Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

It is all in the Christian bible, Gordon.
in particular - John 3.16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Something equivalent to what the RAC or provide AA would be clearer and easier to follow.

That quote, which you've used before, is unsurprisingly stupid: we're talking 'God' here, right, so why is it limited to just the one son? Having another, or as many as it wants, should surely come easy to an 'all the omnis' superbeing.

[Nearly Sane]

It is all in the Christian bible, Gordon.
in particular - John 3.16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

And still invented child leukemia because you worship a God of death and pain.

[Alan Burns]

The fallacy factory just keeps on going. Your fallacy for this is: argument from ignorance. You're also, yet again, repeating the total idiocy of conflating the role of consciousness with somehow escaping determinism (real meaning, not your absurd "determined by...").

There is zero evidence, and you've provided zero reasoning, to say that everything in your conscious mind is not the result of what you stupidly label "the uncontrollable reactions in a material brain".

Nothing.

So still no viable explanation for how logical, consciously verified conclusions can drop out from the uncontrollable reactions in a material brain.
Do you not realise that your logical conclusions need the conscious guidance which your logic denies?

Since free will (in the sense you use it) is nonsensical gibberish (as is this entire quote, for that matter), the question does not arise.

I am not defined by a "conscious entity of awareness". It's a silly, pointless mantra, not an argument or any sort of reasoned deduction, observation, or even a simplistic "as it seems" assumption. It's just nonsense.

Your concept of reality, logic and self exist in the conscious entity of awareness which defines "you".

The logic you keep espousing is entirely based upon the presumption that any act of will must be entirely determined by past events.  The conscious entity of awareness which is "you" exists and acts in the present.  You define the present.  You are consciously aware of past events, but this awareness exists in the present.  The present is elusive to any scientific analysis because all scientific investigation involves events which have already happened - we cannot investigate the present.  The present is not definable in materialistic or scientific terms, but the only viable explanation for the vast capabilities of the human mind stem from our ability to instigate acts of will from our "present" state of mind.  I am consciously composing this post from within my current state of conscious awareness.  I am fully aware of the logical arguments involved, and these just reinforce my conviction that my freedom is a God given gift which emanates from the power of my human soul - not from the uncontrollable events of the past.

[Stranger]

So still no viable explanation for how logical, consciously verified conclusions can drop out from the uncontrollable reactions in a material brain.

Argument from ignorance fallacy, yet again!

Do you not realise that your logical conclusions need the conscious guidance which your logic denies?

Argument by assertion fallacy, together with a total misunderstanding of my argument. My argument against free will says fuck all about "conscious guidance" one way or the other.

Is this missing the entire point of my position dishonesty, stupidity, or laziness?

Your concept of reality, logic and self exist in the conscious entity of awareness which defines "you".

Yet another argument by assertion fallacy. And "conscious entity of awareness" is still meaningless drivel. It is perfectly clear from our experience that we defined by far, far more than just our conscious minds.

The logic you keep espousing is entirely based upon the presumption that any act of will must be entirely determined by past events.  The conscious entity of awareness which is "you" exists and acts in the present.  You define the present.  You are consciously aware of past events, but this awareness exists in the present.

Not this meaningless, logic- and thought-free nonsense, yet again!

The present has no logically significant meaning (let alone a scientific one that you'd prefer). It's also blindingly obvious, that we don't exist, let alone act, in some detached 'present'. Contemplation happens over time. One thought leads to another. My conclusions come after a thought process. When I have a conclusion, the start of my contemplation is in the past.

The present is elusive to any scientific analysis because all scientific investigation involves events which have already happened - we cannot investigate the present.  The present is not definable in materialistic or scientific terms, but the only viable explanation for the vast capabilities of the human mind stem from our ability to instigate acts of will from our "present" state of mind.

You can't reach a 'viable conclusion' from meaningless gibberish.

I am consciously composing this post from within my current state of conscious awareness.  I am fully aware of the logical arguments involved, and these just reinforce my conviction that my freedom is a God given gift which emanates from the power of my human soul - not from the uncontrollable events of the past.

More mindless assertion.

You really wouldn't recognise logic if it slapped you in the face with a wet fish, would you? And if it had hands and a supply of wet fish, it probably would.

A reasonably intelligent school kid could see through your silly pseudo-logic.

When will it penetrate your skull that logic is something you need to learn? Every one of us is prone to falling into fallacies and biases, avoiding them is difficult. None of us are perfect but it is something that learning can help with.

Yet you blithely go on trotting out the same fallacies, over and over and over again, without seeming to even care how dimwitted it makes you seem.

Get an education in logic, FFS!

[Alan Burns]

You can't reach a 'viable conclusion' from meaningless gibberish.

So can you please explain how you can possibly reach a viable, consciously verified conclusion WITHOUT having any conscious control over the physically defined reactions in your material brain.

[Alan Burns]

yet another argument by assertion fallacy. And "conscious entity of awareness" is still meaningless drivel. It is perfectly clear from our experience that we defined by far, far more than just our conscious minds.

Remove your conscious entity of awareness and you would cease to be aware of anything - even logic 

[jeremyp]

So can you please explain how you can possibly reach a viable, consciously verified conclusion WITHOUT having any conscious control over the physically defined reactions in your material brain.

Define what you mean by "conscious control". Why would it be necessary to have free will to have control over your own conscious?

[Stranger]

So can you please explain how you can possibly reach a viable, consciously verified conclusion WITHOUT having any conscious control over the physically defined reactions in your material brain.

Asking for an alternative to a clearly idiotic pseudo-explanation, that has been shown to be such, is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Before we knew the answer from science, somebody could 'explain' thunder by Thor. If somebody said you were just making shit up, then you are doing the equivalent of saying "Can you explain thunder WITHOUT Thor? You can't, so I'm right."

It's basically (like all fallacies) stupidity.

Saying "consciously verified conclusion" as if it must be true is a begging the question fallacy. You are assuming your own conclusion.

This is also stupidity.

Remove your conscious entity of awareness and you would cease to be aware of anything - even logic 

I have literally no idea what a "conscious entity of awareness" means. It's a meaningless mantra of yours, as far as I can tell.

However, if you remove consciousness, of course you wouldn't be consciously aware of anything. This, however, goes nowhere near to demonstrating that we are defined by consciousness.

[Sebastian Toe]

So still no viable explanation for

,,,,for any of the following:

Where does your soul emanate from?
How is it assigned to your body?
Where does it reside?
What does it do when you are unconscious/asleep?
How does it connect with your brain?
How does it manipulate the physical brain given that it is itself not physical?
How does it "verify" things?



..over to you.....

[Maeght]

It is all in the Christian bible, Gordon.
in particular - John 3.16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Loaned not gave.

[Alan Burns]

Saying "consciously verified conclusion" as if it must be true is a begging the question fallacy. You are assuming your own conclusion.

Without the ability to consciously verify a conclusion, how can you possibly claim that your conclusion is valid?

[Alan Burns]

I have literally no idea what a "conscious entity of awareness" means. It's a meaningless mantra of yours, as far as I can tell.

You are a conscious entity of awareness.
Everything you know or will ever know is perceived within your conscious entity of awareness.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

[Alan Burns]

,,,,for any of the following:

Where does your soul emanate from?
How is it assigned to your body?
Where does it reside?
What does it do when you are unconscious/asleep?
How does it connect with your brain?
How does it manipulate the physical brain given that it is itself not physical?
How does it "verify" things?

..over to you.....

God knows 

[Stranger]

Without the ability to consciously verify a conclusion, how can you possibly claim that your conclusion is valid?

Hilarious! Trying to escape from the begging the question fallacy by using the argument from ignorance fallacy.

Also, yet another highly edited snippet from a longer post, indicating an inability or unwillingness to even think about the wider issues (more evidence of subconscious fear?)

You really couldn't make this level of shit 'arguments' up, at least most of us couldn't. Clearly making up utterly shit arguments is a talent at which you truly excel! Is there a special category for Mensa that involves making shit up?

Let me remind you:

When will it penetrate your skull that logic is something you need to learn? Every one of us is prone to falling into fallacies and biases, avoiding them is difficult. None of us are perfect but it is something that learning can help with.

Yet you blithely go on trotting out the same fallacies, over and over and over again, without seeming to even care how dimwitted it makes you seem.

Get an education in logic, FFS!

[Stranger]

Yet another highly selective snippet.   

You are a conscious entity of awareness.

So you keep asserting. Still have no idea what the phrase means.

Everything you know or will ever know is perceived within your conscious entity of awareness.

So, let's get this straight. I said I have no idea what "conscious entity of awareness" means. Your response is to assert that I both am one and have one ("your conscious entity of awareness"), and you still haven't said what it means. You do realise that you are just adding to the confusion, don't you?

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Probably because you're going round in incompressible circles and never actually explaining it.

Seriously, if there are any logically coherent thoughts in your head about all this, you seem to be totally unable or unwilling to properly express them....

[Stranger]

God knows 

So it's perfectly okay for you to know next to nothing about how your 'soul' thingy works, but when we admit to not having a complete and comprehensive explanation for how things work, you go rushing off into argument from ignorance fallacies: "I haven't seen a viable explanation for...", "Can you explain how...", etc.

That's called double standards or hypocrisy.

[Gordon]

God knows 

That's debatable, but what isn't debatable is that you 'don't know' else you would be able to answer Seb's quite reasonable questions. Yet you have the bare-faced cheek to berate others for 'not knowing', as per the fallacious quote below - you are a hypocrite, Alan.

So still no viable explanation for how logical, consciously verified conclusions can drop out from the uncontrollable reactions in a material brain.

[Alan Burns]

That's debatable, but what isn't debatable is that you 'don't know' else you would be able to answer Seb's quite reasonable questions. Yet you have the bare-faced cheek to berate others for 'not knowing', as per the fallacious quote below - you are a hypocrite, Alan.

My arguments are not based on not knowing, Gordon.
My arguments are based upon what we do know - in particular what we know about the limitations of what is achievable by the time related cause and effect behaviour of material entities.

[Gordon]

My arguments are not based on not knowing, Gordon.
My arguments are based upon what we do know - in particular what we know about the limitations of what is achievable by the time related cause and effect behaviour of material entities.

That's just your incredulity and ignorance getting the better of you - again.

Stop evading:if you can't answer Seb's questions about your own claims then you're in no position to critique others, especially since you largely critique straw men of your own invention.

[Stranger]

My arguments are not based on not knowing, Gordon.
My arguments are based upon what we do know...

You don't have any arguments, Alan. Your unedifying stream of illogical nonsense, gibberish, endless fallacies, meaningless mantras, and absurd assertions, seems to be based on nothing but blind faith, fear of thinking, and a piss-poor understanding of how logic works.

It's also crap to say that your so-called arguments do not rely at all on claims about what other people don't know. You frequently use argument from ignorance fallacies when you insist that people need an alternative explanation to dismiss yours. You did it just a few posts ago:

So can you please explain how you can possibly reach a viable, consciously verified conclusion WITHOUT having any conscious control over the physically defined reactions in your material brain.

...in particular what we know about the limitations of what is achievable by the time related cause and effect behaviour of material entities.

And yet you have presented zero evidence and zero sound logic (remember when you claimed to have that, #38202, more than four years ago and we're still waiting for any hint of it?) that humans do anything at all that goes beyond those limitations. And, for the record, even if you had, it would still be logically nonsensical to say "therefore a miracle and my God".

[jeremyp]

You are a conscious entity of awareness.
Everything you know or will ever know is perceived within your conscious entity of awareness.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Why can't this conscious entity of awareness be your own functioning brain?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And still invented child leukemia because you worship a God of death and pain.

That would be an inadequate description. Surely he is the God of everything.

[Nearly Sane]

That would be an inadequate description. Surely he is the God of everything.

Good to see you admitting that you worship a deity that kills and tortures children.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good to see you admitting that you worship a deity that kills and tortures children.

You are shifting the goal posts here, replacing death with Kill and pain with torture.
A God of everything would be the God of pain and death but not in the propagandists sense which you wish to convey. We have to ask ourselves what it means to be God of pain and death.

If you do not worship the God of everything then by your logic you hate love, life, goodness, healing etc.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are shifting the goal posts here, replacing death with Kill and pain with torture.
A God of everything would be the God of pain and death but not in the propagandists sense which you wish to convey. We have to ask ourselves what it means to be God of pain and death.

But if that god is also onmipotent and interventionalist that god could choose to eradicate pain etc - so by choosing not to at the very least that god is guilty of causing suffering by ommision. Arguably by action too.