Searching for GOD...

[Brownie]

OMW, I looked at Luke 3 and v 23 recites the genealogy of Joseph, as it was recorded at that time.

Floo, point taken.

[wigginhall]

By creating beings with their own awareness and free will, God has delegated the power to control.

However, for those who insist that we live in a universe where every event is caused by materially determined previous events, there can be no such thing as control, just unavoidable reaction to these events.

The trouble is, with all this delegation, it's not clear how much power God has left.   For example, do you think that he put the moon in just the right place, so as to give us tides on earth?

Or did he instigate the water cycle, in order to help plants and animals flourish?  I think the Bible says this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The trouble is, with all this delegation, it's not clear how much power God has left.   For example, do you think that he put the moon in just the right place, so as to give us tides on earth?

Or did he instigate the water cycle, in order to help plants and animals flourish?  I think the Bible says this.

Science is not atheism.....give it up.

[wigginhall]

Science is not atheism.....give it up.

Well, it seems a fair question to me.  AB has said that God delegates power to humans.  OK, so how much power does he have left?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, it seems a fair question to me.  AB has said that God delegates power to humans.  OK, so how much power does he have left?

As much as he likes if he is sovereign. By which he has the omnipotentiality to intervene or not intervene as he wills.

[Shaker]

Science is not atheism.....

Actually yes it is.

I feel a long and productive for me and unproductive for you discussion coming on, which is fine by me as I shall win and you shall lose and I have nothing else on for the time being. By all means carry on, though - we can go into all the ins and outs of the subject and although it's wearily well-trodden ground for some of us it obviously isn't for you, and it'll give me a chance to sharpen the knives and that's always welcome

After you.

[Shaker]

As much as he likes if he is sovereign. By which he has the omnipotentiality to intervene or not intervene as he wills.

Lovely use of the non-word omnipotentiality there. Like a little man in a boat I am in oar.

Just one little thing: what methodology are you using to discern, ascertain and evaluate (i.e. test) the difference between a god intervening or not as he wills, or no god not intervening at all as there's no god to intervene in the first place. K thx bai.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually yes it is.

I feel a long and productive for me and unproductive for you discussion coming on, which is fine by me as I shall win and you shall lose and I have nothing else on for the time being. By all means carry on, though - we can go into all the ins and outs of the subject and although it's wearily well-trodden ground for some of us it obviously isn't for you, and it'll give me a chance to sharpen the knives and that's always welcome

After you.

I'll have that conversation with you. Let's start with the accepted peer reviewed paper which scientifically confirms ontological naturalism. Please supply th citation.

[Shaker]

I'll have that conversation with you. Let's start with the accepted peer reviewed paper which scientifically confirms ontological naturalism. Please supply th citation.

What is this ontological naturalism of which you prate?

I notice no response to #11555 but then I didn't exactly expect one, really.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is this ontological naturalism of which you prate?

I notice no response to #11555 but then I didn't exactly expect one, really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism

[Shaker]

Thanks for the synonym - they're always welcome; I collect them and put them on glass shelves and dust them on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays - but whut?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks for the synonym - they're always welcome; I collect them and put them on glass shelves and dust them on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays -

That's nice.

[Alan Burns]

Why are you so obsessed with adding "materially" to "determined"? It doesn't change what "determined" means and it doesn't change the fact that the only alternative to determined is random.

I use the word "materially" to differentiate between events induced from natural sources and those induced from spiritual sources, such as conscious free will.  To deny the spiritual source is to reduce our conscious awareness to the role of a mere spectator upon events which have already been pre determined.

[Stranger]

I use the word "materially" to differentiate between events induced from natural sources and those induced from spiritual sources...

I see you've replaced "determined" with "induced" so, I'll assume you mean the same and I'll repeat the point that either something is determined by something else, material or spiritual (whatever that means), or it isn't and it's random.

...such as conscious free will.

This just doesn't make sense - "conscious free will" is a process that produces decisions in some way - how it comes into being (spiritual or otherwise) doesn't really matter. What matters is how those decisions are made. I'll point out again that we only have determined and random to put into the mix, which makes "free will" a nonsense from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator. Such a being would determine all of our nature and nurture, leaving only the possibility of a random element outside of its direct control. Randomness is not freedom.

To deny the spiritual source is to reduce our conscious awareness to the role of a mere spectator upon events which have already been pre determined.

Just using the term "spiritual source" makes not a jot of difference. You seem to think it's a magic term that excuses what you say from any thought or logic...

[SusanDoris]

I see you've replaced "determined" with "induced" so, I'll assume you mean the same and I'll repeat the point that either something is determined by something else, material or spiritual (whatever that means), or it isn't and it's random.
This just doesn't make sense - "conscious free will" is a process that produces decisions in some way - how it comes into being (spiritual or otherwise) doesn't really matter. What matters is how those decisions are made. I'll point out again that we only have determined and random to put into the mix, which makes "free will" a nonsense from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator. Such a being would determine all of our nature and nurture, leaving only the possibility of a random element outside of its direct control. Randomness is not freedom.
Just using the term "spiritual source" makes not a jot of difference. You seem to think it's a magic term that excuses what you say from any thought or logic...

Well said! I was going to ask AB to rephrase in plain English, but thought it was probably not worth typing!

[Alan Burns]

which makes "free will" a nonsense from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator. Such a being would determine all of our nature and nurture, leaving only the possibility of a random element outside of its direct control. Randomness is not freedom.

It has nothing to do with randomness.
All I am saying is that God has enabled human beings with the gift of conscious awareness, which has the ability to perceive and interact with the brain.

[torridon]

It has nothing to do with randomness.
All I am saying is that God has enabled human beings with the gift of conscious awareness, which has the ability to perceive and interact with the brain.

Conscious awareness does not 'interact with' the brain, it is is produced by the brain; and not just human brains, it is a phenomenon of all mammalian and reptilian brains.

[Stranger]

It has nothing to do with randomness.
All I am saying is that God has enabled human beings with the gift of conscious awareness, which has the ability to perceive and interact with the brain.

You seem to have totally missed the point.

Look, conscious awareness takes in information and makes decisions. Nobody knows exactly how it works in detail but it must work somehow. Waving magic words around and asserting it's happening on some spiritual plain and isn't just a function of the physical brain doesn't change that. It also doesn't change the fact that the outcomes (decisions) are either determined (i.e. if you knew enough, they would be predictable) or not determined, which means random (or a combination; partly determined with some random element).

That must happen, even if it's a totally non-physical process, and it means free will is nonsense from the point of view of an all-knowing and all-powerful creator.

[ippy]

It has nothing to do with randomness.
All I am saying is that God has enabled human beings with the gift of conscious awareness, which has the ability to perceive and interact with the brain.

You really are a king sized prat Alan, just being honest.

ippy

[wigginhall]

It has nothing to do with randomness.
All I am saying is that God has enabled human beings with the gift of conscious awareness, which has the ability to perceive and interact with the brain.

So you are separating conscious awareness from the brain, I take it.   So those people who are brain damaged, either by disease or accident, and have severe cognitive disruption, still have their conscious awareness intact?   For example, somebody who no longer recognizes faces, or someone who doesn't know who they are?   I suppose you must believe this, as presumably somebody who is dying from dementia, and has little cognitive function left, still has their soul left to them.  Hurrah.

[Alan Burns]

So you are separating conscious awareness from the brain, I take it.   So those people who are brain damaged, either by disease or accident, and have severe cognitive disruption, still have their conscious awareness intact?   For example, somebody who no longer recognizes faces, or someone who doesn't know who they are?   I suppose you must believe this, as presumably somebody who is dying from dementia, and has little cognitive function left, still has their soul left to them.  Hurrah.

The brain is a very complex machine through which the human soul perceives and interacts with this world.  If the machine is damaged, the perception and interaction will inevitably be impaired.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The soul is only another name for consciousness, which doesn't exist without the brain!

Yes but how do you measure consciousness.
It will be interesting to see if consciousness can be transmitted or preserved as information......which leads to the question of whether consciousness is not already information transmitted from elsewhere.

[floo]

Yes but how do you measure consciousness.
It will be interesting to see if consciousness can be transmitted or preserved as information......which leads to the question of whether consciousness is not already information transmitted from elsewhere.

Explain exactly what you mean, please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Explain exactly what you mean, please.

Ok how do you show consciousness?
If it is merely a signal pattern it should be both recordable and playable.
If it is a signal pattern consciousness should be transmissible.
If consciousness is transmissible. How do we know that our consciousness aren't in fact somewhere else and the brain is merely a receiver.

That though is a small problem since because consciousness is experienced we can never scientifically accept reports of receiving consciousness directly since science discounts that type of evidence.

[floo]

Ok how do you show consciousness?
If it is merely a signal pattern it should be both recordable and playable.
If it is a signal pattern consciousness should be transmissible.
If consciousness is transmissible. How do we know that our consciousness aren't in fact somewhere else and the brain is merely a receiver.

That though is a small problem since because consciousness is experienced we can never scientifically accept reports of receiving consciousness directly since science discounts that type of evidence.

I have more trust in science than the idea of some deity transmitting data!