Searching for GOD...

[Outrider]

Just because it can't be defined in particle physics does not mean that it does not exist.

No, but the fact that it can't be demonstrated in any current methodology - and, indeed, not even an hypothetical methodology by which it could be verified in principle - suggests that there's more than enough reason to be skeptical.

It is a property of human consciousness, which also can't be defined in particle physics.

If you can't demonstrate or define it, you can't justify telling us that it's 'part of human consciousness'. Human consciousness can be defined in the standard model of physics, and has been repeatedly in this thread: you just don't like that explanation. It's not been proven yet, I'll grant you, but there's a viable explanation.

The evidence for the existence of human free will is as abundant as the evidence for human self awareness.

No, it isn't. The subjective belief in free will is abundant, but given that there's no test complex enough to assess all the possible input-output conversions for each neuron, and there's no logical explanation that by-passes the oxymoronic nature of the claim itself, there is no 'evidence for the existence' of any free will, human or otherwise.

O.

[floo]

But why does the sinning against others keep happening. It must be a symptom of something deeper and more sinister.

Now I believe you are one of those who say there is no such thing as sin in which case those supposedly sinned against are making it up........bloody sinners that they are.

'Sin' is a daft little word as it can refer to things which aren't wrong.

[Outrider]

But why does the sinning against others keep happening. It must be a symptom of something deeper and more sinister.

Indeed. Why were were designed with the capacity for 'sin' in the first place? Seems like an inside job, to me.

"Don't eat the fruit" he ordered (of people with no comprehension of good or evil), then placed the fruit in a suspiciously accessible place and punished them (and us) for the 'evil' of gaining knowledge as a result of the curiosity he gave them.

Why put the fruit there in the first place? Why make humans susceptible to its effects? Why let the serpent into the garden? Why make sin hereditary? Why punish the entirety of humanity in perpetuity for the (entirely preventable) actions of Adam and Eve? Why implement misogyny from the beginning?

It's all part of God's plan, they say...

O.

[Alan Burns]

Indeed. Why were were designed with the capacity for 'sin' in the first place? Seems like an inside job, to me.

"Don't eat the fruit" he ordered (of people with no comprehension of good or evil), then placed the fruit in a suspiciously accessible place and punished them (and us) for the 'evil' of gaining knowledge as a result of the curiosity he gave them.

Why put the fruit there in the first place? Why make humans susceptible to its effects? Why let the serpent into the garden? Why make sin hereditary? Why punish the entirety of humanity in perpetuity for the (entirely preventable) actions of Adam and Eve? Why implement misogyny from the beginning?

It's all part of God's plan, they say...

O.

As I see it, the fall of the human race was precipitated by humans submitting to the temptation to use their free will to place their wisdom ahead of God's wisdom.   It is still going on.

[Shaker]

As I see it, the fall of the human race was precipitated by humans submitting to the temptation to use their free will to place their wisdom ahead of God's wisdom.   It is still going on.

And thank goodness for it.

[ekim]

Sinister? What a peculiar choice of word.
You're omitting - deliberately, I have to assume, as the point is so obvious - the difference between sin and wrongdoing between people, or between people and animals, or even between people and inanimate objects. Sin is a religious, in fact specifically theistic term; remove the god and sin disappears along with it, but wrongdoing remains.

Yes, the New Testament word for sin is hamartia... 'to miss the mark', the 'mark' being God.  There are many egocentric 'marks' both external and internal which distract from centring upon the one 'mark', which is why 'metanoia' has to be performed, a word which has unfortunately been translated as 'repent'.

[Outrider]

As I see it, the fall of the human race was precipitated by humans submitting to the temptation to use their free will to place their wisdom ahead of God's wisdom.   It is still going on.

That re-states the assumption of the question - that humans exert their curiosity and indulge in the rash application of knowledge.

What it avoids is the root cause question: why are humans capable of this, if it's a bad thing? Why make humanity such that knowledge of good and evil would result in 'sin'? Why make humanity susceptible to the fruit of the tree in the first place? Why make the tree bear fruit? Why make the tree at all? Why place the tree in an accessible part of the garden?

That's before you get to why punish people for an evil, having created them without a concept of good and evil?

That's before you get to why punish the rest of humanity for the actions of those people who couldn't have known any better any way?

O.

[Rhiannon]

But why does the sinning against others keep happening. It must be a symptom of something deeper and more sinister.

Now I believe you are one of those who say there is no such thing as sin in which case those supposedly sinned against are making it up........bloody sinners that they are.

Your concept of sin encompasses things in which nobody gets hurt. It includes things which are rather nice, and some which make the world a better place. So yes, I'm more than happy to be counted among those who reject it.

[Shaker]

That re-states the assumption of the question - that humans exert their curiosity and indulge in the rash application of knowledge.

I blame that Prometheus, personally.

It hardly says a lot for a belief system when curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge is regarded as the cause of some primal catastrophe tarring all humanity with the taint of some sort of inherent and innate fault. Especially when some of its acolytes would have us believe that it's pretty well single-handedly responsible for modern science

[Outrider]

I blame that Prometheus, personally.

Now you're just reducing it to primitive superstitions and tales of magic...

O.

[Shaker]

Now you're just reducing it to primitive superstitions and tales of magic...

O.

You may say that; I couldn't possibly comment.

[Alan Burns]

The subjective belief in free will is abundant, but given that there's no test complex enough to assess all the possible input-output conversions for each neuron, and there's no logical explanation that by-passes the oxymoronic nature of the claim itself,

Even if we could assess all the possible input-output conversions for each neuron, this would not lead to any definative proof, because there is no way of showing that our apparent free will decisions are entirely defined by neuron activity.  This is merely an assumtion based upon the observation that human scientific endeavors have not yet discovered any other sources of influence.  The influence of the human soul on our neuron activity may not be detectable yet by scientific investigation, but this is no proof that it does not exist.

[Outrider]

You may say that; I couldn't possibly comment.

The correct response, of course, should have been 'That's a positive assertion, how do you intend to prove that...'

Sorry, you lose today's edition of 'Fallacy Roullette!'

O.

[Outrider]

Even if we could assess all the possible input-output conversions for each neuron, this would not lead to any definative proof, because there is no way of showing that our apparent free will decisions are entirely defined by neuron activity.

Is there anything missing - is the explanation sufficient to explain the observed phenomena? No, there's nothing missing.

Is there any evidence of phenomena unexplained by the current scientific paradigm? No.

Is there any explanation of the concept of 'free will' that explains how something could be both free and will? No.

This is merely an assumtion based upon the observation that human scientific endeavors have not yet discovered any other sources of influence.

It is not 'merely' an assumption; it's a deductive explanation from the available evidence. It's not 'proof', scientific explanations are always provisional. However, the logical problem with the concept of free will remains, regardless of how overwhelming the evidence for a purely physical explanation of consciousness and will might currently or potentially be.

The influence of the human soul on our neuron activity may not be detectable yet by scientific investigation, but this is no proof that it does not exist.

No, there isn't. What there isn't, more importantly, is any reason to think that it does. I dismiss the idea of a soul being required for exactly the same reason I dismiss the possibility that I'm a puppet being controlled by a highly-qualified pixie or the possibility that I'm just a slug-brain in a jar being fed artificial-reality inputs by an alien minimum-wage lab assistant - there is no evidence for any of them, and nothing lacking in the available explanation that requires something more.

I can't prove that waves aren't actually caused by magical, invisible, intangible dolphins that abhor the straight lines of a flat sea, but I don't need to prove that they aren't because there's no need to think they are.

I don't need to disprove souls because there's no reason to think they exist. The onus remains on you, as the claimant, to justify your claim; I don't believe the science isn't a good enough reason, nor is I don't like the implications of the evidence.

O.

[Alan Burns]

I blame that Prometheus, personally.

It hardly says a lot for a belief system when curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge is regarded as the cause of some primal catastrophe tarring all humanity with the taint of some sort of inherent and innate fault. Especially when some of its acolytes would have us believe that it's pretty well single-handedly responsible for modern science

Your post makes me long for the joyful innocence of childhood.

Matthew 18:3: And he said: ‘Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

[Outrider]

Your post makes me long for the joyful innocence of childhood.

Matthew 18:3: And he said: ‘Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

The one that's riddled with eminently predictable curious questions like 'I wonder what that fruit tastes like...'

O.

[Rhiannon]

Your post makes me long for the joyful innocence of childhood.

Matthew 18:3: And he said: ‘Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

And your post makes me profoundly grateful that I'm a grown-up. Although bear in mind that children are the most curious learning sponges I know...

[Alan Burns]

I dismiss the idea of a soul being required for exactly the same reason I dismiss the possibility that I'm a puppet being controlled by a highly-qualified pixie or the possibility that I'm just a slug-brain in a jar being fed artificial-reality inputs by an alien minimum-wage lab assistant - there is no evidence for any of them, and nothing lacking in the available explanation that requires something more.

I can't prove that waves aren't actually caused by magical, invisible, intangible dolphins that abhor the straight lines of a flat sea, but I don't need to prove that they aren't because there's no need to think they are.

I don't need to disprove souls because there's no reason to think they exist. The onus remains on you, as the claimant, to justify your claim; I don't believe the science isn't a good enough reason, nor is I don't like the implications of the evidence.

O.

Just try to analyse for a minute what the "I" represents in this post.  According to your post, whatever constitutes "I" has the power to dismiss, to believe, to like, to prove, to need.  Does this "I" not have true freedom in these powers?

[Outrider]

Just try to analyse for a minute what the "I" represents in this post.  According to your post, whatever constitutes "I" has the power to dismiss, to believe, to like, to prove, to need.  Does this "I" not have true freedom in these powers?

No, I don't think so.

As much as it feels as though I do, the evidence doesn't support that, and the logical understanding of the possibilities doesn't allow for it.

O.

[Alan Burns]

Quote from: Alan Burns on Today at 11:05:53 AM

    Just try to analyse for a minute what the "I" represents in this post.  According to your post, whatever constitutes "I" has the power to dismiss, to believe, to like, to prove, to need.  Does this "I" not have true freedom in these powers?

No, I don't think so.

As much as it feels as though I do, the evidence doesn't support that, and the logical understanding of the possibilities doesn't allow for it.

Then according to your logic, they are not powers at all, but merely reactions.

[Outrider]

Then according to your logic, they are not powers at all, but merely reactions.

Ultimately, yes. As are 'we'. That doesn't invalidate that we feel, it only informs what we feel and what we can justify feeling.

O.

[Leonard James]

But why does the sinning against others keep happening. It must be a symptom of something deeper and more sinister.

Nothing deep or sinister about it! It's just the self first instinct overriding the group instinct. It is an inevitable consequence of evolution.

Now I believe you are one of those who say there is no such thing as sin in which case those supposedly sinned against are making it up........bloody sinners that they are.

Doing ill to others (sin) is simply an example of the above, and is nothing more than an offence against the moral code we have devised as a social species. It doesn't exist outside the human mind. The universe knows nothing about "sin".

[Leonard James]

Your post makes me long for the joyful innocence of childhood.

Matthew 18:3: And he said: ‘Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

And that is because, like Santa Claus, heaven is just a childish illusion. It has no place in the adult world of common sense and reason.

[Leonard James]

Just try to analyse for a minute what the "I" represents in this post.  According to your post, whatever constitutes "I" has the power to dismiss, to believe, to like, to prove, to need.  Does this "I" not have true freedom in these powers?

Not so, Alan. Neither you nor anybody else can believe something which their reason tells them isn't true.

[Leonard James]

And your post makes me profoundly grateful that I'm a grown-up. Although bear in mind that children are the most curious learning sponges I know...

That's evolution for you! If children didn't sponge up survival information from adults, we would have been a short-lived, extinct species.