Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

You are presuming that this material universe is a closed entity of cause and effect.

It certainly seems that way, thank goodness: if it weren't then we would be living in a chaotic and completely unpredictable universe.

The reality is that there is substantial evidence for causes to be invoked from outside this closed entity in the form of human will and God's will whose origins cannot be understood or explained from within the observed laws of material behaviour within our universe.

Don't be silly: there is no such evidence. Moreover, and to compound your silliness, if your theory is that there are aspects that "cannot be understood or explained from within the observed laws of material behaviour within our universe" then on what basis could you cite reliable evidence for these if you have not "understood or explained" what you have proposed?

You cannot fully understand the workings of the human mind from a materialistic perspective.

Maybe not, since we don't know everything: but we do know enough to understand that the universe appears to be deterministic and that there is zero reliable evidence for superstitions involving supernatural agents at large - the fevered ramblings of the chronically religious isn't reliable evidence. Ironically though - that they are chronically religious is a characteristic of some people, and therefore is no more than just their particular biology at work and that is no more relevant than, say, that some people have food fads, or a liking for certain types of music or have a fondness for certain sports: religiosity seems just like any other personal trait.

In my view I can dismiss religion as having no personal relevance for as easily as I can avoid watching any form of dancing (which to me is utterly boring and not in the least entertaining) but then I do love motorcycling (though others may not). You see, Alan, you shouldn't conclude that what floats your boat also floats everyone else's boat too - that would be naive in the extreme.

Our ability to consciously apply our will within this material universe is evidenced throughout the history of mankind.  We are not controlled by past events - we are in control of our own destiny.

It just seems that way to you, Alan, but if you think more deeply you'd realise that your conclusions are too simplistic.

[Stranger]

You are presuming that this material universe is a closed entity of cause and effect.

It doesn't matter.

Whatever contemplates, controls, interacts, and makes choices necessarily exists in time. Therefore it is subject to cause and effect and either everything that happens is entirely because of previous causes or there is some randomness.

Your idea of 'free will' is an impossible contradiction regardless of whether "this material universe is a closed entity of cause and effect".

You need to stop the absurd and dishonest pretence that the only reason it can't be the case is because of the physical universe.

The reality is that there is substantial evidence for causes to be invoked from outside this closed entity in the form of human will and God's will...

As far as I can tell, either this is just a lie or you don't even understand what the word 'evidence' means.

You cannot fully understand the workings of the human mind from a materialistic perspective.

We can do a lot better than self-contradictory, impossible magic.

We are not controlled by past events - we are in control of our own destiny.

False dichotomy.

And...

Still waiting for the "simple logical deduction" you said you had.

Were you just bearing false witness again?

[Alan Burns]

"substantial evidence for causes to be invoked from outside this closed entity in the form of human will and God's will "

Really ? where is this evidence. We don't have any evidence for God, otherwise we would already have built scientific theories based on the evidence discovered to date.

Human will ? Again, where is the evidence for human will originating from outwith the bounds of cause and effect ? All the examples you have given on this thread such as being able to love or pray are entirely consistent with the principle of cause and effect, indeed, they require it. 'Outwith the bounds of cause and effect', anyway, means random, and again, I don't see we could point to examples of either gods or humans exhibiting truly random behaviours.

You did not seem to fully understand - I am not claiming an absence of cause and effect.  I am claiming evidence for causes beyond the bounds of the physically driven causes observed in our material universe over which we have no control.  Causes from which human creativity and God's creativity are evidenced in abundance but which are taken for granted and presumed to emerge from the crude process of natural selection from random mutations.  God's miracles and acts of human will do not override the laws of nature - they interact with it to bring about consciously intended goals.

[Gordon]

You did not seem to fully understand - I am not claiming an absence of cause and effect.  I am claiming evidence for causes beyond the bounds of the physically driven causes observed in our material universe over which we have no control.  Causes from which human creativity and God's creativity are evidenced in abundance but which are taken for granted and presumed to emerge from the crude process of natural selection from random mutations.  God's miracles and acts of human will do not override the laws of nature - they interact with it to bring about consciously intended goals.

Utter hogwash, Alan.

[Stranger]

I am claiming evidence for causes beyond the bounds of the physically driven causes observed in our material universe over which we have no control.

Firstly, no matter how hard you stamp your little foot, you have not provided even a single scrap of such evidence. Secondly, no matter how much you ignore it, it makes no logical difference to the impossibility of your absurd version of 'free will' whether the cause and effect are physical or not.

Causes from which human creativity and God's creativity are evidenced in abundance but which are taken for granted and presumed to emerge from the crude process of natural selection from random mutations.

You have provided no evidence and no sound reasoning to think that they don't. All the evidence tells us that they do.

God's miracles and acts of human will do not override the laws of nature - they interact with it to bring about consciously intended goals.

  Interaction requires time, time necessitates the logic of determinism (real meaning) versus randomness. Just ignoring a point doesn't make it go away.

Still waiting for the "simple logical deduction" you said you had.

Were you just bearing false witness again?

[Stranger]

You did not seem to fully understand...

Really Alan, I think everybody understands exactly what you're saying. We just don't accept it because it's obviously evidence-free, self-contradictory nonsense.

[jeremyp]

God's miracles and acts of human will do not override the laws of nature

They would have to. If God wants something different to happen than the course of events that the laws of nature dictate, he would have to override them.

[Alan Burns]

Really Alan, I think everybody understands exactly what you're saying. We just don't accept it because it's obviously evidence-free, self-contradictory nonsense.

To understand something you need the ability to consciously perceive what is in question and then consciously contemplate what you have perceived then consciously apply whatever logic you have within your conscious awareness in order to come to a conscious conclusion as to whether you accept it or not - it all happens and is controlled within your conscious awareness.  Yet the materialistic model denies such ability because our conscious awareness is deemed to be an emergent property from material reactions which have already occurred and were defined by previous physically determined reactions over which we have no conscious control.  Do you continue to dismiss the concept of conscious control of our thought processes?  Do you claim there is no evidence of our human ability to have conscious control of our thought processes?  Is it your ability to control your conscious thought processes which leads you to conclude that such ability is a logical impossibility?

[Alan Burns]

They would have to. If God wants something different to happen than the course of events that the laws of nature dictate, he would have to override them.

There is a difference between overriding and interaction.  We have the consciously driven power to interact with this material world in order to bring about consciously intended goals by manipulating the natural forces - not overriding them.

[jeremyp]

There is a difference between overriding and interaction.

Agreed.

We have the consciously driven power to interact with this material world in order to bring about consciously intended goals by manipulating the natural forces - not overriding them.

You say potato...

Manipulation of the natural laws is overriding them.

[Sebastian Toe]

  We have the consciously driven power to interact with this material world in order to bring about consciously intended goals by manipulating the natural forces -

How though?
How does your non-material "soul" interact with and manipulate within this material universe?

[Stranger]

To understand something you need the ability to consciously perceive what is in question and then consciously contemplate what you have perceived then consciously apply whatever logic you have within your conscious awareness in order to come to a conscious conclusion as to whether you accept it or not - it all happens and is controlled within your conscious awareness.

Unargued assertion fallacy (logical dimwittery).

Do you continue to dismiss the concept of conscious control of our thought processes?

"Conscious control" is both meaningless (you can't/won't properly define what you mean) and irrelevant because whatever role consciousness plays in our thought processes, the logic of determinism (real meaning) versus randomness still applies.

Do you claim there is no evidence of our human ability to have conscious control of our thought processes?  Is it your ability to control your conscious thought processes which leads you to conclude that such ability is a logical impossibility?

Blah, blah, blah. Don't you ever get tired of endlessly and thoughtlessly repeating the same old drivel over and over again?

Stop and think for once in your life, FFS! And, no that doesn't mean more mindless drivel along the lines of "how can I stop and think if..."

And you're still running away from this:

Still waiting for the "simple logical deduction" you said you had.

[Enki]

To understand something you need the ability to consciously perceive what is in question and then consciously contemplate what you have perceived then consciously apply whatever logic you have within your conscious awareness in order to come to a conscious conclusion as to whether you accept it or not - it all happens and is controlled within your conscious awareness.  Yet the materialistic model denies such ability because our conscious awareness is deemed to be an emergent property from material reactions which have already occurred and were defined by previous physically determined reactions over which we have no conscious control.  Do you continue to dismiss the concept of conscious control of our thought processes?  Do you claim there is no evidence of our human ability to have conscious control of our thought processes?  Is it your ability to control your conscious thought processes which leads you to conclude that such ability is a logical impossibility?

All of which happens in the mind which, as the overwhelming evidence shows, is a product of the brain. The idea of perceiving, contemplating, applying logic are processes which, whether conscious or not, are a product of the workings of the brain. There is no reason to consider these activities to be otherwise and there is no denial involved. As to conscious control of our thought processes, it doesn't seem to make much sense at all in the way you put it because it would simply mean thoughts controlling thoughts(ad infinitum). Also, as far as I know, there is no evidence whatever for causes which emanate from an unevidenced God or from an unevidenced soul. Certainly you have been unable to present any at all. Remember, assertion and incredulity don't count as evidence. Your whole line of argument seems totally bankrupt to me.

[Alan Burns]

Manipulation of the natural laws is overriding them.

Manipulation of natural forces is not overriding the laws of nature.
When I consciously choose to hit a snooker ball with a cue I am invoking an act of will which originates in my conscious awareness and travels down through a multitude of physically driven cause and effect events to make the cue hit the snooker ball as I consciously intended. 

[ekim]

We have the consciously driven power to interact with this material world in order to bring about consciously intended goals by manipulating the natural forces - not overriding them.

It could also be said that we have sub-conscious motivations in our interactions with the material world which drive us to manipulate natural forces for desired goals.  This casts doubts upon your idea of free will.

[jeremyp]

Manipulation of natural forces is not overriding the laws of nature.

Firstly, you wrote "God's miracles and acts of human will do not override the laws of nature" (my bolding). Are you now retracting that statement?

Secondly, manipulating the forces of nature so they don't do the things they would have done had they followed natural law is overriding the laws of nature.

When I consciously choose to hit a snooker ball with a cue I am invoking an act of will which originates in my conscious awareness and travels down through a multitude of physically driven cause and effect events to make the cue hit the snooker ball as I consciously intended.

Yes but your decision to hit the snooker ball is determined by previous events such as being involved in a game of snooker and having learned the rules at some point in your life. You make your decision of which direction in which to hit the cue ball by evaluating the existing positions of the balls on the table and by your experience and understanding of how the balls behave when hit.

[Alan Burns]

All of which happens in the mind which, as the overwhelming evidence shows, is a product of the brain.

The only evidence available is observed correlation of physical brain activity with consciously driven thought processes.  I would not consider this to be overwhelming as there is no physical definition of what comprises a thought and we are nowhere near being able to replicate conscious thoughts outside the human brain.

[Alan Burns]

Firstly, you wrote "God's miracles and acts of human will do not override the laws of nature" (my bolding). Are you now retracting that statement?

I am not retracting it - I am simply explaining that we can consciously interact with the natural world through acts of human will or God's will without overriding the natural laws.
This is explained very well by professor John Lennox in this brief clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f66FkDOskn8

Secondly, manipulating the forces of nature so they don't do the things they would have done had they followed natural law is overriding the laws of nature. Yes but your decision to hit the snooker ball is determined by previous events such as being involved in a game of snooker and having learned the rules at some point in your life. You make your decision of which direction in which to hit the cue ball by evaluating the existing positions of the balls on the table and by your experience and understanding of how the balls behave when hit.

It still needs a conscious act of will to set things in motion.

[jeremyp]

I am not retracting it - I am simply explaining that we can consciously interact with the natural world through acts of human will or God's will without overriding the natural laws.

That means our interactions must be in accordance with the natural laws so this "soul" must be part of the natural World subject to its laws. I'd be fine with that, if you could provide any evidence of this soul's existence.

[Gordon]

The only evidence available is observed correlation of physical brain activity with consciously driven thought processes.  I would not consider this to be overwhelming as there is no physical definition of what comprises a thought and we are nowhere near being able to replicate conscious thoughts outside the human brain.

But we know that thoughts are mental processes, and we know that all mental processes exclusively involve the biology within your skull - so a human thought can be defined, albeit crudely, as a few brain cells doing what they do within the human brain: you're peddling nonsense. 

The idea that that we could ever  "replicate conscious thoughts outside the human brain" is laughable as things stand.

[jeremyp]

The only evidence available is observed correlation of physical brain activity with consciously driven thought processes.

Do you not think that's pretty good evidence? Especially given that there is no evidence at all for any alternative explanation.

[Stranger]

I am not retracting it - I am simply explaining that we can consciously interact with the natural world through acts of human will or God's will without overriding the natural laws.

Are you trying to be as absurd as possible? If the brain obeys the laws at all times then there can be no external interaction. An external interaction is overriding the laws of nature.

What the hell is the point of trying to claim otherwise?

This is explained very well by professor John Lennox in this brief clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f66FkDOskn8

   He's just playing stupid word games.

[Alan Burns]

That means our interactions must be in accordance with the natural laws so this "soul" must be part of the natural World subject to its laws. I'd be fine with that, if you could provide any evidence of this soul's existence.

The power to consciously interact must come from outside the natural laws of physically driven cause and effect in order to give us the freedom we all enjoy.

[Outrider]

The power to consciously interact must come from outside the natural laws of physically driven cause and effect in order to give us the freedom we all enjoy.

Flawed premise.

O.

[Stranger]

The power to consciously interact must come from outside the natural laws of physically driven cause and effect in order to give us the freedom we all enjoy.

Unargued assertion fallacy (logical dimwittery), yet again.

What's more, you're just piling contradiction onto contradiction. Quite apart from an external interaction being something that overrides the laws of physics, you are still running scared from the logic.

Anything that interacts, must logically take time to do so. Whatever is interacting must be within a time dimension, and so is subject to the basic logic of either being a deterministic system (real meaning) or not (and hence involving randomness).