Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am free of being entirely controlled by reactions to past events which are beyond my conscious control.

No you’re not.

I can demonstrate my freedom in any way I consciously choose.

No you can’t.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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.

That’s right – you wouldn’t. Unless you can rebut those logical arguments though, that means you haven’t either. Once again, your subjective opinion about something cannot trump objective reason.   

And you would not have had the conscious control needed formulate, contemplate and verify your so called "logical argument".

That’s right – I wouldn’t.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

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

Yes they could.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I recently explained to you several times and at length why you were wrong to claim the improbability of your existence to be “undeniable evidence” for “god”. It’s no such thing. Do you intend to keep avoiding the explanations you were given or will you finally have the courage to try at least to address them?

[Alan Burns]

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.

Lets face it Gordon,

If the output of your brain comprises nothing more than the consequences of chemical reactions, how can you (or anyone) cast judgement on what it produces?
What determines credibility?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What determines credibility?

Reason and evidence. That's why you don't have it. 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Reason and evidence. That's why you don't have it.

The concepts of reason and evidence can only exist if we have the conscious freedom contemplate and determine what is credible and what is not within our own conscious awareness.

How do you envisage the processing of reason and evidence within the chemical reactions of a material brain?  What can possibly control the process?

[Alan Burns]

That’s right – you wouldn’t. Unless you can rebut those logical arguments though, that means you haven’t either. Once again, your subjective opinion about something cannot trump objective reason.   

How can the chemical reactions in a material brain differentiate between subjective opinion and objective reason?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The concepts of reason and evidence can only exist if we have the conscious freedom contemplate and determine what is credible and what is not within our own conscious awareness.

We can "contemplate" whatever we like, but the "manipulation of our thoughts" notion is still nonsense.

How do you envisage the processing of reason and evidence within the chemical reactions of a material brain?  What can possibly control the process?

Don’t know. It’s not logically impossible though, which is the problem with your answer.

Oh, and again – I recently explained to you several times and at length why you were wrong to claim the improbability of your existence to be “undeniable evidence” for “god”. It’s no such thing. Do you intend to keep avoiding the explanations you were given or will you finally have the decency or courage to try at least to address them?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

How can the chemical reactions in a material brain differentiate between subjective opinion and objective reason?

Don't know. So what?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Don't know. So what?

If you do not know what controls the process, how can you give any credibility to the inevitable consequences of chemical reactions dropping out from a material brain?

[Gordon]

Lets face it Gordon,

If the output of your brain comprises nothing more than the consequences of chemical reactions, how can you (or anyone) cast judgement on what it produces?
What determines credibility?

Easy peasy: biology (chemcal reactions et al).

[Alan Burns]

Easy peasy: biology (chemcal reactions et al).

So what is it that can determine your chemical reactions to be somehow superior to mine?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If you do not know what controls the process, how can you give any credibility to the inevitable consequences of chemical reactions dropping out from a material brain?

Easily - by eliminating the logically impossible "soul" while accepting that I have incomplete information about the logically possible biology.

Oh, and once again – I recently explained to you several times and at length why you were wrong to claim the improbability of your existence to be “undeniable evidence” for “god”. It’s no such thing. Do you intend to keep avoiding the explanations you were given or will you finally have the decency or courage to try at least to address them?

 

[Gordon]

So what is it that can determine your chemical reactions to be somehow superior to mine?

Just more chemical reactions - which are what mental processes are. Stop being silly by chucking in terms like 'superior'.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

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

Which is just another blatant assertion. Where is the evidence you claimed to have? More specifically what evidence could there possibly be to for your claimed freedom? Remember claiming that you, or anyone else, made some specific choice can't be evidence because the fact that someone made a choice is not evidence that they could have made a different choice under exactly the same circumstances.

[Alan Burns]

Which is just another blatant assertion. Where is the evidence you claimed to have? More specifically what evidence could there possibly be to for your claimed freedom? Remember claiming that you, or anyone else, made some specific choice can't be evidence because the fact that someone made a choice is not evidence that they could have made a different choice under exactly the same circumstances.

How can you possibly prove that I could not have made any other choice under the same circumstances?
The burden of proof must lie with you because if what you claim is true, our entire legal system would break down because nobody could be held personally accountable for any crimes they commit.

[Alan Burns]

Just more chemical reactions - which are what mental processes are. Stop being silly by chucking in terms like 'superior'.

But I am often being accused of getting things wrong on this thread, so it leads to a conclusion that my accusers must somehow consider their unavoidable chemical reactions to be superior to mine.  How can such a judgement be made and verified if it is just one piece of reconstituted star debris claiming superiority of their chemical reactions over another piece of reconstituted star debris?

Such judgements can only be made if we have conscious control to contemplate and verify what resides in our conscious awareness.  Such a process could never be achieved by the inevitable consequences dropping out from unavoidable chains of chemical reactions in a material brain.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But I am often being accused of getting things wrong on this thread,…

Rightly so. Worse yet, you then just ignore the explanation you’re given for why you’re wrong.

…so it leads to a conclusion that my accusers must somehow consider their unavoidable chemical reactions to be superior to mine.

No, their reasoning is "superior” – ie, sound rather than unsound – to yours.

How can such a judgement be made and verified if it is just one piece of reconstituted star debris claiming superiority of their chemical reactions over another piece of reconstituted star debris?

Irrelevant.   

Such judgements can only be made if we have conscious control to contemplate and verify what resides in our conscious awareness.  Such a process could never be achieved by the inevitable consequences dropping out from unavoidable chains of chemical reactions in a material brain.

Incredulous bullshit and unqualified assertion.

Anyway – I recently explained to you several times and at length why you were wrong to claim the improbability of your existence to be “undeniable evidence” for “god”. It’s no such thing. Do you intend to keep avoiding the explanations you were given or will you finally have the decency or courage to try at least to address them?

[Gordon]

But I am often being accused of getting things wrong on this thread, so it leads to a conclusion that my accusers must somehow consider their unavoidable chemical reactions to be superior to mine.  How can such a judgement be made and verified if it is just one piece of reconstituted star debris claiming superiority of their chemical reactions over another piece of reconstituted star debris?

Such judgements can only be made if we have conscious control to contemplate and verify what resides in our conscious awareness.  Such a process could never be achieved by the inevitable consequences dropping out from unavoidable chains of chemical reactions in a material brain.

I love the smell of credulous hyperbole in the afternoon (with apologies to Robert Duvall).

[Alan Burns]

…so it leads to a conclusion that my accusers must somehow consider their unavoidable chemical reactions to be superior to mine.

No, their reasoning is "superior” – ie, sound rather than unsound – to yours.

In your materialistic scenario any form of reasoning must be the outcome of chemical reactions taking place in a material brain.
You apparently have no control over the laws governing chemical reactions.
So I ask again - what deems your chemical reactions to be superior to mine?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In your materialistic scenario any form of reasoning must be the outcome of chemical reactions taking place in a material brain.

Sort of, yes.

You apparently have no control over the laws governing chemical reactions.

No-one has “control over the laws governing chemical reactions”.

So I ask again - what deems your chemical reactions to be superior to mine?

So I tell you again – reason.

Anyway – I recently explained to you several times and at length why you were wrong to claim the improbability of your existence to be “undeniable evidence” for “god”. It’s no such thing. Do you intend to keep avoiding the explanations you were given or will you finally have the decency or courage to try at least to address them?

[Gordon]

No, their reasoning is "superior” – ie, sound rather than unsound – to yours.

In your materialistic scenario any form of reasoning must be the outcome of chemical reactions taking place in a material brain.
You apparently have no control over the laws governing chemical reactions.
So I ask again - what deems your chemical reactions to be superior to mine?

For crying out loud, Alan - what bit of 'the evidence to date suggests that all mental activity us just brain electro-chemistry' are you struggling with?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Do you ever intend to try at least to address the explanations you were given for why the apparent improbability of your existence cannot be “undeniable evidence for god” as you wrongly asserted?

[Sebastian Toe]

No, their reasoning is "superior” – ie, sound rather than unsound – to yours.

In your materialistic scenario any form of reasoning must be the outcome of chemical reactions taking place in a material brain.
You apparently have no control over the laws governing chemical reactions.
So I ask again - what deems your chemical reactions to be superior to mine?

What is it specifically that overrides your non physical superior thinking soul which only works in the now.....in order to make you jump up and down like a daftie at the behest of a hypnotist who could be at the other side of the planet.