Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

As I have pointed out many times on this thread, I know my soul exists because of what it does - I do not need to know how it does it.

You don't 'know', Alan, since if you did 'souls' would be an item of knowledge (with evidence, methods, known properties etc), and that simply isn't the case.

You have an unjustified, and possibly unjustifiable, belief - and that is a very different thing: and you should surely be able to understand this by now.

[Outrider]

As I have pointed out many times on this thread, I know my soul exists because of what it does - I do not need to know how it does it.

And as has been pointed out, if you can't show how it is that you elevate what you believe or what you feel into something independently verifiable in some way, you don't actually 'know', you just believe.

You believe you have a soul, but you can't 'know' that you do because you can't explain how you come to that knowledge, you just have a feeling.

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

As I have pointed out many times on this thread, I know my soul exists because of what it does - I do not need to know how it does it.

Are you forgetting that many times on this thread that you have claimed that the physical brain adherents can't possibly be correct because science has as of yet been unable to fully describe how consciousness works?
Yet her you are , basically a hypocrite in your reply!

In that case the next time, and there will be a next time that you make your "science can't fully describe...." claim the response should be:
I know my physical brain works without the need of a magical soul, because of what it does.
 - I do not need to know how it does it.

Perfectly valid response isn't it?

[Alan Burns]

And as has been pointed out, if you can't show how it is that you elevate what you believe or what you feel into something independently verifiable in some way, you don't actually 'know', you just believe.

You believe you have a soul, but you can't 'know' that you do because you can't explain how you come to that knowledge, you just have a feeling.

O.

It has been claimed many times in this thread that our ability to exert conscious control of our thoughts is logically impossible.
Yet in order to get to this reasoned argument you need to consciously control and verify the validity of the thought processes involved.
How can you possibly claim validity to a conclusion which has emanated from material reactions beyond our conscious control?
The fact that we can consciously formulate reasoned argument and consciously validate them is ample evidence that we comprise more than unavoidable material reactions.  It is more than a feeling - it is a demonstrable truth.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It has been claimed many times in this thread that our ability to exert conscious control of our thoughts is logically impossible.

It has been claimed many times in this thread that invisible pixies’ ability to exert control of gravity with very thin strings is logically impossible.

Yet in order to get to this reasoned argument you need to consciously control and verify the validity of the thought processes involved.

Yet in order to prevent stuff just floating around invisible pixies must be stopping that happening with very thin strings.

How can you possibly claim validity to a conclusion which has emanated from material reactions beyond our conscious control?

How can you possibly claim validity for an explanation which has emanated from material reactions beyond invisible pixies’ string-based control?

The fact that we can consciously formulate reasoned argument and consciously validate them is ample evidence that we comprise more than unavoidable material reactions.  It is more than a feeling - it is a demonstrable truth.

The fact that there must be pixies holding stuff down with strings is ample evidence that gravity comprises more than unavoidable material reactions. It is more than a feeling - it is a demonstrable truth.

Can you identify a flaw in my reasoning here which, after all, is identical to the reasoning you’ve just attempted too?

[Outrider]

It has been claimed many times in this thread that our ability to exert conscious control of our thoughts is logically impossible.

Yep.

Yet in order to get to this reasoned argument you need to consciously control and verify the validity of the thought processes involved.

Nope. Your brain decides that it's going to say that, and your conscious awareness of that decision happens afterwards, we've shown that experimentally.

How can you possibly claim validity to a conclusion which has emanated from material reactions beyond our conscious control?

Because an argument stands on its merits, not on its origin. It doesn't matter who offers the argument, or how they came by it, it matters whether the logic holds.

The fact that we can consciously formulate reasoned argument and consciously validate them is ample evidence that we comprise more than unavoidable material reactions.

No. The fact that you describe it as a 'fact' that we consciously formulate arguments is belied by the neuroscience that shows we don't consciously formulate arguments, we become aware of the logic we've used to formulate an argument after our brain has done the logic for us. Even if we were consciously formulating the argument, of course, that wouldn't demonstrate that we were something more than material reactions, but your argument was flawed before that.

It is more than a feeling - it is a demonstrable truth.

Then demonstrate it, but you just keep asserting it.

O.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It has been claimed many times in this thread that invisible pixies’ ability to exert control of gravity with very thin strings is logically impossible.

Yet in order to prevent stuff just floating around invisible pixies must be stopping that happening with very thin strings.

How can you possibly claim validity for an explanation which has emanated from material reactions beyond invisible pixies’ string-based control?

The fact that there must be pixies holding stuff down with strings is ample evidence that gravity comprises more than unavoidable material reactions. It is more than a feeling - it is a demonstrable truth.

Can you identify a flaw in my reasoning here which, after all, is identical to the reasoning you’ve just attempted too?

You have just demonstrated beyond any possible doubt that you had the conscious freedom to think up this pixie based argument 

[Alan Burns]

Because an argument stands on its merits, not on its origin. It doesn't matter who offers the argument, or how they came by it, it matters whether the logic holds.

So what can possibly make the judgement over which arguments are false and which are true if no one has the conscious freedom to contemplate the facts and asses the validity of the argument?

Are you implying that the consequences of your unavoidable material reactions are somehow superior to mine without any ability to consciously make a judgement?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have just demonstrated beyond any possible doubt that you had the conscious freedom to think up this pixie based argument   

As your computer didn’t just float away you have just demonstrated beyond any possible doubt that invisible pixies held it down with very thin strings.

Again: if you continue to rely on flat wrong arguments to justify your claim “souls” on what basis can you deny me my reliance on exactly the same wrong arguments to justify my claim “invisible pixies”?

You can keep running away all you like, but the question doesn’t go away just because you do run away. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Are you implying that the consequences of your unavoidable material reactions are somehow superior to mine without any ability to consciously make a judgement?

Anyone capable of rational reasoning has explanations superior to yours.

[Outrider]

So what can possibly make the judgement over which arguments are false and which are true if no one has the conscious freedom to contemplate the facts and asses the validity of the argument?

You can. You just can't consciously decide whether you are going to or not, you can't consciously decide what of your past knowledge you're going to use when formulating the judgement, you might become consciously aware of it after it's happened though.

Are you implying that the consequences of your unavoidable material reactions are somehow superior to mine without any ability to consciously make a judgement?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I became aware of the superior logic of my argument after my brain formulated that logic, and you're not becoming aware of it because your subconscious activity is already trained to reject logic in favour of sentiment, feeling, hunches and your preconceived notion of 'soul'. At least now, though, it seems that your consciously aware that your brain accurately recognises the activity pattern that I'm describing, even if it doesn't accept it - you never know, that might the first steps of realisation happening to you in the background.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Again: if you continue to rely on flat wrong arguments to justify your claim “souls” on what basis can you deny me my reliance on exactly the same wrong arguments to justify my claim “invisible pixies”?

By making your claim of invisible pixies, you are justifying my claim that you are not entirely determined by material reactions beyond your conscious control.  Could the uncontrollable laws of physics have really invented your attempt to ridicule my arguments using invisible pixies, or did you use your gift of conscious freedom to think up this bizarre comparison?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Anyone capable of rational reasoning has explanations superior to yours.

The capability of rational reasoning is beyond the uncontrollable consequences of material reactions.

[Alan Burns]

I became aware of the superior logic of my argument after my brain formulated that logic ....

O.

But how did your awareness formulate this judgement of superiority if you have no conscious control of your own conscious thought?

[Sebastian Toe]

You have just demonstrated beyond any possible doubt that you had the conscious freedom to think up this pixie based argument 

You have often demonstrated beyond any possible doubt that you have used your physical brain to think up your soul based arguement.

[Sebastian Toe]

But how did your awareness formulate this judgement of superiority if you have no conscious control of your own conscious thought?

Read his statement again.

[torridon]

The capability of rational reasoning is beyond the uncontrollable consequences of material reactions.

Big claim, evidence please. (hint: your personal incredulity is not evidence)

[Outrider]

But how did your awareness formulate this judgement of superiority if you have no conscious control of your own conscious thought?

It didn't. It was formulated elsewhere in the brain, and then I became aware of it. I had no choice in the matter, I couldn't have elected not to become aware of the fact that you're still getting this wrong, it's just an inevitable consequence of our respective histories training our brains to either grasp logic or not.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

It didn't. It was formulated elsewhere in the brain, and then I became aware of it. I had no choice in the matter, I couldn't have elected not to become aware of the fact that you're still getting this wrong, it's just an inevitable consequence of our respective histories training our brains to either grasp logic or not.

O.

But it's inevitable that he 'will get it wrong'

[Alan Burns]

Big claim, evidence please. (hint: your personal incredulity is not evidence)

And my perception is that you consciously interpreted my post and consciously contemplated the meaning behind my words in order to consciously arrive at the conclusion that I am guilty or personal incredulity (even though you believe that neither you nor I have any conscious control of the thought processes involved).  You really need to get to grips with the truth that it it is all happening under the control of our own conscious awareness - no other explanation is feasible.  And yes, you can consciously label this as personal incredulity again - you are free to do so if you wish.   

[Sebastian Toe]

And my perception is that you consciously interpreted my post and consciously contemplated the meaning behind my words in order to consciously arrive at the conclusion that I am guilty or personal incredulity (even though you believe that neither you nor I have any conscious control of the thought processes involved).  You really need to get to grips with the truth that it it is all happening under the control of our own conscious awareness - no other explanation is feasible.  And yes, you can consciously label this as personal incredulity again - you are free to do so if you wish.   

You have demonstrated here beyond any possible doubt that you have used your physical brain to think up your arguement.

[ekim]

And yes, you can consciously label this as personal incredulity again - you are free to do so if you wish.   

... which means that he is not free from the wish or desire to do so or not do so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

By making your claim of invisible pixies, you are justifying my claim that you are not entirely determined by material reactions beyond your conscious control.

By being able to type your wrongheaded arguments without your computer floating away you are justifying my claim that gravity is not determined by material reactions beyond invisible pixies’ control.

Could the uncontrollable laws of physics have really invented your attempt to ridicule my arguments using invisible pixies, or did you use your gift of conscious freedom to think up this bizarre comparison?

Could the uncontrollable laws of physics have really made your computer stay where it was, or did invisible pixies hold it down with very thin strings to keep it just where you needed it to be?

Again, if you think shit arguments can be used to justify your claim “souls” then you have no basis at all to deny me exactly the same shit arguments to justify my claim “invisible pixies”. The point here remains that when the arguments used to justify the conclusion one of us finds bizarre ("souls") also justifies the one we both find bizarre ("invisible pixies"), then it's a shit argument.

Try at least to understand the point here before you post yet another “the fact that you can…” stupidity in response.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The capability of rational reasoning is beyond the uncontrollable consequences of material reactions.

The capability of gravity is beyond the uncontrollable consequences of material reactions.

If you’re going to give up even the attempt at justifying arguments in favour of mindless assertions then you have no basis to deny me the same tactic for my beliefs. 

[torridon]

And my perception is that you consciously interpreted my post and consciously contemplated the meaning behind my words in order to consciously arrive at the conclusion that I am guilty or personal incredulity (even though you believe that neither you nor I have any conscious control of the thought processes involved).  You really need to get to grips with the truth that it it is all happening under the control of our own conscious awareness - no other explanation is feasible.  And yes, you can consciously label this as personal incredulity again - you are free to do so if you wish.   

I didn't ask for your perception, I asked for evidence.  So, I guess, you don't have any actual evidence to support your claim.  If you know of some research that endorses your claim that 'The capability of rational reasoning is beyond the uncontrollable consequences of material reactions', then post a link up.