Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

Steve H,

Charming. So then it seems must be Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reference), the Oxford English (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reference), Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference)…

I have no problem with reference as a verb but the fall of literally to not meaning anything provokes the same response to dictionaries from me, as SteveH.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Incidentally, in general I try not to pick people up on grammatical errors (real or not) because it just distracts from the argument, and it seems a bit gittish to me too. AB for example posted links to an article he'd written that had them ("comprise of" etc) but I could nonetheless work out what he was trying to say so it seemed a better response to rebut what he said rather than criticise the way he said it.   

[SteveH]

Steve H,

Charming. So then it seems must be Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reference), the Oxford English (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reference), Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference)…

Most dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive: they describe the language as it is used. That doesn't meran that all usages are ok. "To reference" should be "to refer to", which is one letter shorter, so saves ink.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I have no problem with reference as a verb but the fall of literally to not meaning anything provokes the same response to dictionaries from me, as SteveH.

Bob Geldof's "your money will literally go into the mouths of the starving children" comes to mind. Mine is "invariably" used to mean "usually" rather than, well, invariably. 

[Stranger]

Once more:
I have never denied that our freedom to choose is not deterministic.

Once again: "determined by [some invented nonsense]" is not related to being deterministic. You are using the word in a completely different way. This seems to be just another evasion tactic. Anything but face up to the actual arguments!

But -
What drives our consciously made choice?
What is the source which guides conscious manipulation?
Where does conscious control emanate from?
These are all determined by physical activity in the human brain, but what initiates this activity?
The obvious answer is "you".

Once again the totally baseless assumption that 'you' is different from what the brain does.

If these were just inevitable consequences of previous physically controlled cause and effect reactions, the entity which is "you" becomes superfluous, being just another link in the endless chains of cause and effect.

Drivel - for reasons that have been explained so, so many times before.

But the truth is that you are much, much more than a physical link in the chain.

Baseless assertion (again).

Your version of 'freedom' is logically impossible, Alan. There is absolutely no point in saying how much you don't think a deterministic system can have 'freedom', when you have no alternative.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Most dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive: they describe the language as it is used. That doesn't meran that all usages are ok. "To reference" should be "to refer to", which is one letter shorter, so saves ink.

"Should"? What makes your opinion about that more authoritative than the opinions of dictionaries?

[Enki]

Once more:
I have never denied that our freedom to choose is not deterministic.
But -
What drives our consciously made choice?
What is the source which guides conscious manipulation?
Where does conscious control emanate from?
These are all determined by physical activity in the human brain, but what initiates this activity?
The obvious answer is "you".
If these were just inevitable consequences of previous physically controlled cause and effect reactions, the entity which is "you" becomes superfluous, being just another link in the endless chains of cause and effect.
But the truth is that you are much, much more than a physical link in the chain.

I'm glad that you agree that our freedom to choose is squarely based on the theory that everything that happens must happen as it does and could not have happened any other way. So, no buts at all needed.

However to answer your questions:

What drives our consciously made choice?  Evidence suggests our brains.
What is the source which guides conscious manipulation?  Evidence suggests our brains.
Where does conscious control emanate from? Evidence suggests our brains
These are all determined by physical activity in the human brain,Good, we agree but what initiates this activity? Evidence suggests our brains.
The obvious answer is "you". Well, as I regard 'me' as basically the result of activity within my brain, I haven't any reason to disagree with you.

If you have another explanation for what is the source of 'me' then I am willing to listen.  However if your explanations simply take the form of your last sentence(i.e. an assertion) then please don't bother, as I find unevidenced assertions to be rather pointless. I would require reasoned and logical arguments, backed up with solid evidence to convince me.(Put it down to my brain state). So far, as far as I can see, you have produced little in the way of logic or reason, and certainly no evidence, for the existence of this soul of yours.

[SusanDoris]

Fknl! Isn't it time this tiresome thread was locked?

Certainly not. A topic on free will has just started elsewhere and I have put in a post with far more understanding and confidence in the terms I used because of this thread.

[Gordon]

But the truth is that you are much, much more than a physical link in the chain.

Nope - best guess is that we are all just physical, but in the case of our species at least our 'physical' supports abstract thinking and the freedom to make considered choices within prevailing and logical constraints.

Your problem, Alan, is that your are trying to introduce your version of 'God' into the mix when it is not just irrelevant but is also incoherent, in view of the logical flaws that have been pointed out to you and that you seem unable to comprehend. 

[SusanDoris]

enki

Nice post!!

Re AB and 'comprised of'. I hope I was partly instrumental in curing AB of this - he hasn't done it for ages as far as I know. Mind you, I do not read all his posts and skim others, but I remember - back in the mists of time of this thread - that I mentioned that it was quite painful having to hear Synthetic Dave reading 'comprised of' when that was incorrect.

[torridon]

Once more:
I have never denied that our freedom to choose is not deterministic.
But -
What drives our consciously made choice?
What is the source which guides conscious manipulation?
Where does conscious control emanate from?
These are all determined by physical activity in the human brain, but what initiates this activity?
The obvious answer is "you"...

Yes, that is the obvious answer, the everyday common sense answer, the simple answer.  My birth certificate identifies who I am for all practical purposes.

But for a more philosophical take, there is no simple way to adequately define what that 'you' actually is.  There is no fixed thing about me, I am in constant change, I am always in a state of becoming.  You will remember the issues raised by triggers broom; but even that fails to capture the undefinability of 'I'. I am not a single being, more a colony of cohabiting organisms built around a human framework; most of 'my' cells are not even human, and these passengers all contribute to what 'I' am, to my personality, to the choices that I make.  I am a collective, a colony, a symbiotic ecosystem in constant flux within which there are certain continuities that persist courtesy of memory mechanisms and DNA replication.  The 'I' that I associate with being myself internally is itself a psychological construct, a personal narrative, a component of my internal model.  There is no primal unchanging component in all this.  The 'I' that I seem to be now bears little resemblance to what I was at age 5 years, even less when I was an embryo.  The idea of a soul neatens up this confusion, rather like my passport, good enough for most purposes, but for a philosophical take, if fails hopelessly to capture all that complexity; it doesn't even come close.

[Alan Burns]

Yes, that is the obvious answer, the everyday common sense answer, the simple answer.  My birth certificate identifies who I am for all practical purposes.

But for a more philosophical take, there is no simple way to adequately define what that 'you' actually is.  There is no fixed thing about me, I am in constant change, I am always in a state of becoming.  You will remember the issues raised by triggers broom; but even that fails to capture the undefinability of 'I'. I am not a single being, more a colony of cohabiting organisms built around a human framework; most of 'my' cells are not even human, and these passengers all contribute to what 'I' am, to my personality, to the choices that I make.  I am a collective, a colony, a symbiotic ecosystem in constant flux within which there are certain continuities that persist courtesy of memory mechanisms and DNA replication.  The 'I' that I associate with being myself internally is itself a psychological construct, a personal narrative, a component of my internal model.  There is no primal unchanging component in all this.  The 'I' that I seem to be now bears little resemblance to what I was at age 5 years, even less when I was an embryo.  The idea of a soul neatens up this confusion, rather like my passport, good enough for most purposes, but for a philosophical take, if fails hopelessly to capture all that complexity; it doesn't even come close.

In our futile attempt to try to analyse our own existence, we apparently have to conclude that we do not exist as an "I" or or a "me", but merely comprise a colony of cohabiting organisms.

No doubt God, the creator of humour, can have a good laugh at this. 

[Stranger]

In our futile attempt to try to analyse our own existence, we apparently have to conclude that we do not exist as an "I" or or a "me", but merely comprise a colony of cohabiting organisms.

No doubt God, the creator of humour, can have a good laugh at this. 

Primitive superstition's response to reasoning and evidence...

[Gordon]

In our futile attempt to try to analyse our own existence, we apparently have to conclude that we do not exist as an "I" or or a "me", but merely comprise a colony of cohabiting organisms.

No doubt God, the creator of humour, can have a good laugh at this. 

If that is the best you can do, Alan, I guess we can just consign your version of 'God' to the dustbin labelled 'For primitive superstitions that appeal only to the chronically credulous'.

[Alan Burns]

If that is the best you can do, Alan, I guess we can just consign your version of 'God' to the dustbin labelled 'For primitive superstitions that appeal only to the chronically credulous'.

It is not just my version of the truth.
There are some with far greater brains than you or I Gordon who know the truth.

[Sebastian Toe]

It is not just my version of the truth.
There are some with far greater brains than you or I Gordon who know the truth.

So, you are conceding that it is our brains which make us intelligent.
Good at last, no soul required.

[Gordon]

It is not just my version of the truth.
There are some with far greater brains than you or I Gordon who know the truth.

Which is an appeal to unidentified authority, with an added dash of reification.

[torridon]

In our futile attempt to try to analyse our own existence, we apparently have to conclude that we do not exist as an "I" or or a "me", but merely comprise a colony of cohabiting organisms.

No doubt God, the creator of humour, can have a good laugh at this. 

Don't take my word for it, ask your GP next time you have an appointment, he/she will confirm the facts of biology to you, irrespective of whether you want to believe them or not.  Notions like 'soul' of course developed long before we had biology, or indeed, any life sciences at all, and they gained traction through centuries of human culture with people passing their narratives down the generations.  I think you will be forever fighting a losing battle against the tide of knowledge from science if you stick to a baseline strategy of ancient wisdoms being primary inviolable truth in which an incessant stream of inconvenient findings from science have to be somehow accommodated.  Better I think to move your baseline to a clean slate, start with the evidence as your primary source of inspiration and build your understanding from there.  Open your mind, in other words; be true to the evidence rather than a mere partisan for a belief system

[Stranger]

It is not just my version of the truth.
There are some with far greater brains than you or I Gordon who know the truth.

There are no versions of the truth. The question should not be who believes what or how 'great' their brains are, but what evidence and/or reasoning do they have to support their view.

You have presented none of either and have studiously avoided any substantive discussion about them.

[Alan Burns]

Don't take my word for it, ask your GP next time you have an appointment, he/she will confirm the facts of biology to you, irrespective of whether you want to believe them or not.  Notions like 'soul' of course developed long before we had biology, or indeed, any life sciences at all, and they gained traction through centuries of human culture with people passing their narratives down the generations.  I think you will be forever fighting a losing battle against the tide of knowledge from science if you stick to a baseline strategy of ancient wisdoms being primary inviolable truth in which an incessant stream of inconvenient findings from science have to be somehow accommodated.  Better I think to move your baseline to a clean slate, start with the evidence as your primary source of inspiration and build your understanding from there.  Open your mind, in other words; be true to the evidence rather than a mere partisan for a belief system

There are no biological facts which contradict my faith.
The evidence for God and our personal spirituality goes far deeper than anything science can discover.
You do not need a great brain or intellectual ability to discover God, but these attributes should not be a barrier to faith.

[Stranger]

The evidence for God and our personal spirituality goes far deeper than anything science can discover.

So what is this evidence, why can't science discover it, and what other objective method can be used to discover it?

[torridon]

There are no biological facts which contradict my faith.
The evidence for God and our personal spirituality goes far deeper than anything science can discover.
You do not need a great brain or intellectual ability to discover God, but these attributes should not be a barrier to faith.

if there were any evidence for a god then it would already be part of the synthesis of scientific knowledge.  And given you've spent the last three years on this board arguing against the science, amongst other things, I doubt the sincerity of your claim that you see nothing in science to contradict your faith.

[Gordon]

There are no biological facts which contradict my faith.

As far as I can see, Alan, you regard the tenets of your faith as being a priori to everything else: so you start from 'God' and you simply refuse to, or are unable to, acknowledge anything that you think of as a threat to your personal faith. Unfortunately for you the result is that you create a mix of unreasonable denial, on the one hand, and on the other you contrive a mix of illogical incoherence, such as your take on 'freedom'.

The evidence for God and our personal spirituality goes far deeper than anything science can discover.

Which no doubt sounds profound to some, provided that they don't think too hard about this alleged 'evidence' or enquire too closely as to what 'spirituality' means in respect of how you use the term.

You do not need a great brain or intellectual ability to discover God, but these attributes should not be a barrier to faith.

I'd say that it is more the case that those with intellectual ability who succumb to blind faith, such as yourself, are the ones creating barriers so as to protect their blind faith from anything resembling reality

[ekim]

Yes, that is the obvious answer, the everyday common sense answer, the simple answer.  My birth certificate identifies who I am for all practical purposes.

But for a more philosophical take, there is no simple way to adequately define what that 'you' actually is.  There is no fixed thing about me, I am in constant change, I am always in a state of becoming.  You will remember the issues raised by triggers broom; but even that fails to capture the undefinability of 'I'. I am not a single being, more a colony of cohabiting organisms built around a human framework; most of 'my' cells are not even human, and these passengers all contribute to what 'I' am, to my personality, to the choices that I make.  I am a collective, a colony, a symbiotic ecosystem in constant flux within which there are certain continuities that persist courtesy of memory mechanisms and DNA replication.  The 'I' that I associate with being myself internally is itself a psychological construct, a personal narrative, a component of my internal model.  There is no primal unchanging component in all this.  The 'I' that I seem to be now bears little resemblance to what I was at age 5 years, even less when I was an embryo.  The idea of a soul neatens up this confusion, rather like my passport, good enough for most purposes, but for a philosophical take, if fails hopelessly to capture all that complexity; it doesn't even come close.

That's a very good description of what the 'self' is described as and what most people probably subjectively identify with and as is said 'a psychological construct'.  Superimposed upon that is the 'personality' which masks what is not liked about the 'self' and what is edited and presented to others.  Philosophy and psychology are likely to add more and more to this concept of 'self'.  The way of the mystic and a number of eastern practices is to seek to discover/uncover an 'I'  beyond those mental constructions.  I suspect that the way of Jesus was just that.  The word used is 'metanoia' ... inwardly beyond mind  .... but was unfortunately translated as 'repent'. 'Metaphysica' on the other hand takes you beyond the physical into the mind 'noia', which would be counterproductive as a method as is discussing 'souls'.

[Alan Burns]

if there were any evidence for a god then it would already be part of the synthesis of scientific knowledge.  And given you've spent the last three years on this board arguing against the science, amongst other things, I doubt the sincerity of your claim that you see nothing in science to contradict your faith.

I have not argued against science.
I do not deny any scientific findings.
What I have done is to illustrate that these scientific findings do not constitute evidence which can be used to deny the existence of God or our own spiritual souls.