Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

I have not discovered God through probabilities.
Having come to experience God and His love through various other means, it is a natural progression to realise that our gift of freedom which enables us to consciously manipulate the forces and elements of this world to facilitate human creativity is a reflection of God's own creativity which brought us into existence.

I get it, you are big on 'manipulating', especially the consciously sort of ......

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem to be implying that no degree of improbability could ever convince you that you could never be the outcome of the random, unguided, purposeless forces of a material universe.

Yes, for the reasons I keep setting out (and then correcting you on) that you then just ignore. Any amount of improbability about your existence is only remarkable if you assume the universe intended your existence all along. Take away this solipsism though and there’s nothing more remarkable about the improbability of your existence than there would be about the improbability of the existence of any other type of life.

I’ve explained to you several times now why your improbability cannot be “undeniable evidence” for a god to have engineered events in that direction when you must also install a god to have intended your existence ab initio. No matter how many times I do it though you just ignore this simple argument as if nothing had been said.

Why is that? Are you so invested in blind faith that no amount of reasoning that invalidates your justifications for it can even be entertained? Do my words have too many syllables for you? Are you just here to troll? Do you think it’s better to lie for Jesus than to understand where your thinking goes worng?

What though?         

The phrase "Head in the Sand" comes to mind.

Such a pity you have no concept or irony.

Look, I’ve explained to you very clearly several times why you cannot use a designer god to justify your claim of an intervening god. You can continue to lie and ignore and divert as much as you like about that but until you show some sign that you even understand the argument that undoes you that’s all you’ll be doing.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Oh and by the way, even if the improbability of your existence was a relevant factor you have no idea whether your existence is particularly improbable on the cosmic scale either for the reason I’ve also explained and you’ve also ignored. It’s improbable compared with, say, the probability of Luton Town winning the Premier League this year, but in the context of the number of possible events in the universe as a whole it might not be that improbable at all. In other words you’re framing your estimate of improbability only from your reference point, not from the reference point of the universe.

No doubt you’ll just ignore this correction too though.     

[Outrider]

I have not discovered God through probabilities.

You do not appear to have 'discovered' a god at all, you have presumed a god and are content with the presumption. This is your right. However, your presumption doesn't constitute a proof to anyone else.

Having come to experience God and His love through various other means, it is a natural progression to realise that our gift of freedom which enables us to consciously manipulate the forces and elements of this world to facilitate human creativity is a reflection of God's own creativity which brought us into existence.

Your presumption of freedom, in the face of all the logical arguments to the contrary portrayed here, derives from your earlier presumption of a god, it is not a conclusion from any evidence, it's a fallacy of consequences; if it were true, you're founding presumption of god would fall.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I have not discovered God through probabilities.

That sentence is two words too long.

Having come to experience God and His love through various other means, it is a natural progression to realise that our gift of freedom which enables us to consciously manipulate the forces and elements of this world to facilitate human creativity is a reflection of God's own creativity which brought us into existence.

Unqualified, blind faith gibberish.

[Alan Burns]

Your presumption of freedom, in the face of all the logical arguments to the contrary portrayed here, derives from your earlier presumption of a god, it is not a conclusion from any evidence, it's a fallacy of consequences; if it were true, you're founding presumption of god would fall.

But it is not a presumption of freedom.
It is the freedom I employ to consciously compose every post I make.
The so called "logical arguments" cannot be used to take away this freedom.
The burden of proof lies with those who try to deny the consciously controlled thought processes I am currently employing.

You have it the wrong way round.  It is not a presumption of God which leads to a presumption of freedom.
It is the reality of my freedom to think which leads me to a realisation of the reality of God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But it is not a presumption of freedom.

Yes it is.

It is the freedom I employ to consciously compose every post I make.

No it isn’t.

The so called "logical arguments" cannot be used to take away this freedom.

They’re logical arguments not “so called” logical arguments, and what they “take away from” is the very bad reasoning you attempt to justify your unqualified assertions about the nature of your supposed freedom.

The burden of proof lies with those who try to deny the consciously controlled thought processes I am currently employing.

No it doesn’t. The burden of proof lies with you to justify your logically impossible claim to begin with that you have “consciously controlled thought processes” at all.

You have it the wrong way round.  It is not a presumption of God which leads to a presumption of freedom.

No he hasn’t, and yes it is.

It is the reality of my freedom which leads me to a realisation of the reality of God.

No it isn’t – it’s your enculturation, confirmation bias and very bad reasoning that leads you to your beliefs about the supposed “reality of god”.

[Sebastian Toe]

But it is not a presumption of freedom.

But it could be...if for example you are brainwashed or perhaps hypnotised.
You would not be able to tell would you?
Would you?

[Alan Burns]

But it could be...if for example you are brainwashed or perhaps hypnotised.
You would not be able to tell would you?
Would you?

A simple test of freedom is for me to consciously choose to hop on one leg and wave my hands in the air shouting "Alleluia"

[torridon]

A simple test of freedom is for me to consciously choose to hop on one leg and wave my hands in the air shouting "Alleluia"

And in doing that, what is it that you believe you are free of ?

[Gordon]

A simple test of freedom is for me to consciously choose to hop on one leg and wave my hands in the air shouting "Alleluia"

You were probably always going to do that anyway.

[Sebastian Toe]

A simple test of freedom is for me to consciously choose to hop on one leg and wave my hands in the air shouting "Alleluia"

...because you were hypnotised to do that!

[Alan Burns]

And in doing that, what is it that you believe you are free of ?

I am free of being entirely controlled by reactions to past events which are beyond my conscious control.
I can demonstrate my freedom in any way I consciously choose.

[Alan Burns]

...because you were hypnotised to do that!

If I was hypnotised, It would be the hypnotist who is free to choose what he/she wants me to do.

[Alan Burns]

They’re logical arguments not “so called” logical arguments, and what they “take away from” is the very bad reasoning you attempt to justify your unqualified assertions about the nature of your supposed freedom.

But if the so called "logical arguments" were true, I would not have the conscious control needed to attempt any form of reasoning - good or bad.
And you would not have had the conscious control needed formulate, contemplate and verify your so called "logical argument".

[Sebastian Toe]

If I was hypnotised, It would be the hypnotist who is free to choose what he/she wants me to do.

..and takes away the ability of your soul, which you claim stands out side of and is separate from, your physical body (in some othe dimension allegedly) to consciously think?
How does that even begin to work?

[torridon]

I am free of being entirely controlled by reactions to past events which are beyond my conscious control.
I can demonstrate my freedom in any way I consciously choose.

Your example doesn't show that, it is entirely consistent with a deterministic scenario. As has been pointed out innumerable times already, we act on our desires, such as they are, but we cannot choose which desires to have.  The idea that we could choose which desires to have is meaningless nonsense.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

A simple test of freedom is for me to consciously choose to hop on one leg and wave my hands in the air shouting "Alleluia"

If I understand you correctly you also claim that at the moment you chose to hop etc etc you could have chosen to do something different instead but that choice not be due to random factors.

If my understanding of your view is correct then all you have done is demonstrate that you did something. In order to demonstrate your version of freedom you would need to go back to your pre hop decision and chosen differently whilst all other circumstances remained identical to your first decision. Unless you can do that (seems impossible to me) then you can't claim to have demonstrated your version of freedom.

[Alan Burns]

If I understand you correctly you also claim that at the moment you chose to hop etc etc you could have chosen to do something different instead but that choice not be due to random factors.

If my understanding of your view is correct then all you have done is demonstrate that you did something. In order to demonstrate your version of freedom you would need to go back to your pre hop decision and chosen differently whilst all other circumstances remained identical to your first decision. Unless you can do that (seems impossible to me) then you can't claim to have demonstrated your version of freedom.

I demonstrated something which could not possibly have been derived from a material brain driven by built in instincts or learnt experiences.  It derives from my own conscious will.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I demonstrated something which could not possibly have been derived from a material brain driven by built in instincts or learnt experiences.  It derives from my own conscious will.

How? That's simply a blatant assertion with zero evidence.

[Alan Burns]

How? That's simply a blatant assertion with zero evidence.

Blatant assertions could not be made without conscious control to invoke the assertion.

[Outrider]

But it is not a presumption of freedom.

A bit early for panto season, but hey-ho.... "Oh, yes it is!"

It is the freedom I employ to consciously compose every post I make.

He asserted, devoid of any substantiation or justification.

The so called "logical arguments" cannot be used to take away this freedom.

They can't 'take away' something that was never there, they demonstrate that what you thought was the case is, in fact, not the case.

The burden of proof lies with those who try to deny the consciously controlled thought processes I am currently employing.

And they've made the case. Rigorously. Repeatedly. You've failed to address any of the points in any meaningful way, reverting instead to just redeclaring that you 'feel' free and therefore it must be so.

You have it the wrong way round.  It is not a presumption of God which leads to a presumption of freedom. It is the reality of my freedom to think which leads me to a realisation of the reality of God.

I suspect that to be unlikely.

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

I demonstrated something which could not possibly have been derived from a material brain driven by built in instincts or learnt experiences.  It derives from my own conscious will.

Really?

If I was hypnotised, It would be the hypnotist who is free to choose what he/she wants me to do.

So not your conscious will then!
How is your conscious will, which is free from physical restraints allegedly, even allowing this behaviour to happen?

[Gordon]

Blatant assertions could not be made without conscious control to invoke the assertion.

Leaving aside unconscious biases and mental defense mechanisms, that is as good an example 'I've consciously decided to propose utter nonsense' as I can think of, which makes one wonder about the insightfullness (or rather lack of insight) of the proposer.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

A simple test of freedom is for me to consciously choose to hop on one leg and wave my hands in the air shouting "Alleluia"

No it isn’t.