Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Yet somehow you are satisfied with God free............an idea peppered with don't knows.

Nothing wrong with 'don't know', Vlad, when it is the only reasonable answer.

[torridon]

Three cheers for the irrational, the illogical and the spontaneous which allows such as joy and love to arise without the threat of it being sterilised out of existence by the aridity of reason, rationality and logic.

Imagine two dog walkers out on the common.  Tom keeps hid dog on a short leash whereas Dick has a very long leash.  Tom's dog is rather grumpy being kept on such a short leash whereas Dick's dog is much happier having far greater freedom to roam around following scents.  Dick's leash is so long that his dog is as good as totally free, his dog isn't even aware he is under owner control much of the time.  But both owners are able to keep their dogs from getting into trouble.

That's an analogy for how I see our relationship to cause and effect.  That we have the humanities is because our leash is very, very, long.  That poets, musicians and artists express the joy of living through their work is because the degree of disconnect from cause and effect is so great as to be ineffable.  I think this is the best possible situation for us to be in.  Total freedom from cause and effect would be a catastrophe with people making irrational choices not in service to any purpose whatsoever A world totally free of rules would be meaningless and incomprehensible. That we have great degrees of apparent freedom within an orderly world is absolutely the best position for us to be in.

[Leonard James]

Imagine two dog walkers out on the common.  Tom keeps hid dog on a short leash whereas Dick has a very long leash.  Tom's dog is rather grumpy being kept on such a short leash whereas Dick's dog is much happier having far greater freedom to roam around following scents.  Dick's leash is so long that his dog is as good as totally free, his dog isn't even aware he is under owner control much of the time.  But both owners are able to keep their dogs from getting into trouble.

That's an analogy for how I see our relationship to cause and effect.  That we have the humanities is because our leash is very, very, long.  That poets, musicians and artists express the joy of living through their work is because the degree of disconnect from cause and effect is so great as to be ineffable.  I think this is the best possible situation for us to be in.  Total freedom from cause and effect would be a catastrophe with people making irrational choices not in service to any purpose whatsoever A world totally free of rules would be meaningless and incomprehensible. That we have great degrees of apparent freedom within an orderly world is absolutely the best position for us to be in.

  I love the analogy, Torri, but still can't agree with you.

What makes you think that we are restrained in any way at all? We can do anything we like within the borders of possibility, but that doesn't make the world meaningless or incomprehensible.

[Alan Burns]

..... your faith is so dependent on such an illogical thesis.

Does it not worry you that your fellow Christians (the ones that post here anyway) don't advance similar arguments to yours?   

As I have mentioned previously, the logical arguments I have used on this thread were developed by my own thinking over forty years ago.

Since that time I have discovered that other prominent Christian thinkers have developed similar logical arguments to mine.  The German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Leibniz had similar thoughts about perception and human awareness.  Prominent Christian writer CS Lewis offered similar logic about human free will in his book Miracles. Professor William Dembski offers similar reservations about the capability of blind evolutionary processes to produce the complexity we find in life.   So although I may not have had my logic confirmed by other Christians on this forum, I have no worries about my logic being flawed.

[Stranger]

As I have mentioned previously, the logical arguments I have used on this thread...

Where were they?

You just admitted that your argument about needing a soul wasn't valid because you couldn't explain consciousness any better with a soul as without:

I admit that I do not know how conscious awareness and free will can work in the spiritual sense, but it does fit well with the religious concept of human beings having a spiritual soul, which is what I base my beliefs on.

[torridon]

Imagine two dog walkers out on the common.  Tom keeps hid dog on a short leash whereas Dick has a very long leash.  Tom's dog is rather grumpy being kept on such a short leash whereas Dick's dog is much happier having far greater freedom to roam around following scents.  Dick's leash is so long that his dog is as good as totally free, his dog isn't even aware he is under owner control much of the time.  But both owners are able to keep their dogs from getting into trouble.

That's an analogy for how I see our relationship to cause and effect.  That we have the humanities is because our leash is very, very, long.  That poets, musicians and artists express the joy of living through their work is because the degree of disconnect from cause and effect is so great as to be ineffable.  I think this is the best possible situation for us to be in.  Total freedom from cause and effect would be a catastrophe with people making irrational choices not in service to any purpose whatsoever A world totally free of rules would be meaningless and incomprehensible. That we have great degrees of apparent freedom within an orderly world is absolutely the best position for us to be in.

  I love the analogy, Torri, but still can't agree with you.

What makes you think that we are restrained in any way at all? We can do anything we like within the borders of possibility, but that doesn't make the world meaningless or incomprehensible.

All laws obey the overarching principle of cause and effect, so I try to understand things in that context.  That translates as - everything happens for a reason, that includes choices that people make, they must be made for a reason and that relationship makes all our choices subject to the law of cause and effect. We might frequently do things for no apparent reason, but that is not the same thing as no reason. Apparent spontaneity might be ineffable but that shouldn't be surprising given that 95% of brain function is ineffable, it is below the level of our awareness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Alan,

Your replies seem to confirm the truth contained in Sassy's opening post on this thread:
"it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him."

How would you propose that a thinking person believe in a god when no-one who does believe in a god is able to provide a cogent argument that his belief is correct?

Your charge here is akin to Trollboy's daft accusation of "god dodging" whereas what you need to do is to stop argument dodging first so that we can determine whether or not there's a god there at all in which we could believe. So far at least all you offer is a logical mess - dispense with that and make arguments for this god that are logically consistent and then perhaps we can talk about your god.

Good luck with it!

[ekim]

I can go along with you to some extent, Ekim, although I also think that the irrational, the illogical and the spontaneous can also lead to despair and hatred too. However if this thread was just about what makes us happy and harmonious people, then I have no problem at all. But it isn't, is it? As I see it, it is all about trying to establish if there is some sort of supernaturalism or there isn't, with one side attempting argument by personal credulity, which, in the absence of any methodology, has to be simply a purely subjective viewpoint or the other side attempting to use reason and evidence as the best bet to achieve as objective a view as possible.

Yes, that appears to be how the thread has developed and probably revolves around the fact that nobody has (or can) defined what God is and how one knows when one has found that entity.  Alan has indicated that he has had some subjective wondrous experiences which are not particularly open to objective examination because they are personal to him.  His methodology towards this appears to be faith and prayer which he occasionally tries to promote so that others may experience the same wondrous state.  To apply that methodology one probably has to close the eye of reason, logic and rationality otherwise you get no further than discussion and debate.

[ekim]

Imagine two dog walkers out on the common.  Tom keeps hid dog on a short leash whereas Dick has a very long leash.  Tom's dog is rather grumpy being kept on such a short leash whereas Dick's dog is much happier having far greater freedom to roam around following scents.  Dick's leash is so long that his dog is as good as totally free, his dog isn't even aware he is under owner control much of the time.  But both owners are able to keep their dogs from getting into trouble.

That's an analogy for how I see our relationship to cause and effect.  That we have the humanities is because our leash is very, very, long.  That poets, musicians and artists express the joy of living through their work is because the degree of disconnect from cause and effect is so great as to be ineffable.  I think this is the best possible situation for us to be in.  Total freedom from cause and effect would be a catastrophe with people making irrational choices not in service to any purpose whatsoever A world totally free of rules would be meaningless and incomprehensible. That we have great degrees of apparent freedom within an orderly world is absolutely the best position for us to be in.

That probably sums up the way of living as it is now and maybe always has been and there have been a variety 'dog handlers' throughout history to keep the packs in order.  I'm not optimistic that it will change to any degree.  There have been a few, let's call them mystics, who have tried to outline ways for the individual to transform themselves back to a state of aware simplicity.  There are a couple of verses from the Tao Te Ching which describe the degeneration followed by a regeneration process.  It obviously hasn't caught on apart from perhaps to a few individuals.

TTC 18
When the Tao is neglected
People resort to morality and rules.
When intellectualism and information arise,
The false flourishes.
When the family disintegrates,
We hear of duty and obligation to parents.
When nations are in chaos,
Patriotism is emphasised.

TTC19
Abandon piety and dispense with knowledge,
Everyone would be much better off.
Drop morality and eliminate duty,
And people will discover universal Love.
Dispense with technicians and renounce profit,
Thieves and robbers will disappear.
In these three, fine words are not enough.
People need something more substantial.
Let go of cultured learning, selfishness and desire,
But hold on to natural simplicity and honesty.
This is the way to freedom from unhappiness.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Leonard,

What makes you think that we are restrained in any way at all? We can do anything we like within the borders of possibility, but that doesn't make the world meaningless or incomprehensible.

Borders of possibility, what borders?

But Torridons post is very interesting, what does he mean by orderly world, the orderly world man has made or the orderly world God has made ( I am a Christian, get over it ).

And yes, we are surrounded by rules, Christianity is full of rules, hell! The whole of society is full of rules to stop us stupid humans doing, well, stupid things.

Gonnagle.

[savillerow]

Msg 12930 AB "developed by my own thinking" There you have it!!!!!

[Gonnagle]

Dear ekim,

Now why does your post remind me of Corinthians book 1 Chapter 13

Gonnagle.

[ekim]

Dear ekim,

Now why does your post remind me of Corinthians book 1 Chapter 13

Gonnagle.

Paul was a Taoist? 

[horsethorn]

The spiritual cause I have postulated allows the spiritual will of our conscious soul to interact and enable the control we perceive in our thoughts, words and actions.

OK, AB, let's run with this.

Your 'soul' decides stuff.

Then it passes that decision to the brain.

The brain acts on that information.

What, exactly, is the mechanism by which your soul - an admittedly 'spiritual' thing - interacts with the physical brain?

ht

[Alan Burns]

OK, AB, let's run with this.

Your 'soul' decides stuff.

Then it passes that decision to the brain.

The brain acts on that information.

What, exactly, is the mechanism by which your soul - an admittedly 'spiritual' thing - interacts with the physical brain?

ht

I must assume that the spiritual will of the soul can interact with the physical brain via events occurring at the quantum level.  This could explain why certain quantum events have no detectable cause in current science, and it would also allow for events to occur which are not part of the "cause and effect" chain, thus providing true freedom of conscious choice to be made by the will of our soul.  I have no way of proving this of course, but it does provide a possible explanation for my concept of reality.  And bear in mind that I believe conscious awareness itself is a spiritual property of the soul, so there would be a two way interaction between the soul and the brain to provide both awareness and free will.

[horsethorn]

I must assume that the spiritual will of the soul can interact with the physical brain via events occurring at the quantum level.  This could explain why certain quantum events have no detectable cause in current science, and it would also allow for events to occur which are not part of the "cause and effect" chain, thus providing true freedom of conscious choice to be made by the will of our soul.  I have no way of proving this of course, but it does provide a possible explanation for my concept of reality.  And bear in mind that I believe conscious awareness itself is a spiritual property of the soul, so there would be a two way interaction between the soul and the brain to provide both awareness and free will.

Have you heard of Occam's Razor?

ht

[Gonnagle]

Dear Floo,

Without a brain there is no 'soul'.

But the brain is not you, the mind is you, are the mind and brain separate, does the mind go on after the brain stops working, answers on a postcard to Sriram and Alan Burns.

Gonnagle.

[floo]

Dear Floo,

But the brain is not you, the mind is you, are the mind and brain separate, does the mind go on after the brain stops working, answers on a postcard to Sriram and Alan Burns.

Gonnagle.

The mind and brain are one and the same.

[Shaker]

Have you heard of Occam's Razor?

ht

Alan cut himself on it once and has never touched it since

[Brownie]

The mind and brain are one and the same.

They are not the same!  Have a look at the Mind course talked about in the General Section, thead started by Torridon.

In the meantime, here's an easy one:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/obesely-speaking/201403/your-mind-does-not-care-what-your-brain-thinks

[Stranger]

I have no way of proving this of course, but it does provide a possible explanation for my concept of reality.

Nothing but assertion, then.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Brownie,

Thanks for the link, I have another link but I will post it on Torridons thread.

Gonnagle.

[floo]

Without a brain you haven't got a mind!

[Alan Burns]

Have you heard of Occam's Razor?

ht

I am aware that the simplest explanation is usually the best, but in the absence of any scientific explanation for free will and conscious awareness, I have done my best.
 

[Brownie]

That's not the same as them being the same though floo.