What Is God Made From?

[Leonard James]

Whilst I do not agree with the statement that free will does not exist, its existence show nothing more than that the human brain (and that of some animals) has evolved the ability somewhere in the past, suggesting that it is useful in the fight to survive and reproduce.

Consequently  the introduction of the "soul" explanation is superfluous, and nothing more than the result of wishful thinking.

Len, I am pleased to see that there is something which we can agree on   

I am quite sure, Alan, that we would agree on every aspect off life except the existence of a god and a soul!

The reason the scientific community have problems with admitting the existence of free will is because the materialistic nature of this world does not allow events to have a deliberate cause.

Is that so? I thought science had shown the cause of many things once attributed to "God".

Every event occuring in the brain is either random or caused by previous events.

Not really. Read any fiction author to disprove what you are saying.

The irony in your statement, however, is that "wishful thinking" is itself a free will event deliberately invoked by one's conscious self (your soul).

You wish! 

[Alan Burns]

Every event occuring in the brain is either random or caused by previous events.

Not really. Read any fiction author to disprove what you are saying.

I fully agree with you in this, Len.

The statement I wrote was not my thinking, but a quote from the scientists who do not believe in free will.

[Leonard James]

Every event occuring in the brain is either random or caused by previous events.

Not really. Read any fiction author to disprove what you are saying.

I fully agree with you in this, Len.

The statement I wrote was not my thinking, but a quote from the scientists who do not believe in free will.

But you clearly believe the conscious brain is not capable of such an activity, and resort to the "soul" to explain it.

What is your reason for this?

[Alan Burns]

But you clearly believe the conscious brain is not capable of such an activity, and resort to the "soul" to explain it.

What is your reason for this?

You have correctly identified the problem, Len.

The conscious brain is certainly capable of invoking free will decisions.

The problem scientists have is the difficulty in defining what consciousness is comprised of.  Is consciousness defined by chemical activity alone, or is it defined by an awareness of the chemical activity, and if the latter, what is it that percieves this chemical activity?

If consciousness is defined purely by chemical activity alone, there is no scope for making free will decisions, just automated decisions driven by deterministic chemical reactions.

If there is something which can perceive the chemical activity and manipulate it, then there is a source of true free will.

[Leonard James]

The conscious brain is certainly capable of invoking free will decisions.

The problem scientists have is the difficulty in defining what consciousness is comprised of.  Is consciousness defined by chemical activity alone, or is it defined by an awareness of the chemical activity, and if the latter, what is it that percieves this chemical activity?

Alan, the chemical activity is the brain working. Our awareness of it is just the brain thinking objectively. We have evolved the ability to do so, and it feels as if we are observing ourselves from outside, but that is just an illusion.

If consciousness is defined purely by chemical activity alone, there is no scope for making free will decisions, just automated decisions driven by deterministic chemical reactions.

There is as far as I am concerned, but I accept that you cannot see it.

If there is something which can perceive the chemical activity and manipulate it, then there is a source of true free will.

Our brain (us) perceives that we can make choices, and we do so.

[Hope]

Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?

OK, Shakes, define 'love'.

[Hope]

In my opinion, Freewill does not exist, so that nips that one in the bud. Also, your idea requires the unqualified element that you name as God. Empirical evidence required.

FIFY, Jack. 

[Hope]

A god that was somewhat amenable to general comprehension would be a lesser god than one that passethed all understanding, and therefore not really god at all.

torri, are you able to define or explain your father or mother completely, or were there aspects of their lives that you don't fully comprehend?  If the latter, are you suggesting that really they didn't exist?

[Hope]

Unfortunately, in my opinion, there isn't any evidence for free will, nor any for gods or souls or spirits so I'm afraid all you've posted up here is a fog of internconnected fantasies.  If you want your ideas to gain traction you have to offer up something richer than mere bald repeated assertions, something by way of justification, something stronger than 'that is just how it seems'.

FIFY, torri.  As a result, your description of what Alien and others have posted is also "a fog of internconnected fantasies".

[Shaker]

Don't you think that you ought to be able to define something before you purport to believe in that something? Otherwise what is it that you claim to believe in and how do you know?

OK, Shakes, define 'love'.

Gladly.

1. (In the interpersonal sense) an emotion consisting of deep affection for another/others, invariably a desire for physical proximity and emotional intimacy, and a deep concern for the happiness and general well-being and welfare of the other. In romantic love there is also a sexual component.

2. (By extension from 1.) anything for which one has a deep regard and passionate interest (Tom loves football; Dick loves gardening; Harry loves sex with farm animals etc.).

Perhaps I've missed a few of the more finicky nuances but that seems to cover most bases?

[Alien]

Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberish

Try "without".

Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.

Then use whatever form of the verb "exist" which enables you to have God without time.

[Nearly Sane]

 

Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberish

Try "without".

Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.

Then use whatever form of the verb "exist" which enables you to have God without time.

The concept of existence is temporal and the idea of a tense that isn't is an oxymoron

[Alien]

Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberish

Try "without".

Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.

Then use whatever form of the verb "exist" which enables you to have God without time.

The concept of existence is temporal and the idea of a tense that isn't is an oxymoron

Use ancient Hebrew then. It's verbs aren't tensed. If tent-dwellers/goat-herders can manage it, I am sure you can (seriously).

[Nearly Sane]

Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberish

Try "without".

Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.

Then use whatever form of the verb "exist" which enables you to have God without time.

The concept of existence is temporal and the idea of a tense that isn't is an oxymoron

Use ancient Hebrew then. It's verbs aren't tensed. If tent-dwellers/goat-herders can manage it, I am sure you can (seriously).

Tenselessness as a linguistic lacuna does not help as you once agreed before but have apparently forgotten.
Existence is a temporal statement.

[Andy]

I also don't see how a tenseless language would deal with the concept of being without time and being with time, as to be both using such a language would be contradictory.

[Nearly Sane]

Just as a linguistic aside, there is the whole idea that until recently the concept of blue as a colour is a linguistic lacuna; though there are arguments about kyanos in ancient Greek. This does not mean that they were doing with a 'more truthful' perception or a better understanding. Just that the concept did not feature though there were differing shades of other colours. Arguing that there is a tenseless language somehow mean that a concept of timelessness was understood linguistically or philosophically in  what that makes sense or no temporal existence is not even wrong. 

[Nearly Sane]

Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberish

Try "without".

Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.

Then use whatever form of the verb "exist" which enables you to have God without time.

The concept of existence is temporal and the idea of a tense that isn't is an oxymoron

Use ancient Hebrew then. It's verbs aren't tensed. If tent-dwellers/goat-herders can manage it, I am sure you can (seriously).

Tenselessness as a linguistic lacuna does not help as you once agreed before but have apparently forgotten.
Existence is a temporal statement.

Why do you think existence is only a temporal statement?

Before we get into that, can I just check that you again accept that the tenselessness of any language does not make any sense of a fearlessness existence? You seemed to have made a claim and when challenged on it just dropped it.

[Alien]

Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberish

Try "without".

Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.

Then use whatever form of the verb "exist" which enables you to have God without time.

The concept of existence is temporal and the idea of a tense that isn't is an oxymoron

Use ancient Hebrew then. It's verbs aren't tensed. If tent-dwellers/goat-herders can manage it, I am sure you can (seriously).

Tenselessness as a linguistic lacuna does not help as you once agreed before but have apparently forgotten.
Existence is a temporal statement.

It won't make it logical if existence without time is illogical, but it would/should stop people complaining about using English tensed English verbs to describe something tenseless. There is no accurate use of English to describe a tenseless situation, whereas there is in AH, either by using such a tenseless Hebrew verb or just omitting the verb altogether.

Whether tenseless existence is logically possible or not is a separate matter. As far as I can see the idea of "God-without-the-universe" is not an illogical concept and if you wish to assert that "Existence is a temporal statement" which would apply to God, it is up to you to demonstrate it.

[Alien]

Removing time 'existed before' isn't even gibberish

Try "without".

Existed without time doesn't work either. Existed is a temporal statement.

Then use whatever form of the verb "exist" which enables you to have God without time.

The concept of existence is temporal and the idea of a tense that isn't is an oxymoron

Use ancient Hebrew then. It's verbs aren't tensed. If tent-dwellers/goat-herders can manage it, I am sure you can (seriously).

Tenselessness as a linguistic lacuna does not help as you once agreed before but have apparently forgotten.
Existence is a temporal statement.

Why do you think existence is only a temporal statement?

Before we get into that, can I just check that you again accept that the tenselessness of any language does not make any sense of a fearlessness existence? You seemed to have made a claim and when challenged on it just dropped it.

Sorry, NS, I deleted that response and have replaced it with the one directly above this one. Sorry to muck you around.

[Alien]

I also don't see how a tenseless language would deal with the concept of being without time and being with time, as to be both using such a language would be contradictory.

Bearing in mind the inadequacy of English, with its tensed verbs to described tenseless scenarios, I would go with William Lane Craig and suggest that God-without-the-universe = atemporal God whereas God-with-the-universe = temporal God.

Happy to be convinced otherwise though.

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry, this seems like a fairly basic attempt at shifting the burden of proof. I only know of existence as being temporally defined because the concept of existence as I understand it is it is a a claim about a thing either being or not being at any one time. I have no concept of a thing being where I cannot judges that in terms of time. If youh want to argue that such a concept works, you need to explain what you mean.

[Nearly Sane]

There seems to be also a very weird conception of language here as if it is somehow prescriptive rather than descriptive. I use existence to talk about the state of something temporally, it seems to be how it is used in a descriptive sense. I cannot currently see what non  temporal existence could possibly mean but it is being asserted. The only explanation I am receiving is it is like temporal existence but non  temporal, which reads like it's like a two dimensional square but not two dimensional.

[Hope]

I use existence to talk about the state of something temporally, it seems to be how it is used in a descriptive sense. I cannot currently see what non  temporal existence could possibly mean but it is being asserted. The only explanation I am receiving is it is like temporal existence but non  temporal, which reads like it's like a two dimensional square but not two dimensional.

NS, I can fully understand why you 'cannot currently see what non-temporal existence could possibly mean', in the same way that many can't understand how a variety of things occur or mean; it is usually related to a lack of experience of that kind of thing, or an unawareness of the nature of it.  That is not, however, evidence that something doesn't exist.  It simply doesn't exist in one's experience.

[Shaker]

Interesting as the linguistic angle no doubt is I see we're no further forward in determining what God is made from ...

[Nearly Sane]

I use existence to talk about the state of something temporally, it seems to be how it is used in a descriptive sense. I cannot currently see what non  temporal existence could possibly mean but it is being asserted. The only explanation I am receiving is it is like temporal existence but non  temporal, which reads like it's like a two dimensional square but not two dimensional.

NS, I can fully understand why you 'cannot currently see what non-temporal existence could possibly mean', in the same way that many can't understand how a variety of things occur or mean; it is usually related to a lack of experience of that kind of thing, or an unawareness of the nature of it.  That is not, however, evidence that something doesn't exist.  It simply doesn't exist in one's experience.

And I have not said that it dies not exist, just that all statements about it in the absence of any way of even beginning to make sense are nonsensical