Searching for GOD...

[Shaker]

My freedom cant be used to do what is impossible.

Well there's a whole universe's worth of daft shit in that sentence, isn't there?

[Shaker]

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?

Sense, possibly.

[Stranger]

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 have shown zero evidence of understanding anything of the sort. You keep on asserting that your 'freedom' cannot be deterministic or physical but you have yet to produce the hint of a scintilla of a smidgen of an iota of a reason, understanding, or evidence to back it up.

You can do what you want at any time. How do you know that what you want isn't the deterministic result of past events?

[Gordon]

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

For crying out loud, Alan - this is plain daft. So when driving you see the traffic lights change, causing you to adjust your driving accordingly, there is something unnatural in your reaction to this routine traffic event? Really?? 

[Stranger]

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.

Please stop with the silly assertions. What about stopping and thinking, exactly, is incompatible with "naturally occurring material reactions"?

Since you admit that you don't know how stopping and thinking works (#24997) and nobody knows the full details of "naturally occurring material reactions", I'll be interested to know how you explain how some unknown can't possibly be explained by another unknown...

[Cue another vacuous assertion.]

[BeRational]

I do not understand what Dark Energy is, but it cannot be pushing against the effects of gravity.

I do not understand string theory, but there cannot be more than the 3 spacial dimensions, that I perceive.

Do you see the problem with the above statements.

Both, should have stopped after I do not understand X

[Shaker]

[Cue another vacuous assertion.]

SfG wouldn't be SfG without them.

[Enki]

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 often use the word 'reaction' when referring to past events, Alan. You only seem to use the word 'interaction' when you refer to this soul idea of yours. I would suggest that interaction is a far more accurate word when trying to explain what goes on in our minds. Hence, one past event could well be a thought that you may have had a moment ago. However that thought may well interact with a present thought, leading you to produce sentences on this message board. The message that you then produce becomes part of the interaction that goes on in your mind, leading to further thoughts and ideas. This seems to be a nuanced and complex operation of the mind which is best summed up by the word interaction rather than your rather simplistic idea of reaction only. In science the word 'interaction' applies to two or more objects having an effect upon one another, and, I suggest, the subtleties of the mind show considerable and constant interaction. In this way, all of your utterances may well have at least a part provenance which relies on interactions within your mind, and for which no soul is needed.

[torridon]

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.

Consider what your volition is though.  It's not some magic substance. It is something that is derived, not fundamental, and it derives from something prior.  if you wanted something for no reason whatsoever then it would be random.  To be meaningful, volition, willpower, desire, are formed from prior events that contribute to your will in the present moment. What we want, at any moment, is not under our control; if you think it is, just try wanting something you don't want. Willpower is not some primary force of nature, it is a derivative phenomenon of mind.

[wigginhall]

But Alan seems to want something for no reason!

[Shaker]

God is the reason, silly sausage!

[Dicky Underpants]

I love the etymology of that word, me.

I knew it had something to do with "choosing", but not "by extension, sodomy" 

[wigginhall]

God is the reason, silly sausage!

I knew God and sausages were involved somehow. 

[Alan Burns]

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?

The Bible does verify the existence of human free will, but I am sure I could have worked it out myself that my free will is a reality.

[Dicky Underpants]

Can't be bad.

Regards ippy

Well, no one forced him to take an obsessive interest in alchemy and biblical prophesy (esp. the Book of Daniel). I'm not sure those are altogether good.
However, it does show that one cannot generalise about even the greatest scientists. "Nought so queer as folk" - as I believe they say in Yorkshire.

[Alan Burns]

For crying out loud, Alan - this is plain daft. So when driving you see the traffic lights change, causing you to adjust your driving accordingly, there is something unnatural in your reaction to this routine traffic event? Really??

This particular example might be classed as an automated reaction, but If I made the conscious choice to try to beat the change before it went red, it would be a deliberate conscious act of will.

I fully agree with CS Lewis in that we both (independently) came to the conclusion that every conscious act of human free will is indeed a miracle.

[Alan Burns]

You can do what you want at any time. How do you know that what you want isn't the deterministic result of past events?

Because this does not fit with my perception of human behaviour, but it does fit animal behaviour.

[floo]

Because this does not fit with my perception of human behaviour, but it does fit animal behaviour.

HUMANS ARE ANIMALS!

[wigginhall]

This particular example might be classed as an automated reaction, but If I made the conscious choice to try to beat the change before it went red, it would be a deliberate conscious act of will.

I fully agree with CS Lewis in that we both (independently) came to the conclusion that every conscious act of human free will is indeed a miracle.

I think that's the inevitable consequence of these ideas.   If decisions are made without the brain's executive functions being deployed, then they are supernatural. 

[Gordon]

This particular example might be classed as an automated reaction, but If I made the conscious choice to try to beat the change before it went red, it would be a deliberate conscious act of will.

Perhaps you were in a hurry, Alan, or maybe you enjoy taking risks - or whatever: but there will be a prior whatever unless you make driving decisions randomly.

I fully agree with CS Lewis in that we both (independently) came to the conclusion that every conscious act of human free will is indeed a miracle.

Super - then you can join him in making incoherent assumptions about routine biology based on your personal incredulity.

[Gordon]

Because this does not fit with my perception of human behaviour, but it does fit animal behaviour.

Said the animal.

[Stranger]

Because this does not fit with my perception of human behaviour, but it does fit animal behaviour.

That seems like an admission that all you have is personal incredulity: it doesn't seem like it could be to you, so it can't be.

You claimed before you had logical reasons for what you believe, your subjective perception isn't logic, so what are they?

I don't really even get why your perception is as you say. You can't control what you want, can you? You can't suddenly decide to dislike something you love, or to like something you find unpleasant. You can't control what occurs to you at any moment or what you are reminded of by events. How can you possibly "perceive" that what you want at any moment cannot possibly have been determined by past events?

Past events would include all your nature and all your nurture (including the nature and nurture of any soul you may postulate), all your experience - everything that has made you the person that you are. If what you want is not determined by those things, what else is left?

[torridon]

This particular example might be classed as an automated reaction, but If I made the conscious choice to try to beat the change before it went red, it would be a deliberate conscious act of will.

When a wolf tries to bring down a bison, it is a deliberate act of will, it requires purpose, persistence. determination.  It is not accidental.  There is nothing magic about 'deliberate'.  The basic mechanism is the same throughout all mammals, the limbic system in conjunction with cognitive function resolves competing needs to produce optimal motor responses that address need.  The result of that manifests as our hopes and fears and desires. We can not, do not, choose what hopes, fears and desires to have, that would be a nonsense scenario, we form our emotions for good reason so that we address our needs appropriately.  This is why we have brains, this is what brains do for us.

[floo]

When a wolf tries to bring down a bison, it is a deliberate act of will, it requires purpose, persistence. determination.  It is not accidental.  There is nothing magic about 'deliberate'.  The basic mechanism is the same throughout all mammals, the limbic system in conjunction with cognitive function resolves competing needs to produce optimal motor responses that address need.  The result of that manifests as our hopes and fears and desires. We can not, do not, choose what hopes, fears and desires to have, that would be a nonsense scenario, we form our emotions for good reason so that we address our needs appropriately.  This is why we have brains, this is what brains do for us.

Agreed.

[Sebastian Toe]

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.

Taking this further.
Currently if your body is not in Heaven and your soul is not yet in Heaven either. Then Heaven cannot be in this Universe so is it maybe part of the 'Eternal state' in which your soul resides, just not actually near your soul (Additional query - can there even be a 'near' in that place anyway?) - or is it somwhere else, away from and not part of the 'Eternal state'?