Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Nope. Why do you think that being able to assert things means you have free will?

Well - it all starts with my freedom to think.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Well - it all starts with my freedom to think.

And it ends with you being demonstrably very bad at it. 

[Alan Burns]

You mean like the expansion of Islam (quicker than Christianity, more widely persecuted for some time than the Christians)?

Christians are still the most persecuted religion, and it is on the increase:

In 2022, advocacy group Open Doors said that at least 360 million Christians experienced “high levels of persecution and discrimination.” This was 20 million higher than 2021. The group also estimated that the number of Christians killed for their faith rose to 5,898 in 2022, up from 4,761 in 2021.
14 Nov 2022

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Christians are still the most persecuted religion, and it is on the increase:...

Relevance?

[Stranger]

Well - it all starts with my freedom to think.

If you have freedom to think, why don't you?

How do you know that every thought you have is note the result of nature, nurture, and experience, let alone demonstrate it. It's impossible.

And you are still ignoring the logic:

• You cannot think in zero time.
• If it can't be done in zero time, then it can't be done without time or in some 'present' moment.
• Time-based activities are either deterministic systems or they are not.
• If they are deterministic systems, then everything happens for reasons that exist before they happen and there is only one possible outcome.
• If they are not deterministic systems, then they involve randomness.
• Hence any notion of 'free will', in which you could have done differently without that difference being random, is impossible.

[Outrider]

Christians are still the most persecuted religion, and it is on the increase:

In 2022, advocacy group Open Doors said that at least 360 million Christians experienced “high levels of persecution and discrimination.” This was 20 million higher than 2021. The group also estimated that the number of Christians killed for their faith rose to 5,898 in 2022, up from 4,761 in 2021. 14 Nov 2022

Which is completely irrelevant to the early Christian martyrs you were talking about, or the early Muslims I was talking about. I know that victim mentality is reflexive, but you could have at least addressed the point I made after you'd automatically made out like your life is terrible.

O.

[jeremyp]

A very powerful witness - hard to argue with this one
please watch it to the end
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upTofuSIcVM

https://www.whyislam.org/from-christianity-to-islam-how-i-became-muslim/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd7EbhnJb_8

https://themontclarion.org/opinion/why-i-converted-to-islam/

[jeremyp]

Well - it all starts with my freedom to think.

No it doesn't. It needs to start with your ability to assert things and then progress by a series of logical steps to the conclusion which is free will.

This is what we are looking for: the logical argument you claim to have, but never quite get round to writing down.

[Alan Burns]

No it doesn't. It needs to start with your ability to assert things and then progress by a series of logical steps to the conclusion which is free will.

This is what we are looking for: the logical argument you claim to have, but never quite get round to writing down.

But what can control the steps in forming a logical argument if we have no conscious freedom to control our own thought processes?

As I have pointed out many times - the materialist view effectively reduces our conscious awareness to be a window on what has already been determined outside our conscious control.  If we have no feasible mechanism for conscious verification of the logical processing how can it claim any credibility?

[Sebastian Toe]

But what can control the steps in forming a logical argument if we have no conscious freedom to control our own thought processes?

As I have pointed out many times - the materialist view effectively reduces our conscious awareness to be a window on what has already been determined outside our conscious control.  If we have no feasible mechanism for conscious verification of the logical processing how can it claim any credibility?

Yet your "soul" requires magic and logicless based "logic".
Credible it isn't and never will be.

[torridon]

But what can control the steps in forming a logical argument if we have no conscious freedom to control our own thought processes?

As I have pointed out many times - the materialist view effectively reduces our conscious awareness to be a window on what has already been determined outside our conscious control.  If we have no feasible mechanism for conscious verification of the logical processing how can it claim any credibility?

As usual, this is just your characteristic sidestep to avoid answering the question.  The conclusion we draw, is that you have no logical argument to offer, and prefer to hide behind the fog over the role of consciousness in human cognition.  Not impressed.

[Gordon]

Let's face it, Alan, all this waffle of yours reduces to two main points.

1. You desperately want your faith beliefs to be considered as being evidenced, rational and logical, and they are none of these things. Moreover, as far as I can see, the RC church that you are a member of is not promoting your particular bespoke ideas as being a credible argument for 'God', and that should concern you.

2. You cannot countenance that mental processes (thoughts, consciousness etc) are no more than functional biology because the consequence, for you, is that your 'God/soul' claims become redundant, and that would threaten your personal faith. Perhaps that is a risk/threat that the subconscious aspects of your biology simply won't let you take so that, and ironically, you have no choice but to keep posting as you do despite being corrected so many times.

[jeremyp]

But what can control the steps in forming a logical argument if we have no conscious freedom to control our own thought processes?

I’m not asking you what can control the steps, I’m asking you what the steps are. You claim to have a logical argument. What is it?

[Stranger]

Still running away from providing the logic you claim to have.

But what can control the steps in forming a logical argument if we have no conscious freedom to control our own thought processes [meaningless gibberish]?

Apart from being meaningless nonsense, this is a shifting the burden of proof fallacy (logical dimwittery).

As I have pointed out many times...

Yes, your supply of logical dimwittery (fallacies) seems limitless. Why don't you ever learn anything? What are you afraid of?

...the materialist view effectively reduces our conscious awareness to be a window on what has already been determined outside our conscious control.

Appeal to consequences logical dimwittery (fallacy).

If we have no feasible mechanism for conscious verification of the logical processing how can it claim any credibility?

Already answered multiple times. Why mindlessly repeat questions that have been answered without addressing the answers? Why don't you ever stop, think, and address the answers? Why don't you ever address the endless fallacies you keep falling into? Don't you care that you're making basic mistakes in logic?

Why all the running away?
What are you afraid of?
Where is the "simple logical deduction" you said you had?

[Nearly Sane]

What was once a mewling prattling infant of a thread has just passed 3,000,000 views. It's now elderly but still mewling and prattling.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

One of the various fallacies on which your opinions rest is the argumentum ad consequentiam ("if we're just biological machines how can we be held accountable for our actions?" etc). Here's Robert Sapolsky explaining why the criminal justice system (as well as reward-based systems) makes no sense.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/robert-sapolsky-i-dont-think-we-have-any-free-will-whatsoever/

(The free will/criminal justice part begins around 30.00)

[Nearly Sane]

AB,

One of the various fallacies on which your opinions rest is the argumentum ad consequentiam ("if we're just biological machines how can we be held accountable for our actions?" etc). Here's Robert Sapolsky explaining why the criminal justice system (as well as reward-based systems) makes no sense.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/robert-sapolsky-i-dont-think-we-have-any-free-will-whatsoever/

(The free will/criminal justice part begins around 30.00)

I agree with Sapolsky that free will is an illusion, though I would probably phrase it more as a nonsensical concept. The problem with his position is he then argues as if it does exist. He writes a paper on the criminal justice system because he thinks it should be reformed rather than saying that whatever justice system we have is the one we will have.

I've not encountered anyone or any argument which on the day to day level of living doesn't implicitly accept that there is something like the notional idea of free will. Lots of the discussion on this thread seems to me to elide diffetent levels of discussion, and it leads to confusion.

When AB asks stuff like 'Do you honestly think you are not making choices about things through a rational process'? It's because on the day to day level that's how we talk, how, I would suggest, we have no choice to talk about in any other way.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I agree with Sapolsky that free will is an illusion, though I would probably phrase it more as a nonsensical concept. The problem with his position is he then argues as if it does exist. He writes a paper on the criminal justice system because he thinks it should be reformed rather than saying that whatever justice system we have is the one we will have.

I’m not sure I see that as a problem as such. As you suggest we’re just playing out our roles as if we have “free” will, while at an underlying level it’s actually our interacting neurons that are doing their thing – including creating a sense of selfhood. AB’s ghost in the machine “soul” is just an attempt to reify with a mechanism that “as if” into a fact rather than the functionally useful fiction it is.

So what though? The “I” that exists at an experiential level feels love, frustration, pleasure, desire etc just as keenly as a stand-alone “I” would with AB’s notional (albeit incoherent and logically impossible) model. Thus Sapolsky can make his arguments and I can respond to them quite happily inside the “as if” paradigm notwithstanding the knowledge that we’re each just playing out deterministic imperatives.   

I've not encountered anyone or any argument which on the day to day level of living doesn't implicitly accept that there is something like the notional idea of free will. Lots of the discussion on this thread seems to me to elide diffetent levels of discussion, and it leads to confusion.

When AB asks stuff like 'Do you honestly think you are not making choices about things through a rational process'? It's because on the day to day level that's how we talk, how, I would suggest, we have no choice to talk about in any other way.

Yes, I agree. For any sort of discourse to occur though evolution has bequeathed us the colloquial “I” model that we all accept for practical purposes. Sapolsky’s point though I think is that the institutions we’ve developed (criminal justice, marriage etc) based on the idea of actual free will may not survive our comparatively more recent understanding of the “as if” free will.       

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

...
Yes, I agree. For any sort of discourse to occur though evolution has bequeathed us the colloquial “I” model that we all accept for practical purposes. Sapolsky’s point though I think is that the institutions we’ve developed (criminal justice, marriage etc) based on the idea of actual free will may not survive our comparatively more recent understanding of the “as if” free will.     

It's a point that is a Moebius strip of pointlessness. If we have no free will, what was and is going to happen, leaving aside any randomness, will happen. You can't talk about what the justice system 'should' look like if there is no free will because there is no 'should' if there is no free wil, there simply is what is. Sapolsky is making the same mistake about levels, and switching between those levels as if it makes no difference. In day to day discussion, the idea that we have no free will is as relevant as the idea that the universe might be just a part of an atom in a giant's fingernail, and that there might be universes in the atoms that make up us.

It's the sort of thing that needs a lot of dope and adolescence to be anything more than a deepity on a day to day basis.

[jeremyp]

What was once a mewling prattling infant of a thread has just passed 3,000,000 views. It's now elderly but still mewling and prattling.

The great thing about it is that you can dip in just about anywhere and it's exactly the same.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The great thing about it is that you can dip in just about anywhere and it's exactly the same.

You mean it's fractal?..........i.e. It's doing fract all good for anyone and people keep saying fract all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then why would you expect anyone to take your faith claims seriously?

Why not? You presumably accept the idea of objective facts. What method then other than the application of reason would you propose to identify them?

Relevance?

Gibberish. You’re the one making the faith claims – it’s your job therefore to find justifications for anyone else to take them seriously.

I have exactly the same faculty for objective facts as you Hillside. What I don't share with you is your belief AKA faith claim that the rounded human being is defined merely by the acquisition and retention of objective facts.

That belief is shared by Pinker and if he disagrees at any point with your belief then that is probably merely his belief and it is the discussion of Pinker's belief you have deliberately distracted us from.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

One of the various fallacies on which your opinions rest is the argumentum ad consequentiam ("if we're just biological machines how can we be held accountable for our actions?" etc). Here's Robert Sapolsky explaining why the criminal justice system (as well as reward-based systems) makes no sense.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/robert-sapolsky-i-dont-think-we-have-any-free-will-whatsoever/

(The free will/criminal justice part begins around 30.00)

Thanks for giving me another opportunity to witness to the reality of our gift of free will. 

SAPOLSKY: I don’t think we have any free will whatsoever. I think we are the outcomes of the sheer random, good and bad biological luck that each of us has stumbled into.

So how do we give credence to whatever bubbles up from "the outcomes of the sheer random, good and bad biological luck "?

In coming to this profound conclusion Sapolsky aptly demonstrates the conscious freedom needed to guide his thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions - the freedom he tries to deny.

Once more, I acknowledge the reality of our amazing God given gift of freedom which no amount of misguided human logic can take away.

Our freedom to worship God.
Our freedom to ignore God.
Our freedom to seek reasons to deny the need for God.
Our freedom to consciously deduce that such freedom must be an illusion

[Sebastian Toe]

Thanks for giving me another opportunity to witness to the reality of our gift of free will. 

SAPOLSKY: I don’t think we have any free will whatsoever. I think we are the outcomes of the sheer random, good and bad biological luck that each of us has stumbled into.

So how do we give credence to whatever bubbles up from "the outcomes of the sheer random, good and bad biological luck "?

In coming to this profound conclusion Sapolsky aptly demonstrates the conscious freedom needed to guide his thoughts to reach verifiable conclusions - the freedom he tries to deny.

Once more, I acknowledge the reality of our amazing God given gift of freedom which no amount of misguided human logic can take away.

Our freedom to worship God.
Our freedom to ignore God.
Our freedom to seek reasons to deny the need for God.
Our freedom to consciously deduce that such freedom must be an illusion

Thank you for providing the opportunity to show that your biological brain works just fine without the need to claim "soul' combined with magic .

[Dicky Underpants]

You mean it's fractal?..........i.e. It's doing fract all good for anyone and people keep saying fract all.

Is that "people" all inclusive?
Or more on the lines of "The whole world's gone mad (except me, of course)"?