Searching for GOD...

[wigginhall]

So we have;
The physical universe in which our bodies reside.
The 'spiritual state' which is not part of our universe but is part of the 'eternal state' - in which our souls reside.
Our souls communicate with our brains ( somehow) and make decisions (somehow).

Is that correct - so far?

Quite simple really, something unknown does something mysterious in an unknown place, and this has an effect on something else mysterious, and that's how decisions get made!

[Shaker]

And young wiggy takes first post on page 1000 

[floo]

The 1000 page nowhere thread must set some sort of record for constant repetition.

[jjohnjil]

I do not pretend to know how my conscious will works, I just know beyond any doubt that I am not entirely controlled by past events.  My conscious awareness can make the final choice based entirely upon what I consciously want to do at any moment in time.  And yes, I will continue to use this power to consciously repeat what you deem to be the same meaningless phrases, empty assertions, and logical fallacies over and over and over again, because no amount of convoluted arguments can ever take away my freedom to do this.

Alan

It’s ironic, but you are a prime example of someone entirely controlled by past events.

There is no other evidence for your beliefs and the content of your posts than a set of stories, written down in a period, long ago, when no one was aware of the complexities of nature and so believed in some supernatural force to account for natural phenomena.

You’re an intelligent guy and undoubtedly have the capacity to understand the arguments against those ancient beliefs and yet you are so influenced by whoever convinced you that those stories were true, that it’s impossible for you to use that intelligence to overcome the past events that caused that indoctrination.

Posters have asked you many times before to try to believe the Bible stories are all fictional. If you could honestly do that for a day it would mean you’re not controlled by past events, but it would be as difficult for you to do that as it would be for me to believe those stories are all true.

Proof, I would think, that we are all controlled by past events. 
 

[Sebastian Toe]

And young wiggy takes first post on page 1000 

...not if you are using the 50 replies per page option!
 

[ippy]

In your scenario, Gordon, we are all just lumps of matter reacting to the pre determined electro chemical activity within our biological machines.  So what determines my electro chemical activity to be labelled as flawed?

Gordon's pointing out of the obvious to you, he is conveying much the same form of observations as quite a number of other contributors to this thread have done, if it was only the one you could perhaps justifiably feel free to brush it off, let's face it Alan your contributions are on the odd side, putting it as politely as possible. 

You seem to be saying you have a brain and a soul working together very much like a car being driven using dual controls?

Yes, mmmmm, well I don't want you start to getting too worried about it, you'll be OK Alan, it'll soon be Christmas.

Necessarily the kindest of regards ippy

[torridon]

Proof, I would think, that we are all controlled by past events.

or to put it another way, the way we are right now, the way the cosmos is right this instant, is the inevitable consequence of the past.  It's all about the arrow of time, the present moment is a function of the previous moment, and we are all inseparably part of that.

[wigginhall]

Alan wants to step outside time and outside the universe, into a land of happy bodilessness, where decisions are made for no reason.    It reminds me of the Cheshire Cat.

[Stranger]

Alan wants to step outside time and outside the universe, into a land of happy bodilessness, where decisions are made for no reason.

I think it's worse than that. He seems to think that this 'soul' ('conscious will' or whatever) making a choice is all the reason there needs to be; he seems unable or unwilling to even think about how such a decision comes about.

It's a blatant example of double standards since his whole 'argument' against us being entirely physical is based on the 'limitations' of physical decision making processes. Apparently, making us non-material means we no longer have to think about the problem at all.

So, according to Alan, if we postulate a physical basis for conscious decision making, we have to think about how decisions get made but if we postulate a non-physical basis for conscious decision making, we can just ignore the problem.

 

[Alan Burns]

So we have;
The physical universe in which our bodies reside.
The 'spiritual state' which is not part of our universe but is part of the 'eternal state' - in which our souls reside.
Our souls communicate with our brains ( somehow) and make decisions (somehow).

Is that correct - so far?

Yes
It is the only way I can make sense of the reality of my existence.

[Shaker]

Might I suggest rational, critical, evidence-based thought?

[Alan Burns]

Alan

It’s ironic, but you are a prime example of someone entirely controlled by past events.

There is no other evidence for your beliefs and the content of your posts than a set of stories, written down in a period, long ago, when no one was aware of the complexities of nature and so believed in some supernatural force to account for natural phenomena.

You’re an intelligent guy and undoubtedly have the capacity to understand the arguments against those ancient beliefs and yet you are so influenced by whoever convinced you that those stories were true, that it’s impossible for you to use that intelligence to overcome the past events that caused that indoctrination.

Posters have asked you many times before to try to believe the Bible stories are all fictional. If you could honestly do that for a day it would mean you’re not controlled by past events, but it would be as difficult for you to do that as it would be for me to believe those stories are all true.

Proof, I would think, that we are all controlled by past events.

I do fully understand all the arguments put forward against my beliefs, and I can see how convincing they can be, but my intelligence won't allow me to accept them because they are fundamentally flawed in the assumption that the reality of my human existence, my awareness of my existence, and my ability to exert conscious control can all be explained as being the consequence of unguided forces of nature acting on material elements.  And my intelligence won't allow me to conclude that the message in the New Testament is not God's revelation of Himself to all mankind. 

I am not controlled by past events.  I exert consciously driven control through the power of my God given soul to interact with this world.  A power which will never be explained by deterministic material reactions.

[Shaker]

That's a no, then.

[Stranger]

It is the only way I can make sense of the reality of my existence.

Are you really so blinded by faith that you think you've actually made sense of anything? Saying "I can't see how I my mind can be physical, so it can't be, it must be something else" (which is what your 'argument' boils down to) explains and makes sense of exactly nothing. It's just a statement of personal incredulity.

[Stranger]

I do fully understand all the arguments put forward against my beliefs, and I can see how convincing they can be...

The way you keep skipping over the posts that directly challenge you to actually think about the implications of your ideas, suggests fear rather than understanding.

#24970
#24974

[Alan Burns]

Merely positing a 'soul', or 'conscious awareness' explains exactly nothing.  It is just a black box, a black box that conveniently excuses you from diagnosing how this mechanism of yours arrives at decisions.  You have been evading this for years now.  You have no explanation for the derivation of volition in a soul. On the other hand, understanding things in terms of information flow suffers from no such explanatory deficit - there are reasons for your current uppermost desire and those reasons are in the past; our volition derives from what has gone before.  This understanding works across not just humanity, not even just across all creatures with brains, it is entirely consistent with fundamental laws of nature and logic.  A 'soul' serves no explanatory purpose, indeed it obscures true understanding with its facile appeal.

But your alternative which states "our volition derives from what has gone before" requires me to believe that every action, thought and word I make is entirely defined by past events.  It is not possible for me to believe this to be true because I am constantly proving it wrong by my ability to wilfully put forward an alternative argument.  You may not agree with my alternative argument, but you can't possible maintain that my arguments are entirely derived from previous events because I have obvious control over what I write of my own volition.  I am in control.

[Shaker]

But your alternative which states "our volition derives from what has gone before" requires me to believe that every action, thought and word I make is entirely defined by past events.  It is not possible for me to believe this to be true

Try using your spiritually derived and God-given free will then.

[Stranger]

But your alternative which states "our volition derives from what has gone before" requires me to believe that every action, thought and word I make is entirely defined by past events.  It is not possible for me to believe this to be true because I am constantly proving it wrong by my ability to wilfully put forward an alternative argument.  You may not agree with my alternative argument, but you can't possible maintain that my arguments are entirely derived from previous events because I have obvious control over what I write of my own volition.  I am in control.

Yes you are in control but I can and do maintain that (very probably) your "arguments are entirely derived from previous events".

There isn't a contradiction.

You need to stop with the endless repetition of this sort of nonsense, read what other people have been saying to you and think about it for a moment. And no, your ability to stop and think doesn't mean you are right.

[ippy]

But your alternative which states "our volition derives from what has gone before" requires me to believe that every action, thought and word I make is entirely defined by past events.  It is not possible for me to believe this to be true because I am constantly proving it wrong by my ability to wilfully put forward an alternative argument.  You may not agree with my alternative argument, but you can't possible maintain that my arguments are entirely derived from previous events because I have obvious control over what I write of my own volition.  I am in control.

This makes me wonder what else you would be coming out with if you had never heard of the Bible or anything contained within it?

Necessarily the kindest of regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

Try using your spiritually derived and God-given free will then.

My freedom cant be used to do what is impossible.

[BeRational]

My freedom cant be used to do what is impossible.

Do you accept, that just because you cannot understand how something can happen in a particular way, that does not mean that it does not happen that way.

When you say you do not understand something, it means just and only that.

[Alan Burns]

Yes you are in control but I can and do maintain that (very probably) your "arguments are entirely derived from previous events".

There isn't a contradiction.

You need to stop with the endless repetition of this sort of nonsense, read what other people have been saying to you and think about it for a moment. And no, your ability to stop and think doesn't mean you are right.

My ability to consciously stop and think shows me to be entirely correct in deducing that such an ability can't be derived from naturally occurring reactions to previous events

[Alan Burns]

Do you accept, that just because you cannot understand how something can happen in a particular way, that does not mean that it does not happen that way.

When you say you do not understand something, it means just and only that.

I do not understand how my consciously driven freedom to control myself works, but I do understand that it can't be derived entirely from naturally occurring material reactions.

[floo]

I do not understand how my consciously driven freedom to control myself works, but I do understand that it can't be derived entirely from naturally occurring material reactions.

Only in your opinion.

[BeRational]

I do not understand how my consciously driven freedom to control myself works, but I do understand that it can't be derived entirely from naturally occurring material reactions.

You cannot understand a negative thing?

You accept that you do not understand how consciousness works I assume?

If you do not understand how it works, than that is all you can say, until you do actually understand how it works.

You cannot say I do not understand how something works, then go on to then claim it cannot work in a particular way, without contradicting yourself.