Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

I did not make up the concept of souls.
Try reading the history of human civilisation.

I don't need to: I can remember enough of it to know that humans throughout history have made up lots of supernatural stuff that was taken seriously by some, and that such stuff has been a feature of various human societies: that may well say something about the people living in these societies, and be of cultural relevance and anthropological interest (not many Apollo or Thor worshippers these days), but that these supernatural beliefs had or have a social/cultural role doesn't confirm that these supernatural claims are objective facts.

Sounds to me, given your evasion here, that you've really got nothing substantive to say about how 'souls' are defined and operate since you haven't answered my request that you define 'souls' and describe their mode of operation - yet you keep banging on about something you can say nothing meaningful about (though we get that you have a personal liking for the idea of 'souls').

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I did not make up the concept of souls.
Try reading the history of human civilisation.

I did not make up the concept of leprechauns either.

So?

[torridon]

I did not make up the concept of souls.
Try reading the history of human civilisation.

True enough but like many ideas from antiquity it is past its sell by date. We have a much better conceptual framework for understanding ourselves now - mind.  Mind is a bit like soul, but with spurious fantasy elements removed.

[Roses]

I have experienced many strange things in my life, which seemed very real at the time, but in the cold light of day had me questioning their veracity. Seeing is not always believing.

[BeRational]

Because I know I am personally responsible for my own actions.
Otherwise I would be just a machine with no freewill of my own.
It is a fundamental property of being human.

That does not tell me how you would know. It tells me how you feel about it.

How do you know when you have made a choice, that you could have made a different choice?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're kidding right ?  Have you ever tried getting your head round String theory ?  If it is really simple, perhaps you'd like to explain the role of lipid polymorphism in cell membrane theory ?  If that was a doddle why not explain why the Procrustean method of entanglement concentration can be more efficient than the Schmidt projection method.  There is not a human alive with the cognitive resource to understand the range and depth of science.  Religious beliefs, on the other hand, are simple enough for most 10 year olds, which is part of the reason for their popularity.

Which makes the shocking misunderstanding of them or reluctance to actually repeat what they are more damning.

[Sriram]

I have experienced many strange things in my life, which seemed very real at the time, but in the cold light of day had me questioning their veracity. Seeing is not always believing.

That is like saying that...'I surfed the internet using Google chrome and found many strange things in the world. Then I used MS Word and everything disappeared....which means that all those things are obviously not real'.   

It depends on your frame of mind and which layer of mind you are using at any point of time.

[Alan Burns]

That does not tell me how you would know. It tells me how you feel about it.

How do you know when you have made a choice, that you could have made a different choice?

I am consciously aware that I have freedom to choose from several feasible options before I make a choice.  There must be a defining event which sets off whatever is needed to invoke the choice.  You need to consider if this event was entirely predetermined before it was invoked, or whether you had conscious control over its timing and the selection.

It is not logical to presume that after a choice is made, I could not possibly have made any other choice.  I am consciously aware that I had freedom to choose before I invoked my choice.

Other posters have told me to consider this process as an experience, and to then consider an explanation of the experience.  But in my mind I am actually doing something rather than experiencing something. I am not just experiencing a choice, I am consciously making a choice and then carrying it out.  And in carrying it out I am able to consciously verify that I have fulfilled what I chose to do.  It is all driven by me, using my God given freedom.  A freedom which can't be derived from predetermined reactions of material elements.

[Sebastian Toe]

A freedom which can't be derived from predetermined reactions of material elements.

Just because we do not know how something works does not infer that it does not happen.

[Stranger]

You need to consider if this event was entirely predetermined before it was invoked, or whether you had conscious control over its timing and the selection.

How do you know that these are mutually exclusive?

And yet again, if it wasn't determined by the events that led to it, that is just another way fo saying that it involved randomness, that's what randomness means.

[Stranger]

It is not logical to presume that after a choice is made, I could not possibly have made any other choice.

If you could have made another choice in exactly the same situation (including being in exactly the same state of mind), then there cannot possibly any reason for you to make that different choice, so it must involve randomness.

[BeRational]

I am consciously aware that I have freedom to choose from several feasible options before I make a choice.  There must be a defining event which sets off whatever is needed to invoke the choice.  You need to consider if this event was entirely predetermined before it was invoked, or whether you had conscious control over its timing and the selection.

It is not logical to presume that after a choice is made, I could not possibly have made any other choice.  I am consciously aware that I had freedom to choose before I invoked my choice.

Other posters have told me to consider this process as an experience, and to then consider an explanation of the experience.  But in my mind I am actually doing something rather than experiencing something. I am not just experiencing a choice, I am consciously making a choice and then carrying it out.  And in carrying it out I am able to consciously verify that I have fulfilled what I chose to do.  It is all driven by me, using my God given freedom.  A freedom which can't be derived from predetermined reactions of material elements.

You 'feel' like you are making a choice. How would it feel if your choice was predetermined, but you did not know?

It would I suspect feel just the same.

Once you have made a choice, how do you know you could have made another?
Yes it feels like you are weighing things up in your mind, and predicting possible outcomes before coming to a conclusion. but, it would feel just the same.

You are just saying "I am right, because it feels right".

[Alan Burns]

If you could have made another choice in exactly the same situation (including being in exactly the same state of mind), then there cannot possibly any reason for you to make that different choice, so it must involve randomness.

There are three scenarios, not two.
Predetermined, Determined and Random.

Your refusal to accept the difference between Predetermined and Determined is giving you a distorted view of reality.

[Roses]

That is like saying that...'I surfed the internet using Google chrome and found many strange things in the world. Then I used MS Word and everything disappeared....which means that all those things are obviously not real'.   

It depends on your frame of mind and which layer of mind you are using at any point of time.

My experiences are nothing like surfing the net! For instance, after some claimed to have seen a vision of the 'virgin' Mary in a field of ours, I thought I saw something resembling the picture book version of that female at the top of the field. The vision seemed very real for the second or two I saw it, until logic kicked in, and not only did I realise my mind must have been playing tricks, but the woman most likely wouldn't have looked anything like the way artists depicted her.

[Alan Burns]

You 'feel' like you are making a choice. How would it feel if your choice was predetermined, but you did not know?

My conscious freedom to contemplate this scenario indicates that I would have had conscious freedom to make the choice.

[Stranger]

There are three scenarios, not two.
Predetermined, Determined and Random.

Your refusal to accept the difference between Predetermined and Determined is giving you a distorted view of reality.

As many people have explained already, either an event is determined by the events that led up to it (what you call "predetermined"), which means we are dealing with a deterministic system, or not. If not, there is randomness involved.

Your silly word games about "determined by..." are just ways to avoid the question, not a third option. If something is determined by something else then that something else must either be a deterministic system or not.

If you've got an actual third option, rather than the "determined by..." cop out, you need to define how it works.

[Stranger]

My conscious freedom to contemplate this scenario indicates that I would have had conscious freedom to make the choice.

But not whether it was "predetermined" or not. That's just your subjective feeling about it.

[Gordon]

There are three scenarios, not two.
Predetermined, Determined and Random.

The first two terms are tautological.

Your refusal to accept the difference between Predetermined and Determined is giving you a distorted view of reality.

I'd say it is you insistence that there is a difference is the distortion here: still, in your ongoing quest to include or imply 'god' where it ain't required, you seem untroubled by your use of fallacies and illogical or magical thinking.

You still haven't given us a definition of 'soul' or a description of it mode(s) of operation. 

[BeRational]

My conscious freedom to contemplate this scenario indicates that I would have had conscious freedom to make the choice.

No it doesn't as you do not know that you have freedom.

You feel like you are free, but you could not know if you were not free.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

My conscious freedom to contemplate this scenario indicates that I would have had conscious freedom to make the choice.

Your utter indifference to the numerous logical fallacies you rely on is frankly bewildering. You’ve had the problem explained to you countless times and yet you carry on as if trying fallacious logic doesn’t necessarily invalidate the argument you’re attempting. I’ve even offered to explain the basics to you so you don’t keep going wrong in future, but entirely predictably you just ignored that too.

Does it not trouble you that this behaviour just tells others that either you’re not very bright or not very honest? Really though?

Anyway, your latest wreckage of an argument is called circular reasoning:

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving";[1] also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[3] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[4]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

[Alan Burns]

As many people have explained already, either an event is determined by the events that led up to it (what you call "predetermined"), which means we are dealing with a deterministic system, or not. If not, there is randomness involved.

Your silly word games about "determined by..." are just ways to avoid the question, not a third option. If something is determined by something else then that something else must either be a deterministic system or not.

If you've got an actual third option, rather than the "determined by..." cop out, you need to define how it works.

You seem totally hemmed in to thinking in physical terms.  All physically defined events will inevitably be predetermined by previous physical events.  Which is why the concept of human freewill cannot exist in a purely physical scenario.

But try to imagine a spiritual dimension which can only exist and act in the present.  Time is a dimension of our physical world in which a spiritual entity can consciously perceive and interact.  This interaction would be determined by the spiritual entity which can only exist in the present.  And such interaction would be compatible with the freedom all humans enjoy. 

[torridon]

But try to imagine a spiritual dimension which can only exist and act in the present.  Time is a dimension of our physical world in which a spiritual entity can consciously perceive and interact.  This interaction would be determined by the spiritual entity which can only exist in the present.  And such interaction would be compatible with the freedom all humans enjoy.

In what way does that differ from a mind ?  My mind can only operate in the present.  Can yours operate in the past, or in the future ?

[Stranger]

You seem totally hemmed in to thinking in physical terms.

Utter drivel. I have made no assumption of the physical world. You keep on making claims like this but never actually say in what way you think it has anything to do with the physical world.

But try to imagine a spiritual dimension which can only exist and act in the present.  Time is a dimension of our physical world in which a spiritual entity can consciously perceive and interact.  This interaction would be determined by the spiritual entity which can only exist in the present.

Gibberish.

A "spiritual dimension" doesn't mean anything. You need to define it, if you're going to use it. There is no normal meaning of "the present" that makes any logical difference to determinism as I described it. If anything can act in "the present", then you must be using it in the colloquial way, which means it's totally irrelevant. If you're trying to be more precise, then "the present" doesn't actually exist in a way in which anything can do anything in it. If you are using it in a non-standard way, you need to define that too.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You seem totally hemmed in to thinking in physical terms.

As the only alternative seems to be “it’s magic” (or, as you call it, "spiritual"), how is that “hemmed in” exactly?

All physically defined events will inevitably be predetermined by previous physical events.  Which is why the concept of human freewill cannot exist in a purely physical scenario.

Categorically wrong for the reason that you’ve had explained countless times and you continue to ignore.

What does this behaviour say about you do you think?

But try to imagine a spiritual dimension which can only exist and act in the present.

Leaving aside for now your running smack up against the physics of establishing this “present”, people are quite capable of imagining anything. The problem you never get around to addressing though is finding a path from something you can imagine to something that is. You know, your dishonest habit of just asserting your guesses to be facts.

Time is a dimension of our physical world in which a spiritual entity can consciously perceive and interact.  This interaction would be determined by the spiritual entity which can only exist in the present.  And such interaction would be compatible with the freedom all humans enjoy.

So you assert with no evidence of any kind to support you. Why not start at least by finally telling us what you think “spiritual” means, explaining why it’s any different from just saying “it’s magic”, explaining how anyone would identify such a thing, and providing a method to investigate your extraordinary claim?

You know, the stuff you never bother with because you just expect people to treat your guesses as facts.   

[Alan Burns]

In what way does that differ from a mind ?  My mind can only operate in the present.  Can yours operate in the past, or in the future ?

For mind read soul, which can only perceive and  interact with our physical brain in the present