Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Alan...still waiting on your feasible explanation of how your soul works!
Specifically but not exclusively,  how exactly can an immaterial entity (soul) interact with matter (physical body).

God knows!
But I do know that matter alone can never do what our soul does - give us the  freedom to wilfully escape from the uncontrollable consequences of material reactions.

[Gordon]

God knows!
But I do know that matter alone can never do what our soul does - give us the  freedom to wilfully escape from the uncontrollable consequences of material reactions.

You don't 'know' that at all: this is just your usual mix of the fallacies of 'incredulity and consequences'.

[torridon]

God knows!
But I do know that matter alone can never do what our soul does - give us the  freedom to wilfully escape from the uncontrollable consequences of material reactions.

however you've never shown how anyone can choose what will to have; so this 'freedom' is just illusory.

[Sebastian Toe]

God knows!
But I do know that matter alone can never do what our soul does - give us the  freedom to wilfully escape from the uncontrollable consequences of material reactions.

Seems a bit hypocritical, someone constantly wanting other people to show how material brains can produce thought whilst themselves being totally unable to describe how their very own pet hypothesis works (other than by magic)!

[Alan Burns]

however you've never shown how anyone can choose what will to have; so this 'freedom' is just illusory.

It depends on the ultimate source of "will"
If our will is defined by uncontrollable material reactions, we obviously would have no choice.
Do we have a choice about what to put our faith in?
We can put our faith in the ability of material reactions to define every "choice" we make.
Or we can believe in the freedom which allows us to exercise our gift of faith.

[Gordon]

It depends on the ultimate source of "will"

Which, as things stand, look to be biological: it's what brains do.

If our will is defined by uncontrollable material reactions, we obviously would have no choice.

Correct, even if you don't like it.

Do we have a choice about what to put our faith in?

Why do you need' faith' when you have a credible naturalistic explanation for mental processes? Looks like you're contriving a hook to hang your 'God' on.

We can put our faith in the ability of material reactions to define every "choice" we make.

Yes, and again 'faith' is an inappropriate term for you to use since, for you, it is code for 'God'. Having reasonable confidence in well-attested knowledge would be a better viewpoint to hold.

Or we can believe in the freedom which allows us to exercise our gift of faith.

No, because that is flagrant theobollocks.

[torridon]

It depends on the ultimate source of "will"
If our will is defined by uncontrollable material reactions, we obviously would have no choice.
Do we have a choice about what to put our faith in?
We can put our faith in the ability of material reactions to define every "choice" we make.
Or we can believe in the freedom which allows us to exercise our gift of faith.

OK, that is just a belief, then, it is not a conclusion from evidence.

You may think we are free to choose what to believe and what to understand and what desires to have.  However this claim makes no sense.  I cannot just choose to understand something that I don't understand, nor can I just choose to want something that I don't want.  Such things are beyond our conscious control. We are all products of the influences which shape us.

[Alan Burns]

OK, that is just a belief, then, it is not a conclusion from evidence.

You may think we are free to choose what to believe and what to understand and what desires to have.  However this claim makes no sense.  I cannot just choose to understand something that I don't understand, nor can I just choose to want something that I don't want.  Such things are beyond our conscious control. We are all products of the influences which shape us.

Ultimately, you are free to choose reasons to believe that God exists, or you are free to choose reasons to believe why God does not exist.  There are a multitude of reasons for both sides - the choice is your to make.  But your freedom to make that choice may give you a clue as to which reasons are valid. 

[Gordon]

Ultimately, you are free to choose reasons to believe that God exists, or you are free to choose reasons to believe why God does not exist.  There are a multitude of reasons for both sides - the choice is your to make.  But your freedom to make that choice may give you a clue as to which reasons are valid. 

Not really: there are no good reasons to think that 'God' exists, so a fairly sound reason to think that 'God' doesn't exist is the absence of good reasons to think otherwise.

[Nearly Sane]

Ultimately, you are free to choose reasons to believe that God exists, or you are free to choose reasons to believe why God does not exist.  There are a multitude of reasons for both sides - the choice is your to make.  But your freedom to make that choice may give you a clue as to which reasons are valid. 

Could you choose not to believe?

[Stranger]

Ultimately, you are free to choose reasons to believe that God exists...

What reasons? Which God?

But your freedom to make that choice may give you a clue as to which reasons are valid. 

No. We don't have 'freedom' in the impossible self-contradictory way you believe. I also don't see belief as a choice at all. I'm either convinced or not.

[Alan Burns]

Could you choose not to believe?

We cannot choose the truth - it needs to be discerned by consciously considering and evaluating the logic and evidence available.
And in order to achieve this we need the freedom to consciously direct our own thought processes to reach verifiable conclusions.
A freedom which is impossible in the fall out from a material brain entirely driven by physical reactions beyond our conscious control.

[Nearly Sane]

We cannot choose the truth - it needs to be discerned by consciously considering and evaluating the logic and evidence available.
And in order to achieve this we need the freedom to consciously direct our own thought processes to reach verifiable conclusions.
A freedom which is impossible in the fall out from a material brain entirely driven by physical reactions beyond our conscious control.

Is that a no?