Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

Len,

The human body, in physical terms, comprises of the same protons, neutons and electrons as you would find in a lump of rock.  All the natural selection/evolution process can do is re-arrange these basic atomic elements into a self replicating biological machine.  My point is that self awareness is not a physical function that emerges from this biological machine, because there is nothing to define self awareness in physical terms.  I agree that self awareness will give survival advantages, but it is not a definable physical property and therefore can't be produced from the process of evolution.  All humans have it, but no one can define what it is in physical terms.  My self awareness, my free thought processes and my free will all come from the amazing gift of our God given soul.

Note in the terms you express it, flawed and badly defined as they are, that applies to the instincts you attribute to animals which illustrates that you are being inconsistent in order to make your case.

Instincts in animals are simply programmed reactions driven by the same logic as you will find in a man made computer.

You don't believe that other animals are mechanical zombies with no inner feelings though.  You believe that they do experience pain, they do experience fear, that they do experience excitement. It is because you entertain these beliefs that you feel uncomfortable to abuse animals. So why pretend otherwise on these boards ? We deserve better from you.

[Shaker]

I've already told you, when you can break yourself of your infantile and totally unimpressive use of such words as "magic,"  then, I might discuss it further.

Ironic that you use a word such as infantile, when this objection in itself has all the hallmarks of a rather petulant small child. "Waaagh, waaagh, waaagh, I'm not playing because you used a word I don't like, waaagh, waaagh, waaagh."

Until and unless theists can offer some explanation - an actual one, not a pseudo-explanation - for how the gods in which they claim to believe act in the world, magic is entirely the correct term for sceptics to use since that's just what it looks like. An undefined entity (though one with some curiously concrete likes and dislikes) doing things you don't understand by means you can't explain - do tell us all how that isn't magic.

[BashfulAnthony]

I've already told you, when you can break yourself of your infantile and totally unimpressive use of such words as "magic,"  then, I might discuss it further.

Ironic that you use a word such as infantile, when this objection on itself has all the hallmarks of a rather petulant small child.

Until and unless theists can offer some explanation - an actual one, not a pseudo-explanation - for how the gods in which they claim to believe act in the world, magic is entirely the correct term. An undefined entity doing things you don't understand by means you can't explain - do tell us all how that isn't magic.

Well you would say that, since you cannot post without making some sort of derogatory remark as part of your "answer."

mag·ic  (măj′ĭk)
n.
1.
a. The art or practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
b. The charms, spells, and rituals so used.
2. The exercise of sleight of hand or conjuring, as in making something seem to disappear, for entertainment.
3. A mysterious quality of enchantment.

So, totally inappropriate use of the word, by you both:  no change there!

[Shaker]

No idea which dictionary you're using but the OED has as its primary definition:

"The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces"

which is entirely apposite in a theistic context. That's just what gods are thought by god-believers to do, isn't it - influence events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. Therefore, magic.

[BashfulAnthony]

No idea what dictionary you're using but the OED has as its primary definition:

"The power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces"

which is entirely apposite in a theistic context.

Well, that's the one I'm taking!

[Alan Burns]

You don't believe that other animals are mechanical zombies with no inner feelings though.  You believe that they do experience pain, they do experience fear, that they do experience excitement. It is because you entertain these beliefs that you feel uncomfortable to abuse animals. So why pretend otherwise on these boards ? We deserve better from you.

I do not know what form of consciousness (if any) God has given to animals, but from observation of their behaviour, I would assume that they are not capable of free thought and free will.  They seem to be driven entirely by built in instincts and learnt experience.

[torridon]

You don't believe that other animals are mechanical zombies with no inner feelings though.  You believe that they do experience pain, they do experience fear, that they do experience excitement. It is because you entertain these beliefs that you feel uncomfortable to abuse animals. So why pretend otherwise on these boards ? We deserve better from you.

I do not know what form of consciousness (if any) God has given to animals, but from observation of their behaviour, I would assume that they are not capable of free thought and free will.  They seem to be driven entirely by built in instincts and learnt experience.

Hopping back to your other fallbacks, Alan. Anything rather than a straight discussion eh ?

[Nearly Sane]

You don't believe that other animals are mechanical zombies with no inner feelings though.  You believe that they do experience pain, they do experience fear, that they do experience excitement. It is because you entertain these beliefs that you feel uncomfortable to abuse animals. So why pretend otherwise on these boards ? We deserve better from you.

I do not know what form of consciousness (if any) God has given to animals, but from observation of their behaviour, I would assume that they are not capable of free thought and free will.  They seem to be driven entirely by built in instincts and learnt experience.

the problem with your position is that it requires you to continually change the definition of consciousness and as torridon has noted do it do that you use a different definition to different questions, none of which are compatible.

You also seem to need to avoid the direct questions in posts such as torridon's here where you go back to a predigested post irrelevant to what you have been asked. Somewhat bizarrely it often feels as if you are a bot posting rather than anything capable of any form.of consciousness.

[Leonard James]

I do not know what form of consciousness (if any) God has given to animals, but from observation of their behaviour, I would assume that they are not capable of free thought and free will.  They seem to be driven entirely by built in instincts and learnt experience.

Free thought and free will are what we use to make choices. but to make choices we also need learnt experiences to help us decide between options. In what way is that different from animals?

My dog is taken for a walk 4 times a day. He almost always runs and puts his head joyfully through the slip lead when I offer it to him, but when it is very hot he refuses the midday walk, because like us, he has learned that walking in the heat is not comfortable.

[Alan Burns]

Until and unless theists can offer some explanation - an actual one, not a pseudo-explanation - for how the gods in which they claim to believe act in the world, magic is entirely the correct term for sceptics to use since that's just what it looks like. An undefined entity (though one with some curiously concrete likes and dislikes) doing things you don't understand by means you can't explain - do tell us all how that isn't magic.

Explanations for how supernatural events take place are, by definition, not available.  We can only be aware of them.  The supernatural events we all seem to take for granted actually occur in our own brains.  Unless you assume that it has been pre destined since the begining of time, every press of a key on the keyboard is invoked by a free will event inside your brain for which there is no physical explanation.

[Alan Burns]

You don't believe that other animals are mechanical zombies with no inner feelings though.  You believe that they do experience pain, they do experience fear, that they do experience excitement. It is because you entertain these beliefs that you feel uncomfortable to abuse animals. So why pretend otherwise on these boards ? We deserve better from you.

I do not know what form of consciousness (if any) God has given to animals, but from observation of their behaviour, I would assume that they are not capable of free thought and free will.  They seem to be driven entirely by built in instincts and learnt experience.

the problem with your position is that it requires you to continually change the definition of consciousness and as torridon has noted do it do that you use a different definition to different questions, none of which are compatible.

You also seem to need to avoid the direct questions in posts such as torridon's here where you go back to a predigested post irrelevant to what you have been asked. Somewhat bizarrely it often feels as if you are a bot posting rather than anything capable of any form.of consciousness.

I believe I have been consistent in implying that human conscious awareness involves perception of the content of our brain cells and the ability to interact with them to drive our free thought and free will actions.

[Alan Burns]

I do not know what form of consciousness (if any) God has given to animals, but from observation of their behaviour, I would assume that they are not capable of free thought and free will.  They seem to be driven entirely by built in instincts and learnt experience.

Free thought and free will are what we use to make choices. but to make choices we also need learnt experiences to help us decide between options. In what way is that different from animals?

My dog is taken for a walk 4 times a day. He almost always runs and puts his head joyfully through the slip lead when I offer it to him, but when it is very hot he refuses the midday walk, because like us, he has learned that walking in the heat is not comfortable.

Len,
Of course we have instincts and learnt experiences in the same form as animals, but we also have the ability to override these if we so wish by using our gift of free will.

[Shaker]

Explanations for how supernatural events take place are, by definition, not available.  We can only be aware of them.

Then how do you know that they're supernatural?

[Alan Burns]

Explanations for how supernatural events take place are, by definition, not available.  We can only be aware of them.

Then how do you know that they're supernatural?

Because they do not have a natural explanation

[Leonard James]

Len,
Of course we have instincts and learnt experiences in the same form as animals, but we also have the ability to override these if we so wish by using our gift of free will.

Exactly! My dog has learned that I am leader of the pack, and normally obeys me instinctively. But when he behaves as I have explained he overrides his instinct to obey, using his own free will to do so. What is the difference?

[Leonard James]

Because they do not have a natural explanation

So anything that happens which we can't yet explain, is a supernatural event?

[Alan Burns]

Len,
Of course we have instincts and learnt experiences in the same form as animals, but we also have the ability to override these if we so wish by using our gift of free will.

Exactly! My dog has learned that I am leader of the pack, and normally obeys me instinctively. But when he behaves as I have explained he overrides his instinct to obey, using his own free will to do so. What is the difference?

No, Len, he simply uses his learnt experience to override what would normaly be driven by instinct.   Free will can override both learnt experience and instinct.

[Alan Burns]

Because they do not have a natural explanation

So anything that happens which we can't yet explain, is a supernatural event?

Obviously there are some things which do not yet have a natural explanation, but will probably be explained in the future.  A supernatural event is one which will never have a natural explanation. 

Then you have the conundrum - will something which currently has no natural explanation ever be fully explained?

Ultimately it comes down to personal credulity, or incredulity.

[Shaker]

Explanations for how supernatural events take place are, by definition, not available.  We can only be aware of them.

Then how do you know that they're supernatural?

Because they do not have a natural explanation

How do you know that?

[Rhiannon]

As someone who has shared my time with some incredible animals over the years, can I just say that if I do end up in some kind of heaven and they aren't there, I'm going to be mightily pissed off? A heaven just full of people - where's the justice in that? It'd be horrific.

[Shaker]

Obviously there are some things which do not yet have a natural explanation, but will probably be explained in the future.  A supernatural event is one which will never have a natural explanation. 

Then you have the conudrum - will something which currently has no natural explanation ever be fully explained?

Ultimately it comes down to personal credulity, or incredulity.

That last sentence is one of the most honest and on your part unwittingly revealing things you've ever said.

It'll come back to haunt you, Alan. And I don't mean in any supernatural sense.

[Alan Burns]

As someone who has shared my time with some incredible animals over the years, can I just say that if I do end up in some kind of heaven and they aren't there, I'm going to be mightily pissed off? A heaven just full of people - where's the justice in that? It'd be horrific.

I am sure the delights we experience on this earth are just a glimpse of what we will get in heaven.

[Shaker]

As someone who has shared my time with some incredible animals over the years, can I just say that if I do end up in some kind of heaven and they aren't there, I'm going to be mightily pissed off? A heaven just full of people - where's the justice in that? It'd be horrific.

I am sure the delights we experience on this earth are just a glimpse of what we will get in heaven.

Does that mean that in your opinon non-human animals will or won't be there? You forgot to say.

[Leonard James]

Obviously there are some things which do not yet have a natural explanation, but will probably be explained in the future.  A supernatural event is one which will never have a natural explanation. 

Then you have the conundrum - will something which currently has no natural explanation ever be fully explained?

Ultimately it comes down to personal credulity, or incredulity.

Well, Alan, I fear you are displaying enormous credulity. There exists no evidence whatever that anything supernatural exists, except in some people's imagination.

The whole of human experience is limited to the natural universe, and science is slowly finding explanations for its phenomena. That you prefer to favour one single story about origins, of the many that were written thousands of years ago by science-ignorant people, strikes me as extreme credulity.

But as you say, it is a personal thing.

[Leonard James]

Hi Alan, a thought has just come to my mind about "heaven". What happens about all the infants and young children who die before reaching maturity ... do they simply continue as they are or do they somehow grow up after reaching heaven? How will their parents, who lost them as babies, recognise them again?