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?

[Stranger]

We cannot choose the truth - it needs to be discerned by consciously considering and evaluating the logic and evidence available.

You should try it sometime. 

Anyway, you said we had the freedom to choose what to believe, now you seem to be claiming to know the truth and so you can't choose. Make your mind up.

[Alan Burns]

You should try it sometime. 

Anyway, you said we had the freedom to choose what to believe, now you seem to be claiming to know the truth and so you can't choose. Make your mind up.

What I said was that we had the conscious freedom to choose reasons to back up what we think is the truth - or more probably what we want to believe is the truth.  But as Pilate said, what is truth?

I put my trust in the power of my human soul to lead me to the truth, and in doing so I am also aware of the power of evil to lead me away from truth.

But what if my soul does not exist, nor does God or evil?
The materialist must trust in the power of whatever emerges from the electro chemical reactions in a material brain - which itself is the unintended consequence of random unguided forces with no purpose.
But is trust just the result another chemical reaction?
If so how can you trust it? 

[Stranger]

What I said was that we had the conscious freedom to choose reasons to back up what we think is the truth - or more probably what we want to believe is the truth.

Perhaps better to let the reason (evidence) lead you to what you think is probably the truth, rather than starting with your beliefs. If you'd have done that you might not have made such a dog's breakfast of your beliefs and their supposed justifications.

I put my trust in the power of my human soul to lead me to the truth, and in doing so I am also aware of the power of evil to lead me away from truth.

But what if my soul does not exist, nor does God or evil?
The materialist must trust in the power of whatever emerges from the electro chemical reactions in a material brain - which itself is the unintended consequence of random unguided forces with no purpose.
But is trust just the result another chemical reaction?
If so how can you trust it? 

FALLACY: Personal incredulity.

Brains have evolved to think; human souls are blind superstition.

[Alan Burns]

Perhaps better to let the reason (evidence) lead you to what you think is probably the truth, rather than starting with your beliefs. If you'd have done that you might not have made such a dog's breakfast of your beliefs and their supposed justifications.

FALLACY: Personal incredulity.

Brains have evolved to think; human souls are blind superstition.

Can you even define thought in terms of uncontrollable material reactions?
You have yet to tell me how verifiable logical conclusions can be drawn without conscious control of your thoughts.
The existence of our human soul is not blind superstition - it is the only feasible explanation for conscious control of our human mind.

And how can you give credence to what emerges from uncontrollable material reactions in an object which resulted from the consequences of unguided random material reactions?  This is not personal incredulity - I am just highlighting a logical impossibility.

[Sebastian Toe]

The existence of our human soul is not blind superstition -

You can't define it or the mechanism it uses to work the way you think it does without introducing magic...so yes blind superstition fits the bill.

This is not personal incredulity

From where I'm standing, it most definitely is!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really: there are no good reasons to think that 'God' exists,

Bźzzzzzzzzzzz Positive assertion. You know where your duty lies.

[Stranger]

Can you even define thought in terms of uncontrollable material reactions?
You have yet to tell me how verifiable logical conclusions can be drawn without conscious control of your thoughts.
The existence of our human soul is not blind superstition - it is the only feasible explanation for conscious control of our human mind.

FALLACY: Argument from ignorance.

I could tell you about what we know about how brains works, but logically it doesn't matter. The existence of a gap in our knowledge does not justify your baseless superstition. And it is a superstition because you have no evidence, you have no reasoning, and it isn't an explanation; "it's magic, innit" is not an explanation.

And how can you give credence to what emerges from uncontrollable material reactions in an object which resulted from the consequences of unguided random material reactions?  This is not personal incredulity - I am just highlighting a logical impossibility.

FALLACY: Personal incredulity.

Just saying it isn't personal incredulity, does not make it so. You have provided not one hint of sound logic to support your claim of impossibility. And it's actually impossible to prove impossibility because we know we don't know everything about the material world. Even if you'd made some sort of case (which you obviously haven't), whatever magic you think the soul does, could just be unknown physics.

I see you are still wallowing in self-imposed ignorance of logic and critical thinking. Why are you too afraid to learn? You could avoid the endless fallacies and learn how to actually make a sound logical argument. It should be easy for you to learn with your background, so why run away?

Critical Thinking by Brooke Moore and Richard Parker is a reasonable introduction.

[Stranger]

Bźzzzzzzzzzzz Positive assertion. You know where your duty lies.

The evidence is pretty clear. I've never seen good reason, i.e. a sound logical argument or morsel of evidence, neither, apparently, has anybody else I've talked about the subject with (although some seem to think they have). One would also expect a really good reason to be common knowledge as theists everywhere would be telling us all.

You are part of the supporting evidence since you clearly can't come up with a good reason. As is Alan, of course.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The evidence is pretty clear. I've never seen good reason, i.e. a sound logical argument or morsel of evidence, neither, apparently, has anybody else I've talked about the subject with (although some seem to think they have). One would also expect a really good reason to be common knowledge as theists everywhere would be telling us all.

You are part of the supporting evidence since you clearly can't come up with a good reason. As is Alan, of course.

The evidence might be clear but the real question is what is it.

Physical infinite regresses, circular ontological hierarchies, perpetual motion machines don't cut it

[Stranger]

The evidence might be clear but the real question is what is it.

What is what?

Physical infinite regresses, circular ontological hierarchies, perpetual motion machines don't cut it

Hum, argument from ignorance seems to be the fallacy du jour.   

[Nearly Sane]

What is what?

Hum, argument from ignorance seems to be the fallacy du jour.   

I don't know about that

[Outrider]

The evidence might be clear but the real question is what is it.

It's the evidence, you've just said. Now you need a methodology by which to examine it.

Physical infinite regresses, circular ontological hierarchies, perpetual motion machines don't cut it

Oh, so glad you so rigorously failed to put forward anything resembling an argument, that makes it so much easier to dismiss your comment out of hand. You might not think an infinite regress 'cuts it' - fine, but why?

O.