Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

historical evidence:
In addition to the eye witness accounts recounted in the four Gospels…

There are no “eye witness accounts recounted in the four Gospels”. There are various stories that in part purport to be records of eye-witness accounts from decades before they were finally written down, but that’s all there are.

…there is the phenomenal growth of Christianity which occurred despite intense persecution from the Jewish hierarchy and Roman authorities.

Not that you care but you’re committing another logical fallacy here, called survivorship bias:

https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20200827-how-survivorship-bias-can-cause-you-to-make-mistakes

It’s a basic mistake in reasoning to assume that a cult survived and flourished because it was somehow more “true” than competing cults that failed, when in fact survival may have been due to any number of other factors – being selected as the official religion of Rome by the emperor Constantine for example.

If there had been any credible evidence that the resurrection had not occurred surely the Jews and Romans would have used it to kill off Christianity in the early stages.

You can't have evidence that something didn't happen. Surely even you should be understand by now why this is the case?

If not, see Russell’s teapot (again):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

So why the gargantuan growth?

For any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of the cult’s claims.

In addition to the witnessing to the life death and resurrection of Jesus there were miraculous healings being performed in the name of Jesus.  Right from the start, Christianity has undergone and survived formidable persecution.

There’s no evidence for any of these claims being true.

How is it that you claim to have thought deeply about things, yet at the same time you show us over and over again that you’re unable to grasp even the most basic principles of rational argument?

[Alan Burns]

If you have reasons for a choice you make, doesn't that mean something occurred before you made your choice that led to you making that choice?

Presumably the thoughts that you choose to express on this forum are prompted by some event that occurred before you had that thought or chose to express it e.g. the words you type are because of a post you read on this forum, or something you read in the Bible or a belief you hold because of an experience you have had e.g the belief that you are required to be a witness to Jesus and to evangelise. In addition, if one of the other posters had not posted their specific words on here, or if you had not read them, you would not have responded as you did in your own post.

So it sounds like your choices are determined by past events and circumstances, annd that these circumstances induce/ enable you to disregard information that does not fit in with your existing preferences (determined by nature / nurture) on how you want to live your life.

What I wasn't clear on was whether you thought your preferences were an act of God's will, rather than determined by natural events in your life? E.g God induced a particular belief by an act of God's will rather than through emotional reactions to past events?

Hi Gabriella
The bottom line is that I (my conscious self) am in control of whatever I choose to compose and write on this forum.

My contention lies in the presumption that it is past events which are entirely responsible for everything I choose to think say or do.  This would certainly be the case if we comprised nothing but material entities governed by the laws of physics, but our demonstrable abilities to think for ourselves is evidence that we comprise more than just physically controlled entities.  Yes, our choices are determined, but by what? The big question is this:
What is the ultimate source of our conscious choices - is it just a continuous chain reaction of cause and effect events dating back to the beginning of our universe, or does the source lie within you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The bottom line is that I (my conscious self) am in control of whatever I choose to compose and write on this forum.

Yes, but your “conscious self” isn’t somehow floating free and making decisions independently of the rest of “you”.     

My contention lies in the presumption that it is past events which are entirely responsible for everything I choose to think say or do.  This would certainly be the case if we comprised nothing but material entities governed by the laws of physics,…

We do. If you want to posit a non-material instead, then you have an epic job first to demonstrate that such a thing exists at all.

…but our demonstrable abilities to think for ourselves is evidence that we comprise more than just physically controlled entities.

No it isn’t. Why on earth would you think that it is?

Yes, our choices are determined, but by what? The big question is this:
What is the ultimate source of our conscious choices - is it just a continuous chain reaction of cause and effect events dating back to the beginning of our universe, or does the source lie within you?

No the “big question” is why you’re entirely unable to justify your oft-repeated assertion that thinking in a materialist model is impossible.   

[Stranger]

The bottom line is that I (my conscious self) am in control of whatever I choose to compose and write on this forum.

Trite, shallow, meaningless, baseless, nonsensical assertion.   

My contention lies in the presumption that it is past events which are entirely responsible for everything I choose to think say or do.  This would certainly be the case if we comprised nothing but material entities governed by the laws of physics...

You have been presented with the logic that minds require time and that time means that either we act as deterministic systems, where everything is the result of the past and current inputs, or we don't, which means randomness. This has NOTHING to do with physics, it is just logic.

The fact that you have not addressed that logic but continue to pretend that it is a limitation of physics means that it is very diffecult to regard it as anything other than blatant dishonesty.

...but our demonstrable abilities to think for ourselves is evidence that we comprise more than just physically controlled entities.

Yet more dishonesty. First, the idea that we could have done differently is obviously not demonstrable, and second, nobody has claimed we cannot think for ourselves. And, of course, the ability to think for ourselves obviously NOT evidence of anything non-physical.

[jeremyp]

There are no “eye witness accounts recounted in the four Gospels”. There are various stories that in part purport to be records of eye-witness accounts from decades before they were finally written down, but that’s all there are.

That's a bit unfair. There's only one account of the resurrected Jesus that purports to be an eye witness account and that is Paul's account  of his vision of Jesus. The other accounts are all written as third person narratives and do not claim eye witness status. There's no hint that any of them are relating eye witness statements. Even with the Gospel of John which claims one of the disciples as its source, the actual account doesn't read like it's an eye witness account.

[torridon]

My contention lies in the presumption that it is past events which are entirely responsible for everything I choose to think say or do.  This would certainly be the case if we comprised nothing but material entities governed by the laws of physics, but our demonstrable abilities to think for ourselves is evidence that we comprise more than just physically controlled entities.  Yes, our choices are determined, but by what? The big question is this:
What is the ultimate source of our conscious choices - is it just a continuous chain reaction of cause and effect events dating back to the beginning of our universe, or does the source lie within you?

You can contend that there is some disconnect between you as a decision making entity and your influences, but you don't explain how that could possibly work. Simply contending it or asserting it is not enough.  Here is a simplified model of how we make choices - we sample competing options for their emotional content, and we go with the option that appeals the most. If we do not choose the option that we most want in that moment, then on what basis would we choose ?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi Gabriella
The bottom line is that I (my conscious self) am in control of whatever I choose to compose and write on this forum.

Agreed that you are in control of the mechanics of writing. Just wanted to check if you agreed that what you write i.e. your thoughts are a response to (i.e. dependent on) either what someone else has posted or something you read or saw elsewhere away from this forum?

My contention lies in the presumption that it is past events which are entirely responsible for everything I choose to think say or do.

Is the "you" that is doing the thinking/writing/speaking doing these things in response to something you read / heard/ saw?   

This would certainly be the case if we comprised nothing but material entities governed by the laws of physics, but our demonstrable abilities to think for ourselves is evidence that we comprise more than just physically controlled entities.

Are you saying here that you think that thoughts such as contemplation and choices and memories are mental processes that occur without corresponding electrochemical activity in the brain?

Yes, our choices are determined, but by what? The big question is this:
What is the ultimate source of our conscious choices - is it just a continuous chain reaction of cause and effect events dating back to the beginning of our universe, or does the source lie within you?

Not sure what you mean by "the source" of my conscious choice. To choose between various options I have to first think of 2 or more possible options available to me based on my  experience/ knowledge/ memories and then decide which option I prefer. For example I choose certain words based on my perception / experience of how other people have understood me when I have used those words in the past.

I choose the option I prefer based on my conscious and sub-conscious complex emotional reactions to what I predict to be the outcomes of that particular choice.

Where in that process of choosing would you like to place your "source?

[Alan Burns]

  Are you saying here that you think that thoughts such as contemplation and choices and memories are mental processes that occur without corresponding electrochemical activity in the brain?

There is certainly correlation of active thoughts with measured electrochemical activity in the brain, but what comprises a thought and what invokes a thought are beyond any scientific definition.  Correlation does not define causation.

Not sure what you mean by "the source" of my conscious choice. To choose between various options I have to first think of 2 or more possible options available to me based on my  experience/ knowledge/ memories and then decide which option I prefer. For example I choose certain words based on my perception / experience of how other people have understood me when I have used those words in the past.

I choose the option I prefer based on my conscious and sub-conscious complex emotional reactions to what I predict to be the outcomes of that particular choice.

Alternatively you can choose to ignore any past experience/ knowledge/ memories and do something just because it is what you want to do because we have the freedom to do so.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

There is certainly correlation of active thoughts with measured electrochemical activity in the brain, but what comprises a thought and what invokes a thought are beyond any scientific definition.  Correlation does not define causation.Alternatively you can choose to ignore any past experience/ knowledge/ memories and do something just because it is what you want to do because we have the freedom to do so.

Don’t you need to already have some knowledge of the something in order to come up with the idea of doing the something?

[Stranger]

There is certainly correlation of active thoughts with measured electrochemical activity in the brain, but what comprises a thought and what invokes a thought are beyond any scientific definition.

If you're saying that we don't currently fully understand then that's true, but your claims generally go way beyond that and claim that it is impossible to understand in physical terms, which, as I've pointed out, is not something you can do, even in principle, without claiming to be omniscient.

Correlation does not define causation.

No, it doesn't. The problem is that you have provided not one hint of evidence or reasoning to suggest that anything else is involved. All your 'arguments' are fallacy-ridden disaster zones, and your claims of evidence are nothing short of comical.

All this has been explained to you and you don't even seem to care enough to honesty engage with the arguments or even attempt a counterargument.

Alternatively you can choose to ignore any past experience/ knowledge/ memories and do something just because it is what you want to do because we have the freedom to do so.

Quite apart from the impossibility of ignoring all of the past (are you going to ignore your knowledge of the English language, or how to walk, or your faith?), you really do need to understand that

nobody is arguing that you can't do anything you want.

It's about why you want to do one thing rather than another, if you could have wanted something different, and what would be the reason for such differences if they were possible.

These are the questions you never fail to run away from with inane and shallow nonsense like it being 'you' or our 'conscious awareness', as if that actually went any way at all towards answering the questions.

As and aside, it's also perhaps worth noting that the idea of 'conscious awareness' doing stuff is a bit comical in itself. Awareness is passive and only a part of what makes up a functioning mind.

[Maeght]

There is certainly correlation of active thoughts with measured electrochemical activity in the brain, but what comprises a thought and what invokes a thought are beyond any scientific definition.  Correlation does not define causation.Alternatively you can choose to ignore any past experience/ knowledge/ memories and do something just because it is what you want to do because we have the freedom to do so.

You have a want or a will but whether it is free in any true meaning of the word is the question. To me our wants are based on previous experiences and we can't just decide to want something.

[ekim]

Alternatively you can choose to ignore any past experience/ knowledge/ memories and do something just because it is what you want to do because we have the freedom to do so.

.... which means you have the ability to choose but your choice is not free from the 'want' or desire.  What you need to examine is - what motivates your choice?

[Alan Burns]

It's about why you want to do one thing rather than another, if you could have wanted something different, and what would be the reason for such differences if they were possible.

In hindsight we can always see reasons for what we choose to do.
But it is the source of reasoning which is in contention.

Your short sighted logic cannot define any ultimate source, because every event will have a prior cause which sends ultimate causes into oblivion.
I can choose what I want to do because I am able to consciously initiate a cause which sets my conscious intention into action.
I am the source of what I want to do.

[Alan Burns]

Don’t you need to already have some knowledge of the something in order to come up with the idea of doing the something?

I concede that I was a bit too flippant in suggesting we can totally ignore our previous knowledge.
What I meant to convey is that previous knowledge alone does not dictate our conscious choices.

[jeremyp]

What I meant to convey is that previous knowledge alone does not dictate our conscious choices.

What else is there?

[Stranger]

In hindsight we can always see reasons for what we choose to do.

So, you make choices for reasons and those reasons must exist prior to the choice (otherwise they can't be the reasons for it), so your choices are the direct result of the past (and the immediate situation you find yourself in).

But it is the source of reasoning which is in contention.

What's the mystery? You have learned to think the way you do. It's a part of the person you are, and that is because of nature, nurture, and experience. That's everything that can possibly be an influence.

Your short sighted logic...

Until your are prepared to justify this logically, it's just childish name-calling.

...cannot define any ultimate source, because every event will have a prior cause which sends ultimate causes into oblivion.

So what?

I can choose what I want to do because I am able to consciously initiate a cause which sets my conscious intention into action.
I am the source of what I want to do.

Back to the painfully superficial, inane assertions. If a cause just appears, without itself having a cause, then it can only be random. Just insisting that it is you is utterly meaningless.

[Nearly Sane]

In hindsight we can always see reasons for what we choose to do.
But it is the source of reasoning which is in contention.

Your short sighted logic cannot define any ultimate source, because every event will have a prior cause which sends ultimate causes into oblivion.
I can choose what I want to do because I am able to consciously initiate a cause which sets my conscious intention into action.
I am the source of what I want to do.

Note you are contradicting yourself from when in reply #48466, you said

"Of course you know why you made your choices.
The reasons all exist in your conscious awareness in which you have the freedom to contemplate what is possible and what you consciously choose - not what the past has dictated" which clearly implies that decisions are made for conscious reasons. In the above post though, you take tge pisition that decisions are made for reasons we are not consciously aware of at the time.

[Alan Burns]

If a cause just appears, without itself having a cause, then it can only be random. Just insisting that it is you is utterly meaningless.

You still seem unable to grasp the possibility or probability that we can initiate a cause at will from within our conscious awareness - our spiritual self.
It is the spiritual nature of the human soul which interacts with our physical brain to bring about the true freedom we all enjoy.

Without such freedom we would be entirely driven by pre programmed instincts and learnt experiences with no capacity for creative thinking.

[Stranger]

You still seem unable to grasp the possibility or probability that we can initiate a cause at will from within our conscious awareness - our spiritual self.
It is the spiritual nature of the human soul which interacts with our physical brain to bring about the true freedom we all enjoy.

None of this silly gibberish addresses the point I made. You're quite clearly just making up different sets of words to try and disguise the fact that you have no answer. It's embarrassingly absurd.

You say "initiate a cause at will", so what's the cause of the act of will? Either it happens for reasons or it's random. Reasons must exist before the thing they are reasons for, so they depend on the past. You can play with the words all you like but the simple logic isn't going to go away.

Without such freedom we would be entirely driven by pre programmed instincts and learnt experiences...

Bizarre way of putting it, but so what?

...with no capacity for creative thinking.

Non sequitur.

[Maeght]

You still seem unable to grasp the possibility or probability that we can initiate a cause at will from within our conscious awareness - our spiritual self.
It is the spiritual nature of the human soul which interacts with our physical brain to bring about the true freedom we all enjoy.

Without such freedom we would be entirely driven by pre programmed instincts and learnt experiences with no capacity for creative thinking.

Accept not grasp. You are making a claim not stating a fact.

Creative thinking can still be a result of reactions programmed into our brains by previous experiences so tell us nothing about whether our will is free.

[torridon]

You still seem unable to grasp the possibility or probability that we can initiate a cause at will from within our conscious awareness - our spiritual self.

Something initiated ex-nihilo is random.  This is just definitional.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Quote from: Walt Zingmatilder on September 25, 2023, 02:25:04 PM
This just tells me you haven't properly understood the argument from contingency.

I'm not even talking about it.   

I can probably forgive you that since it is clear you have abandoned the ridiculous recourse to infinite regress and settled on something that is not externally explained and ultimate (I don’t think it is but hey)
[/quote]
Quote from: Walt Zingmatilder on September 25, 2023, 02:25:04 PM
Triunity or components. Is the space time manifold what we would call the universe?

Not exactly, no. It's a kind of background or container for everything.

Why aren’t you including the space time manifold in the category of everything here? Why are you describing it with terms which differ as much as the words background and container do? 

Quote from: Walt Zingmatilder on September 25, 2023, 02:25:04 PM
Triunity is not a mechanistically based idea. Component is.

Sounds like a meaningless cop-out.

No it isn’t
The parts of a machine are contingent on each other and also the number of the parts is also probably contingent also. So contingency threatens the ultimacy of the space time manifold which seems to depend on gravity.

[Stranger]

Vlad, please pay attention to your quote tags, your message is all over the place, and you've posted it on the wrong thread. The quotes are from Searching for God.

I can probably forgive you that since it is clear you have abandoned the ridiculous recourse to infinite regress and settled on something that is not externally explained and ultimate (I don’t think it is but hey)

When will you get it into your head that I am not, nor have I ever, offered an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing. What is it about "I don't know" that you find so difficult to grasp?

Why aren’t you including the space time manifold in the category of everything here? Why are you describing it with terms which differ as much as the words background and container do?

Okay, I should have added an 'else' at the end, but I really don't get why you are finding this so difficult either. The space-time and its contents do not appear to depend on anything else.

The parts of a machine are contingent on each other and also the number of the parts is also probably contingent also.

As I said, who's talking about machines? And you really haven't justified the claim that the space-time and contents are somehow contingent but the trinity and its constituent persons are not.

So contingency threatens the ultimacy of the space time manifold which seems to depend on gravity.

Nonsense. Gravity is the shape of the manifold.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Something initiated ex-nihilo is random.  This is just definitional.

Random suggests a context in which things can happen or not.
I'm not sure non existence offers this context

[Alan Burns]

You have been presented with the logic that minds require time ...

If the human mind was a material entity entirely governed by what we observe in material behaviour then your logic would apply.

But whenever I suggest involvement the power of your spiritual self you claim that the same time related logic would apply, yet you have no knowledge of what comprises your spiritual soul or how it works.  Neither do I, but I can continue to acknowledge the reality of my conscious freedom (and yours!) which is denied by your short sighted logic.

If logic contradicts reality then the logic must be flawed.