Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

So I take it that you believe "love" is just the inevitable consequence arising from a series of material reactions entirely driven by nothing else but the laws of physics and chemistry over which we can have no control.

I rest my case.

That isn't in any sense a case.

[Alan Burns]

Begging the question.

Blind faith.

Incredulity and ad consequentiam

ad populum

More incredulity and ad consequentiam, and the burden of proof here is yours.

Next time try your biology!

I dearly wish that you could replace your over active fallacy detector with a truth detector, Gordon.

[Maeght]

So I take it that you believe "love" is just the inevitable consequence arising from a series of material reactions entirely driven by nothing else but the laws of physics and chemistry over which we can have no control.

I rest my case.

You haven't made a case.

Can you present any evidence to support your claim?

[jeremyp]

Surely the onus is on you and others to show how the concept of love can possibly come about without the freedom to consciously control our own thought processes.

This is kind of hilarious. My experience of love is that it comes unbidden. I love my parents and my family. I love my partner. I didn't choose to love these people. I know from experience that, if my partner stops loving me, I will have serious emotional pain because I won't be able to stop loving her just by conscious control of my thought processes.

If there was ever anything that demonstrates to me that you are wrong about conscious control, it's the way I experience love.

[Outrider]

understanding how things work does not impinge upon the need for a source responsible for making things that work.

But understanding how things work might help you realise why your claims are nonsense, and why they fail to in any way explain what you're trying to explain.

I simply believe that there is a creator of intelligence.

Woop-dee-doo. We're questioning why you believe that, and your answers either don't make sense, or don't explain why you believe, just reiterate that you do, or just assert that any alternative is impossible.

There is far more evidence for the reality of human free will than there is for the unavoidable consequences of material reactions being able to generate all human achievements.

Then you'd be able to explain how the evidence supports that conclusion, but you don't - you just claim personal incredulity, and the presume to tell the rest of us that your limitations somehow mean that magic is real.

It is still convincing many people to this day - 2000 years after the events.

No, it isn't. Stories about it, in controlled environments, are convincing some people - increasingly few people in any place where there's formal education and a decent quality of life. It's almost like ignorant desperate people will believe incredible things in their desperation.

Surely the onus is on you and others to show how the concept of love can possibly come about without the freedom to consciously control our own thought processes.

Arguably. We both (i presume) accept that people feel love. We've shown over, and over, and over, and over why the concept of free will is not just not actually the reality, but is logically untenable. We've shown you how it doesn't make sense as an idea. We've shown you how neurology shows that's not how our brain works. We've shown you the question-begging and circular reasoning within the free will model. The onus has been on us, to an extent, and we've fulfilled our part of the bargain.

And you ignore it, and claim that it's impossible because you don't accept it, and start the imaginary ball rolling uphill once more.

And I would like to use my God given free will to thank you for your detailed response to my post. 

And I will endeavour to take that in the spirit it's intended

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So I take it that you believe "love" is just the inevitable consequence arising from a series of material reactions entirely driven by nothing else but the laws of physics and chemistry over which we can have no control.

I rest my case.

Your incredulity is not a "case". Try again. 

[Alan Burns]

Arguably. We both (i presume) accept that people feel love. We've shown over, and over, and over, and over why the concept of free will is not just not actually the reality, but is logically untenable. We've shown you how it doesn't make sense as an idea. We've shown you how neurology shows that's not how our brain works. We've shown you the question-begging and circular reasoning within the free will model. The onus has been on us, to an extent, and we've fulfilled our part of the bargain.

I am fully aware of the many convoluted attempts to deny the reality that we have the freedom to consciously control our own thoughts.  However I have yet to see a feasible explanation for how anyone can come up with these attempts at denial without being able to consciously control and verify the thought processes involved.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am fully aware of the many convoluted attempts…

They’re not convoluted, and certainly they’re considerably less convoluted than the menagerie of gods, spooks and spectres you have to invent to populate the world as you would prefer it to be.

…to deny the reality that we have the freedom to consciously control our own thoughts.

That’s not “the” reality. It’s a convenient fiction that falls apart as “the” reality as soon as rational thinking is applied to it.   

However I have yet to see a feasible explanation for how anyone can come up with these attempts at denial without being able to consciously control and verify the thought processes involved.

That you can’t see it is just an expression of your incredulity, not a rebuttal of the reasoning and evidence that falsifies you.

[Gordon]

However I have yet to see a feasible explanation for how anyone can come up with these attempts at denial without being able to consciously control and verify the thought processes involved.

That is just because your theogoggles are getting in the way: take them off.

[torridon]

I simply believe that there is a creator of intelligence...

So, this creator of intelligence is itself not intelligent ? Or are are you happy to settle for the obvious circularity of this reasoning ?

[torridon]

There is far more evidence for the reality of human free will than there is for the unavoidable consequences of material reactions being able to generate all human achievements...

Strange that you cannot provide this evidence, then.  Every time when challenged to do so, all you put up amounts to just 'will', not that it is 'free'.

[Outrider]

I am fully aware of the many convoluted attempts to deny the reality that we have the freedom to consciously control our own thoughts.  However I have yet to see a feasible explanation for how anyone can come up with these attempts at denial without being able to consciously control and verify the thought processes involved.

So you're using your presumption to ignore the content of the argument - that's pretty much a de facto confession of arguing in bad faith, if you think about it. I get it possibly doesn't feel like that from your end, but objectively if you're going to rely on your presumption to ignore the content of an argument because it disagrees with your presumption, you're not really engaging.

O.

[Stranger]

Humm, it's a bit



round here, but it seems we can still rely on Alan to come up with the same old drivel regardless...

Had to think long and hard how to respond to this...

I see no evidence, either now, or in all the time you've been posting this crap, for that matter, that you have ever thought seriously about this subject at all... in your entire life...

I dearly wish that you could replace your over active fallacy detector with a truth detector, Gordon.

Actually, a fully functional fallacy detector is an indispensable part of any truth detector. If you weren't so complacent and (apparently) bone idle, you could try it. Apart from detecting them before posting them, and hence stopping oneself looking like an idiot, detecting fallacies enables one to cut out the bullshit pseudo-arguments and see clearly the substance of any argument or purported evidence being offered. Problem is, when with do that with your posts on this subject, there's just nothing left except empty statements of blind belief.

I am fully aware of the many convoluted attempts to deny the reality that we have the freedom to consciously control our own thoughts.  However I have yet to see a feasible explanation for how anyone can come up with these attempts at denial without being able to consciously control and verify the thought processes involved.

And there's a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy with added personal incredulity to boot, not to mention one of your usual gibberish phrases. 

[Alan Burns]

That you can’t see it is just an expression of your incredulity, not a rebuttal of the reasoning and evidence that falsifies you.

It is not a question of incredulity.
It is simply a total impossibility - derived from the simple logic that any consciously confirmed logical deduction requires guidance and control of the thought processes needed to reach and confirm such conclusions.  You imagine that such guidance and control can simply drop out from the uncontrollable material reactions occurring in a material brain.  Any reasoning or evidence you come up with must be a consequence of your ability to consciously compose and confirm such reasoning.  Why can't you understand this simple logic?  Are you afraid of the consequences of admitting that you do have the conscious freedom needed perform such reasoning?  Where you go wrong is not in the reasoning itself - it is perfectly sound reasoning which you use to conclude that our conscious freedom is a logical impossibility, but it is only a logical impossibility from the materialistic premise.

Do not be afraid - you are made in God's image.

[Alan Burns]

This is kind of hilarious. My experience of love is that it comes unbidden. I love my parents and my family. I love my partner. I didn't choose to love these people. I know from experience that, if my partner stops loving me, I will have serious emotional pain because I won't be able to stop loving her just by conscious control of my thought processes.

If there was ever anything that demonstrates to me that you are wrong about conscious control, it's the way I experience love.

Your concept of what comprises love is certainly different to mine.

I refer to the CS Lewis quote from my profile :
Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.

[Stranger]

Alan, why go on spouting this mindless garbage that has been taken apart endless times before? Do you want to look like a total idiot?

It is not a question of incredulity.

It definitely is, along with argument by assertion. You do seem to have missed out some of your other favourite fallacies this time round, though.

It is simply a total impossibility - derived from the simple logic that any consciously confirmed logical deduction requires guidance and control of the thought processes needed to reach and confirm such conclusions.

This is an assertion that is totally devoid of any logic. You cannot make something logical just by asserting that it is. You don't seem to even understand what the word 'logic' means. And yet again you are confusing consciousness with your insane version of free will. It doesn't matter what role consciousness has, free will is still impossible.

You imagine that such guidance and control can simply drop out from the uncontrollable material reactions occurring in a material brain.  Any reasoning or evidence you come up with must be a consequence of your ability to consciously compose and confirm such reasoning.  Why can't you understand this simple logic?

Because there is no logic to understand (simple or otherwise). Stamping your little foot really, really hard and spouting gibberish phrases, is not logic.

Where you go wrong is not in the reasoning itself - it is perfectly sound reasoning which you use to conclude that our conscious freedom is a logical impossibility, but it is only a logical impossibility from the materialistic premise.

What materialist premise? The logic against you nonsense version of free will does not have such a premise.

[Alan Burns]

Alan, why go on spouting this mindless garbage that has been taken apart endless times before? Do you want to look like a total idiot?

It definitely is, along with argument by assertion. You do seem to have missed out some of your other favourite fallacies this time round, though.

This is an assertion that is totally devoid of any logic. You cannot make something logical just by asserting that it is. You don't seem to even understand what the word 'logic' means. And yet again you are confusing consciousness with your insane version of free will. It doesn't matter what role consciousness has, free will is still impossible.

Because there is no logic to understand (simple or otherwise). Stamping your little foot really, really hard and spouting gibberish phrases, is not logic.

What materialist premise? The logic against you nonsense version of free will does not have such a premise.

So please enlighten me -
If logic is not derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions, where does it derive from?

[Stranger]

So please enlighten me -
If logic is not derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions, where does it derive from?

Personal incredulity - check.
Nonsense phrases - check.
Total lack of logic - check.
Argument from ignorance (attempted) - check.
Argument by assertion - not this post.

Staggering. You 'answered' a post in which I pointed out some of your obvious mistakes and fallacies, in a way that pretty much exemplifies all of them! You couldn't make this shit up!

Of course, we could add stupid question that has been answered endless times before, and mindless repetition...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is not a question of incredulity.

Incredulity is all you have.

It is simply a total impossibility - derived from the simple logic that any consciously confirmed logical deduction requires guidance and control of the thought processes needed to reach and confirm such conclusions.

That’s not “simple logic” at all – it’s just an expression of your conflation of colloquial life experience with an underlying explanation. You seem to have no idea of what “logic” actually means.

You imagine that such guidance and control can simply drop out from the uncontrollable material reactions occurring in a material brain.  Any reasoning or evidence you come up with must be a consequence of your ability to consciously compose and confirm such reasoning.  Why can't you understand this simple logic?

Because its utter bollocks with no logical support at all. If you want to assert “guidance and control” you also need to conjure up something to do this supposed guiding and controlling, and then you need to explain why it too wouldn’t need to have something else to do its guiding and controlling in turn without resorting to “because it’s magic innit”. You know - the problem you run away from every time it’s put to you.   

Are you afraid of the consequences of admitting that you do have the conscious freedom needed perform such reasoning?  Where you go wrong is not in the reasoning itself - it is perfectly sound reasoning which you use to conclude that our conscious freedom is a logical impossibility, but it is only a logical impossibility from the materialistic premise.

No, it’s got nothing to do with a “materialistic premise” – just with logic. The only person who’s afraid here is you – I’m content to go wherever reason and evidence takes me. You on the other hand have told us that nothing could ever be permitted to change your mind, no matter what. This is the very definition of a mind closed by blind faith, presumably because opening the door to your religious beliefs being nonsense would terrify you.     

Do not be afraid - you are made in God's image.

Don’t be afraid – Colin the leprechaun will leave you a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow if only you believe hard enough.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

So please enlighten me -

You cannot enlighten someone who's unenlightenable. 

[Outrider]

It is not a question of incredulity.

You appear to think you have a basis for your claim - you're wrong, but let's work on the assumption you think you have an argument.

It is simply a total impossibility - derived from the simple logic that any consciously confirmed logical deduction requires guidance and control of the thought processes needed to reach and confirm such conclusions.

What 'logic' is that? You don't appear to be deducing that from anything, you're just rephrasing your a priori assumption as a conclusion. Why must you have some 'conscious control' in order to come to logical conclusions? Computers can come to logical conclusions, and there's no evidence they have free will or consciousness.

You imagine that such guidance and control can simply drop out from the uncontrollable material reactions occurring in a material brain.

Nobody is suggesting any 'simplicity' about this - the human brain is one of the most, if not the most, complicated structures known to science. We have barely begun to scrape the surface of the depths of feedback mechanisms and interconnections involved in the brain - to assert definitively that there are demonstrable human behaviours that are beyond the possibilities of the human brain is to suggest that you don't understand the complexity of the human brain.

Any reasoning or evidence you come up with must be a consequence of your ability to consciously compose and confirm such reasoning.

You are presuming your conclusion as an argument for your conclusion, here - that's circular reasoning.

Why can't you understand this simple logic?

You haven't shown any logic. You've reasserted your conclusion, and called it a logical conclusion. Your entire argument is a single statement of 'that's impossible' without any justification whatsoever.

Are you afraid of the consequences of admitting that you do have the conscious freedom needed perform such reasoning?

Which would be what, exactly? Even if we assume that 'free will', despite being self contradictory, were a thing, what are the consequences of accepting it?

Where you go wrong is not in the reasoning itself - it is perfectly sound reasoning which you use to conclude that our conscious freedom is a logical impossibility, but it is only a logical impossibility from the materialistic premise.

If you're wanting to suggest something beyond a 'materialist premise', you need to explain what mechanism you're going to use to validate your proposals. You're quite happy to venture unarmed into the materialist realm with your assertion that consciousness can't be a result of purely material reactions, you aren't relying on any demonstration of anything non-material for your argument. You are concluding that there must be something non-material, as a result of discounting - without basis - the material explanation. You have no argument, you have an assertion, and a claim of magic as a result of that assertion.

Do not be afraid - you are made in God's image.

Only if God's an atheist sceptic...

O.

[Alan Burns]

Personal incredulity - check.
Nonsense phrases - check.
Total lack of logic - check.
Argument from ignorance (attempted) - check.
Argument by assertion - not this post.

Staggering. You 'answered' a post in which I pointed out some of your obvious mistakes and fallacies, in a way that pretty much exemplifies all of them! You couldn't make this shit up!

Of course, we could add stupid question that has been answered endless times before, and mindless repetition...

You appear to have dodged this simple question - so I ask you again:

So please enlighten me -
If logic is not derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions, where does it derive from?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

You cannot enlighten someone who's unenlightenable.

perhaps you can answer this simple question then:

So please enlighten me -
If logic is not derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions, where does it derive from?

[Alan Burns]

Nobody is suggesting any 'simplicity' about this - the human brain is one of the most, if not the most, complicated structures known to science. We have barely begun to scrape the surface of the depths of feedback mechanisms and interconnections involved in the brain - to assert definitively that there are demonstrable human behaviours that are beyond the possibilities of the human brain is to suggest that you don't understand the complexity of the human brain.

I fully agree that the complexity we perceive in the workings of the human brain is beyond our human comprehension.

But no amount of physically driven complexity can alter the fact that a material brain will be entirely driven by the laws of physics and chemistry - and we cannot control the laws of physics and chemistry.  So it is a simple logical deduction that the output from a material brain will be determined by uncontrollable material reactions.

So without the freedom to consciously control our thought processes - how do we consciously verify the correctness of the conclusions we make?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

perhaps you can answer this simple question then:…

Once more, it’s not the job of anyone else to enlighten you. You think you’re enlightened anyway, albeit that that your justifying reasoning for that belief is hopelessly wrong. Yet again then: you’re the one claiming that consciousness cannot be a materialistic phenomenon so it’s your job to justify your claim. Whether you’re incredulous about the materialistic explanations you’re given is neither here nor there – your claim = your burden of proof.

Why is that basic principle so hard for you to grasp?     

So please enlighten me -
If logic is not derived from consciously controlled thought processes which lead to consciously verifiable conclusions, where does it derive from?

There's no good reason (or at least none that you’ve proposed) to suppose that a materialistic consciousness can’t mark its own homework. The human brain is a vastly complex and largely mysterious organ with many interacting parts, and it's entirely possible that ideas generation and ideas evaluation are two of those parts. If you think that’s impossible nonetheless, then – finally – try at least to justify that claim with an argument of your own that isn’t “it’s magic innit”.