Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

made a choice?
choosing to give up?
contemplating what is rational?
engaging in critical thinking?
burying one's head in the sand?
refusing to engage?

Are not all these mental activities logically impossible without the conscious freedom to drive your own thought processes?

No. Not least because "the conscious freedom to drive your own thought processes" is itself logically impossible because it immediately leads to an infinite regress, as I pointed out in #46713, and you completely ignored, as you do with all the other logical points that completely undermine your absurd and self-contradictory idea of 'freedom'.

Or do you still cling on to the flawed logic which renders every event in our conscious awareness to be just unavoidable reactions to past events?

Yet again you are hiding behind the dishonest, absurd, and utterly baseless assertion that the logic is flawed, without making any serious attempt to justify the claim. You have never once demonstrated any flaws whatsoever.

Instead you just use lazy assertions, obvious fallacies, and utterly meaningless gibberish like "conscious freedom to drive your own thought processes" and "the ever present state of conscious awarenesses", neither of which you have ever even bothered to try to explain or clarify. It seems this subject isn't even important enough to you to be arsed to learn the basics of critical thinking, that would probably take you a much smaller amount of time than you've spent mindlessly repeating the same obvious mistakes here, time and time and time again., and would allow you to recognise fallacies and how to construct a sound logical argument - which you've so often claimed to have but never, ever produced.

Frankly, if you wanted to deliberately put everybody who values reasoning and evidence off your faith, you really couldn't be doing a better job. What you post on the subject is just farcical.

[Stranger]

Sadly, it would appear that you are not quite ready to enter into a relationship with God.

Sadly, it seems you are not quite ready to accept logical reasoning and objective consideration of evidence.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sadly, it seems you are not quite ready to accept logical reasoning and objective consideration of evidence.   

Sadly I am of the opinion that an explicit cakeist like yourself Stranger isn't particularly qualified in terms of logical reasoning.

[Maeght]

Do you reject God but find being denied the benefits of heaven unjust?
The benefit of heaven is God himself and the benefits of God himself.

I don't have a belief in God, nor heaven, so ... no. When such points are made it refers to what Christians seem to believe or state not what the atheist believes. Thought that was obvious.

[Enki]

made a choice?
choosing to give up?

Choice is simply the action of choosing between two or more possibilities. That says nothing about how that choice is arrived at. You have been told this many times. What's wrong with you?

contemplating what is rational?
engaging in critical thinking?
burying one's head in the sand?
refusing to engage?

As you happily agree they are all mental processes.

Are not all these mental activities logically impossible without the conscious freedom to drive your own thought processes?

No, the weight of evidence is that all these mental processes are engendered in the brain. Why on earth
should these processes not lead to their deterministic conclusions? Indeed, given that all parameters are exactly the same, how could these processes, if repeated, not lead to the same conclusions unless a random element was involved?

Or do you still cling on to the flawed logic which renders every event in our conscious awareness to be just unavoidable reactions to past events?

Which, by the way, includes our nature and nurture. You have never, to my knowledge, been able to show this 'flawed logic'. The best you have ever been able to do is suggest a soul which somehow works without reference to a logical framework(magically perhaps?)and for which there is no evidence.  If you think that it is 'flawed logic' then produce a reasoned scenario where this 'flawed logic' is demonstrated. Either put up or shut up.

[torridon]

God does not play hide and seek.

But clearly, he does.  Some people seek, but do not find.  If what you claim were true, then there would be no atheists in this world.  If there really were a benevolent God, then he would answer all prayers, not just those of selected individuals such as yourself.

[Stranger]

Sadly I am of the opinion that an explicit cakeist like yourself Stranger isn't particularly qualified in terms of logical reasoning.

If you think I've used any 'cakeism' in what I said, then why have you been totally unable to point it out?

In fact, it's your view that appears to be cakeist as you are trying to justify the obviously unjust actions of any omni  type creator of this world and the way it works.

The nature of the world we live in is simply incompatible with an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent creator. The fact that you keep on attacking straw men, rather than the points actually being made, seems to confirm that you, at least on some level, understand this. Otherwise you'd face up to what has been said and make some attempt to address it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't have a belief in God, nor heaven, so ... no. When such points are made it refers to what Christians seem to believe or state not what the atheist believes. Thought that was obvious.

I cannot pre empt God's judgment on your disbelief.
You could consult him on it today since it is a matter between you and him.

[Nearly Sane]

But clearly, he does.  Some people seek, but do not find.  If what you claim were true, then there would be no atheists in this world.  If there really were a benevolent God, then he would answer all prayers, not just those of selected individuals such as yourself.

Think it's time for this

https://youtu.be/Cq6CFj5GXOM

[Maeght]

I cannot pre empt God's judgment on your disbelief.
You could consult him on it today since it is a matter between you and him.

What?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you think I've used any 'cakeism' in what I said, then why have you been totally unable to point it out?

In fact, it's your view that appears to be cakeist as you are trying to justify the obviously unjust actions of any omni  type creator of this world and the way it works.

The nature of the world we live in is simply incompatible with an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent creator. The fact that you keep on attacking straw men, rather than the points actually being made, seems to confirm that you, at least on some level, understand this. Otherwise you'd face up to what has been said and make some attempt to address it.

If you have freewill to relate to God or not and you choose not to how on earth illogical, rationality and justice blame God for making you turn away?

And what if this action, this attraction of life without God I.e. a life as God was both harmful and addictive?
That situation is not without precedence.

And what if that addiction was passable to others.

And what if a cure was wanted? Well that has been provided in Christ.

Finally don't you think it's wrong to equate morality to reason, where's the fit.

If you think you are being strawmanned, put up your own moral theory instead of resorting to well yours is wrong but  mine?, I ain't really got one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What?

[Maeght]

Think it's time for this

https://youtu.be/Cq6CFj5GXOM

Brilliant! 

[Maeght]

Did you forget to post?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But clearly, he does.  Some people seek, but do not find.  If what you claim were true, then there would be no atheists in this world.  If there really were a benevolent God, then he would answer all prayers, not just those of selected individuals such as yourself.

Now that's something I've heard claimed but never seen outlined in any great detail.

I seem to remember advice to seek being given  and people coming back five minutes later with a nope,no God. Which to me betrays a lack of seriousness in the matter.

I think letting people do all the talking Nd then shaking your head not having added anything, a character flaw myself

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did you forget to post?

No I pushed the wrong button.

[Stranger]

If you have freewill to relate to God or not and you choose not to how on earth illogical, rationality and justice blame God for making you turn away?

As I've already pointed, multiple times, and you've ignored it, the concept of free will is a logical impossibility in this context. Also, even if it wasn't, since I have found zero evidence that this god is anything but a fantasy, the choice would appear to be between reality and self-delusion.

If a god exists, it is adding to all the other injustices I've pointed out by deliberately hiding itself amongst a whole host of contradictory religions and other superstition.

And what if this action, this attraction of life without God I.e. a life as God was both harmful and addictive?
That situation is not without precedence.

And what if that addiction was passable to others.

And what if a cure was wanted? Well that has been provided in Christ.

What if this is all total fantasy? Again, you've provided not one jot of evidence for any of it, and, yet again, you're avoiding actually addressing the points I made by going of on this baseless little fantastical tangent.

Finally don't you think it's wrong to equate morality to reason, where's the fit.

If you think you are being strawmanned, put up your own moral theory instead of resorting to well yours is wrong but  mine?, I ain't really got one.

And another transparent avoidance strategy. The basic sense of fairness that exists amongst most humans (and seems to exist in some non-human animals too), is all we need for the points I've made, and thinking that Christianity offers any sort of self-consistent morality, is also fantasy. Have you even read the bible?

[Stranger]

Now that's something I've heard claimed but never seen outlined in any great detail.

I seem to remember advice to seek being given  and people coming back five minutes later with a nope,no God. Which to me betrays a lack of seriousness in the matter.

Firstly many people have done some seeking and even believed in the past, so a quick response does imply any lack of effort. Secondly, why the hell should we put any effort into seeking anyway? What's the prima facie case for thinking that there is anything real to find? Why should we put any effort into trying to find something for which nobody can provide the slightest hint of objective evidence for? Yet another injustice if a god really exists.

I think letting people do all the talking Nd then shaking your head not having added anything, a character flaw myself

Literal LOL! Take a look in the mirror, Vlad.

[Stranger]

Think it's time for this

https://youtu.be/Cq6CFj5GXOM

This forum could do with a 'like' feature, to avoid repeating what Maeght said....   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Firstly many people have done some seeking and even believed in the past, so a quick response does imply any lack of effort. Secondly, why the hell should we put any effort into seeking anyway? What's the prima facie case for thinking that there is anything real to find? Why should we put any effort into trying to find something for which nobody can provide the slightest hint of objective evidence for? Yet another injustice if a god really exists.

Literal LOL! Take a look in the mirror, Vlad.

I'm aware people's journey out of Christianity is becoming a genre although I'd also like to see more of that for perusal and criticism on here . But certainly no one here seems to want to actually talk about seeking yet not finding.

[Sebastian Toe]

Now that's something I've heard claimed but never seen outlined in any great detail.

I seem to remember advice to seek being given  and people coming back five minutes later with a nope,no God. Which to me betrays a lack of seriousness in the matter.

Is there a proper way to seek then?
Do tell.
Show your workings.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is there a proper way to seek then?
Do tell.
Show your workings.

Straight of the bat Seb I think someone has to really want to know...or commit to agnosticism and if there's anything pulling you back from really wanting to know, you need to get to the bottom of that.

One wee criticism Seb, I've just asked for information from atheists and your already trying to make me the one who needs to provide the information. But the claims have been made of people seeking yet not finding and apparently journeying out of christianity.

[Gordon]

I'm aware people's journey out of Christianity is becoming a genre although I'd also like to see more of that for perusal and criticism on here . But certainly no one here seems to want to actually talk about seeking yet not finding.

If one 'seeks' something that is so incoherent in definition that there can no evidence for it, then 'not finding' it is pretty much guaranteed: so it would be a silly and pointless exercise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If one 'seeks' something that is so incoherent in definition that there can no evidence for it, then 'not finding' it is pretty much guaranteed: so it would be a silly and pointless exercise.

Here you are saying things exist because it's logical that they do. And yet when presented with the logic of the necessary entity you would no doubt argue that logic doesn't guarentee existence. That's if you even understand the logic and definitions. You guys are hopeless.

[Sebastian Toe]

Straight of the bat Seb I think someone has to really want to know...or commit to agnosticism and if there's anything pulling you back from really wanting to know, you need to get to the bottom of that.

That looks a bit like preemptive excuses to me.
How could anyone possibly know what amount of "needing to know" is enough?
Is there a measurement?
NTK units?