Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

If it's based on a reason, it's determined. If it's not determined, it's not based on a reason.

I have always claimed that human will is determined - by the power of our human soul.

[Nearly Sane]

I have always claimed that human will is determined - by the power of our human soul.

It doesn't really matter if you've claimed it was powered by Mighty Mouse, the logic applies.

[Nearly Sane]

So what do you suppose was the source which brought our universe into existence?
Or do you honestly believe it just popped into existence from nothing?
Or do you believe in the Stephen Hawkins theory that the law of gravity somehow brought it into existence - but then what was the source of the law of gravity?
There needs to be an ultimate eternal source from which everything emanates - nothing else makes sense.

I don't know. The problem you have is that you are contradicting your own logic. If things in existence need a source, as you claim, then your god that you think exists would need a source. If your god doesn't need a source, then things that exist don't need a source. Both positions cannot be true therefore your argument fails logically.

[Sebastian Toe]

So what do you suppose was the source which brought our universe into existence?
Or do you honestly believe it just popped into existence from nothing?

God isn't a physical being if I understand your beliefs, is that correct?

[torridon]

The evidence for God is truly overwhelming.

We haven't found any evidence for God yet.  Science started out long back as the search for evidence of the divine through empirical methods, but they gave up on that long ago.  If we had found evidence, then we would have God Theory already, encompassing the findings and results from that area of research.  It's not there.

[torridon]

Not sure what version of free will you consider to make no sense - perhaps it is the straw man version, total freedom with no constraints.

The commonly accepted version of human free will is that which was illustrated by professor John Lennox in the clip I gave a few posts back.  It is simply the freedom to choose between two or more feasible alternatives which exist in your conscious awareness.  This makes sense to me as it reflects  the reality I exist in.

No one disputes that humans make choices.  Whales make choices too, so do penguins and tree frogs.  But what we cannot do is make choices that are free of influence.  It is the influences acting upon us that determine our choices.  You might like to believe that you freely chose to follow a christian path.  But had you been born in Islamabad, then doubtless you would be banging on about the Pillars of Islam now and disdaining all talk of the divinity of Christ.  That freedom you like to believe in, it is something of an illusion.

[Alan Burns]

No one disputes that humans make choices.  Whales make choices too, so do penguins and tree frogs.  But what we cannot do is make choices that are free of influence.  It is the influences acting upon us that determine our choices.  You might like to believe that you freely chose to follow a christian path.  But had you been born in Islamabad, then doubtless you would be banging on about the Pillars of Islam now and disdaining all talk of the divinity of Christ.  That freedom you like to believe in, it is something of an illusion.

Our freedom to choose is simply the ability to consciously choose between two or more feasible options within our conscious awareness.  The choice is not driven by material reactions beyond our control - that would be reaction not choice.  Our power to choose comes from our spiritual self - not the reactions of a material brain.  Of course we are aware of reasons and influences - but we still have the final choice.

[Nearly Sane]

No one disputes that humans make choices.  Whales make choices too, so do penguins and tree frogs.  But what we cannot do is make choices that are free of influence.  It is the influences acting upon us that determine our choices.  You might like to believe that you freely chose to follow a christian path.  But had you been born in Islamabad, then doubtless you would be banging on about the Pillars of Islam now and disdaining all talk of the divinity of Christ.  That freedom you like to believe in, it is something of an illusion.

I think the question though would be for many if that is a choice in a real sense. A stone running down a hill will go in one direction amongst many possible but other than figuratively, we would not think of the stone making a 'choice'. Although there is a feedback loop of that we have experience of going through, the 'choice' that is made is equovaleny to the stone's route.

[Gordon]

Our freedom to choose is simply the ability to consciously choose between two or more feasible options within our conscious awareness.

Not sure it is quite so simple, Alan, since you have no control of what options are possible: you are only aware of those that make it into your 'conscious awareness'. Might it be that your inherent unconscious traits have an influence here by either suppressing or promoting only those possible options that accord with these traits?

The choice is not driven by material reactions beyond our control - that would be reaction not choice.

A choice is a reaction, and since it involves biology it is also a material process.

Our power to choose comes from our spiritual self - not the reactions of a material brain.  Of course we are aware of reasons and influences - but we still have the final choice.

Hogwash.

[Nearly Sane]

Our freedom to choose is simply the ability to consciously choose between two or more feasible options within our conscious awareness.  The choice is not driven by material reactions beyond our control - that would be reaction not choice.  Our power to choose comes from our spiritual self - not the reactions of a material brain.  Of course we are aware of reasons and influences - but we still have the final choice.

And absent of reasons, which you have again excluded in that 'final choice', why choose one way or another?

[Alan Burns]

And absent of reasons, which you have again excluded in that 'final choice', why choose one way or another?

No
Reasons and influences exist.  We are consciously aware of them, but we are not entirely driven by them.  We have the final choice - we are not robots.

[Alan Burns]

We haven't found any evidence for God yet.  Science started out long back as the search for evidence of the divine through empirical methods, but they gave up on that long ago.  If we had found evidence, then we would have God Theory already, encompassing the findings and results from that area of research.  It's not there.

What brought things into existence?
What is responsible for the laws of physics and chemistry?
What is responsible for the incredible fine tuning of the forces and materials needed to bring life into existence?
What facilitated the billions of beneficial mutations which brought us into existence?
What inspired the human race to seek reason and purpose beyond mere survival?
Discovering how things work does not exclude evidence of the God who made things work and who has made Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

[ekim]

Reasons and influences exist.  We are consciously aware of them, but we are not entirely driven by them.  We have the final choice - we are not robots.

I don't think the ability to choose is being questioned but you need to demonstrate that the choice is free from a desire to make such a choice i.e. answer NS's question 'why choose one way or another?'

[Nearly Sane]

No
Reasons and influences exist.  We are consciously aware of them, but we are not entirely driven by them.  We have the final choice - we are not robots.

Which isn't an answer to the question. When you write 'Of course we are aware of reasons and influences - but we still have the final choice', you are saying that the 'final choice' is about something beyond those 'reasons and influences', so why make the particular choice?

[Gordon]

What brought things into existence?

You're begging the question here, since your premise implies an agent (the 'what') and since an agent is your preferred conclusion.

What is responsible for the laws of physics and chemistry?
What is responsible for the incredible fine tuning of the forces and materials needed to bring life into existence?
What facilitated the billions of beneficial mutations which brought us into existence?
What inspired the human race to seek reason and purpose beyond mere survival?

These all seem to be further examples of begging the question, and by being fallacious they are meaningless propositions that can simply be dismissed out of hand.

Discovering how things work does not exclude evidence of the God who made things work

You have no evidence for 'God' anyway, and you're again begging the question. Knowing something about how 'a' works does not imply that 'b' is therefore a valid proposition: seems like you've strayed into a non sequitur here.

and who has made Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

So the superstition goes.

[Alan Burns]

Which isn't an answer to the question. When you write 'Of course we are aware of reasons and influences - but we still have the final choice', you are saying that the 'final choice' is about something beyond those 'reasons and influences', so why make the particular choice?

I was simply trying to point out the difference between conscious choice and unavoidable instinctive reaction.
We are consciously aware of reasons before we make a choice.
We have the conscious freedom to choose how, when and where to respond to those reasons - and we are free to ignore them if we so wish.
In the materialist scenario, reasons will be defined by unavoidable chemical reactions in our brain, and our conscious awareness of them will be irrelevant to the consequences of these reactions.
In reality, our conscious awareness allows us to contemplate reasons and consider how to act upon them.

[Nearly Sane]

I was simply trying to point out the difference between conscious choice and unavoidable instinctive reaction.
We are consciously aware of reasons before we make a choice.
We have the conscious freedom to choose how, when and where to respond to those reasons - and we are free to ignore them if we so wish.
In the materialist scenario, reasons will be defined by unavoidable chemical reactions in our brain, and our conscious awareness of them will be irrelevant to the consequences of these reactions.
In reality, our conscious awareness allows us to contemplate reasons and consider how to act upon them.

And still no answer. If the reasons and influences are things acted upon, why do we choose to act upon them in the particular way?

[Outrider]

God is the ultimate source of all that exists.

Even if you could demonstrate that physical reality requires an 'ultimate source', that does nothing to show that your god is it.

There has to be an ultimate source - otherwise there would be infinite regress over what is the source of the source of the source .....

And why is that a problem?

O.

[Maeght]

What brought things into existence?
What is responsible for the laws of physics and chemistry?
What is responsible for the incredible fine tuning of the forces and materials needed to bring life into existence?
What facilitated the billions of beneficial mutations which brought us into existence?
What inspired the human race to seek reason and purpose beyond mere survival?
Discovering how things work does not exclude evidence of the God who made things work and who has made Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

There are things we don't currently know. That doesn't mean we can just therefore say that your God did it.

[Alan Burns]

And why is that a problem?

O.

The problem is that we perceive everything to be within the time dimension we experience in our universe, which leads us to the infinite regress of things going back in time without end.  We find it difficult to comprehend anything outside of this time dimension, but the Christian Gospel gives us an insight into the ever present state of God -  “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 8:58
Having a single source of creation outside of time makes more sense than an infinite regress of sources.

[ProfessorDavey]

The problem is that we perceive everything to be within the time dimension we experience in our universe, which leads us to the infinite regress of things going back in time without end.  We find it difficult to comprehend anything outside of this time dimension, but the Christian Gospel gives us an insight into the ever present state of God -  “before Abraham was born, I am!” John 8:58
Having a single source of creation outside of time makes more sense than an infinite regress of sources.

To an extent I agree with you - on the basis that humans often find it challenging to consider time as anything other that unidirectional (going in one direction only) and constant (the passage of time is the same all the time). Neither of these things are necessarily true in a physics sense and are product of our observations.

But then you go and blow it with self centred anthropocentric non-sense, that sees time on the basis of humans and when individual humans live. In a cosmic time sense humans (including Abraham) are a complete irrelevance.

[Enki]

What brought things into existence?

If existence is in some sense infinite, then the question of what created it becomes somewhat meaningless.

However, if  there is a valid answer to that question, my answer is 'I don't know'. and nor do you actually. No doubt you would seek to assert your God as your answer, but as you seem totally incapable of giving any valid evidence for the existence of this God of yours, I have to come to the conclusion that you haven't any evidence and your God only becomes one of many possibilities. indeed, as others have noted, you shoot yourself in the foot by suggesting that everything that exists has a source and then being totally unable to respond to the logic that if your God exists then He must  also logically have a source.  Your pitiful response of Him being the ultimate source is simply special pleading and defies the logic that you have attempted to create.

What is responsible for the laws of physics and chemistry?

See previous response.

What is responsible for the incredible fine tuning of the forces and materials needed to bring life into existence?

It would only be incredible if there were not a vast amount of scenarios where it were possible and that we do not know. Also, it is pretty obvious that the only awareness of such a phenomenon would be exactly where life existed. (See Douglas Adams Puddle Analogy)

What facilitated the billions of beneficial mutations which brought us into existence?

Darwinian evolution is a perfectly valid response here, with plenty of evidence to support it.

What inspired the human race to seek reason and purpose beyond mere survival?

Although there are many different ideas on how our sense of reasoning and purpose developed, I would suggest that its origins lie in the complexities of our brains shaped by evolutionary processes to enable us better to survive, especially in group situations.

Discovering how things work does not exclude evidence of the God who made things work and who has made Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ.

Of course it doesn't, but this statement posits a God where there is no valid evidence that such a Being exists. As for Jesus, I take the view that there probably was an itinerant and charismatic preacher who formed the basis of the Gospels, but, as to Him being God or the son of God, no evidence whatever.

[Alan Burns]

But then you go and blow it with self centred anthropocentric non-sense, that sees time on the basis of humans and when individual humans live. In a cosmic time sense humans (including Abraham) are a complete irrelevance.

The Bible quotation referred to the ever present state of God .  It referred to a past event (before the birth of Abraham) in our universe time line where God exists in His present state - ("I am").

[Sebastian Toe]

What brought things into existence?

Assuming that your God did this thing.
When did he do it and what did he create existence from?

[torridon]

Can you not see the obvious evidence in your own capabilities - your conscious freedom which you deliberately employ to think up reasons to justify your preferred materialistic scenario which denies the power of God and our own spiritual freedom to consciously shape the world we live in rather than just inevitably react to it?

I have no doubt that you will once more demonstrate your own conscious control by performing mental gymnastics to think up yet more reasons to tell me I have it all wrong and that I cannot possibly have any conscious control over what I think, do or say.

I asked for evidence, and all you do is again repeat your beliefs or your perception.  That is not evidence. Try again, if you know of some piece of research that supports your claim that rational reasoning cannot possibly result from the laws of nature, then post up a link so it can be considered.