(V): I'm not sure what your point is. When you say [ But no... it's an explanation of the duality of human being. Even Jesus said he was the Son of man... while Christ said he was the son of God.. ] is that supposed to mean all of us are sons of men and sons of God in the same way Jesus is? Having two titles to illustrate two different aspects of the same person is commonplace, but finding both God and man in one vessel (a man) would be unique. According to the Bible it only happened once, and it happened for a specific purpose known only at the time by God. If Satan had known what God's purpose was he might have felt the need to constrain himself, but probably not because for Satan it was a lose/lose scenario... inspire people to reject Gods son results in victory for God, and not inspiring people to reject His son results in another kind of victory for God. So Satan losing is a given, but we are in the position of having to make a choice whether we want to or not. And claiming we didn't know or believe in this choice to be made is no excuse. Ignorance or disbelief (or both) is not something Judge Judy would approve of and see as grounds for dismissal, so there's no reason to believe God would. That's how I see it.

Maybe I'm being too much of a purist, but I was only commenting on branches that deviate so far from a root premise that it can no longer be called a 'true' branch. If I saw an apple growing from a cherry tree, I would have to assume the branch holding the apple did not originate from that tree. I might assume that branch was grafted onto the tree, but it's a safe guess that the apple branch didn't naturally grow out of the cherry tree.


But I think we are deviating from ADs original question. At least we agree on one point, that consciousness is a given. Physicalists say that consciousness is a natural result of matter becoming living tissue, and then later on it developed consciousness. But there is evidence (no kidding, actual scientific evidence along with philosophical proofs) that point to the mind and brain being two distinct entities. The mind inhabits the brain, but the mind is not the brain. I skipped to that chapter of the book I mentioned before, where it talks about the evidence of consciousness. The physicalist argument for consciousness is almost identical to the "something from nothing" argument offered to explain the Big Bang. They claim that consciousness naturally arises from physical matter, even thoug physical matter doesn't contain anything that can generate that attribute.

Oddly enough, free will is only mentioned once or twice in that chapter, as though free will is automatically conditional to being a conscious entity. Like I said before, although the book I'm reading doesn't automatically reject theism, it is mostly focused on science, logic, and practical philosophy. Most books don't hold my interest all the way through, but this one does.