Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

You know Alan, it would be nice if you actually read what people wrote in order to avoid misrepresenting them as you do here. I think it's just common courtesy but you just rush at things and reply to what you are expecting. It makes discussion difficult because it's going to take me time to correct this farrago from you, and all because you appear not to have the decency to read posts properly.

I'm not thinking in any sense of physical determinism. Let's remember that not only did you introduce the term physical, but I've pointed out 3 or 4 times in this discussion that it is irrelevant. Further you have presented it as if I am arguing that determinism must be true. Again this is not what I have said, rather I have been asking how you get a 'free' decision in a defined logically coherent manner. Your attempt to shift the burden of proof by creating a strawman of my position might be seen as duplicitous but it would appear to again simply arise from your inability to understand what is being said because you do not take the needed time to read it. I appreciate that you are passionate about this, but your passion is leading to a disregard of trying to understand what is actually being said.


Leaving aside your continued inability to give any logically coherent definition of 'spiritual' as you use it, the question is how do you get to a 'free' decision that is neither in some form determined and/or random. What you have stated above is that this 'spiritual' interaction 'requires the freedom to perform these interactions - this is my definition of free will.' Surely you can see this isn't even a definition never mind a logically coherent one. It simplysays a free decision will be free which even with a definition of how such a decision could be made, which is the thing you haven't provided, is entirely circular. Given the lack of definition this doesn't even amount to the 'heights' of a Maysian 'Brexit means Brexit'.


So, before you rush in to writing a reply Alan, I implore you for the sake of sensible discourse, and to show that you actually read things properly rather than what appears to be the the repeated circularity of a badly programmed not, make an effort to understand the question. To help, try and describe how a 'free' choice is made. What are the factors that allow that choice to be free from either previous causes or random choices? How does a choice get chosen if it is free?

I must admit that I can't understand why you keep insisting that the term "physical" is irrelevant.  I have tried my best to show that my concept of free will is that it is free from the deterministic consequences of previous physical events.  And this freedom is achieved by spiritually induced interaction with the physical chains of events.  In the sense that it is directed by the conscious will of my human soul, I agree that it is not free from all deterministic events - just the physical ones which my spiritual soul overrides.

[Alan Burns]

How do you think that will happen though?
Will your soul be asked to explain why you did something at a certain time in the past for example?

People who have had near death experiences often are able to recount an awareness of their entire life experiences being recalled in just a few moments, and an awareness of being accountable for them.   Thankfully the wrongdoings of their past lives are looked on more as experiences to be learnt from rather that to invoke punishment.

[Alan Burns]

I agree with Gordon that trying to behave like a decent human being is much more important than what faith you espouse. Having a faith doesn't ensure you are a good person. Those who hold extreme theist views can be very unpleasant and abusive.

I recall the words of scripture:
Seek first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness
And all these things will be added unto you.

There are many non believers who do marvellous good works, but I believe that if they embrace the Christian faith they will do even better with God's help.

[floo]

I recall the words of scripture:
Seek first the Kingdom of God, and His righteousness
And all these things will be added unto you.

There are many non believers who do marvellous good works, but I believe that if they embrace the Christian faith they will do even better with God's help.

Even if it exists how can the Biblical god, who comes over as an evil psycho, if the deeds attributed to it had any credence, be beneficial to anyone?

[Sebastian Toe]

People who have had near death experiences often are able to recount an awareness of their entire life experiences being recalled in just a few moments, and an awareness of being accountable for them.   Thankfully the wrongdoings of their past lives are looked on more as experiences to be learnt from rather that to invoke punishment.

Near death isn't actual death though is it, so my question still stands.

[Alan Burns]

To relate it to the topic, perhaps you could illustrate what you mean by using the desire to find God as an example.

Looking at human history, a conscious desire to find God or a spiritual source of things would appear to be a natural part of our human nature, and something difficult to explain in logical scientific terms.  It certainly sets us apart from other animal species.  The modern secular trend seems to want to deliberately ignore this built in desire, but in doing so they would be reducing themselves to being just another species of animal with no spiritual attributes.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

If by "computers" you actually mean software, then the architecture of decision making may be "pre-defined" but the outcomes themselves are not. The SIMS game for example is a good example of emergence - the virtual cities etc that are created cannot have been envisaged or planned by the people who programmed the game. 

"Conscious" and "subconscious" are just different ways of layering our thinking processes. Broadly different parts of the brain "light up" in MRI scanners when each is in play (cerebral cortex and medulla oblangata respectively for example), but even then it's not necessarily the case that parts of the brain can be isolated for each function in this way. The point though is that there's no reason to think that each isn't deterministic in character even though they "feel" different when we experience them. 

No. How does the sleeping driver decide where to go, avoid novel traffic situations, choose whether or not to slow down to let the little old lady across the road? These are all decisions - albeit decisions made outside of conscious data processing.

And they still make decisions when in that state. How do you think that any of this is helping your case?

The fact that humans can still act in a human like way without their conscious awareness just goes to illustrate that animal behaviour can also be accounted for without the need for conscious awareness, being driven just by instinct and learnt experience.

[Alan Burns]

Near death isn't actual death though is it, so my question still stands.

It is the best answer I can give until I myself experience death.  But then I will have lost my ability to reply to your question.

[Gordon]

Looking at human history, a conscious desire to find God or a spiritual source of things would appear to be a natural part of our human nature, and something difficult to explain in logical scientific terms.  It certainly sets us apart from other animal species.  The modern secular trend seems to want to deliberately ignore this built in desire, but in doing so they would be reducing themselves to being just another species of animal with no spiritual attributes.

Well I don't have any such desire: then again I'm quite happy to be 'just another species of animal with no spiritual attributes': especially since I've no idea what these 'spiritual attributes' are, and I don't think you do either.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The fact that humans can still act in a human like way without their conscious awareness just goes to illustrate that animal behaviour can also be accounted for without the need for conscious awareness, being driven just by instinct and learnt experience.

It illustrates no such thing. What it actually illustrates is that other species with similar brain architectures to our own show every sign too of having both conscious and sub-conscious cognitive and decision-making abilities.

Any news by the way on why you reject the scientific evidence that undoes you because consciousness isn't "fully defined" but at the same time embrace a "soul" you can't define at all?

[Alan Burns]

Well I don't any such desire: then again I'm quite happy to be 'just another species of animal with no spiritual attributes': especially since I've no idea what these 'spiritual attributes' are, and I don't think you do either.

But without our spiritual attributes of conscious awareness and free will, Gordon, we would not be having this exchange of ideas.

[Gordon]

But without our spiritual attributes of conscious awareness and free will, Gordon, we would not be having this exchange of ideas.

Which implies you think I have 'spiritual attributes': so what are these and what exactly are their characteristics?

[Nearly Sane]

I must admit that I can't understand why you keep insisting that the term "physical" is irrelevant.  I have tried my best to show that my concept of free will is that it is free from the deterministic consequences of previous physical events.  And this freedom is achieved by spiritually induced interaction with the physical chains of events.  In the sense that it is directed by the conscious will of my human soul, I agree that it is not free from all deterministic events - just the physical ones which my spiritual soul overrides.

Alan, I note that you ignored huge parts if my post and glossed over your misrepresentations. Do you think that is a courteous way to behave?

You seen at least to be getting closer to your problem in that you accept that decisions are in some form deterministic.  And that id why the physical/spiritual divide and you are making is irrelevant since you are arguing that there is still some form of determinism in the 'spiritual' (and just to point out yet again you have provided no logically coherent  definition of spiritual).  But the question remains if you think the decision is somehow not wholly determined how is it reached? How does a decision get made?

These are, of course, what I asked in my previous post but in your usual way you just ignored.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Looking at human history, a conscious desire to find God or a spiritual source of things would appear to be a natural part of our human nature, and something difficult to explain in logical scientific terms.

Wrong again. It's easy to "explain in logical scientific terms". We're a pattern and explanation-seeking species that tries to understand why and how things work. Gods have always provided convenient answers to these questions, at least until better explanations have come along - think Thor and thunder, the creationist's god and evolution etc.

The point about science is that it begins with guessing, and then tests the guesses. Theology on the other hand begins and ends with guessing - that's the problem with it.   

It certainly sets us apart from other animal species.

So does bungee jumping and twerking. So?

The modern secular trend seems to want to deliberately ignore this built in desire...

Wrong again. "The modern secular trend" (if there is such a thing) doesn't "ignore this built in desire" at all - it just requires that the claims of fact it produces be examined and validated before they are privileged in the public square. The traditional theistic "trend" on the other hand wants to skip that bit.   

...but in doing so they would be reducing themselves to being just another species of animal with no spiritual attributes.

Another non sequitur. It's not "ignoring the desire for God" that does that, it's the evidence that tells us that.   

[Nearly Sane]

I note that Alan thinks that his perceived reality is correct because he experiences it, but when others say that their perceived reality is different, they are wrong. He appears unable to comprehend enough to realise thus would be hypocrisy.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

It illustrates no such thing. What it actually illustrates is that other species with similar brain architectures to our own show every sign too of having both conscious and sub-conscious cognitive and decision-making abilities.

Any news by the way on why you reject the scientific evidence that undoes you because consciousness isn't "fully defined" but at the same time embrace a "soul" you can't define at all?

As I have previously pointed out, I can only define my soul  by what it does, which is to provide me with conscious awareness and free will - freeing me from being bound by the deterministic nature of this universe.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

As I have previously pointed out, I can only define my soul  by what it does...

First, "by what it does" is the reification fallacy again. What you mean here is, "by what I believe it does based on my personal perception" or similar.

Second, we know what consciousness does too yet you reject out of hand the evidence-based model for it because it's not "fully defined".

Why the double standard? 

...which is to provide me with conscious awareness and free will - freeing me from being bound by the deterministic nature of this universe.

And the triple salchow of an utter irrationalism to finish. Why on earth do you think you're free from the deterministic universe just because it feels that way in your head?

[Gordon]

As I have previously pointed out, I can only define my soul  by what it does, which is to provide me with conscious awareness and free will - freeing me from being bound by the deterministic nature of this universe.

I'm sure that is what you think, Alan: but what you think isn't definitive of anything on the strength of your personal convictions alone, especially so given your frequent descent into fallacious thinking. 

 

[Nearly Sane]

As I have previously pointed out, I can only define my soul  by what it does, which is to provide me with conscious awareness and free will - freeing me from being bound by the deterministic nature of this universe.

And since you haven't been able to define free in a logically coherent manner, that means that and soul as you have talked about them are meaningless.

[Sebastian Toe]

It is the best answer I can give until I myself experience death.  But then I will have lost my ability to reply to your question.

So basically, guessing!

What if once you are dead, if I had died before you, then will you be able to communicate with me?

[Alan Burns]

But the question remains if you think the decision is somehow not wholly determined how is it reached? How does a decision get made?

It is not just conscious decisions which emanate from the human soul.
I once attended a creative photography class in which the essence of the teaching was "Imagine an image, and print it"
I think this slogan would also be applicable to other forms of human artistic expression.  A desired image will be conceived in the artist's mind, then he/she will use their creative gifts to produce the work of art.  So may I return this question to you in the form of : Is the artist's conceptual idea generated entirely from pre determined chains of physical events over which there is no control other than the natural forces of nature?

[Alan Burns]

What if once you are dead, if I had died before you, then will you be able to communicate with me?

It may be possible, but it may be too late - I will do my best.

[Nearly Sane]

It is not just conscious decisions which emanate from the human soul.
I once attended a creative photography class in which the essence of the teaching was "Imagine an image, and print it"
I think this slogan would also be applicable to other forms of human artistic expression.  A desired image will be conceived in the artist's mind, then he/she will use their creative gifts to produce the work of art.  So may I return this question to you in the form of : Is the artist's conceptual idea generated entirely from pre determined chains of physical events over which there is no control other than the natural forces of nature?

It would be nice if you answered any of the questions instead of avoiding them yet again and trying to switch the burden of proof. I am not making a claim you are. Kindly address that and do not try tricks.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

If by "computers" you actually mean software, then the architecture of decision making may be "pre-defined" but the outcomes themselves are not. The SIMS game for example is a good example of emergence - the virtual cities etc that are created cannot have been envisaged or planned by the people who programmed the game. 

A big NO to this one.
The outcome of any computer software program is entirely defined by the logic of the software and the values of the data.  Different values or content of data input will produce differing results and this is the case with SIMS or any other piece of man made computer software.  The SIMS software was designed to generate virtual cities, and this is what it does.

[Gordon]

It is not just conscious decisions which emanate from the human soul.
I once attended a creative photography class in which the essence of the teaching was "Imagine an image, and print it"
I think this slogan would also be applicable to other forms of human artistic expression.  A desired image will be conceived in the artist's mind, then he/she will use their creative gifts to produce the work of art.  So may I return this question to you in the form of : Is the artist's conceptual idea generated entirely from pre determined chains of physical events over which there is no control other than the natural forces of nature?

Alan

Why not ditch the mantra: we've all heard it often enough, and try answering NS's question.