What we must accept if we accept evolution

The Fall.... ...was very serious.

..ergo, the mind, which does allow decision must not be (totally) physical. The presumption that the mind is located in the brain - something not demonstrated yet - must be false. That is the only conclusion to come to - unless one is prepared to say that every thought is as inevitable as water running downhill.In which case we should all go home.

If there is such a thing as evolution, presumably it would not have been possible without the fall. There would have been no death thus no survival of the fittest to enable evolution. Evolution, if it happened seems to rely on the fall and is thus reconcilable with it.

The thoughts you have as a result of reading this are determined. You couldn't have had any different thoughts that the ones you are having now. My input resulted in your output. (proof: if you weren't reading this you wouldn't be having the thoughts you are having now)Your brain is more complex that water but if physical is of the same order as water - simply following laws of nature which act on the matter and energy that constitute it. What piece of matter or energy in your brain could do anything other than conform to the laws of nature? How can conformance be said to be choice? What is there about it that can cause it to do anything other that what it does?{AbE}Now, I don't believe the mind is physical unlike the brain which is. The brain is simply a tool employed by the mind. And the mind, not being physical (material) is not forced to conform to the laws of nature which govern the behaviour of material things. And so we have choice.This message has been edited by iano, 21-Jan-2006 05:53 PM

Perhaps, but arrival at a thought by it being determined or it being chance makes little difference. Neither are our choice.As an aside, what is it that would make law of nature non-deterministic? Is it that they vary or that matter and energy don't always conform as they should to consistant laws? If we are only physical then all we have is the appearance of choice. There is no independant us to make choices

I don't presume that there are any physics involved - in fact there cannot be if the mind isn't physical. If the location of the mind as part of the physical brain could be established (as opposed to the location of cognitive function - which are of the physical brain) then I would be inclined to believe other than I do. To presume the mind is physical without evidence that it is so is a philosphical decision to which we are all entitled. I just don't share this philosophy The reasoning is partily described above (a negative). Positively, I know that I, that is, the essence of what makes me be me is spiritual. Exactly how to two: physical/spirit, interact with each other I have no idea. But it doesn't cause me to lose sleep

Interesting question. To be able to answer it fully would require that I know how it is that ME as spirit, is enabled to to have a true unimpeded free will - free of any determination. I don't know how the answer to that. It is a black box. The fact I feel clear external argument (God/Satan say) pulling me this way and that indicates there is ME in the middle. Its about all I have to go onBut if I look at 'ME', the part determined/ part chance model, I know that I don't have any free will. What will be will be. It being determined or chance or a mixture affects that not.The one model offers evidence of freedom the other most definitely not. Interesting question II. In the case of your deterministic/chance model this cannot be the case - because the decision has a chance element to it. If we could go back to that same situation, then chance must have been able to fall another way and lead to another decision - otherwise it wouldn't be chance it would be purely determined.In my model, reason can't tell us what would happen for want of a mechanism of decision-making for us to examine. It is a black box to me. As an aside: what causes statistical variation: is it variance in the laws or variance in that on which they exert influence. Or something else?

If I could explain it I could explain God. God is spirit yet he can manipulate the physical. Knowing that something is as it is is quite different from proving it is so. Somewhere at the start of all this I stated that this was my belief/knowledge. Not that I can prove it to be the case. No more than... ...can be proven to be the case. This appears to be a philosophical assumption, not a scientifically demonstrable reality. If the brain is a vehicle, a motorcycle, and the mind the motorcycle rider - as I hold it to be, then we would expect faulty spark plugs and flat tyres to affect the motorcycle directly and the rider indirectly, in so far as his use of the motorcycle as a form of transport is inhibited.I am HAPPY, I am SAD, I am A HUMAN. The brain provides the items in CAPITALS, the mind provides the "I am". There is, so far as I can tell, no way to test whether "I am" is a function of the brain or not. You may incapacitate the motorcycle and the rider cannot go anywhere. But he still is. He cannot be shown to be not.With your permission I think we should hold off at this point. We are nowhere near topic.This message has been edited by iano, 22-Jan-2006 01:09 PM

If chance then I agree. But I fail to see how a mechanism can be said to have choice if all it does is either respond deterministically or by chance or by a mixture of the two. If words mean anything choice means being able to pick one of two options. Neither determinism nor chance involve choice There are all kinds of things which cannot be rationally shown to be the case. That there are objective truths is a convention which is assumed not shown. I look at an apple. It is 'objectively' an apple because convention has decided that if everyones subjective view says its an apple then objectively it is. That is has color, mass and taste are all conventions which are said to be objective. So to, choice. It is a convention, it cannot be proven. Your model fails in that is flies in the face of a convention universally assumed. Mine, even though it might not be understood precisely doesn't.Tell me this Crash. How can a random jumble of matter and energy comforming deterministically or operating by chance (the brain) come to the objective conclusion that it is made up of matter and energy. Does this model not slit its own throat? Crash demonstrating (in spades) that the world is in fact deterministic. "When in trouble - fling mud". It happens every time. Like clockwork This message has been edited by iano, 22-Jan-2006 01:24 PM

I'll second that. I think it is because a believer has come to see sin stripped of the self-justification and excuses which serve to dull and have come to agree with God about just how horrific it truly is.It's a little equivilent to little boys playing war games "BANG - your dead" (non-believer) and seeing the true horror of war with your own eyes (believer). When a sinner see's how appalling their behaviour truly is then it is natural to doubt that they deserve anything but eternal punishment for what they do / have done.Only to wonder in awe at the love of a God who could/would bother to find a way out.Cocksuredness is highly unlikely unless one has lost sight of what they are before God

For a further discourse on this subject seehttp://www.ianospostsatPay special attention to the "its not arrogance and conceit - I'm defending my faith" ones...