Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

A deterministic account of mind has no problem with this; clearly every individual follows a unique formative path, we would not expect two individuals to have identical thoughts or make identical choices. You cannot answer this question satisfactorily with 'souls' though.  Why would some people make good choices whereas other people make bad choices, others make stupid choices in the same situation.  Did god deal out good souls to some, bad souls to some, stupid souls to others ? Not much of an explanation really.

God gives us freedom to choose, but we can always be tempted to make the wrong choice, as aptly illustrated in book 1 of the Bible.

[torridon]

God gives us freedom to choose, but we can always be tempted to make the wrong choice, as aptly illustrated in book 1 of the Bible.

OK, and the reason why one soul might succumb to temptation whereas the next one might succeed in resisting temptation is ...

Did God deal out some souls that are better able to resist temptation than others ?

[Alan Burns]

OK, and the reason why one soul might succumb to temptation whereas the next one might succeed in resisting temptation is ...

Did God deal out some souls that are better able to resist temptation than others ?

I do not think you fully understand the nature of our human souls.  Each one of us may have different backgrounds, different skills, different IQ, different temperaments, but we all have the gift of freewill.  God allows each one of us to freely choose our own destiny.  It is our choice, not God's.

[Sebastian Toe]

I do not think you fully understand the nature of our human souls.  Each one of us may have different backgrounds, different skills, different IQ, different temperaments, but we all have the gift of freewill.  God allows each one of us to freely choose our own destiny.  It is our choice, not God's.

How does a soul acquire a skill?

[torridon]

I do not think you fully understand the nature of our human souls.  Each one of us may have different backgrounds, different skills, different IQ, different temperaments, but we all have the gift of freewill.  God allows each one of us to freely choose our own destiny.  It is our choice, not God's.

Saying we choose 'freely' says nothing useful about how we resolve a choice.  How can we ever be free of those elements of background when it is those characteristics that define what we are ?  If we subtract all the formative influences that would lead me to make a different choice to you, then what is left to differentiate us ?  We can choose our own destiny, freely, in the trivial sense that no one is stopping us from following our hearts desire; but we cannot choose what our heart's desire should be - that is a consequence of those backgrounds elements, skills, IQ, dispositions etc. We do not choose what we are, and our choices reflect what we are and to be free of that makes no sense.

[Gordon]

I do not think you fully understand the nature of our human souls.

Neither do you, and you've already conceded that you don't.

Each one of us may have different backgrounds, different skills, different IQ, different temperaments, but we all have the gift of freewill.  God allows each one of us to freely choose our own destiny.  It is our choice, not God's.

Our biology is sufficient to allow us to make choices, and even then we operate within constraints and are bound by our personal traits: no 'God' or 'gift' required.

[Stranger]

I do not think you fully understand the nature of our human souls.

Totally impossible, self-contradictory magic, according to you.

Each one of us may have different backgrounds, different skills, different IQ, different temperaments, but we all have the gift of freewill.  God allows each one of us to freely choose our own destiny.  It is our choice, not God's.

I see torridon has explained this to you, yet again. I predict that you will continue to ignore it....

[torridon]

The present is where I exist, and where I make consciously driven choices.
I do not live in the past.

Well, strictly speaking, you do live in the past; we all do, in the sense that our sense of the present moment is really a memory. Look at your screen now; your visual sensation of the screen is not actually as it is now, it is as it was 0.4 seconds ago. Look at the Moon tonight, your conscious awareness of the Moon is as it was 1.7 seconds ago.  There is no such thing as real time, everything takes time to happen.

[torridon]

It is too much to expect that everyone will sacrifice his own life for someone else. We still have the basic survival instincts intact. That will not go away...and probably should not. That does not mean we are not civilized.

We have evolved different brain structures to accommodate different mental levels. They all exist together.

Try this......

https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/the-triune-brain/

That's a false dichotomy.  Sharing resources with others does not necessarily mean sacrificing one's life. We could share equitably, but the evidence of the last few years suggests we won't, we prefer to keep our wealth safe by building walls to keep the needy out.  That's not a sustainable policy, it will end in violence.

[Spud]

when was the last time you told your mind which thought to think next and how to think it ?

Suppose you are all in a stew about a woman cos she's in love with someone else. You can carry on stewing or you can let it go. The woman is someone else's partner, and it's better for you if you tell yourself not to covet that woman. That's telling your mind which thought to think.
The commandment, 'do not covet' is against our nature but is for our own good as it preserves health.
Or: obey your parents when they tell you not to touch the fire.
I suppose evolution ditches the need for a God to tell us not to covet, though!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well, strictly speaking, you do live in the past; we all do, in the sense that our sense of the present moment is really a memory. Look at your screen now; your visual sensation of the screen is not actually as it is now, it is as it was 0.4 seconds ago. Look at the Moon tonight, your conscious awareness of the Moon is as it was 1.7 seconds ago. 

Evolutionary sufficient for us to share an understanding of the term 'Present' and for us all to operate within it whether we choose to be pedantic about it.


This continual degradation of sophisticated capability by people on this thread surely challenges the very scientism you seem to espouse since you reduce the whole universe to what a human faculty, science, can come up with...….and then you demean human faculty.


In other words if, as you say, science is down to human faculty then we aren't. according to you, going to get far with it.

On the other hand if science and human faculty 'taps in to something greater' ( platonism ) then we can celebrate our faculties instead of rubbishing them.


So. What is it to be?

[torridon]

Evolutionary sufficient for us to share an understanding of the term 'Present' and for us all to operate within it whether we choose to be pedantic about it.


This continual degradation of sophisticated capability by people on this thread surely challenges the very scientism you seem to espouse since you reduce the whole universe to what a human faculty, science, can come up with...….and then you demean human faculty.


In other words if, as you say, science is down to human faculty then we aren't. according to you, going to get far with it.

On the other hand if science and human faculty 'taps in to something greater' ( platonism ) then we can celebrate our faculties instead of rubbishing them.


So. What is it to be?

False dichotomy.  To strive for keener insight into things is not to 'rubbish them'.  Stranger and Blue et al consistently demonstrate that we can hold coexistent understandings of the emergent and the underlying fundamental.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

False dichotomy.  To strive for keener insight into things is not to 'rubbish them'.  Stranger and Blue et al consistently demonstrate that we can hold coexistent understandings of the emergent and the underlying fundamental.

They often contradict themselves by choosing expedience if that's what you mean?

[ekim]

Saying we choose 'freely' says nothing useful about how we resolve a choice.  How can we ever be free of those elements of background when it is those characteristics that define what we are ?  If we subtract all the formative influences that would lead me to make a different choice to you, then what is left to differentiate us ?  We can choose our own destiny, freely, in the trivial sense that no one is stopping us from following our hearts desire; but we cannot choose what our heart's desire should be - that is a consequence of those backgrounds elements, skills, IQ, dispositions etc. We do not choose what we are, and our choices reflect what we are and to be free of that makes no sense.

Ignoring Alan's view, what you say illustrates the dilemma facing a number of religions.  I believe the Abrahamic style presents the 'soul' as a divine offshoot which has fallen from grace because it has become attached to those worldly desires which have filled the 'heart' and which creates a false identity of 'self' with its own wilful nature.  The task is to regain a pure 'heart' symbolised by 'unless you become as a small child again you will not enter heaven', so that the divine is expressed (God's Will) as opposed to 'self' expression (self will).  The idea is to be free from self will, which can be recognised, and surrender to divine will, probably without knowing what that is.

[wigginhall]

And some religions such as parts of Buddhism and advaita, might say that all the talk of souls and gods reinforces a dualism that is self-perpetuating.   I then seem to be at war with myself.   Well, of course, maybe I am.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ignoring Alan's view, what you say illustrates the dilemma facing a number of religions.  I believe the Abrahamic style presents the 'soul' as a divine offshoot which has fallen from grace because it has become attached to those worldly desires which have filled the 'heart' and which creates a false identity of 'self' with its own wilful nature.  The task is to regain a pure 'heart' symbolised by 'unless you become as a small child again you will not enter heaven', so that the divine is expressed (God's Will) as opposed to 'self' expression (self will).  The idea is to be free from self will, which can be recognised, and surrender to divine will, probably without knowing what that is.

I've never heard my 'religion' described as 'the Abrahamic style' before. I like it! ….and demand easy listening and chill in church services. That aside, aren't the problems you suggest restricted to a particular Gnosticism?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And some religions such as parts of Buddhism and advaita, might say that all the talk of souls and gods reinforces a dualism that is self-perpetuating.   I then seem to be at war with myself.   Well, of course, maybe I am.

You seem to be in conflict with yourself on this.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

Suppose you are all in a stew about a woman cos she's in love with someone else. You can carry on stewing or you can let it go. The woman is someone else's partner, and it's better for you if you tell yourself not to covet that woman. That's telling your mind which thought to think.

No, that’s self control. To have a “you” that “tells yourself” something requires you to install that separate “you” in the first place. That’s why AB has to invent the magic man at the controls he calls a “soul”, about which the sum total of his knowledge is “it’s magic”.   
 

The commandment, 'do not covet' is against our nature but is for our own good as it preserves health.
Or: obey your parents when they tell you not to touch the fire.

No, “our nature” works at the gene pool level as well as at the level of immediate desires. That’s why we form tribes, share resources, have altruism etc – these strategies better serve our genomic success that going it alone.
 

I suppose evolution ditches the need for a God to tell us not to covet, though!

No, “evolution” – ie, the Theory of Evolution – just closes the gap that those who would assert creationism tried/try to fill with faith beliefs. 

[torridon]

Suppose you are all in a stew about a woman cos she's in love with someone else. You can carry on stewing or you can let it go. The woman is someone else's partner, and it's better for you if you tell yourself not to covet that woman. That's telling your mind which thought to think.

...

That's a fairly classic example of what many mean by free will, meaning freedom from instinctive behaviours.  In this case a choice between primary desires and a more considered option.  It still comes down to weighing options against each other, the outcome of which may be to suppress desire for the lovely lady in question

[Alan Burns]

Totally impossible, self-contradictory magic, according to you.

I see torridon has explained this to you, yet again. I predict that you will continue to ignore it....

The bottom line is this:

We have all been given the freedom to choose to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

The bottom line is this:

We have all been given the freedom to choose to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.

No it isn't - it's just the statement of a faith belief you happen to have. As you say you're capable of "logical thoughts" perhaps it would help if you told us what one of them is so we can test the claim?

[torridon]

The bottom line is this:

We have all been given the freedom to choose to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.

False bottom.  The real bottom line is this : we haven't been given the freedom to believe something we don't believe.

[ekim]

I've never heard my 'religion' described as 'the Abrahamic style' before. I like it! ….and demand easy listening and chill in church services. That aside, aren't the problems you suggest restricted to a particular Gnosticism?

Well, what I have posted is only my opinion of how I see the base line of those religions.  I could be wrong, but if I am right then each of the four main strands of what I call the Abrahamic style have the problems, as each exhibits the characteristics of a collective self will and fight with each other to preserve that will.  One could say the same about your religion with the history of division and infighting that has gone on.  Self will encourages division, God's Will is supposed to promote union.

[wigginhall]

The bottom line is this:

We have all been given the freedom to choose to accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour.

Incorrect.   As torridon says, if this strikes me as nonsense, or even meaningless, I can't force myself to accept it as meaningful, no more than I can like something that I don't.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Wiggs,

Incorrect.   As torridon says, if this strikes me as nonsense, or even meaningless, I can't force myself to accept it as meaningful, no more than I can like something that I don't.

Quite so. If ever AB managed to support his claims with an argument that was logically cogent (or indeed an argument at all would be a good start) then I’d have no choice but to think him to be right. Trouble is though, he’s either unwilling or unable to do that so all we have to go on is assertion and logical fallacies.