Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Let's face the truth.
The truth is that there can be no logical explanation for the freedom we all enjoy.
It is a simple logical deduction that physically determined material reactions alone can never generate the imaginative, creative thinking demonstrated by every human being.

I see no reason as to why this may be true.  Each brain is unique and each brain is processing trillions of synaptic events every second. Do you really think you can make grand claims with confidence about the limits of human creativity given the incalculable neural activity going on ? I don't think so, it is just your old incredulity talking; and that is why ..

It is perfectly logical to conclude that our freedom is a miraculous gift from God.

 is basically a non-sequitur.  Human creativity is not remotely surprising given the unfathomable complexity of our brains.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I am sorry I did not have time to answer all your points in detail.

No problem - I suspected you wouldn't be able to answer. You haven't answered anyone's questions in detail.

It's ok though as the evidence seems to show that you seem unable to exert "conscious control" to answer anyone's questions. Your answers on here seem to be determined by your past as your brain does not seem to have the knowledge stored in it from your past actions/ nature/ nurture to be able to answer the questions.

Your reaction when unable to provide any detail also seems to be determined by your nature/ nurture - you avoid the question and assert your beliefs. You are certainly entitled to assert a faith-based claim and provide no evidence to justify it. It's also fine, given your lack of evidence for your beliefs, that people who don't share your beliefs or your faith will disregard your faith claims about "conscious control".

In essence - my conscious self is certainly aware of past events which can influence what I choose to say, think or do.  But I am not an automated biological machine which simply reacts to past events in accordance with the rules of material science.  I am in control and I have the power to contemplate what exists in my conscious awareness before invoking my consciously chosen actions.  My ability to control my thoughts and invoke conscious choices is certainly beyond any scientific  or logical explanation - apart from accepting that I have my God given gift of free will.

Yes I am aware of your belief that you are in conscious control - though you have not provided any evidence that you are able to think or act outside of the limits of your nature/ nurture. 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I was going to ask why it would make a difference to how I react,

Evidence of human behaviour indicates that people's beliefs act as a filter and alter their perceptions, perspective and emotions. Sometimes people feel their reactions have a toxic impact on their lives so they use CBT and other techniques to try to change their perceptions and reactions.

but it's actually more fundamental than that. I just don't get faith at all in the sense you seem to be talking about it. It looks like you believe something that you recognise isn't supported by reasoning or evidence, but how do you even do that?

My beliefs are based on my subjective experiences. What I am unable to do is turn my subjective experiences into objective evidence that I can demonstrate to you. Faith is belief without objective demonstrable evidence, hence people differ in what they have faith in. Their faith is derived from subjective evidence/ experiences.

In terms of reasoning - not really sure what you mean. If you have a moral philosophical belief that is not related to religion, you allow for the possibility that other people hold beliefs that are different from your own. People aren't required to provide reasoning for or justify every moral belief they live their life by before they make any decisions. Given most atheists allow for the possibility that there is something more than what science can detect and predict using demonstrable evidence, it shouldn't be surprising that some people take that possibility of something supernatural and build a set of social norms and rituals and associated beliefs around it because they find something beneficial in doing so. It then becomes a social movement that creates social bonds that people who subscribe to those beliefs find beneficial, hence the beliefs and rituals persist and perpetuate until they are replaced by other beliefs incorporated in social bonds that other people in society find more useful and beneficial. 

To me belief doesn't seem like a choice. Either I'm convinced of something or I'm not. I don't see how you would even go about believing something that is not convincing.   

I don't see it as that black and white. My experience is many people allow for all kinds of possibilities and shades of grey. My experience is that I can be neither convinced nor am I rejecting certain beliefs - I can say I'm not sure or it's possible or I don't know. I find I say that a lot as a parent in relation to what might be in the best interests of my children.

Or other beliefs, for that matter.

I think the first thing critical thinking tells you about moral beliefs is that there are no easy answers to difficult problems and no absolute, objective answers at all.

Yes I would agree with you. But you are still forced to adopt or go along with a moral position in many situations in order to make choices and decisions and live your life as part of society. I obey laws I may not necessarily agree with because I need to participate in the society I am living in. Religion doesn't seem all that different from moral beliefs just because it has developed some anthropomorphic concepts around it to make it more accessible. Given how old some religions are and how rudimentary the tools of communication were and still are in many cases, religious metaphors, imagery and stories seem to cater for different levels of philosophical and moral understanding and social development. For example, communities may have different concerns and interests as they progress up Maslow's hierarchy of needs so an interpretation of religion that might appeal for one community might be totally unsuitable for another community that is in a different place on that hierarchy of needs https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No idea what you're even trying to say here. Either one finds the available evidence and/or reasoning convincing or you don't. That's why it isn't a choice. At least to me, it seems that VG is suggesting it is a choice to her.

No, I don't think it's a choice - other than I could choose to try to live my life as though I don't believe what I actually do believe. I don't think I would get very far though.

[Alan Burns]

Yes I am aware of your belief that you are in conscious control - though you have not provided any evidence that you are able to think or act outside of the limits of your nature/ nurture.

In order to believe that I have conscious control I would need conscious control in order to invoke my belief in it.

We must therefore disagree on what can be produced from the unavoidable consequences of our nature/nurture.

[Nearly Sane]

In order to believe that I have conscious control I would need conscious control in order to invoke my belief in it.

We must therefore disagree on what can be produced from the unavoidable consequences of our nature/nurture.

In the dictionary you have, under the word 'evidence', does it say 'repetitive assertion'?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

In order to believe that I have conscious control I would need conscious control in order to invoke my belief in it.

We must therefore disagree on what can be produced from the unavoidable consequences of our nature/nurture.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you consciously control your thoughts to stop believing that you have the ability to consciously control all your thoughts?

[Stranger]

In order to believe that I have conscious control I would need conscious control in order to invoke my belief in it.

Begging the question (assuming your conclusion) dimwittery (fallacy).

Where is the "simple logical deduction" you said you had?

[Alan Burns]

Not sure what you mean here. Can you consciously control your thoughts to stop believing that you have the ability to consciously control all your thoughts?

My ability to consciously guide my thoughts to come to verifiable conclusions leads me to what I believe to be true.
It would not be possible to guide my thoughts to stop believing in anything unless I discovered some valid reason to do so.

Without such conscious guidance I can't see how I could possibly verify what I believe to be true.

[Alan Burns]

In the dictionary you have, under the word 'evidence', does it say 'repetitive assertion'?

Whoever compiled the dictionary provides ample evidence of their own conscious guidance needed to verify the content of what they produced.

[Nearly Sane]

Whoever compiled the dictionary provides ample evidence of their own conscious guidance needed to verify the content of what they produced.

Thank you for illustrating, yet again,  that you have no understanding of evidence.

[Stranger]

Whoever compiled the dictionary provides ample evidence of their own conscious guidance needed to verify the content of what they produced.

Quite apart from the unargued assertion dimwittery in this post, we are all still waiting for the "simple logical deduction" you said you had in #48554.

Come on, don't be shy! You said that it was a "simple logical deduction that physically determined material reactions alone can never generate the imaginative, creative thinking demonstrated by every human being.", so where is this ground-breaking deduction?

If you have such a deduction why have you just gone back to mindless repetition of your fallacy-ridden, thought-free script?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

My ability to consciously guide my thoughts to come to verifiable conclusions leads me to what I believe to be true.

I appreciate that you assert and believe that to be true, presumably because your present thoughts and beliefs are determined by past events. Unfortunately what you haven't done yet is demonstrate that you have consciously guided your thoughts or provided a  method for how you verified your conclusions. 

It would not be possible to guide my thoughts to stop believing in anything unless I discovered some valid reason to do so.

In other words your current thoughts are determined by a past event i.e. what you think you discovered.

Without such conscious guidance I can't see how I could possibly verify what I believe to be true.

Ok so you can't guide your thoughts at will - your thoughts are dependent on a prior event. Good to know.

[Stranger]

My ability to consciously guide my thoughts to come to verifiable conclusions leads me to what I believe to be true.
It would not be possible to guide my thoughts to stop believing in anything unless I discovered some valid reason to do so.

Without such conscious guidance I can't see how I could possibly verify what I believe to be true.

Why are you wittering on about the role of consciousness again? It has NOTHING to do with your claims about 'free will' and NOTHING to do with whether "physically determined material reactions alone" (you know, that which you claim to have a 'simple deduction' about but which seems to be a secret) are responsible for consciousness.

"Concious control of our own thought processes" is a clearly batshit and completely impossible but, even if it wasn't, that would tell us exactly NOTHING about whether minds are "material reactions" or deterministic (real meaning) or not.

[Alan Burns]

Ok so you can't guide your thoughts at will - your thoughts are dependent on a prior event. Good to know.

My conscious thoughts are influenced by prior events.  I am consciously aware of prior events, and I am also aware that they do not control me - I am in control.  Without such control I would be unable to contemplate the validity of my conclusions.

[jeremyp]

My conscious thoughts are influenced by prior events.  I am consciously aware of prior events, and I am also aware that they do not control me - I am in control.  Without such control I would be unable to contemplate the validity of my conclusions.

Yes but why does that require a magical soul? 

[Stranger]

My conscious thoughts are influenced by prior events.  I am consciously aware of prior events, and I am also aware that they do not control me - I am in control.  Without such control I would be unable to contemplate the validity of my conclusions.

Unargued assertion dimwittery (fallacy), yet again. What's more, you've typed out pretty much these exact words endless times before. What's the point, if you can't even be arsed to think of new ways to put it?

It just reinforces my observation that you are posting exactly like somebody who has learnt something by rote who as no comprehension at all of what it actually means. The absolute opposite of what we would expect from somebody who has thought deeply, or even at all, about the subject. For example, it should be obvious to anybody who has given this even one moment of rational thought, that saying things like "I am in control" is meaningless in the context of how you make choices.

Think about it for a moment, just for once in your life!

And finally:

Where is the "simple logical deduction" you said you had?

Were you just bearing false witness again?

[torridon]

My conscious thoughts are influenced by prior events.  I am consciously aware of prior events, and I am also aware that they do not control me - I am in control.  Without such control I would be unable to contemplate the validity of my conclusions.

and of course the desire to 'contemplate' must arise from somewhere.  Our desires do not form out of thin air and for no reason.  Like everything in the present moment, they are a consequence of prior moments.

[Alan Burns]

and of course the desire to 'contemplate' must arise from somewhere.  Our desires do not form out of thin air and for no reason.  Like everything in the present moment, they are a consequence of prior moments.

My desires arise into my present state of conscious awareness - from where I have the freedom to choose how, when and where to satisfy those desires - or to deliberately ignore them.  It all takes place from within my present state of conscious awareness.

[Stranger]

My desires arise into my present state of conscious awareness...

Impossible, meaningless drivel.   

Nothing can 'arise' in zero time.

...from where I have the freedom to choose how, when and where to satisfy those desires - or to deliberately ignore them.

Trite, unargued, vacuous assertion.

You cannot 'choose' in zero time.

It all takes place from within my present state of conscious awareness.

More gibberish. Nothing at all can happen in zero time.

Once again:

Where is the "simple logical deduction" you said you had?

Were you just bearing false witness again?

[Stranger]

My beliefs are based on my subjective experiences. What I am unable to do is turn my subjective experiences into objective evidence that I can demonstrate to you. Faith is belief without objective demonstrable evidence, hence people differ in what they have faith in. Their faith is derived from subjective evidence/ experiences.

Well yes. I guess I basically understand this but I still don't get how you manage it. To me, certainly as far as matters of fact about reality go, this doesn't make sense in terms of my own experience because, as I said, I am either convinced by the evidence for something or not. I can't imagine just thinking that I feel a certain way, or have had some subjective experience, so I'll believe something about the world that has no evidence.

In terms of reasoning - not really sure what you mean.

I was referring to logical arguments such as Alan keeps on claiming he has but never produces and Vlad frequently expresses support for but cannot defend.

If you have a moral philosophical belief that is not related to religion, you allow for the possibility that other people hold beliefs that are different from your own. People aren't required to provide reasoning for or justify every moral belief they live their life by before they make any decisions.

We are moving into a different category of beliefs when we come to morality (leaving aside those who claim morality is objective, as they can never justify the claim). Even thought, I'm not sure that I fully agree. I think people should be justifying their moral positions. Obviously different people will have (somewhat) different principles but surely they should be able to make a case for what they believe?

Given most atheists allow for the possibility that there is something more than what science can detect and predict using demonstrable evidence, it shouldn't be surprising that some people take that possibility of something supernatural...

I'm surprised. Okay, possibly that's the wrong word, as I'm well aware it happens, but I guess I'm saying that I don't see why.

At one level, of course, everybody is aware that science doesn't know everything and probably never will (even if it did, how could we be sure?) but it's a giant leap from that to the 'supernatural'. I don't even know what the term is supposed to mean. Surely, if there actually were a god, it would be the most natural thing in all of reality?

...and build a set of social norms and rituals and associated beliefs around it because they find something beneficial in doing so. It then becomes a social movement that creates social bonds that people who subscribe to those beliefs find beneficial, hence the beliefs and rituals persist and perpetuate until they are replaced by other beliefs incorporated in social bonds that other people in society find more useful and beneficial.

I think this is probably been what has happened although you seem to be overemphasising the positive and ignoring the negatives (tribalism, persecution of unbelievers, heretics, etc.) I still don't 'get' how people manage to convince themselves of the truth of things they cannot possibly know - and that's quite apart from the fact that I'd much rather be honest with myself about things I don't know.

"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong."

-- Richard Feynman The Pleasure of Finding Things Out

I don't see it as that black and white. My experience is many people allow for all kinds of possibilities and shades of grey.

Yes, of course. I have been simplifying to make a point. In reality, we don't know (100% certainty) anything (outside of mathematics/pure logic), we apply a certain level of credence to ideas based on the strength of the evidence.

Religion doesn't seem all that different from moral beliefs...

It does to me. Religion makes claims about objective reality that have no basis in evidence.

...just because it has developed some anthropomorphic concepts around it to make it more accessible. Given how old some religions are and how rudimentary the tools of communication were and still are in many cases, religious metaphors, imagery and stories seem to cater for different levels of philosophical and moral understanding and social development. For example, communities may have different concerns and interests as they progress up Maslow's hierarchy of needs so an interpretation of religion that might appeal for one community might be totally unsuitable for another community that is in a different place on that hierarchy of needs https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

I get all that historically (it's the 'mythological mindset' that Pinker referred to #46902) but have we not grown out of needing storytelling to get these things across? You are also ignoring (again) the obvious cases when it all goes horribly wrong and religion was/is used to justify persecution and violence. Surly the endless abuse that is possible via religion should at least be a warning that it perhaps isn't the best approach?

[torridon]

My desires arise into my present state of conscious awareness - from where I have the freedom to choose how, when and where to satisfy those desires - or to deliberately ignore them.  It all takes place from within my present state of conscious awareness.

So how do you choose which desires to act on, and which to ignore ?

[Alan Burns]

So how do you choose which desires to act on, and which to ignore ?

My choices are under the control of my conscious awareness - not the uncontrollable consequences of material reactions.

[Stranger]

My choices are under the control of my conscious awareness...

Yet another meaningless, unargued assertion.

Yet another pointless repetition in place of anything resembling reasoning.

Yet more evidence that you have not thought about this subject at all.

Once again:

Where is the "simple logical deduction" you said you had?

Were you just bearing false witness again?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

My conscious thoughts are influenced by prior events.  I am consciously aware of prior events, and I am also aware that they do not control me - I am in control.  Without such control I would be unable to contemplate the validity of my conclusions.

If that were true and you really were in control, you would be able to demonstrate that by consciously guiding your thoughts to believe that you can't consciously guide your thoughts.

On the other hand, if you can't consciously guide your thoughts because your thoughts are determined by previous events, it would explain why you remain stuck believing you can consciously guide your thoughts.