Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

No. That demonstrates that you posted something. We want a demonstration of your version of free will that you claim is demonstrable. I e if time were rewound to immediately before your last post you could have posted something different a d it also not be random. It is your claim that this free will is demonstrable so all that is being asked is that you demonstrate it

The demonstration lies in the fact that we are able to post consciously verified conclusions or opinions.
Without such ability to verify, the output of our brains would be entirely defined by material reactions which are beyond our conscious control.
Our ability to verify the output of our thoughts can have no material explanation, because in the materialistic scenario there can be no mechanism for conscious verification if our conscious awareness emerges from material reactions which have already occurred.

the demonstration which you suggest is impossible because we cannot rewind time,  but we all have the demonstrable freedom to consciously contemplate and draw verifiable conclusions from the reality we perceive.

[Nearly Sane]

The demonstration lies in the fact that we are able to post consciously verified conclusions or opinions.
Without such ability to verify, the output of our brains would be entirely defined by material reactions which are beyond our conscious control.
Our ability to verify the output of our thoughts can have no material explanation, because in the materialistic scenario there can be no mechanism for conscious verification if our conscious awareness emerges from material reactions which have already occurred.

the demonstration which you suggest is impossible because we cannot rewind time,  but we all have the demonstrable freedom to consciously contemplate and draw verifiable conclusions from the reality we perceive.

None of that is a 'demonstration'. It's a barely coherent assertion.

[Outrider]

The material universe certainly has no remit to care about anything.

It's not wet, either, but I'm pretty sure my bath is.

The concept of likes and dislikes arise from conscious awareness for which we have no material definition or explanation.

No, our experience of likes and dislikes arise from conscious awareness, but the likes and dislikes themselves are characterisations of subconscious patterns of brain activity. You might not have a definition or an explanation, but others do.

Before you can get to the propagation of genes or the concept of survival - there is a monumental task of creating living cells capable of reproduction, followed by the organisation of these cells to facilitate sexual reproduction.

An billions upon billions of years for dozens of planets around billions of stars in trillions of galaxies for that sequence to have happened once in order for you to misunderstand it collossally.

Here is an interesting short video of a top eye surgeon who was an atheist prior to contemplating the amazing complexity of the human eye. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43pQSZ4tVbM

An adequate demonstration that technical ability and wisdom are not necessarily linked.

The demonstration lies in the fact that we are able to post consciously verified conclusions or opinions.

That 'consciousness' is developed in response to prior stimuli. Your 'conscious response' is prompted by the content of the argument being made to you. You're exercising will, yes, but there's nothing in what you post to suggest that it's free of those prior influences. What about your argument is somehow independent of what went before?

Without such ability to verify, the output of our brains would be entirely defined by material reactions which are beyond our conscious control.

Why would that ability to verify - correctly or incorrectly - not be a response to prior events? Children aren't born with that capacity, they learn it over time. It's the result of experience, it's a learnt behaviour, it's a set of rules built into the developing psyche as a response to exposure to arguments. It's an effect of prior events.

Our ability to verify the output of our thoughts can have no material explanation, because in the materialistic scenario there can be no mechanism for conscious verification if our conscious awareness emerges from material reactions which have already occurred.

Why? You have a harder time showing that conscious verification is the result of something that doesn't interact with the brain in any demonstrable way, or with anything else, yet somehow manifests physical evidence. You make an argument, but you want to suggest that somehow emerges spontaneously from nowhere, independent of what came before, yet somehow intrinsically linked to what went before it in terms of the immediate prompt and the arguers life experience? You want it resulting and responding to criteria, but also somehow divorced from them and independent - you are ascribing mutually exclusive traits to the phenomenon, and then trying to utilise your personal incredulity as evidence that it must be so.

the demonstration which you suggest is impossible because we cannot rewind time,  but we all have the demonstrable freedom to consciously contemplate and draw verifiable conclusions from the reality we perceive.

Yes, we can all ponder the past, and have thoughts that result from that past. How is that free of the past?

O.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

the demonstration which you suggest is impossible because we cannot rewind time,  .

,

Then how can it be demonstrated then ?. Just stating that we think about things is not enough. No one denies we can think about things and make decisions. If you can't demonstrate that we could have done differently under the same conditions and it not be random then you should stop claiming it is demonstrable.

[Gordon]

The demonstration lies in the fact that we are able to post consciously verified conclusions or opinions.
Without such ability to verify, the output of our brains would be entirely defined by material reactions which are beyond our conscious control.
Our ability to verify the output of our thoughts can have no material explanation, because in the materialistic scenario there can be no mechanism for conscious verification if our conscious awareness emerges from material reactions which have already occurred.

the demonstration which you suggest is impossible because we cannot rewind time,  but we all have the demonstrable freedom to consciously contemplate and draw verifiable conclusions from the reality we perceive.

This is your usual made-up stuff to avoid recognising that we are indeed biological robots - and that you seemingly can't handle!

[jeremyp]

I demonstrate it in every post I consciously compose.

No you don't. What is it about your posts that demonstrates free will? I bet I could feed all of your posts over the years into a large language model and its output would be almost indistinguishable from your actual posts. This is not intended to insult you. You could probably do the same thing with my posts, or anybody else on this message board.

Do you honestly believe that every moment thought you engage has been entirely defined before you even think it?
If so how can you possibly give credence to your own thoughts - and pass judgement on other people's thoughts?
I know these points have been made before but as yet there has been no credible answer.

Interesting philosophical questions. However, I would observe that, just because you don't like the answers to these questions that follow if there is no free will, doesn't mean there must be free will.

[Alan Burns]

That 'consciousness' is developed in response to prior stimuli. Your 'conscious response' is prompted by the content of the argument being made to you. You're exercising will, yes, but there's nothing in what you post to suggest that it's free of those prior influences. What about your argument is somehow independent of what went before?

Why would that ability to verify - correctly or incorrectly - not be a response to prior events? Children aren't born with that capacity, they learn it over time. It's the result of experience, it's a learnt behaviour, it's a set of rules built into the developing psyche as a response to exposure to arguments. It's an effect of prior events.

Why? You have a harder time showing that conscious verification is the result of something that doesn't interact with the brain in any demonstrable way, or with anything else, yet somehow manifests physical evidence. You make an argument, but you want to suggest that somehow emerges spontaneously from nowhere, independent of what came before, yet somehow intrinsically linked to what went before it in terms of the immediate prompt and the arguers life experience? You want it resulting and responding to criteria, but also somehow divorced from them and independent - you are ascribing mutually exclusive traits to the phenomenon, and then trying to utilise your personal incredulity as evidence that it must be so.

Yes, we can all ponder the past, and have thoughts that result from that past. How is that free of the past?

O.

I have never suggested that our thoughts and choices are independent of past events.  We are consciously aware of past events and they certainly can influence our thoughts and choices - but not dictate them.  Awareness of the past exists in our present state of consciousness, but I have the freedom to choose how to respond - or not respond.  In reading your post I become aware of the points you are making, and I have the freedom to think about how to respond - I could choose to give a very detailed response, or a brief response or make no response.  This is the demonstrable nature of my gift of free will which has been deemed to be a logical impossibility in the materialistic cause and effect scenario.

[torridon]

..
the demonstration which you suggest is impossible because we cannot rewind time,  but we all have the demonstrable freedom to consciously contemplate and draw verifiable conclusions from the reality we perceive.

We cannot rewind time, therefore we cannot 'demonstrate' that free will is a thing. 

Merely pointing out that we do what we want is not evidence that our desires are free, and indeed the idea that we could be free to choose our desires makes no sense.  Here is the nub of the problem, your conception of free will is non-sensical, so all talk of 'demonstrating' it is ultimately futile.

[Outrider]

I have never suggested that our thoughts and choices are independent of past events.

Every time you suggest we have free will that's exactly what you're saying. It's either determined by prior events or, at some level, it's independent of them.

We are consciously aware of past events and they certainly can influence our thoughts and choices - but not dictate them.

Those past events have constructed the psyche that manifests that 'consciousness' you think is managing the situation - we are subconsciously shaped by past events, and consciously we recollect some of them imperfectly and create feedback loops within that subconscious processing.

Awareness of the past exists in our present state of consciousness, but I have the freedom to choose how to respond - or not respond.

Do you? That 'I' is the product of those prior events. You are a result at any given moment in time of the stream of events that have led up to you, there, now.

In reading your post I become aware of the points you are making, and I have the freedom to think about how to respond - I could choose to give a very detailed response, or a brief response or make no response.

You don't have any freedom to that thinking, that thinking is the result of who you are, your physiological state at that moment in time, and the concepts I've put on the screen. You feel like you're something independent, but that feeling is illusory. You are the result of patterns of activity in your brain which itself is the result of neuron connections that have been preserved or severed as a result of your past experiences. You are your brain, and your brain has been shaped by your history, back to your conception and beyond.

This is the demonstrable nature of my gift of free will which has been deemed to be a logical impossibility in the materialistic cause and effect scenario.

It is not demonstrable in any way, shape or form. You've failed to demonstrate in what way your current state is not a result of your prior states and the intervening passage of time and events. You've just claimed that you believe it's the case, as though that's evidence of anything other than your inevitable state of mind.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Every time you suggest we have free will that's exactly what you're saying. It's either determined by prior events or, at some level, it's independent of them.

Those past events have constructed the psyche that manifests that 'consciousness' you think is managing the situation - we are subconsciously shaped by past events, and consciously we recollect some of them imperfectly and create feedback loops within that subconscious processing.

Do you? That 'I' is the product of those prior events. You are a result at any given moment in time of the stream of events that have led up to you, there, now.

You don't have any freedom to that thinking, that thinking is the result of who you are, your physiological state at that moment in time, and the concepts I've put on the screen. You feel like you're something independent, but that feeling is illusory. You are the result of patterns of activity in your brain which itself is the result of neuron connections that have been preserved or severed as a result of your past experiences. You are your brain, and your brain has been shaped by your history, back to your conception and beyond.

It is not demonstrable in any way, shape or form. You've failed to demonstrate in what way your current state is not a result of your prior states and the intervening passage of time and events. You've just claimed that you believe it's the case, as though that's evidence of anything other than your inevitable state of mind.

O.

In all this you consistently fail to see the obvious power of your human soul which gives you control of your thought processes and enables you to determine your own destiny.
Can you not realise that it is your spiritual self which is enabling you to perform the mental gymnastics with which you try to deny your own freedom to think?
Do you honestly believe that the well thought out reasoning just pops into your conscious awareness beyond your conscious control?
Or is the act of belief or disbelief just another inevitable reaction determined by material reactions without any involvement of your conscious self?

[Outrider]

In all this you consistently fail to see the obvious power of your human soul which gives you control of your thought processes and enables you to determine your own destiny.

You say this is 'obvious', and yet a host of people here keep pointing out that they don't see it. Your response is to presume, on the basis of nothing that you're showing us, that your belief must be right because you feel it. It's a self-belief bordering on arrogance.

Can you not realise that it is your spiritual self which is enabling you to perform the mental gymnastics with which you try to deny your own freedom to think?

Can you not understand that tacking 'spiritual' onto something doesn't make it more impactful to me, and people like me, it makes it meaningless? You might as well talk about the mana that enables our ability to cast spells.

Do you honestly believe that the well thought out reasoning just pops into your conscious awareness beyond your conscious control?

Yes. That's exactly what I conclude from the available evidence, given the status of my brain on a consistent basis for the past thirty odd years, as a result of the way my brain was shaped by events prior that and up to today.

Or is the act of belief or disbelief just another inevitable reaction determined by material reactions without any involvement of your conscious self?

It's not 'or', it's 'and'. I believe my consciously validated conclusions and my beliefs are an inevitable result of who I am at the time, which is dependent entirely on the events that have gone before.

You don't, which I get, but you don't appear to be able to convey any sort of mechanism or structure or process by which that could be realised - you just restate that you believe it, despite all the different ways in which it's been shown to you that it's logically not viable.

O.

[ekim]

In all this you consistently fail to see the obvious power of your human soul which gives you control of your thought processes and enables you to determine your own destiny.
Can you not realise that it is your spiritual self which is enabling you to perform the mental gymnastics with which you try to deny your own freedom to think?
Do you honestly believe that the well thought out reasoning just pops into your conscious awareness beyond your conscious control?
Or is the act of belief or disbelief just another inevitable reaction determined by material reactions without any involvement of your conscious self?

All you have to do now is define what you mean by 'human soul', demonstrate its existence and indicate how it differs from a well established religious ego, and show how it is free from attachments to religious doctrine.  The next stage would be to indicate how a surrender to 'Thy Will be done' as opposed to 'my will be done' supports your notion of 'freedom'.

[Alan Burns]

All you have to do now is define what you mean by 'human soul', demonstrate its existence and indicate how it differs from a well established religious ego, and show how it is free from attachments to religious doctrine.  The next stage would be to indicate how a surrender to 'Thy Will be done' as opposed to 'my will be done' supports your notion of 'freedom'.

What I am pointing out is the unique ability of human beings to consciously guide their thoughts to reach validated conclusions.  Such conscious guidance has been shown to be a logical impossibility in a materialistic scenario where every moment is entirely defined by previous events beyond any form of conscious control.

So my faith is based upon the power of the human soul to achieve what physically defined material reactions can never do - to have conscious freedom to control what we think, say or do.

The materialistic alternative is to have faith that every human thought, word or deed can be entirely defined before it occurs.
But as I see it, such an act of faith will itself require some form form of conscious control to consciously validate it.

[Gordon]

What I am pointing out is the unique ability of human beings to consciously guide their thoughts to reach validated conclusions.  Such conscious guidance has been shown to be a logical impossibility in a materialistic scenario where every moment is entirely defined by previous events beyond any form of conscious control.

So my faith is based upon the power of the human soul to achieve what physically defined material reactions can never do - to have conscious freedom to control what we think, say or do.

The materialistic alternative is to have faith that every human thought, word or deed can be entirely defined before it occurs.
But as I see it, such an act of faith will itself require some form form of conscious control to consciously validate it.

You're getting hung up on 'validation' again, Alan - it's just material biology doing what it does, so just enjoy the ride and don't worry about the bits 'beneath the hood' that you can't see and aren't even aware of.

[jeremyp]

What I am pointing out is the unique ability of human beings to consciously guide their thoughts to reach validated conclusions.  Such conscious guidance has been shown to be a logical impossibility in a materialistic scenario where every moment is entirely defined by previous events beyond any form of conscious control.

By whom? Can you give us a reference?

[Nearly Sane]

We cannot rewind time, therefore we cannot 'demonstrate' that free will is a thing. 

Merely pointing out the we do what we want is not evidence that our desires are free, and indeed the idea that we could be free to choose our desires makes no sense.  Here is the nub of the problem, your conception of free will is non-sensical, so all talk of 'demonstrating' it is ultimately futile.

I'm not sure that even were we able to rewind time that free will could be demonstrated as surely any difference in action would then be indicative of a random part?

[Outrider]

What I am pointing out is the unique ability of human beings to consciously guide their thoughts to reach validated conclusions.

Firstly, we don't know that it's unique. Secondly, you're not just pointing it out, you're asserting that that conscious behaviour is somehow independent of what's caused it, without a valid basis for that claim.

Such conscious guidance has been shown to be a logical impossibility in a materialistic scenario where every moment is entirely defined by previous events beyond any form of conscious control.

Where has it been shown that? You've claimed it, through a combination of various fallacies and assertions, but you've never 'shown' it, and you've never managed to cite anyone else that's shown it either, that I recall.

So my faith is based upon the power of the human soul to achieve what physically defined material reactions can never do - to have conscious freedom to control what we think, say or do.

That you are relying on faith shows, by definition, that this is a claim without sufficient basis - if it was logically or empirically supported you wouldn't require faith, it would be a conclusion. That your explanation relies in equally ill-evidenced superstition - 'souls' - is another nail in the coffin of your attempt at an argument.

The materialistic alternative is to have faith that every human thought, word or deed can be entirely defined before it occurs.

It requires no faith at all, it requires observation and extrapolation from the evidence available.

But as I see it, such an act of faith will itself require some form form of conscious control to consciously validate it.

There is no act of faith, but even if there were it wouldn't require validation in order to be the case. Rain falls whether you have faith in it or not. Tomorrow exists whether you believe that or not. And you are the product of prior events, whether you accept that as the case or not.

O.

[Alan Burns]

I'm not sure that even were we able to rewind time that free will could be demonstrated as surely any difference in action would then be indicative of a random part?

It would indicate the power of our human soul, which is certainly not random.

[Alan Burns]

Firstly, we don't know that it's unique. Secondly, you're not just pointing it out, you're asserting that that conscious behaviour is somehow independent of what's caused it, without a valid basis for that claim.

Our conscious behaviour is caused by the power of our human soul - not by inevitable material reactions beyond our conscious control.

I am constantly accused of making assertions, which by definition would involve making a deliberate claim for something without viable evidence or reason - but such an act of deliberation would in itself provide evidence of the power of human free will to override logic.

[Alan Burns]

It requires no faith at all, it requires observation and extrapolation from the evidence available.

Perception of available evidence will not lead to verified conclusions.
In order to form viable conclusions from the observation of evidence you need the freedom to consciously contemplate what exists in your awareness and manipulate your thoughts to reach conclusions.
To imagine that it all somehow drops out of subconscious brain activity truly beggars belief.

[Outrider]

Perception of available evidence will not lead to verified conclusions.

Really? So the entirety of the history of scientific investigation of the world is invalid?

In order to form viable conclusions from the observation of evidence you need the freedom to consciously contemplate what exists in your awareness and manipulate your thoughts to reach conclusions.

Computers can accurately determine insects if shown a picture - are you suggesting they have conscious freedom?

To imagine that it all somehow drops out of subconscious brain activity truly beggars belief.

Better to believe that it comes from magic? That you struggle to believe it doesn't make it wrong. The case has been made, you need to address the case, not just reiterate your lack of understanding or appreciation.

O.

[Gordon]

Perception of available evidence will not lead to verified conclusions.

Don't be silly - if I'm walking across a road and I perceive an obstacle that might be hazardous to me - say the kerb on the other side of the road - I'd say that not much 'verification' is needed based on previous experience of crossing roads: in fact, provided I'm paying routine attention to where I'm walking, I don't ever seem to need to spend any time carefully 'verifying' that there is indeed a kerb, and not an elephant, to be negotiated or ruminating about how to 'be careful'.

In order to form viable conclusions from the observation of evidence you need the freedom to consciously contemplate what exists in your awareness and manipulate your thoughts to reach conclusions.

If that were literally true we'd all be paralysed by the over-analysis of every trivial detail for much of our lives - fortunately though, the material bits of our biology don't need us to pay attention for some of the stuff that it does on our behalf, and without us being aware of the bits going on 'below the hood'.

To imagine that it all somehow drops out of subconscious brain activity truly beggars belief.

That's just you, Alan, because for you 'God' needs to be a player in everything: some of the rest of us are untroubled by such nonsense, and just get on with living our lives.

[ekim]

Our conscious behaviour is caused by the power of our human soul - not by inevitable material reactions beyond our conscious control.

I am constantly accused of making assertions, which by definition would involve making a deliberate claim for something without viable evidence or reason - but such an act of deliberation would in itself provide evidence of the power of human free will to override logic.

It is probably your use of the term 'free will' which causes the problem.  If 'will' is seen as the intension to act or not act, you need to show that your actions or inactions are free from underlying desires to do so, e.g.are your replies free from your desire to defend, promote, support your religious belief system?  Answering the question 'What motivates you?' may give you a clue.  I don't think anybody is denying the ability to choose, but its what drives those choices which determines the degree of freedom, particularly on an emotional or a doctrinal/programmed level.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Just passing through after a period of absence and I see that you’ve learnt nothing while I've been away. Your various recent efforts have been falsified by others, but regarding this especially:

…the true improbabilities within the fine tuning arguments…

Why when I took considerable effort to detonate your fine-tuning "argument" a while back without response have you just repeated the same bad reasoning?

Once again – the fine-tuning argument is an example of circular reasoning. You have to insert “God” a priori to decide that you’re the intended outcome (premise) so that you can then marvel at the unlikeliness of that happening by chance, therefore god did it (conclusion). That is, “God” is both your premise and your conclusion.

Could you at least indicate that you understand why this is a bad argument?       

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just passing through after a period of absence and I see that you’ve learnt nothing while I've been away. Your various recent efforts have been falsified by others, but regarding this especially:

Why when I took considerable effort to detonate your fine-tuning "argument" a while back without response have you just repeated the same bad reasoning?

Once again – the fine-tuning argument is an example of circular reasoning. You have to insert “God” a priori to decide that you’re the intended outcome (premise) so that you can then marvel at the unlikeliness of that happening by chance, therefore god did it (conclusion). That is, “God” is both your premise and your conclusion.

Could you at least indicate that you understand why this is a bad argument?     

How improbable does a series of specific events have to be before you concede that these events offer evidence of intention rather than pure chance?