Searching for GOD...

[torridon]

If we make a choice, it must be for a reason, even if we cannot discern the reason.

The usual reason is that acting in a certain way will be more advantageous to us than not doing so, but we are not compelled to obey.

In my house, we all obey the law of cause and effect 

[Leonard James]

If we make a choice, it must be for a reason, even if we cannot discern the reason.

The usual reason is that acting in a certain way will be more advantageous to us than not doing so, but we are not compelled to obey.

In my house, we all obey the law of cause and effect 

And in mine ... but you can do otherwise if you wish!

[ekim]

If we make a choice, it must be for a reason, even if we cannot discern the reason.

The usual reason is that acting in a certain way will be more advantageous to us than not doing so, but we are not compelled to obey.

Perhaps, Leonard, people can be divided between those who are compelled to obey and therefore have forfeited their ability to exercise free will (e.g. those conditioned by religious instruction) and those who have developed the will to break free from compulsions and choose otherwise.  The old word for this was intelligence (from Latin inter-legere .... choose between).  In this sense, life forms have varying degrees of intelligence which not only separates them from the inanimate but from each other.  The least free are those who have allowed that intelligence to slip into autopilot and can only react rather than act/not act.

[Leonard James]

If we make a choice, it must be for a reason, even if we cannot discern the reason.

The usual reason is that acting in a certain way will be more advantageous to us than not doing so, but we are not compelled to obey.

Perhaps, Leonard, people can be divided between those who are compelled to obey and therefore have forfeited their ability to exercise free will (e.g. those conditioned by religious instruction) and those who have developed the will to break free from compulsions and choose otherwise.  The old word for this was intelligence (from Latin inter-legere .... choose between).  In this sense, life forms have varying degrees of intelligence which not only separates them from the inanimate but from each other.  The least free are those who have allowed that intelligence to slip into autopilot and can only react rather than act/not act.

Yes, it is a pity ... because some of the actions carried out in the name of religion are barbaric.

They are still murdering people for their sexuality in some backward parts of the world, because their "God" has told them it's wrong..

[Sassy]

All your post has done is prove you know you have no argument against what I wrote.
It is clear logic that if freewill did not exist that no one could be guilty of sin or breaking the law.
Whatever is really all there is to say. FACT is you do have freewill and you chose to believe the rubbish you tried to spout here. FREEWILL is a fact. Get over it.

Claiming an argument is false because you don't like the conclusions is a logical fallacy. In most depictions, yes, the argument that Free Will doesn't exist does remove any justification for notions of sin or guilt - it doesn't eradicate the notion of breaking the law, but it does call into question a punitive justice system on the back, rather than rehabilitative.

Free Will is an claim that, logically, can't stand up, but psychologically is difficult to let go of.

O.

What a load of crap! Come on O, have you been drinking?

Brilliantly argued Sassy. How can anyone disagree with such a wonderfully thought through response?

Whilst in the real world - Outrider's post is spot on, as usual. Perhaps you need to reread it and think about it a bit more.

Falsely protesting and falsely pretending is not good when you clearly cannot justify his post.

[Maeght]

All your post has done is prove you know you have no argument against what I wrote.
It is clear logic that if freewill did not exist that no one could be guilty of sin or breaking the law.
Whatever is really all there is to say. FACT is you do have freewill and you chose to believe the rubbish you tried to spout here. FREEWILL is a fact. Get over it.

Claiming an argument is false because you don't like the conclusions is a logical fallacy. In most depictions, yes, the argument that Free Will doesn't exist does remove any justification for notions of sin or guilt - it doesn't eradicate the notion of breaking the law, but it does call into question a punitive justice system on the back, rather than rehabilitative.

Free Will is an claim that, logically, can't stand up, but psychologically is difficult to let go of.

O.

What a load of crap! Come on O, have you been drinking?

Brilliantly argued Sassy. How can anyone disagree with such a wonderfully thought through response?

Whilst in the real world - Outrider's post is spot on, as usual. Perhaps you need to reread it and think about it a bit more.

Falsely protesting and falsely pretending is not good when you clearly cannot justify his post.

Nothing false about it Sassy. Why not try actually arguing against Outrider's post in a sensible way and you might come across a bit better. Making some points to demonstrate why O is incorrect with supporting evidence would be good. A tip though - stating that something is a FACT doesn't count - nor does quoting pieces of scripture. Go on - give it a go.

[Leonard James]

Nothing false about it Sassy. Why not try actually arguing against Outrider's post in a sensible way and you might come across a bit better. Making some points to demonstrate why O is incorrect with supporting evidence would be good. A tip though - stating that something is a FACT doesn't count - nor does quoting pieces of scripture. Go on - give it a go.

Please don't hold your breath, Maeght. 

[Alan Burns]

That we have apparent free will, is eeerm, apparent. Lots of things seem untuitively undeniable to us, but that is often a facet of how things seem to us. The chair I am sitting on feels solid, but it isn't, really. Look out of the window, the sky looks blue, but it isn't, really. I feel like a human, but by cell count I am really a bacterial colony on legs. But for most practical purposes I can go about life enjoying the blueness of the sky and the comfort of my armchair; when I am introduced to someone I don't bother introducing also the billions of cohabiting microbes that form the bulk of me. Likewise i can go around making choices happily without consideration for whether my choices are truly free or are they ultimately largely predetermined.  So long as it feels free then I am happy with that.  But if you want to develop a deeper understanding of what we are, that entails delving down and dismissing our illusions in order to come to terms with the underlying realities of life, and there is nothing that we have discovered through research that would lend support to the idea that we are truly free. Like all else in life, we are the ultimately products of natural law, our choices express natural law, we cannot fashion it, subvert it, avoid it, or remake it by willpower.

I think your starting point for reality is a bit too far out.
The one thing I know for certain is that I exist.  And I am able to perceive, and formulate meanings to what is perceived.  Many people take their existence, perception and ability to formulate meaning for granted, as though it is a perfectly natural thing, but these basic realities are not explained through our perception.  Our ability to attach meaning to what we perceive is essentially subjective and does not lead to absolute truth.  Our perception is also limited to what can be detected by our physical senses, and it may well be only a small fraction of what exists in reality.  Science is in effect the human attempt to attach meaning to what we are able to perceive, so it is limited by its subjective nature and can never be defined as an absolute truth.  Your assumption that we comprise of billions of cohabiting microbes (and nothing else) in effect contradicts my most basic starting point of reality that I exist in a single entity of perception.

[Shaker]

Science is in effect the human attempt to attach meaning to what we are able to perceive

No it isn't.

This does explain why you have such barmy ideas about science, though.

[Outrider]

The one thing I know for certain is that I exist.

Accepted.

And I am able to perceive, and formulate meanings to what is perceived.

Probably, yes.

Many people take their existence, perception and ability to formulate meaning for granted, as though it is a perfectly natural thing, but these basic realities are not explained through our perception.

They do. However, a number of people have examined that capacity throughout history, in isolation and in comparison to other animals, and it seems that it's a more complex iteration of a capacity that's widespread throughout the animal kingdom. As to whether it's 'perfectly natural' or not, that would require some sort of explanation of something about human capacity which was 'not natural', which makes no sense.

Our ability to attach meaning to what we perceive is essentially subjective and does not lead to absolute truth.  Our perception is also limited to what can be detected by our physical senses, and it may well be only a small fraction of what exists in reality.

Absolutely.

Science is in effect the human attempt to attach meaning to what we are able to perceive, so it is limited by its subjective nature and can never be defined as an absolute truth.

Actually, science is a methodology specifically designed to try to eliminate that human subjectivity of understanding - nothing can eliminate the subjectivity of the nature of perception, of course. That said, yes, scientific findings are always provisional.

Your assumption that we comprise of billions of cohabiting microbes (and nothing else) in effect contradicts my most basic starting point of reality that I exist in a single entity of perception.

No, it's just a different way of looking at things. We are solid, however a different analysis shows that the individual atoms of which our cells are comprised are mostly empty space. A wall is a single object, yet it comprises a number of bricks which are single objects, yet they comprise atoms... and so on. Nature is a continuum, and in order to study and analyse we fix concepts at given levels of complexity to work within a given context. That neither invalidates the findings that work generates nor invalidates the reality that we can look at any given situation from a number of perspectives.

Life is many things, but it can rarely be said to be simple.

O.

[Dicky Underpants]

Actually, many Christians prefer to use the term "all-powerful" because of the misunderstanding of what omnipotence is held to mean in Christian philosophical thought.

"All powerful " is a synonym of "omnipotent" (in fact a straight translation of the word), not a different concept.

You see, Shakes, God is self-evidently an Englishman, and we can only really describe his attributes because of the incredible subtle variants of the English language. The same goes for the oh-so subtle differences between "Eternal" and "Everlasting".
Those poor Latin types, who have to do with such restricted terms as "Eternus, Eterno etc" and "Omnipotente, etc" - how can they possibly understand God as well as those with English as their first language?

[Maeght]

Nothing false about it Sassy. Why not try actually arguing against Outrider's post in a sensible way and you might come across a bit better. Making some points to demonstrate why O is incorrect with supporting evidence would be good. A tip though - stating that something is a FACT doesn't count - nor does quoting pieces of scripture. Go on - give it a go.

Please don't hold your breath, Maeght. 

Glad I didn't 

[Alan Burns]

A wall is a single object, yet it comprises a number of bricks which are single objects, yet they comprise atoms... and so on.

The single objects you quote (wall, brick, atom) only exist as objects in human perception.  In essence, everything is just comprised of atomic particles.  We group and label these particles in human perception.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The single objects you quote (wall, brick, atom) only exist as objects in human perception.  In essence, everything is just comprised of atomic particles.  We group and label these particles in human perception.

Actually sub-atomic particles, but you're along the right lines. We see "wall" as a solid object, but if we had eyesight as powerful as a scanning electron microscope we'd see instead a very different version of reality. Same with time - is anything a solid object, or is everything a process in an unending state of flux, albeit often over periods too long for us to perceive?

What can happen when these components combine though is something called an emergent property - consciousness for example is an emergent property of the stuff of which our brains are made: you can't dissect a brain and find an idea, but there's no need to add anything more to the mix for ideas to exist nonetheless. You may find Steven Johnson's book Emergence helpful on this subject.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

The single objects you quote (wall, brick, atom) only exist as objects in human perception.  In essence, everything is just comprised of atomic particles.  We group and label these particles in human perception.

Actually sub-atomic particles, but you're along the right lines. We see "wall" as a solid object, but if we had eyesight as powerful as a scanning electron microscope we'd see instead a very different version of reality. Same with time - is anything a solid object, or is everything a process in an unending state of flux, albeit often over periods too long for us to perceive?

What can happen when these components combine though is something called an emergent property - consciousness for example is an emergent property of the stuff of which our brains are made: you can't dissect a brain and find an idea, but there's no need to add anything more to the mix for ideas to exist nonetheless. You may find Steven Johnson's book Emergence helpful on this subject.

And this emergent property has the ability to compose such sublime work as Spem In Alium.  An attempt to reach out to something that exists beyond the scope of our physical senses perhaps?

[Gordon]

And this emergent property has the ability to compose such sublime work as Spem In Alium.  An attempt to reach out to something that exists beyond the scope of our physical senses perhaps?

Or, perhaps, someone with a creative musical ability doing what comes naturally to them, in much the same way that others have the ability and enthusiasm to bounce creatively when confronted with a trampoline: such skills being no more than applied biology in both cases.

[Outrider]

And this emergent property has the ability to compose such sublime work as Spem In Alium.  An attempt to reach out to something that exists beyond the scope of our physical senses perhaps?

Physical senses as opposed to which others?

An attempt to reach out to what that is beyond our 'physical senses' and, therefore, indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist.

What we classify at various levels of context and perception are things that we can either directly percieve or detect by enhancing our senses with machinery and technology. What you are talking about isn't even hypothetical, it's mythical.

It's not something that's conceived of from evidence of effects, but from desire - people want it to be true, but they have no cause to think that it is.

O.

[floo]

My late father was a water diviner/geographical dowser as was one of his brothers. It was an extremely useful skill which they used for purely practical purposes not as a party trick! When bore holes were needed on their properties they were able to gage the best place for one to be dug, to ensure a good water supply. Another time when my father needed to make urgent contact with one of his other brothers, who was on holiday in the UK but he wasn't sure where, he used his divining rod, a forked hazel stick, to find his location. My father's most famous achievement was using his rod to direct the police to the barn in the UK where the Stone of Scone was taken before its onward journey to Scotland after it had been stolen. We had photos taken of him with the police at that time.

Dad, a 'born again', didn't regard his 'skill' in this area as supernatural, just another talent like his singing ability. He had an excellent tenor voice, and in 1961 toured the US with a choir.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

And this emergent property has the ability to compose such sublime work as Spem In Alium.

Yes. (Incidentally, if you like Spem you might like to try the Byrd Motets too.)

An attempt to reach out to something that exists beyond the scope of our physical senses perhaps?

"Perhaps" anything, but you have all your work ahead of you to establish the fact of anything "beyond our physical senses" - or at least beyond the possibility of detection "beyond" these senses that Tallis may have been reaching towards.

You need better to understand emergence - ants and termites for example are deeply stupid (almost brainless in fact) yet together they build huge and complex structures optimally aligned to the sun and incorporating air conditioning, they farm livestock, they create complex social structures etc. They don't do this because a boss ant shows up with a set of drawings, and nor because they are "reaching" for something "beyond their senses". Rather they exhibit complexities together than none of them have individually - and that's emergence. 

[Alan Burns]

You need better to understand emergence - ants and termites for example are deeply stupid (almost brainless in fact) yet together they build huge and complex structures optimally aligned to the sun and incorporating air conditioning, they farm livestock, they create complex social structures etc. They don't do this because a boss ant shows up with a set of drawings, and nor because they are "reaching" for something "beyond their senses". Rather they exhibit complexities together than none of them have individually - and that's emergence.

But what happens to this emergent property when you remove the human observer?  Can it still exist in absolute terms without being perceived by an intelligent awareness?  The ants themselves do not perceive any emergent property, they just react to their immediate environment according to instinct.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But what happens to this emergent property when you remove the human observer?  Can it still exist in absolute terms without being perceived by an intelligent awareness?  The ants themselves do not perceive any emergent property, they just react to their immediate environment according to instinct.

What happens to anything "when you remove the human observer"? You're edging toward Bishop Berkeley territory here - either there's a universe "out there" that we observe, albeit with all the foibles and failings of our ability to interpret or everything is created by us (the "brain in a vat" idea). We can discuss that if you want to, but it has nothing to do with emergent properties - the snowflake objectively exists or it doesn't, but its being made of separate ice crystals is a different matter. 

[wigginhall]

You need better to understand emergence - ants and termites for example are deeply stupid (almost brainless in fact) yet together they build huge and complex structures optimally aligned to the sun and incorporating air conditioning, they farm livestock, they create complex social structures etc. They don't do this because a boss ant shows up with a set of drawings, and nor because they are "reaching" for something "beyond their senses". Rather they exhibit complexities together than none of them have individually - and that's emergence.

But what happens to this emergent property when you remove the human observer?  Can it still exist in absolute terms without being perceived by an intelligent awareness?  The ants themselves do not perceive any emergent property, they just react to their immediate environment according to instinct.

That's a very strange argument.   As blue said, you are edging towards pure idealism, and Bishop Berkeley.  Are you seriously suggesting that before humans existed, ants did not live in their social groups, with all the attendant features, such as farming other animals?

I can't believe you are going down that road, as it leads to nihilism.   Stars were not formed, as I didn't see it. 

[Shaker]

My parents were never married, as I wasn't around to ...oh, wait 

[SusanDoris]

But no doubt so did humans when they first evolved. However, the evolutionary process has seen the development of human knowledge and ingenuity enabling a more reasoned response to the situation in which they find themselves.

Plus, of course , language which means that we humans have sets of sounds to which we attach meanings, otherwise we would still be at the stage of our ape ancestors, incapable of talking about things both concrete and abstract.

[Sriram]

You need better to understand emergence - ants and termites for example are deeply stupid (almost brainless in fact) yet together they build huge and complex structures optimally aligned to the sun and incorporating air conditioning, they farm livestock, they create complex social structures etc. They don't do this because a boss ant shows up with a set of drawings, and nor because they are "reaching" for something "beyond their senses". Rather they exhibit complexities together than none of them have individually - and that's emergence.

Yes...and that shows that 'Intelligence' is build into the universe.  Its not about a old man with a white beard.