Searching for GOD...

[Leonard James]

I am sure that the subject of God allowing suffering to take place has been well discussed in the past, and books have been written about it, such as CS Lewis "The Problem of Pain".

Very well discussed indeed. Still no answers, alas.

The simple truth remains that we can't simply use suffering as a means to prove that God does not exist.

I'm not sure that anybody does argue in such a manner. What you're probably getting confused with is the fact (and it is a fact) that the existence of suffering and the existence of a traditional omnimax god are irreconcilable, and that since suffering exists at least one of the omnis has to go. If, for your own reasons, you're desperate to hang on to a god at all costs and no matter what, suffering forces you to be rather slippery and subtle (to say the least) about what sort of god you're prepared to believe in.

What I'm finding difficult is that for you guys virtually everything turns out to be an illusion.....Illusion of self. illusion of free will, illusion of happiness ......and then when you think you have got something to nail God on......suddenly suffering is real!!!

Nah, not really! Feelings are real, it's just the gods that are illusions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am sure that the subject of God allowing suffering to take place has been well discussed in the past, and books have been written about it, such as CS Lewis "The Problem of Pain".

Very well discussed indeed. Still no answers, alas.

The simple truth remains that we can't simply use suffering as a means to prove that God does not exist.

I'm not sure that anybody does argue in such a manner. What you're probably getting confused with is the fact (and it is a fact) that the existence of suffering and the existence of a traditional omnimax god are irreconcilable, and that since suffering exists at least one of the omnis has to go. If, for your own reasons, you're desperate to hang on to a god at all costs and no matter what, suffering forces you to be rather slippery and subtle (to say the least) about what sort of god you're prepared to believe in.

What I'm finding difficult is that for you guys virtually everything turns out to be an illusion.....Illusion of self. illusion of free will, illusion of happiness ......and then when you think you have got something to nail God on......suddenly suffering is real!!!

Nah, not really! Feelings are real, it's just the gods that are illusions.

Evidence?

[Leonard James]

Nah, not really! Feelings are real, it's just the gods that are illusions.

Evidence?

Everybody experience feelings, don't they? Pain, anger, sorrow, happiness etc., are all common REAL experiences that people have.

Gods of all types (and there are thousands of them) are only 'experienced' by the people who believe in them ... nobody else can see or hear them.

You don't have to be a gypsy with cards to conclude that they are illusory.

[torridon]

What I'm finding difficult is that for you guys virtually everything turns out to be an illusion.....Illusion of self. illusion of free will, illusion of happiness ......and then when you think you have got something to nail God on......suddenly suffering is real!!!

God is all in the mind, so they say.

I'd probably agree with that, and go much further : everything is in the mind. 

All experience is in the mind, or shall we say, fabricated by brains, formed from fresh sensory input interpreted and rendered in the light of past experience, belief, expectations, and so forth.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, suffering is only suffering if we think it is suffering. Victor Frankl found that he could find meaning in a concentration camp. Nevertheless, it is hard to master one's thoughts when overwhelmed by great loss, or when in tremendous physical pain or hunger.

[Alan Burns]

God is all in the mind, so they say.

I'd probably agree with that, and go much further : everything is in the mind. 

All experience is in the mind, or shall we say, fabricated by brains, formed from fresh sensory input interpreted and rendered in the light of past experience, belief, expectations, and so forth.

Yes, I agree that the universe as we know it exists in human perception.  The universe comes into existence within each child that is born, and it comes to an end with each human death.

................ or does it ?

[Shaker]

Yep, most likely.

[torridon]

God is all in the mind, so they say.

I'd probably agree with that, and go much further : everything is in the mind. 

All experience is in the mind, or shall we say, fabricated by brains, formed from fresh sensory input interpreted and rendered in the light of past experience, belief, expectations, and so forth.

Yes, I agree that the universe as we know it exists in human perception.  The universe comes into existence within each child that is born, and it comes to an end with each human death.

................ or does it ?

You seem to be obsessed with humans; you need to get over that. Any creature with a large brain will have an experience stream that makes sense and useful meaning out of raw sensory data, that is what brains do.

[Alan Burns]

God is all in the mind, so they say.

I'd probably agree with that, and go much further : everything is in the mind. 

All experience is in the mind, or shall we say, fabricated by brains, formed from fresh sensory input interpreted and rendered in the light of past experience, belief, expectations, and so forth.

Yes, I agree that the universe as we know it exists in human perception.  The universe comes into existence within each child that is born, and it comes to an end with each human death.

................ or does it ?

You seem to be obsessed with humans; you need to get over that. Any creature with a large brain will have an experience stream that makes sense and useful meaning out of raw sensory data, that is what brains do.

That is what you assume it does, but science has yet to define what conscious perception is, and how it occurs within the brain machine.

[torridon]

God is all in the mind, so they say.

I'd probably agree with that, and go much further : everything is in the mind. 

All experience is in the mind, or shall we say, fabricated by brains, formed from fresh sensory input interpreted and rendered in the light of past experience, belief, expectations, and so forth.

Yes, I agree that the universe as we know it exists in human perception.  The universe comes into existence within each child that is born, and it comes to an end with each human death.

................ or does it ?

You seem to be obsessed with humans; you need to get over that. Any creature with a large brain will have an experience stream that makes sense and useful meaning out of raw sensory data, that is what brains do.

That is what you assume it does, but science has yet to define what conscious perception is, and how it occurs within the brain machine.

That is the reasonable assumption; humans inherited a mostly mammalian brain, so they inherited base mammalian cognitive and motor function.

[Rhiannon]

Scientists have actually defined the physical characteristics that enable consciousness and that we share with other animals.

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

And some thoughts on it here.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528836.200-animals-are-conscious-and-should-be-treated-as-such.html#.VYz95nCkqrU

[ekim]

Scientists have actually defined the physical characteristics that enable consciousness and that we share with other animals.

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

And some thoughts on it here.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528836.200-animals-are-conscious-and-should-be-treated-as-such.html#.VYz95nCkqrU

Perhaps they should now define the consciousness which enables the physical characteristics and see if we share it with trees.

[Rhiannon]

Scientists have actually defined the physical characteristics that enable consciousness and that we share with other animals.

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

And some thoughts on it here.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528836.200-animals-are-conscious-and-should-be-treated-as-such.html#.VYz95nCkqrU

Perhaps they should now define the consciousness which enables the physical characteristics and see if we share it with trees.

No more wood flooring then.

[Alan Burns]

Scientists have actually defined the physical characteristics that enable consciousness and that we share with other animals.

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

And some thoughts on it here.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528836.200-animals-are-conscious-and-should-be-treated-as-such.html#.VYz95nCkqrU

These studies look at patterns of brain activity related to behaviour and pick out similarities between humans and various animals.  They still do not define what consciousness is comprised of, just that certain brain activity can be observed during certain types of consciousness.  It does not clarify whether consciousness is an awareness of brain activity, or just the brain activity alone.

If the observed conscious-like  behaviour is generated by brain activity alone, the behaviour itself could well be just an automated reaction with no conscious perception involved, and it would appear to have similarities to conscious human behaviour.

[Nearly Sane]

Scientists have actually defined the physical characteristics that enable consciousness and that we share with other animals.

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

And some thoughts on it here.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528836.200-animals-are-conscious-and-should-be-treated-as-such.html#.VYz95nCkqrU

These studies look at patterns of brain activity related to behaviour and pick out similarities between humans and various animals.  They still do not define what consciousness is comprised of, just that certain brain activity can be observed during certain types of consciousness.  It does not clarify whether consciousness is an awareness of brain activity, or just the brain activity alone.

If the observed conscious-like  behaviour is generated by brain activity alone, the behaviour itself could well be just an automated reaction with no conscious perception involved, and it would appear to have similarities to conscious human behaviour.

indeed it could as could all human behaviour other than yours. If you make the leap to other humans being conscious because of similarity, then not doing the same for animals is inconsistent and illogical.

[wigginhall]

Yes, the 'theory of mind' is a pretty old philosophical discussion.   It does seem bizarre to adopt this towards other humans (thus avoiding solipsism), and not other animals, especially as they exhibit proto-morality, social interaction, feelings such as fear and aggression, courtship, rearing of young, and so on.   I noticed the other night on TV, some animal researcher talking about the importance of gaze in some animals - if you meet a wolf in the wild,  for God's sake, don't look at in in the eyes, or it will impute aggression to you.   Actually, this is true of some dogs and horses, see horse whispering. 

[Alan Burns]

Scientists have actually defined the physical characteristics that enable consciousness and that we share with other animals.

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

And some thoughts on it here.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528836.200-animals-are-conscious-and-should-be-treated-as-such.html#.VYz95nCkqrU

These studies look at patterns of brain activity related to behaviour and pick out similarities between humans and various animals.  They still do not define what consciousness is comprised of, just that certain brain activity can be observed during certain types of consciousness.  It does not clarify whether consciousness is an awareness of brain activity, or just the brain activity alone.

If the observed conscious-like  behaviour is generated by brain activity alone, the behaviour itself could well be just an automated reaction with no conscious perception involved, and it would appear to have similarities to conscious human behaviour.

indeed it could as could all human behaviour other than yours. If you make the leap to other humans being conscious because of similarity, then not doing the same for animals is inconsistent and illogical.

If you can produce an animal which is capable of reading and understanding a book then I will concede that animals are capable of conscious perception.

[wigginhall]

That's another swerve, worthy of Messi.  Nobody is saying that animals are the same as humans, but that they exhibit signs of having a 'stream of experience', a type of consciousness, or whatever you call it.   This doesn't mean that animals can read a book, but some of them can solve puzzles, demonstrate proto-morality, social interaction, raising of young, and so on.

#dishonestchristians

[Nearly Sane]

Scientists have actually defined the physical characteristics that enable consciousness and that we share with other animals.

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

And some thoughts on it here.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528836.200-animals-are-conscious-and-should-be-treated-as-such.html#.VYz95nCkqrU

These studies look at patterns of brain activity related to behaviour and pick out similarities between humans and various animals.  They still do not define what consciousness is comprised of, just that certain brain activity can be observed during certain types of consciousness.  It does not clarify whether consciousness is an awareness of brain activity, or just the brain activity alone.

If the observed conscious-like  behaviour is generated by brain activity alone, the behaviour itself could well be just an automated reaction with no conscious perception involved, and it would appear to have similarities to conscious human behaviour.

indeed it could as could all human behaviour other than yours. If you make the leap to other humans being conscious because of similarity, then not doing the same for animals is inconsistent and illogical.

If you can produce an animal which is capable of reading and understanding a book then I will concede that animals are capable of conscious perception.

So anyone who cannot read is not conscious?

[torridon]

indeed it could as could all human behaviour other than yours. If you make the leap to other humans being conscious because of similarity, then not doing the same for animals is inconsistent and illogical.

If you can produce an animal which is capable of reading and understanding a book then I will concede that animals are capable of conscious perception.

Alan, you are hard work. All animals that have senses such as sight and smell and which also have periods of sleep/waking have conscious perception. Reading is a cognitive process that is way more complex than conscious perception, requiring highly developed language skills as prerequisite.

[Rhiannon]

I once spoke to a woman who spent a lot of time volunteering to look after children with very serious disabilities. She used to sing praise songs with them and although they couldn't communicate she told me she was certain that they were conscious of God's love for them.

But according to Alan, they weren't.

[Alan Burns]

So anyone who cannot read is not conscious?

Reading is just one example of behaviour which indicates conscious perception as opposed to instinctive reaction.

[Nearly Sane]

So anyone who cannot read is not conscious?

Reading is just one example of behaviour which indicates conscious perception as opposed to instinctive reaction.

do the goalposts get dizzy when you move them this fast?

[wigginhall]

Of course, jumping straight to the skill of reading, ignores the idea of a continuum among mammals in relation to cognition.  Obviously, humans are more sophisticated, but one can argue that cognition has evolved in animals, and is highly developed in other mammals.  I suppose many Christians have a kind of speciesism here, humans are a category apart, specially created.   But why are the arguments so wonky and dishonest?

This kind of dishonesty and goal-post moving and misrepresentation is a mind-boggling ad for Christianity - well, not, of course,   Maybe they think nobody will notice?

[floo]

I once spoke to a woman who spent a lot of time volunteering to look after children with very serious disabilities. She used to sing praise songs with them and although they couldn't communicate she told me she was certain that they were conscious of God's love for them.

But according to Alan, they weren't.

The deity loved them so much it allowed them to have serious disabilities!