is).