Donnie,

The computer-man analogy is only problematic when it is used as you have. I can only wonder how this error occurred and can only come up with 2 explanations: 1) You did not truly understand what was being said 2) It was a deliberate misuse of the analogy in order to refute a materialist point of view.

Examples that illustrate a point, but are not directly used as evidence to support it are not "slightly irrelevant".

From your last post I can summarise the whole argument (in a nutshell), to paraphrase:" I don't know what it is exactly we are arguing about, but I know that you are likely to be wrong, because my belief in God and non-material realities is not irrational.

Irrational isn't a word I personally would use to describe a belief in God, a Type II error would be a better description. Type II errors tend to continue to be made since no conclusions are drawn from them. A better question to start arguing is "what is the origin of a belief in God (or soul or whatever)?" Why, exactly, do people believe? There is a materialist and evolutionary answer which is testable, and a non-material objectively untestable one. From a logical/philosophical point of view, one is much stronger than the other. And yet humans still insist on the weaker explanation, for subjective reasons and reasoning.

I am not arguing a pro materialist existence. The material or physical universe exists, it surrounds us , we are part of it, you percieve it , pinch yourself you are not dreaming.

I am arguing to say god or soul exists is completely baseless conjecture, Pure fantasy , castles in the air, delusion, fallacy, myth, deceit,artifice, is fraudulent, lies , phantasma, artificial, a mistake, wrong, a mis understanding, ignorance, denial, miscalculation, misread, misconstruement , mis conceived, ill concieved, innaccuracy , error. Because god as is soul is constructed from preferences of the self. Hence dowy eyed Baby Jesus snuggly in the manger has the pull of a kitten, homoerotic teutonic crucified jesus sprawled across the canvas and blood thirsty commander general God serving emporer Constantine. God answers Billies Prayers at passing the exam while Sudanese children starve. God answers Guys Sebastians prayers and wins a trashy tv competition while single mum dies of breast cancer.God always backs the winner and abandons the loser. How strange!! it is like he is not even there.

God and soul is the self, nobody has seperated the self from the claim of god and soul. as far as the magic or occult qualities of god or soul , they are baseless conjecture.

To Philo , please explain why a single galah in a random flock of galahs is not in purest fact your soul? Explain why an empty Jar in the back of a cupboard is not in purest fact God? Seems to me by all argument god and soul is anythin anybody says it is.

Bugsy,
You introduced the computer-man analogy to support your own materialist views, and it appears you are placing unrealistic confinements on the analogy in order for it to suit your argument alone. I have *questioned* the USE of the analogy in the context of the debate and the confinements you impose and the moment i do you cry foul. I will not claim that the analogy only supports a non-materialist argument, but i do claim that it does NOT support only your materialistic one. I stand by the validity of this.

"Examples that illustrate a point, but are not directly used as evidence to support it are not "slightly irrelevant"."
I said it would be slightly irrelevant to raise an analogy about the existance of emergent phenomena IF it did not serve to either support or counter the existance of authorship or superintendence in the natural world because that is mainly what this whole discussion is about (or to use some more contentious terms - "gods" and "souls").
But you did use the analogy to argue a materialist viewpoint so the analogy WAS relevant, but as i've stated previously it does not really lend well to the materialist viewpoint.

My posts do not require paraphrasing as they are clear in their meaning as they stand. If you do require rewording just say so and i'll be glad to post it another way (but probably not for another 24 hours, or more - thank God for Easter ;)). Making up words that i didn't write can easily alter my intended meaning and will lead you into arguing against your own version of my views instead of my actual views. I generally ignore this tactic. I do not have a problem if you disagree with my as stated views or even with the logic of my arguments.

Now Getting back to topic again, What "materialist and evolutionary answer which is testable" are you talking about with regards to the origin of a belief in God, or reasons people believe?

Analogies are generally used as a clarification as to how an abstract idea works. I guess in this case it was a bad example because didn't make things clearer, it was altered and used to illustrate a different point to the one being made, and so became "problematic".

The materialist and evolutionary explanation of why people believe in God has more than one explanation, but I will present only one aspect for brevity. People believe in justice and fairness because it is an evolutionary trait necessary for even the most primitive social structures, this has been demonstrated in chimpanzees. In more complex social structures, civilisation if you will, this leads to a belief that "good" people (those who obey the law, morals etc) have some higher reward than the "bad" people who use others for personal gain. Generally, in smaller groups, being bad carries its own drawbacks, but in larger groups (ie cities and nations) being "bad" can be rewarding because those people can be essentially anonymous. Social evolution acts as it becomes necessary to convince people of a higher "being" (or power or whatever) that keeps a watch over them. A universal policeman if you will. One that deals out ultimate rewards and punishments. A form of social control that is necessary of any large "nation" or civilistaion is to exist. And its self perpetuating.

"... which is why i say it is also foolish not to constantly challenge materialist insistency." - Donnie

True, methinks, my good Donnie. But one must are articulate the inconsistency and preferably posit a solution that does not contain the same inconsistencies: vis~a~vis Newtown vs. Einstein, Durac vs. Einstein. The Newtonian mechanical world is true, within the limits of the more everyday referential frame. In QM, Phase Space and Singualarities, it [our apparent world existence] breaks-down. However, I see nothing mystical about this.

We are here, otherwise we would not be. Else, under conditions were cannot be, we are not.

Philo,

1. West and I been trying to gain traction on your concept of the "soul". Perhaps, if you were to provide four adjectives and nouns at or proximal to your understanding of this construct. Thanks.

2. Did Jesus have a soul before his human incarnation and after the third day into perpetuity? What created that soul?

3. If god has a soul. Was it god or god's soul that had the first thought?

4. Why is the insect world so cruel, if god is all good? [repeated question]

5. Do you feel that Roman Empire [gentile emperors] usurped Jesus as an exclusive messanger to the Chosen People? If you had a time machine, would have you been opposed to the traditional Jews, but seen Jesus as a Jewish persons Messiah? That is, you would recognise Christ as an extension of the OT, but felt less comfortable about Paul generalising the gift

Bugsy,

If you have not read Lawrence Kohlberg on Morality already you might find him interesting. I think the human-god relationship, in history, would based on reward and punishment would sit better with the OT gods. Law and order would be subsequent modifications. While a few [post-conventional]individuals might exist/existed [as noted by Maslow, via, self-actualisation]. Herein, I think hard to conceive on a a self-actualised society. The dark side of multi-sided civiliational organizational principles [race, politics, religion, wealth] breed war, crime, stagnation and conflict.

Also, I think "Followership" the flip-side of "Leadership", is dangerous, because it can build the mindless suspension of thought