Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

I do not presume conscious control.

So your conscious control is so good you don't understand what you're claiming - that explains more than I thought.

I do not need to try to demonstrate it.

You do if you want anyone to treat your statements as anything more than a baseless assertion.

I simply witness to the reality of our conscious control by saying what it does - it enables us to consciously guide our thoughts towards consciously chosen goals and achieve consciously verified conclusions.

Can I introduce you to the force of gravity, which attracts physical bodies to each proportional to their mass. I'm simply saying what it does, and relying on everyone's experience of it, and clearly ignoring the well-established fact that it doesn't exist. There is no force of gravity. There doesn't appear to be any 'conscious control' - I'm not suggesting that's as well-established, but your 'everyone experiences it' argument is reliant on humanity being reliable judges of the situation, and it's well, well established that human beings are, at best, unreliable measuring tools.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Can I introduce you to the force of gravity, which attracts physical bodies to each proportional to their mass. I'm simply saying what it does, and relying on everyone's experience of it, and clearly ignoring the well-established fact that it doesn't exist. There is no force of gravity. There doesn't appear to be any 'conscious control' - I'm not suggesting that's as well-established, but your 'everyone experiences it' argument is reliant on humanity being reliable judges of the situation, and it's well, well established that human beings are, at best, unreliable measuring tools.

Not sure what point you are trying to make.

We do not merely experience conscious control.  We use it to guide our thought processes towards consciously chosen goals and arrive at consciously verified conclusions.

[Alan Burns]

So get your head round the fact that many species display evidence of creativity and simple reasoning skills, this is not a strictly humans-only feature.  Humans may have far greater capacity for mental abstraction, and the reason for this is that we evolved an enlarged prefrontal cortex, it is not that Homo Sapiens, uniquely in the animal kingdom, comes equipped with supernatural powers 

I think you are trying to extrapolate predictable animal behaviour driven by biological instinct and learnt experiences to try to explain away our unique human freedom to think, act and say things which go way beyond the limitations of biological instincts.  You can't just explain it away with bigger brains.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are trying to extrapolate predictable animal behaviour driven by biological instinct and learnt experiences to try to explain away our unique human freedom to think, act and say things which go way beyond the limitations of biological instincts.  You can't just explain it away with bigger brains.

Why not?

[Sebastian Toe]

Why not?

Soul!

Silly Billy.

[torridon]

I think you are trying to extrapolate predictable animal behaviour driven by biological instinct and learnt experiences to try to explain away our unique human freedom to think, act and say things which go way beyond the limitations of biological instincts.  You can't just explain it away with bigger brains.

It is not a question of 'explaining away' things, it is about understanding human behaviours in the bigger evolutionary context.  There is a spectrum of varied forms of cognitive sophistication across species, and understanding our place in this spectrum deepens our appreciation for other creatures and the interconnectedness of all life.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I do not need to try to demonstrate it.

Well you should. You have claimed countless times that your version of freedom (being able to have chose differently under the exact same circumstances) is demonstrable. We are still waiting for the actual demonstration.

Remember though that the fact that someone posted something is not evidence that they could have done differently if time were rewound.

[Outrider]

Not sure what point you are trying to make.

You feel like you're in conscious control, like you feel gravity is pulling you towards the Earth. Your feelings on this are not a reliable guide to the reality, and you need something more than just 'but I feel that's right'. It doesn't matter how profoundly you feel it, the depth of your feeling is no more reliable a guide.

This should be apparent to you from the fact that billions of people profoundly believe in Allah rather than that God you think is real, or in the Hindu pantheon or others.

We do not merely experience conscious control.

We don't EVEN experience conscious control, we just think we do.

We use it to guide our thought processes towards consciously chosen goals and arrive at consciously verified conclusions.

It feels like we do, but actually we are reacting after the event to our subconscious has done the work without our intervention.

O.

[jeremyp]

Not sure what point you are trying to make.

We do not merely experience conscious control.  We use it to guide our thought processes towards consciously chosen goals and arrive at consciously verified conclusions.

But "we" are emergent phenomena of our brains and their organisation. There's no reason to suppose anything magic beyond that.

[Stranger]

Same old thought-free nonsense...

But surely it is this "superficial level" which is responsible for all human critical thinking, rationalisation and reaching consciously verified conclusions.

Obviously not. 

You seem to presume that all this can be accomplished by subconscious brain activity beyond our conscious control.
Can you not see that this presumption is entirely dependent on your ability to consciously contemplate the factors involved in order to reach your conscious conclusions?
You need to get to grips with reality.

Poor, confused Alan-bot. Please try to think about this, just for once in your life.

• Conscious control of all of our thoughts is a nonsense infinite regress, and it's not even what it 'seems like', if you do a moment's introspection.
• Even it wasn't nonsense, the role of consciousness has no logical connection with your nonsense version of free will (other than being equally stupid).
• Your version of free will is self-contradictory, and you haven't even tried to properly address the point, just made up a meaningless mantra and refused to explain it.

Your entire case seems to be various rewordings of "it's obvious, innt?". You also don't seem to get that you believe two totally separate impossibilities, not just one.

You need to get to grips with reality.

I actually find it very difficult to believe you've ever thought about this subject seriously at all. All your potential thinking ability swept away by blind faith.

Tragic.

[Alan Burns]

It feels like we do, but actually we are reacting after the event to our subconscious has done the work without our intervention.

It remains a mystery to me how you could possibly come up with this theory and actually believe it to be true without having the conscious guidance needed to reach and consciously verify this conclusion.

To deliberately try to write it all off as just some illusionary experience defies the reality of it actually happening.

[Sebastian Toe]

It remains a mystery to me how you could possibly come up with this theory and actually believe it to be true without having the conscious guidance needed to reach and consciously verify this conclusion.

To deliberately try to write it all off as just some illusionary experience defies the reality of it actually happening.

It remains a mystery to a lot of people how you could possibly rely on an entity which requires magic to exist and function, and claim that to be "reality"!

[Alan Burns]

Poor, confused Alan-bot. Please try to think about this, just for once in your life.

Please explain what guides our conscious thoughts if it is not consciously guided by our own conscious awareness.

Conscious control of all of our thoughts is a nonsense infinite regress, and it's not even what it 'seems like', if you do a moment's introspection.

It is only an infinite regress if you try to make it fit in with the time related "cause and effect" scenario we observe in material behaviour.
Conscious control of our thought processes is absolutely essential to reach consciously verified conclusions.  You should realise this if you do a moment's introspection.

Even it wasn't nonsense, the role of consciousness has no logical connection with your nonsense version of free will (other than being equally stupid)

To exert conscious control you need the freedom to contemplate what exists within your own conscious awareness and guide your thoughts.  Without such freedom, our thoughts would just be a meaningless consequence of chains of events beyond our conscious control.

Your version of free will is self-contradictory, and you haven't even tried to properly address the point, just made up a meaningless mantra and refused to explain it.

The free will I witness to is the only feasible explanation for our ability to guide our thoughts to reach consciously verified conclusions.

Your entire case seems to be various rewordings of "it's obvious, innt?". You also don't seem to get that you believe two totally separate impossibilities, not just one.
I actually find it very difficult to believe you've ever thought about this subject seriously at all. All your potential thinking ability swept away by blind faith.

Our ability to believe and to think seriously about anything requires guidance - in a scenario where every event is an unavoidable consequence to previous events where can any form of guidance can take place - and what determines this guidance?

[Gordon]

Alan

It's just biology doing what it naturally does.

The problem you have here is that you have a bad case of 'God', and that is getting in your way because you are trying to portray your thesis as being logical and reasonable when it is, in essence, superstitious nonsense that you cannot justify without falling foul of you usual plethora of fallacies.

[ekim]

The free will I witness to is the only feasible explanation for our ability to guide our thoughts to reach consciously verified conclusions.

Perhaps you are bearing false witness to a notion of free will.  It could be said that you don't guide your thoughts, you simply direct your attention ('consciousness') to or from  whatever desire is attracting it and thoughts are simply the mental forms used to facilitate the process.  Your consciousness can become lost in thought and lost in emotions.  You believe in a God, and the mental forms you have accumulated from the doctrine associated with it, like 'Thy Will be Done' which suggests that you are to surrender the 'free' will you claim to possess.  So, what do you want (desire) and why do you want it and how do you attain the freedom from desire?

[Alan Burns]

Perhaps you are bearing false witness to a notion of free will.  It could be said that you don't guide your thoughts, you simply direct your attention ('consciousness') to or from  whatever desire is attracting it and thoughts are simply the mental forms used to facilitate the process.  Your consciousness can become lost in thought and lost in emotions.  You believe in a God, and the mental forms you have accumulated from the doctrine associated with it, like 'Thy Will be Done' which suggests that you are to surrender the 'free' will you claim to possess.  So, what do you want (desire) and why do you want it and how do you attain the freedom from desire?

This begs the question of what determines our desire, and how does this desire get fulfilled?
And what controls the mental gymnastics needed to come up with these ideas?
Are we just slaves to the uncontrollable consequences of material reactions - or could there be something more?

[Maeght]

This begs the question of what determines our desire, and how does this desire get fulfilled?
And what controls the mental gymnastics needed to come up with these ideas?
Are we just slaves to the uncontrollable consequences of material reactions - or could there be something more?

No evidence of anything more.

[Alan Burns]

Alan

It's just biology doing what it naturally does.

The problem you have here is that you have a bad case of 'God', and that is getting in your way because you are trying to portray your thesis as being logical and reasonable when it is, in essence, superstitious nonsense that you cannot justify without falling foul of you usual plethora of fallacies.

I am merely witnessing to the power of the human mind which goes beyond anything that can be explained within the limitations of physically determined reactions alone.

[Nearly Sane]

This begs the question of what determines our desire, and how does this desire get fulfilled?
And what controls the mental gymnastics needed to come up with these ideas?
Are we just slaves to the uncontrollable consequences of material reactions - or could there be something more?

That's a misuse of the term 'begs the question'.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question


And that's quite ironic given how often you indulge on the fallacy. It also RAISES the question, why given it's been pointed out to you frequently that you use why you are unaware of what it means, particularly as it has been linked to in the past in reply to your posts.

[Nearly Sane]

I am merely witnessing to the power of the human mind which goes beyond anything that can be explained within the limitations of physically determined reactions alone.

Writing 'witness' does not make your assertion any more than an assertion.

[Stranger]

It remains a mystery to me how you could possibly come up with this theory and actually believe it to be true without having the conscious guidance needed to reach and consciously verify this conclusion.

To deliberately try to write it all off as just some illusionary experience defies the reality of it actually happening.

Repetitive, thought-free, circular 'reasoning', and an absurd, baseless assertion. 

Poor, confused Alan-bot. Please try to think about this, just for once in your life.

Please explain what guides our conscious thoughts if it is not consciously guided by our own conscious awareness.

That's a 'no', then. Not the slightest attempt to think

It is only an infinite regress if you try to make it fit in with the time related "cause and effect" scenario we observe in material behaviour.
Conscious control of our thought processes is absolutely essential to reach consciously verified conclusions.  You should realise this if you do a moment's introspection.

More thought-free, dimwitted nonsense. This is not the same issue as free will. WHY CAN'T YOU GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD THAT YOU BELIEVE IN TWO ABSURDITIES, NOT ONE?

This has nothing to do with cause and effect.

Here's an experiment to show how much conscious control you have over your own conscious thoughts: consciously decide what conscious thought you have next. See? The next conscious thought was not what you consciously chose because it requires conscious thought to consciously decide.

Surely even you can see this?

The free will I witness to is the only feasible explanation for our ability to guide our thoughts to reach consciously verified conclusions.

Thought-free mantra and baseless assertion. 

Our ability to believe and to think seriously about anything requires guidance - in a scenario where every event is an unavoidable consequence to previous events where can any form of guidance can take place - and what determines this guidance?

Classic diversion tactic to avoid thinking about what I said and a stupid question that has been answered endless times before.

GROW UP, FFS!

[Stranger]

I am merely witnessing to the power of the human mind which goes beyond anything that can be explained within the limitations of physically determined reactions alone.

All you are 'witnessing to' is your own inability to think about this subject. And "...goes beyond anything that can be explained within the limitations of physically determined reactions alone." is a claim of omniscience. Do you think you are God?

How about some honesty here and admitting you're scared shitless of thinking clearly about this for fear of losing your faith?

[Alan Burns]

No evidence of anything more.

It all depends on what you consider to be viable evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

It all depends on what you consider to be viable evidence.

Indeed, and you have been asked many times for a methodology for establishing evidence for the supernatural but you haven't provided any.

[Maeght]

It all depends on what you consider to be viable evidence.

Indeed. You haven't ever presented anything convincing (not sure about the use of the word viable).