Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Firstly, you have taken my comment out of its context. Are you saying that you do think your god can do the logically impossible, e.g. draw a square circle, or not?

Once you realise that God exists outside the time dimension of our material universe it is not logically impossible to give us a soul which can interact within the time dimension of our universe but not be constrained by it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Once you realise…

You can’t “realise” something you’ve been given no sound reasoning or evidence to think to be true. You’ve claimed to have both but have never produced either, so why should anyone accept your unqualified claims and assertions as true?

…that God exists outside the time dimension of our material universe it is not logically impossible to give us a soul which can interact within the time dimension of our universe but not be constrained by it.

That’s just your “it’s magic innit?” get out of jail free card again. If you think invoking magical thinking is a sound argument then I can do the same for any conjecture that pops into my head too – leprechauns included. How does that help you?

Oh, and as you’re still in thrall to the notion that something appearing “obvious” to you must mean it’s objectively true too and so any arguments that show it not to be true can be dismissed out of hand, why not finally answer the question you keep running way from, namely:

Can you see now how sometimes intuitively obvious answers to how things happen can be less robust than counter-intuitive, non-obvious and different but reason- and evidence-based answers to the same questions – for example with fingers not touching the keys?   

Yes or no?

Tell you what – if you intend to keep running away from answering, why not at least tell us why you’ll keep running away?   

[Sebastian Toe]

Once you realise that God exists outside the time dimension of our material universe it is not logically impossible to give us a soul which can interact within the time dimension of our universe but not be constrained by it.

I've yet to see how any rational person could believe in your "soul" notion.
In fact I've yet to see a feasible explanation as to how the process of a soul which doesn't reside in this universe, stays in a timeless realm, is able to attach itself to one individual , read the brain patterns of said individual, translate and understand them in real time and then somehow manipulates the physical brain to follow commands.
I've also yet to see feasible explanations as to where how and when these souls are "created" how they attach to a person, when they attach to a person, how they exist after death etc.
There's more, so much more but for now .....
Would you as the resident forum soul expert care to share?
Remember, "it's magic" or any sneaky attempts to dress up " it's magic" will be dismissed out of hand.

[Stranger]

Once you realise that God exists outside the time dimension of our material universe it is not logically impossible to give us a soul which can interact within the time dimension of our universe but not be constrained by it.

More evasion and trying to change the subject. You didn't answer my question.

As has been pointed out before (many, many times), if you remove anything from the "time dimension of our universe", you either have to add it to a different time dimension (which doesn't change the logic) or it cannot possibly do anything (like think, act, make any choices, or exercise control).

Regardless, the relationship your god has to time is irrelevant to the impossibility of conscious control of our own thought processes. The infinite regress still applies and a process (of any sort) cannot exist without time. So my question is just as relevant:

Are you saying that you do think your god can do the logically impossible, e.g. draw a square circle, or not?

[Outrider]

Once you realise that God exists outside the time dimension of our material universe it is not logically impossible to give us a soul which can interact within the time dimension of our universe but not be constrained by it.

Regardless of whether anything exists outside of time or space, the fixed nature of time within time-space renders the notion of 'free will' nonsensical.

O.

[Gordon]

Once you realise that God exists outside the time dimension of our material universe it is not logically impossible to give us a soul which can interact within the time dimension of our universe but not be constrained by it.

And the mechanism of this 'interaction of the soul' is what exactly?

[Alan Burns]

Regardless of whether anything exists outside of time or space, the fixed nature of time within time-space renders the notion of 'free will' nonsensical.

O.

You may well find the notion nonsensical, but the reality is that you will need conscious freedom to guide your thoughts to such a conclusion.

[Stranger]

You may well find the notion nonsensical, but the reality is that you will need conscious freedom to guide your thoughts to such a conclusion.

More infantile, reasoning-free foot-stamping.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You may well find the notion nonsensical, but the reality is that you will need conscious freedom to guide your thoughts to such a conclusion.

Your religiously-inspired beliefs are idiotic. They're idiotic for the reasons that have been explained to you many times, and that you cannot or will not address. 

[Alan Burns]

The infinite regress still applies and a process (of any sort) cannot exist without time.

So you can't envisage the concept of a soul existing, perceiving and acting within the ever present state of our human mind?

So my question is just as relevant:

Are you saying that you do think your god can do the logically impossible, e.g. draw a square circle, or not?

A totally stupid question - A square is a square.  A circle is a circle.  End of story.
Do you honestly consider you know enough about the reality of time, space, quantum events, human thoughts, conscious awareness and spiritual entities to proclaim that our ability to consciously control our own thoughts is a logical impossibility?

[Sebastian Toe]

Do you honestly consider you know enough about the reality of time, space, quantum events, human thoughts, conscious awareness and spiritual entities to proclaim that our ability to consciously control our own thoughts is a logical impossibility?

Do honestly know enough about those subjects to proclaim it is not a logical impossibility?

[Stranger]

So you can't envisage the concept of a soul existing, perceiving and acting within the ever present state of our human mind?

No, because the phrase "ever present state of our human mind" is totally devoid of meaning. You have three choices now:

• Define it in a logically coherent way, so we can see that it makes sense (something you've so far refused to even attempt).
• Stop using it.
• Continue to make yourself look like a complete idiot by continuing to use it while refusing to explain how it can possibly make sense.

Your choice.

A totally stupid question - A square is a square.  A circle is a circle.  End of story.

What you are proposing makes exactly as much sense, so if it's a stupid question, what are we to make of your proposition? And you still didn't actually answer the question. I might take it to mean 'no' but you could have just said so.

Do you honestly consider you know enough about the reality of time, space, quantum events, human thoughts, conscious awareness and spiritual entities to proclaim that our ability to consciously control our own thoughts is a logical impossibility?

I don't need to know anything about any of those things. It's a direct, logical implication of the proposition. The phrase "consciously control" directly implies a thought process and as the thing that you're suggesting we consciously control is our own thought processes, you've set up a never ending recursion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So you can't envisage the concept of a soul existing, perceiving and acting within the ever present state of our human mind?

No, because it’s incoherent, gibberish, white noise, mindless, get out of jail free “I call magic so I can make up any shit I like but you can’t do that too”, infantile, fuckwitted stupidity not worthy of any thinking person’s attention.

Apart from all that though…
 

A totally stupid question - A square is a square.  A circle is a circle.  End of story.

Except that’s exactly the type of nonsense you think is fine when you assert equally logically stupid claims because the objects of your superstitions supposedly operate outwith all such logical constraints.   

Do you honestly consider you know enough about the reality of time, space, quantum events, human thoughts, conscious awareness and spiritual entities to proclaim that our ability to consciously control our own thoughts is a logical impossibility?

He doesn’t need to. All he needs to know is enough to identify why the arguments you attempt to justify these assertions are shit – a trivially simple thing to do for the reasons that keep being explained to you and that you’re too scared, too dishonest or too delusional to address.     

[Gordon]

So you can't envisage the concept of a soul existing, perceiving and acting within the ever present state of our human mind?

I can't, because you haven't made a credible case for this 'soul': therefore, it can simply be rejected.
 

A totally stupid question - A square is a square.  A circle is a circle.  End of story.

Super - if you agree that logically impossible things cannot exist then wave goodbye to your logically impossible version of 'freewill'.

Do you honestly consider you know enough about the reality of time, space, quantum events, human thoughts, conscious awareness and spiritual entities to proclaim that our ability to consciously control our own thoughts is a logical impossibility?

You're responsibility here is to justify your claims, and what anyone else thinks about anything else is irrelevant: the burden of proof is yours in relation to what you claim. 

[Outrider]

You may well find the notion nonsensical, but the reality is that you will need conscious freedom to guide your thoughts to such a conclusion.

It's not that 'I find it nonsensical', it's that there is no feasible way in which it could exist. The future that you think you haven't made your mind up about yet is already in existence, it's there, those 'decisions' have already been concluded.

O.

[Alan Burns]

It's not that 'I find it nonsensical', it's that there is no feasible way in which it could exist. The future that you think you haven't made your mind up about yet is already in existence, it's there, those 'decisions' have already been concluded.

You seem quite certain about this.
So you believe that we are not personally accountable for all the thoughts words and actions we invoke in our earthly lifetime.
I am sure we will all find out truth.

[Outrider]

You seem quite certain about this.

All the experimental evidence points towards time being another dimension of space-time, and therefore the future is in existence just as surely as France is.

So you believe that we are not personally accountable for all the thoughts words and actions we invoke in our earthly lifetime.

Accountable to whom? We have social constructs of law and morality, self-imposed and cultural mores that we do or don't abide by, and internal and external penalties that we do or don't pay for those to greater or lesser extents. That our behaviour is an inevitable result of our past does not mean that we shouldn't work to improve our behaviour to give everyone a better experience, but the idea of 'punishment' does seem misplaced; rehabilitation or education seems acceptable, though.

I am sure we will all find out truth.

Are you? Because you're avoiding addressing it now, and if you wait until you're dead you have no basis for presuming that anything will remain to learn, one way or the other.

O.
[/quote]

[Nearly Sane]

All the experimental evidence points towards time being another dimension of space-time, and therefore the future is in existence just as surely as France is.

Accountable to whom? We have social constructs of law and morality, self-imposed and cultural mores that we do or don't abide by, and internal and external penalties that we do or don't pay for those to greater or lesser extents. That our behaviour is an inevitable result of our past does not mean that we shouldn't work to improve our behaviour to give everyone a better experience, but the idea of 'punishment' does seem misplaced; rehabilitation or education seems acceptable, though.
....


O.

If the future is fixed, in what sense can you work to improve future behaviour?

[torridon]

You seem quite certain about this.
So you believe that we are not personally accountable for all the thoughts words and actions we invoke in our earthly lifetime.
I am sure we will all find out truth.

A sense of moral accountability is something that has evolved because of its survival value.  A sense of personhood is something that has evolved over time. There is no evidence to suggest that there is something objective about our moral conscience, indeed it varies from person to person.  This is quite consistent with the fact that biochemical brain function is entirely deterministic.  If the base laws of nature were inconsistent or unpredictable then brains would not have evolved in the first place

[Stranger]

It's not that 'I find it nonsensical', it's that there is no feasible way in which it could exist. The future that you think you haven't made your mind up about yet is already in existence, it's there, those 'decisions' have already been concluded.

You seem quite certain about this.
So you believe that we are not personally accountable for all the thoughts words and actions we invoke in our earthly lifetime.

Let's all change the subject again.   

This isn't nearly as watertight a case against Alan's nonsensical view of 'free will' as the purely logical one because it relies on a theory being correct, albeit a very well tested one that is in day-to-day use in the GPS system. What's more, it doesn't address the infinite regress of "conscious control of our own thought processes" at all. However, since we're here...

The evidence is very strong and doesn't even require general relativity, special relativity will illustrate the point just fine. The key is the relativity of simultaneity. The example used by Roger Penrose imagines that if two people stroll past each other at (for example) 4 mph (≈1.8 ms⁻ą) relative speed, then the difference between what is happening simultaneously between the two, at the distance of the Andromeda galaxy, is about five and a half days. Hence, if some alien race in Andromeda was deciding whether to invade Earth, they may be convening their meeting to make the choice relative to one of our walkers and yet already have set off to Earth, having made the choice, relative to the other. So much for their 'free will'.

As for being "personally accountable", well I've often been told by religionists that their god knows what we will choose to do in every situation (omniscience) but somehow that doesn't matter for our accountability. Not entirely sure what the difference is between the future being fixed in the mind of some god and being fixed by actually existing, but such is the religious mind.   

Of course things get even more problematic in general relativity and in extreme conditions like black holes the idea of simultaneously pretty much gives up. If you want to know what's happening 'now' inside a black hole, we'd have to ask, "well, how do you want to define 'now'?"

All of which, of course, makes some sort of logically relevant idea of 'the present' even more absurd than it is at first sight.

[Outrider]

If the future is fixed, in what sense can you work to improve future behaviour?

In the sense that the activity we undertake now has effects - if we don't work to improve the future it won't. Whether we do or don't isn't exactly a choice, but I feel better about my experience here and now if I think that what I'm doing might have the effect of improving the future.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

In the sense that the activity we undertake now has effects - if we don't work to improve the future it won't. Whether we do or don't isn't exactly a choice, but I feel better about my experience here and now if I think that what I'm doing might have the effect of improving the future.

O.

But your actions, thoughts, and feelings, were once the future and so already existed, so talking about improving future behaviour, which is already set, is on that level meaningless

[Outrider]

But your actions, thoughts, and feelings, were once the future and so already existed, so talking about improving future behaviour, which is already set, is on that level meaningless

On that level, yes. On the day-to-day experiential level, not so much. You appreciate it, you enjoy it while it's happening, but you don't pretend like it's some great achievement that you're responsible for.

O.

[Alan Burns]

No, because it’s incoherent, gibberish, white noise, mindless, get out of jail free “I call magic so I can make up any shit I like but you can’t do that too”, infantile, fuckwitted stupidity not worthy of any thinking person’s attention.

It would appear that what you believe about the workings of our conscious mind is somewhat different to what I believe.
How do we arrive at these beliefs?
What comprises belief?
In my case, I am aware of many things in my conscious awareness, and in order to make sense of what I perceive I consciously contemplate whatever data exists in my mind by manipulating my conscious thoughts in order to reach conclusions which I consciously verify and test using my ability to think things out.

However you, Blue, apparently have a different approach.
Whatever you experience in you conscious awareness has just emerged as a property of material reactions.
Your apparent control of your thought is "just the way it seems" because such control cannot exist because you have no controller.
So the concept of belief will have just somehow popped into your conscious awareness without any consciously controlled verification.
No doubt you will correct me if I am wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

On that level, yes. On the day-to-day experiential level, not so much. You appreciate it, you enjoy it while it's happening, but you don't pretend like it's some great achievement that you're responsible for.

O.

So on a day to day level, you act as of the futire bring fixed is untrue. So your post where you raised the idea of the future being fixed, and then talked about trying to improve future behaviour was at best talking at 2 completely different levels, and internally contradictory.