Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

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

It is my ability to think about things which leads me to the logical conclusion that my ability to think cannot possibly be determined from the unavoidable consequences of physically determined material reactions.

[Alan Burns]

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.

It would be ridiculous to deliberately try to believe in this logical impossibility.

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.

If my thoughts were entirely determined by previous events beyond my conscious control they would have no basis for credibility.  How could I come to believe in anything if I have no conscious control of my own thoughts?

[Sebastian Toe]

It is my ability to think about things which leads me to the logical conclusion that my ability to think cannot possibly be determined from the unavoidable consequences of physically determined material reactions.

It is my ability to think about things which leads me to the logical conclusion that my ability to think cannot possibly be determined from something like a soul which requires magic to work.

[Stranger]

It is my ability to think about things which leads me to the logical conclusion that my ability to think cannot possibly be determined from the unavoidable consequences of physically determined material reactions.

So why can't you provide the logic?

Every time you post obvious fallacies instead of logic, every time you run away from questions and counterarguments, and every time you use meaningless phrases that you refuse to define or explain, just adds to the evidence that you have not given the subject any serious thought at all.

Stop just telling us how much you've thought about it and how you have logic and actually show that you have by posting some actual reasoning.

[Sebastian Toe]

It would be ridiculous to deliberately try to believe in this logical impossibility.

...and yet you want people to believe that your logical impossibility somehow works!
Ridiculous.

[Stranger]

If my thoughts were entirely determined by previous events beyond my conscious control they would have no basis for credibility.

Yet another unargued assertion posted instead of logic or reasoning.   

[Stranger]

How could I come to believe in anything if I have no conscious control of my own thoughts?

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy (dimwittery). It is your claim that this is impossible, so it's down to you to provide the reasoning, not up to others to provide a full explanation.

And yet again, the role of consciousness and how much control it has is irrelevant to whether your choices are determined by the past or not.

Yet another logic 101 fail. Yet more evidence that you haven't thought about this at all.

[Alan Burns]

So why can't you provide the logic?

The logic is simple.

To arrive at any logical conclusion you need a means to control and apply whatever logic exists in your conscious awareness to the situation under consideration in order to arrive at a consciously determined goal and then consciously verify the feasibility of the result.

Remove the ability to consciously control this process and you end up with what can only be presumed to be the gibberish you constantly accuse me of producing.

[Stranger]

The logic is simple.

To arrive at any logical conclusion you need a means to control and apply whatever logic exists in your conscious awareness to the situation under consideration in order to arrive at a consciously determined goal and then consciously verify the feasibility of the result.

Remove the ability to consciously control this process and you end up with what can only be presumed to be the gibberish you constantly accuse me of producing.

   

You really don't have the first clue, do you? This is all just a begging the question (assuming your conclusion) fallacy (dimwitted mistake in logic). It's nothing more than an account of how you assume it works and an assertion based on the same assumption.

What's more, even if I was to accept it (and you've given me no reason at all to do so), it still doesn't rule out all your choices being the direct result of the past (determinism, real meaning) nor does it address the impossible contradiction of being able to have chosen differently without randomness.

Do you really not understand how to make a logical argument rather than just tell baseless stories and make assertions about how you'd like things to be?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

Sure, I would take that approach in many situations. But in this situation where evidence can't be available because then it wouldn't be faith, I seem to be able to believe in this something if it works for me to believe it.

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.

Ok. I think it's irrational to claim anthropomorphic stories can be dressed up as logical arguments.

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?

Quite possibly, but in reality as far as I can tell, the case they make to themselves before they act boils down to "this makes me feel good" and "this makes me feel bad". Then they come up with reasons to justify to themselves why it feels good or bad.

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?

Sure - the supernatural is a leap of faith. Some people like to leap, others prefer not to. What drives these likes / dislikes/ preferences is presumably nature/ nurture.

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

You're absolutely right about the negatives - hence my point about nature/ nurture. I'm giving you my perspective based on the environment I am currently in and the experiences that I have had. If I was in a different environment and had been subjected to very negative experiences then I would probably have a different feeling about religion or any subject.

For example I like Israelis and Jews and Palestinians and Arabs I have met who were very pleasant to me, even though some Jews and Arabs are fighting and committing atrocities against each other over in the Middle East. Similarly I can like a religion even if other people somewhere else are killing people in the name of their religion. If my immediate family had been murdered by an Israeli Jew or Palestinian Arab, my emotions may lead me to a different opinion.

And regarding your quote, some religious people feel certain about their knowledge or the truth of things but many do not - they are living with not knowing. So it depends on the individual. Being religious does not automatically lead to a feeling of certainty. Many of the religious posters on here may express certainty of the truth - but that's presumably because a particular type of religious person would spend their limited time contributing to a Religion & Ethics forum. There are many religious people and atheists who don't discuss these topics on forums so how would you know how certain they are?

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.

Yes and people often take their subjective experiences as evidence to arrive at their beliefs.

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

Ok there is no objective evidence so claims can't be taken as facts, but religion is much more than a belief about the existence of anyone's individual concepts of god. People just use the god part as a tool for trying to get traction in society for their moral beliefs. It's the clash of moral beliefs that seem to cause the most friction in society, with or without gods. There are plenty of atheist Israelis who subscribe to Zionism and believe they have a moral right to a state of Israel so it's not religion but a particular mindset that leads to conflict. If you want some detail on the nuance I suggest reading this https://www.deiryassin.org/byboard44.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?

I think storytelling can still be a very useful and thought-provoking prompt for people to evaluate and discuss their perspectives on many issues. Unless of course people take the stories literally rather than metaphorically and focus on the details of the stories rather than think about the issues raised by the stories and how they may apply to their lives.

Again you are right that there are some negatives to religion. Lots of ideas by humans can go horribly wrong and are used to justify persecution and violence and endless abuse e.g. the idea of nation states - but we're not suggesting that perhaps nation states are not the best approach are we?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It would be ridiculous to deliberately try to believe in this logical impossibility.

So you are saying you can't consciously control your thoughts to believe that you can't consciously control your thoughts. You could try to believe it but you would not succeed, because your thoughts are determined by past events.

If my thoughts were entirely determined by previous events beyond my conscious control they would have no basis for credibility.  How could I come to believe in anything if I have no conscious control of my own thoughts?

You are once again providing the evidence that your thoughts are determined by prior input of information by your current inability to consciously control your thoughts to come to a belief that you have no conscious control of your thoughts.

[Alan Burns]

Do you really not understand how to make a logical argument rather than just tell baseless stories and make assertions about how you'd like things to be?

My observations are not how I would like things to be.  They are entirely based upon my perception of reality and my knowledge of material behaviour as defined by observed scientific analysis.

I am pointing out the incompatibility of what can be achieved by the human mind with the limitations of what material reactions alone can be expected to produce.  The workings of the human mind go way beyond any logical understanding we can apply from within the limitations of our current knowledge of reality.

[Alan Burns]

So you are saying you can't consciously control your thoughts to believe that you can't consciously control your thoughts. You could try to believe it but you would not succeed, because your thoughts are determined by past events.

My thoughts are determined by my wish to understand and to consciously contemplate the reality we exist in and come to consciously verified conclusions.  Past events alone are not capable of reaching consciously verifiable conclusions.

[ekim]

My thoughts are determined by my wish to understand and to consciously contemplate the reality we exist in and come to consciously verified conclusions.  Past events alone are not capable of reaching consciously verifiable conclusions.

Another example of your lack of freedom from desires or wishes?

[jeremyp]

It would be ridiculous to deliberately try to believe in this logical impossibility.If my thoughts were entirely determined by previous events beyond my conscious control they would have no basis for credibility.

Why not?

  How could I come to believe in anything if I have no conscious control of my own thoughts?

Nobody has said you don't have control of your thoughts. They are just arguing that the control comes from your brain, not a magical soul.

[Stranger]

My observations are not how I would like things to be.

You didn't post any observations. You posted a story about how you think minds work. At least that what it appeared to be because you gave no reason whatsoever as to why we should accept it.

It also contained a phrase that you refuse to define or explain ("conscious control"), so it was also devoid of any exact meaning at all.

They are entirely based upon my perception of reality...

Subjective perceptions are know to be frequently flawed. You gave us no reason at all to accept yours. And, for the record, it does not correspond to my perception.

...and my knowledge of material behaviour as defined by observed scientific analysis.

Which seems very, very limited and riddled with unwarranted assumptions.

I am pointing out the incompatibility of what can be achieved by the human mind with the limitations of what material reactions alone can be expected to produce.

You didn't point out any incompatibility. What is incompatible? How did you arrive at your expectations of what "material reactions" can produce? Where is the evidence or reasoning?

The workings of the human mind go way beyond any logical understanding we can apply from within the limitations of our current knowledge of reality.

Another unargued assertion fallacy (dimwitted logical mistake). Even if this was true, to conclude that it is therefore impossible would be an argument from ignorance fallacy (dimwitted logical mistake).

I could post a story about how minds work, too:

Brains have evolved to be pretty good thinking (biological) machines. With training, they can become good at producing logical arguments. Consciousness is not itself directly involved in the process but is rather like an 'executive summary' of what has gone on at the subconscious level. It is produced because it is useful for memory and communication.

I'm not saying that this is the correct answer, let alone that it is a logical argument, but what makes your story any more convincing than mine, especially when yours has a totally undefined term that makes it all but meaningless anyway?

[Stranger]

My thoughts are determined by my wish to understand...

And what determines what you wish to understand? Please don't say that it's 'you' - that would be totally meaningless in the context of how 'you' make choices.

...and to consciously contemplate the reality we exist in and come to consciously verified conclusions.

More unwarranted, baseless assumptions about consciousness.   

Past events alone are not capable of reaching consciously verifiable conclusions.

Another unargued assertion fallacy (dimwitted logical mistake).

[torridon]

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

Which is merely an evasive sidestep which clearly does not answer the question. I have provided numerous examples and scenarios on this thread illustrating how I believe minds work with respect to decision making; however you never, ever, repay the compliment, preferring evasion to actual engagement with ideas, offering only meaningless soundbites and platitudes.  People will draw their conclusions from your apparent inability or unwillingness to think such things through.

[Alan Burns]

Which is merely an evasive sidestep which clearly does not answer the question. I have provided numerous examples and scenarios on this thread illustrating how I believe minds work with respect to decision making; however you never, ever, repay the compliment, preferring evasion to actual engagement with ideas, offering only meaningless soundbites and platitudes.  People will draw their conclusions from your apparent inability or unwillingness to think such things through.

None of the examples you have offered come anywhere near to explaining the reality of the freedom we all enjoy.

It is so sad that you cannot acknowledge or appreciate the amazing gift of freedom God has given us.

The freedom to pray, to worship or to love as God intended.

Instead you try to tie us down to be entirely driven by inevitable reactions to past events which effectively means we cannot possibly do anything other than what is dictated by the electro-chemical activity in our material brain.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

None of the examples you have offered come anywhere near to explaining the reality of the freedom we all enjoy.

You have no arguments to justify your claims about what that “reality” is.

It is so sad that you cannot acknowledge or appreciate the amazing gift of freedom God has given us.

You have no arguments to justify your claims about there being such a god.

The freedom to pray, to worship or to love as God intended.

You have no arguments to justify any of these claims.

Instead you try to tie us down to be entirely driven by inevitable reactions to past events which effectively means we cannot possibly do anything other than what is dictated by the electro-chemical activity in our material brain.

No, he tries to “tie us down” to objective realities based on reason and evidence.

You claimed to have thought deeply about your faith beliefs, yet you’ve never shown any evidence here that you’ve thought deeply about anything, and nor even that you’re capable of it.

If you want your efforts here to be treated by people who can think as other than idiotic, then you need to stop evading the arguments you're given and the questions you’re asked and finally to try at least to address them.     

[Stranger]

None of the examples you have offered come anywhere near to explaining the reality of the freedom we all enjoy.

It is so sad that you cannot acknowledge or appreciate the amazing gift of freedom God has given us.

The freedom to pray, to worship or to love as God intended.

Instead you try to tie us down to be entirely driven by inevitable reactions to past events which effectively means we cannot possibly do anything other than what is dictated by the electro-chemical activity in our material brain.

And back you scurry to the mindlessness of empty assertions and blind faith, so I'll go back to asking you to justify what you previously stated:

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

Were you just bearing false witness again?

[Alan Burns]

And back you scurry to the mindlessness of empty assertions and blind faith, so I'll go back to asking you to justify what you previously stated:

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

Were you just bearing false witness again?

You need to do some deep thinking about the logical impossibility for any type of consciously derived logical deductions to take place within the physically determined material reactions of a human brain.

[Stranger]

You need to do some deep thinking...

...about the logical impossibility for any type of consciously derived...

How do you know that anything is being "consciously derived"? How do you know that consciousness isn't constructed after the fact?

...logical deductions to take place within the physically determined material reactions of a human brain.

So where is the actual logical deduction for impossibly?

Assertion is not an argument. Personal incredulity is not an argument. Your post doesn't even look as if it might be a logical deduction.

A logical deduction consists of one or more premiss, some valid logical steps (not always necessary, for example, for a categorical syllogism) and a conclusion that follows.

So, I'll ask again:

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

Were you just bearing false witness again?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You need to do some deep thinking about the logical impossibility for any type of consciously derived logical deductions to take place within the physically determined material reactions of a human brain.

As it's your claim, why don't you finally demonstrate any thinking at all to justify it? 

[Sebastian Toe]

You need to do some deep thinking about the logical impossibility for any type of consciously derived logical deductions to take place within the physically determined material reactions of a human brain.

Whereas you need to do some deep thinking as to how you will ever persuade people that a "soul", which is completely dependent on magic and not a shred of actual logic, is a viable proposition.