Searching for GOD...

[Rhiannon]

Alan - ‘I would say that close to 100% of the human population would agree that they have conscious control of their thoughts, words and deeds.’

You must know that’s a lie, right? One in four of us have MH issues such as anxiety and depression and these are characterised by not being able to control our thoughts. In fact, none of us can; the only difference with MH conditions is that the unwanted thoughts become troubling and intrusive, and therefore more noticeable.

[Gordon]

Such things as timings and colour blindness are not relevant.  The fundamental question is this:
What is in control of our thoughts, words and deeds?  Is it the conscious interaction from the will of our human soul, or is it just the inevitable, uncontrollable consequences to all the physical chains of cause and effect which have occurred since the beginning of time?

Putting aside your usual splash of hyperbole, the latter is more likely than the former since there are no good reasons to entertain the notion of 'souls'.
 

There can be no half measures in this - we are either under the total control of the natural, unguided, aimless forces of nature, or there is something else involved beyond the physically deterministic reactions to previous events.

Your 'something else' is just idle speculation on your part though: something you'd like to be the case, since you find the alternative to be unpalatable.

I would say that close to 100% of the human population would agree that they have conscious control of their thoughts, words and deeds.

Some of our thoughts, words and deeds: don't forget there may be subconscious and unconscious drivers too - aren't brains useful for this kind of stuff! In addition some people, due to the effects of injury or illness, may not have as much control as you assume they have. 

This is not just an ad pop argument - it is fundamental to what makes us human.

It is an ad pop, and it is also a misrepresentation, since even if 100% of humans did agree that they have a degree of freedom of thoughts and actions they would be saying nothing that supports your notion of them having 'souls'.

[Rhiannon]

This might help you, Alan.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-we-control-our-thoughts/

[Alan Burns]

I don't think it is the problem, it is a problem.  The belief that humans are separate from nature rather than part of nature empowers our consumerist approach to broader environmental concerns.  Everything else can be viewed simply in terms of its utility or otherwise to us humans.  Animals don't really matter, they are only animals.  Thou Shalt Not Kill only applies to human killings, obviously.  If we can convince ourselves that only humans are sentient, only humans can feel love and loss and yearning then it becomes easier to justify our disregard for other creatures, for their quality of life and we can carry on keep calm and continue our exploitation of natural resources.  To fail to understand that we are part of the web of life is short sighted with catastrophic consequences.

I understand that I am part of God's wonderful creation on this earth.  My God given gift of conscious free will is not a license to deliberately abuse the rest of His creation - we need to respect it and use it according to our conscience - the God given conscience which enables us to discern what is right or wrong, and what is good or evil.  But we need to be wary of the self centred temptations which are an inevitable consequence to having the gift of free will, because we have the freedom to choose to do bad things, even though we know they are bad.

[Alan Burns]

This might help you, Alan.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-we-control-our-thoughts/

An interesting article, but the author does concede that we have some control :
"we can control only a tiny part of our conscious thoughts"
And to have any control at all must counter the materialist argument that everything is entirely pre determined.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I understand that I am part of God's wonderful creation on this earth.

No you don’t – you just believe that to be true, albeit that that belief rests on some very bad reasoning.

My God given gift of conscious free will is not a license to deliberately abuse the rest of His creation - we need to respect it and use it according to our conscience - the God given conscience which enables us to discern what is right or wrong, and what is good or evil.  But we need to be wary of the self centred temptations which are an inevitable consequence to having the gift of free will, because we have the freedom to choose to do bad things, even though we know they are bad.

Leaving aside the bizarre gibberish into which you’ve descended again, the point rather was that by deciding that our species is alone, special, privileged because we have “souls” whereas other animals don’t you risk diminishing their importance relative to ours.

[SusanDoris]

AB

Remember that, when the sun comes to the point where the Earth is no longer suitable for life and if the human species has not become extinct by then, there will probably still be cockroaches running around surviving on the last remaining bits and pieces of food...

What do you think the God you are so keen on believing in will do then?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

An interesting article, but the author does concede that we have some control :
"we can control only a tiny part of our conscious thoughts"
And to have any control at all must counter the materialist argument that everything is entirely pre determined.

He’s just talking about the interaction between the conscious and the subconscious mind. Not for one moment does that imply a non-determinative, supernatural little man at the controls though. You’re clutching at straws here.

[Alan Burns]

AB

Remember that, when the sun comes to the point where the Earth is no longer suitable for life and if the human species has not become extinct by then, there will probably still be cockroaches running around surviving on the last remaining bits and pieces of food...

What do you think the God you are so keen on believing in will do then?

Before then, the second coming of Jesus will have occurred and those who chose Him as their Saviour will be in heaven.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Before then, the second coming of Jesus will have occurred and those who chose Him as their Saviour will be in heaven.

Thank you for that expression of your personal faith belief.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

He’s just talking about the interaction between the conscious and the subconscious mind. Not for one moment does that imply a non-determinative, supernatural little man at the controls though. You’re clutching at straws here.

In the example of the baseball player, he concedes that the player is able to make a conscious choice to swing at the ball, and it is the subconscious learning which then takes over in the action of the swing.  We have differing opinions for what initiates the conscious choice to swing - only one of us can be right.  But what initiates the opinion?

[Gordon]

Before then, the second coming of Jesus will have occurred and those who chose Him as their Saviour will be in heaven.

At the end of the day, Alan, given the above, you're really just another hallelujah-merchant on a mission.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

In the example of the baseball player, he concedes that the player is able to make a conscious choice to swing at the ball, and it is the subconscious learning which then takes over in the action of the swing.  We have differing opinions for what initiates the conscious choice to swing - only one of us can be right.  But what initiates the opinion?

Same answer as always Alan - the self-aware emergent property of mind called "consciousness". Or at least it is if you accept the reasoning and logic that points that way rather than abandon both for magical thinking.   

You can ask this as much as you like, but the answer won't change - certainly not until you can ever provide more robust reasoning and evidence of your own rather than repeated incoherent assertion.

[Alan Burns]

You can ask this as much as you like, .............

Yes, I am free to ask this as often as I wish, because I am not nature's robot - I have God's gift of an independent spirit with its own free will.

[SusanDoris]

Before then, the second coming of Jesus will have occurred and those who chose Him as their Saviour will be in heaven.

Well, as far as I'm concerned, that Is utterly, maximally, cringe-makingly pathetic

Furthermore, as I do not need saving from or by anything
,  what do you think happens to me when I die? (I know the answer to this and have made my wishes clear to my family, but am prepared to read and consider your reply.)

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Yes, I am free to ask this as often as I wish, because I am not nature's robot - I have God's gift of an independent spirit with its own free will.

Again, no: what you actually have is a personal belief about those things. That that belief is irrational and evidence-denying is a matter for you.

[Maeght]

This is not just an ad pop argument ......

Yes, it is.

[Maeght]

I understand that I am part of God's wonderful creation on this earth.

No, you believe not understand.

[Maeght]

Before then, the second coming of Jesus will have occurred and those who chose Him as their Saviour will be in heaven.

You hope.

[Rhiannon]

Definitely interesting.

But this isn't Alan's doctrine. The few politically connected and/or ideologically-driven Christians that do oppose action against climate change even though it results in huge loss of human life, seem to do so on the basis that climate action is too politically risky and that “God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

Meanwhile Alan was expressing his beliefs on human free-will and souls, and his belief that animals don't have souls (I think that is what his belief is).

It’s not a ‘few’ people though; the reason that politicians go against what they believe is because the people who vote for them believe otherwise. There’s a concerted campaign in the States in Evangelical churches that links environmentalism with paganism. And for the most part Evangelicals believe anything pagan leads to hell.

Coming back to Alan, he believes that animals not only don’t have souls, but aren’t conscious - they are basically meat machines. His ideas of caring for creation are ok insofar as they go, but the special place that he believes humans occupy means that it’s ok to exploit animals if it is for the good of humans. Now, many non believers will also agree that it’s ok to use animals for food and for medical research, even using their organs for transplantation. But lines to get drawn, over environmental damage, habitat destruction etc. The problem with the doctrine that sets us apart from nature is that its adherents believe that God will save them from disaster and that any damage done by humanity will be rectified by God - or it will be the End Times, which many Christians welcome anyway. See Alan’s reply #28658. Why bother taking care of climate change when something better is waiting anyway?

[Alan Burns]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, that Is utterly, maximally, cringe-makingly pathetic

Furthermore, as I do not need saving from or by anything
,  what do you think happens to me when I die? (I know the answer to this and have made my wishes clear to my family, but am prepared to read and consider your reply.)

When your physical body dies, what will happen to the driver of that body will depend on the conscious will of the driver, so I hope and pray that by then you will have made the right choices.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

When your physical body dies, what will happen to the driver of that body will depend on the conscious will of the driver, so I hope and pray that by then you will have made the right choices.

 

Leaving aside your irrational and evidence-denying assertions, can you think of even one good reason for anyone to think that there is a “driver”?

[wigginhall]

You can also argue that Christianity has had a hierarchical view of nature, with humans at the top, in the role of 'stewards', and animals lower down.  But you can go further, and suggest that this became the standard Western view, and still is.  Of course, there are other factors, such as the role of capitalism, and the 'mechanical' worldview, which may have increased our alienation.   But the Bible enshrines alienation.

[ippy]

Before then, the second coming of Jesus will have occurred and those who chose Him as their Saviour will be in heaven.

Alan, try to be serious, How can you or anyone else possibly know these things you speak of and then have the cheek to spout them out in such matter of fact way?

More use of assertion is that the best you can do Alan?

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you continually keep on coming out with these ridiculous assertions that can't even be confirmed in any way?

No doubt you'll keep on digging.

My commiserations to you Alan, ippy

[Rhiannon]

You can also argue that Christianity has had a hierarchical view of nature, with humans at the top, in the role of 'stewards', and animals lower down.  But you can go further, and suggest that this became the standard Western view, and still is.  Of course, there are other factors, such as the role of capitalism, and the 'mechanical' worldview, which may have increased our alienation.   But the Bible enshrines alienation.

Absolutely. One of Christianity's legacies.