Searching for GOD...

[Maeght]

Is that it? The only reply you can make is to whether you and other atheists might be referring to and if you can understand my posts?

Your posts are difficult to understand. You suggested it was only Shaker who thought this, I pinted out it wasn't. Simple really.

Nothing to support what I said about Shaker ...

You said he was in denial and making excuses - I pointed out he wasn't. Why would I support what you said about Shaker when I don't support it?

....and what all other believers believe about his posts?

You know that all other believers think the same as you on this do you?

It is a fact that the evidence shows that atheists in general insult, attack and with sarcasm when they cannot answer the actual contents of the post.

Some do, but most try to address the contents of your posts - when it is possible to work out what that is. Quite a few believers on here insult, attack and use sarcasm though.

Just as you just did by false accusations and responding to the person not the actual contents and claiming something not done.

Take a look at most of your posts if you are picking up on responses about the person rather th the content.

If you really wanted to prove my original post about Shaker wrong you needed to show the contents of the post I replied to to be different from what I claimed.

Which original post? That he was in denial and making excuses? If so he is not making excuses as your posts are difficult to comprehend and he is not in denial because he always attempts to answer point s made, although like everyone includes some comments on the person making the posts when frustrated.

1, You cannot show any difference.

See above

2. You knew it and you knew what I said was correct and about the post in general.

No.

Pity you cannot see anything but the way you atheist like to attack the person and not the post content.

Whether or not yopur posts are clear is part of the discussion since that is the point Shaker made and the content of your post was that you thought this was an excuse - so the content was addressed.

Your post content has been replied to and shown to be faulty in that you could not prove me wrong about Shakers post.

See above.

If you are referring to some other 'original post to Shaker' and are making a different point then do correct me and I will address it.

[torridon]

The complex of neural activity in a brain is the interpretation, a thought is the higher cognitive interpretation of vaguer feelings emanating from lower levels of mind.

I think I can claim assertion for these statements.  Since there is still no scientific definition of how conscious awareness works, we can't just assume that it is the neural activity in the brain.  This may well be a part of conscious awareness, but it does not define conscious awareness.

Well these are the interpretations of neuroscientists working with brain imaging techniques and is basically what observational evidence suggests, in contrast to your naïve ponderings which have no basis whatsoever in empirical or observational work. I understand that we all struggle to conceive of what a thought is in material terms; I think of it like this - a thought is a precursor to action and is preceded by a feeling; feelings and emotions are primitive and ancient sensations - lust, anger, fear, hunger etc are common to all animals and they represent how a body is doing in terms of pleasure/unpleasure. Feelings are nebulous and reside in the ancient basal parts of the brain, the brain stem, and thoughts result from the propagation of feelings through higher levels of cortex where they encounter and interact with the higher cognitive function and memory. We can watch feelings rise and spread through the brain using imaging techniques and that way we have measured neural transmission speed of thoughts at around 120 m/sec on average.  Thus a simple and primitive feeling, like hunger, rises through the brain picking up definition though interaction along the way, and eventually what emerges into conscious mind is "must pay a visit to Mrs Miggins Pie Shop". Admittedly the character of thought is going to be different in other animals, it will not take on a linguistic character presumably as feelings will not encounter any cortex devoted to language. Our understanding of these things is proceeding apace, soon thought control technologies will be widespread and you are going to look very behind the times if you keep to your mantra 'we can't define conscious experience'

[Alan Burns]

Must be a very hollow empty experience communicating with yourself all the time Alan, oh, of course, you don't think you are.

The six nations is coming up Saturday onwards, now that really is there; come on Alan, there you are fill your boots up with something worthwhile give yourself a break.

ippy

I can assure you, ippy, that my wife and I lead a very happy fulfilled life with lots to appreciate.  We had a great weekend in London last week visiting the art galleries and went to see Jim Broadbent playing a brilliant Scrooge in Christmas Carol.  But our lives would really have a big hollow feeling if we did not have God in our lives.  God's presence is absolutely central, but having found God we do not just sit back and wait for salvation to come to us - an essential part of our fulfillment is to answer Gods calling for us to share this wonderful good news of salvation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

AB,

Sub-atomic particle, of force and matter - yes.

That's definitionally moot, but ok...

What are you trying to ask here? If you're asking whether "conscious awareness" as you put it is likely to be an emergent property of the stuff of which we're made, then yes.

There's conceptually no need therefore for special pleading for it to come from somewhere else and, even if there was, you'd then have all your work ahead of you still to model it and to provide a method to verify that model.

Essentially, you're coming at this ass-backwards. You've decided that there's something you call "god", and now you're reverse-engineering from that starting point to populate your ontology with "souls", "devils" and the like. It's a bit like someone claiming that pots of gold at the ends of rainbows exist, therefore leprechauns exist whereas what they're really saying is, "leprechauns exist, therefore pots of gold at the ends of rainbows".

If nothing else, your repeated car crash reasoning of arguing from your personal incredulity should at least nudge you toward realising that.   

I'm not sure you have quite caught the meaning of emergence.
An emergent property is not the sum total of the previous level
but a new property related to the group rather than the previous level.

You still seem to be calling us to build a tower of connection from the bottom up which is strange since that is reductionist and atomist and yes a bit dogmatic and totally unneccesary when we can observe a greater whole.

An emergent property cannot be predicted from the components of the lower level.

[Alan Burns]

Well these are the interpretations of neuroscientists working with brain imaging techniques and is basically what observational evidence suggests, in contrast to your naïve ponderings which have no basis whatsoever in empirical or observational work. I understand that we all struggle to conceive of what a thought is in material terms; I think of it like this - a thought is a precursor to action and is preceded by a feeling; feelings and emotions are primitive and ancient sensations - lust, anger, fear, hunger etc are common to all animals and they represent how a body is doing in terms of pleasure/unpleasure. Feelings are nebulous and reside in the ancient basal parts of the brain, the brain stem, and thoughts result from the propagation of feelings through higher levels of cortex where they encounter and interact with the higher cognitive function and memory. We can watch feelings rise and spread through the brain using imaging techniques and that way we have measured neural transmission speed of thoughts at around 120 m/sec on average.  Thus a simple and primitive feeling, like hunger, rises through the brain picking up definition though interaction along the way, and eventually what emerges into conscious mind is "must pay a visit to Mrs Miggins Pie Shop". Admittedly the character of thought is going to be different in other animals, it will not take on a linguistic character presumably as feelings will not encounter any cortex devoted to language. Our understanding of these things is proceeding apace, soon thought control technologies will be widespread and you are going to look very behind the times if you keep to your mantra 'we can't define conscious experience'

No matter how detailed the description of what is going on, it still boils down to us trying to equate electro chemical activity with conscious perception, but correlation does not imply causation.  My personal incredulity tells me that it is physically impossible to generate conscious awareness from the activity of protons, neurons and electrons alone.

[Shaker]

My personal incredulity tells me that it is physically impossible to generate conscious awareness from the activity of protons, neurons and electrons alone.

Well there you go. That's all it is and all it will ever be.

[Gordon]

My personal incredulity tells me that it is physically impossible to generate conscious awareness from the activity of protons, neurons and electrons alone.

If you ever decide on a career change, Alan, by opening your own hotel - you must call it 'Fallacy Towers'.

[Shaker]

If you ever decide on a career change, Alan, by opening your own hotel - you must call it 'Fallacy Towers'.

I bet the sign outside will read 'Faecal Slow Try.'

[torridon]

No matter how detailed the description of what is going on, it still boils down to us trying to equate electro chemical activity with conscious perception, but correlation does not imply causation.  My personal incredulity tells me that it is physically impossible to generate conscious awareness from the activity of protons, neurons and electrons alone.

Well you need to consider at a minimum how it happens in other creatures that, according to you, don't have a soul to fulfil that function. The evolution of consciousness is one of the big stories in the history of life on this planet, and it is not something that happened uniquely to humans in the Bronze Age, it happened 520 million years ago and it is now ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom. Every bird, every fish, every reptile, every mammal enjoys some form of this experience so you have to deal with that somehow if your only explanatory mechanism is a soul that they don't possess.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My personal incredulity tells me that it is physically impossible to generate conscious awareness from the activity of protons, neurons and electrons alone.

Just out of interest, can you genuinely not see what's wrong with that as an argument?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Just out of interest, can you genuinely not see what's wrong with that as an argument?

As you implied earlier, my views of this world are influenced by my belief in God.  For me it is simply impossible to start looking at things from the bottom up approach because I can't bring myself to doubt the existence of someone with whom I have a personal relatonship.  I can see how a non believer will fail to understand my position, but it is my knowledge of God which reveals to me the nature of my soul.  This is something I just can't ignore.

[torridon]

As you implied earlier, my views of this world are influenced by my belief in God.  For me it is simply impossible to start looking at things from the bottom up approach because I can't bring myself to doubt the existence of someone with whom I have a personal relatonship.  I can see how a non believer will fail to understand my position, but it is my knowledge of God which reveals to me the nature of my soul.  This is something I just can't ignore.

Well, has God revealed anything to you about the souls of other creatures ? Has he showed you how they manage to do this magic of turning electrochemical interactions into conscious lived experience if they don't have a soul to do it with ? Perhaps you ought to ask.

I'm not sure how you reconcile your stated objective of encouraging people to open up to the possibility of a God with this parallel mission you seem to be on which seems to be all about mapping your theological beliefs onto a quasi scientific alternate explanation of conscious experience.  If you haven't realised this yet,  I would say that one objective works against the other one; I for one would not want to 'find' god if that resulted in me suddenly holding your peculiarly naive and incoherent views around free will and consciousness and furthermore if a prerequisite for god-belief were an abandonment of due respect for intellectual integrity and the value of evidence and reason then that would be a strong reason to avoid faith like the plague. Maybe this formula works for you, maybe this is somehow the source of your happiness, but I'm pretty sure the same scenario would fill me with a sense of shame and loss.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As you implied earlier, my views of this world are influenced by my belief in God.

Clearly. If you start with “God” and you want to claim that god to be true for other people too, then you’re forced to twist and mould reality in all sorts of convoluted ways to sustain that narrative. That’s bad enough as it is, but things get even worse when you try to use your “interpretation” of reality to reverse engineer your belief in that god in the first place – “consciousness looks hard to me, therefore “soul”, therefore God” circular reasoning in other words.   

For me it is simply impossible to start looking at things from the bottom up approach because I can't bring myself to doubt the existence of someone with whom I have a personal relatonship.

Whether you actually have a “special relationship” with a god or just believe you have is – to say the least – moot, but at least you have the honesty to admit that you filter your reality through that particular lens. Which is all fine and dandy for you, but it lets you down badly when you pitch up here and assert your subjective truths as objective truths for the rest of us too because, frankly, some of us rely on evidence and reason rather than on the somersaults you have to perform to sustain your "because I say so" narrative.   

I can see how a non believer will fail to understand my position…

On the contrary – I suspect I understand your position better than you do.

… but it is my knowledge of God which reveals to me the nature of my soul.  This is something I just can't ignore.

No, it’s your belief in these things that you apparently can’t ignore. To have “knowledge” with which anyone else can engage you have all sorts of problems to address – definitional, rhetorical, evidential, you name it. For now though, all you offer is, “Oh here’s yet another person who believes in yet another supernatural something and who makes yet another claim that his belief is true for me too”.

Which doesn’t help you much with your “mission” I’d have thought.

[Alan Burns]

I for one would not want to 'find' god if that resulted in me suddenly holding your peculiarly naive and incoherent views around free will and consciousness and furthermore if a prerequisite for god-belief were an abandonment of due respect for intellectual integrity and the value of evidence and reason then that would be a strong reason to avoid faith like the plague. Maybe this formula works for you, maybe this is somehow the source of your happiness, but I'm pretty sure the same scenario would fill me with a sense of shame and loss.

My views are neither incoherent or naive.  They fit in perfectly with the reality I exist in.  And I certainly do not have to abandon my respect for the intellectual integrity God has given me.  My faith gives me far more than you could ever imagine.

[Shaker]

My views are neither incoherent or naive.  They fit in perfectly with the reality I exist in.  And I certainly do not have to abandon my respect for the intelectual integrity God has given me.  My faith gives me far more than you could ever imagine.

If your performance in this arena is indicative of what it gives you, Alan, I can only say that you're welcome to it.

[Alan Burns]

If your performance in this arena is indicative of what it gives you, Alan, I can only say that you're welcome to it.

You do not know what you are missing!

[Shaker]

You do not know what you are missing!

As I said before, if you are representative, nothing at all.

[SusanDoris]

My views are neither incoherent or naive.  They fit in perfectly with the reality I exist in.  And I certainly do not have to abandon my respect for the intellectual integrity God has given me.  My faith gives me far more than you could ever imagine.

And that last sentence reveals yet again that you think your intellect and understanding are so superior to that of others that you feel you are on some higher plain of 'awareness' that we could never reach. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. It's not just a sort of security blanket, it's a trap.
It's just so sad.

Read Torridon's post again, over and over, and really take it in; don't put it through the automatic God filter.
And I'm wasting my time, aren't I?

ETA Just checked spelling of plain, and I think itshould be plane. Hmm.

[torridon]

My views are neither incoherent or naive.  They fit in perfectly with the reality I exist in.  And I certainly do not have to abandon my respect for the intellectual integrity God has given me.  My faith gives me far more than you could ever imagine.

Well deal with the challenges to your views then; we don't see engagement with ideas coming fom you, rather everything is dealt with by repeating fixed mantras, expressions of incredulity, logical fallacies, bald assertion and too difficult issues are parked under 'god's mysterious ways' for convenient avoidance. You might have succeeded in fooling yourself that your rationale is coherent and worthy but it isn't fooling anyone else.

[Sassy]

Sassy,

Interesting things crocodiles. Did you know that some species can communicate up to 20 messages vocally, and that they can live to be over 100 years old?

Oh hang on, did you mean crock?

Sorry – my bad.

Wherever you are, stay warm and safe anyway and try not to let your contempt for others limit your enjoyment of your own life won’t you.

I guess it is true...small things amuse small minds... in your case one brain cell.
Seems you think you have written something deserving contempt.  I suppose insulting others and insulting God and casting dispersions on others could be seen as contemptible. Even your sarcasm and childish replies I suppose could be seen as contemptible. Personally, I find nothing that is constructive just an attempt to belittle which is seen to prove what I say about some atheist. When they do not have an argument and cannot answer they use sarcasm and insult to try and draw away from the fact. I think your last two posts to myself has proven that point superbly.

I guess better to be able to answer and be falsely accused than be as you and use insult and sarcasm in your posts.

Well done for proving me right... BHS. The truth hurts doesn't it. Should have tried to respond in a mature adult way...
Are you 18 now?

[Sassy]

This Wiki article gives a fairly comprehensive definition of the word "soul", floo.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

Torridon, the Abrahamic belief systems deny that animals (other than homo sapiens) have souls but there are other beliefs who acknowledge they do have souls.  Also some Christians don't toe the 'party line' in this regard.   It was Thomas Aquinas who first decided that animals have no souls, I do not know why Christians have gone along with that ever since, it's only an opinion.

Hi Brownie,

All animals and humans received their lives from God.
But we see with human beings...

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

God breathed into the mans nostrils the breath of life, and it was at that point man became a living soul.

If animals had souls they would also be accountable and in danger of hell. Christ would never have let the demons inhabit the pigs and allow them to be drowned had they been living souls like humans. Living souls like God can talk and communicate and make decisions about their lives. Pigs cannot and other animals rely on humans to live or the wild of nature.

Do I believe there is animals in heaven... Yes I do, Do I believe they are differet to those here. I do believe they are different to those here.

But I believe that man has a soul because Jesus said "Only God has the power to cast both body and soul into hell."

 

[Alan Burns]

As I said before, if you are representative, nothing at all.

You are quite right.
To an outsider who is happy with their own beliefs and position in life, Chritianity will have little to attract them.
They would be expected to give up some of the simple pleasures in life, and waste time in prayer and attending church.
They might have to start offering help and service to people they do not particularly like.
They might even have to believe in such things as the virgin birth and the resurrection, or the devil!
They will probably suffer rejection, ridicule or even persecution from their fellow human beings.
They will need to listen to the voice of their conscience.
Life will be turned upside down.
Life will no longer comprise of just existing and dying - it will have true purpose.
Superficial pleasures will be replaced by the true joy of knowing God's love.
You will not be alone, you will become part of Christ's presence on earth along with millions of others.
You will realise the truth that we are not shackled by the constraints of deterministic science, but have been given true free will - freedom to choose our own destiny.
We do not have freedom to choose the truth - it might not be what we like, but the truth will set you free.

[Sassy]

Did you never dance or sing when you were young?  Or cry to a sad song, feel exhilarated by stirring music?  I suppose it doesn't matter that much.  We're all different.

Soul music really stirs the senses.

All music can stir the senses....

King James Bible
And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.

Music can soothe the troubled breast... I believe music can help tremendously but there are times it can vex as Floo is living proof..

[Sassy]

And that last sentence reveals yet again that you think your intellect and understanding are so superior to that of others that you feel you are on some higher plain of 'awareness' that we could never reach. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. It's not just a sort of security blanket, it's a trap.
It's just so sad.

Read Torridon's post again, over and over, and really take it in; don't put it through the automatic God filter.
And I'm wasting my time, aren't I?

ETA Just checked spelling of plain, and I think itshould be plane. Hmm.

I am surprised at you Susan, joining in such an attack...
I would ask you all... Does Alans qualifications suggest him to be superior in his understanding of science and his faith beliefs superior to that of atheists?

You see there is NOTHING in Alans post that suggests he thinks himself intellectually superior but I do believe his qualifications suggest he is superior education wise only because none of those insulting him can actually say they are as qualified as Alan.
In such circumstances his education would be superior as opposed to those casting dispersions on him.

But isn't the truth that everyone attacks Alan and makes it about Alan because none are educated enough to answer his points.
Shame on all of those attacking Alan.

[floo]

  You are a real character floo!  I know we are all unique but you are.....especially unique I think.

When I mentioned singing I didn't mean serious singing such as a solo on stage or in a choir but just singing to yourself or maybe singing along to a record as girls do.

Seems unusual never to cry.  Still, viva la difference.

(My husband doesn't dance, far too self conscious - he will move around the floor with me if it is absolutely necessary, maybe three times since I first met him hundreds of years ago - but he does enjoy listening to music very much and finds it interesting, also going to concerts.)
----------------------
Ippy, there is also Seal

I don't know about unique but my late mother was always asking where she went wrong with me until her dying day!