For the sake of argument, let's say God exists

[Upisoft]

God exists.

 

[Ar Cosc]

How many Greco-Roman-Egyptian-Norse Gods said thou shall put no other God before me? How many dare make that claim?

You're still working on the assumption that the bible is true. How many people has God killed with his thunderbolts? I can pull up several eyewitness accounts of Zeus doing just that. Why believe the bible, and not these accounts of Zeus's divinity?

You add Biblical Historocity to the mix and it's not even a close race for what text could have the claim for being the inspired word of God.

Troy is a real place, and it has been destroyed several times. This confirms the historicity of the Aeneiad, and the existence of the Greek Gods.

And of course, the historical facts in the Qu'ran are also highly accurate.

Because the God of the Bible is the ONLY God and He has said that He was the Creator of all. The only leap is to believe what God says. Not hard!! It's a leap of faith and that is enough!!

Oh, and by they way, you have it backward. First we believe the God of the Bible and then we believe what He says about being the Creator.

But why believe this god when he says he's the only God, and that he exists, and not any of the others? It seems a fairly arbitrary choice. Of course, you're free to make any leaps of faith that you want, but my issue is with those people who refuse to admit that they are just making a comparitively blind choice. Definitely not one they could ever be sure enough about to legitimately justify legislating their unsupported biblical morality on the population at large.

 

[Greg1234]

You're still working on the assumption that the bible is true. How many people has God killed with his thunderbolts? I can pull up several eyewitness accounts of Zeus doing just that. Why believe the bible, and not these accounts of Zeus's divinity?

Pertaining to materialism, it is just as much of an assumption that the bible is true as it is for official texts on radio waves. These texts on radio waves are uncovered 3000 years from now and the properties of said are being derived through instruction.

Whether or not you study each cell phone or the cell phones of different companies is irrelevant given that a belief in the existence of radio waves is what you deny.

Troy is a real place, and it has been destroyed several times. This confirms the historicity of the Aeneiad, and the existence of the Greek Gods.

And of course, the historical facts in the Qu'ran are also highly accurate.

No problem with that. In recognition of the shifting tides of the covenant, ancient religions are not lost or dead, but are refined and integrated through new laws making any adherence to religions dead and refined, redundant and unnecessary. Read Hebrews 5-10 for an introduction. The formation of religions also comes into play through which the links are established.

But why believe this god when he says he's the only God, and that he exists, and not any of the others? It seems a fairly arbitrary choice. Of course, you're free to make any leaps of faith that you want, but my issue is with those people who refuse to admit that they are just making a comparitively blind choice.

There are different types and degrees of faith.

1) There is faith in the existence of radio waves. It is faith regardless of how much evidence is presented.

2) I have faith or belief that my sister will do what she has promised. This isn't faith in the existence of my sister and a belief in God is used the same way.

3) There is faith in the existence of Pyramid builders.

4) There is faith in official historical texts. Within these are the core elements which work no different than a manual on radio waves. They are just as much merely "words on a paper" as the "words on a paper" which links radio waves to radar. (Though visible scientists may vehemently compare it to fictional texts given that a future visible mechanism is believed) Then there are details which supplement the rest and together stand as official texts.

5) There is faith which is the fulfillment.

All these are employed with regards to God while materialism is addressed only through (1)

 

[Inan3]

You're still working on the assumption that the bible is true. How many people has God killed with his thunderbolts? I can pull up several eyewitness accounts of Zeus doing just that. Why believe the bible, and not these accounts of Zeus's divinity?

Troy is a real place, and it has been destroyed several times. This confirms the historicity of the Aeneiad, and the existence of the Greek Gods.

And of course, the historical facts in the Qu'ran are also highly accurate.

I would not dispute the historical facts in the Qu'ran or that Troy is a real place. What I do dispute is the veracity of the gods involved and the source of their powers. It has been shown that these mythical Greek gods were, in fact, men who actually lived and ruled with force over civilizations in Antiquity (using ungodly supernatural exploits and influences), and down through the years have been deified by their followers. Then along came the Greeks who thought themselves to be a more "sophisticated" society and so they explained these deities and their existence as mythical.

As to the Qu'ran Allah is no more than another false god who was originally the moon god of the region and time when Mohammed was a youth. He, too, got his information and revelation from ungodly supernatural influences. It's easy to find these facts out.

But why believe this god when he says he's the only God, and that he exists, and not any of the others? It seems a fairly arbitrary choice. Of course, you're free to make any leaps of faith that you want, but my issue is with those people who refuse to admit that they are just making a comparitively blind choice. Definitely not one they could ever be sure enough about to legitimately justify legislating their unsupported biblical morality on the population at large.

I guess I don't understand why God declaring to be the ONLY God would be a negative issue. I find that to make so much more sense than the contrary. If you understood how God thinks (and we can only do that by what He has said and by the Spirit of God), then you would see why. God has intelligence, honor, value and is the Creator of ALL flesh and when people worship pieces of wood and various metals, etc., (which can neither see, hear or think), and they attribute to these false and lying myths power and abilities of protection and creation that they do NOT have, and it is an affront to God's true power and being. If you had invented or created or wrote something, and someone else attributed it to themselves or gave the credit to others instead of you, you too, would speak up and make sure the truth was known. God knows Who He is and what He has done. He's not giving that place to something or someone who can neither protect nor help us in anyway. God is God and there are no other gods beside Him.

 

[Ar Cosc]

I would not dispute the historical facts in the Qu'ran or that Troy is a real place. What I do dispute is the veracity of the gods involved and the source of their powers. It has been shown that these mythical Greek gods were, in fact, men who actually lived and ruled with force over civilizations in Antiquity (using ungodly supernatural exploits and influences), and down through the years have been deified by their followers. Then along came the Greeks who thought themselves to be a more "sophisticated" society and so they explained these deities and their existence as mythical.

I'd be interested to see the sources for this, but with the greatest respect to you, I doubt it has been shown, so much as hypothesised.

As to the Qu'ran Allah is no more than another false god who was originally the moon god of the region and time when Mohammed was a youth. He, too, got his information and revelation from ungodly supernatural influences. It's easy to find these facts out.

Except they can't be called facts until they're corroborated by something. To my mind, Mohammed was just a warrior, who used the preexisting beliefs of the region to gain himself power and influence. There's no evidence to suggest that the bible doesn't come from a similar effort from the Israelites.

I guess I don't understand why God declaring to be the ONLY God would be a negative issue. I find that to make so much more sense than the contrary. If you understood how God thinks (and we can only do that by what He has said and by the Spirit of God), then you would see why. God has intelligence, honor, value and is the Creator of ALL flesh and when people worship pieces of wood and various metals, etc., (which can neither see, hear or think), and they attribute to these false and lying myths power and abilities of protection and creation that they do NOT have, and it is an affront to God's true power and being. If you had invented or created or wrote something, and someone else attributed it to themselves or gave the credit to others instead of you, you too, would speak up and make sure the truth was known. God knows Who He is and what He has done. He's not giving that place to something or someone who can neither protect nor help us in anyway. God is God and there are no other gods beside Him.

And that's just your belief, and you have every right to hold it. All I am saying is that, to an atheist, the bible is no more convincing than any number of other religious texts. They all claim to be true, many contain some sound moral guidance, and often various historical facts. However, only one of them can be true, so why pick this particular one over all the others?

 

[Doveaman]

Well as long as you move the goal posts to say that "will" is simply thinking of specific details of premeditation.

Perhaps you weren’t following the thread. No goal posts has been moved. The human “will” is the desires of the human mind and the choices we freely make to fulfill those desires, which includes the “will” to bake a chocolate cake on Christmas day and sharing that cake with your neighbors.

Technology isn't quite at that level of sophistication to create thoughts that specific (chocolate cake, Christmas, neighbors)

And it never will. That’s my prediction.

however, general emotions can be artificially reproduced in humans (hunger, selflessness) using a technique called TMS.

I didn't see the part on your TMS link about hunger and selfishness being reproduced. In any case, hunger and selfishness are natural human tendencies that can be easily manipulated, so no big deal.

What would be impressive is if the technique I capable of generating in the human mind a desire not to eat food despite being hungry or an unselfish desire to give up your pay check to a poor stranger. After all, this is what the human “will’ is capable of doing.

This part in the link caught my attention:

"If used on the occipital cortex, 'phosphenes' (flashes of light) might be perceived by the subject."

It's as if light can be seen without the need for eyes. Not all experiences need to be perceived through the human senses. There are some real experiences that can bypassed the human senses and be perceived directly in the mind.

There's even a helmet built in a lab using technology similar to TMS designed to give people the feeling they are in the presence of God -- and it actually works.

Presence of God? I doubt it. You cannot have a feeling of being in the presence of God unless you have a concept of God already. People may receive feelings but it has nothing to do with God, only their concept of God. I mean, which god do they feel? Can this “helmet” give a Muslim the feeling of being in the presence of the Christian God?

We can do this because scientists have a well enough understanding of the brain to do so.

But not a well enough understanding of the human “will”.

It stands to reason that a feeling as general as an increased desire for survival (which would be the will to live) may also be artificially produced. In fact, many drugs and other things that increase the excretion of adrenaline would be doing just that.

The drugs and other things may influence the desire, but they cannot produce the desire.

This is because the screen is created, and created by intelligent beings (humans). We know how they are built and how they work because we build them. The reason we know how it works is completely different than how we've developed our understanding of how the human brain works.

In other words, you don’t know how the human brain works. Got it.

Perhaps if you defined what you mean by "will" and stick with the same definition, you might get a clear answer. When I hear "will", I think it means a desire to succeed or live.

Don’t some people have the “will” to die too?

The "will" is any desire of the human mind and the mental choices we freely make to fulfill those desires through the acts of the body, like the “will” die and choosing to jump off a tall building to achieve the death instead of standing in front of an oncoming train.

You are now apparently saying that carrying out a series of specific planned actions (like baking and sharing cookies on xmas) is "will" -- which is simply a matter of organizing cognitive steps from memory.

Don’t you need the “will” to organize those steps?

 

[Doveaman]

I assumed you realize that some processes are more complex than others.

And if you cannot understand and explain the process then your claim fails.

And while we can't currently manipulate the processes of the brain FULLY, we have no reason to assume these processes unlike any other processes are anything bu physical, unless you have some evidence that shows they are more than physical.

Fair enough. And I have no reason to assume these processes are purely physical, unless you have some evidence that shows they are purely physical.

So, you have yet to do three things:
1) Define "human will"

The desires of the human mind and the mental choices we freely make to fulfill those desires through the acts of the body.

2) Show that this "human will" exists

Your “will” is at work when you desire to respond to my posts and you freely make choices to fulfill that desire, such as sitting at your computer, typing your choice of words, and submitting your posts in reply to me.

3) Show evidence that this "human will" is nonphysical.

You mean like scientific evidence? What kind of scientific evidence would you expect of the nonphysical? It’s far easier for you to show scientific evidence for your claim of the human “will” being a purely physical process, but yet you can’t.

The fact is, we are both making claims and you insist on me providing evidence for my claim even though you cannot provide evidence for yours.

Could it be that both our claims are based on “faith”?

You're misunderstanding the claim, Doveaman.

I doubt it.

The claim is as follows: We see neurons, we see brain, we see electric signals. Nothing else. All of those things are physical, right?

Yep.

We do NOT see the process of "human will" any more than we see the process "brewing" in a brewery, right?

But we can understand the process in a “brewery” and repeat it. Not a good analogy of the human “will”.

Now, you're claiming that "human will" somehow transcends what we can detect. Can we test this idea?

Can you test the Big Bang event? All we have are the effects of the Big Bang. You don’t have to test the event itself in order to show it to be false. Just provide a purely physically natural explanation for the human “will” and my claim will be shown to be false.

So, to summarize: We CANNOT, we are UNABLE TO, we are INCAPABLE of detecting anything that isn't physical and therefore, we CANNOT make a claim regarding the nonphysical. That's the claim.

Actually, your claim is that the human “will” in generated by a physical process through the physical components of the brain. If the human “will” is purely a physical process then you CAN, you are ABLE TO, and you are CAPABLE of testing this claim. So what teats have you done to support your claim? Let’s see the results.

If you believe you have evidence of the nonphysical, please present it, as we seem to be missing it at the moment.

And if you believe you have evidence of the human “will” being generated by a purely physical process, please present it, as we seem to be missing it at the moment.

 

[Doveaman]

How do I know there aren't literal windows in the sky, behind which are vast reservoirs of water, and every time it rains it's because somebody opens one of these literal windows, allowing the water to escape? Now you're just being ridiculous. If you honestly don't know how rain works, you have no place on a "physical and life sciences" discussion board.

So you know there are no literal windows in the sky through which rain falls because you can show a physically natural way in which rain falls, right? Great!

Perhaps you can do the same with my claim about the nonphysical “will”.

Demonstrate a physically natural way in which the human “will” is generated and my claim will be shown to be false.

 

[Doveaman]

I still don't even know what you mean by "will"!

The desires of the human mind and the mental choices we freely make to fulfill those desires through the acts of the body.

You need to provide evidence that your supernatural "will" exists.

Who said it was supernatural? It's the human "will", therefore it is not supernatural.

It doesn't matter if there is a physical reason (though I think there is), because even if we don't know a physical reason, the lack of a physical reason does not mean you are automatically right. You need evidence for your claims.

The fact that you have no physical reason, in addition to the below claim from a very reliable source, is reason enough for me:

“There is a spirit in man...For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him...the body without the spirit is dead” - Job 32:8, 1 Cor 2:11, James 2:26.

This claim predicts you will never have a purely physical reason for the human "will".

 

[Doveaman]

I have a prediction that is presently holding up -- Theists will never be capable of understanding how the human mind works because they are relying on the bible to explain something that man didn't entirely understand when it was written.

We know enough about the human mind to understand our purpose for having it in the first place.

Do you know enough about the human mind to satisfy your scientific curiosities?

Trollsgetswhatstrollswants.

Did you honestly think his statement deserved anything better?

My statement is that there is a nonphysical element to the human mind that generates the human "will". For this reason, scientists will never be capable of understanding how the human mind works because they are relying only on the physical to explain something that is not entirely physical.

You may not agree with this statement, but can you explain in what way am I being troll?

 

[Inan3]

I'd be interested to see the sources for this, but with the greatest respect to you, I doubt it has been shown, so much as hypothesised.

I would agree with that statement. As also are many things that we believe to be true. Here is a list of a few.

Nimrod - Who was he? Was he godly or evil? (WebBible™ Encyclopedia) - ChristianAnswers.Net
Deified Mortals of Greek Mythology THEOI.COM
The Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh
A dictionary of Greek and Roman ... - Google Books

Except they can't be called facts until they're corroborated by something. To my mind, Mohammed was just a warrior, who used the preexisting beliefs of the region to gain himself power and influence. There's no evidence to suggest that the bible doesn't come from a similar effort from the Israelites.

Here are some corroborations for you.
The alleged Ascension of Mohammed[bless and do not curse] to heaven
Test the Spirit

And that's just your belief, and you have every right to hold it. All I am saying is that, to an atheist, the bible is no more convincing than any number of other religious texts. They all claim to be true, many contain some sound moral guidance, and often various historical facts. However, only one of them can be true, so why pick this particular one over all the others?

At first I had no idea that I was even choosing one text over another. I had been just having thoughts of knowing what was in the Bible. I didn't think God would except me considering the life I lived but I did want to know more. I didn't go to church I just wanted to know more. I remember praying in my kitchen one day, or really just saying to God, "I know very little of your bible but I would like to know more." (I didn't even know there were other texts.) It wasn't until months later that I spoke to a social worker out of the blue and she told me that God loved me and sent His Son to die for me and that I merely had to accept that He had done this on my behalf and ask Him to forgive me and come into my life, I believed it and did what she said and from that moment till now my life was changed. I didn't know anything about the God of the Bible except what I was told that day in the social workers office and a few things I had learned along the way in my 21 years.

I know that I was changed in that moment. I didn't go to church or read the bible but I was changed. I went home and told my live-in boyfriend (now my husband) I could no longer sleep with him etc. and (I know this will sound like a cliche) I had a joy and peace within me that no religion or church had ever given to me. That was just the beginning though. I finally got into the Bible and have through it's guidance developed a relationship with the God of the Bible. He is unlike any other religions god. He is personal. He is relational. You can talk with Him and He talks to you. It is never condemning but always bringing you beyond your limits. He is there at all times.

It has been 40+ years now and there has not been ONE time I wanted to go back to a time without God. There is no better life then with Him. So NOW, after all these years, I still choose this particular text of the Bible, but now, for this one reason above all... because of the wonderful GOD of the Bible. There just is NO other god like the God of the Bible! and there is definitely no other truth like that in His Word. That's it... that's my honest answer.

 

[sandwiches]

Actually, your claim is that the human “will” in generated by a physical process through the physical components of the brain. If the human “will” is purely a physical process then you CAN, you are ABLE TO, and you are CAPABLE of testing this claim. So what teats have you done to support your claim? Let’s see the results.

I had a longer answer but this part seemed most interesting and to the point. What is it you're expecting as evidence? I could be mistaken, but I feel like nothing will satisfy you since the physical is not testable, you can always say that it's there but we can't simply can't detect it.

 

[Hespera]

I had a longer answer but this part seemed most interesting and to the point. What is it you're expecting as evidence? I could be mistaken, but I feel like nothing will satisfy you since the physical is not testable, you can always say that it's there but we can't simply can't detect it.

he can always duck behind "you cant prove it aint there"

Even the lowly amoeba has this same invisible 'will" apparently.

 

[Doveaman]

I had a longer answer but this part seemed most interesting and to the point. What is it you're expecting as evidence?

If you claim that the human “will’ is generated by a “physical process” in the brain then you will need to show how you arrived at that conclusion by demonstrating an empirical link between the “physical process” and the “will”. As it stands right now you don’t even know how the process works so how can you conclude it generates the human “will”? You are assuming stuff, aren't you?

I could be mistaken, but I feel like nothing will satisfy you since the physical is not testable,

I don’t know what you mean by “the physical is not testable”.

you can always say that it's there but we can't simply can't detect it.

You mean like "dark-energy" is there but we simply can't detect it?

Let's just say, for argument sake, that the human "will" is undetectable dark-energy and it accelerates the electric flows in the brain in order to 'expand' the human body.

On a more serious note:

If neurons in the brain are firing in specific patterns to generate the human “will” (desires and choices) then what is causing those neurons to fire in those specific patterns in the first place?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Let's just say, for argument sake, that the human "will" is undetectable dark-energy and it accelerates the electric flows in the brain in order to 'expand' the human body.

Why stop there? Why not say it's made of peanut butter?

If neurons in the brain are firing in specific patterns to generate the human “will” (desires and choices) then what is causing those neurons to fire in those specific patterns in the first place?

The same thing that makes that cloud overhead look like a bunny.

 

[sandwiches]

If you claim that the human “will’ is generated by a “physical process” in the brain then you will need to show how you arrived at that conclusion by demonstrating an empirical link between the “physical process” and the “will”. As it stands right now you don’t even know how the process works so how can you conclude it generates the human “will”? You are assuming stuff, aren't you?

Wel, the link can be demonstrated in a matter of seconds. If I bash on the head, you might lose your ability to recognize people, to speak, to remember, etc. The link is without a doubt there. No need for assumptions.

I don’t know what you mean by “the physical is not testable”.

Typo. I meant the 'nonphysical.'

You mean like "dark-energy" is there but we simply can't detect it?

But we can. Indirectly but we can.

Let's just say, for argument sake, that the human "will" is undetectable dark-energy and it accelerates the electric flows in the brain in order to 'expand' the human body.

That something we call the human will exists is not in question. That this something is nonphysical is what's relevant here.

On a more serious note:

If neurons in the brain are firing in specific patterns to generate the human “will” (desires and choices) then what is causing those neurons to fire in those specific patterns in the first place?

Since this would obviously lead to endless questions of "Then, what caused X? Then what caused Y? Then what caused Z?" I'll skip all that and admit that in the end, I don't know.

The problem I see with even trying to address this is that your argument is one of ignorance. "We don't know X, therefore magic." "You can't explain the mind, therefore it's nonphysical." "You can't fully control the "human will" therefore it's nonphysical." Et cetera. The reality is that all we've ever observed even remotely associated with "human will" is physical. Neurons, brains, electricity, EM fields, ions, etc and all you're saying is "How do you know there's not a nonphysical component?" Might as well ask "How do you know there is not an undetectable banana pudding component? Do you have evidence that there's no undetectable banana pudding behind consciousness?"

The process of consciousness differs from computer program only in its complexity. It's like claiming that since we don't fully understand how gravity works, it must be nonphysical. Why would we think that? Why should we assume there's something beyond what we can detect?

 

[Ar Cosc]

The fact that we don't know right now exactly how the human brain works is no more proof of the supernatural than the fact that 200 years ago, we didn't know exactly how lightning worked.

 

[Doveaman]

Why stop there? Why not say it's made of peanut butter?

Maybe you’re right. Maybe that dark, creamy stuff flowing out of your head isn’t really ear wax.

The same thing that makes that cloud overhead look like a bunny.

I dare you to show me a single cloud that looks like a bunny apart from our imagining it to be so.

Unless you are claiming that our “imagination” causes neurons in our brain to fire the way they do. But then you need to explain the physical process by which the “imagination” in generated in the first place, what’s the intelligent first cause behind it, because whatever that cause is it's certainly intelligent.

Which reminds me:

“There is a spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding...For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?” - Job 32:8, 1 Cor 2:11.

 

[Upisoft]

But then you need to explain the physical process by which the “imagination” in generated in the first place, what’s the intelligent first cause behind it, because whatever that cause is it's certainly intelligent.

How that follows?
I mean your "logic" is something like that:
"Whatever the first cause of snowflakes is, it is certainly snowflake like."

Someone in the past may had the same idea (and "logic") like you and said:
"Whatever the first cause of human is, it is certainly human like."
And there is God who crated the human in his image. Although god created in human image is quite more plausible.

“There is a spirit in man, the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding...For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?” - Job 32:8, 1 Cor 2:11.

In other words: "You don't know, therefore goddidit."
We know that argument. It is still futile.

 

[Doveaman]

Wel, the link can be demonstrated in a matter of seconds. If I bash on the head, you might lose your ability to recognize people, to speak, to remember, etc. The link is without a doubt there. No need for assumptions.

Since the human brain is the communication “pathway” of the human “will” then we would expect the “will” to be affected if the brain is damaged. That’s not a conclusive test showing that current flows in the brain generate the human "will" and not the other way around.

Typo. I meant the 'nonphysical.'
But we can. Indirectly but we can.

Well, in that case we can detect the nonphysical “will” too. Indirectly but we can. The detected effects of the human "will" are the acceleration of current flows in the brain to expand the human body.

That something we call the human will exists is not in question. That this something is nonphysical is what's relevant here.

As far as I am concern, dark-energy is just as nonphysical as the human “will” since it's just as nondetectable.

Since this would obviously lead to endless questions of "Then, what caused X? Then what caused Y? Then what caused Z?" I'll skip all that and admit that in the end, I don't know.

And based on my claim I predict you will never know if you are relying only on science to find out.

The problem I see with even trying to address this is that your argument is one of ignorance.

My argument is based on "theological evidence" and is supported by the scientific in the sense that the scientific has no answers to the matter being discussed.

"We don't know X, therefore magic." "You can't explain the mind, therefore it's nonphysical." "You can't fully control the "human will" therefore it's nonphysical." Et cetera.

If only that was my claim. It isn’t

The reality is that all we've ever observed even remotely associated with "human will" is physical. Neurons, brains, electricity, EM fields, ions, etc and all you're saying is "How do you know there's not a nonphysical component?"

You can only know what the scientific permits you to know since that’s all you rely on. Beyond that you are at a complete lost. I don’t have that problem.

Might as well ask "How do you know there is not an undetectable banana pudding component? Do you have evidence that there's no undetectable banana pudding behind consciousness?"

My theology doesn’t teach it.

The process of consciousness differs from computer program only in its complexity. It's like claiming that since we don't fully understand how gravity works, it must be nonphysical. Why would we think that? Why should we assume there's something beyond what we can detect?

I have reason to think that there is something beyond what we can scientifically detect even if you don’t, and my Source is completely reliable:

“There is a spirit in man...For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him?...The body without the spirit is dead” - Job 32:8, 1 Cor 2:11, James 2:26.