Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

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

Maybe. It's always possible that if he hears the logic enough times it will rewire something in the background and he'll start to understand, otherwise none of us would have learnt. All we can guarantee is that, if he doesn't get it, that was inevitable. Until he does, when that will have been inevitable too.

O.

[Sriram]

And here is me hoping that by repeating my soul/after-life argument several times, some rewiring will happen in you people by which you will understand....!!

Nothing much has happened so far. Must be inevitable and predetermined!

[Outrider]

And here is me hoping that by repeating my soul/after-life argument several times, some rewiring will happen in you people by which you will understand....!!

The problem with your argument, much like AB's, is that it's lacks that, you know, argument bit. You just assert, you can give no explanation, you consistently overreach from what the evidence you do cite can support, and then you round it off with some call to ancient wisdom.

Nothing much has happened so far. Must be inevitable and predetermined!

I refer you to the first rule of computer programming - garbage in...

O.

[Sriram]

There is plenty of evidence...some people just can't see it. Must be the predetermined thingy!

[Nearly Sane]

Maybe. It's always possible that if he hears the logic enough times it will rewire something in the background and he'll start to understand, otherwise none of us would have learnt. All we can guarantee is that, if he doesn't get it, that was inevitable. Until he does, when that will have been inevitable too.

O.

Well, yes, whatever happens is inevitable in that approach but that's the problem. You are engaging in discussion as if it is possible to 'get' something and be judged on the basis of 'not getting something'. Alan's argument, which I think derives from Lewis, that in thr absence of free will it's not possible to be right, I think overstates the problem. I do think though that it makes a lot of what is said nonsensical. It seems specious to me to make claims of rationality while arguing a position that says your reasoning is a black box.

I remember in a far off time in the land of Babbity Bowsters having a chat with the much missed Gonnagle over a pint or more of Budvar where he said that at a even more far pff time I had 'blown his mind' on the BBC messageboards by raising the possibility that free will didn't exist. He wanted to continue the discussion but I said that's there isn't really a point because it's impossible to have a coherent discussion much beyond that it appears that free will as it's usually thought of makes no sense. You can't discuss it in terms that don't imply an acceptance that it does exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

And here is me hoping that by repeating my soul/after-life argument several times, some rewiring will happen in you people by which you will understand....!!

Nothing much has happened so far. Must be inevitable and predetermined! 

You don’t have an argument, or at least not one that’s sound.

There is plenty of evidence...some people just can't see it. Must be the predetermined thingy!

No there isn’t. To claim that you have to so corrupt the meaning of the term “evidence” that on the same basis I could also claim apples falling from trees to be evidence for invisible pixies. Of course you can’t see that evidence because of your “predetermined thingy”, but fortunately for me I have more developed awareness of such matter so you’ll just have to take my word for it.

That is how your “reasoning” works right?   

[Alan Burns]

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.

Can you not see the obvious evidence in your own capabilities - your conscious freedom which you deliberately employ to think up reasons to justify your preferred materialistic scenario which denies the power of God and our own spiritual freedom to consciously shape the world we live in rather than just inevitably react to it?

I have no doubt that you will once more demonstrate your own conscious control by performing mental gymnastics to think up yet more reasons to tell me I have it all wrong and that I cannot possibly have any conscious control over what I think, do or say.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

...obvious...

Just calling something "obvious " isn't an argument. Lots of things that seem to be "obviously" true aren't true at all when they're falsified by reason and evidence.

Try again. 

[Outrider]

Well, yes, whatever happens is inevitable in that approach but that's the problem. You are engaging in discussion as if it is possible to 'get' something and be judged on the basis of 'not getting something'. Alan's argument, which I think derives from Lewis, that in thr absence of free will it's not possible to be right, I think overstates the problem. I do think though that it makes a lot of what is said nonsensical. It seems specious to me to make claims of rationality while arguing a position that says your reasoning is a black box.

I don't see why. As we've readily identified, AB isn't putting forth an reasoned conclusion. That we can identify those flaws in the reasoning isn't dependent upon any conscious control over our thought processes, it's identifying a failure in the formulation and you can either be logically equipped to notice that or not. I get what you're saying about being 'judged', and ideas about judgement and 'blame' and the like do need to be reassessed when you take this deterministic approach.

I remember in a far off time in the land of Babbity Bowsters having a chat with the much missed Gonnagle over a pint or more of Budvar where he said that at a even more far pff time I had 'blown his mind' on the BBC messageboards by raising the possibility that free will didn't exist. He wanted to continue the discussion but I said that's there isn't really a point because it's impossible to have a coherent discussion much beyond that it appears that free will as it's usually thought of makes no sense. You can't discuss it in terms that don't imply an acceptance that it does exist.

That presumes that the act of talking about can't have an effect, but we know that attitudes and understandings can change, or we'd all have the exact same set of beliefs and understandings. The only thing we can guarantee is that if we say nothing, nothing will change because of it.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't see why. As we've readily identified, AB isn't putting forth an reasoned conclusion. That we can identify those flaws in the reasoning isn't dependent upon any conscious control over our thought processes, it's identifying a failure in the formulation and you can either be logically equipped to notice that or not. I get what you're saying about being 'judged', and ideas about judgement and 'blame' and the like do need to be reassessed when you take this deterministic approach.

That presumes that the act of talking about can't have an effect, but we know that attitudes and understandings can change, or we'd all have the exact same set of beliefs and understandings. The only thing we can guarantee is that if we say nothing, nothing will change because of it.

O.

No, it doesn't presume talking can't have an effect. It will have whatever effect it does. The point is the content is at odds of the argument. Your ststements don't match your position.

Saying nothing is an action. Lots of things may change because someone says nothing. And even ignoring that your argument that you should say something is an appeal to consequences that makes no sense if there is no free will.

Note I'm not arguing that there is free will just pointing out that your arguments here assume that it does exist.

[Outrider]

Can you not see the obvious evidence in your own capabilities

Can you not see the obvious fact that objects attract according to their mass? Even so luminary a scientist as Newton saw that, and he was wrong. That something appears obvious does not make it necessarily the case - it's certainly grounds for hypothesising that, but you still need to do the legwork and check your assumptions.

your conscious freedom which you deliberately employ to think up reasons to justify your preferred materialistic scenario which denies the power of God and our own spiritual freedom to consciously shape the world we live in rather than just inevitably react to it?

You've had the circular logic of citing your 'conscious freedom' as a reason to accept the claim of 'conscious freedom' many, many times before. Likewise using 'god-given freedom' to try to support an argument of 'God'.

I have no doubt

And that's the problem, you don't have any room for the possibility that you could be wrong. I read the arguments, I never know when something will come up that will make me realise that I've misunderstood something, I recall finding out that gravity wasn't a force and it blew my mind completely. If you have no doubts, that's an indication that you're not really paying attention to the flaws of human understanding, whether you think those flaws evolved naturally or were divinely implemented.

that you will once more demonstrate your own conscious control by performing mental gymnastics to think up yet more reasons to tell me I have it all wrong and that I cannot possibly have any conscious control over what I think, do or say.

I'm not sure there are many other reasons, we're simply rephrasing the old chestnuts: it's logically nonsensical; it's contrary to the evidence we have about brain activity and decision making; and, it relies on accepting notions ('god', 'soul', 'spirit') which are themselves, at best poorly defined and questionable.

O.

[Outrider]

No, it doesn't presume talking can't have an effect. It will have whatever effect it does. The point is the content is at odds of the argument. Your ststements don't match your position.

I don't understand what you mean. How is it at odds with the argument?

Saying nothing is an action. Lots of things may change because someone says nothing. And even ignoring that your argument that you should say something is an appeal to consequences that makes no sense if there is no free will.

It's not an appeal to consequence, I think, because I'm not suggesting that the consequence (someone else understanding) is necessarily definitively better, it's just personally preferable to me.

Note I'm not arguing that there is free will just pointing out that your arguments here assume that it does exist.

I don't see that it does - it assumes that I have a vested interest in my life being improved in order that my experience is maximised. What I find maximised isn't something I've had any control over getting to this point, and what I can do about it now is fixed - whether or not I do anything about it now is also fixed, but the awareness of that decision that I realise after the decision is made is that leaving things which displease me doesn't change them.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

I don't understand what you mean. How is it at odds with the argument?

It's not an appeal to consequence, I think, because I'm not suggesting that the consequence (someone else understanding) is necessarily definitively better, it's just personally preferable to me.

I don't see that it does - it assumes that I have a vested interest in my life being improved in order that my experience is maximised. What I find maximised isn't something I've had any control over getting to this point, and what I can do about it now is fixed - whether or not I do anything about it now is also fixed, but the awareness of that decision that I realise after the decision is made is that leaving things which displease me doesn't change them.

O.

You will do what you will do. Arguing that you are making a judgement while there saying that there is no choice is contradictory. I'm happy to accept that you are writing all this just because you want to but you presented it as if you had a choice to say nothing. You live your life, and write your posts, as if you have free will. You have no choice but to do so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You will do what you will do. Arguing that you are making a judgement while there saying that there is no choice is contradictory. I'm happy to accept that you are writing all this just because you want to but you presented ot as if you had a choice to say nothing. You live your life, and write your posts, as if you have free will. Yoh have no choice but to do so.

Yes, we all live our lives as if “free” will is fundamentally free rather than just the experience of apparent agency. That’s not to say though that we cannot sort the functionally true from the functionally not true. Fred may say that apples will float upwards and Jill may say that apples will fall to the ground, but both Fred and Jill can stand in front of an apple tree on a windy day and observe what actually happens. That’s materialism – verification by the senses and by reason to produce functional truths and non-truths, albeit with no appeal to claims of absolutes in either case.

What Outy is doing is the reasoning version of standing AB in front of the apple tree. What AB is doing in reply is continuing to assert nonetheless the equivalent to “apples float upwards”. As AB’s CV suggests he’s capable of reasoning in other fields, this seems to be obdurate.             

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes, we all live our lives as if “free” will is fundamentally free rather than just the experience of apparent agency. That’s not to say though that we cannot sort the functionally true from the functionally not true. Fred may say that apples will float upwards and Jill may say that apples will fall to the ground, but both Fred and Jill can stand in front of an apple tree on a windy day and observe what actually happens. That’s materialism – verification by the senses and by reason to produce functional truths and non-truths, albeit with no appeal to claims of absolutes in either case.

What Outy is doing is the reasoning version of standing AB in front of the apple tree. What AB is doing in reply is continuing to assert nonetheless the equivalent to “apples float upwards”. As AB’s CV suggests he’s capable of reasoning in other fields, this seems to be obdurate.           

  How can one be 'obdurate' if one has no free will?

[Gordon]

Perhaps the inherent unconscious traits that we all have are so profound that we have no choice when they influence what we do, say and think; perhaps Alan's inability to countenance anything that doesn't allow a space for 'God' is as unshakable as my phobic reaction to certain foods, so perhaps trying to persuade Alan that he can't actually control his thoughts is as pointless as trying to persuade me that mayonnaise is delicious and that I should like it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

How can one be 'obdurate' if one has no free will?

Because deeming someone to be obdurate isn’t a claim to an absolute truth. Your position is to go nuclear – ie, no judgment of someone’s behaviour is valid because they have no “true” choice in the matter so the discussion is pointless. I get that, but there are parallel realities here: the underlying deterministic reality, but also the apparent reality we’ve constructed that enables us to co-exist. Our vastly complex systems of education, law, politics etc all depend on the functional reality of agency, notwithstanding the parallel reality of there being no “free” will involved at all.         

AB tries various wrong justifying arguments for his claims “god”, “soul” etc but denies (or just ignores) the use of identical arguments to justify different claims (eg gravity pixies) that he considers to be “bizarre”. It’s perfectly reasonable therefore to call him inconsistent in his reasoning, albeit that reasoning itself is at a more profound level illusory.

This lived reality is your realty too. If, say, someone stole your car and the cops caught him you wouldn’t tell them not to prosecute because, ultimately, the perp had no choice in the matter.

Or perhaps you would?     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Because deeming someone to be obdurate isn’t a claim to an absolute truth. Your position is to go nuclear – ie, no judgment of someone’s behaviour is valid because they have no “true” choice in the matter so the discussion is pointless. I get that, but there are parallel realities here: the underlying deterministic reality, but also the apparent reality we’ve constructed that enables us to co-exist. Our vastly complex systems of education, law, politics etc all depend on the functional reality of agency, notwithstanding the parallel reality of there being no “free” will involved at all.         

AB tries various wrong justifying arguments for his claims “god”, “soul” etc but denies (or just ignores) the use of identical arguments to justify different claims (eg gravity pixies) that he considers to be “bizarre”. It’s perfectly reasonable therefore to call him inconsistent in his reasoning, albeit that reasoning itself is at a more profound level illusory.

This lived reality is your realty too. If, say, someone stole your car and the cops caught him you wouldn’t tell them not to prosecute because, ultimately, the perp had no choice in the matter.

Or perhaps you would?     

No, I wouldn't, again because I have no choice.

The problem you have is that the argument that we have no free will cause the contradiction in how you are writing. You don't need to be claiming absolute truth for these issues. If Alan has no choice but to write what he does, your statement that he's being obdurate is contradictory to that.

ETA - the no free will position means you have gone nuclear on your own arguments. You either hold it consistently or you end up making logically inconsistent statements. It's a dead end for discourse.

[Outrider]

You will do what you will do.

Yes.

Arguing that you are making a judgement while there saying that there is no choice is contradictory.

I don't see that it is. There are factors to consider, my brain is making the judgement, that process of my brain making decisions is part of me being me. There is a judgement, it's coming from me and therefore I'm making it - it's not, perhaps, the conventional understanding of it, but it still makes sense.

I'm happy to accept that you are writing all this just because you want to but you presented it as if you had a choice to say nothing.

I do have that choice - I just can't control at any given point which decision I'll make. Someone else in that position might make a different choice, on a different day with, say, a different breakfast, or different news stories, my decision might be different. That I can't consciously control it doesn't make it any less of a choice.

You live your life, and write your posts, as if you have free will. You have no choice but to do so.

Certainly on a day-to-day basis that's the case, it just gets confusing if you try not given the language and conceptual framework that I've inherited.

O.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes.

I don't see that it is. There are factors to consider, my brain is making the judgement, that process of my brain making decisions is part of me being me. There is a judgement, it's coming from me and therefore I'm making it - it's not, perhaps, the conventional understanding of it, but it still makes sense.

I do have that choice - I just can't control at any given point which decision I'll make. Someone else in that position might make a different choice, on a different day with, say, a different breakfast, or different news stories, my decision might be different. That I can't consciously control it doesn't make it any less of a choice.

Certainly on a day-to-day basis that's the case, it just gets confusing if you try not given the language and conceptual framework that I've inherited.

O.

Is there another way than a 'day to day' basis?

[Sebastian Toe]

Can you not see the obvious evidence in your own capabilities - your conscious freedom which you deliberately employ to think up reasons to justify your preferred materialistic scenario which denies the power of God and our own spiritual freedom to consciously shape the world we live in rather than just inevitably react to it?

I have no doubt that you will once more demonstrate your own conscious control by performing mental gymnastics to think up yet more reasons to tell me I have it all wrong and that I cannot possibly have any conscious control over what I think, do or say.

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

I have no doubts though that you are so firmly stuck in your magic requiring "soul" notion that you will be unable to see that.

[Alan Burns]

NS,

Because deeming someone to be obdurate isn’t a claim to an absolute truth. Your position is to go nuclear – ie, no judgment of someone’s behaviour is valid because they have no “true” choice in the matter so the discussion is pointless. I get that, but there are parallel realities here: the underlying deterministic reality, but also the apparent reality we’ve constructed that enables us to co-exist. Our vastly complex systems of education, law, politics etc all depend on the functional reality of agency, notwithstanding the parallel reality of there being no “free” will involved at all.         

AB tries various wrong justifying arguments for his claims “god”, “soul” etc but denies (or just ignores) the use of identical arguments to justify different claims (eg gravity pixies) that he considers to be “bizarre”. It’s perfectly reasonable therefore to call him inconsistent in his reasoning, albeit that reasoning itself is at a more profound level illusory.

This lived reality is your realty too. If, say, someone stole your car and the cops caught him you wouldn’t tell them not to prosecute because, ultimately, the perp had no choice in the matter.

Or perhaps you would?     

You have consciously conceived of the concept of two parallel realities in order to try explain away our "apparent" ability to consciously choose what we do, think or say.  I put it to you that your proposed underlining reality of physical determined events is incapable of explaining away our ability to consciously guide our own thoughts to even conceive of these parallel realities.  You have faith in the uncontrollable forces of nature being capable of generating reasoned arguments and reaching verified conclusions.  I have faith in this being accomplished using the God given power of consciously controlled thought processes.  You seem to have ignored the fact that there is another layer of reality which undermines the apparent physically determined events - the quantum level in which there are are events with no apparent cause which can interfere with the physically determined layer above.

The evidence for God lies in the concept of there being an ultimate source of all that exists - we call it God.
The evidence for the human soul lies with our ability to think and to direct our own thought processes to contemplate the reality of our existence.
Pixies are evidence of our human freedom to think up imaginary beings doing imaginary things.

[Nearly Sane]

You have consciously conceived of the concept of two parallel realities in order to try explain away our "apparent" ability to consciously choose what we do, think or say.  I put it to you that your proposed underlining reality of physical determined events is incapable of explaining away our ability to consciously guide our own thoughts to even conceive of these parallel realities.  You have faith in the uncontrollable forces of nature being capable of generating reasoned arguments and reaching verified conclusions.  I have faith in this being accomplished using the God given power of consciously controlled thought processes.  You seem to have ignored the fact that there is another layer of reality which undermines the apparent physically determined events - the quantum level in which there are are events with no apparent cause which can interfere with the physically determined layer above.

The evidence for God lies in the concept of there being an ultimate source of all that exists - we call it God.
The evidence for the human soul lies with our ability to think and to direct our own thought processes to contemplate the reality of our existence.
Pixies are evidence of our human freedom to think up imaginary beings doing imaginary things.

I refer you to Reply 37

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=9431.25

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, I wouldn't, again because I have no choice.

But yet at the same time you argue (correctly) that at a fundamental level your car thief cannot be judged for his actions. This in what I mean by the dissonance between acting as if we have “true” agency, while at the same time understanding that at a more profound level that cannot be.   

The problem you have is that the argument that we have no free will cause the contradiction in how you are writing. You don't need to be claiming absolute truth for these issues. If Alan has no choice but to write what he does, your statement that he's being obdurate is contradictory to that.

I don’t see that at all. At the level of reality for which we have the most robust evidence and reasoning, yes AB is acting determinatively as are we all. At a functionally useful level of reality though, we can discuss and argue as if we had agency, and moreover find these exchanges to be meaningful. Moreover, just because AB is lost in a world of poor reasoning and misunderstanding just now does not mean that necessarily some new (or repeated) input won’t one day cause his neurons to reach a different, and (apparent) reason-justified conclusion.   

ETA - the no free will position means you have gone nuclear on your own arguments. You either hold it consistently or you end up making logically inconsistent statements. It's a dead end for discourse.

You’d need to clarify that. I’m merely saying that I (and you, and everyone else) can find discourse instinctively, intuitively, emotionally meaningful while at the same time some of us at least can grasp that the same could be said of a character in the SIMS game given enough algorithmic complexity. So what though?     

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You have consciously conceived of the concept of two parallel realities in order to try explain away our "apparent" ability to consciously choose what we do, think or say.

No, I have consciously become aware of that. There is no logical path though to take me from awareness to actively manipulating my thoughts so as to conceive of it. 

I put it to you that your proposed underlining reality of physical determined events is incapable of explaining away our ability to consciously guide our own thoughts to even conceive of these parallel realities.

You can put to me anything you like, but until you can finally produce the sound argument you claimed to have to justify your unqualified assertion “incapable of explaining away” I can dismiss it out of hand.

You have faith in the uncontrollable forces of nature being capable of generating reasoned arguments and reaching verified conclusions.

No, I have a degree of confidence based on the reason and evidence that you cannot rebut.

I have faith in this being accomplished using the God given power of consciously controlled thought processes.

As you’ve produced no sound reasoning to justify that claim, that’s called blind faith. 

You seem to have ignored the fact that there is another layer of reality which undermines the apparent physically determined events - the quantum level in which there are are events with no apparent cause which can interfere with the physically determined layer above.

Your terminology here is all over the place, but in any case none of our understanding of the quantum justifies one jot of your blind faith claim “god”. You cannot just point to non-intuitive observed phenomena and call that evidence for whichever woo claims happen to take your fancy. 

The evidence for God lies in the concept of there being an ultimate source of all that exists - we call it God.

A “concept” isn’t evidence. To be evidence, you’d need to demonstrate that the concept is true. I have a concept of leprechauns – does that therefore mean that they’re real as well?

Why not?

The evidence for the human soul lies with our ability to think and to direct our own thought processes to contemplate the reality of our existence.

Garbage in, garbage out. There’s no evidence that we can do the logically impossible trick of “directing our own thought processes”.

Pixies are evidence of our human freedom to think up imaginary beings doing imaginary things.

But the argument I make for them is identical to the argument you make for “god”, “souls” etc. Why should an argument be sound for a conclusion you like but not sound for a different conclusion you don’t like?