Don't be shy Louis, come out and say it, the denial of free will is absolute insanity.

Rather than repeat my reasons for saying that here I would refer you to an OLO article, www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17152 which I wrote a few years ago reviewing Sam Harris's book, Free Will.

In short, yes, we have free will.

I chose to read the first page of the article but not the rest. Some of the words I chose to not read, some I ignored by chance. This proves freeish willish , 3:1.

Interesting topic. Do we choose our parents/the circumstances of our birth? Yes, we do, if one believes in reincarnation and Karma. Or if you will, reaping what you sow.

Does one choose to steal or acquire funds illicitly? Lie/bear false witness to cover it up? Well, yes as an act of free will.
As does the inebriated alcoholic, who knows for sure and certain he/she cannot stop with just the onesie!

While there would seem to be a growing body of evidence for reincarnation and Karma, none whatsoever for, it all ends with our last breath.

As for free will? The only thing we would seem to have absolute control over is the thoughts we care to entertain in our heads. And with them our every attitude.

Two decisions affect us almost every day, to respond to this or that with love or hate, to exercise control, resolve not to let go of our control which does when we relinquish that control, allow us to fly off the handle/lash out verbally or physically/hurt or harm, or comfort and help.

And we saw our better Angels and free will in action when those Lads in Thailand were trapped deep in an underground cave and the word set aside its petty differences long enough to rescue every lad, with the only casualty being one of the rescuers!

That aside, free will would seem limited to our decision making processes/choices. To be or not to be to buy or not to buy/rack up unaffordable debt or forgo gratuitous self-indulgence and make do with what we have now, given it still serves its original purpose but doesn't look as shiny and new as the other must-haves that predominate in the material world.

At the end of the day, many of these questions will remain unanswered? Some things could be predetermined? Just as a stone thrown into a pond creates ripples, so also the immutable law of cause and effect! It matters not, that one does not recall the cause! To still experience the effect!
Alan B.

Louis,

While you've provided an explanation of determinism, I didn't readily see your definition of free-will.

Would you please provide me with a concise definition of free-will?

This has involved a significant debate in theological circles with the 'determinism' (predestination) of Calvinists vs the free-will of Arminians.

Would you mind explaining what you mean by free-will?

Calvinists certainly have no free-will , that's obvious to them and to Islam.

Sam Harris is one in a long line of god deniers who can't help but to come to ridiculous conclusions.

This essay communicates a very radical Understanding of the nature of True Freedom and the illusion of free will:

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/perfectfreedomnotfreewill.html

One thing that should be quite obvious is that to be a sinner is to be constitutionally divorced from the possibility of exercising free will.

Somethimes choices are pushed on us. Some take those choices others don't. For everything else, we choose, strive, and train to be the people we've become.

Success in anything isn't a given, but the ability to choose is always there.

Yes, not now. When it comes right down to it and the choice between being true to your own moral compass or just being a ratbag R sole, there's always a choice.

On the other hand, none choose to be born left or right-handed, gay or straight. Your genetic code seems to be dealt by the cosmic wheel of fortune and just like the roulette wheel, where your number falls seems down to pure blind chance and the genetic code of all your forebears?

Free will is exercised every day, as to whether or not the used car salesman does or doesn't sell that rust bucket death trap to that kid or not, or whether the Polly lies through his very, Christian to the back molar, teeth in order to secure mere political advantage and one more term in office.

When one is being belaboured with hate speech or verballing it's all too easy to lose it and reply in kind, which never ever improves outcomes.

So, the reality is every day in hundreds of ways we exercise our free will. We can choose to do the right thing and address climate change, e,g., or just ignore the evidence in favour of the few lousy bucks we currently make, mining and selling coal? Ostensibly to swell some offshore foreign-owned coffer. And as our share, an allegorical, forty pieces of silver?

And nowhere is my rationale have I raised my usual topic of thorium and why we should burn the most energy dense material on the planet in place of coal, nowhere!
Alan B.

Polly lies through his very, Christian to the back molar, teeth,
when one is being belaboured with hate speech. We can choose , nowhere is my rationale have I raised my usual topic.

Daffy Duck,

<<One thing that should be quite obvious is that to be a sinner is to be constitutionally divorced from the possibility of exercising free will>>

Are you saying that once a paedophile, always a paedophile? Can thieves and liars never be rehabilitated by responding positively to Jesus' offer of salvation?

The Scriptures take a very different view through to that determinism:

"Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).

When the inner person is changed through a relationship with Jesus Christ, all kinds of sinners are revolutionised to the point where the apostle Paul could say of them, 'That is what SOME OF YOU WERE'.

If you don't believe me, take a read of Out of Egypt: One Woman's Journey out of Lesbianism by Jeanette Howard (Monarch Books 1991).

Will preparation services are provided free for people eligible for a full Centrelink Age Pension

Of course we have a free will, the Left's just doing everything in it's power to suppress it !
Only those with no common sense are allowed to express it.

This article demonstrates the kind of absurd conclusions reached by those who glorify the objective and deny the subjective.

To JP,

I read your piece and you seem to conflate our capacity for reason, with a necessity for free will.

This is simply not true, as we see with certain individuals being capable of better reasoning than others, due to factors outside of their control such as their genetics and their upbringing.

Sam Harris was clearly born with a high verbal IQ, and perhaps high conscientiousness which has led him to pursue the path of philosophy and writing that he has. He didn't choose to be born with that IQ, or the fact that he was interested in writing and philosophy over say mathematics and engineering, just as someone with an intellectual difficulty didn't choose their brain.

Determinism doesn't negate reason, and I'm not sure why you think it does.

We are still conscious beings, who influence one another through our behaviors - willed or otherwise. Sam had the inclination to write a book, and the book will change the minds of those who perhaps have an interest in the topic, and who are open to reason.

Could you perhaps explain HOW we have come to have free will?

Every aspect of your mind was not your construction. Your genetics, the environment and year in which they were proliferated, your parents, your upbringing and so on. If these are the factors which have since led to the thoughts which emerge in your mind, how then can you claim them as your own?

You are right, OzSpen, I have not provided a definition of free will in the article. To paraphrase Sam Harris, free will is the feeling of being an author of your own thoughts, the controller inside your head. A quick glance into the comments section of this thread will give you an indication that many people possess to this view.

Louis

To Louis.

Think of role of structure in our lives as to influencing our capacity to choose freely. For instance consider a home with multiple rooms, to a home that only has a few. The structure of the home might not be something a person built themself. It might be that the person would have liked a different home entirely but was limited on the choices they could choose from. None the less if comparing one home with two bedrooms to a home with four bedrooms, the simple reality of it is that the home with only two has less options then the one with four rooms. The structure of the home limits or increases the possibilities of that home. Number of rooms, being a house or an apartment, narrow stairs or easy access all contribute to the options of what a person can do in their home.

In the same way, we have structure in each of us. Our past, our current physical ability, and mental attributes, and any habits we currently have or desires of where we want to go. That structure can increase our options or restrict them, but it never restricts anything to the point that we no longer have the ability to choose.

To push the point further, there are many people that step outside of their current limitations. Being out of shape in the past, and their training and exercise to be in better shape succeeds. Or the person who was an alcoholic and fought hard to overcome the habits and addiction may one day be free of it. There is choice as is evident by those who are successful against the odds. Even without success there is always a choice.

One limit of choice is not considering an option. Possibly not even knowing it's there. But limited choices is not the same as having no choice.

Louis,

Thank you for your response.

<< To paraphrase Sam Harris, free will is the feeling of being an author of your own thoughts, the controller inside your head>>

That's an existential understanding - 'the feeling'.

I'm of the view that free will is the power of contrary choice. It was given in the beginning when Adam and Even were provided with this alternative: They could choose whatever they wanted but God placed a choice before them, “You may freely eat the fruit of every tree in the garden— except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die" (Genesis 2:16-17).

They chose to break God's law.

Adam and Eve would have been robots without this choice. They weren't morally programmed in the brain to do what they had no choice to reject. They, like us, are free human beings who can choose a Ferrari over a Ford, to commit adultery or not, to steal from an employer or be an honest employee.

We are able to choose good from evil. Thus, we are truly free. This principle of the power of contrary choice was written into the moral framework of the universe from the beginning of time.

Louis – you say, “Determinism doesn't negate reason”.

Harris claims that determinism is true and that therefore means we are not in control of our minds.

If we are not in control of our minds then how can the uncontrolled noises that we produce or the uncontrolled symbols that we make have any meaning? – just as the uncontrolled noises created by avalanches and the shapes formed by clouds have no meaning.

The SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) researchers are not looking just for noise coming from outer space – there is plenty of static out there – what they are looking for are sounds that show evidence of being controlled. It is only controlled sound that indicates that there is intelligence and thus the possibility of reason.

If we are not in control of our minds then we are not controlling what we say or write. If we are not controlling these things then we are simply generating meaningless noise. Therefore under those circumstances, reason is impossible.

Remember that Harris wrote, "unconscious neural events determine our thoughts and actions and are themselves determined by prior causes of which we are subjectively unaware," (p. 16) and "The next choice you make will come out of the darkness of prior causes that you, the conscious witness of your experience did not bring into being" (p. 34). So according to Harris, what emanates from us has nothing to do with us as thinking human beings but is solely the result of the mindless laws of physics acting on matter.

But clearly we can reason : hence determinism must be false.

You ask, how have we come to have free will? Free will is only possible if we are somehow able to override the clockwork mechanism of the physical universe. There would have to be a non-physical aspect to our human make-up – a soul? -in order for this to be able to happen.

Evolution cannot account for a non-physical soul, therefore we must have been created by a non-physical being who can make a soul and thus give us free will.

Dear JP,

Nothing in the objective world, INCLUDING INTELLIGENCE, can disprove determinism, so those who worship the physical and deny the reality of themselves and God, can never be convinced. You are looking for evidence in the wrong direction - look inside instead and find all answers within!

Yes, determinism is not real, but only because the world around us itself is not the ultimate reality.

Yuyutsu,

<<Nothing in the objective world, INCLUDING INTELLIGENCE, can disprove determinism, so those who worship the physical and deny the reality of themselves and God, can never be convinced. You are looking for evidence in the wrong direction - look inside instead and find all answers within!>>

How can the 'objective world' of 'determinism' be proven if it depends on the evidence 'inside' each individual?

That appeals to existential experiences that vary from person to person.

Do you suggest my answer may be different to yours, but that is the 'answer' for you and me? What if my internal evidence encourages me to hate and kill those who are violently angry with me?

How can that work itself out in an Australian culture that is plagued by existential meaninglessness. I was a counsellor and counselling manager for 34 years and these people came in droves.

The experience within has led many a person to commit suicide and heinous crimes.

Dear OzSpen,

I did not understand your question: "How can the 'objective world' of 'determinism' be proven if...", because it cannot, because the theory of determinism is false. But as I told JP, it cannot be disproved either except by oneself, for oneself. So those who rather believe in determinism have the free will to do so!

The truth is the truth, regardless whether knowing it is liable to produce crime and suicide. You may however prefer for some people not to be aware of it - and this is already the case.

The ultimate truth is God, that there is nothing but God, that you are God and the world is your playground and you can do with it as you please, but others are also God and what appears to you to be different persons, your person and other persons, are actually all one and the same.

When you know this truth, you understand that you cannot truly kill others or yourself.

With the exception of the most heinous psychopaths, there is a natural mechanism by which those who feel guilty and liable to do harmful things would, in order to limit their violence, never allow themselves to expand and know or even understand this highest truth. In fact they would not even allow themselves to believe that they have any free will - they consider themselves victims and blame their circumstances, so they find determinism a convenient excuse. You could explain to them otherwise, but they just won't get it, they won't believe, they won't understand - not until they are willing to review their crimes, confess and repent.

To Not_Now.Soon,

Thanks for the analogy, it's helped me understand your perspective. I see what you are saying,though I would ask, where do our "walls" end and where does our free will begin?

You use the example of an alcoholic, who overcomes their alcoholism.

This is indeed an example of someone who is able to overcome addiction, though what of those who don't overcome addiction? Did they choose to remain addicted? I would argue that they are simply more susceptible to the immediate gratification of alcohol, and that if they had been born into a different brain or environment, that susceptibility may be reduced or altogether removed.

What is it that makes one become addicted to a substance initially?

Often times it is linked to trauma or, I would imagine, poor external conditions in ones life and a lack of the ability to delay gratification. Again I would argue that most of these factors were endowed upon individuals without their consent or authorship, and hence re-iterates why we lack free will.

Louis

To Ozspen,

I often think of that parable within The Bible, despite not being particularly religious. The tale of Adam and Eve has great power and depth and I think the message it sends helps to influence individuals to strive to be better people. (We do not need free will to be influenced, just as a feather doesn't need free will to be influenced by the wind.)

However, you mention that we are able to choose good from evil. What of a psychopath, pyromaniac or pedophile? They didn't choose their brain, and yet they are often subject to deleterious impulses which the ordinary layman doesn't have to confront, due to nothing other than chance.

Or, to make the point even more realistically, what of someone born with extreme depression?

Imagine that due to either circumstance, or entirely due to neurology, an individual is unable to perceive the positive facets of reality as easily as you or I. For that person, in their mind, the logical next step may unfortunately be suicide. Did they choose to be suicidal? Or to perceive the world negatively? Or were they instead born that way?

Louis

To JP,

Again, you seem to be making the same conflation as I mentioned earlier between reason and our capacity for free will.

Reason is simply a process which aids the development and sustenance of species, particularly humans, who evidently have the greatest capacity for reason out of any known creature. Reason is quite evidently advantageous, and has been the source of much of humanity's success in both a societal and reproductive sense.

Let me ask, do you believe frogs have free will? Are they free to roam the world as they'd like, and abandon their evolutionary impulses? How about mice?

The reason I ask is because they have the capacity to communicate with one another. Frogs can croak to speak to one another and mice can squeak. Does this mean they have free will?

If you do believe rats or frogs have free will, I would love to hear your arguments! But, to give you credit I would posit you do not believe this, and instead believe that they are merely the puppets to impulses and reactions which of course they didn't choose.

In fact, We can predictably trigger certain responses to certain stimuli or external forces within mice, hence the frequent use of mice in scientific experiments.

So why then, do humans exist outside of this? Simply because we can write? who's to say that writing or language isn't merely an advanced croak, squeak or hummingbird song, which has evolved to give us the evolutionary advantage of effective communication with one another?

And what of those with severe dyslexia, incapable of writing as you or I would? Do they then lack free will?

Louis

To Louis.

I used a house to compare to because it is a structure that has it's own physical architecture, and design. Some are even a pattern that is used on several houses.

In a similar way, we have a structure to our thoughts, philosophies and overall behavior. One thought can be it's own support to another. Or it can be a barrier to another thought, and draw the boundaries to where a general rule ends (if a person holds that rule to conditions that make it reasonable to them). In academic studies the term for a specific set of philosophies is usually considered a paradigm. They have their foundations, and then they have other ideas and perspectives built on top of those foundations.

But a house that has walls doesn't limit the freedom. No instead it might add structure to enable certain things that can't be as easily done without walls to keep the elements and the winds out, while keeping the heat in on cold days, or the cold in on hot days.

This might be a jarring idea that structure can be a means to support freedoms instead of inclose them. But if you think of walls and roofs as a way to protect against outside elements, and think of stairs as a way to reach another floor, then you can look at going to school as a similar thing as a piece of structure built in a home so a person can be trained in ways to reach harder concepts, or even reach common means to get along in the world (like being able to read and write help a person's freedom to enjoy a book, or fill out a resume, thus enabling them to have more freedoms instead of less).

(Continued)

(Continued)

In the context of free will though, alcoholism is an example that can be observed as an instance where some have beaten the odds and given up drinking. Once alcoholic but no more kind of thing. However, being alocholic doesn't mean a person sees it as a bad thing, so why would they choose to change? Of those that do recognize it's harms, some are successful at becoming better, while others are not successful. But their choice to try to get over it is still within their ability regardless of successfulness. Making the point of free will a real phenomenon.

Depression can be looked at in the same way too. Some people do get better, either on their own, with outside help and a consoler, or with medication. Others get worse because of being over exposed to their own thoughts and bring them darker into their depression; due to the environments they are in like stressful people stressful situations, or just a lack of sunlight; or even get depressed as a side effect to certain medications or illegal drugs. But to those who give up trying to get better, verses those who try to find a better life, that shows that there is a choice people can make regardless if they are successful or not.

Here is a third example of free choice. Consider an entrepreneur who wants to start their business. They make the choice to get started, invest their savings and their livelihoods into the endeavor, and try to scratch out a place for themselves in the market. Some are successful either because of luck in the market they hit had a need for them, or because they were smart and prepared in their plans. Others fail miserably, start their dream to have a restaurant or a fishing store or a baking service only to find out that the initial costs to get started are beyond what they've already invested, or that the market for those services are already over competitive or aren't noticed and sought after by costumers.

(Continued)

(Continued)

In the choice of starting a business, the choice to start it is a reflection of free will. It was their choice, and it wasn't a limitation placed on them like trying to overcome depression or alcoholism can be a limitation to overcome. In a business though they can choose it even invest in it to the degree that if it flops they lose everything, but if it succeeds they succeed even more. Their success isn't what restricts their ability to choose, because they choose it before they were successful or not.

Hope that helps. If you would like to talk in more detail regarding choice in any of those examples, I can give further detail in depression, because it is something I've dealt with to a small degree. I can talk about an inner structure of thoughts that can feed depression or break it down. As well as outside help that can both feed or break it down. I can even talk about trying to get out of the depression or giving up and just trying to live in it. But in so many parts of depression there are choices. Some even as small as what we allow ourselves to focus on instead of trying to step away from.
__________

.... Not to answer for JP, but I would actually say that animals have free will also. Even the mice and frogs. They may have less choices, but their ability to choose, in my opinion, is still there.

Yuyutsu,

<<The ultimate truth is God, that there is nothing but God, that you are God and the world is your playground and you can do with it as you please, but others are also God and what appears to you to be different persons, your person and other persons, are actually all one and the same.>>

So, can I as God, create rain to end the drought for outback Australia? If the world is my playground, why can't you and I cause paedophilia, crime and violence to stop?

Or is your definition of 'God' different to my understanding?

Dear OzSpen,

«Or is your definition of 'God' different to my understanding?»

You understand God?

Then whatever you understand is incorrect because God cannot be understood. To understand means to grasp by one's mind, but no mind can grasp God.

The reason you cannot do all those things that you listed is that, for the time-being, you have taken upon yourself the roll/costume of a human and these are beyond a human's capacity.

Yes the world is your playground and this is one of the games you play there (and games without a villain or two can be quite boring). You seem to take this role very seriously, but once you had enough, you may withdraw from the game and cast off that costume, just as you can always wake up from a dream (just on a grander scale), unscathed.

You understand God?
yuyutsu,
he didn't say that. Can you confirm there is a God ? What makes you think that a power/force creates temptation but does not endow people with a strong enough will to counter temptation yet asks people to restrain/control themselves ?

Yuyutsu,

<<You understand God? Then whatever you understand is incorrect because God cannot be understood. To understand means to grasp by one's mind, but no mind can grasp God>>

To a certain extent I agree with you. God is incomprehensible (Psalm 145:3; Romans 11:33-34), and yet He is can be known at the same time (2 Peter 1:2-3).

I understand the Almighty God to the extent he has revealed Himself to us. This is part of that revelation:

"They [sinful, wicked people] know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. SO THEY HAVE NO EXCUSE FOR NOT KNOWING GOD.

"Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles" (Romans 1:19-23).

Throughout Scripture God has provided details to understand Him better.

We won't ever understand God comprehensively, However, He can be known genuinely, personally and adequately. He is the personal God who has definite attributes (characteristics) and He has personally revealed them to us.

See, "What are the most important things to understand about the nature of God? http://www.gotquestions.org/nature-of-God.html,

Dear Individual,

«Can you confirm there is a God ?»

It depends on what exactly you mean by "there is".

As far as I am concerned, I can confirm that I am!

«What makes you think that a power/force creates temptation but does not endow people with a strong enough will to counter temptation yet asks people to restrain/control themselves ?»

So many incorrect assumptions...

1) That I think that a power/force creates anything.
2) That certain objects are inherently temptations: anything can become a temptation.
3) That people are strong (but not strong enough) and have a will.
4) That anything is being asked of people.

People are mere objects, just like mice and frogs - they have no free will. You and I on the other hand do have free will, but then we are not objects. If we choose to be tempted, then we should take the responsibility rather than blame some power/force for it!

---

Dear OzSpen,

Exactly, God can be known but not understood!

Louis,

<<The tale of Adam and Eve has great power and depth and I think the message it sends helps to influence individuals to strive to be better people>>

The biblical text of Genesis 2-3 tells a very different story. It details how 2 people who were created 'very good', were given the free will choice over the 'tree of the knowledge of good and evil', and they failed the test. As a result, they brought sin into the world that infected humanity and the ground 'was cursed' (Gen 3:17).

That's not an example of people who 'strive to be better people, based on the Adam & Eve story, but of the whole of the world contaminated by sin.

Instead of people striving to be better people, based on 'the tale of Adam and Eve', this is what happened: 'When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam's sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned' (Rom 5:12).

Do you use postmodern, deconstructionist, reader-response interpretation to come up with your view?

<<What of a psychopath, pyromaniac or pedophile? They didn't choose their brain....>>

That's the worldview of naturalism speaking and not one based on sin infecting all human beings.

<<what of someone born with extreme depression>>

I have great sympathy for parents, especially mothers, who have to deal with childhood depression - as a counsellor and counselling manager.

This article gives one of the possible causes of 'perinatal depression and anxiety' as, 'a likely mechanism, whereby maternal stress during pregnancy influences fetal, brain and general development, is through changes in the mother’s physiological state'. See: http://resources.beyondblue.org.au/prism/file?token=BL/0470.

<<Imagine that due to either circumstance, or entirely due to neurology, an individual is unable to perceive the positive facets of reality as easily as you or I>>.

This again is a worldview of naturalism that doesn't deal with the infection of sin and its consequences in ALL human beings.

Your response was an example of turning to naturalism for an answer, rather than dealing with the reality of the nature of sin and its manifestations in our society.

.

Dear Louis O'Neill, Dear Graham Preston,

.

It seems to me that Sam Harris’s book on “Free Will” is more an exercise of intellectual masturbation than of philosophy and cognitive neuroscience.

According to the OED free will is :

« The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion »

That seems clear, precise and easily understood.

Free will is a functional advantage developed by nature. It is autonomy, the autonomy of the individual (or of a group of individuals). Its acquisition and development are progressive. It is an evolutive mode of functioning.

Though there may be important differences in the rate of development of autonomy among individuals due to all the variables that contribute to its evolution, progress is nevertheless achieved during the lifetime of each individual. Beneficial mutations and experiences continue to accumulate over time, multiplying and diversifying choice patterns to an ever-greater degree of complexity until the individual is no longer held to obey any particular predetermined course of behaviour, gaining in the autonomy we call free will.

Life is relayed to each individual member of each individual species by its creator or creators (its parent or parents) in its or their own image, whether they be monkeys, elephants, snails, birds, cockroaches, plants or human beings. They all inherit the genetic patrimony of their parent or parents, their basic biological programme.

As the new-born develops it acquires knowledge and experience which it stocks in its memory bank (or library, if you prefer) for future reference. The richer the collection, the greater the choice of possible courses of action when placed in a particular situation, i.e., the greater …

« The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion », i.e., the greater the degree of “Free Will”.

I suspect that all forms of life have some degree of free will – even plants and earthworms.

.

Dear Banjo,

«I suspect that all forms of life have some degree of free will – even plants and earthworms.»

A precondition for free will is to have a subjective sense of will.

Otherwise, it is just physics in action.

Yuyutsu, you say "A precondition for free will is to have a subjective sense of will."

So in your opinion, according to this statement, at what point of their development does a human gain free will:
eg: 1) does an unfertilised egg or a sperm have free will?
2) or maybe free will is gained at conception?
3) perhaps an embryo?
4) if not these stages how about a foetus?
5) or infant (or a substage- such as babbling a single word) ?
6) or child?
7) or adolescent?
8) or adult?
9) or some other time?

I.e. Can you pin point a specific stage of human development when someone gains a "subjective sense of will" as opposed to just "physics in action"?

Also, what about the times when someone is not fully conscious; such as when sleeping or in a coma or dazed out on drugs. At these times do they have free will? Does free will come and go to be replaced with physics in action?

Lastly, what about people who have experienced brain damage or were born with severe intellectual disability. Do they have free will?

Dear Thinkabit,

«at what point of their development does a human gain free will»

Never.

A human is just a body, so are mice and frogs and plants and earthworms.

YOU have free will, or at least a subjective sense of will, but your human does not.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« A precondition for free will is to have a subjective sense of will. Otherwise, it is just physics in action »
.

It’s not quite that simple I’m afraid Yuyutsu.

The OED defines “will” as :

« The faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action »

But I think that, by assimilation, that definition could probably be extended to apply not just to human beings but probably to all animals and perhaps, even, some plants as well.

Decision-making is a relatively new field of study that is still very much in its infancy, dating roughly from the year 2000. It bridges neurobiology and cognitive science. Prior to that, scientists had studied the activity of neurons in those parts of the brain that play a role in working memory.

They apply the neurocircuit computer models they had developed form these earlier studies on memory to explain behavioural and neurophysiological observations relating to decision-making.

Here is an indication of research currently being undertaken by three experts in this field :

http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science-spotlights/neuroscience-of-decision-making
.

It probably won’t happen during our lifetime, Yuyutsu, but I expect that these scientific efforts will eventually achieve their objective of establishing a clear understanding of the decision-making process that underpins the faculty of free will that we human beings share with other members of the Animal Kingdom along with, perhaps, some of the more sophisticated species of plant life, as I explained in my previous post.

.

Dear Banjo,

« The faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action »

A person is a physical object, so are animals, so are computers, so you can even speak about air and water "deciding" to flow in this or that direction, in fact every sub-atomic particle or wave constantly "decides" what to do - they might not have a FREE will, but they still have a WILL.

If that's all there is to "will", if we are only discussing physical mechanisms, then obviously there is no free will. Also, if that's the case, then all that is left is a technical study of those mechanisms and frankly, I wouldn't find this interesting.

However, the OED definition is quite different from the broader intuitive sense of WILL, including as presented by this article's author. According to the broader sense, I may, for example, have the will to fly, yet my body doesn't comply so it "decides" to stay on the ground and obey the law of gravity.

While there can be faculties of OED-style will, There cannot be a "faculty of free will". Free will means that it is YOURS alone and independent of external factors. You may claim that free-will doesn't exist - OK, many do, including the author, it's called "determinism".

Yuyutsu,

<<Exactly, God can be known but not understood!>>

It is not exactly, in my understanding. Why?

Job 36:26 asks: 'How great is God—beyond our understanding! The number of his years is past finding out'.

However, that doesn't mean we can't pursue an understanding of God as He has revealed many of his attributes to us. See: http://www.allaboutgod.com/understanding-god.htm

Yuyutsu,

<<A person is a physical object, so are animals, so are computers, so you can even speak about air and water "deciding" to flow in this or that direction.>>

Are you affirming that a person is only a physical object? Are we body/physical and there's no more to us?

Dear OzSpen,

We CAN pursue an understanding of God and it is an excellent practice which prepares and purifies us to become better recipients of divine grace. Yet what we end up with instead, is direct knowledge of God rather than mere intellectual understanding of words and formulas.

A person is only a physical object. YOU, however, are not a person nor a physical object.

The word 'person' comes from Latin 'persona', an actor's mask. While we are wearing this mask, this costume of a human person, we are not it!

This mask has no will, how less so a free will, but by God's gift, we do.

rache,

<<If the Bible is going to be used as the some sort of moral guide then it explicitly states that homosexuality is an abomination punishable by death - no excuses.>>

This statement suffers from a lack of biblical knowledge on the difference between the Old Covenant (OT) for the Israelites and the New Covenant (NT) for the era after Jesus Christ's death, burial and resurrection, providing opportunity for all to receive eternal salvation.

Therefore, under the NT, homosexual behaviour is described as 'shameful acts' (Rom 1:26) and the destiny for homosexuals and many other sinners is: 'wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God' (1 Cor 6:9).

<<So what's it going to be - instructions that are meant to be followed or a convenient excuse to justify prejudices?>>

What does it mean? Those who practise all kinds of wrongdoing (not just homosexuality), measured against God's standard, will not enter into God's eternal kingdom at death.

<<Many seem to conveniently ignore other instructions about wearing mixed cloth, eating shellfish, killing witches, beating slaves, cutting the hair on the sides of their heads and so on, but zero in on specific topics - convenience permitting>>.

Again, you seem to have misunderstood the Old Covenant vs New Covenant and the nature of slavery. The NT speaks of those who 'have been set free from [slavery to] sin and have become slaves to righteousness' (Rom 6:18). Here is not the place to examine the NT word for slave, doulos, and its use.

<<Morality changes over time and almost all those things are sensibly put aside but some seem to hang around.>>

Who said so? Do we 'sensibly put aside' lying, murder, theft, committing adultery, pursuing homosexual acts or heterosexual promiscuity, polygamy, pre-marital sex?

Where are you going to stop with the extent of what is allowed for your brand of ethics - moral relativism - when that morality leads to endorsement of paedophilia, rape and sexual abuse of children?

That will lead to moral chaos in Australia. Ethical standards have consequences.

Yuyutsu,

<<A person is only a physical object. YOU, however, are not a person nor a physical object.

The word 'person' comes from Latin 'persona', an actor's mask. While we are wearing this mask, this costume of a human person, we are not it!>>

To the contrary, 'person' was used before the Latin:

1. 'Then Peter opened his mouth and said, “In truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34). 'Respecter of persons' = proswpolempetes. It is a compound word, of 'proswpon' = face or person, and 'lambanw', I take or take up.

2. Also, in Romans 2:11 it states, 'There is no respect of persons with God'.

A person or a human being consists of the physical body and the unseen part which the Scriptures variously describe as soul, spirit, heart and mind.

Jesus taught other people and his disciples: 'For what will it profit a man [human being] if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul' (Mark 8:36)?

Thus, human beings as persons are more than physical matter.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

«A person is a physical object … »
.

That’s Nazi language, Yuyutsu. The German Nazis of Adolf Hitler dehumanized their victims, negating their personal identity as human beings, and tattooed them with numbers. They did this to demonstrate that they were nothing more than objects.

I do not know why you persist in declaring that “a person is a physical object” but, whatever the reason, it reveals a complete lack of sensitivity (and humanity) to the horrors of the Holocaust (or Shoah) and the suffering and humiliation of the families and friends of the six million innocent, civilian, Jewish victims.

An object, in its philosophical sense, is “a thing external to the thinking mind or subject” (OED).

In the case in hand, Yuyutsu, you are the “thinking mind or subject” and you designate “a person” (any person) as the “external thing”. I find that particularly degrading, demeaning and insulting. Is that how you consider your wife and children, your friends, acquaintances and fellow human beings ? Are they all just “physical objects” or things ?

You who are so religious, claiming in previous threads on this forum, that you, yourself, are God, that I am God and that other people are God – and now, that as persons, we are all just “physical objects (or things). Logically, that makes your God just a “physical object” or thing as well.

I am ready to accept the elusive games you often play on this OLO forum, Yuutsu, and the outlandish statements you also adore making. They do not bother me. But I do not accept your indifference to Nazi genocide and crimes against humanity.

Violent words engender violent action.

Adolf Hitler wrote in his book, Mein Kampf (“My Struggle”) :

«The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous … effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand »

.

Dear OzSpen,

Yes, if you wish to go into subtleties, then a person also includes a mind which is not normally considered physical, but is a subtler body of ours which does not completely dissolve when our gross human body dies.

Neither body nor mind have free will, so it would be more accurate (though it would confuse everyday language) to describe them both as physical. The mental body, however, being more subtle, is more directly illumined by God's light than the physical body, thus free will seems to emanate from the mind more than from the physical body - but even this is still an illusion as the source of free will is God alone.

P.S. The first two verses you quoted are about God's lack of discrimination between Jews and "gentiles". As for the third verse, no one can lose his soul - but one can corrupt their mind, thus lose contact between body and soul, which is what the verse refers to.

---

Dear Banjo,

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

Hitler was correct in claiming that we are not humans, but he believed that some (like Jews) are lower than humans, while I claim that we all are far higher than humans. In fact, calling us "human" is a degrading insult to who we really are - God!

So Yuyutsu, according to your view point I have a physical human body but which is detached from me.

Indeed what you're saying is that this body of mine really has nothing to do with the "real me" or in other words this body and me cannot interact in anyway (eg, it cannot be controlled by the me).

Thus if my body was to murder someone than I'm in no way responsible.

Have I got this view-point of your's right?

Dear Thinkabit,

«Thus if my body was to murder someone than I'm in no way responsible. »

Your body cannot murder.

Your body can kill just as a gun or a hammer can, but no sane judge would prosecute a gun or a hammer.

Now your body is not completely detached from you because your mind has attached itself to your body while you identify yourself as your mind. Your mind interacts with your body and can influence it to a certain degree, while you can freely choose to control and train your mind to follow the straight and narrow.

The mind is like a wild horse that needs to be broken. If you fail to control your mind and your mind then causes your body to murder, then you are responsible.

The mind has no free will and is set on its long-acquired habits. If you do not intervene and leave it in automatic-mode, then it will pursue its preset goals, most often to acquire, through your body, immediate sensual pleasures, and it would do so blindly at any cost. Training the mind to change its habits, is a long and arduous project - sometimes it seems impossible, but it actually is possible.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Hitler was correct in claiming that we are not humans, but he believed that some (like Jews) are lower than humans … »
.

So do you, Yuyutsu. Like Hitler, you claim that “a person is a physical object” – which is why I protested so vigorously in my previous post. In fact, my whole post was entirely devoted to this single declaration of yours that I found particularly shocking and totally unacceptable.

But you obviously preferred to ignore it. You did not offer the slightest explanation, let alone justification.

As I already pointed out in my previous post, the only logical conclusion that one can draw from the fact that you also declare that you consider yourself, myself and other people to be God is that you consider your God to be a “physical object” (or thing) according to your own definition of us all as “persons”.

You have a double – perhaps even a triple – conflicting discourse, all versions of which are totally irreconcilable. I say “perhaps triple conflicting discourse” because you indicated on a previous thread that you know nothing about God because, according to you, God is undefinable.

Perhaps you are not aware of the totally confused and conflicting nature of your discourse, or perhaps you do not want to admit it, or, for some reason which I ignore, perhaps you are simply unable to admit it, or, at least, offer some explanation for it.

If it’s any consolation, Yuyutsu, allow me to add that I see no reason to doubt your good faith.

Nevertheless, I’m afraid there’s nothing I can do about it, whatever the reason, and see no point in continuing this conversation.

Sorry, Yuyutsu.

.

9 pages so far in the topic of free will.

9 pages to argue for the existence, and argue against the existiance of free will.

Again I want to stress that number. Because it is 9 pages where people CHOSE to communicate on this topic. If the number was 2 or even 3. Then the argument could be that the people felt compelled to write their view and had no choice on the matter. But over an extended amount of time and effort to deticated to this topic, that is a choice, not an forced act.

9 pages to continue the discussion should end the debate that we are only tools with no choice, but instead that we chose to take part in the debate.

Otherwise the argument would reduce into being compelled for other long thought out behavior, and kill the responsibility of anyone who has thought out a lie, or premeditated a crime. The responsibility of all of this is on each of us, because regardless of any compelling elements, our actions are our own choices. Long drawn out choices discredit any argument of not choosing the action.

Free will exists based on the evidance of a long debate over it existing.

Dear Banjo,

«the only logical conclusion that one can draw from the fact that you also declare that you consider yourself, myself and other people to be God is that you consider your God to be a “physical object” (or thing) according to your own definition of us all as “persons”.»

The only conflict here is with your assumption as if we were persons. We are not.

---

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

While I do believe that we have free will and choice, I cannot see how the fact that there are 9 pages here proves it.

One might feel compelled when they are not while another might feel free when they are not: it is not impossible for feelings to mislead us, even for a long time.

«regardless of any compelling elements, our actions are our own choices»

This is obviously true, but the debate still rages whether or not the actions of our body are indeed "ours".

Yuyutsu.

Did you type up that last message to Banjo and me? Or did your body do it. The truth is that there is an overlap. The actions of our bodies are our own actions. Even actions done without free choice (like breathing) are our actions because it's what we are doing. There's no raging debate in that, any more then there would be a debate over whether you wrote your response, or your body did without your concent.

As for the 9 pages thing. The point is that any long drawn out action, or any planned out thought discredit the idea that either of those were not a choice. The reason is because over time anyone can change their path to not seek another route instead of continuing on with a commited action. That shows a choice. This discussion just on the length alone, proves that people chose to be in it. Thus giving credit to the free will of their actions.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«Did you type up that last message to Banjo and me?»

I am asking that same question myself and I don't have a clear answer.

For writing this message, my body was obviously only used as a tool by my mind, my keyboard too, so just as it would be insane to claim "my keyboard did it", the option of "my body did it" can also be safely discarded.

But was the message written by myself or by my mind? Was my body instructed to write the message by my independent free choice, or was this instruction done automatically by my mind due to its ongoing habits?

It is hard to tell. It is pretty tricky to tell.

Overall and over the long term, I can control and direct my mind, but have I done so in this particular instance, or did I lapse and just allowed my mind to automatically do its thing? Was I actually involved or was it just a case of one part of my mind influencing another part of my mind? This requires very deep reflection and honesty!

---

Alternately, if we transcend the personal level and look at this question at the level of the Absolute Truth, then I as God either wrote both that message, signed "Yuyutsu" as well as the next message, signed "Not_Now.Soon", or I wrote neither of them because none was ever actually written as the world and time itself are just an illusion.

However, a learned theoretical answer is not very helpful and not as beneficial for spiritual growth as the answer I could obtain by sincere and intense contemplation.

Yuyutsu,

<<We CAN pursue an understanding of God and it is an excellent practice which prepares and purifies us to become better recipients of divine grace.>>

Which God/god are you writing about?

Dear OzSpen,

«Which God/god are you writing about?»

God. Is there more than one?

To Yuyutsu. Try to keep things simple. After all if we out-think our own observations, then there's nothing left to reign in our thoughts and keep them true. In the instance of whether you wrote what you wrote, or if it was your mind in automatic. The simple observation that you did it should be enough.

After that we can consider if what you do (or what I do) as reasonable, sense-able, or thought out at all; or if what we do is out of habit, out of instinct, or out of some other impulse. But all of that doesn't separate us from our actions, our behavior, or our words.

If it helps there's another way to look at it. From an existential philosopher, the question is raised and answered of whether we are real or an illusion. His well known phrase is "I think therefore I am." This observation that we think and therefore that makes us real enough, answers the question "how do you know it's true," that can be repeated over and over again after any conclusion. It answers it because it's observable to test our philosophies by.

In the same way, regardless of differences we have on belief or views of the world, we can still observe the same things, and stay grounded by those observations.

Don't over think it. Keep it simple, and stay grounded. I know you wrote what you wrote, and it wasn't an outside influence or an unthinking state. It was you regardless of influence or state of mind. Just as what I've written is what I write, and not someone else.

Yuyutsu,

<<God. Is there more than one?>>

You were the one who stated you were God and I am God. I can assure you that I'm NOT the Lord God Almighty who created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).

I'm a created human being who has eternal salvation, thanks to Christ's death, burial and resurrection.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

In everyday life it is forgivable to use simplified language: say you ask "are you breathing?", you don't really want to know whether it is my body, my mind or myself who are breathing, but only whether you need to call an ambulance.

But in our case, we discuss free-will and we need to be meticulous and look deeper than appearances because there cannot be any free-will without a will to begin with.

Yes, ultimately we are responsible, including for what our minds and bodies do. If your dog bites people, can you excuse yourself saying "It's the dog, not me"? You could have probably trained your dog better or kept it on a leash, but even if you couldn't then why did you buy/adopt that dog in the first place? Similarly, if your brain has an untreatable murderous strain then why have you identified yourself with that brain to begin with?

---

Dear OzSpen,

You will certainly attain eternal salvation, may God bless you sooner rather than later, yet your human will not survive as it will go to the worms.

Nor can your puny mind which believes that you are just a small entity, separate from all others, survive the light once you are with God.

It is our greatest malady that we forgot who we are, our infinite worth and unlimited glory, instead identifying ourselves as mere human-beings.

Salvation is when we wake up from this delusion of smallness, to realise who we truly eternally are and always were.

To Yuyutsu.

When it comes to any subject, free will included, there is the potential to come to outlandish conclusions that have no merit, and no basis in reality. It is because of this that I recommend to keep it simple. Don't try to out think what can be readily observed, or try to see past and ignore what is right in front of you.

That advise can be applied to both the topic of free will, as well as the topic of religion and God. Regarding if you control yourself and have a will of your own, there can only be two real conclusions.

1). Each person has their own choice in their actions, and can be concluded on this by how we choose anything in our lives can be made with equal freedom as any other choices we make.

2). Each person is on a dictated path that they have no control over.

The issue here is that if the second option is true, then we live in a strange illusion of having a free will, but really have none. The illusion would be so great, that it can not be validated or confirmed that we actually don't choose anything.

(Continued)

(Continued)

I do think many times our options are restrained. And that God leads us in one direction (because we follow Him) or leads us in a different direction (hardening our hearts because of sin or because of continual rejection of Him and His direction). These two aspects I think do occur, but they don't remove our free will. Instead they are more likely a consequence of our choices towards God and towards sins committed against each other. There's always the choice to turn from our sins, wrong doing, and evil natures. Even your example of someone who likes to murder can turn from this. It's not his brain it's the person himself. That said our previous choices often direct us and harden our hearts from see past what we've seen.

That doesn't remove our ability to choose though. We can readily see how easy it is to choose different clothes in the morning, or a different path when walking or driving, or any other choice we make. This simple observation should be a grounding one. We have a choice and a will, because we can observe the freedom we have to make our choices.

Does that make more sense?

Yuyutsu,

<<Nor can your puny mind which believes that you are just a small entity, separate from all others, survive the light once you are with God.>>

From where did you gain that view of God?

<<Salvation is when we wake up from this delusion of smallness, to realise who we truly eternally are and always were>>.

That might be your view, but it is not that of the biblical Scriptures.

"... Believe in the Lord Jesus , and you will be saved, you and your household" (Acts 16:31).

"Jesus said to him [Thomas], 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'" (John 14:6).

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

There is no hint of waking up from my delusion of who I was and am eternally.

Your view of salvation is not coming from the Christian Scriptures. What is your source of information about salvation?

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«The issue here is that if the second option is true, then we live in a strange illusion of having a free will, but really have none.»

But we DO have free will - the strange illusion is as if that free will that we invest in our body/mind/person, is instead generated by our body/mind/person itself.

Your observation that our options are restrained is correct and makes great sense: our past actions have set our body/minds on a particular course and (unless we are sages/prophets who perform miracles that affect the physical directly, rather than via our minds) we can only change that course over time: like turning around a heavy ship, the change is not immediate. Say you drank alcohol heavily, then you cannot immediately "choose" to walk and drive straight, but you can choose to stop drinking, then a day or two later your sphere of choice will broaden.

---

Dear OzSpen,

My source of information is scripture, mainly the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Gita, including not just my private reading but also scripture-classes that I am so fortunate to attend.

The question of free-will for example is addressed in the first khanda of the Kena Upanishad: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=CGbhBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT25&lpg=PT25&dq=%22willed+by+whom+propelled+by+whom%22&source=bl&ved=2ahUKEwjHgNSZ0NDeAhUI7WEKHeb6DdsQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22willed%20by%20whom%20propelled%20by%20whom%22

I accept Jesus' famous statement: "No one comes to the Father except through me", because I believe Jesus to be among those relatively-few who knew who they truly are: God. Thus when Jesus said "me", he didn't refer to that specific human, son-of-Joseph-and-Mary who lived 2000 years-ago, but rather to who he truly is.

The bible is not explicit about who we are. It discusses the origins and the fall of mankind and how to remedy it, but nowhere does it says "and that is what you are". Genesis 3 for example speaks only in third person: "But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”", or "To the woman he said,..." - it never claims that you are that man/woman to which God spoke, it just instructs you how to use your free will correctly in conducting that human which you (falsely) consider to be yourself.

Yuyutsu. Let's put the terms of our beliefs out in the open. So that we can see that they are different.

To you, you believe that free will exists, but not to individuals. Is that correct? That being an individual is an illusion to who we really are, a collection that is in essence God. Is that accurate? And also that we as God have free will, but not as individuals. Does that in one way or another surmise your position on free will and part of your views on us and God? Or is there more to the matter to add to it or correct what I've pieced together.

To me I believe that God is seperate from us. He made us but He is not us. He is in charge and in control, but even with that our choices are part of His design, and don't excape His notice. With that in mind we have free choice as individuals, and can be understood by the general observations of our choices and our lives, as well as in the words in the bible that continually repeats the message to repent and turn from our sins. If we didn't have a free will to choose our own actions (as individuals) then there would be no use in the message to repent and to turn from our sins.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Both observation and some understanding of the bible give me the understanding that we (as individuals) have a free will. What we don't have is a garentee to be successful in what we choose, nor even do we always have all the options there to choose from. In some cases, it's described that God kept some from committing a sin, in other cases it's described that God gave people over to their sins instead of trying to save them and protect them. In the New Testiment Jesus says that no one can come to Him unless God helps them come to Jesus. And no one can stay without God's help.

Those are some of the things that can make a Christian believe there is no free will. But again even with those, throughout the bible a consistent message is to repent and turn to God. With this in mind, regardless of God's control in our lives and in the world, we have the ability to choose and to be free in the choices we have before us. And one choice seems to always be there. To seek God.

Sorry for giving my perspective more explaination. But I thought it was needed to show a differentiation between your views and mine (as well as those that are like my own).

Yuyutsu,

<<The bible is not explicit about who we are. It discusses the origins and the fall of mankind and how to remedy it, but nowhere does it says "and that is what you are".>>

That's false! 'So God created human beings in his own image. In the image of God he created them; male and female he created them' (Genesis 1:27).

Also, after listing a range of sins that keep people out of the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10), the apostle Paul, in the Christian Scriptures, stated: 'Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God' (1 Cor 6:11).

Human beings are a unity of the physical (body) and the immaterial(Eccl 12:7; Matt 10:28; 1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 4:16; 7:1; James 2:26).

The Bible describes the invisible, immaterial aspects of people as soul, spirit, heart, intellect, will, conscience, and emotions.

<<I accept Jesus' famous statement: "No one comes to the Father except through me", because I believe Jesus to be among those relatively-few who knew who they truly are: God. Thus when Jesus said "me", he didn't refer to that specific human, son-of-Joseph-and-Mary who lived 2000 years-ago, but rather to who he truly is.>>

That's a Yuyutsu eclectic invention. It does not come from the biblical Scriptures but from the mind of Yuyutsu. You also want to integrate Hindu and Judeo-Christian Scriptures to get your view of God and Jesus. God said not to do that:

+ 'I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me' (Isaiah 45:5).

+ 'Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent' (John 17:3).

It was you who stated you are God and I am God. No sir! There is only one true God, the LORD, and he is not Yuyutsu or OzSpen.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

We may differ in our theology, but not in the practical religious conclusions.

You just introduced a new term: "individuals". Can God be divided? I suggest that we stick with "persons" as we did thus far, rather than complicate things further.

The bottom line is that even if we have no agreement on what we are, WE, including YOU and I, have free will.
We also agree that our choices do not escape God.
We also agree that we should repent and turn from our sins towards God.
We also agree that we never lose this one choice - to seek God.

---

Dear OzSpen,

I wholeheartedly agree that God is neither Yuyutsu nor OzSpen.
All I was saying is that neither am I any of those, nor are you.

I could go over your biblical quotes one by one if you want and explain why I can accept them within the framework of my theology, but I don't have the time to do so today, nor sufficient time until next Thursday, if you wish to wait.

Yuyutsu,

<<I wholeheartedly agree that God is neither Yuyutsu nor OzSpen. All I was saying is that neither am I any of those, nor are you..>>

With that statement and others, you have violated the law of non-contradiction because it was you who stated: "The ultimate truth is God, that there is nothing but God, that YOU ARE GOD and the world is your playground and you can do with it as you please, but OTHERS ARE ALSO GOD...", Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 6 November 2018 11:21:59 PM

<<I could go over your biblical quotes one by one if you want and explain why I can accept them within the framework of my theology, but I don't have the time to do so today, nor sufficient time until next Thursday, if you wish to wait.>>

There is no point as you promote syncretism of Hinduism and Christianity and dealing with my 'biblical quotes' will produce only another mixture of syncretism, in which I have no interest.

Why? "Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isaiah 46:9).
The one God is revealed in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.

Dear OzSpen,

There is no contradiction: What You and I and everyone else truly are, is God, not "Yuyutsu" or "OzSpen".

I respect your wishes not to discuss any further and wish you well. May God speed your blessings.

To Yututsu.

You agree with those three conclusion? That's good! I'm not suprised by that agreement, based on your previous comments, but glad for it none the less.

However. Here is my line of thought (so far).

Ask 5 people their opinion on any subject, and you will get at least 5 different opinions. But to discern what is true and what is not, is a skill worth pursuing. One method I recommend is to keep things simple enough to not out think your observations, and your experiences. Those are my first defense against philosophies that are in error.

In the context of free will, that means to not try to distance yourself from the parts of you that make you, you. Body, soul, intellect, emotions, personality, experience, behavior, habits, and ideals. All of these are part of you, but there are things that you usually don't (or can't) change. Your body for one is yours, even if your personality changes with age or your intellect changes with education and experience. With this simple observation, the truth of us all being one person, one identity, or if we are all together and the same can be tested against. If it is true, then it will stand the observations that are in any of us. If it is not true then our observations (as simple as they are) will break down even the most complex philosophy.

(Continued)

(Continued)

For us all being one. My observation is that I don't know anyone else's thoughts but my own. And often enough, I'm surprised by another's thoughts or actions. Saying or doing things I never thought of. In this humbling and inspiring realization I realize that I am not someone else, and they are not me. The same has occured in my spiritual journey, with God answering or just responding to a prayer in ways I was not expecting. Showing that as well as not being you nor you being me, I am also not God. Part of that conclusion leads to you not being God either, nor God just being something I imagined up.

Though this method of simple observations requires a vast amount of experiences to truely test any philosophy and sift out what's in error among them, and what might be true within them. So the first line of defense requires a person to listen to their own experiences as well as listen and consider the experiences of others as well.

A second.approach would be to make sure you understand the philosophy as it really is, and you didn't test it unfairly by misrepresenting it. But that approach of understanding it correctly, is second to keeping it simple enough to allow it to be challenged and tested by observations and experience.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

Scripture confirms that our common experience is of being a human, limited and mortal, separate from God and from all others. However, it tells us that we face a great illusion (Sanskrit "maya"="that which is not"), that what we experience is born of our identification with our mind and we must therefore not trust our senses and mind. Scripture then outlines the path to overcome this illusion and realise our true identity, which is God.

As our history and situations differ, the particulars of the path, of religion, differ from one person to another, as well as the theologies that explain it, but the main principles remain and if I need to summarise them in one word, it would be "goodness".

«My observation is that I don't know anyone else's thoughts but my own.»

Isn't this itself a thought?

It's not surprising to find this type of thought within any given mind/brain because it's an essential mechanism of self-preservation: not your own self-preservation, but of the part of our minds which we call 'ego'.

Now imagine: As God you would be simultaneously aware of all thoughts that occur within trillions of minds/brains, yet the content of those thoughts will nearly always go along the lines of: "I don't know anyone else's thoughts but my own".

Convincing... but like the mythical serpent, no true!

I'm all for simplicity, but by listening to the serpent (allegory for the mind), rather than directly to God, we in fact complicate things. Like all bad habits, they seem simpler to maintain... until we kick the habit and say "Oh, how I used to complicate my life!".

«the parts of you that make you, you. Body, soul, intellect, emotions, personality, experience, behavior, habits, and ideals»

This is what your ego seduces you to believe, but it is false: all the above keep changing, yet you still are!

Your body for example used to be a baby, then a toddler, a boy/girl, a youth, an adult,... and now is old and wrinkly, but you are still you and none of that changed who you are.

To Yuyutsu.

What you referenced wasn't just a thought. It was an observation. My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor your thoughts mine. Your consideration that this is a universal perspective would not change the hard reality that you don't have access to anyone's thoughts except your own, and that can be observed by the surprise of how another person thinks, speaks, or acts. If it was just a shared illusion, then it wouldn't be as readily seen and observed how different most of us are. Even brothers and sister, who have many similarities and know each other from growing up together can be so different, and wonder where one brother gets their inspiration, or how they come up with what they do.

No I know better then just to say these are my thoughts. Because at least these ones are backed up by observations and experience.

That said. You also gave one line in your reply, that can be considered and put to the test.

<<Scripture then outlines the path to overcome this illusion and realise our true identity, which is God.>>

Which scripture do you refer to. It sounds like a different religion then I acknowledge as coming from God. But none the less if your point is true that all religions are from God, and the illusion is that we are not God, then give from your understanding the path to break away from this illusion. It doesn't have to be Christian scripture for this point. But it should be something that can be put to the test by things already seen in our lives, or a new path to keep in mind and consider later on.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Here is one other hurdle to consider though. It is another observation. I've seen my life as I've lived it, and counted the failures that I am aware of. If the measure to be close to God depends on me and me alone, then there is no hope. If I am God only by realizing that I am God then the journey is not fruitful. I am a failure too many times to not know it. And handicapped too often to not recognize and appreciate when others help me stand in the world. God has helped me too, for which I am very thankful for. And it is another observation to show that I am not God. Nor that without God's help I would not be able to find Him on my own.

......

None the less. State by your understanding the path to over come this illusion of being separate. If it holds met its or has a basis to be challenged and tested instead of just believed, then I'll consider the path. I won't accept it, not yet anyways, because if the illusion is so great no one can see that it's an illusion, then testing to see if there's truth in that path or if it is just another philosophy among all the philosophies will take time.

My advise again though is to keep it simple.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

You have no need to access [what-seems-to-be] others' thoughts.

There's the parable of the multi-billionaire who made a deal with God: "I know it's against the rules, but please allow me to carry just one sack of gold with me to heaven and I'll donate all the rest to your church". When he entered heaven with a heavy sack of gold on his back, everyone there wondered: "why would this crazy person carry such a burden of paving stones on his back?".

Our thoughts are useless in heaven, just a burden! The human brain through which thoughts flow, is designed to maintain and flourish the human organism, not to discover the truth.

Some are gifted by God to read other people's thoughts, but it's rare and not necessary, unless of course you have that particular calling.

«then give from your understanding the path to break away from this illusion.»

Jesus said: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

True, but how can one love another which is not oneself as if they were oneself?
- Only by losing one's false identity as a separate single human and realising that God and others are identical with oneself, then only you love God and others exactly as thyself, for you realise that they ARE you.

Great, but HOW?

The Bhagavad-Gita speaks of four different methods, then one's path consists of some personal combination of these four. However, a
prerequisite for success in any of the methods is to live a righteous and wholesome life - no human endeavour can succeed otherwise, be it material or spiritual. The methods are:

[continued...]

[...continued]

1. Knowledge: including study of scripture, but also constant self-inspection, contemplation and ruthless analysis of the nature of one's mind. This method is said to be the most difficult and suits only the most intellectually gifted.
2. Devotion: loving absorption in God or a representation thereof (for a Christian, this would be Jesus). Singing to God, dancing before God, offering Him food and flowers, praying fervently, addressing Him constantly, telling Him everything, etc. This is said to be relatively the easiest method.
3. Action: carrying out all one's normal duties diligently while dedicating one's actions to God and not expecting any results in return.
4. Concentration/meditation: training the mind to focus and not swerve, then eventually when one focuses on God one can get to know Him.

You should be able to find a wealth of all those four methods within Christianity, perhaps not all in your local church but certainly within the monastic traditions. I do believe that many Christian saints have realised God.

It is true that without God's help you would get nowhere, but God has helped you so far and will continue to help you so long as you make a sincere effort.

The common mistake is to believe that the help comes from a different entity outside yourself, and indeed it comes not from the limited entity whom you presently believe yourself to be, but it comes from your true self, which is God.

I presume that you accept John 14:9 - "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father" and John 14:11 - "Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me", but you consider Jesus to be different and yourself unworthy. If you do feel unworthy, then that's where repentance comes in!

The Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita tell us that the only difference between us and Jesus is that Jesus already knew that he is God while we are yet to discover the same.

Yuyutsu,

<<The Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita tell us that the only difference between us and Jesus is that Jesus already knew that he is God while we are yet to discover the same.>>

The Christian Scriptures provide a very different picture of the nature of human beings. We are not discovering we are God.

Instead, we KNOW we need a Saviour because we, as human beings, recognise we were dead in transgressions and sins before Jesus, the Saviour, set Christians free from "the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient" (Ephesians 2:1-2)

Most people I speak with don't want the word SIN mentioned because it is not a problem to them. However, the big problem for all humanity is our sinful nature from birth. We then live among those who are disobedient to God, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we are by nature deserving of God's wrath (Eph 2:3).

Those who don't know and serve God are not discovering that we are God, as you say, they are not even seeking God because they are "dead in their sins", with passionate desires and inclinations of their sinful nature.

One Christian writer used Ephesians 2:1-5 to provide this penetrating assessment:

"The reason we need a Savior is not just that we are in the doghouse with God and need to be forgiven for offending his glory. We need a Savior because we are in the morgue. In the doghouse you might whimper. You might say you are sorry. You might make some good resolutions. You might decide to cast yourself on the mercy of God. But what can you do if you are in the morgue?"

Through the Grace of God, the dead do not die.
They live forever , in God's mind, and in ours.
God is more powerful than death. The adventure
ahead is not dark but light.

Dear OzSpen,

Thank you for the quotes and the assessment: I agree.

Yes, we are born and live in sin and death, yes we need a saviour.

The depiction of the nature of human beings is the same in Christian and Hindu Scriptures, but what the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita add is: "Yes, this is indeed the nature of human beings, but WE - YOU and I, only SEEM to be human beings, it is only an illusion. So long as we delusively believe ourselves to be human beings, we live in sin and death, and suffer accordingly, but salvation comes when, by God's grace, we wake up and shake away this illusion. Once we awaken from this nightmare, we recall who we really are, who we always truly were, which is God."

Yuyutsu,

<<The depiction of the nature of human beings is the same in Christian and Hindu Scriptures, but what the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita add is: "Yes, this is indeed the nature of human beings, but WE - YOU and I, only SEEM to be human beings, it is only an illusion.>>

No, it's not the same. Nowhere do the Christian Scriptures state that people "ONLY SEEM to be human beings, it is only an illusion".

That kind of statement doesn't match reality. Christian alatheia (truth) is that which conforms with reality.

I can assure you that when I've had my FIVE open-heart, valve replacement heart surgeries that the cardiac surgeon was operating on a real human body. I have a zipper of a scar down my chest to prove my real heart and body have been cut wide open for the surgeon to operate on a real, genuine, human body.

There was no body of illusion here. The pain experienced was in a real human body. The holes from the tubes draining my stomach had to drain the blood and other gunk, not from an illusion, but from a real human body. I have scars to prove it.

I pop quite a few pills into my body every day to keep the body - not an illusion - functioning as well as possible.

This is but one example of how the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism have teachings that do not conform with reality.

To Yuyutsu.

I think I see what you're saying about loving your neighbor as yourself. However, there's a difference between compassion kindness and understanding, versus being the same.

-If a friend has a child or a spouse or a brother that you don't get along with, sometimes people will try to put up with them for the sake of the friend. Because of this things might get better, or they might just stay silent about things that bother them. With this attitude though, Christians are asked to be good to others. Because regardless of how we feel, God loves them. When you show kindness to the least of them then you are showing kindness to God kind of thing.

-Similarly, if a person is empathic towards another, they can see themselves in the other person. Similar struggles, hopes, and journeys. But don't make the mistake to say they are the same. Christians are again told with this attitude to love and have mercy, because we are no better.

-Love your neighbor as you love yourself is (from my understanding) the goal for us to be compassionate and selfless in nature, instead of greedy and selfish. It doesn't say anyone is the same, but to love them regardless.

-There's more. Treat all men as if they were your brothers, and all women as if they are your sisters. The exception to this rule doesn't take away the heart of the message to be respectful, kind, and good to each other, but the exception to the rule adds to that sentiment of respect. The exception is directed for your spouse. Because this is something you don't share with your brothers and sisters the relationship between husband and wife is both more loyal, and more intimate. But don't try to loosen that to just anyone and lust after them. Treat them as if they are your brothers and sisters instead.

(Continued)

(Continued)

If you consider these things, I get the confusion to conclude that we are all the same, and are all one. Expecially if you have religous texts that say as much. But in the bible God says that his thoughts are not our thoughts. His ways are not our ways. In this God has over and over shown his love for us and His authority at the same time. The roles God has communicated His relationship to us is from four different roles we see in life. 1) As a Father and us as the children. 2) As a Husband and the nation of Israel as well as the church body as collectively described as His wife. 3) As a Master and us as His servants. Though the others show His love more this one shows His authority more. 4) Lastly, God describes Himself as a shepherd, and us as His sheep, His flock. That He looks after us and is our caretaker.

Each of the roles God is given is one of an authority based on the narrative in the bible. Each of the roles that we are given (even all of us collectively) is still given a different identity then the one that God holds and even in partnership as the church body is considered the bride of God, that role of being a partner is still Biblically to be God's helper, and to work with Him in His endeavors. Not that we are God.

Regarding the 4 paths. I think those are a good approach to seeking God and Following Him. But that's where it ends. To be more then that requires God Himself to be in us. Have the Holy Spirit kind of thing. It's not something that we already have but is something God does in us.

Dear OzSpen,

«Nowhere do the Christian Scriptures state that people "ONLY SEEM to be human beings, it is only an illusion".»

I am not familiar enough with all Christian Scriptures, especially with the mystical compilations of Christian saints, to tell whether or not this is the case, but if you mean the bible only, then I agree that the bible does not address this. The Jewish Kabbalah, however, does and agrees with the Hindu scriptures on this matter.

I am sad to hear about your heart condition. Jesus too had his body punctured and underwent horrendous physical pains, but he did not complain, because he did not identify with the human body of his. It was only his body that was on the cross and it was only your body that was on the operating table.

I thought you may be interested in reading the deathbed account of the Australian spiritual teacher, Barry Long: http://www.barrylong.org/statements/what-it-is-to-die.shtml

---

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

We may have good intentions and love others as others, but so long as we identify ourselves to the exclusion of others, we are unable to love the excluded "others" (even our spouse) AS OURSELVES.

Of course we should aspire and make efforts to love all others as ourselves, but accomplishing this is only possible by the grace of God, once our delusion, the sting of selfishness, is removed and we experience our unity as God directly.

Relating to God as Father, Spouse, Master and Shepard are good and powerful practices, especially for the devotional type of persons (though less so for the intellectual type). It is difficult to venerate God with an open heart while thinking in the back of your mind "the one I venerate is actually myself". Yes, it is the truth, the absolute Truth, but while you venerate and practice devotion you should put it completely aside. For the time-being it is for you only a theoretical idea anyway: by God's grace it will one day become the most obvious and undeniable reality.

Yuyutsu,

Barry Long died on 6 December 2003 from prostate cancer. He examined "another paradigm" about eternity. That paradigm included, "When I realise God or Self I realise the ultimate of my Self-knowledge up to that moment - that I and God or Self are one".

This is from your Hindu worldview.

Since you aren't <<familiar enough with all Christian Scriptures>> to understand what the Bible says about our eternal destinies, I remind you there is no need to speculate about Self-knowledge and our being God or Self. That's an illusion from Hinduism.

The biblical Scriptures are very clear that human beings are made in the image of God. They are destined for one of two places in eternity: eternal life through Jesus Christ or eternal damnation (see Matthew 25:46, "They [the unrighteous] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life").

You failed to address the falsehood that the body is an illusion.

My heart condition was used as an example to demonstrate we are not illusions but are real people who experience real pain in our real physical bodies.

Try telling an accident victim that his or her physical body is an illusion!

Dear OzSpen,

To spend either eternal life or eternal damnation, you must at least be eternal, but the human body is not, it goes to the worms. By God's grace, nor is one's unrighteousness eternal either.

The world is an illusion, or more accurately not-the-truth: the only Truth is God. It doesn't, however, help to tell this to accident-victims who are in great physical pain: at this time they have no ears to hear this highest truth.

Yuyutsu,

<<To spend either eternal life or eternal damnation, you must at least be eternal, but the human body is not, it goes to the worms. By God's grace, nor is one's unrighteousness eternal either.>>

You again are giving me your Hindu worldview. You contradict the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, which match reality. Human beings are body and soul/spirit.

I agree with you that the body goes to dust, whether in the ground or through a crematorium fire. However, the reality is that human beings are not an illusion but have a spirit/soul that continues beyond the grave.

The apostle Paul put it this way: 'For me to live is Christ, to die is gain'. How can it be gain if we only are human bodies that are eaten by worms.

Eternal life or eternal damnation is given to human beings on the basis of how they respond to Christ's offer of salvation (Matthew 25:46).

<<The world is an illusion, or more accurately not-the-truth>>

That is not true again! You regularly make statements that don't match reality. In this world, I sit on an actual office chair as I type this message on the keyboard of a real computer. I'm about to go to an appointment and I drive a real car down an actual freeway. There are real trees on either side of the freeway.

The appointment is with a real professional who is not an illusion. By the way, this lawyer is not God, either. He's a professional solicitor who is really a man to whom I speak - not an illusion.

Your worldview whistles in the wind of unreality.

Dear OzSpen,

«You contradict the Judeo-Christian Scriptures»

Regarding the Christian Scriptures, it is yet to be seen, but at least the Jewish Kabbalah agrees with me. As I mentioned earlier, Christian Scriptures also consist of the accounts of Christian mystics and saints, though I only glimpsed some, so I am not in a position to comment.

Now even if there are contradictions with Christian Scriptures, this does not necessarily imply a contradiction with Jesus Christ's teachings.

«Human beings are body and soul/spirit.»

True. The spirit lasts longer than the body, the soul lasts longer than the spirit, but neither lasts forever.

«Eternal life or eternal damnation is given to human beings»

Fine, but you are not a human being, nor do human beings last for eternity. I agree that both life and damnation can last a VERY long time.

«In this world, I sit on an actual office chair»

The chair is only relatively true, relative to the world, yet the world itself once never existed and eventually will no longer exist. Only that with is eternal and immutable can rightly be called "Truth".

Yuyutsu,

<<Christian Scriptures also consist of the accounts of Christian mystics and saints>>

Please state who they are and in which books of the Bible they are located (giving chapters and verses).

<<Now even if there are contradictions with Christian Scriptures>>

You hypothesis again, with no evidence to support your claims.

<<The spirit lasts longer than the body, the soul lasts longer than the spirit, but neither lasts forever.>>

You didn't get that teaching from the biblical Scriptures. There you'll find 'soul' and 'spirit' are interchangeable descriptions of the immaterial part of human beings.

The Christian Scriptures sometimes describe a human being as “body and soul” (Matt. 6:25; 10:28). Other times a person is “body and spirit” (Eccl. 12:7; 1 Cor. 5:3, 5).

At death, sometimes it is described as the soul departing (Gen. 35:18; 1 Kings 17:21; Acts 15:26). At other times, it is the spirit that is given up (Ps. 31:5; Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59).

When it comes to explaining the immaterial element of the dead, it is called both soul and spirit (1 Peter 3:19; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 6:9; 20:4). The terms are used interchangeably.

(continued)

Yuyutsu,

(continued)

<<You are not a human being, nor do human beings last for eternity. I agree that both life and damnation can last a VERY long time.>>

Telling me over and over that I am not a human being doesn't reinforce your claim. I've repeated examples to you of how your human beings as illusions come from a Hindu philosophy that doesn't match reality.

I am a physical being with a soul who has a conscience and I can engage in rational thinking. It seems like your worldview prevents your accepting the reality that every person is a human being.

How do I know I'm a real human being? The surgeons operated on my real, pumping heart and replaced mitral and aortic valves with artificial ones. My cardiac surgeon did not operate on an illusion. He cut open a real chest bone to replace real, leaking valves with artificial ones.

Have a guess what? I was in a real hospital theatre in which I was operated on. There were real nurses and other attendants in the theatre. Domestic staff assisted me in hospital.

I wrote: "In this world, I sit on an actual office chair."

You responded: <<The chair is only relatively true, relative to the world, yet the world itself once never existed and eventually will no longer exist. Only that with is eternal and immutable can rightly be called "Truth".>>

That is nonsense. I bought my real chair from Officeworks, not because it was 'relatively true' but because it actually existed. I roll an actual office chair on a plastic office mat to and from my PC keyboard. I have a mug for tea in front of me. My CPU is so real I can touch it. Same with my printer. It broke down at the weekend and I took it to my IT professional son who fixed a real printer.

It's time for you to come out of the world of illusion and into the world of reality.

Your comments do not give credence to your philosophy of life.

Dear OzSpen,

«Please state who they are and in which books of the Bible they are located»

I referred to other Christian Scriptures, though as mentioned, I'm not familiar enough with all Christian Scriptures. My Christian friends tell me that there is vast mystical literature of Christian saints. I was recommended Saint Augustine's "City of God" and the writings of Thomas Aquinas, but regrettably they still sit fresh and new on my bookshelf as I never got around to read them. I know much more about Judaism and Hinduism, but sorry, one never has enough time to study everything.

«There you'll find 'soul' and 'spirit' are interchangeable descriptions of the immaterial part of human beings.»

The bible uses three different Hebrew words: "Nefesh", "Ruach" and "Neshamah": three out of five levels of the soul: http://www.rabbidavidcooper.com/cooper-print-index/2010/11/8/2358-five-dimensions-of-the-soul.html

«I've repeated examples to you of how your human beings as illusions come from a Hindu philosophy that doesn't match reality.»

It is the world which Hindu philosophy considers an illusion, rather than human-beings in particular, for that which is transient cannot be the real. Whether Hindu philosophy matches at least some of the Christian schools of thought is yet to be investigated, but the ancient Hindu seers only observed the reality and used sharp logic to analyse it. Our senses are not designed to capture reality, but only to support the physical survival of our bodies. Our minds too are biased and distort the reality.

«He cut open a real chest bone»

Science tells that what seems as chest bone is just a collection of molecules and that matter itself is only a concentrated form of energy. The Upanishads predicted this finding and teach further that energy itself is only a concentrated form of thought (would it perhaps correspond with the biblical concept that "In the beginning was the word"?). Anyway, there are several layers of this "onion" and if you peel them all away to examine what they truly are, all you find is God.

Logically there cannot be anything/anyone but God, for otherwise God would have been limited and subject to competition.