Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Implied, not inferred.

accepted - my mistake

If you want to explain it though rather than just have the experience of “using” it, then you have no options but the logical explanations. What else would you suggest – illogical explanations? 

What I am saying is that I do not need to explain my freedom to think, act and say the things I do.  The content of my posts is sufficient to demonstrate that I do have freedom to think act and say these things.

If it was just an experience of freedom I could have no personal accountability or justification for my posts (neither would you) - it would all be just unavoidable consequences to past events.

So in your scenario, what makes your unavoidable consequences superior to mine?  What is it that is capable of making such judgement?  What guides the judgemental processes?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What I am saying is that I do not need to explain my freedom to think, act and say the things I do.

You don’t “need to” explain anything if you don’t want to. What you can’t do though is insist that your experience of something also explains it when that “explanation” is logically impossible without recourse to magical thinking...   

The content of my posts is sufficient to demonstrate that I do have freedom to think act and say these things.

… like this.

If it was just an experience of freedom I could have no personal accountability or justification for my posts - …

Of course you could – societies depend on it. Equally when l took the kids to zoo and said “look at the koala bears” we all knew what was meant and so experienced koala "bears". The point there is there are different truths, different realities etc that function perfectly happily in parallel but you cannot just assume that the colloquial use of koala bears/decision-making is also epistemically the most robust explanation for the experience of either.   

it would all be just unavoidable consequences to past events.

At one, logically cogent level of abstraction yes it would. So what though? Why do you think repeating the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy is helping you here? 

So in your scenario, what makes your unavoidable consequences superior to mine?  What is it that is capable of making such judgement?  What guides the judgemental processes?

Logic.

[Alan Burns]

At one, logically cogent level of abstraction yes it would. So what though? Why do you think repeating the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy is helping you here? 

my ability to repeat is evidence of my conscious freedom to choose to do so.

Logic.

How do you know that the logic which resides in your own conscious awareness is not flawed?
How can you judge or verify such logic if you do not have conscious control of your own thoughts?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

…my ability to repeat is evidence of my conscious freedom choose to do so.

No it isn’t, for the reasons that keep being explained to you and that you continue to ignore. Yet again: you cannot assume that your experience of something necessarily also explains it.

Perhaps if you wrote that down 100 times (or until it sinks in) that would help you?

You’ll run away from this question too no doubt but just out of interest presumably at some level you’re aware that there are arguments that are fallacious and, given how often they’ve been explained to you, presumably too you know how some of them at least are constructed – the argumentum ad consequentiam for example. What then goes through your head when you deploy them knowing them to be false – do you just assume that somehow they become not false when they support your faith beliefs, and yet remain fallacies when tried for different truth claims?

How does that work? 

How do you know that the logic which resides in your own conscious awareness is not flawed?

I don’t. I do though know that when no-one has produced more robust logic to invalidate it (and better yet when it produces verifiable results) it provides the best approximation of truth that’s available to me. Except when your blind faith beliefs are concerned, I suspect that you think that too.   

How can you judge or verify such logic if you do not have conscious control of your own thoughts?

Why do you keep posting this same, multiply falsified idiocy? I know that logic “works” because of its outcomes – ‘planes fly, medicines cure etc. I also know by the application of logic that “conscious control of your own thoughts” is impossible without recourse to magical thinking. Why don’t you?   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No it isn’t, for the reasons that keep being explained to you and that you continue to ignore. Yet again: you cannot assume that your experience of something necessarily also explains it.

But it is not just an experience of freedom.
The end results of what is produced by my thoughts words and actions are sufficient evidence.
To believe they could all result from unavoidable reactions to past events truly beggars belief.

I don’t. I do though know that when no-one has produced more robust logic to invalidate it (and better yet when it produces verifiable results) it provides the best approximation of truth that’s available to me. Except when your blind faith beliefs are concerned, I suspect that you think that too.   

But how can you possibly make these assessments and judgements if you have no conscious control of your own thoughts?

Why do you keep posting this same, multiply falsified idiocy? I know that logic “works” because of its outcomes – ‘planes fly, medicines cure etc. I also know by the application of logic that “conscious control of your own thoughts” is impossible without recourse to magical thinking. Why don’t you?   

And I know free will is a reality because of its outcomes.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But it is not just an experience of freedom.

At the explanatory level of understanding yes it is.

The end results of what is produced by my thoughts words and actions are sufficient evidence.

No it’s not – it’s just “sufficient evidence” of the experience, but not of its explanation.

To believe they could all result from unavoidable reactions to past events truly beggars belief.

Argument from incredulity fallacy noted. What makes you think that you finding an argument “beggars belief” tells you anything about whether or not the argument is sound?

The logic stands or falls on its merits, not on whether you happen to find it hard to accept.
 

But how can you possibly make these assessments and judgements if you have no conscious control of your own thoughts?

Easily because – as has been explained to you countless times already without rebuttal – the “you/me” that does that is fundamentally an integrated but subconscious process that we experience as a sense of agency. That supposed agency though cannot be the explanation because it’s logically impossible without recourse to magical thinking – which is all you have. 

And I know free will is a reality because of its outcomes.

That’s called a non sequitur – yet another fallacy.

I asked you why you think logical fallacies are acceptable when attempted in support of your faith beliefs, but not when attempted for anything else. You didn’t answer. Why not? 

[Alan Burns]

Easily because – as has been explained to you countless times already without rebuttal – the “you/me” that does that is fundamentally an integrated but subconscious process that we experience as a sense of agency. That supposed agency though cannot be the explanation because it’s logically impossible without recourse to magical thinking – which is all you have. 

How do you come to a conclusion that it is logically impossible without the power to consciously control your own thoughts?
How do you conclude that what we experience as a sense of agency does not reflect reality without the power to consciously control your own thoughts?
How do you know that a subconscious process is making valid or invalid conclusions about logic without the power to consciously control your own thoughts?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How do you come to a conclusion that it is logically impossible without the power to consciously control your own thoughts?

By the reasoning that keeps being given to you and that you keep ignoring.

How do you conclude that what we experience as a sense of agency does not reflect reality without the power to consciously control your own thoughts?

Because the sense of agency is logically impossible as an explanation for the reasons that keep being given to you and that you keep ignoring – or evade with magical thinking.
 

How do you know that a subconscious process is making valid or invalid conclusions about logic without the power to consciously control your own thoughts?

Because that’s the only logically coherent and cogent explanation that’s available to me for the reasons that keeps being given to you and that you keep ignoring.

So now I’ve answered your questions you answer mine. Why do you think logical fallacies are not sound for general use but are sound as justifications for your faith beliefs?

And if you don’t think that, why do you keep using them as justifications for your faith beliefs? 

[Stranger]

So in your scenario, the word "deliberate" becomes redundant since there can be no such thing as a deliberate action or thought if we are totally shackled to reactions to past events over which we have no control.

Mindless, thought-free drivel.   

[Stranger]

But it is not just an experience of freedom.

Argument by assertion fallacy - dimwitted logical mistake.

To believe they could all result from unavoidable reactions to past events truly beggars belief.

Argument from personal incredulity fallacy - dimwitted logical mistake.

The end results of what is produced by my thoughts words and actions are sufficient evidence.

my ability to repeat is evidence of my conscious freedom to choose to do so.

So, you haven't the first clue what 'evidence' means. 

Evidence is facts that are consistent with the hypothesis under consideration and inconsistent with others. Name one thing that you have ever done that is inconsistent with your mind being deterministic (or deterministic plus some randomness), without resorting to another argument by assertion or personal incredulity fallacy.

It is in principle impossible to have evidence for your version of 'free will' or the 'ability to consciously control our own thought processes' because both are logical impossibilities and you cannot have evidence for the impossible.

How can you judge or verify such logic if you do not have conscious control of your own thoughts?

Back to the idiocy of "how can arithmetic work if 1 doesn't equal 2". 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

By the reasoning that keeps being given to you and that you keep ignoring.

Where does this reasoning take place?
answer: Your conscious awareness

Because the sense of agency is logically impossible as an explanation for the reasons that keep being given to you and that you keep ignoring – or evade with magical thinking.

Where does the conclusion that this sense of agency is logically impossible exist?
answer: Your conscious awareness

Because that’s the only logically coherent and cogent explanation that’s available to me for the reasons that keeps being given to you and that you keep ignoring.

Where does your sense of logically coherent and cogent explanations exist?
answer: Your conscious awareness

So now I’ve answered your questions you answer mine. Why do you think logical fallacies are not sound for general use but are sound as justifications for your faith beliefs?

Your answers are meaningless because you are deliberately ignoring the essential role of your conscious awareness in formulating all your answers.
The logical fallacies exist in your own conscious awareness - not mine.

And if you don’t think that, why do you keep using them as justifications for your faith beliefs?

I do not use logical fallacies - I witness to the truth.

You really do need to come to terms with the reality that the logic you keep espousing emanates from your power to consciously control your own thought processes in order to reach consciously verified conclusions.

[Outrider]

Where does this reasoning take place? Answer: Your conscious awareness

Not necessarily, possibly not at all. Your conscious awareness of that internal process happens after the fact. It's already occured by the time you become aware of it, and it's questionable whether becoming aware of it influences the conclusion at all.

Where does the conclusion that this sense of agency is logically impossible exist? Answer: Your conscious awareness

A number of place, of which our conscious awareness is only one.

Where does your sense of logically coherent and cogent explanations exist? answer: Your conscious awareness

The sense of it, yes. Where do the logically coherent and cogent explanations come from - not our conscious awareness.

Your answers are meaningless because you are deliberately ignoring the essential role of your conscious awareness in formulating all your answers.

No, you are confusing your sense of a decision with the production of that decision.

You really do need to come to terms with the reality that the logic you keep espousing emanates from your power to consciously control your own thought processes in order to reach consciously verified conclusions.

It's not 'from' our conscious control, it's from our subconscious and we just get to hear it a little bit before we tell anyone else.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Back to the idiocy of "how can arithmetic work if 1 doesn't equal 2". 

The concepts of arithmetic and logic exist in your conscious awareness.
I need to use my power to consciously control my own thought processes in order to verify that 1 does not equal 2.
Just as I need to use my power to control my own thought processes to verify any logic which exists in my conscious awareness.

[Alan Burns]

It's not 'from' our conscious control, it's from our subconscious and we just get to hear it a little bit before we tell anyone else.

And this idea just pops into your conscious awareness without having to think about it

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Where does this reasoning take place?
answer: Your conscious awareness

Wrong answer. Reasoning is essentially a function of the sub-conscious. That’s why “conscious awareness” is called conscious awareness rather than “conscious decision-making”. It becomes aware, but doesn’t decide. Given the vast amounts of processing that happen in your sub-conscience – regulation of your digestive system for example – why would you arbitrarily carve out decision-making from that other than to satisfy a bllnd faith belief?
   

Where does the conclusion that this sense of agency is logically impossible exist?
answer: Your conscious awareness

Wrong answer again. Your conscious awareness is aware of the sense of agency, but that’s all. Evolution has no mandate to map accurately to reality – rather it maximises genomic success, and so often creates models of reality that don’t withstand more rigorous scrutiny.

Your invisible magic man decision-maker notion is just one example of this.   
 

Where does your sense of logically coherent and cogent explanations exist?
answer: Your conscious awareness

Wrong answer again. It’s “from” your sub-conscience.

Your answers are meaningless because you are deliberately ignoring the essential role of your conscious awareness in formulating all your answers.

Lying doesn’t help you here. I’m not “deliberately ignoring” that at all. Rather I’m explaining to you why your notion here is logically impossible, juvenile nonsense and the only deliberate ignoring going on is you deliberately ignoring those explanations. 

The logical fallacies exist in your own conscious awareness - not mine.

Wrong again. Logical fallacies exist at an objectively verifiable level so that people who privilege their subjective feelings over sound argument can with confidence be falsified.   

I do not use logical fallacies - I witness to the truth.

That’s a big lie to finish. Over and over and over again here you’ve tried arguments that are logical fallacies of various types. And over and over and over again this has been pointed out to you, only for you over and over and over again never to have the decency or the honesty to address the problem this gives you.

What’s odd though is that at some dimly aware level I suspect you do grasp what logical fallacies are, or at least you do sufficiently not to try them in other areas of your life. If, say, a doctor were to give you terminal illness diagnosis (heaven forfend) you would not presumably reply, “but that would mean that I will die. I don’t want to die. Therefore the diagnosis must be wrong”, and yet that’s exactly the structure of the argument you’ve tried here many, many times (“if decision-making is deterministic, my sense of agency must be wrong. I don't like the idea that my sense of agency is wrong. Therefore decision-making can’t be deterministic”).

You really do need to come to terms with the reality that the logic you keep espousing emanates from your power to consciously control your own thought processes in order to reach consciously verified conclusions.

How do you expect me to “come to terms with” something that’s logically impossible, and that you’re entirely unable to justify by any means other than blind faith and magical thinking?

This isn’t in other words “the” reality at all – it’s just your reality, and it’s beyond dim-witted; it’s dishonest too.

[Stranger]

The concepts of arithmetic and logic exist in your conscious awareness.
I need to use my power to consciously control my own thought processes in order to verify that 1 does not equal 2.
Just as I need to use my power to control my own thought processes to verify any logic which exists in my conscious awareness.

More infantile foot-stamping.

Have you just given up on even pretending to use reasoning and logic? Is this infantile level of "I'm right. so there!!" all we can expect from you now?

[Sebastian Toe]

To believe they could all result from unavoidable reactions to past events truly beggars belief.

Do you know what truly beggars belief?

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.


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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

Remember, "it's magic" or any sneaky attempts to dress up " it's magic" will be dismissed out of hand.

Quite – and this is where he always runs out of road:

Me: “The logic that traps you here is like a room with no doors – there’s no way out”.

AB: “Aha, but there is a way out – look, I’ll show you the secret door”.

Me: “OK, let’s try it then … wait, this just leads to another room with another secret door, and so on forever”.

AB: “Ah, but it doesn’t though. See, you’re stuck with flawed materialistic thinking, whereas my room is... TA-DAAA!!! – a magic room innit!”.

Me: “Er, OK – what does that mean then?”

AB: “I’m glad you asked – see, in my magic room magic stuff happens. That means that cause and effect no longer applies so my invisible little man at the controls doesn’t need another invisible little man at his controls to control his thoughts and so on forever because, well, you know, magic”.

Me: “Okaaayyy… (stepping away slowly)… so if you can just magic away logical constraints in your magic room then, presumably, I can just magic away other logical constraints in your magic room too?”

AB: “Oh no no no no nooo Sunshine! Not so fast there. Only I get to decide which rules of logic can be abandoned in my magic room. And I have decided that cause and effect no longer applies there, but I've also decided that 2 + 2 must still = 4. All clear now?”

Me (checking that there are no sharp objects within his reach in case he harms himself): “Of course AB, of course…”

AB: “What, you don’t buy it? Really? OK then, how about the (insert logical fallacy here) argument. How do you answer THAT then?"

Me: “Oh, FFS…”

Now repeat endlessly.             

[Stranger]

Where does this reasoning take place?
answer: Your conscious awareness

Where does the conclusion that this sense of agency is logically impossible exist?
answer: Your conscious awareness

Your answers are meaningless because you are deliberately ignoring the essential role of your conscious awareness in formulating all your answers.

Argument by assertion fallacy × 3.

The logical fallacies exist in your own conscious awareness - not mine.

Yet another Argument by assertion fallacy, and a patently wrong one at that. Fallacies are well documented and can be assessed objectively.

If you are not aware of them, that is ignorance. It would also appear to be wilful, self-imposed ignorance since they have been pointed out to you many times. Why are you so afraid to acknowledge them and learn something? Running scared from knowledge and learning is not a great look.

I do not use logical fallacies...

Patently untrue. How you can even claim this is quite beyond me. Stupidity or dishonesty appear to be the only possible explanations, as far as I can see.

You really do need to come to terms with the reality that the logic you keep espousing emanates from your power to consciously control your own thought processes in order to reach consciously verified conclusions.

And rounding off with yet another Argument by assertion fallacy, whose content is also logically impossible because it involves an infinite regress.

Are you trying to make yourself and your faith look absurd?

[Outrider]

And this idea just pops into your conscious awareness without having to think about it

Yes. Absolutely. The process has already happened, in my brain, before I become consciously aware of it.

O.

[Alan Burns]

It would also appear to be wilful, self-imposed ignorance since they have been pointed out to you many times. Why are you so afraid to acknowledge them and learn something? Running scared from knowledge and learning is not a great look.

How can I possibly have wilful, self-imposed ignorance if I have no conscious control over what I write?
My knowledge and learning lead me to know that I am loved by the source which brought me into existence.  So I have nothing to be scared of.

Are you trying to make yourself and your faith look absurd?

What is absurd is that you claim to know enough about reality to know that your conscious awareness has no control over the convoluted replies you make to my posts.

[Alan Burns]

Seb,

Quite – and this is where he always runs out of road:

Me: “The logic that traps you here is like a room with no doors – there’s no way out”.

AB: “Aha, but there is a way out – look, I’ll show you the secret door”.

Me: “OK, let’s try it then … wait, this just leads to another room with another secret door, and so on forever”.

AB: “Ah, but it doesn’t though. See, you’re stuck with flawed materialistic thinking, whereas my room is... TA-DAAA!!! – a magic room innit!”.

Me: “Er, OK – what does that mean then?”

AB: “I’m glad you asked – see, in my magic room magic stuff happens. That means that cause and effect no longer applies so my invisible little man at the controls doesn’t need another invisible little man at his controls to control his thoughts and so on forever because, well, you know, magic”.

Me: “Okaaayyy… (stepping away slowly)… so if you can just magic away logical constraints in your magic room then, presumably, I can just magic away other logical constraints in your magic room too?”

AB: “Oh no no no no nooo Sunshine! Not so fast there. Only I get to decide which rules of logic can be abandoned in my magic room. And I have decided that cause and effect no longer applies there, but I've also decided that 2 + 2 must still = 4. All clear now?”

Me (checking that there are no sharp objects within his reach in case he harms himself): “Of course AB, of course…”

AB: “What, you don’t buy it? Really? OK then, how about the (insert logical fallacy here) argument. How do you answer THAT then?"

Me: “Oh, FFS…”

Now repeat endlessly.             

Yet another profound example of your consciously driven efforts to try to ridicule the simple reality that you have the conscious control to compose these things.  But of course you have to believe that it all drops out of your subconscious without any control from you - because you really are just a lump of reconstituted star debris with no will of your own. 

[Sebastian Toe]

How can I possibly have wilful, self-imposed ignorance if I have no conscious control over what I write?
My knowledge and learning lead me to know that I am loved by the source which brought me into existence.  So I have nothing to be scared of.What is absurd is that you claim to know enough about reality to know that your conscious awareness has no control over the convoluted replies you make to my posts.

Actually, what is truly absurd is 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.
Absurd indeed.

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.

Even more absurdity.


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]

How can I possibly have wilful, self-imposed ignorance if I have no conscious control over what I write?

The extent to which consciousness is involved in what you write is not the point. The point is that you can't have conscious control of your own thought processes.

My knowledge and learning lead me to know that I am loved by the source which brought me into existence.  So I have nothing to be scared of.

Then why do you run away from the fact that you use fallacies and dismal, illogical 'reasoning'? Why not accept it and learn to do better? If you're actually right, then all you've got to lose is making yourself look like a dimwit, and you'll find out how to make much better arguments.

What is absurd is that you claim to know enough about reality to know that your conscious awareness has no control over the convoluted replies you make to my posts.

Again, that wasn't exactly the claim. Spotting that something leads immediately to an infinite regress or that it is self-contradictory is not about knowledge of reality, it's about basic logic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yet another profound example of your consciously driven efforts to try to ridicule the simple reality that you have the conscious control to compose these things.  But of course you have to believe that it all drops out of your subconscious without any control from you - because you really are just a lump of reconstituted star debris with no will of your own.   

Yet again – the only person who “has” to believe something is you, and what you have to believe is any logically impossible, fallacy riddled, magical thinking juvenilia that props up the tottering edifice of your a priori religious beliefs.

Me, I follow the evidence.

Why don’t you?