Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

...  The only feasible explanation for our ability to guide our own thoughts comes from the miraculous power of our conscious awareness to interact rather than just react in order to give us the freedom we all enjoy.

Surely the point about a miracle is that it isn't feasible?

[Alan Burns]

As soon as you cite the 'miraculous', Alan, you are in essence creating a fiction in which your 'God/Soul notions' are portrayed by you as being a key component in how we function: and that you are doing that is fairly obvious. This 'control' you hanker after is probably no more than our own material biology doing it's thing without requiring any help from the 'miraculous': and that is a consequence you can't accept or process, since it undermines the faith beliefs you cling to.

I simply believe in the the most fundamental human quality which is at the heart of my existence - my consciously driven freedom to think, to choose, to contemplate reality, to love and to be loved.
I know this gift of freedom is deemed to be a logical impossibility by many on this forum, but this does not change the fact that it is a reality we all enjoy.  It is what makes us human.

[Outrider]

I simply believe in the the most fundamental human quality which is at the heart of my existence - my consciously driven freedom to think, to choose, to contemplate reality, to love and to be loved.

What you believe is, to a degree, irrelevant. It's what you claim to be fact, what you claim to 'know' that is the issue.

I know this gift of freedom is deemed to be a logical impossibility by many on this forum, but this does not change the fact that it is a reality we all enjoy.

What people deem to be a logical impossibility itself does not change whether it's a fact, but you've yet to demonstrate that it's a fact. So far it's just been an assertion based upon your apparent belief.

It is what makes us human.

Cleaving to belief as fact, even in the face of evidence? You might be on to something there...

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I simply believe…

You are of course free to believe simply anything you like, no matter how unlikely. Your problem though remains the complete absence of a logically sound argument to take you from “I find explanation X implausible” to “explanation X is therefore impossible”.

Is that because you have no such argument, or because you don’t understand how such an argument should be constructed in principle even if you had one?

[jeremyp]

Unguided material reactions generate ever increasing chaos (entropy)

Overall, yes but clearly not true on a local scale.

our ability to think, to reason and to draw verifiable conclusions suggests guidance beyond what nature alone can give.

No it doesn't.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You are of course free to believe simply anything you like, no matter how unlikely. Your problem though remains the complete absence of a logically sound argument to take you from “I find explanation X implausible” to “explanation X is therefore impossible”.

Is that because you have no such argument, or because you don’t understand how such an argument should be constructed in principle even if you had one?

Logical arguments would not exist if you did not have the conscious freedom needed to formulate them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Logical arguments would not exist if you did not have the conscious freedom needed to formulate them.

Do you want me to explain where you’ve gone wrong again about this only for you to ignore the explanation once more, or do you want to have a go at working it out for yourself this time?

Tell you what, you can give it a go but I’ll give you a clue: the sentence “Logical arguments would not exist if you did not have the conscious freedom needed to formulate them” is itself an attempt at logic (albeit an incompetent one). That is, you cannot frame an argument for your beliefs that’s sound without logic as your a priori method.

Something?

Anything?   

[Enki]

The evidence lies in your ability to think - to guide your own thoughts.

That's an assertion, not evidence. For it to be evidence you would have to demonstrate that it is impossible for you(i.e. your brain) to be able to guide your thoughts without recourse to something 'beyond what nature alone can give'. This you have not done.

Can you not see how impossible it would be for reasoned arguments and verifiable conclusions to just drop out from the unavoidable, inevitable consequences of physically defined material reactions?

The answer to that is 'No'. Again this is not evidence, only an appeal to something that you believe is impossible and obviously think that others should also believe is impossible.

You can try to explain it all away by quoting the complexity of neural connections and pathways, but the bottom line is that in any material model we have no control over the physically defined material reactions in the human brain.

I am not explaining something 'away', I am attempting to explain it. As you do not give any evidence for your statement, then, bottom line or not, it simply comes over as yet another assertion.

The only feasible explanation for our ability to guide our own thoughts comes from the miraculous power of our conscious awareness to interact rather than just react in order to give us the freedom we all enjoy.

Once you use the word 'miraculous' you seem to give up all hope of trying to convince  by using evidence. Anyone can say just about anything is 'miraculous'. It explains nothing and is simply a fatuous use of language to attempt to convince by underhand methods. Not only is it silly, but it is wrong. For instance here is an eminently feasible and detailed explanation(there are others available) which discusses what parts are played by conscious and unconscious thought, no 'beyond what nature alone can give' in sight!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3724120/

To sum up. I asked you to produce evidence to support your conclusions. You have given none. My conclusion is that you are probably unable to do so and all you can produce are vague, half digested ideas which collapse as soon as they are put under scrutiny.

[torridon]

I simply believe in the the most fundamental human quality which is at the heart of my existence - my consciously driven freedom to think, to choose, to contemplate reality, to love and to be loved.
I know this gift of freedom is deemed to be a logical impossibility by many on this forum, but this does not change the fact that it is a reality we all enjoy.  It is what makes us human.

Calling this a 'gift' introduces problems.  A gift that is given to some but not others frames the giver as unfair. 

Perhaps other species do have this gift however, as research findings published a couple of days ago reveal that whales make democratic decisions and do so very slowly, indicating they take their time to ponder over joint decisions.  I guess they must also be 'free'.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/sperm-whales-research-clan-turn-right-b2476269.html

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Do you want me to explain where you’ve gone wrong again about this only for you to ignore the explanation once more, or do you want to have a go at working it out for yourself this time?

Tell you what, you can give it a go but I’ll give you a clue: the sentence “Logical arguments would not exist if you did not have the conscious freedom needed to formulate them” is itself an attempt at logic (albeit an incompetent one). That is, you cannot frame an argument for your beliefs that’s sound without logic as your a priori method.

Yes - we can all attempt logical arguments because we can use our miraculous gift of free will to consciously guide our thoughts to formulate the arguments within our conscious awareness.  Remove this gift of conscious freedom and what you have left is the uncontrollable consequences of physically driven material reactions with no means of conscious guidance or verification.

[Alan Burns]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3724120/

Another example of someone performing mental gymnastics trying to show that it can all be explained away by speculating that subconscious brain activity can somehow manipulate our conscious awareness 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes - we can all attempt logical arguments because we can use our miraculous gift of free will to consciously guide our thoughts to formulate the arguments within our conscious awareness.  Remove this gift of conscious freedom and what you have left is the uncontrollable consequences of physically driven material reactions with no means of conscious guidance or verification.

And yet again when you run out of road you scuttle back to blind faith claims rather than attempt actually to address the mistakes you make.

In your previous post you said “Logical arguments would not exist if you did not have the conscious freedom needed to formulate them”. For the reasons I explained this was an attempt at a logical deduction, albeit incompetently done. I told you why this is and I told you why your only alternative to blind faith claims is argument – that is to say, the logic must come before and justify the conclusion, not the other way around. 

Do you remember long ago and far away you claimed to have logically sound arguments to justify your beliefs and then that claim fell apart immediately you tried to demonstrate it? Well, that’s still the problem you have – if you want anyone to take your religious clams seriously you need finally to justify them with sound arguments, not throw mud at the wall with idiotic assertions like “gift” while you make your escape.

0/10. Try again.     

[Alan Burns]

that is to say, the logic must come before and justify the conclusion, not the other way around. 

You totally missed the point I was making.

Before you can use and apply logic to formulate your argument, you must have had a means to discern the logic in the first place.  It is this discernment which requires freedom to consciously guide your own thoughts to follow a logical path.   Your ability to discern and consciously recognise logic must come before you actually utilise it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You totally missed the point I was making.

No, I falsified the point you were attempting to make – which is a different matter.

Before you can use and apply logic to formulate your argument, you must have had a means to discern the logic in the first place.  It is this discernment which requires freedom to consciously guide your own thoughts to follow a logical path.   Your ability to discern and consciously recognise logic must come before you actually utilise it.

Whoosh!

As the point seems to have gone about 32,000ft over your head I’ll try it again using shorter words. What you have just tried to do there it to make an argument. Do you agree so far?

If you do agree, do you grasp that for an argument to be valid it must be logically sound?

If you do grasp that then do you also grasp that a statement such as “It is this discernment which requires freedom to consciously guide your own thoughts to follow a logical path” is also an attempt at an argument (or at least it’s a close as you get to an argument) and so it too must be logically sound.

OK then. The statement “It is this discernment which requires freedom to consciously guide your own thoughts to follow a logical path” is not logically sound for the reasons that have been explained to you many times without rebuttal. That is, the conclusions you assert are not supported by logically sound arguments to justify them.

Can you now grasp too why this is a problem for you? That is, can you see why claiming a “gift”, “controlling our thoughts” and the rest of the panoply of idiocies you attempt here can only be blind faith claims unless you can express justifying arguments for them that are logically sound?     

Why is this so difficult for you?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No, I falsified the point you were attempting to make – which is a different matter.

Whoosh!

As the point seems to have gone about 32,000ft over your head I’ll try it again using shorter words. What you have just tried to do there it to make an argument. Do you agree so far?

If you do agree, do you grasp that for an argument to be valid it must be logically sound?

If you do grasp that then do you also grasp that a statement such as “It is this discernment which requires freedom to consciously guide your own thoughts to follow a logical path” is also an attempt at an argument (or at least it’s a close as you get to an argument) and so it too must be logically sound.

OK then. The statement “It is this discernment which requires freedom to consciously guide your own thoughts to follow a logical path” is not logically sound for the reasons that have been explained to you many times without rebuttal. That is, the conclusions you assert are not supported by logically sound arguments to justify them.

Can you now grasp too why this is a problem for you? That is, can you see why claiming a “gift”, “controlling our thoughts” and the rest of the panoply of idiocies you attempt here can only be blind faith claims unless you can express justifying arguments for them that are logically sound?     

Why is this so difficult for you?

Frankly I am at a loss to comprehend how you can possibly claim any credence in the logic you espouse and at the same time deny your own ability to have conscious control of the thought processes used to formulate the logic.
It is not blind faith.
It is simply a witness to the reality of the demonstrable conscious freedom we all enjoy and use to make sense of our existence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Frankly I am at a loss to comprehend how you can possibly claim any credence in the logic you espouse and at the same time deny your own ability to have conscious control of the thought processes used to formulate the logic.

Why are you at a loss to understand that given that it’s understandable by any averagely bright twelve-year-old and given that I’ve put the argument you continue to ignore in as close to monosyllabic terms as I can manage?

It is not blind faith.

Absent any sound reasoning to justify it, that’s exactly what it is.

It is simply a witness to the reality of the demonstrable conscious freedom we all enjoy and use to make sense of our existence.

It’s not “a witness” to anything – it’s an assertion that the subjective experience of something must also be the objective explanation for it even when that explanation is logically impossible for the reasons that keep being explained to you and that you keep ignoring.

Once again: if you want your claims and assertions to be taken seriously then you must justify them with logically sound arguments. The argument comes first, and its conclusion second. What you do is begin and end with your conclusion, and just dispense with the justifying argument precondition entirely. You do this presumably because your brain has been so boiled with religious idiocies that you cannot bear to contemplate the possibility that you’re wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that unqualified and logically impossible conclusions is all you have. In other words, blind faith.   

[SteveH]

Frankly I am at a loss to comprehend how you can possibly claim any credence in the logic you espouse and at the same time deny your own ability to have conscious control of the thought processes used to formulate the logic.

Why are you at a loss to understand that given that it’s understandable by any averagely bright twelve-year-old and given that I’ve put the argument you continue to ignore in as close to monosyllabic terms as I can manage?

I think what AB is getting at is what has been called the argument from reason, championed by, inter alia, CS Lewis, who also said something like (I'm quoting from memory) "any argument for strict materialism turns out to be an argument against the possibility of arguments". As JBS Haldane put it,  "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_reason

[Enki]

Another example of someone performing mental gymnastics trying to show that it can all be explained away by speculating that subconscious brain activity can somehow manipulate our conscious awareness 

As I thought, it seems you cannot respond with any of the evidence I asked for to support your views. That is most noticable in your response here where you ignore everything I said, and only refer to the link I incorporated where your only response even on this was to produce a snide remark about the author 'explaining away' and performing 'mental gymnastics', totally ignoring any of the arguments and evidence given in support and then distorting the article's main thrust that human behaviour "is likely a product of conscious and unconscious processes working together." 

What does that say about your faith, do you think?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

I think what AB is getting at is what has been called the argument from reason, championed by, inter alia, CS Lewis, who also said something like (I'm quoting from memory) "any argument for strict materialism turns out to be an argument against the possibility of arguments". As JBS Haldane put it,  "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_reason

Both then make the same mistake that Vlad makes about philosophical materialism – ie, that it makes or relies on claims of “truth” as some kind of absolute that’s knowable. Like beauty or morality, truths exist only as expressions of our ability to discern them. Whether or not they also map to an ultimate, “out there” reality is unknowable.

If it helps, think of statements we call “true” just as the ones with the fewest reasons to think to be wrong. Materialism provides “truths” insofar as, say, it’s true that germs cause diseases because that’s what the available evidence tells us, whereas storks delivering babies is “not true” because there’s no evidence for it. That’s not to say though that, if ever further evidence to this effect was available, it might not be more true/less untrue that diseases are a caused by invoking bad sprits, and that storks do indeed deliver babies.   

That by the way is why the strongest claims to truths that science itself makes are called theories, not absolutes.     

[Alan Burns]

I think what AB is getting at is what has been called the argument from reason, championed by, inter alia, CS Lewis, who also said something like (I'm quoting from memory) "any argument for strict materialism turns out to be an argument against the possibility of arguments". As JBS Haldane put it,  "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_reason

Thanks for this, Steve

I had not come across the examples you gave, but they do reinforce the simple logical argument I have been putting forward on this thread:

Put simply - the ability to produce any logical argument offers ample evidence for the existence of the human free will needed to formulate an argument by conscious guidance of the thought processes involved.  Without such conscious guidance, there can be no credibility given to the consequences of uncontrollable reactions by material elements in the brain.

[Sebastian Toe]

Thanks for this, Steve

I had not come across the examples you gave, but they do reinforce the simple logical argument I have been putting forward on this thread:

Put simply - the ability to produce any logical argument offers ample evidence for the existence of the human free will needed to formulate an argument by conscious guidance of the thought processes involved.  Without such conscious guidance, there can be no credibility given to the consequences of uncontrollable reactions by material elements in the brain.

And still, your vehicle the "soul" requires magic to work.
Magic!
Anything that requires magic to work can be dismissed out of hand in the real world.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

SteveH,

Both then make the same mistake that Vlad makes about philosophical materialism – ie, that it makes or relies on claims of “truth” as some kind of absolute that’s knowable. Like beauty or morality, truths exist only as expressions of our ability to discern them. Whether or not they also map to an ultimate, “out there” reality is unknowable.

If it helps, think of statements we call “true” just as the ones with the fewest reasons to think to be wrong. Materialism provides “truths” insofar as, say, it’s true that germs cause diseases because that’s what the available evidence tells us, whereas storks delivering babies is “not true” because there’s no evidence for it. That’s not to say though that, if ever further evidence to this effect was available, it might not be more true/less untrue that diseases are a caused by invoking bad sprits, and that storks do indeed deliver babies.   

That by the way is why the strongest claims to truths that science itself makes are called theories, not absolutes.   

Strict philosophical materialism can only be a belief Hillside since it hasn't been proved or evidenced nor is the entire material universe evidence for it unless you would like to prove it here while simultaneously claiming it isn't absolutely true.

Alternatively, if your post is a ruse to get me to 'come out and play' you seem to have succeeded.

[torridon]

Put simply - the ability to produce any logical argument offers ample evidence for the existence of the human free will needed to formulate an argument by conscious guidance of the thought processes involved...

This is not evidence for free will, it is merely evidence of will, and is thus compatible with a deterministic model of mind.The very idea that we could choose which thought should come next is plain bonkers.

[Alan Burns]

This is not evidence for free will, it is merely evidence of will, and is thus compatible with a deterministic model of mind.The very idea that we could choose which thought should come next is plain bonkers.

It is evidence that our will is determined and guided by our conscious mind to achieve a consciously chosen goal.

Your materialistic model reduces the role of our conscious awareness to be just a spectator of what has already been determined by the uncontrollable consequences of physical reactions - with no viable means of conscious verification.

[ekim]

It is evidence that our will is determined and guided by our conscious mind to achieve a consciously chosen goal.

Your materialistic model reduces the role of our conscious awareness to be just a spectator of what has already been determined by the uncontrollable consequences of physical reactions - with no viable means of conscious verification.

Torridon's comment included the words 'free will' which you have omitted from your reply.  You need to look deeper into what motivates the choice of a particular goal.  You might see that a desire is involved.  If you can't see how this impinges upon your notion of 'free will' then perhaps you are not as conscious as you would like to believe.