What is your favorite proof for God?

[Neo_Scotist]

I like the cosmological argument from Francisco Suarez and Leibnitz’s argument from contingency.

I like Richard Swinburne’s inductive argument from simplicity.

Also, I find free-will incompatible with materialism and natural selection (I.E. what is the evolutionary advantage of suicide? none). The only cogent explanation for libertarian free-will would be non-material, AKA the soul.

 

[greylorn]

I’d like to have more time today, but it happens that I’m leaving office now to go to the mass by the Tagus river celebrated by pope Benedict XVI.

I am not sure whether the interpretation of the Catholic scholars you mention is the default one, but I can offer my interpretation. The Babel story is powerful because it has evident as well as hidden meanings. The most evident one to me is a thorough condemnation of human pride. The tower symbolizes man’s struggle to attain Heaven on earth, even if under the pretext of reaching God.
The second, less evident meaning is, to me, the Fall. The builders of the tower, with their pride and presumptuousness, show abundantly their essentially flawed nature. They want to be eye to eye with God; they want to be their equals and understand Him; yet they do not understand their fellow builder.
The third meaning is prophetic: the Babel tower hints at God’s Second Person, Jesus. The numerous depictions by artists of the Babel tower strike bystanders by its utter imperfection. The tower is incomplete; the tower is wretched; the tower is chaotic. This points to the need for a New Alliance between God and men. Men grew prider and prider, meaner and meaner. The path to God cannot be completed through earthly means, as the tower attests. Jesus is needed so men can relate to God in a new way: not by building a tower, but by listening to a man.
When I was a kid I had this book with reproductions of paintings; one of them was about the Babel tower. I forgot all the others but the chaos of that vain construction of men never left me.
The whole Babel tower episode is beautiful, compelling, profound, and immensely powerful.

It is also a figment of human imagination. Unless you can locate remains of the tower.

I interpret it much simpler than you, because I adore simplicity. Babel was stuff invented by religious leaders to suppress the human mind. And for good reason. Intelligent, questioning minds are always a threat to established ideas, no matter what they are. These days you’ll find the level of idea suppression in science rising, as a function of free government money for establishment professors.

Point: Idea suppression is human nature.

I’d love it if all the people in the world with whom I disagree fell into open manhole covers— for about two or three weeks. Then I’d realize that the only conversations available to me were with people who agreed with me. My mind would soon find itself in a dead zone. So, please, do not fall into any open manhole covers— you are essential to my survival as a conscious mind.

I can afford that attitude because I work for my living by doing useful things, and earn nothing by convincing anyone that I am right. Were I an organization like a major religion, performing no useful physical services, doing nothing but convincing lots of people that my beliefs are essential to their well being, and collecting money from them for convincing them of this, I could not afford my attitude of independence.

If I needed money from believers, and had no long term moral standards, yeah, I’d do a tower of babel story, but a thousand times more convincingly. It’s always about the money— beliefs included— unless you’re dealing with an individual who’s out in God’s woods cutting down next season’s firewood while you’re attending a Very High Mass.

 

[greylorn]

On a lighter note, this is my take on the story related in Genesis 11. Hope it makes sense.:twocents:

Up to this time mankind had been
United by language alone,
For in any other respect
Their unity had all but gone. (a)

Somehow, they all got together
On a plain, known then as Shinar, (b)
And while some of them lived nearby
Others had to come from afar.

They met to discuss a matter
Which was affecting everyone…
It appears they were rather bored
As there was no work to be done.

They decided that to prevent
Precious time from passing them by
They should build a very big tower
That would, in the end, reach the sky. (c)

But God did not look too kindly
Upon this human odyssey; (d)
To Him it looked very much like
An assault on His privacy.

So, to safeguard His vast domain
And to keep it from mankind’s reach,
He sowed confusion amongst them
Through the confounding of their speech. (e)

When the plumber could no longer
The bricklayer’s words understand
They gave up on the whole project
And abandoned this cursed land. (f)

(But knowing the human spirit
There is no need to feel pity
For it wouldn’t have taken them long
To start on another city).

Then follows more generations
From Shem to our hero Abram,
Who came from the loins of Terah
With brothers Nahor and Haran. (g)

Abram’s wife, Sarai, was barren, (h)
As barren as the desert sand,
So Terah took them both and Lot
From Ur up to Canaan land. (i)

He probably had an idea
What a change in climate might do
To sort out Sarai’s sterile womb
So she’d bring forth a son or two.

References

(a) GEN. 11:1. Equality and thus singleness of purpose or unity must, by then, have gone out of the window, considering that father Noah had relegated his grandson Canaan and his descendants to the status of ‘servants of servants’ to his uncles and their progeny with his curse after the ‘nakedness’ incident in GEN. 9:31.
(b) GEN. 11:2.
(c) GEN. 11:4.
(d) GEN. 11:6.
(e) GEN. 11:7.
(f) GEN. 11:8.
(g) GEN. 11:26.
(h) GEN. 11:30.
(i) GEN. 11:31.

No parts of your “poem” rhyme. Did you even notice?

 

[greylorn]

I like the cosmological argument from Francisco Suarez and Leibnitz’s argument from contingency.

I like Richard Swinburne’s inductive argument from simplicity.

Also, I find free-will incompatible with materialism and natural selection (I.E. what is the evolutionary advantage of suicide? none). The only cogent explanation for libertarian free-will would be non-material, AKA the soul.

Very efficient name-dropping— three in two paragraphs.

Finally, you declare the “only cogent explanation” for something to be, “the soul.”

What exactly is the soul? How did it arise? What are its properties?

Kindly reply in words rather than in droppings.

 

[avflf]

No parts of your “poem” rhyme. Did you even notice?

I do not know what you mean by “rhyme” but here’s the definition:

*rhyme [rim] or rime [rim] noun (plural rhymes) (plural rimes)

1. similarity in sound: similarity in the sound of word endings, especially in poetry
2. word sounding same as another: a word with an ending that sounds similar to the ending of another word
3. poem: a poem, or poetry generally, of a lighthearted kind with a pattern of similar sounds at the ends of the lines*

Encarta® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

 

[ManOnFire]

Every atheist either believes in a beginning of time, or he believes in actual infinity. The concept of “Infinity of time and space” is already out there for consideration. One cannot free willingly choose to ignore it or unlearn it if it makes one uncomfortable, disturbed, or fails to reinforce one’s point. That would be bigotry. If the atheist believes in a beginning of time, then there must have been a stoppage of time and the required infinitesimal entity that started it, necessitating an actual infinity. If the atheist believes in actual infinity, then, while we can count on science to improve the quality of our lives, it is impotent to ever know the Truth about the infinity of time and space. Why do atheists have such firm faith and hope in science when science can NEVER learn the Truth about Infinity of a godless time and space, by definition (anything knowable is finite)? There is only ego and faith in theories by both sides.

Discerning between these faiths is a test: it is a test to see if you really “get it.” Only by giving in to Faith in the Church will you truly learn to Love. Only by handing your life over to your spouse and kids to follow the Way does one truly appreciate self. It is a voluntary, counter-intuitive, sacrificial struggle that makes no sense and is not attractive to the average person. Only by giving one’s life away does one truly learn to live (i.e. Mother Theresa).

 

[antunesaa]

It is also a figment of human imagination. Unless you can locate remains of the tower.

I interpret it much simpler than you, because I adore simplicity. Babel was stuff invented by religious leaders to suppress the human mind. And for good reason. Intelligent, questioning minds are always a threat to established ideas, no matter what they are. These days you’ll find the level of idea suppression in science rising, as a function of free government money for establishment professors.

Point: Idea suppression is human nature.

I’d love it if all the people in the world with whom I disagree fell into open manhole covers— for about two or three weeks. Then I’d realize that the only conversations available to me were with people who agreed with me. My mind would soon find itself in a dead zone. So, please, do not fall into any open manhole covers— you are essential to my survival as a conscious mind.

I like a lot this part of your post. And the whole “idea suppression” idea isn’t perhaps that bad. It could just be that in order to progress we should keep the healthy habit of not embarking in any new philosophy or religion that some particularly persuasive individual proposes us. Let’s embark in that philosophy only after it has survived the reaction of existing ones and provided abundant and inequivocal evidence that it indeed achieves something useful. So we need sects, philosophical movements, revolutionary ideas, and perhaps even some less benign dissensions.

It’s always about the money— beliefs included.

I think it’s all about something else. Some people tend to confuse the two, because in certain periods of our lives they might be correlated, but in the end it’s all about love, not money. You have to look no further than Jesus: love but no money. Even my sinful Catholic Church only recognizes as moral authorities those that, in a deep and mysterious sense, loved – not necessarily those who had money. And it strikes my that, physical and material constraints apart (you can’t buy youth, for instance), love is possibly the only thing money can’t buy. Love is a very strange object, unlike money.

 

[Neo_Scotist]

What exactly is the soul? How did it arise? What are its properties?

1-I fail to see how you expect me to explain what the soul is “made of” if it’s immaterial.

2-how did it arise? Not through natural processes. Properties like free-will run counter with natural selection. Free-will is an evolutionary detriment, and shouldn’t arise at all in a materialist universe. I have yet to see a good explanation of free-will in purely materialist terms. So I will say that it is supernatural in origin, and part of this old fashioned, superstitious entity called the “soul.”

If you have a better explanation for free-will, let us know.

3- What are its properties? already mentioned free-will, and now I will self-awareness. Any other questions?

 

[avflf]

Perhaps this will help with the “soul” concept

From hiddenmysteries.org/

*Who has a Soul?

In Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the elohim-gods-on the fifth day, of “nephesh hayyah” which is “the moving creature that hath life,” and of “nephesh hayyah-every living creature” out of the waters (1:20, 21); and on the sixth day of “nephesh hayyah-the living creature” out of the ground (1:24); and he gave to ha-adam-the-man dominion over “kol nephesh hagyah-everything wherein there is life,” (1:30.)

The Hebrew text states that all animal living creatures are by God called “nephesh hayyah,” literally “living soul”.

In Chapter 2 is the history of ha-adam made from ha-adamah; and, in contrast to these lowly “living creatures” (nephesh hayyah), Yahveh-clohim “breathed into his nostrils nishmath hayyim – (living breaths), and ha-adam became nephesh hayyah-a living soul”. (2:7)

In Hebrew everywhere you read the word nephesh it simply means soul, and hayyah (living) is the feminine singular adjective from hai, life.

In the original Hebrew texts, Man was created exactly the same as the other animals. All had or were ‘nephesh hayyah’ or living souls.

Remember, tho, that the reason there are two creation stories is because two culture’s stories of creation were woven together by the early Hebrew priestcraft.

Unknown scribes, in translation, made animals merely creatures, and “Creation’s masterpiece, Man,” became a “living soul.” They falsely altered these plain words so as to deceive us into believing a special God-breathed soul is in man which is completely different from animal that merely perishes to dust.

The implication of this is that someone has fraudulently decided that we are a special creation that has a soul, and eliminated the actual words of what Genesis says. Now all other animals don’t have a soul. According to the story, all things that live have a soul.*

 

[donsnow]

Perhaps this will help with the “soul” concept

From hiddenmysteries.org/

*Who has a Soul?

In Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the elohim-gods-on the fifth day, of “nephesh hayyah” which is “the moving creature that hath life,” and of “nephesh hayyah-every living creature” out of the waters (1:20, 21); and on the sixth day of “nephesh hayyah-the living creature” out of the ground (1:24); and he gave to ha-adam-the-man dominion over “kol nephesh hagyah-everything wherein there is life,” (1:30.)

The Hebrew text states that all animal living creatures are by God called “nephesh hayyah,” literally “living soul”.

In Chapter 2 is the history of ha-adam made from ha-adamah; and, in contrast to these lowly “living creatures” (nephesh hayyah), Yahveh-clohim “breathed into his nostrils nishmath hayyim – (living breaths), and ha-adam became nephesh hayyah-a living soul”. (2:7)

In Hebrew everywhere you read the word nephesh it simply means soul, and hayyah (living) is the feminine singular adjective from hai, life.

In the original Hebrew texts, Man was created exactly the same as the other animals. All had or were ‘nephesh hayyah’ or living souls.

Remember, tho, that the reason there are two creation stories is because two culture’s stories of creation were woven together by the early Hebrew priestcraft.

Unknown scribes, in translation, made animals merely creatures, and “Creation’s masterpiece, Man,” became a “living soul.” They falsely altered these plain words so as to deceive us into believing a special God-breathed soul is in man which is completely different from animal that merely perishes to dust.

The implication of this is that someone has fraudulently decided that we are a special creation that has a soul, and eliminated the actual words of what Genesis says. Now all other animals don’t have a soul. According to the story, all things that live have a soul.*

I think some earlier translations kept the “…and the man became a living soul.”

I accept the scripture, where God gives human Adam dominion over all the other creatures.

Could the concept of spirit serve as evidence of God the Creator? One of His titles is “Father of Spirits” in some cultures.

 

[greylorn]

I like a lot this part of your post. And the whole “idea suppression” idea isn’t perhaps that bad. It could just be that in order to progress we should keep the healthy habit of not embarking in any new philosophy or religion that some particularly persuasive individual proposes us. Let’s embark in that philosophy only after it has survived the reaction of existing ones and provided abundant and inequivocal evidence that it indeed achieves something useful. So we need sects, philosophical movements, revolutionary ideas, and perhaps even some less benign dissensions.

Yes, thank you.

greylorn:

It’s always about the money— beliefs included.

I think it’s all about something else. Some people tend to confuse the two, because in certain periods of our lives they might be correlated, but in the end it’s all about love, not money. You have to look no further than Jesus: love but no money. Even my sinful Catholic Church only recognizes as moral authorities those that, in a deep and mysterious sense, loved – not necessarily those who had money. And it strikes my that, physical and material constraints apart (you can’t buy youth, for instance), love is possibly the only thing money can’t buy. Love is a very strange object, unlike money.

That depends upon whether you’re looking at the back end or the front end. By front end I mean the organization, and its hierarchy. At the back end are the individuals who accept the organization as a valid source of what they’re looking for, which is usually security.

These comments apply to all organizations, religious, governmental, and corporate. At the front end, they collect money in return for delivering, or in the case of government and religion, promising to deliver security.

The folks at the back end are indeed often motivated by love. That makes things tricky, because there is no more volatile and transient emotion than love. Most people use it to manipulate others, so I advise against the emotion for those who truly cherish whatever passes for free will.

You are correct that love is strange. I’d call it a strange emotion, rather than an object. I have bought it. One always pays for value received, one way or another. My most financially costly expeditions into life were those in search of love. So were my most emotionally expensive sorties. I would recommend, from experience, that it is best to lose money, even a lot of it, rather than expend emotional currency.

A bank account can always be replenished with hard work. An emotional account can be replenished only with luck, and more likely will remain drained.

 

[greylorn]

1-I fail to see how you expect me to explain what the soul is “made of” if it’s immaterial.

I did not ask you what the soul was made of. You had my post right in front of you.
"greylorn:

What exactly is the soul? How did it arise? What are its properties?

You just made that up. Arguing against an argument which your opponent has not proposed is an intellectually smarmy tactic.

2-how did it arise? Not through natural processes. Properties like free-will run counter with natural selection. Free-will is an evolutionary detriment, and shouldn’t arise at all in a materialist universe. I have yet to see a good explanation of free-will in purely materialist terms. So I will say that it is supernatural in origin, and part of this old fashioned, superstitious entity called the “soul.”

If you have a better explanation for free-will, let us know.

There are no good explanations for free will in materialistic terms, which might explain why you’ve yet to read one.

But the same arguments which apply to our cause-effect universe also apply to any created entity, such as the God-created human soul.

If I program a robot, it may exhibit interesting behavior, but not free will. I might trick you by installing 1000 different programs for a response to the same (name removed by moderator)ut data. When the action occurs, my supervisor program will run the robot’s random number generator to select its course of action. An outside observer would never be able to predict the response, and would mistake a well-randomized set of responses for “free will.”

I, the programmer, would not be able to predict my bot’s response, but would recognize it as one of the thousand subprograms I’d devised.

In Christian theology there is only one entity to which free will may be logically attributed, and that is to God, the Uncreated. Christ, as a son of God, cannot have free will. The Holy Ghost is not defined well enough to own any properties, and its invention was more likely the result of linguistic confusion by early bible readers.

Nonetheless, I like the idea that I might have a modicum of free will, despite the programs which my body insists upon running. The only assumption which allows my belief is, that I, as “soul” (i.e. conscious mind) was not created.

This leaves as the only remaining option, the “natural processes” which you imagine cannot have done it. But, I suspect that your version of a natural process is something along the lines of biological reproduction. But if God created biological life, it is not a “natural process.”

Better that we hypothesize a genuine natural process capable of creating both God and the soul, so that we can all have a modicum of free will.

3- What are its properties? already mentioned free-will, and now I will self-awareness. Any other questions?

Of course.

Remember that you can only attribute free-will to yourself if you can regard that portion of self which chooses, as a non-created entity.

Self-awareness is dead on. You are off to a good start. Is this your lucky day, or what?

Next, how does soul interface with the matter/energy universe? In other words, what properties does it have which allow it to interact with the human brain, and, if even 0.0001% of the reports of psychic phenomena be true, with non-biological forms of the universe as well?

 

[Andy_III]

The folks at the back end are indeed often motivated by love. That makes things tricky, because there is no more volatile and transient emotion than love. Most people use it to manipulate others, so I advise against the emotion for those who truly cherish whatever passes for free will.

Woah! Hold it for a second. I’m fairly sure antunesaa wasn’t talking about “emotional love”. I prefer to use the more technical term limerance for what most people call the emotion of love. Limerance is a temporary feeling (lasting usually up to about 2 years) that is really a mild form of obsession. It can drive an incorrect belief that the relationship to the other person is perfect.

We’re talking about real love. Love is an act of the will to put the needs of another before your own. A sacrificial love is the only kind of love that can last, since it is a choice. How else would someone have a lasting marriage?

With the correct definition of love, I think you’ll find that the “front end” people are motivated by love just as often as the “back end” people.

 

[Lews_Fathoms]

My favourite proof of God? Ok. Whenever I read the bible it’s always perfect the way I can just flip to any page and find my path right where it always was. AMAZING!!

 

[Andy_III]

But the same arguments which apply to our cause-effect universe also apply to any created entity, such as the God-created human soul.

If I program a robot, it may exhibit interesting behavior, but not free will. I might trick you by installing 1000 different programs for a response to the same (name removed by moderator)ut data. When the action occurs, my supervisor program will run the robot’s random number generator to select its course of action. An outside observer would never be able to predict the response, and would mistake a well-randomized set of responses for “free will.”

I, the programmer, would not be able to predict my bot’s response, but would recognize it as one of the thousand subprograms I’d devised.

In Christian theology there is only one entity to which free will may be logically attributed, and that is to God, the Uncreated. Christ, as a son of God, cannot have free will. The Holy Ghost is not defined well enough to own any properties, and its invention was more likely the result of linguistic confusion by early bible readers.

Nonetheless, I like the idea that I might have a modicum of free will, despite the programs which my body insists upon running. The only assumption which allows my belief is, that I, as “soul” (i.e. conscious mind) was not created.

This leaves as the only remaining option, the “natural processes” which you imagine cannot have done it. But, I suspect that your version of a natural process is something along the lines of biological reproduction. But if God created biological life, it is not a “natural process.”

Better that we hypothesize a genuine natural process capable of creating both God and the soul, so that we can all have a modicum of free will.

Hmmm, I’m not following you here. What about free will requires the entity to be not created (or derived from a natural process)? Could you explain your definition of free will?

 

[Athanasiy]

Clive Lewis is impressive , in his Chapter # 5 of the book called ‘‘Miracle’’
I used to read it Russian , but this is some of the words I like from that Chapter ;​

• You
  can, if you want, take all the ideals of an illusion, and love - Waste
  biology, not contradicting himself, and not falling into absurdity…

---

Arguing about morality, we
as in any dispute, the arguments devalued if they are due
to unmoral and unwise reasons…

---

In
our real life no one would give the slightest value
to moral judgment, if it is proved that it is due

unmoral factor.​

If the idea of proper and improper to explain
by unmoral and unreasonable reasons, then - these ideas - are illusions…​

Certain chemical processes have created life…

…Life under the pressure of natural selection gave rise to consciousness…

All of this may (or may not) explain why people make moral decisions but it can not explain , how they can be RIGHT​

Recognizing the good and evil illusions, they are immediately followed by
call on us to sacrifice ourselves for the future, to teach, to rise,

transform, to live and die in the name of the human race…​

---

Do they remember , urging us to
a better life, that even the word “better” does not mean anything if there is no measure

good?

---

It would help if we knew for established, firstly
that life is better than death, and, secondly, that the lives of our descendants is not less important
to us than our own.​

So, there is no escape. If we abandon the moral judgments,
have to believe that the conscience exist out of nature. It has meaning and value only in
if it at least reflects a kind of absolute moral

wisdom , the wisdom that exists in itself, and not generated by immoral and unnatural nature nature.----- ------- ------- ------ ------- -------

Sorry , English is not my first language , but Lewis in his arguments - is very argumentative in my opinion

---

If you are sckeptic who do not believbe in God - read the book of Clive Lewis called ‘’ The Miracle ‘’ , read chapter # 5 , read all chapter , its not long one !
it is very argumentative in my opinion

 

[Neo_Scotist]

You just made that up. Arguing against an argument which your opponent has not proposed is an intellectually smarmy tactic.

(“What exactly is the soul? How did it arise? What are its properties?”) Are you accusing me of “making up” those questions?

Re-read your own post, greylorn, you asked those me those questions.

If I program a robot, it may exhibit interesting behavior, but not free will. I might trick you by installing 1000 different programs for a response to the same (name removed by moderator)ut data. When the action occurs, my supervisor program will run the robot’s random number generator to select its course of action. An outside observer would never be able to predict the response, and would mistake a well-randomized set of responses for “free will.”

I, the programmer, would not be able to predict my bot’s response, but would recognize it as one of the thousand subprograms I’d devised.

Rather than speculating whether we’re robots, give us good reasons for giving up the notion of free-will.

In Christian theology there is only one entity to which free will may be logically attributed, and that is to God, the Uncreated.

Wrong, in Christian theology humans are also free and responsible for their actions.

Christ, as a son of God, cannot have free will.

I always thought that Jesus was god. Let me get this straight, according to you the father has free-will, but, Jesus (god) has no free-will. can you get more contradictory than that?

Next, how does soul interface with the matter/energy universe? In other words, what properties does it have which allow it to interact with the human brain, and, if even 0.0001% of the reports of psychic phenomena be true, with non-biological forms of the universe as well?

Good questions, but, I suspect you ask just to keep on arguing. Bother someone else.

 

[Neo_Scotist]

Perhaps this will help with the “soul” concept

From hiddenmysteries.org/

*Who has a Soul?

In Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the elohim-gods-on the fifth day, of “nephesh hayyah” which is “the moving creature that hath life,” and of “nephesh hayyah-every living creature” out of the waters (1:20, 21); and on the sixth day of “nephesh hayyah-the living creature” out of the ground (1:24); and he gave to ha-adam-the-man dominion over “kol nephesh hagyah-everything wherein there is life,” (1:30.)

The Hebrew text states that all animal living creatures are by God called “nephesh hayyah,” literally “living soul”.

In Chapter 2 is the history of ha-adam made from ha-adamah; and, in contrast to these lowly “living creatures” (nephesh hayyah), Yahveh-clohim “breathed into his nostrils nishmath hayyim – (living breaths), and ha-adam became nephesh hayyah-a living soul”. (2:7)

In Hebrew everywhere you read the word nephesh it simply means soul, and hayyah (living) is the feminine singular adjective from hai, life.

In the original Hebrew texts, Man was created exactly the same as the other animals. All had or were ‘nephesh hayyah’ or living souls.

Remember, tho, that the reason there are two creation stories is because two culture’s stories of creation were woven together by the early Hebrew priestcraft.

Unknown scribes, in translation, made animals merely creatures, and “Creation’s masterpiece, Man,” became a “living soul.” They falsely altered these plain words so as to deceive us into believing a special God-breathed soul is in man which is completely different from animal that merely perishes to dust.

The implication of this is that someone has fraudulently decided that we are a special creation that has a soul, and eliminated the actual words of what Genesis says. Now all other animals don’t have a soul. According to the story, all things that live have a soul.*

Do remember that the status of “nephesh hayyah” is somewhat ambiguous. Some scholars take it to mean “life force,” rather than living soul.

But, even if the words mean living soul, so what? It just means that the author was wrong just as he was wrong in suggesting that the sky was a form of ceiling or that continents floated on water.

 

[greylorn]

Hmmm, I’m not following you here. What about free will requires the entity to be not created (or derived from a natural process)? Could you explain your definition of free will?

Alas. Much of my post was dedicated to explaining the answer to your first question. Admittedly the explanation was concise, but I believe the concepts you need are there. Perhaps you might peruse it a time or two and question the parts that are not making sense.

That will give me a better sense of what needs more explanation.

My definition of free will is the same as yours, I’m certain. Let me try to detail it.

A robot will always make choices according to the (name removed by moderator)ut it receives, using the programs it knows how to run. Robots are machines. So are trees, insects, birds, and larger mammals. They have no free will.

This kind of defines what free will is not. However complex a behavior pattern, if it can be predicted, it is not the consequence of free will.

A simple definition of free will arises in the choice of ice cream flavors. Suppose you are offered the choice between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, and you choose vanilla. To determine if that choice was made from free will, I need only ask you one question---- Why did you choose vanilla? If you have an answer to that, your choice was not a function of free will.

Another example of free will is genuinely creative thought, which always requires ideas to arrive without cause. No free will, no thought.

If a shrink can figure out why you said or did something (I mean honestly figure it out, not just make up some nonsense) then you did not do it out of free will.

Put another way, the soul might have free will; the brain cannot.

I hope this helps. Thank you for your excellent question.

 

[Eris_Discordia]

Well, for me, I don’t think there is any exact proof for God, however, there are things I’ve experienced that I doubt science would be able to explain. So for me, I can’t deny what I’ve experienced with anything supernatural, so there must at least be a separate plain or something with things that aren’t in this realm of existence. Of course, not a Catholic, but I do believe that there is something out there. I don’t think that any of the weird things I’ve experienced would happen, if not.