Searching for GOD...

[BeRational]

Our thoughts are either under conscious control, or they are entirely under the control of physically defined reactions.  There can be no half measures.If choices are reactions, then I have no possible choice to consciously invoke the action you suggest.  I would be entirely under the control of the laws of physically defined reactions.  But I do have the choice to deliberately not go down your suggested route.They arise from the conscious will of my human soul.And to try thinking, we need the conscious freedom to invoke our thoughts.

By default there is no soul unless you can demonstrate  it. Can you?

Do you think light can travel through a vacuum, or do you think there must be ether?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

They arise from the conscious will of my human soul.

How would you propose this "human soul" of yours obtains and selects from the thoughts it needs to decide which thoughts of its host to pick from? Or do you think the little man at the controls also has a little at the controls to do the job for it, which in turn has a little man at the controls of its own etc?   

[Stranger]

Our thoughts are either under conscious control, or they are entirely under the control of physically defined reactions.  There can be no half measures.

Another logic-free, baseless assertion.

If choices are reactions, then I have no possible choice to consciously invoke the action you suggest.  I would be entirely under the control of the laws of physically defined reactions.  But I do have the choice to deliberately not go down your suggested route.

And again. You have provided no evidence, no reasoning, and no logic to even suggest that a physical reaction cannot also be a deliberate, conscious choice. Your own personal incredulity counts for nothing.

They arise from the conscious will of my human soul.

"It's magic, innit?"

And to try thinking, we need the conscious freedom to invoke our thoughts.

How do you decide to invoke a thought? By thinking that you want to?

Not only have you provided no reasoning to support your daft assertions, you have totally ignored the contradictions and infinite regress involved in them.

Are you capable of logical thought?

[torridon]

Our thoughts are either under conscious control, or they are entirely under the control of physically defined reactions.  There can be no half measures.

I cannot see how I could 'consciously control' a thought.  Problem is, thoughts do not occur in isolation, there is always a flow going on.  If I choose to think about Luton (goodness knows why) in the next moment, at a simplistic level you could say that is a case of me directing my thoughts.  This is how you describe these mental processes.  But it is a description that lacks the subtlety of understanding that the choice to think about Luton is itself a thought process.  There is always a flow of activity going on in minds, and mostly it is not conscious thought.  That decision to think about Luton did not come out of some magic black box called a soul, it surfaced out of the opaque depths of my (subconscious) mind.  If you insist it comes out of a magic black box then you rob yourself of all explanatory mechanism and understanding. If you further insist that only Homo Sapiens has these magic boxes then you compound your explanatory deficit because you then have no mechanism to explain how non human creatures makes choices.

At base, as an explanatory paradigm, 'mind' is far truer to observation than 'soul'. 'Soul' is what we naively imagined what was going on inside before we started to understand that actually, we have minds.

[ekim]

(1)  I cannot see how I could 'consciously control' a thought.  Problem is, thoughts do not occur in isolation, there is always a flow going on.  If I choose to think about Luton (goodness knows why) in the next moment, at a simplistic level you could say that is a case of me directing my thoughts.  This is how you describe these mental processes.  But it is a description that lacks the subtlety of understanding that the choice to think about Luton is itself a thought process.  There is always a flow of activity going on in minds, and mostly it is not conscious thought.  That decision to think about Luton did not come out of some magic black box called a soul, it surfaced out of the opaque depths of my (subconscious) mind.  If you insist it comes out of a magic black box then you rob yourself of all explanatory mechanism and understanding. If you further insist that only Homo Sapiens has these magic boxes then you compound your explanatory deficit because you then have no mechanism to explain how non human creatures makes choices.

(2)  At base, as an explanatory paradigm, 'mind' is far truer to observation than 'soul'. 'Soul' is what we naively imagined what was going on inside before we started to understand that actually, we have minds.

(1)Perhaps there is another way of looking at it.  Perhaps it is not so much about controlling thoughts but more about controlling the direction of your consciousness (your attention) and this often requires some training as many thoughts have an emotional association.  The more attention you give to a thought, the more it becomes energised and conversely the less attention, the less energised.  Control is not necessarily about suppression of thoughts but direction of consciousness and sometimes stillness of consciousness, what some skilful people call 'being in the zone'.  If somebody was crossing Niagara Falls on a tightrope, thinking about Luton would not help and his training would have a different focus (direction of attention).

(2) That's what has happened to the New Testament Greek word translated as 'soul' ... psyche.  We now have a study of the psyche ... psychology.

[Alan Burns]

And again. You have provided no evidence, no reasoning, and no logic to even suggest that a physical reaction cannot also be a deliberate, conscious choice. Your own personal incredulity counts for nothing.

I would say that the onus is on you to explain fully how any form of consciously invoked deliberate choice can be generated from within an endless chain of physically driven cause and effect events from which there is no definitive causal event.

How do you decide to invoke a thought? By thinking that you want to?

I consciously choose what to think.  It is what I do.

Not only have you provided no reasoning to support your daft assertions, you have totally ignored the contradictions and infinite regress involved in them.

No infinite regress is needed for the self determining entity of conscious awareness which is you and me.

Are you capable of logical thought?

I certainly am, but my thoughts are not restricted by trying to shoe horn reality fit in with the limited knowledge of what our physical senses can perceive.

[Enki]

I don't think I have missed the point as it has been repeated ad nauseam within this topic.  I doubt whether Alan would agree with what I have said as it does not allow the notion of freedom he seems to be arguing for.  What I was suggesting was that an omniscient and omnipotent God does not do random, all is determined by an omnipresent God.  Humans using an intellectual thought process need the concept of 'random' to fill in the gaps where they cannot see the determining principle or accept that all is divinely determined.  In this scenario, there is no freedom but there is the opportunity to be free from human self centred attachments and unite with the divine state (Heaven) as indicated in this paraphrase of Matt 6 19-21 'Don’t attach yourself to transient earthly pleasures but unite with the eternal delights of the Divine. What you treasure is where your heart is.'

1) the idea of random seems to be the only alternative to deterministic, unless you can give an argument which sees a third way. So far nobody, especially Alan, has been able to do this.

2) Nobody is suggesting that our choices are a result of randomness, not even Alan. It is simply the default position if you reject determinism.

3) If 'all is determined by an omnipresent God' then either A)we are powerless to make choices which go against what he wishes OR B) He set up the deterministic structure of the universe, which includes us, and, especially in this context, our brains. However there is no evidence that this God even exists.

4) What on earth do you mean by 'opportunity' in this scenario? You have argued that this God determines everything, hence we have no 'opportunity' at all. God decides whether we will follow his wishes or go against them in some way. Incidentally, I would also suggest that by following the God path, this in itself could be described as yet another self centred idea.

5) Your last part seems to me to be pure waffle. How on earth does one 'unite with the divine state' when there is no evidence that it exists at all. You might think you are doing so, and that might well be enough for you, but it has no significance in any objective sense.


You originally said that the' Christian approach has a slightly different logic'. I agree that the Christian approach is generally different, but not exactly logical at all. Then you said that the choice is between two deterministic systems.Finally you suggested that 'self sacrifice results in alignment with the latter'(God centred).
You tell me where the different logic applies?  'Alignment' is just another way of saying that you make a choice. hence the same logic must apply to that choice I.E.
Unless it is as the result of a deterministic system, then it has to be random.

[Stranger]

I would say that the onus is on you to explain fully how any form of consciously invoked deliberate choice can be generated from within an endless chain of physically driven cause and effect events from which there is no definitive causal event.

No. You're the one making the claim that it is impossible. What's more, you have no alternative that isn't both self-contradictory and involving totally unexplained magic. That's before we get to the total lack of evidence for anything apart from physical cause and effect.

I consciously choose what to think.  It is what I do.

You ignored the question. How do you choose what to think, without thinking about it and therefore disappearing into an infinite regress?

No infinite regress is needed for the self determining entity of conscious awareness which is you and me.

Explain how they are avoided, then. You do like your utterly unsupported assertions, don't you?

I certainly am...

I can see no evidence to support this - you have never used a logical argument and you seem to avoid addressing those that are put to you, at all costs.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

How would you propose this "human soul" of yours obtains and selects from the thoughts it needs to decide which thoughts of its host to pick from? Or do you think the little man at the controls also has a little at the controls to do the job for it, which in turn has a little man at the controls of its own etc?

You talk of thoughts as if they were physically defined entities - like a pattern of physical neuron activity.  If thoughts are physically defined in such a way, they could exist in their own right and be reproducible in a similar way to words, images or sounds.  But the problem is that you need an entity of perception which defies definition in physical terms.  We may be able to reproduce what is perceived in physical terms, but we can't reproduce perception itself.  We all exist as entities of conscious perception with our own self determining capabilities with no need of external control, because it is our own spiritual self in control - not the uncontrollable forces of nature.

[Stranger]

But the problem is that you need an entity of perception which defies definition in physical terms.  We may be able to reproduce what is perceived in physical terms, but we can't reproduce perception itself.  We all exist as entities of conscious perception with our own self determining capabilities with no need of external control, because it is our own spiritual self in control - not the uncontrollable forces of nature.

More blind faith and unsupported assertions. Where is even the hint of any evidence or logical reasoning?

[torridon]

You talk of thoughts as if they were physically defined entities - like a pattern of physical neuron activity.  If thoughts are physically defined in such a way, they could exist in their own right and be reproducible in a similar way to words, images or sounds.  But the problem is that you need an entity of perception which defies definition in physical terms.  We may be able to reproduce what is perceived in physical terms, but we can't reproduce perception itself.  We all exist as entities of conscious perception with our own self determining capabilities with no need of external control, because it is our own spiritual self in control - not the uncontrollable forces of nature.

An 'entity of perception' does not need to 'defy definition in physical terms'.  That is just baseless assertion without justification. We are all 'entities of conscious perception' and so is every dog, frog and hedgehog, you don't need magic to be able to be a subject having perception. It happens everywhere in nature.

[Roses]

You talk of thoughts as if they were physically defined entities - like a pattern of physical neuron activity.  If thoughts are physically defined in such a way, they could exist in their own right and be reproducible in a similar way to words, images or sounds.  But the problem is that you need an entity of perception which defies definition in physical terms.  We may be able to reproduce what is perceived in physical terms, but we can't reproduce perception itself.  We all exist as entities of conscious perception with our own self determining capabilities with no need of external control, because it is our own spiritual self in control - not the uncontrollable forces of nature.

This is what you wish to believe, it is not a fact for which you can produce any evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I would say that the onus is on you to explain fully how any form of consciously invoked deliberate choice can be generated from within an endless chain of physically driven cause and effect events from which there is no definitive causal event.

Then you would say wrongly, for reasons that have been explained to you endlessly and you persist in ignoring. The onus of the person arguing for consciousness as a naturalistic phenomenon is to provide reasoning that’s cogent and evidence that correlates with the observable phenomena. Just looking for gaps in the model so as to dismiss it entirely and replace it with a conjecture that’s logically incoherent (ie, a magic “soul”) and for which you have no evidence whatever is fundamentally dishonest.

I consciously choose what to think.  It is what I do.

Except of course by “I” you actually mean a little man at the controls that’s logically incoherent and has no evidence of any kind to support it. I did ask you a few posts pack to tell us how the magic man would obtain and then select the thoughts it would need to tell its host “you” what to do but, predictably, you just ignored that. 

No infinite regress is needed for the self determining entity of conscious awareness which is you and me.

It is when you assert your little magic man to do the decision-making. In the absence of any information at all about how it would do that, your choice is either magic or an infinite series of smaller and smaller little men at the controls each telling the bigger one what to do.

As you only answer to how these magic men would work is “dunno”, why not stop at “dunno” for the mind rather than add (potentially endless) sets of more “dunnos” as (non-) explanations?
   

I certainly am, but my thoughts are not restricted by trying to shoe horn reality fit in with the limited knowledge of what our physical senses can perceive.

You’ve shown no sign of logical thought so far, but if nonetheless you want to assert yourself to be not limited to “knowledge of what our physical senses can perceive” why not share with the rest of us the method you use to do that? How does the illogic we see you attempt so often here suddenly become logical using this other mysterious method? Or, as with the rest of your assertions, are we just expected to take your word for it?   

[ekim]

1) the idea of random seems to be the only alternative to deterministic, unless you can give an argument which sees a third way. So far nobody, especially Alan, has been able to do this.

2) Nobody is suggesting that our choices are a result of randomness, not even Alan. It is simply the default position if you reject determinism.

3) If 'all is determined by an omnipresent God' then either A)we are powerless to make choices which go against what he wishes OR B) He set up the deterministic structure of the universe, which includes us, and, especially in this context, our brains. However there is no evidence that this God even exists.

4) What on earth do you mean by 'opportunity' in this scenario? You have argued that this God determines everything, hence we have no 'opportunity' at all. God decides whether we will follow his wishes or go against them in some way. Incidentally, I would also suggest that by following the God path, this in itself could be described as yet another self centred idea.

5) Your last part seems to me to be pure waffle. How on earth does one 'unite with the divine state' when there is no evidence that it exists at all. You might think you are doing so, and that might well be enough for you, but it has no significance in any objective sense.


You originally said that the' Christian approach has a slightly different logic'. I agree that the Christian approach is generally different, but not exactly logical at all. Then you said that the choice is between two deterministic systems.Finally you suggested that 'self sacrifice results in alignment with the latter'(God centred).
You tell me where the different logic applies?  'Alignment' is just another way of saying that you make a choice. hence the same logic must apply to that choice I.E.
Unless it is as the result of a deterministic system, then it has to be random.

1&2)Yes, I agree from a human perspective random is a reasonable default position if determining factors cannot be ascertained.  What I am suggesting is that from a particular religious perspective, an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God determines all and random does not feature.

3)Ah, this is where it gets tricky because it depends upon how you identify 'we' and 'us'.  If you identify them with the body and mental structure then they will exercise 'self' determination and if this does not attune with God's will then you face the consequences.  If there is an omnipresent God then that presence will be within 'we' and 'us' (known as the Holy Spirit) and if you identify with that then you are attuned to divine determination and free from self determination.

4)On earth, it means that part of God's determination is that you have the opportunity to 'ascend' to the divine identity and cease attachment to the earthly one.  As you say, it can become yet another self centred idea and those are the temptations to be aware of during the process as Jesus was.

5)Well, I'll bow to your expertise on waffle but I would class it as impure waffle rather than pure.  To try to answer your question though, I think you are right that there is no evidence and no objectivity suitable for an enquiring mind which is why the Jesus method (as I see it) is an invitation to venture 'beyond mind' to discover/uncover the subject 'I'.  To a Christian, this explanation would probably be classed as toasted waffle.

[Enki]

1&2)Yes, I agree from a human perspective random is a reasonable default position if determining factors cannot be ascertained.  What I am suggesting is that from a particular religious perspective, an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God determines all and random does not feature.

3)Ah, this is where it gets tricky because it depends upon how you identify 'we' and 'us'.  If you identify them with the body and mental structure then they will exercise 'self' determination and if this does not attune with God's will then you face the consequences.  If there is an omnipresent God then that presence will be within 'we' and 'us' (known as the Holy Spirit) and if you identify with that then you are attuned to divine determination and free from self determination.

4)On earth, it means that part of God's determination is that you have the opportunity to 'ascend' to the divine identity and cease attachment to the earthly one.  As you say, it can become yet another self centred idea and those are the temptations to be aware of during the process as Jesus was.

5)Well, I'll bow to your expertise on waffle but I would class it as impure waffle rather than pure.  To try to answer your question though, I think you are right that there is no evidence and no objectivity suitable for an enquiring mind which is why the Jesus method (as I see it) is an invitation to venture 'beyond mind' to discover/uncover the subject 'I'.  To a Christian, this explanation would probably be classed as toasted waffle.

Passing over points 1 and 2 which you seem to have no problem with, let's deal first with point 3

You said very clearly that 'all is determined by an omnipresent God'. You didn't suggest there were exceptions. Hence any entity exercising self determination will therefore be ultimately exercising the determination of God. Whether one is described as being'attuned to divine determination'  or 'self determination'. It logically follows from your original statement. It doesn't matter at all how you identify 'we' and 'us', they are encompassed by the 'all' in your original statement.

And now point 4

This 'opportunity' you speak of is, in fact, no opportunity at all because, as you suggested, everything is determined by God. Hence whatever path you decide is in fact the only one you could take. On the other hand if you dispense with this god idea then your opportunity simply becomes a choice, and you are back to the idea  that choices(in this scenario) are either a result of a deterministic universe(no god needed) or a result of randomness, which was my original point in reply 25820.

As regards the waffle idea, you seem to be adding to it when you are suggesting that it is an 'invitation to venture beyond mind to discover/uncover the subject 'I''. It sounds very imposing, but what does that actually mean? All the evidence suggests that our minds are a product of our brains, and the sense of self is encapsulated in our minds. To suggest that there is a 'beyond' suggests some sort of immaterial/spiritual entity/dimension somewhere which will allow us to discover ourselves in some way and that entity/dimension is completely divorced from our minds. There is no evidence whatever that such an entity/dimension exists, or that it is even possible to go 'beyond our mind'. Indeed, the phrase 'beyond our mind' seems to be some sort of cliche ridden attempt to express an emotional attitude which seems to me to be very definitely part of the human mind. To put it into a nutshell(rather than toasted waffle) the only 'beyond human minds' that I recognise as having some sort of significance is the death of the human mind, and all the evidence so far points to the  conclusion that the 'beyond' is  some sort of oblivion.

[ekim]

(1)  You said very clearly that 'all is determined by an omnipresent God'. You didn't suggest there were exceptions. Hence any entity exercising self determination will therefore be ultimately exercising the determination of God. Whether one is described as being'attuned to divine determination'  or 'self determination'. It logically follows from your original statement. It doesn't matter at all how you identify 'we' and 'us', they are encompassed by the 'all' in your original statement.

(2)  This 'opportunity' you speak of is, in fact, no opportunity at all because, as you suggested, everything is determined by God. Hence whatever path you decide is in fact the only one you could take. On the other hand if you dispense with this god idea then your opportunity simply becomes a choice, and you are back to the idea  that choices(in this scenario) are either a result of a deterministic universe(no god needed) or a result of randomness, which was my original point in reply 25820.

(3)  As regards the waffle idea, you seem to be adding to it when you are suggesting that it is an 'invitation to venture beyond mind to discover/uncover the subject 'I''. It sounds very imposing, but what does that actually mean? All the evidence suggests that our minds are a product of our brains, and the sense of self is encapsulated in our minds. To suggest that there is a 'beyond' suggests some sort of immaterial/spiritual entity/dimension somewhere which will allow us to discover ourselves in some way and that entity/dimension is completely divorced from our minds. There is no evidence whatever that such an entity/dimension exists, or that it is even possible to go 'beyond our mind'. Indeed, the phrase 'beyond our mind' seems to be some sort of cliche ridden attempt to express an emotional attitude which seems to me to be very definitely part of the human mind. To put it into a nutshell(rather than toasted waffle) the only 'beyond human minds' that I recognise as having some sort of significance is the death of the human mind, and all the evidence so far points to the  conclusion that the 'beyond' is  some sort of oblivion.

(1)Your logical conclusion follows from either a misunderstanding of what I am trying to say or my inability to phrase it appropriately.  The exception is God the initiator, which is said to be within the body of man as 'spirit' or to use the Hebrew idiom 'Son of God'.  Identifying with that as opposed to what constitutes the ego/self allows freedom from 'self'determination, self centredness etc.

(2)You may be right, but if God is determined that all should have that opportunity and freedom to return to the 'straight and narrow', who knows.

(3) You do like to try to put people down, don't you, something I didn't expect from you.  However, I'll try to answer your question, just in case you or anybody is interested.  To do so, I have to put my spin on the New Testament Greek word 'metanoia' as meaning 'meta' - inwardly beyond and 'noia - mind' as opposed to 'repentance'.  Yes you are right that there is no evidence that would satisfy a thinking conceptualising mind.  This is probably where you have to take a leap of faith and carry out whatever method is suggested to discover an inner stillness free from cliches, secondhand information, emotional attitudes, etc. that you mention and discover/uncover your own 'evidence'.  If you have settled on 'oblivion' that's fine, it saves wasting time on discussion or exploration (?inploration).

[Enki]

(1)Your logical conclusion follows from either a misunderstanding of what I am trying to say or my inability to phrase it appropriately.  The exception is God the initiator, which is said to be within the body of man as 'spirit' or to use the Hebrew idiom 'Son of God'.  Identifying with that as opposed to what constitutes the ego/self allows freedom from 'self'determination, self centredness etc.

(2)You may be right, but if God is determined that all should have that opportunity and freedom to return to the 'straight and narrow', who knows.

(3) You do like to try to put people down, don't you, something I didn't expect from you.  However, I'll try to answer your question, just in case you or anybody is interested.  To do so, I have to put my spin on the New Testament Greek word 'metanoia' as meaning 'meta' - inwardly beyond and 'noia - mind' as opposed to 'repentance'.  Yes you are right that there is no evidence that would satisfy a thinking conceptualising mind.  This is probably where you have to take a leap of faith and carry out whatever method is suggested to discover an inner stillness free from cliches, secondhand information, emotional attitudes, etc. that you mention and discover/uncover your own 'evidence'.  If you have settled on 'oblivion' that's fine, it saves wasting time on discussion or exploration (?inploration).

Nope, not trying to put you down at all, just expressing my opinions with, hopefully, a little logic. You always have the opportunity to point out any mistakes I make. I would have it no other way.

If the only exception is God himself, then it follows that whatever path we choose was determined by God.

Inner stillness I quite accept, but not that it is a state 'beyond mind' simply because there is not the slightest evidence to suggest that there is a state beyond mind.

[Dicky Underpants]

You do like to try to put people down, don't you, something I didn't expect from you.  However, I'll try to answer your question, just in case you or anybody is interested.  To do so, I have to put my spin on the New Testament Greek word 'metanoia' as meaning 'meta' - inwardly beyond and 'noia - mind' as opposed to 'repentance'.  Yes you are right that there is no evidence that would satisfy a thinking conceptualising mind.  This is probably where you have to take a leap of faith and carry out whatever method is suggested to discover an inner stillness free from cliches, secondhand information, emotional attitudes, etc. that you mention and discover/uncover your own 'evidence'.  If you have settled on 'oblivion' that's fine, it saves wasting time on discussion or exploration (?inploration).

ekim

Luther* would certainly have been interested in your interpretation of metanoia. He took exception to the way this word was being used in the Catholic Church to mean "doing penance". He insisted that it really meant to change one's attitudes and outlook completely, not just to whip yourself or go on long pilgrimages. The particle meta may indeed have  'beyond' as one of its meanings, but in compound words it seems to imply 'change'.
And as enki says, there isn't any state 'beyond' the mind - though there may indeed be techniques to slow down obsessive and pointless trains of thought.

*Pity he didn't apply this to his own anti-semitism, racist git that he was.

[ekim]

ekim

Luther* would certainly have been interested in your interpretation of metanoia. He took exception to the way this word was being used in the Catholic Church to mean "doing penance". He insisted that it really meant to change one's attitudes and outlook completely, not just to whip yourself or go on long pilgrimages. The particle meta may indeed have  'beyond' as one of its meanings, but in compound words it seems to imply 'change'.
And as enki says, there isn't any state 'beyond' the mind - though there may indeed be techniques to slow down obsessive and pointless trains of thought.

*Pity he didn't apply this to his own anti-semitism, racist git that he was.

Yes, language is a problem when endeavouring to convey inner experiences of this nature which is why analogies are often used.  Even the word 'state' implies a static condition and inner stillness is not the same as inner deadness.  Words like 'heaven' and 'paradise' have taken on many characteristics which I don't think was intended.  I seem to remember one etymological dictionary stating the word 'paradise' originated from Greek paradeisos meaning 'beyond form'.  When you think of all the rancour that has gone on in promoting methods towards inner peace or whatever other word is used, it makes me wonder why bother.  A simple 'Pull up the ladder Jack, I'm alright' would be a temptation, but that would be a hell of an idea.

[SteveH]

We all know perfectly well that we have free will.
It is impossible to demonstrate free-will in purely naturalistic terms.
Therefore, God.
QED. (Quite Easily Done.)

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

We all know perfectly well that we have free will.

Who's "we" and what do you mean by "free" will?

It is impossible to demonstrate free-will in purely naturalistic terms.

What makes you think it's impossible to demonstrate in naturalistic terms?
 

Therefore, God.

How on earth did you make that leap, what do you mean by "God" and how is it exempt from both determinism and randomness?

QED. (Quite Easily Done.)

Question Evading Drivel perhaps?

Coda: On the bright side, I enjoyed the 1950s cycling video though.

[SteveH]

SteveH,

Coda: On the bright side, I enjoyed the 1950s cycling video though.

Good!

[Alan Burns]

Over this Easter season I have become more aware than ever of my deepening relationship with God.  Words of scripture take on more profound meanings.  Twice during the past week I have come across these words from John 14:27 - " … a peace that the world cannot give".  No matter what troubles and strife this world brings me to endure, the peace and joy which comes from knowing God's love is always present.  A peace that the world cannot give.  A peace which I am certain cannot come from physically predetermined activity in my material brain.

So I pray that this peace will be found by many more people.

[jeremyp]

We all know perfectly well that we have free will.

No we don't. Some of us believe we have free will, others realise it can't exist.

[SteveH]

No we don't. Some of us believe we have free will, others realise it can't exist.

If we have no free will, we can never know it, because we were destined from all eternity to believe what we believe, and logic has nothing to do with it. "Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.” George Orwell. "We know our wills are free, and there's an end on't." Samuel Johnson