The iniquity of the Catholic church

[Sebastian Toe]

Temptation

And how exactly does he go about applying temptation?

[Alan Burns]

And how exactly does he go about applying temptation?

We all experience the temptation to do what we know to be wrong.  Can you define the source of this temptation?  Can you demonstrate that it does not originate from an evil source which tries to separate us from God?  The nature of temptation is described very well in the bible, and I can see no logical reason to explain it's source other than that described in the bible.  C. S. Lewis describes it very well in his book "The Screwtape Letters".

[Sebastian Toe]

We all experience the temptation to do what we know to be wrong.  Can you define the source of this temptation?  Can you demonstrate that it does not originate from an evil source which tries to separate us from God?  The nature of temptation is described very well in the bible, and I can see no logical reason to explain it's source other than that described in the bible.  C. S. Lewis describes it very well in his book "The Screwtape Letters".

All very nice  but how does he do it exactly?
Which was after all, my question!

[Gordon]

We all experience the temptation to do what we know to be wrong.  Can you define the source of this temptation?

Your biology.

Can you demonstrate that it does not originate from an evil source which tries to separate us from God?

First NPF of the day.

The nature of temptation is described very well in the bible, and I can see no logical reason to explain it's source other than that described in the bible.  C. S. Lewis describes it very well in his book "The Screwtape Letters".

You could try thinking for yourself instead of using an argument from authority (be it the Bible or the fantastical fiction of Lewis).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your biology.

That's almost an ''original sin'' theory isnt it?

[Gordon]

That's almost an ''original sin'' theory isnt it?

Not in the slightest, Vlad.

[Alan Burns]

Your biology.

And what is the biological definition of temptation?

[Sassy]

We all experience the temptation to do what we know to be wrong.  Can you define the source of this temptation?  Can you demonstrate that it does not originate from an evil source which tries to separate us from God?  The nature of temptation is described very well in the bible, and I can see no logical reason to explain it's source other than that described in the bible.  C. S. Lewis describes it very well in his book "The Screwtape Letters".

Alan,

Everyone experiences temptations. But how does Satan with Christians ever win?

If we have been given the power to overcome the enemy who really is the only persons at risk?

[Alan Burns]

All very nice  but how does he do it exactly?
Which was after all, my question!

We have no knowledge of how thought processes work, how they are perceived or where they originate from in scientific terms.   If you are demanding a scientific explanation of what drives our thought processes you will not find one.  The closest I can get to answering your question is to point to the quantum events occurring in your brain which have no discernible cause, as this could be the gateway for spiritual interaction, be it from your own soul, or the wilful temptation of Satan.

[Gordon]

And what is the biological definition of temptation?

It is just thinking, Alan.

'Temptation' is a label that you might ascribe to your subjective thinking regarding any personal inclination you have to do something you may also subjectively regard as being questionable, ideally best avoided or plain wrong: your ability to think on those lines, or think at all for that matter, is a feature of the relevant bits of your biology.

[floo]

I don't know why poor old Satan gets the blame, it is Biblical god who supposedly created human nature so it is to blame for human wrongdoing.

[Gordon]

We have no knowledge of how thought processes work, how they are perceived or where they originate from in scientific terms.   If you are demanding a scientific explanation of what drives our thought processes you will not find one.

No doubt there is more yet to be learned but I think you'll find that thinking requires a functioning brain, without which there is no thinking.

The closest I can get to answering your question is to point to the quantum events occurring in your brain which have no discernible cause, as this could be the gateway for spiritual interaction, be it from your own soul, or the wilful temptation of Satan.

Assertion: this would be your personal incredulity at work again.

[Alan Burns]

You could try thinking for yourself instead of using an argument from authority (be it the Bible or the fantastical fiction of Lewis).

I certainly do think for myself, and I quote the bible and Lewis because they concur with my own thought processes.  Materialist arguments come nowhere near.

[Nearly Sane]

I certainly do think for myself, and I quote the bible and Lewis because they concur with my own thought processes.  Materialist arguments come nowhere near.

can you outline the methodology for a non materialist argument?

[Alan Burns]

No doubt there is more yet to be learned but I think you'll find that thinking requires a functioning brain, without which there is no thinking.

Until you can define what a thought is, you can't assert that it requires a functioning brain.  Thoughts may well interact with the physical brain to produce measurable brain activity, but this in no way defines the origin or nature of thought.

[Nearly Sane]

Until you can define what a thought is, you can't assert that it requires a functioning brain.  Thoughts may well interact with the physical brain to produce measurable brain activity, but this in no way defines the origin or nature of thought.

All examples of thoughts that we know of occur in minds. Can you show an example of ones happening not in minds?

[floo]

Surely only a brain is capable of thought? The brains of animals of other species can think to a certain extent too, imo.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not in the slightest, Vlad.

In the absence of Gordon explaining himself let me outline where he is wrong.

Both original sin and Gordon confirrm there is such a thing as evil. Gordon accepts this by saying biology is the cause of temptation to it.

Both original sin and Gordon state that we are born with a bias toward temptation.

Gordon is therefore wrong to say there is no link between his assertion of biology and original sin.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

can you outline the methodology for a non materialist argument?

Why is this important to you?

[Nearly Sane]

In the absence of Gordon explaining himself let me outline where he is wrong.

Both original sin and Gordon confirrm there is such a thing as evil. Gordon accepts this by saying biology is the cause of temptation to it.

Both original sin and Gordon state that we are born with a bias toward temptation.

Gordon is therefore wrong to say there is no link between his assertion of biology and original sin.

Gordon hasn't said there is such a thing as evil in the objective sense you are using here. I suggest you apologise for your misrepresentation.

[Nearly Sane]

Why is this important to you?

why is what important to me?

[Gordon]

Until you can define what a thought is, you can't assert that it requires a functioning brain.

I'd suggest that thinking involves some neurological activity, and I suspect that those studying brain function tend to avoid people with non-functioning brains since they tend to be dead. The please explain how I can think in the absence of a functioning brain.

Thoughts may well interact with the physical brain to produce measurable brain activity, but this in no way defines the origin or nature of thought.

Then you'll be able to advise on the details of the source and origin of thoughts and this 'interaction' with the brain, including the methods used to support this claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon hasn't said there is such a thing as evil in the objective sense you are using here. I suggest you apologise for your misrepresentation.

I don't believe I used the words ''Evil in the objective sense''. I suggest you apologise for your misrepresentaion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

why is what important to me?

That there is a methodology for non materialist argument.

[wigginhall]

Until you can define what a thought is, you can't assert that it requires a functioning brain.  Thoughts may well interact with the physical brain to produce measurable brain activity, but this in no way defines the origin or nature of thought.

Well, there is plenty of research in neuroscience on the relation between brain activity, and things such as memory, feelings, emotions, thinking, decisions, and so on.   For example, some kinds of brain damage seem to show an impairment in these processes, e.g. loss of memory, difficulty in thinking, emotional disturbance.  Are you saying that there is plenty of research into the non-material aspects of thinking?  Citation?