I'll let Paul answer that question for you. " there is one God, the Father, OF whom are ALL things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, THROUGH whom are ALL things, and through whom we live." 1 Corinthians 8:6
That doesn't answer my question. Paul had an "old man" and a "new man". How can that be if the same outside force is controlling the person. How is there a choice to put off "old man" if the outside force is deciding for us? What's would be the point of proposing such a teaching? Are you lumping Paul in the Descartes?
You're making progress. Whenever you're ready to defend your claims, we're ready to hear them.
I don't have to. Plausible is a valid status of belief. I can assume it's true until proven otherwise.
Actually, self-evidence is exactly with the claim is the proof.
It even conforms to the scientific method.
Hypothesis: I can control my thoughts.
Test: Can I control my thoughts?
Result: Yes. I can.
You're just begging the question.
What question am I begging?
We have proof that no one is born with an identity, and yet this fabrication of the mind then concludes that the identity formed must be who comes up with these thoughts. See the problem yet?
I disagree. Everyone is born with an identity. You are not me. I am my mother's child. A cat is not a bird. Etc.
The error comes in how we define our identity. People who think they are their thoughts, beliefs, behaviors, possessions, or roles are usually where people get misled and controlled.
Perhaps you do what you think is right in your own eyes, but then that would mean you've ignored the gospel message which begins with "deny yourself", and cling to God's standard.
First of all, I thought this was a philosophical, not a religious one. So I sense a moving of the goal posts here.
Second, Descartes intent was to prove there is a God, so if you're using the Bible as evidence, I don't know why you'd want to discount him.
Third, everyone does what is right in their own eyes. By nature, man chooses survival. A person may initially seek to understand the gospel to "avoid hell", or what they are doing aren't currently isn't working for them, so they try something else.
Fourth, "I" (self) can't deny myself, if there is no self to deny. You've completely destroyed your own argument.
Autonomous systems are not proven to be subconscious systems.
This is just blanket skepticism which has no relevance to the argument.
I'm not making references to inside or outside forces. I'm pointing out false assumptions of possession. See the quote from Paul above.
Ok. I apologize if I misunderstood your argument.
Still, man has experience, he avoids pain and avoids pleasure, whether the sources of that of pain is real or unreal.
Thus, if man wanted to create God to justify his behavior, he could to do so. (Not that I believe that, I'm just playing devil's advocate.)
People are led by both "true" and "false" spirits, right? But I don't see the purpose of a gospel where there is no agency. If the decisions are all made, then that would make God a very cruel person.
Agreed, and as I pointed out earlier, there are quite a few types of people who live inspired lives.
I'm glad we can agree on something.
Programs aren't thoughts They're default programs that you believe you're thinking. Corporate Amerika has algorithms which manipulate those programs for fun and profit.
I disagree with your premise here, but agree with your conclusion.
Thinking is a behavior. Thoughts can be adopted. By manipulation, thought habits can be instilled. So, I would say programs come in the form of thoughts.
Having said that, by self-awareness, the truth can set you free from programming.
This may be the case with you, but it certainly isn't the case with everyone. The rule is that most people are walking around completely unconscious. This is an evolutionary trait that allows people to get through their miserable lives as painlessly as possible.
This reminds me of the book "Outwitting the Devil" by Napoleon Hill. It's a good one.
Correct, but a Strawman because this doesn't negate the fact that it is NOT true.
A strawman is to mischaracterize another person's argument to easily beat it down.
Somethings can't be proven. I don't have to prove your plausibility false to prove my plausibility true.
"Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." John 5:19
This scripture is evidence of Jesus admitting that no thought originates within the brain that receives it?
That might be true of inspired thought, but not thoughts in general. Maybe I'm still misunderstanding your argument.
If Jesus has a will, and He chooses the will of His Father, then Jesus has thoughts, he just chooses to follow the thoughts of His Father.
"For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 6:38)
As far as creativity goes. I believe the existence of AI disproves "no thought originates within the brain that receives it". Any intelligence can act in response to its environment, learning by pleasure and pain, without anyone suggesting anything from an external force.
Granted, this only applies to those who are born again sons of the Father.
Well, that's the beauty of it, if we accept man originates thought by experience, even in atheistic reasoning, a man can find the fruits of the gospel by the scientific method if a person is willing to release their skepticism.
See above quotes from Paul and John's gospel, and note that the bible reveals that, barring the elect; the whole world is deceived.
Every religion has their "elect". Every man's religion is self-serving, if it wasn't they wouldn't believe it. In other words, a man wouldn't authentically serve God if he honestly believed if he was going to hell regardless.
I think that's why Jesus permitted the blind to lead the blind, and not to judge one another based on their beliefs. If we can release our egos and have hearts of understanding (like Solomon), then we can be peacemakers who are the true children of God. But I would say anyone able to do that would have to recognize that that attribute is a gift from God in itself.