dowhat1can wrote:

Bmandude14 wrote:If an individual had to choose whether he continued existing or god continued existing. He’d choose himself every time. Why? Because the only reason why we believe in god is for our own personal gain, the glorious afterlife. No after life, no god. If we don’t get what we want, why should we believe in him. ...
Lets say god did exist, and he promised everybody else an afterlife(if there good and all) but not you. But you have the choice to say whether or not he exists. But if he exists you don't when you do and he does not. Now, I'm sure we’d find the altruists come out and many of them would sacrifice their entire ETERNITY for the sake of others. But I'm confident most people would care too much about existing for REST OF TIME that they’d make god not exist and choose themselves over everyone.

Pascal's Wager fails for the same reason this argument would fail for most sincere Christian believers -- namely, persons who believe in God only to be assured of an afterlife would be believing for the wrong reason and consequently would lose that which they seek to gain.

So what is assumed in the passage quoted above might be true for the unreflective church-goer, but would not be true for someone like Kierkegaard who defines faith as subjective truth which is ...

S. Kierkegaard wrote:... an objective uncertainty held fast in an appropriation-process of the most passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest truth attainable for the individual.

... and this faith would be irrelevant to the well-being of the individual who has it as was illustrated in S.K.'s Fear and Trembling.

Pascal's Wager does not fail. Only the gross misrepresentations of it by his enemies fail, as red herrings. The wager, in game theory is that the choice to believe over the choice to disbelieve, when you do the cost benefit analysis, makes believing the more profitable choice. But, the choice to believe requires that the one so choosing submit their affections to the will and power of God. God requires one to love Him totally, and, being God, is well able to make one love Him, with all their heart, mind, etc. He only does this work, however, for those who so choose to have it done to them, and ask aright. That is the point. Is it a good idea to ask God to do this work, or not? If God is, and heaven and Hell are also a part of this universe, then you have more to gain than lose by making this choice. If God is not, nor does Heaven and Hell exist, the choice costs a small amount, but there are gains as well. Put the whole together with the magnitude of the costs and benefits, and the probabilities of all the options, and the net result favors believing. And, then, insofar as it might be necessary, one must go on to authorize God to do the necessary transformations in one's heart that validate the choice to believe. Pascal was quite clear that choosing to become a believer had to be met with an experience with God Himself, doing this transformation. He himself waited for this experience, God came to him and worked, and he then loved God.

But free will trumps game theory, as proven by the hordes who look at their choices, and either decide not to play, taking the default gamble (House wins all!), or choose the bet that they "like," going subjective to affirm that it is their life, by God, and they can be stupid if they want to be! Pascal's Wager is only for the responsible and thoughtful, who view all subjectivity, including their own, with suspicion.

Go, Algol!

We think a lot about investing in hypotheses according to their prior plausibility. But you remind us to consider as well the role of that hypothesis in history, and the consequences for good or evil of the hypothesis being true. I have always had a nagging irritation with those who dismissed Semmelweis' hypothesis about "something" (Germs?) from cadavers that could be washed away by disinfective hand washing. There was so much to gain if the theory were true, and the cost of testing it, hand washing with hypochlorite, negligible. But the critics fidnissed the idea, and ridiculed and discouraged those doctors and nurses who might have washed up. Hundreds of thousands died from their arrogance.

Now here we are. Maybe there is a God, and maybe prayer will get Him to stop us from destroying ourselves, against all odds from what history teaches us about human nature. Would it cost so much to give the idea a break? Ought we not consider what we have to gain, if it were true? Those who dismiss the idea, trying to argue it away, instead of supporting the experimental tests that might prove it, will bear a severe guilt if they are wrong. And, who knows how many "little ones who believed in Jesus" might have lost their faith because of blue atheist/evolutionist teaching! There are reports of thousands who have "died," "gone to Hell," been brought back to life, and told of their horrible experience. Maybe this can be explained away, but what if it is actually true, anyway? Those who casually dismissed it will have caused untold suffering.

We need to start ignoring these people.

Ludwig von Drake wrote:

Groktruth wrote:(…) Now here we are. Maybe there is a God, and maybe prayer will get Him to stop us from destroying ourselves, against all odds from what history teaches us about human nature. Would it cost so much to give the idea a break? Ought we not consider what we have to gain, if it were true?

Maybe there is a God, and maybe He hates prayers. Maybe too many prayers will get Him to destroy us. How much would it cost to give your idea a break? Ought we not consider what we have to lose?

There are those who tend to turn ideas about spiritual realities into religious fervor, and then religious violence. This is a real cost. And, yes, the God of the bible hates the stuff that Christians, say, call prayer. So, I agree, more of that is likely to lead to wrath of God disaster.

So, to go from dismissal to state enforced adherence, is not indicated. What is indicated is the limited, through research, generation of tests on spiritual hypotheses. That's why we do research instead of learning everything the hard way. For example, let's replicate MacDougal's soul weighing experiments, or Loehr's experiments praying for seedlings. Let's change the tenor of the discussion to one of treating the subjects with our best science.

Spirituality with religion/government excluded.

Ludwig von Drake wrote:

Groktruth wrote:(...) generation of tests on spiritual hypotheses. That's why we do research instead of learning everything the hard way. For example, let's replicate MacDougal's soul weighing experiments, or Loehr's experiments praying for seedlings. Let's change the tenor of the discussion to one of treating the subjects with our best science. (...)

I'll wait for your proposals. I think that you know the way scientific method works.

About MacDougall you will find the following interesting:

http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp

Pascal lived a long time ago.

I know the way scientific method is supposed to work, and I know enough philosophy to identify any so-called Phd scientist, who has not studied philosophy as one of Diogenes' dishonest men, liars whose contributions are only meant to deceive. And Diogenes prepared us all for the observation that almost all men (and women) are liars, not to be trusted.

So, in that context, I replicated (the way science is supposed to work) Loehr's prayers for plants research on my kitchen table. No point in submitting that to a peer review of liars, so I had a bunch of students replicate further. As Loehr reported, always got statistically significant results, which, as Diogenes predicted, no lying PhD philosophy-less scientist I ever met was the least bit interested in.

So, all must get the truth on their own, or the truth will get them. And when that happens, it will serve them right.

I am familiar with the Snopes reference, which concludes that, until there is replication, the results remain open to question, but are not refuted. Duh. The question is, why has there been no replication? Macdougal tried, but was shut down. This was an experiment in itself, of Diogenes' theory, proving it beyond reasonable doubt.

Tom Kirkham wrote:You have to consider the after-effects of God ceasing to exist.

You may find that the rate of degradation increases dramatically after God is no longer there. Perhaps even annhilation, which means if God stops existing, so do life forms.

This is what I call learning the hard way. When I was researching the existence of the devil, the incredible number of people who actually chose to learn this way was the evidence that tipped the scales. It was a black miracle! No way a member of the species, Homo sapiens could get in such a condition on their own!

Eston,

First, do you define religion and spirituality differently?

Second, you say, " my theory that religions are based on the delusionary hope of surviving our mortality." If your theory is true, what odd prediction can you make, that would allow us to confirm its validity.

Third, the more common theory for the existence of religions is that they are based on many reports of spiritual beings, and near death experiences. This theory predicts that expeditions mounted in order to revisit or find such beings will be commonly successful, and there are many reports of such successful expeditions. What prediction might you make from this theory, that would falsify it?

Fourth, if you believe that most persons are delusional, would not intellectual integrity require you to regard yourself as deluded, religiously, or as regards some other thought?

I change my mind when I want something, and what I am doing to get it isn't working. So, I am on the look-out for some "good news," some idea that I have not thought to try, that might, just might, get me what I am looking for. Usually more love, but maybe security, or adventure, or attaboys.

Been around a while, and have encountered quite a collection of "good ideas." Ones that worked for me. so, I pass them on, fyi.

Now, God or not, the truth gets you, if you don't get it. No vitamin c on a sailing voyage, you (probably) get scurvy. God could warn you, or advise you, might even be persuaded to make you an exception of the rule. If he is out there, of course. But, until He intervenes, no C, you are at risk.

But, according to biblical theology, He has conditions for getting involved. Some might not think that this ought to be, and are so set in their opinion that the point is not open for discussion with Him. If God doesn't see things their way, they would rather not discuss the matter with Him. Never mind that, logically, they are asking God to change places with them. To let them be the right one (God, in practise), and He the one who serves their agenda.

Now, we all do have an agenda for God. I, for one, do not want Him to support illogical propositions. Nor do I want Him to butt in until invited. Perhaps you have seen the movie, "The End of the Affair,"and recall the last line: "Whoever You are, leave me alone!" I value my free will, and the fact that I have a critical say in whether of not God is involved with me.

Now, there are ways to get the truth, and many have nothing to do with God. I rather respect the fact that God will, according to biblical theology, let Himself be found by anyone respecting those rules. Thomas got to do a kitchen table experiment on Jesus, to prove Him. God (Jehovah) sets out a tithing experiment to prove Him. Will power not applied to the gathering of evidence will not produce belief. "I believe! help thou my unbelief!" will work within limits, but the choice to believe is the choice to pull your head out of the sand, and get the evidence. And the understanding. About ten minutes of scholarship in the bible will reveal that what is called prayer by 99.99% of people is no such thing. That it ever works is surprising, to me, and a little annoying. So, plants grow a little better. The proper scientist then sets out to vary the "prayer" to see which kind works best, or is most consistent with the idea that Somebody is answering. And maybe they are motivated to do the ten minutes of scholarship! They (this was done) soon discovered that some prayers, (ones that followed more closely the scriptural guidelines! Fancy that!) worked better than others. How dare God, the Judge of the universe, be so reasonable? He is God! He ought to be unlike any other person any of us ever met, putting His whole Self on the line, no matter how foolishly/arrogantly/ignorantly we ask! Maybe you can love such a person, but I would have problems. I might try to use them....

So, I focus on God-neutral ways of getting the truth, such as Bayesian, hypothetico-deductive science. Godless. Then I apply that method to the hypothesis that God is as self-described in the scriptures, and when predictions are confirmed, including predictions about what will happen when I pray, I regard that hypothesis as more plausible. I go at it as best I know how to do science and scholarship, and as the hypothesis gets plausible enough (I get faith), I apply what I have learned to healing my sick father. More or less successfully. At first, plants grow 3% faster. Later, well I have seen things good beyond hope. OK, it took years, decades. And many things i once would have "prayed" for I now know are too high for me, yet.

Arguments and discussion do not change minds. Evidence changes minds, evidence that the mind has seen for itself. Discussion creates opportunities for getting that evidence, but in the end, the choice to look remains with each person. All love is a choice, including the love of truth. Each of these posts makes the readers here freer and freer, by giving all more choices to choose among.

So, I am grateful for you all! Good on you for being here!

moreorlessinsane wrote:I wanted (and still want) to know what is real.

Years ago I came across the expression “prohibited thought”, the stuff you can’t even begin to think about. It’s the essence of delusion.

So what is real we can’t begin to think about and for which god and religions provide unsatisfactory alternatives?
I suggest crucially it’s our inability to self create, and all that implies.

Where is the evidence for self creation and personal responsibility. However robust, are such beliefs purely emotional?

Epistemologically, to know what is "real" theologically, you have to consider potential theological sources of "prohibited thought." For example, if you have not received "the love of the truth," God will delude you. He will show you true things, or lead you into true situations (He cannot lie), but will present these in such a way that, according to personal biases you are unaware of, will leave you with a false impression or understanding.

So, if He is real, this is what will happen, and you will probably come to the conclusion that he is not real.

If He is not real, of course, you come to the same conclusion, this time correctly.

So, you have to get to this "love of the truth," before you can know if your conclusion, "God is not real." is true.

Hence, applied epistemology is critical. You have to be "in love with" the rules for knowing what is true: how to define words, logic, the meaning of evidence, risk and probability, game theory, trustworthy authorities. Of course, there is no required level of competence, only a heart to do your best with the talents, treasure, and time you have.

Then there is the devil, who deceives, not deludes. If that potential being is ignored, but is real, again you very well might conclude that he is not real. But, this time, you get there by listening to lies. (usually, half-truths). Again, if he is not real, you hopefully reach the same conclusion, but correctly. So, ignoring the devil, you have no way of knowing whether this conclusion is true. But, there are technigues for neutralizing the devil, if he is real. They are mere precautions if he is not real, but very "real" defenses if he is real. These technigues would, of course, be the most highly recommended by the most trustworthy authorities.

The role of free will, as expressed verbally in "I choose...." statements, which is what i understand you mean by "self-create" is well established and widely used in rehabs. The most successful proceedure is to look honestly and with counsel, (a second opinion) at yourself (Socrates' "the examined life), assess the costs and benefits of various choices (count the cost, as Jesus put it), make your choice, and express it until it becomes a life-habit, unconscious, automatic.

Most choices include an emotional element. To hate adultery, say, or delight to be with a child. One thinks about what emotional response is appropriate, chooses it (above), and lets the arts flesh it out. It is good to be emotionally self conscious from time to time (not in the moment!), to choose to not let them rule the choosing process.

The statement, "I choose to be decisive." is a good place to begin. Then, "My word is my bond." gets you enough committment to see things through, as long as you are getting your word about your choices out there.

Get a Socratic mentor. The first step in loving the truth. And remember, you have to buy the truth, and you only get what you pay for. To pay, pay attention, spend time, purchase (chase after) the rules.

Eston wrote:Groktruth,

I am not sure how to answer the question about religion and spirituality.

First of all, I regard religion as an ideational expression that is spiritual only to the extent that it expresses a conscious metaphor based on self concept enhancement, not on hypothetical survival beyond the grave. If it derives from an unconscious expression of an unexamined drive to survive, it is a physical survival metaphor, and these kind of metaphors entrap and enslave.

I think I think poetry may be regarded as spiritual--as may be music and all the fine arts. These things are spiritual because because they are investments in self concept, in surviving beyond the restraints of mortality. Metaphors that are expressions of primitive survival drive tend to be unthoughtout and often trite. Spiritual metaphors, on the other hand, are conscious investments in self concept survival and are more likely to be freeing--less bounded by coercive rules and regulations.

As to predictions: I am prepared to predict that no one will ever return from the grave mouthing absolute truths about magical encounters--that in this life you will never open your livingroom door to greet long-dead ancestors. Furthermore, I am prepared to predict that I will die and that my bodily remains will turn to dust or ashes. I also predict that if my ideas (and poetry) have sufficient value they will survive in posterity.

One final observation: If I am right that anger is always a response to a threatened self-image, to self-doubt, then I admonish everyone to invest (with all the integrity they can summon) in a strong and self-sufficient self. "Delusional"--your word, not mine, is an angry word and not a good "investment."

Good answer. My self-concept broadly includes body, soul, and spirit, which simply divides up my self-experience into physical, mental/emotional/mind, and intuitive/ecstatic/and conscience. These last three, I suppose, stem from a part of myself that I call "spirit," and all get their stuff from certain parts of the universe that I call heavenly or spiritual. (Which for the time being, I accept as the parts of the universe that the physicists know as dark matter, the matrix, and/or non-local.)

I agree that poetry and art are basically spiritual. Certainly they are "inspired" and inspiring.

We await the NDE experiments in progress, where persons engaged in an NDE are given printed signs up near the ceiling, that living persons walking about below cannot read. Do you accept that, if they return with a magical report of what those signs say, from, well not a grave, but death, we have evidence for "immortal souls?"


Philosophy and science have, for nearly 3000 years. worked on the problem of teasing subjective self-deception from truth-related insights. As a professional scientists, I attest they have made progress. But, I agree with you that because few carefully study this progress, the best explanation for what most people think is psychological.

Eston,

As a scientist, I use the word model much as you, a literary person, use metaphor. Both convey that what we deal with is only an approximation of what "is."

And, where you would speak of experience, I would say "data." The efficient metaphors/models are kept around.

We will otherwise have to wait for the results of the NDE experiments. My "model" of a dark matter symbiont libing with my primate body, interacting with other free living dark matter living beings, still is working out for me, in fairly tangible, psychologically important, but beyond psychological ways. Same with bible code research. But, unlike research on chemistry, say, which doesn't care what you find out about it, this research has a personal connection. Some pretty girls, I have found, will let you "research" them, with "real" results. But they do not allow others, or the public, to get the evidence.

So, you have to go at it with "honorable intentions."

Note too that real is a word made up a prefix, re-, and a suffix, -al. The implication is inductive, a repetition of what has been. Truth, on the other hand, would include the future as well as the past. (ruth means compassion, and truth is often used to describe a commitment for the future that one caringly intends to keep. As well, of course, as a honest report of the past.) So, truth is deductive, where one correctly predicts the future based on one's model or metaphor. "The best explanation..." so often offered in science is in fact barely a first step in the scientific method. Good theories are defended on the basis of their predicitve powers, not their reasonableness.

Algol wrote:

Eston wrote:...and I'm almost positive that Blake was thinking penis when he wrote about the "worm that flies in the night...."

O Rose thou art sick.
The invisible worm,
That flies in the night
In the howling storm:

Has found out thy bed
Of crimson joy:
And his dark secret love
Does thy life destroy.

How do you get 'penis' from this poem Freud??
The worm is a reference to death or the bringers of death. It is in the context of religious piety and how love/sex was/is made out to be viewed as evil by religious leaders. They made/make it seem as if sex isn't apart of God's plan for life. Blake uses the 'worm' reference in a few of his poems, and none are related to a phallic symbol. If you can't see the poem for what it is, tell me, I'll break it down line for line.

Sartre also uses the reference of a worm at the end of Chapter one (The Origin of Negation) part IV of 'Being and Nothingness', in the same context as Blake intended:
"Nothingness lies coiled in the heart of being- like a worm."

Because the notion of non existence can only be present in something which existed... this is complicated as hell, but simple to understand once you get past the wording. I'll lay this out as well if you want, but I think you're better off hearing it from Sarte's book. You only have to read to page 56 (and the intro; you can't skip that unless you're familiar with Heiddeger and Husserl) but it's tedious. Read it anyway.

Also, don't think I'm singling you out. Anyone who speaks of Blake here at this forum usually hears my two-sense on the subject, as my prior post show.

Don't know about Eston, but I found your post most illuminating, and would welcome more. I was tending to agree with him, Eston, seeing the "invisible" worm as the penis in carnal sex. In spiritual sex, the Song of Solomon, say, the penis is far from invisible, and all is in the light, not "dark, secret". But then, I grew up in the fifties where the big deal for sex was whether of not it could be done "with the lights on." And, of course, there was the idea that "going all the way" really did define a female's life, or death, spiritually. Done carnally ("the howling storm"), death. Done spiritually, life, although as you point out, the spiritual option was all but buried by religion and hardly available.

But, I am a "both/and" philosopher more than an "either/or" one. That the "worm" is some sort of spiritual anguish ("that never dies") eating away at one's hope and dreams, as well as the natural (penis) instrument of "now I am ruined." makes sense to me. I have long thought that any reference to a "rose" was connecting our minds (male and female) to the feminine, genital avenue for cosmic involvement.

To stay on topic, BTW, that such a discussion can exist and be interesting may be evidence for God. If there were no God, why would we care?

moreorlessinsane wrote:eston (and anyone else)

Please turn your mind to this proposition, that all belief is a metaphor for emotionality.

I have suggested we are ruled by our emotionality. That being so, can any consideration or expression (physical, including verbal), be absolutely free of its influence? Isn’t everything (at least potentially) subjective, however well rationalized and tested?
Is all expression at heart a metaphor for (or metaphoric of) prevailing emotionality? Misrepresentation (perhaps as a deceit) and misinterpretation are always possible, as in your discussion regarding a much maligned worm.

Simply “wanting to know”, free of predisposition as to outcome and free of any other passion, might be clinically scientific and have a high degree of objectivity. But “wanting to know” borrows from accumulated human knowledge (or trusted understanding), otherwise we wouldn't have a bow and arrow between us.

Staying faithful to this line of thought, it would appear we tend to accept only assertions, beliefs and understandings that are emotionally trusted, i.e. those which “chime” with what we want to believe.
So for each of us, is reality a metaphor for (or symbolic of) our emotionality?

I don’t trust gods, or the emotional predispositions that one might suppose created them and (though certainly evolved) now support them.
But god as a metaphor for the ultimate, perfectly interlocking, life, the universe and everything reality (perhaps the holy grail of knowledge) is persuasive.

Worms that fly in the night could refer to bankers on the red-eye.

This hypothesis seems to me to be most applicable to those who like it. That is, we have an emotional attachment to "absolutely" type thinking, so that probability thinking ("all things are possible, nothing is certain, every life choice is a gamble, the work is to study the odds.") is generally, for emotional reasons, avoided. The game is to dismiss anything not absolutely known for sure, which gives one justification for believing whatever one chooses. And then accusing everyone else of doing the same, so their point of view, when it challenges our own, may be neutralized.

But this ignores the tremendous success of probability scientific thinking, which now dominates the discipline. And, ethically, it leaves much nasty history to repeat itself. The many critics of Semmelweis, who presented probable but not certain evidence for antisepsis, dismissed his idea completely, killing hundreds of thousands through unnecessary infections transmitted by unclean medical personnel.

God cannot be proven absolutely, but, in modern science, is out there beyond reasonable doubt. But, of course, not out there beyond the doubts of those who emotionally prefer to dismiss the idea because certainty is not possible. And who refuse to look at the data, or to get the data, that would confirm the scientific estimate of high probability. As with those who call lying ladies on 900 phone lines doubters can find lots of PhD's as phoney as those "erotic" lying lafies, to tell them that science has proved no such thing. Anyone emotionally wanting to buy lies can always find a seller. These so-called "PhD's" in fact know little about philosophy, and do not use the little they do know. So, they are certifiable liars. For sale.

So, yes, there are many believing what their emotions prefer. Especially those who write off the beliefs of evidentialists as purely emotional. Pure psychological projection.

Ludwig, and all,

The idea of refuting a concept technically belongs in epistemology, and efforts to do so are philosophically judged by holding them up to the most successful methods humans (that's us!) have found so far. One of the more successful human epistemological efforts is science, where the state of the art currently involves ideas such as strong inference and Bayesian probability. The basic idea is that there is stuff actually going on (truth) that is invisible to us, like chemical reactions, but we can imagine or hypothesize what those invisible events are, make logical, mathematical predictions from those imaginations or hypotheses, test those predictions, and using the data from such experiments build up a model of truth that is very close to true. Never actually the truth itself, but good for many practical purposes, close, containing a lot of what is actually in the truth.

Now, God is an idea of an invisible entity, as is the devil, angels, and so on. The scientific study of these entities has been going on a long time, and theology was once known as the queen of the sciences. The original definition for "faith" was actually the "evidence of things not seen," as applied to invisible spiritual beings. Scientific theology, in other words.

Reason, meanwhile, has from the get-go been found to be a weak and dangerous epistemological tool. Most who strive to get at the truth through reason alone fall prey to rationalization. Wise old Solomon admonished all to "not lean on their own understanding." Arguments fail to persuade anyone to change their mind and end up only locking people more tightly into their already held dogmatic opinions. Evidence, claasical "faith," can jolt a person into realizing that they have been thinking wrong thoughts, and need to change their minds. The sound epistemologist gets it, that their main work is to enrich the experiential part of their life, wisely looking for experiences that will bring their minds closer to the truth.

Now, it is always possible to explain away, rationalize, existing data. This is what the metaphor of the ostrich with its head in the sand is all about. Denial of evidence is done through such mental gyrations, but scientists eschew ad hoc explanations, until they have passed the test of predicting something new and surprising.

Many, many scientific studies have been conducted testing predictions that were implausible (statistically), unless God was actually a part of this universe, if not it's creator. Meta-surveys of these studies all confirm the idea that there are invisible higher beings living in this universe with us. The notion is a priori plausible, and now is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The only way to get around it is to deny the history of epistemological experience, especially the results of science itself. In other words, to deny our humanity, as members of the species Homo sapiens.

That this goes on, a lot, however, is predicted by the hypothesis that we humans are afflicted by a disinformation spiritual parasite called the devil. Those who. in integrity, guard themselves from this hypothetical being shine and prosper intellectually, and are remembered throughout history. Those who do not leave a trail of tears and woe, of embarrassing stupidity. This applies to the atheists, and to hypocritical religionists. So, the hypothesis that the world is "haunted" is well confirmed by our historical experience. The devil, of course, does not cooperate with our science, so we are unable to use that tool to pin him down. God is willing to be researched, however, and is amply proved, and is a trustworthy authority. Personal experiments confirm the historical and anecdotal data.

Explain it all away at your peril. There is no justification from philosophy for such, but you do prove the essence of free will for us all as you do so. And validate Diogenes, who warned that most men are dishonest, and all about darkening council with lies.

moreorlessinsane wrote:Groktruth

Let me predict something.
You will not give me some simple and rational explanation without any obfuscation for a man’s freedom of choice, his ownership of himself, his responsibility for himself or his individuality (to the extent he can be regarded as a separate entity).
I further predict that you will not consider these beliefs are emotional imperatives, for the reason that you are emotionally impaired.

You may regard this as a test of my hypothesis (though the outcome will hardly be surprising).

Is this an intuitive prediction, or a scientific one?

But, anyway, man has free will because a higher living Being, who is as you describe, has created man in His image, just as we are striving to be able to create "robots" in our image. This Higher being is as far ahead of us "evolutionarily" as we are ahead of earthworms, and is just as mysterious to us, and as real, as we are to such worms. He/They operate in "the heavens," which the physicist's are just now discovering, in dark matter and energy, zero-point energy, and non-local energy. Those Beings are as able to make transfers between stuff in those realms, and our "matter," as we are able to make transfers between our materialistic matter and energy. The "free will" exists in materialistic stuff only in quantum effects, but plays a more conspicuous role in the other stuff, the heavens. We are a symbiotic union of a "heavenly" being, and a materialistic primate, just as a lichen is a symbiotic union of a green alge and a saprophytic fungus. Most of our free will is in the "heavenly" part.

Induction, (what exists here may exist there) is I believe rational. What we see about living beings looking down at "lower" ones, is apt to be happening within and between levels of living beings "above" us.

Belief as an emotional imperatives has been recognized for a very long time as a serious problem in thinking thoughts that are heavy with truth. Philosophy has concerned itself for separating such thoughts, those based on emotional imperatives, from "objective" and more useful thoughts for a long time, and especially in science, has evidenced much success. Philosophy has also discerned the problem with keeping science and philosophy clean from widespread dishonesty, through Diogenes' lantern. By carefully separating science, the method, from Science, the dogma, we are well able to separate beliefs based on emotional imperatives, and beliefs that are plausibly heavy with truth. Those who do not believe this, of course, are themselves overwhelmed by emotional imperatives. Entropy alone will see that "for evil to triumph, it suffices for good men to do nothing." Those ignorant of the methods for isolating and rejecting emotional imperatives cannot use them, and by staying ignorant demonstrate to all that they have chosen to keep their own thinking a slave to their emotions. Those well versed in dealing with the problem, on the other hand, have good reason to believe that their beliefs are objectively plausible. They got well versed through a choice, manifested in much diligent labor, to solve the problem.

I predict, from the tone and ambiguity of your post, that this reply will offend your emotions, and will therefore be "explained away" with some ad hoc rationalizations, and some ad hominem attacks on yours truly. I hope I am wrong, but it seems likely at this point that these are concepts foreign to your thinking. Projection, too. I hope you are aware that the weakness you suspect is confusing others is quite likely lurking in your own subconscious. Only quite likely, though. By getting your own life examined (see Socrates), one can safely discern weaknesses in others that one has gotten free of oneself. This was Yeshua's (Jesus's) contribution. "Take the log out of your own eye, and you will see clearly to take the speck out of the eye if others." Like doing objective science, one simply has to learn the rules, and abide in them, ignoring the clamor of the public Scientific dogma, and viola! Objectivity! Here, one must get a mentor, (I lived over 50 if my 70 years under the stern hand of mentors, "getting my head examined," [Joke!]), learn the rules, and have the mentor make sure you keep them, intil they are habitual. So, I dare to point out to you that you might be holding onto ideas out of the emotional imperatives you worry about. You give me no reason to believe that you have spent any time or effort at all learning how to get your own out of the way.

Staying insane, by the way, is a choice, realized by naming what you choose. Those working in rehabs, I learned working there myself, have found that the idea that our minds tell our tongues what to say, is a half truth. The forgotten half is that our tongues tell our minds what to think, as we choose, and speak out of our will what we have chosen. If I were you, I would change my name to moreorlesswise. Why choose to nurture your insanity? Just a thought.

mark black2 wrote:Oh, I apologize. I didn't realize this was a private discussion. Am I intruding on your personal disenchantments?

Not a private discussion, and your question about why would anyone want to refute God quite relevant. I for one, was pursuing a theologically immoral way of life, and needed to know for sure that God could be refuted, lest I be guilty of some foolish sin. So, I set out to refute God, and get on with my fun. But, I had gotten a doctorate in philosophy, in Biomathematics and science, so I had standards of refutation. Testing and arguing by those standards, I was confounded. God as a hypothesis was continually confirmed and found to be a very plausible idea. Had to call up my hippie friends and put our plans on hold. Still have to, 40 years later, and many hundreds of experiments and philosophical arguments under my hat. Once I sorta hoped that confirmation bias would prevail, and I would "find" evidence to dismiss the idea of God. But correction for all sorts of bias was a big part of my doctoral training. Now, of course, I suppose I have gotten used to the idea that my usual plans are not likely to work out as I planned, and that God is handy. But not hypocrisy, and hence, not religion. I have yet to see a religion that is not swamped in hypocrisy.