Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Yes, there is something logically incoherent with your concept. Stranger has been asking you about it continually but you don't answer rather just repeat the logical incoherence. How is a choice made that isn't determined or random, of some mixture of the two? And if you answer with some thing saying physically determined you will be showing you don't comprehend what is being said

I have consistently answered Stranger's point by saying that a free choice is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.  I see nothing logically incoherent about this.  What is logically incoherent is the assertion made by Stranger that freedom to choose can be entirely determined by past events.  This is incoherent because any form of freedom cannot be entirely determined by past events - it can only be influenced by them.

[Nearly Sane]

I have consistently answered Stranger's point by saying that a free choice is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.  I see nothing logically incoherent about this.  What is logically incoherent is the assertion made by Stranger that freedom to choose can be entirely determined by past events.  This is incoherent because any form of freedom cannot be entirely determined by past events - it can only be influenced by them.

No, you have consistently, as you do here missed the point that 'freedom' as you posit it makes no sense in that if there are not determinant reasons for things then it is random. Try defining what you mean by freedom coherently. I am 'free' to do what I want but I am not free to choose what I want. There has to be a determinant reason.

[Gordon]

I have consistently answered Stranger's point by saying that a free choice is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.

So if I stand at the sweetie counter and have a packet of fruit pastilles in one hand and a packet of fruit gums in the other, and I only have enough cash on me to buy just one of the packets, you are saying I need a 'soul' in order to decide which one I buy - yes?

[torridon]

There is nothing logically incoherent about the conscious will of the human soul.  Without it we would be entirely driven by the uncontrollable forces of nature with no concept of freedom.

Read the posts Alan.  I've lost count of the number of times the incoherence in your concept has been explained to you; have you really not read any ? Quite apart from all the obvious issues with evidence and suchlike, you are presenting a soul as something that is essentially and intrinsically incoherent - it is impossible to make a choice in a way that is free of its determinant factors without being random, and that is what you keep insisting.

So why cannot a soul also believe things it doesn't believe, why cannot a soul add 2 and 2 to make 428, why cannot a soul look up and see the sky as whatever colour it feels like. You see, if you allow magic thinking in, then anything becomes possible, all definition is lost and we live in a meaningless world.

That things happen for a reason, makes sense. That choices are made consequential to a reason, makes sense.  Your rationale makes no sense whatsoever.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

do you think, then, that AB's grandson (along with hundreds of thousands of other children in similar situations) should be taught that AB's idea of a god-given soul' should be taught as a proven, objective truth?

I was just laughing at the way you were giving your imagination free reign and emphasising your “sorrow” for AB’s grandson.

I feel so sorry for lots of children whose physical and/or mental health are in excessive danger - ie. in far more danger than the normal danger to physical and mental health of interacting with a complex, unpredictable environment. So no, not feeling “so sorry” for the children you have just described - unless you have some detail about their “suffering”, it doesn’t sound particularly problematic to warrant feeling very sorry for them.

[Stranger]

I have consistently answered Stranger's point by saying that a free choice is determined by the conscious will of the human soul.

The problem being that that isn't actually an answer to my point - it's just repeating a meaningless phrase and pretending it's an answer.

What is logically incoherent is the assertion made by Stranger that freedom to choose can be entirely determined by past events.  This is incoherent because any form of freedom cannot be entirely determined by past events - it can only be influenced by them.

Which is incoherent for the reasons myself and others have explained many times.

Once again - why not try going through this point by point and tell me where you think it goes wrong?

Imagine that you list out every single thing that might contribute to a choice - absolutely everything, from the most intellectual balancing of pros and cons, all your experience, your personality, and down to the exact mood and state of mind you're in when you come to make the choice.

Now - either all those things can result in just one choice or not.

If they do, then the choice is determined by all those things.

If they do not, then you've already considered everything that could possibly be at all relevant to the choice, so there can be no further reason to choose between the remaining options - so that remaining choice must be random.

There are no other options; the above covers every possibility.

[ippy]

Strange. I don't see a queue of the Christians here rushing to disagree with what Alan has been saying.
Ahh. I think you'll now find that you have a burden of proof problem. Your positive statement. Over to you to demonstrate that claim.
The burden of proof is again on you to back up this claim.

I see you're off on one again Sword, never mind, your post makes about as much sense as, say, 95% of the rest of your posts.

I thought I might as well add that it's you promoting/supporting the idea of a Mr Magic man in the sky, I'm not.

Regards ippy 

[Stranger]

Strange. I don't see a queue of the Christians here rushing to disagree with what Alan has been saying.

I don't see any rushing to agree with his arguments either. You didn't even say that you did.

If any of Alan's fellow Christians (including you SotS, if you feel like growing an intellectual backbone) want to join in and point out the flaw in the argument that undermines Alan's assertions, do feel free...

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

do you think, then, that AB's grandson (along with hundreds of thousands of other children in similar situations) should be taught that AB's idea of a god-given soul' should be taught as a proven, objective truth?

I forgot to ask in my response to your post:

What is the proven truth AB is teaching? What is he offering as proof? Sounds to me like he is just making a lot of assertions. If i’ve understood him correctly, he believes that electrochemical activity taking place in his mind - producing his thoughts - are influenced by some other unseen part of him related to something spiritual or supernatural he calls his soul.

The brain requires energy - calories - to function and produce thoughts. I am not sure what AB is asserting about energy and souls. He might have mentioned it but I dip in and out of this thread so may have missed it.

[ippy]

I forgot to ask in my response to your post:

What is the proven truth AB is teaching? What is he offering as proof? Sounds to me like he is just making a lot of assertions. If i’ve understood him correctly, he believes that electrochemical activity taking place in his mind - producing his thoughts - are influenced by some other unseen part of him related to something spiritual or supernatural he calls his soul.

The brain requires energy - calories - to function and produce thoughts. I am not sure what AB is asserting about energy and souls. He might have mentioned it but I dip in and out of this thread so may have missed it.

Yes, if you look back at the posts of Nicolas Marks there's not a lot of difference, I'd say the only difference was A B, Alan tries his best to appear to be rational and logical, more so than Nick, (Sparky).

Regards ippy

[SusanDoris]

I see you're off on one again Sword, never mind, your post makes about as much sense as, say, 95% of the rest of your posts.

I thought I might as well add that it's you promoting/supporting the idea of a Mr Magic man in the sky, I'm not.

Regards ippy

I thinkI'll just say, 'hear, hear,' to your post, Ippy! I resisted the temptation to write a scathing response to SotS's post.

[Alan Burns]

Read the posts Alan.  I've lost count of the number of times the incoherence in your concept has been explained to you; have you really not read any ? Quite apart from all the obvious issues with evidence and suchlike, you are presenting a soul as something that is essentially and intrinsically incoherent - it is impossible to make a choice in a way that is free of its determinant factors without being random, and that is what you keep insisting.

So why cannot a soul also believe things it doesn't believe, why cannot a soul add 2 and 2 to make 428, why cannot a soul look up and see the sky as whatever colour it feels like. You see, if you allow magic thinking in, then anything becomes possible, all definition is lost and we live in a meaningless world.

That things happen for a reason, makes sense. That choices are made consequential to a reason, makes sense.  Your rationale makes no sense whatsoever.

The will of the human soul is not random.  It is certainly influenced by the past, but not defined by it. This is the reality I perceive and it makes perfect sense.   And the soul certainly can't do things which are impossible - this is just a trivial argument.  And I will continue to demonstrate my freedom to answer your arguments as honestly as I can.

[Alan Burns]

So if I stand at the sweetie counter and have a packet of fruit pastilles in one hand and a packet of fruit gums in the other, and I only have enough cash on me to buy just one of the packets, you are saying I need a 'soul' in order to decide which one I buy - yes?

The money helps you decide, but it does not force you to choose to buy the sweets.  Your conscious will has the final say.

[floo]

The will of the human soul is not random.  It is certainly influenced by the past, but not defined by it. This is the reality I perceive and it makes perfect sense.   And the soul certainly can't do things which are impossible - this is just a trivial argument.  And I will continue to demonstrate my freedom to answer your arguments as honestly as I can.

It might make sense to you, but not to me, as there is no evidence your idea of a 'soul' is anymore than a figment of your imagination.

[Alan Burns]

No, you have consistently, as you do here missed the point that 'freedom' as you posit it makes no sense in that if there are not determinant reasons for things then it is random. Try defining what you mean by freedom coherently. I am 'free' to do what I want but I am not free to choose what I want. There has to be a determinant reason.

A choice is determined by the will of the human soul.  The soul can be influenced by the past, but not defined by it.  Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

[Nearly Sane]

A choice is determined by the will of the human soul.  The soul can be influenced by the past, but not defined by it.  Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Because it's incoherent. How does the choice get made? If not determined and/or random in what way is a choice made?

[Alan Burns]

The problem being that that isn't actually an answer to my point - it's just repeating a meaningless phrase and pretending it's an answer.

It is you who have chosen to label the will of the human soul to be a meaningless phrase.  It is your personal opinion.

[Alan Burns]

I don't see any rushing to agree with his arguments either. You didn't even say that you did.

If any of Alan's fellow Christians (including you SotS, if you feel like growing an intellectual backbone) want to join in and point out the flaw in the argument that undermines Alan's assertions, do feel free...

The existence of human free will is absolutely central to Christianity for obvious reasons.  I know of no Christian who would dispute this because it would make any faith meaningless.

[Stranger]

It is you who have chosen to label the will of the human soul to be a meaningless phrase.  It is your personal opinion.

It's meaningless in the context answering the point I keep making. If you think it's an answer, you need to explain how.

I also note that you cut out and ignored my argument yet again. You really must be terrified of it. Go on - have some courage and go through it step by step and tell me where it goes wrong. Tell my in what way "the will of the human soul" gets round the logic.

[Nearly Sane]

The existence of human free will is absolutely central to Christianity for obvious reasons.  I know of no Christian who would dispute this because it would make any faith meaningless.

Never met a Calvinist then? Or are they not true Christians?

[Stranger]

The existence of human free will is absolutely central to Christianity for obvious reasons.  I know of no Christian who would dispute this because it would make any faith meaningless.

I met one Christian (some sort of Calvinist IIRC) who denied free will on the basis that it would compromise god's sovereignty. At least that is logically consistent.

[SusanDoris]

I was just laughing at the way you were giving your imagination free reign and emphasising your “sorrow” for AB’s grandson.

On what basis did you think my words were amusing? Sounds a bit as if you were making one of your comments, which tend to have an air of derision … …

I feel so sorry for lots of children whose physical and/or mental health are in excessive danger - ie. in far more danger than the normal danger to physical and mental health of interacting with a complex, unpredictable environment. So no, not feeling “so sorry” for the children you have just described - unless you have some detail about their “suffering”, it doesn’t sound particularly problematic to warrant feeling very sorry for them.

So do I take it that you approve of their probably being taught that something for which there is zero objective evidence is a truth? As I point out regularly, they should learn about such beliefs, as they are an integral part of our history.

I forgot to ask in my response to your post:

What is the proven truth AB is teaching? What is he offering as proof?

Neither AB nor any other person has a proven truth of any God, separately-existing spirit or soul etc. They have not even got an almost 100% truth for, as scientists will tell you, there is always a vanishingly minute allowance made for the possibility of something in the current Theory being wrong at some time in the future.

[ippy]

I thinkI'll just say, 'hear, hear,' to your post, Ippy! I resisted the temptation to write a scathing response to SotS's post.

If it's any help Susan, I did make myself hold back, glad I did, what was that saying with something about scattering seeds?

Kind regards ippy 

[Alan Burns]

It's meaningless in the context answering the point I keep making. If you think it's an answer, you need to explain how.

I also note that you cut out and ignored my argument yet again. You really must be terrified of it. Go on - have some courage and go through it step by step and tell me where it goes wrong. Tell my in what way "the will of the human soul" gets round the logic.

If your logic does not acknowledge the reality of human free will it is meaningless.  You keep asserting that there can be no difference between physical determinism and spiritual determinism, but the difference is that we can define what controls physical determinism - the laws of physics.  You cannot presume to know what controls spiritual determinism.  All I can do is continue to demonstrate the consequences of my spiritually determined thoughts and actions by witnessing to the reality of my freedom make conscious choices.

[torridon]

The will of the human soul is not random.  It is certainly influenced by the past, but not defined by it. This is the reality I perceive and it makes perfect sense.   And the soul certainly can't do things which are impossible - this is just a trivial argument.  And I will continue to demonstrate my freedom to answer your arguments as honestly as I can.

What you are claiming for the soul is impossible.  Just as impossible as claiming that the souls can add 2 and 2 to make 428.  It is impossible.  You're so fixated I think you just haven't actually stopped to think about it, and you settle for 'I don't know how the soul does it'.  It doesn't do it, because it is impossible.