Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Well NS we're all entitled to our opinion N S, by the way I wondered do you pretend to not understand secularism no matter how many times all sorts of people that post here try to explain and the same with evolution?

ippy

Think you are a tad confused.

[torridon]

On the big question of suffering:

We can't choose reality.  We have to accept reality as it is.  Reality includes suffering, and every human being on this planet will have to endure some form of suffering in their lifetime.  When a Christian prays for God to take suffering away, God will answer the prayer in one of two ways.  He will either bring about a miraculous end to the suffering, or He will give the person strength and courage to endure it in order to bring about a greater good.  The suffering we endure either comes from the actions of others, or from some natural disaster in nature.  I am certain that God does not send suffering down on us of His own free will.

A couple of points on that.

1. We can't choose reality, agreed, but God could. An omni..God would choose this reality in which all things suffer and die and all lliving things can only live at all by killing and eating other living things. This is God's choice, you must believe.

2. Christians might be able to pray to relieve their suffering but fur seals and penguins and bunny rabbits cannot. Who is to say that their suffering is less than ours.  So I don't buy your rationale on suffering. You believe in a God that chooses to inflict this suffering on all creatures; not a pretty sight.

[wigginhall]

These replies by AB remind me of the card sharper, except not as good, who appears to deal fair hands, but then you find that he's slipped all the aces at the bottom of the pack.   

Here you go, ladies and gemmun, you can see my hands are placing each card firmly in its place, oops, there goes an ace to the bottom.  God creates everything, but come on, there are some nasty bits, which are your fault, you arrant sinner, not God's, and God will help you, no, he won't take them away.  What do you think he is, Superman?

One of the weird things about this stuff is the total intellectual degradation on display.  Is that the intention?  I suppose not.

[Dicky Underpants]

Even more amazing in Christianity is that the Reformation seemed to make the guilt and fear more ferocious, so that you end up apparently unable to be good, unable to do anything really.    Or if you like, in the jargon, the sinner cannot keep the law, and the law must be satisfied.  Gulp.   But then Paul had said that nothing good dwells in me.  Gulp.

wiggi

That is what I consider so very pernicious in Christianity. It is all very well to interpret certain of St Paul's ideas 'metaphorically' - as in the instance you mentioned in an earlier post that we very often fall short of our best intentions, and end up doing something we wished we hadn't, or simply not doing something we felt we definitely ought to have done. It is quite another to suggest that 'we're doomed' from the start, and quite helpless without the redemptive power of Jesus.

[Dicky Underpants]

Might have been T.S. Eliot (not sure at present - I read so much in so many different places and have for so long that I can't always recall my sources, especially at my advanced age) who said that culture is whatever is left once our immediate needs for nourishment, warmth and shelter are satisified. That might be overstating it somewhat, but I take the point. It seems to be the same concept as you've just expressed, Rhi.

This also reminds me of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Yup - that's what I immediately thought when I read your not-wholly-identified quote.

[Dicky Underpants]

These replies by AB remind me of the card sharper, except not as good, who appears to deal fair hands, but then you find that he's slipped all the aces at the bottom of the pack.   

Here you go, ladies and gemmun, you can see my hands are placing each card firmly in its place, oops, there goes an ace to the bottom.  God creates everything, but come on, there are some nasty bits, which are your fault, you arrant sinner, not God's, and God will help you, no, he won't take them away.  What do you think he is, Superman?

One of the weird things about this stuff is the total intellectual degradation on display.  Is that the intention?  I suppose not.

Don't forget the Devil, wiggi. AB apparently also believes in the Devil. I'm not quite sure how this idea fits in with his overall theology.

[wigginhall]

wiggi

That is what I consider so very pernicious in Christianity. It is all very well to interpret certain of St Paul's ideas 'metaphorically' - as in the instance you mentioned in an earlier post that we very often fall short of our best intentions, and end up doing something we wished we hadn't, or simply not doing something we felt we definitely ought to have done. It is quite another to suggest that 'we're doomed' from the start, and quite helpless without the redemptive power of Jesus.

Well, it's a crucial premise, isn't it?  You must be doomed, and unable to do good, or rectify things, otherwise the whole salvation project is pointless.   Trouble is, you then have to convince people (including children), that they're depraved, to establish the premise in the first place.    It's like the torturer saying, OK, have a break, you've suffered enough.   Eh?

[wigginhall]

Don't forget the Devil, wiggi. AB apparently also believes in the Devil. I'm not quite sure how this idea fits in with his overall theology.

Well, the devil is God's right hand man, isn't he?   According to TW anyway, quote:

"With God clearly using Satan  {scriptures can be provided} to bring Judgement on the world as we run up to the last day,in the  form of Death,sickness,famine,wars,also hardening the hearts of un-believers,the day of Grace fading the prospect of knowing you have been used by Satan."  End quote, my italics.

[Dicky Underpants]

If I found him wanting the first time, what makes you think I won't find the same thing again, especially with a lifetime's experience behind me now.

100% Len !! Spot on and so succinctly expressed.

[Dicky Underpants]

Well, the devil is God's right hand man, isn't he?   According to TW anyway, quote:

"With God clearly using Satan  {scriptures can be provided} to bring Judgement on the world as we run up to the last day,in the  form of Death,sickness,famine,wars,also hardening the hearts of un-believers,the day of Grace fading the prospect of knowing you have been used by Satan."  End quote, my italics.

Well, he obviously knows the Book of Job. Not sure he's thought through all the implications of that though

[wigginhall]

Yes, the implications of Satan as the consigliere are mind-boggling.  Hey, boss, ya wanna wipe out that ass-hole shmuck, just say the word, boss.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I find Hillside's idea that conscious awareness is an emergent propery not at all convincing, because emergent properties are just comprised of perceived patterns of bahaviour, and this "property" has can have no real presence in itself.

That's a lot to get wrong in one sentence. Emergent properties just are, whether not not there's anyone around to "perceive" them (do you seriously think that ant behaviour would stop if all the people disappeared tomorrow?) and of course "patterns of behaviour" manifest as a "real presence" - that's why termite mounds with air conditioning physically exist: termites know nothing of air conditioning, yet constructing it is an emergent property of their individual stupidity nonetheless.

Again, if you bothered to find out something about emergence you wouldn't keep falling off the cliff every time you try to comment on it.     
I think that perhaps where we're all going wrong here is in assuming that you have any interest at all in understanding where you've gone so badly wrong so as to reconsider your beliefs. You had your "eureka" moment 40 years ago, so now you're hugely invested in where it led you. The overwhelmingly likely fact that this moment led you to entirely the wrong answer cannot therefore be allowed to impinge on your position - which is why you have to ignore the evidence that undoes you and deploy logically hopeless arguments to shore up your opinion.

The truth may indeed set your free, but your version of it is so patently bonkers that, ironically, you've become trapped by it. It's not that you will not grasp the reasoning against you, it's that you cannot - the emotional cost would be too high.

Sad, but there it is. 

[ekim]

I look upon Heaven as where God exists, and where our true spiritual home is.  I can't elaborate much more because I have never been there, but I do believe we get periodic glimpses of heaven during our earthly life.

The recent quote about the ecstacy of someone hearing Bach's Toccata and Fugue being played in Notre Dame Cathedral comes to mind - "the truth set to music" I think was the phrase she used.

This leads me on to thinking about my two favorite composers - Bach and Vivaldi - both being devout Christians.  Does their inspired music touch upon the joys of heaven?

Another way of looking at it is that it is a 'state' of being and that it is within you but your consciousness is otherwise engaged by e.g. incessant thoughts and emotions which act as a veil and prevent you realising it.  Words like apocalypse and revelation are derived from Greek and Latin words which mean removal of the veil.  As you say, there are instances in life which appear to break through that veil and provide a glimpse of something of 'higher' or 'deeper' quality.  I would suggest that the initial impact of these is to still the mind so that the inner 'state' is realised.  Often the word 'stunning' is used to express this e.g. stunning scene, music etc.  You used the word ecstasy which is derived from a Greek word meaning 'to stand outside of one's self', the 'self' being the accumulation of our thoughts and emotions.  The New Testament word 'metanoia' I would suggest is wrongly translated as 'repent' but meant beyond (meta) mind (noia) and was the Jesus method to approach the Kingdom of Heaven within, the inner source of life and joy.

[Alan Burns]

That's a lot to get wrong in one sentence. Emergent properties just are, whether not not there's anyone around to "perceive" them (do you seriously think that ant behaviour would stop if all the people disappeared tomorrow?) and of course "patterns of behaviour" manifest as a "real presence" - that's why termite mounds with air conditioning physically exist: termites know nothing of air conditioning, yet constructing it is an emergent property of their individual stupidity nonetheless.

The point I am trying to make is that an emergent property such as a termite mound can have no presence in itself.  It is just an arrangement of particles.  To suggest that conscious awareness is an emergent property is giving the property an additional, undefinable attribute with no justification for how it can attain this attribute.

[Shaker]

Yes, the ingenuity of the human mind is incredible, which can argue like this, that God doesn't create the bad stuff (although he creates everything), but he will help you through it, but won't cure it, (although he could).  And it's for a higher good.

I call it the Incredible Shrinking God Syndrome - I'm trying to get it into circulation to accompany my other exceedingly modest contribution to online memetics, (to wit, Shaker's Law).

The ISGS relies on belief in a deity whose powers/capabilities expand and contract according to the difficulty of the conundrum posed, usually up and down faster than a tart's knickers. Thus theism rests upon a deity who speaks a cosmos into being from nothingness, yet whose powers suddenly desert it when the believer is asked why it can't seem to do anything about the suffering of children in the here and now ("God doesn't work that way"); a deity supposed to have resurrected corpses (including the earthbound corpse of itself according to one brand of theism) and performed other miracles in an obscure corner of the middle east a very long time ago, yet whose abilities immediately evaporate when preventing (or rather failing to prevent) the deaths of millions in an orchestrated Europe-wide genocide ("God doesn't want to interfere with our free will"). It is claimed that God can do X, but X is always something a very very long time ago or a very very long way away, preferably both, and in all cases not subject to human investigation. When something is subject to scrutiny, God is suddenly unable to run a whelk stall.

And so forth. I suppose even champion weightlifters have their off days, but not like this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The point I am trying to make is that an emergent property such as a termite mound can have no presence in itself.  It is just an arrangement of particles.  To suggest that conscious awareness is an emergent property is giving the property an additional, undefinable atribute with no justification for how it can attain this attribute.

Everything physical is an arrangement of particles Alan (in fact everything we know of is is an arrangement of sub-atomic particles too). The fact is that termite mounds are constructed so that cool air is drawn up from the bottom and vented from the top, which helps keep the mound at a constant temperature. And that's emergence - a complex outcome from simple beginnings - and that's why there's no reason to dismiss the same phenomenon as an explanation for consciousness, however complex it happens to be.

That you don't like it because it leaves no gap in which a supposed "soul" can hide says nothing to the basic premise.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?     

[Alan Burns]

Why would a god not want use to know stuff? Why would it make itself mysterious and not in line with facts? This last part of your post, were you not so obviously nice, would be horrifying. It is asking people not to use their intelligence, and any god that wants that is merely an arse.

I think I am suggesting that trying to discover the full truth about our conscious self is probably beyond our reach.  We can certainly discover how the biological mechanisms of our body work - and make good use of this knowledge.  But trying to establish how our conscious awareness and perception of free will manifest themselves will be beyond our capabilities if, as I believe, they derive from the human soul.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I think I am suggesting that trying to discover the full truth about our conscious self is probably beyond our reach.  We can certainly discover how the biological mechanisms of our body work - and make good use of this knowledge.  But trying to establish how our conscious awareness and perception of free will manifest themselves will be beyond our capabilities if, as I believe, they derive from the human soul.

So the same argument norsemen used about thunder and Thor then. 

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Everything physical is an arrangement of particles Alan (in fact everything we know of is is an arrangement of sub-atomic particles too). The fact is that termite mounds are constructed so that cool air is drawn up from the bottom and vented from the top, which helps keep the mound at a constant temperature. And that's emergence - a complex outcome from simple beginnings - and that's why there's no reason to dismiss the same phenomenon as an explanation for consciousness, however complex it happens to be.

That you don't like it because it leaves no gap in which a supposed "soul" can hide says nothing to the basic premise.

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?   

Because any functionality of an emergent property is limited to what the arrangement of particles can physically accomplish.  In other words you will need a physical definition of conscious awareness in order to show how it can be an emergent property of brain materials.

[Nearly Sane]

I think I am suggesting that trying to discover the full truth about our conscious self is probably beyond our reach.  We can certainly discover how the biological mechanisms of our body work - and make good use of this knowledge.  But trying to establish how our conscious awareness and perception of free will manifest themselves will be beyond our capabilities if, as I believe, they derive from the human soul.

But why would you discover something by not using your intelligence? We are back to bluehillside's challenge about how anything here is any better than guessing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Because any functionality of an emergent property is limited to what the arrangement of particles can physically accomplish.

Wrong!

Wrong!

Wrong!

None of the components parts from which an emergent property emerges can physically "accomplish" that property - THAT'S THE POINT!!!!!

Please, will you at least try to read something about it before posting again.

PLEASE.

In other words you will need a physical definition of conscious awareness in order to show how it can be an emergent property of brain materials.

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Of course I effing don't - all that's necessary for the purpose of this discussion is to show that fantastically complex outcomes can and do emerge bottom up from very simple components. Prima facie, there's no reason therefore to think that consciousness is an exception. 

I need a lie down...(wanders off, sobbing quietly)

[torridon]

The point I am trying to make is that an emergent property such as a termite mound can have no presence in itself.  It is just an arrangement of particles.  To suggest that conscious awareness is an emergent property is giving the property an additional, undefinable attribute with no justification for how it can attain this attribute.

To understand conscious awareness, we first have to understand that we are those particles; those particles you keep referring to in a third person sense. Try thinking (this is very crude) of it as each synapse being a single representational piece of awareness, that is what they are essentially, each synapse corresponds to some piece of knowledge or information about our internal state and external environment, and the emergent consciousness stream is the integrated and refined totality of trillions of pieces of such information. We commonly think of ourselves as flesh and blood, or as mammals or humans or lawyers, but at a deeper level, we are information beings, we are made of information, and our internal mental life, our conscious experience is what information flow feels like.  This is why mental things, as opposed to 'physical' things,  seem to be intangible, it is because mental things are essentially made of information, not matter.

If that's doing your head in, and I don't blame you if it does, try breaking down the big problem into smaller manageable chunks : try just thinking about a component of conscious experience - eyesight say - ponder on how it works, remembering that what you see when you open your eyes is not what is actually you front of you at all,  but an internal cortical representational sensation that is taking place in the occipital lobe at the rear of your brain.  To understand this, it is not going to help if you fall back onto thinking that there must be a soul inside that is receiving the sight experience and actually doing the seeing, because all animals can see, pretty much the same way, and do so apparently without the need for a soul or any other such magic.

[ippy]

Think you are a tad confused.

Not really, two different subjects, the man cannot get his head around either.

Looks like the confusion wasn't at this end.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Not really, two different subjects, the man cannot get his head around either.

Looks like the confusion wasn't at this end.

ippy

in the post you were referring to me, so the confusion continues

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

Wrong!

Wrong!

Wrong!

None of the components parts from which an emergent property emerges can physically "accomplish" that property - THAT'S THE POINT!!!!!

Please, will you at least try to read something about it before posting again.

PLEASE.

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Of course I effing don't - all that's necessary for the purpose of this discussion is to show that fantastically complex outcomes can and do emerge bottom up from very simple components. Prima facie, there's no reason therefore to think that consciousness is an exception. 

I need a lie down...(wanders off, sobbing quietly)

Wow.......you sound like the lovechild of Richard Dawkins and Basil Fawlty.