Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

I make the choice.
I have the power to do it when and where and how I want, regardless of past events.
I am my soul.

It's magic! It's magic!

How do souls work?

You are not only defying logic, you are applying double standards. You have declared that we can't be physical by examining the fine detail of what can be achieved but you've totally ignored the fine detail of your proposed solution. You're just pretending that being non-physical can overcome the problems and repeating your empty mantras to cover up the fact that you haven't a clue why or how it would help.

You're being rather silly.

[Alan Burns]

Unless I'm mistaken no one throughout history and right up to this time has ever found any kind of evidence that would support or substantiate this soul idea of yours Alan,, as though they, whatever a soul is, can establish that it really exists.

The evidence for the human soul exists in a logical analysis of the nature of human free will.  It has become apparent on this thread that those who do not believe in a soul also do not believe in the existence of human free will.  I formed this logical analysis on my own about forty five years ago, and for some time I was puzzled why it was not apparent to other people in discussions about spirituality, but I was not widely read and it was in the days long before Google searches on the Internet.  Eventually I came across the same logical analysis on the nature of human free will in the book "Miracles" by CS Lewis, where he devotes a chapter to it and goes into it in much greater depth than I can explain in a post.

[Stranger]

The evidence for the human soul exists in a logical analysis of the nature of human free will.

How come you've not posted this logical analysis? I've asked you dozens of times to explain exactly how free will and the soul works - so come on - out with it!

[Owlswing]

How come you've not posted this logical analysis? I've asked you dozens of times to explain exactly how free will and the soul works - so come on - out with it!

What are tyhe odds on a non-answer?

[floo]

I make the choice.
I have the power to do it when and where and how I want, regardless of past events.
I am my soul.

You are you, soul is a meaningless word, imo.

[Alan Burns]

How come you've not posted this logical analysis? I've asked you dozens of times to explain exactly how free will and the soul works - so come on - out with it!

Quite simply, the freedom we have to choose can't exist in a physically deterministic material brain.  If you insist that the working of your brain is entirely comprising material reactions, and nothing else, you must conclude that we have no freedom of choice, and everything you ever do, say or think will be just inevitable, uncontrollable consequences to previous events.

So if our freedom to choose is a reality, it must be derived from something non physical.

[Stranger]

Quite simply, the freedom we have to choose can't exist in a physically deterministic material brain.  If you insist that the working of your brain is entirely comprising material reactions, and nothing else, you must conclude that we have no freedom of choice, and everything you ever do, say or think will be just inevitable, uncontrollable consequences to previous events.

That isn't a "logical analysis of the nature of human free will". You haven't analysed it at all. You haven't defined this 'freedom' of which you speak and you haven't suggested how it might be produced in the absence of determinism.

Basically you've just said that it doesn't intuitively feel like we are deterministic, so we can't be.

We feel as if we are free to choose and we are in the sense that we can do as we please (within practical limitations). How would things be different if what we want to do has actually been arrived at deterministically? How would you know?

There isn't a single logical deduction in your entire statement.

[Stranger]

So if our freedom to choose is a reality, it must be derived from something non physical.

The freedom to do as we please is entirely compatible with determinism. So what do you mean by "freedom to choose" and how does making us non-physical help to realize it?

[Alan Burns]

The freedom to do as we please is entirely compatible with determinism. So what do you mean by "freedom to choose" and how does making us non-physical help to realize it?

Yes, our freedom to do as we please is entirely compatible with determinism, but (as I have explained numerous times) it is not compatible with physical determinism as seen in material entities.  Material entities comprise only reactions to previous physical events, in which scenario there can be no freedom - just inevitable reaction.

[ippy]

I make the choice.
I have the power to do it when and where and how I want, regardless of past events.
I am my soul.

Alan, you have some gall coming out with this sort of assertion, something you have no way of knowing one way or another, really, in what way do you expect to be taken seriously when you come out with such utterances, when you make this sort of statement you make flat Earthers sound sensible, unfortunately for you, you don't seem to be equipped to be able to see this.

Necessarily kind regards ippy.

[Alan Burns]

Alan, you have some gall coming out with this sort of assertion, something you have no way of knowing one way or another, really, in what way do you expect to be taken seriously when you come out with such utterances, when you make this sort of statement you make flat Earthers sound sensible, unfortunately for you, you don't seem to be equipped to be able to see this.

Necessarily kind regards ippy.

Dear Ippy,
I can assure you that you comprise so much more than an accidental blob of re constituted star debris.  You are God's creation.  There are many who believe in what I see to be the false God of blind evolution, but the irony is that such a blind evolutionary process could never produce anything which has the freedom to believe.

[Stranger]

Yes, our freedom to do as we please is entirely compatible with determinism, but (as I have explained numerous times) it is not compatible with physical determinism as seen in material entities.  Material entities comprise only reactions to previous physical events, in which scenario there can be no freedom - just inevitable reaction.

You have explained exactly nothing - you just keep on making rather silly and contradictory assertions.

Determinism is determinism - adding or removing the word "physical" to it makes no difference at all to the fact that it means (essentially) "just inevitable reaction".

I'll rephrase:-

The freedom to do as we please is entirely compatible with what we please being the inevitable reaction to what has happened in the past. So what do you mean by "freedom to choose" and how does making us non-physical help to realize it?

[floo]

Dear Ippy,
I can assure you that you comprise so much more than an accidental blob of re constituted star debris.  You are God's creation.  There are many who believe in what I see to be the false God of blind evolution, but the irony is that such a blind evolutionary process could never produce anything which has the freedom to believe.

AB stating something as a fact, which can only be a matter of belief, however genuinely that belief is held, is in effect telling a porkie, as there is no verifiable evidence to support the statement.

[ippy]

Dear Ippy,
I can assure you that you comprise so much more than an accidental blob of re constituted star debris.  You are God's creation.  There are many who believe in what I see to be the false God of blind evolution, but the irony is that such a blind evolutionary process could never produce anything which has the freedom to believe.

Yea yea yea, we've done that bit, or rather you've done that bit to death over and over, still can't come up with anything concrete, you have no basis for saying this, you, and it doesn't matter how many that say the same thing, none of you have any viable basis for asserting any such thing, we can all make up all sorts of things and assert them, unlike you and your fellow travellers most of us here in the U K don't assert anything we can't back up with some logical basis for doing so.

Maybe you can see how ridiculous the assertions are but you've been so successfully indoctrinated you're unable to counter your, I suspect your childhood, indoctrination, it has to be something like that or you and the others wouldn't be making such outrageous assertions.   

Necessarily kind regards ippy

[torridon]

Dear Ippy,
I can assure you that you comprise so much more than an accidental blob of re constituted star debris.  You are God's creation.  There are many who believe in what I see to be the false God of blind evolution, but the irony is that such a blind evolutionary process could never produce anything which has the freedom to believe.

What makes you think that ?   But anyway belief is not 'free', that makes no sense.  Trying believing that Paris is in Germany if you think you are free to do so. 

[torridon]

Will is formed by previous events.  A desire that just suddenly appeared out of thin air for absolutely no reason, is random, by definition.

Can you give an example?
Do things or situations not suddenly appear? How does your theory tie in with novelty and emergence since IMO you are viewing everything in terms of conditioning.

here is a simple example;  I itch, so I scratch.  Brains mediate perceived need and trigger suitable motor action to satisfy the need.  In this case, the itch is a perceived need, scratching the resultant remedial action.

We don't form desires for absolutely no reason, brains are highly efficient, producing optimal responses to need at minimal cost.

[torridon]

Quite simply, the freedom we have to choose can't exist in a physically deterministic material brain.  If you insist that the working of your brain is entirely comprising material reactions, and nothing else, you must conclude that we have no freedom of choice, and everything you ever do, say or think will be just inevitable, uncontrollable consequences to previous events.

So if our freedom to choose is a reality, it must be derived from something non physical.

Don't forget, freedom, in the sense you use it here, is just a feeling, and feelings don't count for much in science.  We feel free merely because we are not aware of constraints, and this is the case in matters of human volition and choice. I don't have the freedom to want to be something that I am not, and I don't have the freedom to want something that I do not want, and this is the signature of determinism as it plays out through human volition. I don't want to be gay, so my unfreedom in that regard never bothers me, so my feeling of freedom is uncompromised.

[Maeght]

I make the choice.
I have the power to do it when and where and how I want, regardless of past events.
I am my soul.

You still don't, or don't want to, understand the question. Regardless of whatever makes the choice how does it determine which option to go for. A simple example. You are offered tea or coffee. You choose coffee. Why?

[Alan Burns]

What makes you think that ?   But anyway belief is not 'free', that makes no sense.  Trying believing that Paris is in Germany if you think you are free to do so.

Belief requires the freedom to drive our own thought processes in order to discover our belief.

[Shaker]

Belief requires the freedom to drive our own thought processes in order to discover our belief.

As circular arguments go, that's up there with the best of them.

[Gordon]

Belief requires the freedom to drive our own thought processes in order to discover our belief.

Belief is a thought process: so in effect you're telling us our thought processes drive our thought processes. Can you spot the obvious mistakes you're making?

[Stranger]

The evidence for the human soul exists in a logical analysis of the nature of human free will.

Still waiting for anything remotely resembling a logical analysis of human free will...

[torridon]

Belief requires the freedom to drive our own thought processes in order to discover our belief.

As Shakes and Gordon have already pointed out, there is circularity in this sentiment.  For sure we can plan ahead, try to act on the thoughts that we have, but we cannot choose which thoughts to think in the first place, that implies we can think a thought before we think it in order to consider whether or not to think it.  Doesn't work like that; couldn't work like that; it's nonsense.

[SusanDoris]

As Shakes and Gordon have already pointed out, there is circularity in this sentiment.  For sure we can plan ahead, try to act on the thoughts that we have, but we cannot choose which thoughts to think in the first place, that implies we can think a thought before we think it in order to consider whether or not to think it.  Doesn't work like that; couldn't work like that; it's nonsense.

It would be like assort of wonderful dream come true if ever AB actually admitted that he is wrong and that what you have said here is right.

I'm not of course holding my breath for that!

[Shaker]

It would be like assort of wonderful dream come true if ever AB actually admitted that he is wrong and that what you have said here is right.

I'm not of course holding my breath for that!

AB I think works on the house of cards principle - if one card in his worldview were to go, the lot goes, all of it.