Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your ability to reach a "'don't know for sure" position requires the conscious control which is denied by the materialist views on this forum.

No it doesn't.

My absolute certainty lies at the most fundamental point of my existence - my freedom to think.

When "you're absolutely" certain about something then no reasoning can be allowed to falsify you, no matter how sound it may be. And that's called blind faith.

Is that really the corner into which you want to paint yourself? 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

What would it take for you to admit that you can only type your assertions because invisible pixies are holding you down with very thin strings?

Look, this is very simple: if you think you can rely on unsound reasoning to justify your claim “souls”, then you cannot deny to me exactly the same unsound reasoning to justify my claim “gravity pixies”.

If you had the first inkling of what sound reasoning actually looks like you’d know why this is. Why won’t you try at least to find out how sound reasoning works?   

You have yet to convince me how sound reasoning can be achieved without the ability to consciously control and direct your own thoughts.

[jeremyp]

This post reeks of wanting to be shown gratitude for the freedoms others enjoy.

You've got this bit of replying to posts without understanding the context in which they were made.

Secular societies such as atheistic totalitarian states can be just as oppressive as theocratic totalitarian States.

For somebody who likes using big words, you sure seem to have a poor grasp of reading comprehension.

A secular society is one in which an individual's religion does not matter to the state. An atheistic totalitarian state - by which I assume you mean one that actively oppresses religion - is not a secular society.

[jeremyp]

This looks suspiciously like the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy does not apply if you exclude an example because it doesn't meet the original definition.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have yet to convince me how sound reasoning can be achieved without the ability to consciously control and direct your own thoughts.

You've yet to convince me of how you can sit there typing nonsense without invisible gravity pixies holding you down with very thin strings.

Can you even begin to comprehend why not being convinced by an incomplete explanation provides you with no support whatsoever for a different (and logically impossible) one?

Stop running away from the arguments that are undoing you and at least try to engage with them instead. 

[jeremyp]

Similarly we know our souls exist

No we don't.

[jeremyp]

I do not need a degree in neurology

So you agree you are arguing from a position of ignorance....

to realise that the freedom we all enjoy as human beings cannot be determined from material reactions alone.

Why not? All you've given us is you "know". How do you know? You don't know, you just have a belief that you have arrived at because you want it to be true. You can't change your mind or even question it.

Sounds like you have no free will lbut are a slave to your preconceived beliefs.

[Outrider]

How would you initiate and process such an investigation if you did not have the freedom to consciously control and direct your own thoughts?

Exactly as we have - following the evidence, inferring consequences from the assumption of possibilities and testing them. Our thought processes remain the phenomenon they are, and retain the capacity we've already demonstrated - that is not, of itself, evidence one way or the other.

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You've yet to convince me of how you can sit there typing nonsense without invisible gravity pixies holding you down with very thin strings.

Can you even begin to comprehend why not being convinced by an incomplete explanation provides you with no support whatsoever for a different (and logically impossible) one?

Stop running away from the arguments that are undoing you and at least try to engage with them instead.

The logical impossibility is the ability to apply logic without the need for conscious control.

[Alan Burns]

Exactly as we have - following the evidence, inferring consequences from the assumption of possibilities and testing them.

Can you do this while you are unconscious?
Can you not see the necessity of conscious control to perform these mental tasks successfully?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The logical impossibility is the ability to apply logic without the need for conscious control.

That's not an argument for a logical impossibility at all – it's just an unqualified assertion with no reasoning of any sort to justify it. In any case though, even if we agree that it's as close as you're likely to get to an argument, that argument isn't sound (in this case because it's just an argument by assertion). 

No matter how many times you stamp your foot and repeat the same idiocy of "to make argument I must be controlling my thoughts" that's still false (or no) reasoning so the claim fails on its face. In short: the argument should precede the conclusion, not the other way around.

Try to grasp this, and then to remember it the next time you're tempted to make the same mistake.   

[Alan Burns]

AB,

That's not an argument for a logical impossibility at all – it's just an unqualified assertion with no reasoning of any sort to justify it. In any case though, even if we agree that it's as close as you're likely to get to an argument, that argument isn't sound (in this case because it's just an argument by assertion). 

No matter how many times you stamp your foot and repeat the same idiocy of "to make argument I must be controlling my thoughts" that's still false (or no) reasoning so the claim fails on its face. In short: the argument precedes the conclusion, not the other way around.

Try to grasp this, and then to remember it the next time you're tempted to make the same mistake.

So what means did you employ to discern that conscious control of our thoughts must be a logical impossibility?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So what means did you employ to discern that conscious control of our thoughts must be a logical impossibility?

Cogent reasoning. You should try it. 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Cogent reasoning. You should try it.

What directs the cogent reasoning?
What tests its cogency?

[Gordon]

What directs the cogent reasoning?
What tests its cogency?

Brains, Alan.

[Alan Burns]

Secular society is not about selfishness but is about a fairer society for all.

I would hesitate to put my faith in human nature without God's guidance.
Before Christianity came along, the most advanced civilisation in the world were entertained by watching human beings get slaughtered in an arena.
I put it to you that without the profound influence of Christianity, our world as a whole would not have the desire for fairness we see today.

[Maeght]

I would hesitate to put my faith in human nature without God's guidance.
Before Christianity came along, the most advanced civilisation in the world were entertained by watching human beings get slaughtered in an arena.
I put it to you that without the profound influence of Christianity, our world as a whole would not have the desire for fairness we see today.

There are examples of such behaviour throughout history. Religious belief has in some instances acted to reduce such tendencies but in other cases have been the driving force and excuse for barbaric behaviour. I have more faith in the human nature of the majority of people - the empathy most people feel for other human beings, the wish to do no harm to others - and it is sad that you don't.

[Gordon]

I would hesitate to put my faith in human nature without God's guidance.
Before Christianity came along, the most advanced civilisation in the world were entertained by watching human beings get slaughtered in an arena.
I put it to you that without the profound influence of Christianity, our world as a whole would not have the desire for fairness we see today.

Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? Ever heard of religious persecution between Christians? 

I put it to you that you're over-egging the Christian pudding, again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? Ever heard of religious persecution between Christians? 

I put it to you that you're over-egging the Christian pudding, again.

Spanish Inquisition? Good job that ended, nothing bad happened ever again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

What directs the cogent reasoning?

What makes you think it needs to be “directed”?

What tests its cogency?

Real world experience.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I would hesitate to put my faith in human nature without God's guidance.

That should be “..without my faith belief in god’s guidance”. You’ve offered no sound reasoning to justify your assertion that there is a god, let alone your one specifically.

Before Christianity came along, the most advanced civilisation in the world were entertained by watching human beings get slaughtered in an arena.

Not true, and how are you defining “advanced” here in any case?

I put it to you that without the profound influence of Christianity, our world as a whole would not have the desire for fairness we see today.

And I put it to you that without Christianity (and any other religious faiths) a world build on the principles of Aristotle, Spinoza and Einstein instead would be much fairer than the one we have now.

[torridon]

Can you do this while you are unconscious?
Can you not see the necessity of conscious control to perform these mental tasks successfully?

Clearly you need to be conscious in order to engage in any abstract reasoning.

That doesn't distract from the fact that conscious experience itself is a product of non-conscious mental processes.  This has been explained dozens of times on this thread and you still don't get the distinction ?

[Sebastian Toe]

The logical impossibility is the ability to apply logic without the need for conscious control.

It is a logical impossibility for a soul as you describe it to exist.

[Alan Burns]

Clearly you need to be conscious in order to engage in any abstract reasoning.

That doesn't distract from the fact that conscious experience itself is a product of non-conscious mental processes.  This has been explained dozens of times on this thread and you still don't get the distinction ?

Your "explanation" is pure speculation in an attempt to shoe horn all our human abilities to fit in with materialistic thinking.

The explanations fail to convince how non conscious brain activity can possibly initiate and guide thought processes to perform reasoned arguments to arrive at validated conclusions which somehow pop into your conscious awareness.  We do not just experience the processing of reasoned arguments, we purposely guide the contents of our conscious awareness and memory to reach consciously chosen goals.

[Gordon]

Your "explanation" is pure speculation in an attempt to shoe horn all our human abilities to fit in with materialistic thinking.

The explanations fail to convince how non conscious brain activity can possibly initiate and guide thought processes to perform reasoned arguments to arrive at validated conclusions which somehow pop into your conscious awareness.  We do not just experience the processing of reasoned arguments, we purposely guide the contents of our conscious awareness and memory to reach consciously chosen goals.

Hopeless - rather than say 'I don't know' you prefer the panacea of superstitious nonsense.

If Christianity can do this to you then thank 'God' I'm not, and never have been, a Christian (or a theist of any stripe).