Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

Or my heart-beat is random.  Help.

No
It works as God intended.

[Nearly Sane]

No
It works as God intended.

So if someone has a heart attack, including my friend Hugh Campbell, who died at 38 with 5 kids, your god murders them.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

It is other posters who have used the word "random" in this way.

Because that’s what the word means, yes.

Random does not infer no determining cause, but no consciously determined cause.

It’s “imply” (not “infer”) and it precisely does imply no determining cause.

So I am clarifying my argument by highlighting the existence of consciously intended events which are distinguishable from unintended events.

No you’re not clarifying at all. You’re very selectively picking just one dictionary definition among several equally valid ones in order to exclude the meanings you find inconvenient.

This implies that there must be a conscious source of intent, and this source of intent is the essence of my argument for the human soul.

This selectively chosen definition in particular might arguably imply that, but the others don’t. And you still don't have an argument of any sort fo "soul" either.

This is shameful stuff AB, even by your standards.

[Stranger]

It is other posters who have used the word "random" in this way.

Nobody (AFAIK) has been using random in the sense of "without conscious decision" until you just did. I certainly haven't.

Random does not infer no determining cause, but no consciously determined cause.

There is more than one sense of the word. Up until now, we have been using it to mean something that happens for no reason as in the link I keep on giving you: Deterministic system. Also: Randomness "Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events."

So I am clarifying my argument by highlighting the existence of consciously intended events which are distinguishable from unintended events.

You are not clarifying at all, your intention seems to be the exact opposite. What's the point of bringing in a new (to this discussion) sense of the word "random"? If you mean intended versus not intended, then why not just say that?

This implies that there must be a conscious source of intent, and this source of intent is the essence of my argument for the human soul.

And the source of the intent is either a deterministic system (its actions are determined entirely by the events that led up to the intent) or it involves some randomness (things that happen for no reason).

You haven't got an argument for the soul that isn't contradictory. Using the word random in a different way doesn't change the logic that you've been ignoring, one iota.

[Alan Burns]

So if someone has a heart attack, including my friend Hugh Campbell, who died at 38 with 5 kids, your god murders them.

And my dear friend Becky died of a brain tumour at the age of 45 with five kids.

Truly random events do happen and obviously cause disruption or prevention of what was originally intended.  God can help us cope with such events, but we are not in heaven yet.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Truly random events do happen...

Are you using "random" only in the highly selective sense you've just introduced here?
 

...and obviously cause disruption or prevention of what was originally intended.

There's no "original intention" for an earthquake or a disease, and nor do they happen randomly.

God can help us cope with such events, but we are not in heaven yet.

An entirely un-defined, unqualified and un-evidenced faith belief you happen to hold.

[Nearly Sane]

And my dear friend Becky died of a brain tumour at the age of 45 with five kids.

Truly random events do happen and obviously cause disruption or prevention of what was originally intended.  God can help us cope with such events, but we are not in heaven yet.

So random events are things your god can't control, and they just happen? So your god is a pawn to random events.

[Alan Burns]

Because that’s what the word means, yes.

It’s “imply” (not “infer”) and it precisely does imply no determining cause.

I believe that you and other posters have been using a very obscure definition of the word "random" to back up you arguments. 

I feel sure that the Oxford English dictionary definition is closer to what is the generally accepted meaning.  Random number generators have a determining cause, as have random mutations.  The accepted meaning is that a random event is not consciously determined.

[ekim]

but we are not in heaven yet.

... and yet the Kingdom of God is inside of us, according to Jesus.  You would think 'Searching for God' would be easy but here we are at post 33,555.

[Nearly Sane]

... and yet the Kingdom of God is inside of us, according to Jesus.  You would think 'Searching for God' would be easy but here we are at post 33,555.

He's behind you!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I believe that you and other posters have been using a very obscure definition of the word "random" to back up you arguments.

Then, as with so much else, you believe wrongly. Try Wiki for the standard meanings:

Randomness is the lack of pattern or predictability in events.[1] A random sequence of events, symbols or steps has no order and does not follow an intelligible pattern or combination. Individual random events are by definition unpredictable, but in many cases the frequency of different outcomes over a large number of events (or "trials") is predictable. For example, when throwing two dice, the outcome of any particular roll is unpredictable, but a sum of 7 will occur twice as often as 4. In this view, randomness is a measure of uncertainty of an outcome, rather than haphazardness, and applies to concepts of chance, probability, and information entropy.

The fields of mathematics, probability, and statistics use formal definitions of randomness. In statistics, a random variable is an assignment of a numerical value to each possible outcome of an event space. This association facilitates the identification and the calculation of probabilities of the events. Random variables can appear in random sequences. A random process is a sequence of random variables whose outcomes do not follow a deterministic pattern, but follow an evolution described by probability distributions. These and other constructs are extremely useful in probability theory and the various applications of randomness.

Randomness is most often used in statistics to signify well-defined statistical properties. Monte Carlo methods, which rely on random input (such as from random number generators or pseudorandom number generators), are important techniques in science, as, for instance, in computational science.[2] By analogy, quasi-Monte Carlo methods use quasirandom number generators.

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

I feel sure that the Oxford English dictionary definition is closer to what is the generally accepted meaning.  Random number generators have a determining cause, as have random mutations.

It’s not the, it’s a – and it’s the one you have carefully selected because you think it suits your position.

Sadly though it doesn’t even do that because it gives you an even bigger problem: if you want to narrow down to “consciously determined” in the sense that it’s a divinity doing the determining, then you have all your work to do still to demonstrate this divinity in the first place. 

The accepted meaning is that a random event is not consciously determined.

Why are you so dishonest? That’s just one meaning, not the meaning, as any reference source will tell you – Wiki included.

[Stranger]

I believe that you and other posters have been using a very obscure definition of the word "random" to back up you arguments. 

I feel sure that the Oxford English dictionary definition is closer to what is the generally accepted meaning.  Random number generators have a determining cause, as have random mutations.  The accepted meaning is that a random event is not consciously determined.

Alan. have you seriously been confused about the meaning of the word random as used to date in this discussion, despite all the references and explanations you've been given?

If so, why did you claim you were reading and understanding everything that was put to you?

If not, why are you now trying to confuse the issue?

In the sense in which you are now trying to use the word "random", it is totally irrelevant to the question of whether minds are deterministic systems (everything that they do is the direct result of the past) or not. If not, then some part of the choice must be random in the sense that it has no cause.
 

[Sriram]

... and yet the Kingdom of God is inside of us, according to Jesus.  You would think 'Searching for God' would be easy but here we are at post 33,555.

Yes..and that's something most people don't seem to be able to grasp.

Linking that idea with the idea of Consciousness, panpsychism, importance of subjectivity....and so on. Quite easy IMO! 

[Dicky Underpants]

Yes..and that's something most people don't seem to be able to grasp.

Linking that idea with the idea of Consciousness, panpsychism, importance of subjectivity....and so on. Quite easy IMO!

Except that the Greek text can also be respectably translated as "among you" or "in your midst". Jesus is recorded as saying many things about the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. They all point to different ideas. What do you make of the text from Mark:
"If it is by the hand of God that I cast out demons, then is the Kingdom of Heaven come upon you".
Is that K of H "within you"?
It's not simple, even if you do like to find texts in the Christian scriptures which correlate with Hindu beliefs.

[Alan Burns]

Alan. have you seriously been confused about the meaning of the word random as used to date in this discussion, despite all the references and explanations you've been given?

If so, why did you claim you were reading and understanding everything that was put to you?

If not, why are you now trying to confuse the issue?

In the sense in which you are now trying to use the word "random", it is totally irrelevant to the question of whether minds are deterministic systems (everything that they do is the direct result of the past) or not. If not, then some part of the choice must be random in the sense that it has no cause.

On Sunday, when I wrote post #33507, I felt I had said all I could and felt that all I would do now was pray for you and others to be enlightened to the truth about God and our spiritual nature.  So I was looking forward to a rest from posting on this forum.  But God had other ideas.

When I attended Mass on Monday morning, during a prayerful moment, I was inspired to use a new approach which resulted in post #33518.  I wrote this before looking up the dictionary definition of "random", which seemed to confirm my new approach.

So I would urge you and others to re read #33518 and try to understand the divinely inspired message which God prompted me to write.

[Roses]

On Sunday, when I wrote post #33507, I felt I had said all I could and felt that all I would do now was pray for you and others to be enlightened to the truth about God and our spiritual nature.  So I was looking forward to a rest from posting on this forum.  But God had other ideas.

When I attended Mass on Monday morning, during a prayerful moment, I was inspired to use a new approach which resulted in post #33518.  I wrote this before looking up the dictionary definition of "random", which seemed to confirm my new approach.

So I would urge you and others to re read #33518 and try to understand the divinely inspired message which God prompted me to write.

Sorry Alan, but if god had anything to do with that post it screwed up badly as usual!

[Stranger]

On Sunday, when I wrote post #33507, I felt I had said all I could and felt that all I would do now was pray for you and others to be enlightened to the truth about God and our spiritual nature.  So I was looking forward to a rest from posting on this forum.  But God had other ideas.

When I attended Mass on Monday morning, during a prayerful moment, I was inspired to use a new approach which resulted in post #33518.  I wrote this before looking up the dictionary definition of "random", which seemed to confirm my new approach.

So I would urge you and others to re read #33518 and try to understand the divinely inspired message which God prompted me to write.

Sorry Alan but #33518 is the sort of trite nonsense that anybody who's ever discussed things with theists will have heard endless time before. It's class Adams' puddle stuff. Evolution explains the complexity of life and is entirely consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. Have you not heard all the answers to this kind of nonsense before, or do you totally ignore everything that disagrees with your blind faith?

It also seems like an attempt to divert attention from the fact that you have no answers to the logic that had been presented to you, regarding determinism and randomness, and were trying to change the subject.

[Sriram]

Except that the Greek text can also be respectably translated as "among you" or "in your midst". Jesus is recorded as saying many things about the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. They all point to different ideas. What do you make of the text from Mark:
"If it is by the hand of God that I cast out demons, then is the Kingdom of Heaven come upon you".
Is that K of H "within you"?
It's not simple, even if you do like to find texts in the Christian scriptures which correlate with Hindu beliefs.

As I have said many times there are two kinds of people....Zoom-In types and Zoom -Out types.   Zoom_In's tend to separate things out. They see differences. They dissect and label and segregate.   The Zoom-Out's tend to integrate, see the similarities, take a holistic view.

The first type are scientists. The second type are philosophers  and spiritualists.

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/28/zoom-in-zoom-out/

Anyone who has some detailed idea of spirituality will see that all major religions and philosophies are really talking of the same things....only different in
interpretations and imagery

[ekim]

Except that the Greek text can also be respectably translated as "among you" or "in your midst". Jesus is recorded as saying many things about the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Heaven. They all point to different ideas. What do you make of the text from Mark:
"If it is by the hand of God that I cast out demons, then is the Kingdom of Heaven come upon you".
Is that K of H "within you"?
It's not simple, even if you do like to find texts in the Christian scriptures which correlate with Hindu beliefs.

Yes, you are right, it is not simple.  The man who is alleged to have spoken the words is not available for questioning.  We cannot be sure who recorded the sayings or whether they actually understood what was meant.  We don't know whether the words were uttered in Aramaic and badly translated firstly into Greek and then into English.  We don't know whether any words were edited out to fit in with early church doctrine.  I believe that in the Gospel of Thomas the expression was 'the kingdom of God is within you and outside of you' which would fit in with the idea of an omnipresent God.  If 'kingdom of God' is translated as 'divine state of being' the realisation of it does not matter whether it 'comes upon you' or 'arises within you' like 'a raising agent which although is hidden in flour causes the whole to rise'.

[Dicky Underpants]

As I have said many times there are two kinds of people....Zoom-In types and Zoom -Out types.   Zoom_In's tend to separate things out. They see differences. They dissect and label and segregate.   The Zoom-Out's tend to integrate, see the similarities, take a holistic view.

Said Sriram, (ironically) dissecting and labelling humanity into two types. In fact, for years I tended towards your 'zoom-out' type of mind-set, which certainly provided what I thought were 'revelations' at the time, though on further investigation these proved to be inconclusive and no great guide to life. Aldous Huxley attempted the kind of synthesis you are talking about in his "Perennial Philosophy". This really ends up being simply vacuous.
Now, I won't deny that it is just possible that there is a "Somebodaddy deity/spiritual something" beneath all the "Nobodaddy" deities of the world, but these all differ so markedly in kind that I don't see much possibility of universal agreement. Deities can be immanent, transcendent or both. They can be prescriptive and interventionist, or simply distant and unconcerned. Or they can be the equivalent of the Oz aborigine Tikalick the Frog.

However, your analogy of zoom-in and zoom-out is useful. I'd express it as wide-angle lens and microscope. The trouble with the former is a mind becomes so 'spaced-out' as to be useless at ordinary social interaction and practicality: the trouble with the latter is the 'locked microscope effect', whereby a mind is unable to function except in the often trivial analysis of minutiae. Our minds need to be trained to move smoothly between both functions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

On Sunday, when I wrote post #33507, I felt I had said all I could and felt that all I would do now was pray for you and others to be enlightened to the truth about God and our spiritual nature.  So I was looking forward to a rest from posting on this forum.  But God had other ideas.

That’s your personal truth AB, not the truth. But you know this already though don’t you as it’s been explained to you countless times. 

When I attended Mass on Monday morning, during a prayerful moment, I was inspired to use a new approach which resulted in post #33518.

Reply 33518 was quickly dismantled for the arrant nonsense it was. That you just ignored the rebuttals doesn’t make them go away.

I wrote this before looking up the dictionary definition of "random", which seemed to confirm my new approach.

No it doesn’t.

So I would urge you and others to re read #33518 and try to understand the divinely inspired message which God prompted me to write.

And I would urge you actually to read and to try to respond honestly to the arguments you’re given here rather than just to ignore them and repeat your same mistakes over and over again.

[jeremyp]

And my dear friend Becky died of a brain tumour at the age of 45 with five kids.

Truly random events do happen and obviously cause disruption or prevention of what was originally intended.  God can help us cope with such events, but we are not in heaven yet.

Heart attacks and what happened to your friend Becky are not random events. They are caused by non random genetic and environmental factors. Fortunately, that means your god is not a murderer.

[torridon]

On Sunday, when I wrote post #33507, I felt I had said all I could and felt that all I would do now was pray for you and others to be enlightened to the truth about God and our spiritual nature.  So I was looking forward to a rest from posting on this forum.  But God had other ideas.

You mean you had other ideas.  At least that is what a straight talking honest person would say.  If there is a god who wishes to reveal himself to Earth dwellers then he would reveal himself to Earth dwellers.  It's not rocket science.  Instead we have to have millions of people indulging tortured logic to explain why there is no evidence for god, not for one moment realising it is their grounding initial assumption of god that is flawed.  Once you allow that to fade, then all the tortured contradictory reasoning is no longer needed.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You mean you had other ideas.  At least that is what a straight talking honest person would say.  If there is a god who wishes to reveal himself to Earth dwellers then he would reveal himself to Earth dwellers.  It's not rocket science.  Instead we have to have millions of people indulging tortured logic to explain why there is no evidence for god, not for one moment realising it is their grounding initial assumption of god that is flawed.  Once you allow that to fade, then all the tortured contradictory reasoning is no longer needed.

Somebody who probably went through thhe stages of God not being empirically detected and then somehow being
A bad argument was Augustine.
Having his experience of God he realised that his by now encýclopedic collection of non christian argument was merely a caseload of excuse for and evidence of dodging God.
He must have fancied himself as a dispassionate observer and tthinker but found out that as far as God is concerned that  isnt the case.

[torridon]

Somebody who probably went through thhe stages of God not being empirically detected and then somehow being
A bad argument was Augustine.
Having his experience of God he realised that his by now encýclopedic collection of non christian argument was merely a caseload of excuse for and evidence of dodging God.
He must have fancied himself as a dispassionate observer and tthinker but found out that as far as God is concerned that  isnt the case.

A bit like people who believe they have seen mermaids must therefore believe everyone else to be mermaid-dodging