Searching for GOD...

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

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.

How do you know that your version of freedom does match reality?

We are still waiting for you to demonstrate that for any given choice if time were rewound then you could have chosen differently but the choice not have been random.

[Stranger]

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

I have explained to you multiple times, and in detail, why everything that minds do, and all aspects of choice-making, logically require time and time logically leads to the conclusion I have presented.

Instead of repeating your mindless, unjustified assertion that it doesn't apply, why don't you explain where you think the fault in my reasoning is?

Because you can't? Because you're afraid to even think about it enough to try? Why?

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.

You are not 'acknowledging' anything, you're just posting a logic-free and logic-defying, unargued assertion.

If logic contradicts reality then the logic must be flawed.

But a reasoning- and evidence-free blind faith assertion does not mean that basic logic is flawed.

You have provided no reason at all to think that it actually does contradict reality. Not even the first hint of the tiniest suggestion of either reasoning or evidence. Just endless, empty-headed assertions repeated time and time and time again....

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nonsense. Gravity is the shape of the manifold.

In the same sense that ''Fence'' is the shape of my garden?

[Stranger]

In the same sense that ''Fence'' is the shape of my garden?

No.

Gravity is the (variable) geometry of space-time. The geometry at each point is defined by a (rank 2, symmetric) tensor, known as the metric, which defines things like distance and angles. Much like Newton's first law, things in space-time follow the closest thing to a straight line they can unless there is something that prevents them from doing so. In the case of space-time, this is a timelike geodesic. Because of the way the space-time geometry is changed by mass, timelike geodesics near large objects like the Earth intersect with the surface. In effect, you are being accelerated away from your natural geodesic path through space-time because the surface of the Earth is in the way of you actually following it. Hence we experience 'gravity'. This also neatly explains why inertial mass is the same as gravitational mass, something that was just a strange coincidence before relativity.

[Sebastian Toe]

If logic contradicts reality then the logic must be flawed.

In that case, your logic (souls) is very, very flawed!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

I don't understand what you mean because everything you have ever posted on here has been based on your previous knowledge alone. At least, I don't recall you demonstrating on here that your conscious choice to post a particular combination of words or respond to posts has not been dictated by previous knowledge alone.

You seem to believe that something else is involved in your conscious choices on here. Which post can you point to that shows something other than previous knowledge alone? 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

Again, I don't understand the role that your spiritual self played that shows it is outside time e.g. in relation to your posts on here. Your posts on here all relate to previous posts or prior knowledge you acquired about Christianity and you selected the previous information you already had that you wanted to incorporate in your reply.

Which of your posts on here do you see as your spiritual self composing a reply that is not a response to a previous post based on prior knowledge?

[Alan Burns]

Gabriella,

Knowledge alone cannot dictate the conscious choices involved in composing my replies.
I need the ability to contemplate what I know and consciously guide my thoughts to reach viable conclusions.
The problem with the material model is that conscious awareness emerges from material reactions which have already taken place.
So we have Bluehillside claiming that conscious control of our thoughts is a logical impossibility.
Torridon claims that all our thoughts occur in our subconscious before we become aware of them.
And Stranger claiming that he does not know what I mean by conscious control of our thoughts.

What I do know is that my ability to consciously think about things rather than just react to them is a reality which cannot be explained by material reactions alone.

[Stranger]

Knowledge alone cannot dictate the conscious choices involved in composing my replies.
I need the ability to contemplate what I know and consciously guide my thoughts to reach viable conclusions.

Without time
  you cannot contemplate,
  you cannot guide anything,
  you cannot compose anything,
  you cannot reach a conclusion,
  you cannot make a choice,
  you cannot interact with anything (like the brain),
  you cannot have a thought,
  you cannot act in any way at all,
  you cannot do anything at all,
  you cannot be inspired to do anything,
  you cannot create anything (like a reason of cause),
  you will be entirely static and utterly useless to any thought process whatsoever.

Hence time is required for minds, and once we have time we have a strict dichotomy: either every event (action, thought, choice, etc.) is entirely the result of what came before (determinism) or it involves randomness.

That's the logic. You have posted nothing resembling a refutation.

What I do know is that my ability to consciously think about things rather than just react to them is a reality which cannot be explained by material reactions alone.

You do not, and cannot possibly, know anything of the sort.

You may believe it, but it is impossible to know that any phenomenon "cannot be explained by material reactions alone" because we do not know everything about the material universe. To claim such knowledge is therefore a claim to be omniscient - which you obviously aren't since you don't appear to know the first thing about logic, for a start...

What appears to have brought you to this absurd conclusion is the experience of being able to make your own mind up and do as you wish. What you seem to have totally failed to grasp is that that is exactly what we would expect to experience if minds were deterministic (real meaning, not your dishonest 'determined by' something nonsense) or involved some randomness.

You have no logic, you have no argument, you have nothing in reality that contradicts the conclusion we reach by applying logic.

Nothing.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Knowledge alone cannot dictate the conscious choices involved in composing my replies.
I need the ability to contemplate what I know and consciously guide my thoughts to reach viable conclusions.
The problem with the material model is that conscious awareness emerges from material reactions which have already taken place.
So we have Bluehillside claiming that conscious control of our thoughts is a logical impossibility.
Torridon claims that all our thoughts occur in our subconscious before we become aware of them.
And Stranger claiming that he does not know what I mean by conscious control of our thoughts.

What I do know is that my ability to consciously think about things rather than just react to them is a reality which cannot be explained by material reactions alone.

Hi AB

Understood  that you contemplate what you know to make a choice, so your choice is dependent on what you know i.e. you can't contemplate an option you don't even know exists. Just want to clarify whether 'what you know' is stored in your brain's memory via what you have seen, read, heard, felt before you make that choice?

Do you think your emotions / neurochemicals that are detected in the body play a part in the choices you make? For example do you feel an emotion when contemplating a particular option and if yes, does this emotion influence your choice? https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201211/the-neurochemicals-of-happiness

What do you mean by you guide your thoughts? For example, in relation to one of your posts, do you mean you selected words from those words you know that are stored in your memory to construct a sentence to convey your intended meaning? 

[Alan Burns]

Without time
  you cannot contemplate,
  you cannot guide anything,
  you cannot compose anything,
  you cannot reach a conclusion,
  you cannot make a choice,
  you cannot interact with anything (like the brain),
  you cannot have a thought,
  you cannot act in any way at all,
  you cannot do anything at all,
  you cannot be inspired to do anything,
  you cannot create anything (like a reason of cause),
  you will be entirely static and utterly useless to any thought process whatsoever.

Hence time is required for minds, and once we have time we have a strict dichotomy: either every event (action, thought, choice, etc.) is entirely the result of what came before (determinism) or it involves randomness.

That's the logic.

It is an attempt at logic which is derived entirely from what we perceive in material behaviour as observed through our physical senses.

You have posted nothing resembling a refutation.

You do not, and cannot possibly, know anything of the sort.

You may believe it, but it is impossible to know that any phenomenon "cannot be explained by material reactions alone"
 because we do not know everything about the material universe. To claim such knowledge is therefore a claim to be omniscient - which you obviously aren't since you don't appear to know the first thing about logic, for a start...

I would say that we do know enough about observable behaviour of this material universe to rule out our human minds being entirely explained my material reactions alone.

What appears to have brought you to this absurd conclusion is the experience of being able to make your own mind up and do as you wish. What you seem to have totally failed to grasp is that that is exactly what we would expect to experience if minds were deterministic.

Behaviour derived entirely from biological instincts and learnt experiences is what we see in animal behaviour.  Human behaviour goes far beyond this.

In essence, you need to widen your scope of what can be ruled out by your logic to look beyond our material universe and consider the possibilities which enable our conscious freedom to think, not just react.

[Stranger]

It is an attempt at logic which is derived entirely from what we perceive in material behaviour as observed through our physical senses.

Goes the mindless, empty-headed mantra, without the slightest attempt at any refutation.   

I would say that we do know enough about observable behaviour of this material universe to rule out our human minds being entirely explained my material reactions alone.

Yes, you keep on saying it. The problem is that that is all you ever do. You have again ignored the fact that we know that we don't know everything about the material universe, and we don't know what we don't know.

Mindless repetition is not an argument and does not address the point.

It's not even as if you've made any serious attempt to show that there is a conflict with the known laws of nature (which there isn't). All you've offered is personal incredulity. That's a fallacy, and a fallacy is a dimwitted mistake in reasoning.

Behaviour derived entirely from biological instincts and learnt experiences is what we see in animal behaviour.  Human behaviour goes far beyond this.

Not only is this yet another argument by assertion fallacy (dimwitted logic mistake) but it isn't even relevant to the part of my post you quoted.

You have still provided NOTHING that remotely challenges the logic of the situation that I outlined. In fact, you're just getting more and more absurd and blatant in your thought-free, irrational dismissals...

[Alan Burns]

Hi AB

Understood  that you contemplate what you know to make a choice, so your choice is dependent on what you know i.e. you can't contemplate an option you don't even know exists. Just want to clarify whether 'what you know' is stored in your brain's memory via what you have seen, read, heard, felt before you make that choice?

Yes,
I believe that our conscious choices and thought patterns are derived from knowledge and data perceived and stored in our memory.

Do you think your emotions / neurochemicals that are detected in the body play a part in the choices you make? For example do you feel an emotion when contemplating a particular option and if yes, does this emotion influence your choice? https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-athletes-way/201211/the-neurochemicals-of-happiness

I agree that some emotions can be chemically induced, but I also believe that we have the conscious ability to override such emotions by strong will in order to choose what we know to be the best option.

What do you mean by you guide your thoughts? For example, in relation to one of your posts, do you mean you selected words from those words you know that are stored in your memory to construct a sentence to convey your intended meaning?

An intended meaning is what I first formulate in my conscious awareness.  This will then be followed by consciously chosen words to convey the intended meaning.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Yes,
I believe that our conscious choices and thought patterns are derived from knowledge and data perceived and stored in our memory.

Ok - so what is perceived and stored is what has already occurred - the past?

I agree that some emotions can be chemically induced, but I also believe that we have the conscious ability to override such emotions by strong will in order to choose what we know to be the best option.

From your answer above the options we perceive are based on what has already occurred in the past?

Do you mean we choose the best option from the options we can perceive? There might be better options we can't perceive but we don't know what those options are because our brain has not perceived / thought of them?

When you say you know what is the best option out of the available options in any situation, I assume you mean you think that is the best option but you are not certain of it?

Do you decide what you think is the best option based on your perceptions of the possible consequences of each option?

Do you predict the possible consequences based on a mix of what you have read / seen/ experienced previously and/ or hope of what may happen in the future ?

An intended meaning is what I first formulate in my conscious awareness.

Ok - so when you say that you consciously guide your thoughts, it means that you interpret information you receive to understand possible meanings of that information, and your interpretations are based on your stored knowledge?  Do you have different emotional reactions - positive and negative - to the possible meanings you come up with? Do these emotions influence the meaning you pick as your preferred meaning / the one you think is most likely to be correct/ the meaning that appeals to you the most?

Do you then think of possible responses based on your preferred interpretation/ meaning of the information you have received? Do you then decide what you think is the best response?

This will then be followed by consciously chosen words to convey the intended meaning.

Ok - and the words you choose are based on stored knowledge of what those words mean?

[torridon]

.I agree that some emotions can be chemically induced, but I also believe that we have the conscious ability to override such emotions by strong will in order to choose what we know to be the best option.

'Overiding' an emotion by will is simply the dominance of a stronger desire over a weaker desire.

The simple observation that we cannot choose which desires to have is the tell tale signal of determinism in the workings of mind.  An indeterministic mind could not possibly work, however we don't feel like deterministic agents and this is simply because the deterministic goings on at the biochemical level are below the level of our awareness.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I would agree with this and agree with NS reply #48278 http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.48275
When I was an atheist it feels like it was based on a desire I did not choose but I could consciously think about and articulate reasons to support that desire, which would increase my desire to be an atheist.  Similarly, when I stopped being an atheist it was based on a stronger desire to be a Muslim than be an atheist, again not of my choosing but I could consciously think and articulate reasons to support that desire, which would increase my desire to be a Muslim. I can also still consciously think and articulate reasons to support the desire to be an atheist, but my desire to be a Muslim is stronger.

How one desire becomes stronger than another is influenced by nature / nurture so changes in my environment / biochemistry/ thinking produced a stronger desire to be a Muslim than an atheist. Some theists may believe a direct godly intervention is part of that mix of what causes a change in belief. Others may think there is no direct intervention and humans have some predisposition to dualism / religion https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm

[Alan Burns]

Ok - so what is perceived and stored is what has already occurred - the past?
From your answer above the options we perceive are based on what has already occurred in the past?

Do you mean we choose the best option from the options we can perceive? There might be better options we can't perceive but we don't know what those options are because our brain has not perceived / thought of them?

When you say you know what is the best option out of the available options in any situation, I assume you mean you think that is the best option but you are not certain of it?

Do you decide what you think is the best option based on your perceptions of the possible consequences of each option?

Do you predict the possible consequences based on a mix of what you have read / seen/ experienced previously and/ or hope of what may happen in the future ?
Ok - so when you say that you consciously guide your thoughts, it means that you interpret information you receive to understand possible meanings of that information, and your interpretations are based on your stored knowledge?  Do you have different emotional reactions - positive and negative - to the possible meanings you come up with? Do these emotions influence the meaning you pick as your preferred meaning / the one you think is most likely to be correct/ the meaning that appeals to you the most?

Do you then think of possible responses based on your preferred interpretation/ meaning of the information you have received? Do you then decide what you think is the best response?Ok - and the words you choose are based on stored knowledge of what those words mean?

What you describe here is what is going on in your present state of conscious awareness.  You are consciously aware of past influences and you are aware of your own desires and aims.  And you can consciously predict outcomes before invoking a choice.  It all happens in your conscious awareness and is guided by your own ability to control your conscious thought processes.  I can't imagine how anyone (Torri?) could possibly claim that all this happens within your subconscious brain activity before you become aware of it.

[Stranger]

The Alan comedy assertion machine just grinds on and on....     

What you describe here is what is going on in your present state of conscious awareness [meaningless gibberish].

Until you stop running away from defining what you mean in a logically coherent and significant way, this will remain obvious and pointless bullshit.

You are consciously aware of past influences and you are aware of your own desires and aims.  And you can consciously predict outcomes before invoking a choice.

How, exactly, do you go about predicting anything (modelling the future) in zero time?

It all happens in your conscious awareness and is guided by your own ability to control your conscious thought processes [meaningless gibberish].

Until you stop running away from defining what you mean in a logically coherent and significant way, this will remain obvious and pointless bullshit.

How do you propose that any process of control can happen in zero time?

I can't imagine how anyone (Torri?) could possibly claim that all this happens within your subconscious brain activity before you become aware of it.

A lot of it quite obviously does. Thoughts occur to us. This is absolutely, blindingly obvious.

It all happens in your conscious awareness...

No, it obviously doesn't. When you reply to this, try using some words that don't occur to you to say at the time. If you can't do that, then you are clearly wrong and you are entirely dependant on your subconscious to feed your conscious mind with ideas as to what to say.

...and is guided by your own ability to control your conscious thought processes [meaningless gibberish].

Until you stop running away from defining what you mean in a logically coherent and significant way, this will remain obvious and pointless bullshit.

How do you propose that any process of control can happen in zero time?

(Just thought I'd do a bit of repetition, after all, it's all you seem capable of yourself, so perhaps you'll understand it better.)

[Stranger]

I would agree with this and agree with NS reply #48278 http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.48275
When I was an atheist it feels like it was based on a desire I did not choose but I could consciously think about and articulate reasons to support that desire, which would increase my desire to be an atheist.  Similarly, when I stopped being an atheist it was based on a stronger desire to be a Muslim than be an atheist, again not of my choosing but I could consciously think and articulate reasons to support that desire, which would increase my desire to be a Muslim. I can also still consciously think and articulate reasons to support the desire to be an atheist, but my desire to be a Muslim is stronger.

How one desire becomes stronger than another is influenced by nature / nurture so changes in my environment / biochemistry/ thinking produced a stronger desire to be a Muslim than an atheist. Some theists may believe a direct godly intervention is part of that mix of what causes a change in belief. Others may think there is no direct intervention and humans have some predisposition to dualism / religion https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm

What I find slightly strange and a little disturbing about this is that you seem to be saying that it is your desire for a belief (conclusion) that is leading your reasoning around, rather than the other way around.

Referring back to the Pinker quote I posted before (#46902) my motivation is a desire to get as close as I can to "universal realism". I don't really get the "mythology mindset". I care about whether my beliefs are true or not, or at least can be reasonably justified on the basis of what is currently known. That's why I spend such a lot of my time expanding my knowledge of science and mathematics. Atheism is the result of that approach, not something I find desirable in itself. I reject theism for the same reasons I reject, for example, astrology, alien abductions, and magic spells.

The reason I say 'disturbing' is because of the apparent rise in irrational beliefs and the damage they can do. This is by no means confined to the obvious examples of extremist religious beliefs but is becoming more prevalent in crazy conspiracy theories, 'alternative facts', and obvious lies, that are (apparently) believed by people just to be part of one tribe or another. There are obvious examples from the US (QAnon, etc.) but the just ended Tory party conference was also full of blatant lies and batshit conspiracy theories: Victoria Derbyshire confronts Tory minister.

There is also the weird idea amongst some that one has to have a view on something that is unknown and for which we clearly do not have enough information to draw any conclusion about. Exhibit one here would be Vlad's apparent incomprehension of the idea that my answer to the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is simply "I don't know" (#48497).

Obviously many religious and other beliefs are entirely benign but I fear that when people value the beliefs/conclusion more than the reasons, we let go of all checks and balances.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What you describe here is what is going on in your present state of conscious awareness.  You are consciously aware of past influences and you are aware of your own desires and aims.  And you can consciously predict outcomes before invoking a choice.  It all happens in your conscious awareness and is guided by your own ability to control your conscious thought processes.  I can't imagine how anyone (Torri?) could possibly claim that all this happens within your subconscious brain activity before you become aware of it.

Ok thanks for clarifying what you mean when you say conscious awareness.

Do you find thoughts come unbidden into your conscious brain activity that you have an emotional reaction to, and then you can choose to focus on them or find reasons to consciously disregard them and think of alternative interpretations that change your emotional reaction?

For example, if someone says something that irritates you, you can think they dislike you or you can think maybe it's not personal and they just have a style of expressing themselves or you can think maybe they are dealing with a stressful situation that you know nothing about and this has influenced their response to you, or you can think why does this upset me - is it because it brings back a memory from my past where I felt hurt. If you think they dislike you, you can decide it's irrelevant or you can decide it matters to you if you are liked. Your choice of interpretation will affect your emotions - CBT seems to work on these lines where you consciously change your thoughts to change your reactions to events.

When you consciously predict outcomes, how do you decide which outcome seems the most likely and which one to aim for  - do you have an emotional reaction to each predicted outcome that influences your preference of the outcome to aim for?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

What I find slightly strange and a little disturbing about this is that you seem to be saying that it is your desire for a belief (conclusion) that is leading your reasoning around, rather than the other way around.

Yes I can understand why that is slightly disturbing. I find it disturbing too.

Referring back to the Pinker quote I posted before (#46902) my motivation is a desire to get as close as I can to "universal realism". I don't really get the "mythology mindset". I care about whether my beliefs are true or not, or at least can be reasonably justified on the basis of what is currently known. That's why I spend such a lot of my time expanding my knowledge of science and mathematics. Atheism is the result of that approach, not something I find desirable in itself. I reject theism for the same reasons I reject, for example, astrology, alien abductions, and magic spells.

The reason I say 'disturbing' is because of the apparent rise in irrational beliefs and the damage they can do. This is by no means confined to the obvious examples of extremist religious beliefs but is becoming more prevalent in crazy conspiracy theories, 'alternative facts', and obvious lies, that are (apparently) believed by people just to be part of one tribe or another. There are obvious examples from the US (QAnon, etc.) but the just ended Tory party conference was also full of blatant lies and batshit conspiracy theories: Victoria Derbyshire confronts Tory minister.

There is also the weird idea amongst some that one has to have a view on something that is unknown and for which we clearly do not have enough information to draw any conclusion about. Exhibit one here would be Vlad's apparent incomprehension of the idea that my answer to the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is simply "I don't know" (#48497).

Obviously many religious and other beliefs are entirely benign but I fear that when people value the beliefs/conclusion more than the reasons, we let go of all checks and balances.

All good reasons to prefer an atheist approach/ reject theism.

Yet despite your very valid reasons, my preference for being a Muslim over an atheist could be due to various reasons, many of which my conscious brain is not aware of. We have had posts about this before.

I think this is where I seem to have a preference for torridon's views of not being able to choose my desires or inclinations that are a result of subconscious activity, but becoming aware of them. Once I become aware of them I can then consciously choose to try to overcome my inclinations / desires....but to do that presumably I need to have a desire or reason to overcome my desire....

In my earlier response I linked to information in Science Daily about a research project that conducted over 40 separate studies in 20 countries representing a diverse range of cultures. The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind.

This article has also probably been referenced on here before:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct

HADD is what Barrett calls a non-reflective belief, which are always operating in our brains even without our awareness of them. Reflective beliefs, on the other hand, are ones we actively think about. Non-reflective beliefs come from various mental tools, which he terms “intuitive inference systems”. In addition to agency detection, these mental tools include naive biology, naive physics, and intuitive morality......Barrett claims that non-reflective beliefs are crucial in forming reflective beliefs.

[Alan Burns]

How, exactly, do you go about predicting anything (modelling the future) in zero time?
....................
How do you propose that any process of control can happen in zero time?

I am not suggesting zero time.
What I am postulating is that your current state of conscious awareness interacts within the timeline of our material universe but is not part of it.
If your conscious awareness is generated from within the timeline it will be entirely determined by preceding events with no possibility of control, manipulation or conscious deliberation.

[ekim]

I think this is where I seem to have a preference for torridon's views of not being able to choose my desires or inclinations that are a result of subconscious activity, but becoming aware of them. Once I become aware of them I can then consciously choose to try to overcome my inclinations / desires....but to do that presumably I need to have a desire or reason to overcome my desire....

Another way of looking at it is, not so much as a struggle to overcome the desires which arise, but more as identifying with a neutral observing consciousness in the midst of a variety of forces.  There are a number of meditation practices which tend to lead to this but it is not easy just as it is not easy to maintain balance when learning to wind surf in the midst of the forces of gravity, water movement and air movement.  You could see it as a state of peace.  If I remember correctly, I believe the words Muslim and Islam have the word for peace (salaam) embedded within them so in this context it would be better to be Muslim rather than a Muslim.

[Stranger]

I am not suggesting zero time.
What I am postulating is that your current state of conscious awareness interacts within the timeline of our material universe but is not part of it.

Of course you're suggesting zero time. If something isn't within a time dimension (whether it's the same one as our universe makes no difference) then it is logically the same as having zero time. That is, there is no time in which it can do anything.

It is clearly impossible to interact with anything in zero time, which is why your 'postulation' is so laughably absurd.

If your conscious awareness is generated from within the timeline it will be entirely determined by preceding events...

You have given us no reason whatsoever (that isn't clearly and obviously wrong) to think that this isn't the case.

...with no possibility of control, manipulation or conscious deliberation.

Non sequitur / baseless assertion.

[Stranger]

This article has also probably been referenced on here before:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190529-do-humans-have-a-religion-instinct

HADD is what Barrett calls a non-reflective belief, which are always operating in our brains even without our awareness of them. Reflective beliefs, on the other hand, are ones we actively think about. Non-reflective beliefs come from various mental tools, which he terms “intuitive inference systems”. In addition to agency detection, these mental tools include naive biology, naive physics, and intuitive morality......Barrett claims that non-reflective beliefs are crucial in forming reflective beliefs.

I haven't read the full article yet, so I'll maybe add to this later but I'm well aware of HADD (I've read Dennett) and other natural tendencies to believe things.

I think the point I'm trying to make is that, as Pinker said: "Submitting all of one’s beliefs to the trials of reason and evidence is an unnatural skill, like literacy and numeracy, and must be instilled and cultivated."

There are many biases in the human mind but we don't have to just submit to them. Critical thinking is a skill that that we can learn. One of the reasons why Alan's apparent disdain for fallacies is so absurd is that learning about common mistakes can help you not to repeat them.

Of course nobody can make somebody want to learn these things or want to submit beliefs to the rational part of our minds, but the option is there. Even if somebody does not want those things, it is good that they can at least recognise what they are doing. It's people who are unaware that their beliefs are not based on evidence or reasoning that tend to cause the problems.