Searching for GOD...

[SusanDoris]

But it is you who look foolish in claiming as a fact that determinism drives us and the way we think and feel is illusionary.  I am claiming that the way we think and feel points to a reality which is not deterministic but derives from a source not bound by materialistic events.

Oh, perleeese! You cannot really think that bluehilside, Gordon, NS, Ippy  and I'll include myself are the ones who look foolish here? The sad thing is that I suppose you probably do think that and that you are  the one with the right answers. That is really sad.

Unless you can find a FACT to tell your grandson about God - and such a fact has been totally lacking in all yourposts on this forum -  then rather than calling it a disservice to your grandson, I'd call it... ... well, I hope someone else can come up with a suitable adjective. 

[wigginhall]

Perhaps you will understand more when your entity of self awareness no longer has its link to this physical universe.

I thought you were saying that the soul is already not part of the physical universe, isn't that why it has freedom?   It suffers no constraints from nature.   Well, again, I understand the English words, but I don't get what you mean.   You are an immaterial being?   A bit like Tinkerbell. 

[Nearly Sane]

If I were able to define my freedom in logical scientific terms, it would not be freedom - just programmed reaction according to scientifically based criteria.

But my freedom to choose what I am now typing defies any such definition or logic, because it emanates from the conscious free will of my human soul.

That isn't any form of definition. Note i haven't asked for a scientific definition, i asked for a logically coherent one
 You seem to be admitting that you cannot give a such a definition. In the absence of such, your claims and assertions are meaningless.

[wigginhall]

I thought that AB is saying that he is free, because his soul is not constrained by anything in nature.   Or, his soul is not actually part of nature, therefore is not impeded by anything.   However, I still don't understand that, except in a purely semantic sense.   How can something be not in nature, and be a something that acts, decides, wishes, and so on?  I suppose he is like God then.

[Nearly Sane]

I thought that AB is saying that he is free, because his soul is not constrained by anything in nature.   Or, his soul is not actually part of nature, therefore is not impeded by anything.   However, I still don't understand that, except in a purely semantic sense.   How can something be not in nature, and be a something that acts, decides, wishes, and so on?  I suppose he is like God then.

But even let's suppose a 'god' exists in what sense can any decision be free. Surely all of a 'god's' decisions are either determined or random as well.

[wigginhall]

Well, I've been trying to understand AB's points, but I admit defeat.   

[ippy]

That isn't any form of definition. Note i haven't asked for a scientific definition, i asked for a logically coherent one
 You seem to be admitting that you cannot give a such a definition. In the absence of such, your claims and assertions are meaningless.

I like this post of yours N S.

A B, N S has summed you up in a nutshell, in other words A B, you've blown it, you've got no case. 

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes, science has shattered  'perceived reality', and continues to do so.   How many old ideas have been broken up by empirical research?   The earth is flat, the earth is the centre of everything,  the  sky is a heavenly realm, stars are 'holes in the floor of heaven', and the rainbow is a ladder to heaven.   Well, OK, if you like that kind of thing.

The flat earth thing is old hat now but it may have been a memorable a discovery of your generation.

Let's not also forget the Hydrogen Bomb............. They tell me that can shatter perceived reality.

[Alan Burns]

I thought that AB is saying that he is free, because his soul is not constrained by anything in nature.   Or, his soul is not actually part of nature, therefore is not impeded by anything.   However, I still don't understand that, except in a purely semantic sense.   How can something be not in nature, and be a something that acts, decides, wishes, and so on?  I suppose he is like God then.

Well, the bible says we are made in God's image, so I conclude that the soul does have divine power as in the form of conscious, creative free will.  And when I implied that the soul has a link with our physical body, I cannot speculate on the precise nature of the link, but I imagine it as some form of remote control with its origin in set a spiritual dimension which is beyond the current scope of human scientific investigation.

[Alan Burns]

Eh ?  That was supposed to be a clarification ?

If you mean that we can understand things better when dead I am afraid the evidence is against you.  Dead people cannot understand, neither can they nurse ambitions or play backgammon in the shade of olive trees.  These are things that are characteristics of being alive.

We may no longer have control of our earthly functions, but we do have evidence of miracles being invoked by the intercession of past saints.

[Nearly Sane]

Well, the bible says we are made in God's image, so I conclude that the soul does have divine power as in the form of conscious, creative free will.  And when I implied that the soul has a link with our physical body, I cannot speculate on the precise nature of the link, but I imagine it as some form of remote control with its origin in set a spiritual dimension which is beyond the current scope of human scientific investigation.

none of which gets you any closer to a logically coherent definition of free here. So more meaningless posting from you.

[Gordon]

Well, the bible says we are made in God's image, so I conclude that the soul does have divine power as in the form of conscious, creative free will.

Which is a fallacious argument from authority, with a dash of reification for good measure.

And when I implied that the soul has a link with our physical body, I cannot speculate on the precise nature of the link, but I imagine it as some form of remote control with its origin in set a spiritual dimension which is beyond the current scope of human scientific investigation.

Which is you personal incredulity getting in the way of your thinking yet again.

[Gordon]

We may no longer have control of our earthly functions, but we do have evidence of miracles being invoked by the intercession of past saints.

You don't: all you have is claims.

[Alan Burns]

What is this "I" of which you speak? The material you with consciousness as an emergent property as the evidence suggests, or does your personal perception about an irrational and un-evidenced conjecture you call "soul" trump that for some reason?

Without the soul, and its power to interact with the biological machine of our body, we just become biological robots entirely under the power of the uncontrollable forces of nature.  This statement is not irrational or un-evidenced.  Our power to control, manipulate, create and consciously override our natural instincts is well evidenced in human history.  The thing about emergent properties is that in the examples you gave, such as ant hills or swarms, there is no form of any control - things just happen.

[wigginhall]

Well, the bible says we are made in God's image, so I conclude that the soul does have divine power as in the form of conscious, creative free will.  And when I implied that the soul has a link with our physical body, I cannot speculate on the precise nature of the link, but I imagine it as some form of remote control with its origin in set a spiritual dimension which is beyond the current scope of human scientific investigation.

Well, it's very convenient that the soul is in another dimension, isn't it?   It's not only beyond science, it's beyond human knowledge or human anything.    Yet somehow you seem sure about it.   I must tell you one day about my conversations with Tinkerbell. 

[Alan Burns]

You don't: all you have is claims.

Every miracle attributed to a saint has documented evidence - not just a claim.

[Nearly Sane]

Every miracle attributed to a saint has documented evidence - not just a claim.

But has no methodology to define evidence for the supernatural so again it's a meaningless claim.

[Gordon]

Every miracle attributed to a saint has documented evidence - not just a claim.

Then you'll be able to both explain how you've excluded the risks of mistake or lies and detail the method used to determine what constitutes evidence and how this has been verified.

You can't though, which is why you are stuck with just claims: you may accept these claims as being true on a personal basis but this is insufficient bearing in mind these claims invariably involve special cases where we are be asked to accept there has been as suspension of the way stuff normally happens.

[Alan Burns]

Then you'll be able to both explain how you've excluded the risks of mistake or lies and detail the method used to determine what constitutes evidence and how this has been verified.

You can't though, which is why you are stuck with just claims: you may accept these claims as being true on a personal basis but this is insufficient bearing in mind these claims invariably involve special cases where we are be asked to accept there has been as suspension of the way stuff normally happens.

Some detail about verification of miracles:
While some might assume that miracles are easy to come by, the Catholic Church goes through a long verification process in which physicians explore the claims of those who say they’ve been cured by individuals being considered for sainthood.

And not just any claim is taken at face value. There’s an organized, methodical way of exploring whether there’s legitimacy to claims of the miraculous.

“Only immediate, spontaneous, and inexplicable phenomena are up for consideration as authentic miracles,” Dummies explains. “A group of Italian doctors (Consulta Medica) examine the healing miracles. Some of the doctors aren’t Catholic and some are, but all are qualified and renowned physicians. They don’t declare a healing a miracle, but instead say, ‘We can find no scientific or medical explanation for the cure.'”

source:
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/04/26/mystery-and-miracles-seven-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-catholic-churchs-historic-dual-papal-canonization/

[Nearly Sane]

Some detail about verification of miracles:
While some might assume that miracles are easy to come by, the Catholic Church goes through a long verification process in which physicians explore the claims of those who say they’ve been cured by individuals being considered for sainthood.

And not just any claim is taken at face value. There’s an organized, methodical way of exploring whether there’s legitimacy to claims of the miraculous.

“Only immediate, spontaneous, and inexplicable phenomena are up for consideration as authentic miracles,” Dummies explains. “A group of Italian doctors (Consulta Medica) examine the healing miracles. Some of the doctors aren’t Catholic and some are, but all are qualified and renowned physicians. They don’t declare a healing a miracle, but instead say, ‘We can find no scientific or medical explanation for the cure.'”

Which is basically gibberish philosophically. Not being able to explain something is no methodology for declaring something explained! All that is, is your personal incredulity writ large.

[Sebastian Toe]

Well, the bible says we are made in God's image, so I conclude that the soul does have divine power as in the form of conscious, creative free will.  And when I implied that the soul has a link with our physical body, I cannot speculate on the precise nature of the link, but I imagine it as some form of remote control with its origin in set a spiritual dimension which is beyond the current scope of human scientific investigation.

When you die, physically, does your soul move from its home in the spiritual dimension, wherever that is, to a new home in Heaven, wherever that is?

[floo]

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the so called 'soul' is anymore than a term for human consciousness.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Well, the bible says we are made in God's image, so...

Another logical fallacy - the argument from authority. Before you go any further you'd need to explain why what the Bible says is, well, gospel. If the answer is, "because that's my faith" (which it is) then you have all your work ahead of you still to build a path from the subjective to the objective. 

I conclude that the soul does have divine power as in the form of conscious, creative free will.

Which is epistemically equivalent to me telling you that I conclude that leprechauns like tap dancing because I book I choose to think is authoritative says so.

And when I implied that the soul has a link with our physical body, I cannot speculate on the precise nature of the link, but I imagine it as some form of remote control with its origin in set a spiritual dimension which is beyond the current scope of human scientific investigation

So how it works is not "fully defined" then - or indeed defined in any way at all.

Isn't being "not fully defined" precisely the argument you make though to reject the science that points towards consciousness as an emergent property?

Why the special pleading for your personal faith belief over the science?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Some detail about verification of miracles:
While some might assume that miracles are easy to come by, the Catholic Church goes through a long verification process in which physicians explore the claims of those who say they’ve been cured by individuals being considered for sainthood.

And not just any claim is taken at face value. There’s an organized, methodical way of exploring whether there’s legitimacy to claims of the miraculous.

“Only immediate, spontaneous, and inexplicable phenomena are up for consideration as authentic miracles,” Dummies explains. “A group of Italian doctors (Consulta Medica) examine the healing miracles. Some of the doctors aren’t Catholic and some are, but all are qualified and renowned physicians. They don’t declare a healing a miracle, but instead say, ‘We can find no scientific or medical explanation for the cure.'”

source:
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/04/26/mystery-and-miracles-seven-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-catholic-churchs-historic-dual-papal-canonization/

Which just tells you that there are events we cannot currently explain in naturalistic terms. How would you propose to build a logical path from "don't know" to "miracle"? 

[torridon]

Our power to control, manipulate, create and consciously override our natural instincts is well evidenced in human history.  The thing about emergent properties is that in the examples you gave, such as ant hills or swarms, there is no form of any control - things just happen.

And that is an insight we learn from. An ant colony displays intelligence and yet no ant is intelligent. So where does intelligence reside and what is it ? Understanding intelligence in an ant colony helps us to understand the nature of human intelligence. Ants in a colony have roles and they change roles to meet the changing needs of the colony, but there is no-one directing which ants to change behaviour.  There is always a queen ant but she does not control the colony, and this is the key lesson to learn : if the intelligence of the colony was in the brain of the queen ant, then the queen ant would need an ant colony in her head also.  This is why the idea of master neurons is wrong, and also, why the idea of a soul is wrong. We have to understand intelligence as a phenomenon of emergence within a system; all else merely leads to the nonsense of an infinite regress.