Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

These quotes illustrate the consistency of God's message throughout the divinely inspired words of the Bible.

No, Alan, these quotes show that we are capable of inventing the most bizarre ideas to give voice to what we feel. There is absolutely no evidence for "divine inspiration", but plenty of evidence that some humans are capable of inspired writing and lofty ideals.

Sadly that in no way negates the fact that we are nothing more than bags of interacting chemicals. 

[Gordon]

These quotes illustrate the consistency of God's message throughout the divinely inspired words of the Bible.

So what?

During the lifetime of 'The Broons', which first appeared in 1936, there has been a succession of writers and yet the 'message' has been fairly consistent even though it is fiction. If you can't see the risk that those writing the Bible, and over a much longer period, similarly kept 'on message' as regards certain aspects then all one can say is 'jings'!

Your naivety seems boundless.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

But why bother with a brain at all. Why can't the soul, just perceive things? And why do we have physical bodies, why not just have the soul wandering around.

It would save on the need for lungs, hearts, bottoms, the whole lot.! And if there were no willies and bottoms that would be one sin (according to some believers) that couldn't happen.

Bumped for AB

[Stranger]

These quotes illustrate the consistency of God's message throughout the divinely inspired words of the Bible.

So what?

But the bible isn't consistent. I do wish Christians would read it to see what it actually says, rather than scanning it for bits that support what they already "know"...

[ekim]

Well as usual, you're wrong, cognitive science and neuroscience are powering ahead currently, I don't know where you get this idea that no progess is being made.

1. Instead of thinking 'a flow of electrons can generate conscious awareness', try to understand it thus ; 'a flow of electrons is conscious awareness', that would be slightly closer. 

2. It is because they are pure information; inner mental experience is what information feels like when we process it.

Just some questions which might help clarify it for Alan:
1. Does this mean that the electric circuits in my house are consciously aware when the lights are switched on?
2. Feels like to what?  What is the subject which 'feels' the objective mental forms (information)? Are you saying that scientists have declared it to be electrons?

[Alan Burns]

Bumped for AB

Our soul is not part of this universe, but it has been given a window into it through our physical body.

All will become clear when we reach our spiritual home.

[Shaker]

Can we have something a bit more credible up front?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Our soul is not part of this universe, but it has been given a window into it through our physical body.

All will become clear when we reach our spiritual home.

That makes no sense.

If our soul interacts with our physical body then it clearly is part of this universe.

Why are we not in our spiritual home now. Why bother with a physical universe at all. Why not just souls in our spiritual home.

[Stranger]

All will become clear when we reach our spiritual home.

≡ "I dunno, it must be magic."

 

[Gordon]

Our soul is not part of this universe, but it has been given a window into it through our physical body.

You'll be able to show us the blueprints then.

All will become clear when we reach our spiritual home.

Why not now? 

[ippy]

Our soul is not part of this universe, but it has been given a window into it through our physical body.

All will become clear when we reach our spiritual home.

And who supplied you with this comprehensive amount of information and was it via the phone, email, through the post, facebook, twitter, a carrier, on YouTube or a loud booming voice from the sky? Did you have to sign for anything?

How do you separate this info from your obviously vivid imagination?

ippy

[wigginhall]

That makes no sense.

If our soul interacts with our physical body then it clearly is part of this universe.

Why are we not in our spiritual home now. Why bother with a physical universe at all. Why not just souls in our spiritual home.

Alan isn't trying to make sense.   He has a few mantras which he repeats - e.g. matter can't produce consciousness.   He has no arguments and no evidence, except his own incredulity, and if you ask him a question, he just avoids it, and repeats another mantra.   You have to admit, this makes Christianity look very creditable, eh?

[ekim]

Can we have something a bit more credible up front?

Yes, it's the oozlum bird effect. We all have built in wormholes and by rushing around in circles we disappear up our own wormholes into another universe. 

[Alan Burns]

Can we have something a bit more credible up front?

If you can bring yourself to believe that your conscious awareness is nothing more than a flow of electrons I fear that there could be some insurmountable obstacle here.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

If you can bring yourself to believe that your conscious awareness is nothing more than a flow of electrons I fear that there could be some insurmountable obstacle here.

It's not about bringing myself to believe anything. My beliefs will change when sufficiently compelling evidence is presented to me. Care to try?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Alan isn't trying to make sense.   He has a few mantras which he repeats - e.g. matter can't produce consciousness.   He has no arguments and no evidence, except his own incredulity, and if you ask him a question, he just avoids it, and repeats another mantra.   You have to admit, this makes Christianity look very creditable, eh?

I wonder what other Christians think about it?

[wigginhall]

It's not about bringing myself to believe anything. My beliefs will change when sufficiently compelling evidence is presented to me. Care to try?

Alan has the belief that if he keeps pushing the tu quoque fallacy, that this will cover up the gaping holes in his own argument.   So if he keeps saying - do you really believe that matter produces consciousness? - people will overlook the threadbare nature of his own arguments.   In fact, tu quoque seems to be a master stroke by quite a few Christians.

[ekim]

I wonder what other Christians think about it?

Well, he wasn't a Christian but according to Matthew he said something like this:
'The lamp of the body is the eye. If the eye is clear then the whole body may have its illumination; but if your eye is impaired then the whole body will seem full of darkness. Similarly, if your inner light is replaced by ignorance imagine how great that darkness will be.'

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Well, he wasn't a Christian but according to Matthew he said something like this:
'The lamp of the body is the eye. If the eye is clear then the whole body may have its illumination; but if your eye is impaired then the whole body will seem full of darkness. Similarly, if your inner light is replaced by ignorance imagine how great that darkness will be.'

I though the eye was more of a window than a lamp to Alan,

Shame we can't relight Alan's inner lamp.

[Shaker]

If you can bring yourself to believe that your conscious awareness is nothing more than a flow of electrons I fear that there could be some insurmountable obstacle here.

There's no obstacle quite as insurmountable as trying to get you to see why the 'arguments' you continually deploy are so utterly and uniformly awful, resplendent and replete as they are with hand-waving, assertion, one logical fallacy after another, a constitutional inability to say "I just don't know at the moment - I need to see more evidence before I'm able to offer a legitimate opinion" and almost superhuman gullibility when something really has you stumped.

Almost everybody here has had a go at trying to make you see this at some time or other. It takes a rare combination of wilful obtuseness, pride and arrogance to maintain that everybody else is wrong and you alone have the right of it.

You remind me of that beaming mother as a visitor on the parade ground watching the regiment march by in beautifully synchronised formation all apart from one hapless soldier hopelessly out of time with everybody else - she nudges the person next to her, swelling with pride, and says: "Look, that's my son. And how clever he is! He's the only one marching in step."

[Alan Burns]

There's no obstacle quite as insurmountable as trying to get you to see why the 'arguments' you continually deploy are so utterly and uniformly awful, resplendent and replete as they ae with hand-waving, assertion and one logical fallacy after another.

Almost everybody here has had a go at trying to make you see this at some time or other. It takes a rare combination of wilful obtuseness, pride and arrogance to maintain that everybody else is wrong and you alone have the right of it.

You remind me of that beaming mother as a visitor on the parade ground watching the regiment march by in beautifully synchronised formation all apart from one hapless soldier hopelessly out of time with everybody else - she nudges the person next to her, swelling with pride, and says: "Look, that's my son. And how clever he is! He's the only one marching in step."

We are literally surrounded by the evidence of God's creation, but many of us seem to take it all for granted, assuming it all to be natural.

[Shaker]

We are literally surrounded by the evidence of God's creation

Assertion. Demonstrate this to be the case.

but many of us seem to take it all for granted, assuming it all to be natural.

Yes. That's the default setting. The natural world (or 'world' as I like to call it) is one of matter-energy - at our level of everyday human experience, hard stuff that hurts you when you kick it. Provide some good grounds for thinking otherwise - that there's a realm different to this - and I'll give them serious and sustained attention and reflection.

But you can't/won't. Nobody else ever has (how many times has Hope been asked this by now, I wonder?) and to think that you will leaves me ... well, sceptical, unsurprisingly.

Your claims may be correct, but they can only be known to be so by the production of evidence in tandem with a methodology for evaluating your claims. Acceptance doesn't come about by your fan-imitating hand-waving, assertion and preachy say-so.

[Sebastian Toe]

If you can bring yourself to believe that your conscious awareness is nothing more than a flow of electrons I fear that there could be some insurmountable obstacle here.

If you can't prove that your conscious awareness is not a flow of electrons I fear that there could be some insurmountable obstacle here.

'Prove' does not = personal incredulity, baseless assertion and quotes from am old book.

[Sebastian Toe]

We are literally surrounded by the evidence of God's creation, but many of us seem to take it all for granted, assuming it all to be natural.

Can you prove that it is not all natural?

'Prove' does not = personal incredulity, baseless assertion and quotes from am old book.

[Rhiannon]

If you can bring yourself to believe that your conscious awareness is nothing more than a flow of electrons I fear that there could be some insurmountable obstacle here.

Have to say this is the closest you've come to showing any insight whatsoever since you arrived here. You're looking at things the wrong way round of course - it isn't Shaker who has an obstacle to understanding to overcome - but still, at least you are recognising that your arguments can't work.